Case Name: State ex rel. Little Rock v. Donaghey
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1912-12-23
Citations: 106 Ark. 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. Little Rock v. Donaghey.
Judges: Justices Wood and Smith dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 56–74

Head Matter:
State ex rel. Little Rock v. Donaghey.
Opinion delivered December 23, 1912.
1. Mandamus — election commissioners. — The State Board of Election Commissioners will not be compelled by mandamus to canvass the election returns and declare the adoption of proposed Amendment No. 15 to the Constitution of Arkansas, where three amendments to the Constitution have been proposed and voted upon at the same election at which proposed Amendment No. 15 was voted upon. (Page 65.)
2. Constitutional law — effect of amendment. — Article 19, section 22, of the Constitution of Arkansas of 1874 which provides that only three amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted at the same time, is not so changed by Amendment No. 10, to the Constitution of Arkansas, which provides for the initiation of amendments by the people, as to permit the submission of more than three amendments to be voted on at the same time. (Page 65.)
3. Amendments to the constitution. — The Legislature having proposed two amendments to the Constitution, the people acting under Amendment No. 10, have, authority to propose only one additional amendment to be voted on at the same election. (Page 66.)
4. Same. — The three amendments to be submitted may be proposed by the Legislature or the people, but the three which shall be voted upon are to be determined by the priority of time of their being proposed. (Page 66.)
5. Construction op amendments. — Amendments and previous provisions of the Constitution are to be harmonized where not necessarily inconsistent or repugnant. (Page 64.)
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk, Judge;
affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This suit was brought to compel by mandamus the State Board of Election Commissioners to canvass the returns and declare the adoption of proposed Amendment No. 15 to the Constitution of Arkansas, initiated by 8 per cent, of the voters, it being alleged that same had been duly submitted in accordance with law and adopted, receiving at said election 76,660 votes in its favor, with only 53,089 votes against it, and by the terms of said amendment the said board was authorized and required to declare its adoption.
A demurrer and response was filed to the petition, in which it is denied that at the general election the alleged proposed amendment was duly submitted to the people, and alleged it was improperly submitted, in violation of art. 19, § 22, of the Constitution, which provides that no more than three amendments shall be proposed or submitted at the same time.
It is further alleged that the General Assembly of 1911 proposed two amendments to the Constitution to be voted on at the election of 1912, numbered 11 and 12, respectively and that the people, acting under the authority of Amendment No. 10, to the Constitution, initiated another proposed amendment, thereto, numbered 13, limiting the session of the General Assembly to sixty days.
That, after the petition containing the requisite number oi signatures for the initiation of said proposed Amendment No. 13 was filed with the Secretary of State, the petition for the initiation of said proposed Amendment No. 15 was filed, and same was improperly submitted to the electors in violation of the Constitution.
The response admits the number of votes cast for and against the amendment, as alleged, and denies that same was duly adopted, having failed to receive a majority of the votes cast at such election, the number cast for the office of Governor being 169,469.
The response further admits that the board refused to canvass the returns upon the amendment, because they were without authority of law to do so,
A demurrer was interposed to the response, which being overruled by the court and the petitioners declining to plead further, judgment was rendered against them, and from it this appeal comes.
Harry G. Hale, Cockrill & Armistead, Coleman & Lewis and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.
1. Neither of the two provisions of sect on 22, article 19, of the Constitution applies to or governs amendments to the Constitution submitted to the people under the initiative power conferred by Amendment No. 10.
Section 22 governs and controls the method of proposing and submitting amendments passed by the legislative assembly only. If the provision of the Constitution limiting the Legislature to the submission of three amendments applies to submission of amendments by the people under the initiative power, then the provision of the Constitution relative to the passage of laws by the Legislature also govern bills enacted by the people. It can not seriously be contended that the requirements that every bill shall be read at length three different times in each house, etc., or that every enacted bill shall be presented to the Governor, etc., apply to the people’s bills. 93 Pac. (Ore.) 237; 59 Ore. 19, 115 Pac. 1057; 93 Pac. (Ore.) 254; 91 Pac. 546; 111 Pac. (Okla.) 803.
2. Amendment No. 10 clearly shows an intention not to limit the people to the submission of three proposals at once, and also expressly requires only a majority of the votes cast on the question. It is the last expression of the real makers of the Constitution. 59 Ark. 333. If there is any incon sistency between the Constitution of 1874 and Amendment No. 10, the latter controls. 186 Ga. 818; 71 S. E. 479; 88 Ohio. St. 412; 124 Pac. 175; 55 Ore. 303. The vice of the argument that Amendment No. 10 and section 22 of article 19 should be read together as though they were originally a part of the Constitution, and that the limitations found in section 22 apply to Amendment No. 10 in the absence of any express repeal or contradictory expressions, is that there was no such thing as a people’s initiative method of amendment under the Constitution of 1874. As to rule of construction of amendments, see 8 Cyc. 749; 8 Ark. 436.
■ 3. Amendment No. 10 specifically provides that constitutional amendments shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast thereon.
The word “measure” used therein includes constitutional amendments, and the phrase “referred to” is used in the sense of “submitted to,” either by the initiative or referendum. See 6 Thorpe, American Charters, 3404; Id. 3018; 7 Id. 4278; 109 Pac. (Okla.) 823; 111 Pac. (Okla.) 802; 109 Pac. (Okla.) 658; 124 Pac. 176; 114 Pac. 293; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 76; 8 Miss. 14; 20 N. E. .(Ohio.) 461.
4. “Practical construction of constitutional provisions by the legislative department, in the enactment of laws, * * * has great weight with the judiciary.” 8 Cyc. 736.
The Legislature of 1911 has given the construction to Amendment No. 10 maintained by appellant. See the enabling act.
5. The ministerial duty devolves on appellees to declare Amendment No. 15 adopted. If the last provision of Amendment No. 15 be viewed as having simply the force and effect of an act of the Legislature, it still accomplishes the repeal of section 16 of the enabling act so far as concerns this amendment. Amendment No. 15, however, is more than an act of the people. It is a constitutional amendment adopted by the people in their constitution-making capacity, and accomplishes not only the repeal of prior inconsistent acts of the Legislature, but also prior inconsistent sections of the Constitution itself. Otherwise the Legislature is superior in its power to the body of the people. 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 909; 34 Fla. 500; 19 Col. 448; 82 Mich. 573; 15 Tex. App. 150; 42 N. Y. 276; 33 S. W. 1130; 132 Mo. 410; 78 Ark. 432, 443; 78 Md. 152; 48 Ore. 309; 115 Pac/ (Ore.) 1057. See, also, 8 Cyc. 743; 9 Ind. 20; 1 Ind. 24; 21 Minn. 22; 52 Tex. 252.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Wm. H. Rector, Assistant, for appellees.
1. The State Board of Election Commissioners has no authority to canvass the returns upon constitutional amendments. The paragraph of Amendment No. 15 providing that the returns shall be canvassed by the State Board of Election Commissioners is not effective because the board can not look to Amendment No. 15 to find its authority to canvass the returns of the election on that amendment. 230 Mo. 417. “A constitutional amendment does not become operative upon the casting in its favor of the necessary majority of votes, but only upon the true promulgation of the result.” Black’s Constitutional Law, 49, and authorities cited.
2. Only three proposed amendments can be submitted at the same time. Article 19, § 22, Const. The rules laid down in article 19, § 22, are in full force and govern all proposed amendments to the Constitution except where Amendment No. 10 has changed them, or they have been changed by the enabling act, under the authority of that amendment.
The Legislature has no authority under Amendment No. 10, to change any of the rules laid down in article 19, §22, of the Constitution, except where such change is specifically authorized by the amendment.
Sections 3 and 16 of the enabling act, providing that any general measure or amendment to the Constitution shall be in force and effect when it has received a majority of the legal votes cast thereon is valid, insofar as it relates to acts, but invalid as to amendments to the Constitution, because it conflicts with article 19, § 22.
3. There is nothing in Amendment No. 10 authorizing the submission of more than three amendments. The General Assembly that proposed this amendment and the people who approved it are presumed to have been familiar with the limitations of the Constitution. The failure to repeal or amend the Constitution in this particular, and there being no conflict whatever between the amendment and the original provision of the Constitution, the latter must stand. Hodges v. Bawdy, 104 Ark. 583; 230 Mo. 417; 9 Ark. 282.
The amendment must be read in connection with the whole Constitution, and if the words of the amendment are susceptible of two constructions, either of which is warranted by the words of the amendment, that construction is to be preferred which best harmonizes the amendment with the general terms, tenor and spirit of the whole Constitution. 93 Ark. 228; 27 Ark. 648; 60 Ark. 343; 12 Ark. 101; 2 Ark. 98; 4 Ark. 473; 9 Ark. 282.
4. The Constitution can only be amended in the manner provided by the instrument itself. 128 Mo. 106; 24 Ala. 100; 60 la. 543; 77 Miss. 543; 133 N. Y. S. 1143; Jamison, Constitutional Conventions, (4 ed.) 617; 44 Ore. 118; 48 Ore. 319.

Opinion:
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). Can more than three amendments to the Constitution be proposed or submitted to the people at the same time or election for their approval or rejection?
The people are the source of all political power, and it has never been doubted that according to the institutions of this country the sovereignty of every State resides in the people of the State, and they can alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure. Whether they have done so, is a question to be settled by the political power, and when that power has decided, the judiciary can but follow and sustain its action.
But whether an amendment to the State Constitution has been adopted in accordance with its requirements is a question for judicial determination. Rice v. Palmer, 78 Ark. 432 ; 96 S. W. 396; St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 78 Ark. 468, 96 S. W. 409.
"The most that can be said is' that when the soverign body has clearly moved and that movement gives evidence of irresistible force, the various systems of officials constituting the existing government, including courts, must heed and bow to it, or else go down before it." Mack v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 333.
Article 19, § 22, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas (1874) and Amendment No. 10, the Initiative and Referendum Amendment thereto, provide the methods of amending the Constitution. Section 22 of article 19 provides how amend ments to thé Constitution may be proposed and submitted to the people by the General Assembly, the number of votes required for their adoption and, "but no more than three amendments shall be proposed or submitted at the same time. They shall be so submitted as to enable the elector to vote on each amendment separately."
Before the adoption of Amendment No. 10, the Legislature was the only agency authorized to propose amendments to the Constitution for the approval of the people and Amendment No. 10 provides: "The legislative powers of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of the Senate and House of Representatives, but the people of the State reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls as independent of the legislative assembly, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the legislative assembly. The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, and not more than 8 per cent, of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by such petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions shall be filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months before the election at which they are to be voted upon."
Under this amendment 8 per cent, of the legal voters are authorized to propose an amendment to the Constitution in accordance with its provisions, and it furnishes another method of submitting amendments to the Constitution. Unquestionably, the provisions of section 22, article 19, prohibiting the submission of more than three amendments at the same time is conclusive upon the power of the General Assembly to submit them, and, unless this prohibition is altered or amended by Amendment No. 10, authorizing the submission of amendments by this other agency, it will be binding likewise upon its power.
It was not the purpose nor the intention of the people in the adoption of Amendment No. 10, the Initiative and Referendum Amendment to the Constitution, to abrogate and destroy the Constitution of the State, the framework of its government, by substituting therefor the provisions of said amendment. They reserved to themselves thereby the power "to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls, as independent of the legislative assembly," a power theretofore committed exclusively to the General Assembly — the right to submit amendments to the Constitution, upon the initiative of 8 per cent, of the legal voters — making no mention nor suggestion in this reservation of power, as to the number of amendments that can be submitted at any one time. There is no intimation in it of an intention to propose or adopt amendments to the Constitution, independent of the provisions of the Constitution, nor otherwise than in accordance with its requirements, as modified by the amendment.
As said in Hodges v. Dawdy, 104 Ark. 583: "The constitutional amendment whereby the people of the State reserve to themselves the power to legislate directly by the initiative or referendum does not abrogate the existing Constitution and laws of the State, except such provisions as are necessarily repugnant thereto. (Citing cases). The amendment being the last expression of the popular will in shaping the organic law of the State, all provisions of the Constitution which are necessarily repugnant thereto must, of course, yield, and all others remain in force. It is simply fitted into the existing Constitution, the same as any other amendment, displacing only such provisions as are found to be inconsistent with it. In the construction of its terms and in the determination of its scope and effect, the courts should follow settled rules of interpretation."
In State v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, cited in the Dawdy case the court said: "The rules and principles applicable to the submission of constitutional amendments to the voters of this State are applicable alike to amendments proposed to the Constitution under the initiative and referendum amendment, or amendments proposed by the General Assembly of this State."
"No interpretation of the amendment should be allowed, which would conflict with any other provision of the Constitution, or which is not absolutely necessary in order to give effect to the amendment. Such construction should be given as will, if possible, leave all the other provisions of the Constitution unimpaired and in full force."
"The doctrine relating to repeals and amendments by implication applies alike to Constitution and statutes, and requires that earlier expressions yield when necessary to give effect to the latest expressions of the intention of those entitled to control." State v. Creamer, 88 Ohio St. 412.
"If an amendment duly adopted conflicts with a previous provision, the amendment, being the last expression of the will of the people, will prevail as an implied modification pro tanto of the former provisions." Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313; 71 S. E. 479.
The Oregon court, construing its amendment, said: "The initiative amendment to the Constitution necessarily carried with it all powers essential to make its provisions effective, and any part of the Constitution previously in force inconsistent therewith was necessarily repealed." State v. Langworth, 55 Ore. 303.
For other authorities, showing the proper rule of construction to be that the amendment and the previous provisions of the Constitution are to be harmonized, when not necessarily inconsistent and repugnant, see State v. Clay County, 93 Ark. 228; Greenwood v. Maddox, 27 Ark. 648; State v. Martin, 60 Ark. 343; Ex parte Ellis, 12 Ark. 101; State v. Scott, 9 Ark. 282; Pulaski County v. Irvin, 4 Ark. 473; Ex parte Jones, 2 Ark. 93; 8 Cyc. 749; Printing Co. v. Shafroth, 124 Pac. (Col.) 175.
The people in making the Constitution, in their wisdom declared that no more than three amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted at the same time by the power authorized therein to submit amendments for their consideration and adoption. That was their sole agency authorized to submit amendments to the Constitution and the restriction and prohibition was conclusive upon it. Since then, they have proceeded in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution for the submission of amendments to it, adopted Amendment No. 10 thereto, reserving to themselves, or 8 per cent, of the voters the like power to submit amendments to the Constitution, independently, it is true, of their other agency, the Legislature, but necessarily in accordance with the provisions of their Constitution as amended.
The people are the whole power and in the exercise of their power have set limitations upon themselves by the Constitution and their right to the exercise of it, and their "Thus far shalt thou go and no further," binds them and all their agencies for the submission of amendments to the Constitution, which is their expressed will, conclusive upon their supreme power and subordinate agencies, alike. The Legislature does not exercise the power of the people under the provisions of their Constitution, the chart for legislative guidance, and if they shall submit as many amendments to the Constitution at a session of the Legislature, as can, under the constitutional limitation be submitted, it must be conclusively presumed that all are submitted that are necessary to the public welfare, and no initiative petition can be filed after three amendments are duly submitted by the General Assembly proposing an additional amendment to be passed upon at the same election. The contention that the General Assembly can preclude the people from submitting amendments by its action in proposing three amendments to the Constitution before any are initiated by 8 per cent, of the voters is no reason for construing the provisions of Amendment No. 10 reserving the right to the people to submit amendments to the Constitution, "as independent of the legislative assembly" as in conflict with the prohibition in said section 22, of article 19. There is likewise nothing to prevent the people, if 8 per cent, of the voters shall think the welfare of the State demands that it shall be done from proposing three amendments to the Constitution by initiative petitions before any are proposed by the Legislature, and if three are duly proposed in accordance with the provisions of said Amendment No. 10 the Legislature will likewise be precluded from proposing or submitting further amendments to the Constitution at the same time or election.
The people can now exercise this power of amendment through either of two agencies, the General Assembly, or upon initiative petitions of 8 per cent, of the legal voters— but they can not exercise it through either agency otherwise than in accordance with the provisions and limitations of the Constitution, which apply alike to both and limit the number of amendments that can be proposed or submitted at the same time, through either or both agencies to three. It is the people acting in any event, through either agency and the constitutional prohibition operates alike upon both. They will not be engaged or disturbed with considering more than three amendments at the same time, without regard to what agency proposes or submits them. The General Assembly having proposed two amendments to the Constitution, numbered 11 and 12, and the voters having by initiative petition proposed another numbered 13, making three in all proposed for submission at the same time, before the filing of the petition proposing said Amendment No. 15, it was attempted to be submitted in violation of the Constitution and could not therefore have been adopted.
The majority of the court are of the opinion that it is not necessary to the decision herein that the other two questions presented, shall be decided in this case.
It follows from the decision that the judgment of the circuit court in denying the application for mandamus was correct and it is affirmed.
Justices Wood and Smith dissent.