Source: https://www.nctreasurer.com/Retirement-and-Savings/For-Government-Employers/2017Lawbook/nccartii/nccartii-22.htm
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 02:52:32
Document Index: 18754186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23']

(1995, c. 5, s. 1.)
History Note. - The provisions of this section are similar to those of Art. II, § 23, Const. 1868.
Editor's Note. - The amendments to this section by Session Laws 1995, c. 5, s. 1, were submitted to the qualified voters of the State at the general election held in November 1996, and approved by the voters at that election. Session Laws 1995, c. 5, s. 4, made this section effective January 1, 1997 upon certification; certification was made on November 26, 1996.
Legal Periodicals. - For article, "Ripening on the Vine: North Carolina's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard Should Be Left Unchanged Ahead of 2012 Compliance Deadline," see 34 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 111 (2012).
Editor's Note. - The cases cited below were decided under former Art. II, § 23, Const. 1868.
The judicial power cannot be exercised in aid of an unfinished and inoperative act, so left upon the final adjournment, any more than in obstructing legislative action. State ex rel. Scarborough v. Robinson, 81 N.C. 409 (1879).
Necessity for Signatures of Presiding Officers. - The signatures of the presiding officers, by the Constitution, must be affixed to an act of legislation during the session of the General Assembly, and such signatures are necessary to its completeness and efficacy. State ex rel. Scarborough v. Robinson, 81 N.C. 409 (1879).
Where an office was created by an act which was not signed by the presiding officers until three days later, an election in the interim to fill such office was void. State ex rel. Cook v. Meares, 116 N.C. 582, 21 S.E. 973 (1895).
Absent the signature, journals are not competent to prove compliance with this section. Frazier v. Board of Comm'rs, 194 N.C. 49, 138 S.E. 433 (1927).
Ratification Certificates Are Conclusive as to Compliance. - When an act is certified to by the speakers as having been ratified, it is conclusive of the fact that it was read three several times in each house and ratified. Union Bank v. Commissioners of Oxford, 119 N.C. 214, 25 S.E. 966 (1896).
The ratification certificates signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are conclusive of the fact that the bill was read three times and was passed three times in each house of the General Assembly. State ex rel. Dyer v. City of Leaksville, 275 N.C. 41, 165 S.E.2d 201 (1969).
The signature is conclusive of passage according to this section. Frazier v. Board of Comm'rs, 194 N.C. 49, 138 S.E. 433 (1927).
Journals of the House and Senate are not competent to contradict the certificates of the presiding officers that a bill was duly read in each house three times and passed on each legislative reading. State ex rel. Dyer v. City of Leaksville, 275 N.C. 41, 165 S.E.2d 201 (1969).
The journals are not admissible to contradict such signature. Frazier v. Board of Comm'rs, 194 N.C. 49, 138 S.E. 433 (1927).
Proof of Compliance with N.C. Const., Art. II, § 23. - The usual certificate of ratification is conclusive only of the fact of ratification, but not of a compliance with N.C. Const., Art. II, § 23. Smathers v. Commissioners of Madison County, 125 N.C. 480, 34 S.E. 554 (1899); Commissioners of New Hanover County v. DeRosset, 129 N.C. 275, 40 S.E. 43 (1901).
The certificate is not sufficient to show that the bill was passed in compliance with N.C. Const., Art. II, § 23. Frazier v. Board of Comm'rs, 194 N.C. 49, 138 S.E. 433 (1927).
With respect to the requirements in N.C. Const., Art. II, § 23, the House and Senate journals, and not the certificates of ratification signed by the presiding officers, are the sources of proof as to whether the bill was read on three several days in each house of the General Assembly and passed three several readings on three different days and that the yeas and nays on the second and third readings were entered on the journals. State ex rel. Dyer v. City of Leaksville, 275 N.C. 41, 165 S.E.2d 201 (1969).
Cited in Goldston v. State, 199 N.C. App. 618, 683 S.E.2d 237 (2009), review denied 363 N.C. 802, 690 S.E.2d 536 (2010).