Title: In Re Senate Bill No. 72 of Forty-Second Gen. Assem.
Citation: 339 P.2d 501
Docket Number: 19061
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: May 21, 1959

339 P.2d 501 (1959) In re SENATE BILL NO. 72 OF THE FORTY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the State of Colorado. No. 19061. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. May 21, 1959. *502 Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John W. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Patricia H. Maloy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Governor. John M. Sayre, Boulder, for Colorado Municipal League, amicus curiae. FRANTZ, Justice. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution of Colorado, the Governor of the State has sought the opinion of this court upon certain questions relating to Senate Bill No. 72 passed by both houses of the Forty-Second General Assembly. The title of the Act is "An Act Relating to Municipal Ordinances and Penalties," and it is presently before the Governor for his approval or disapproval. We deem the questions submitted to be important ones asked on a solemn occasion, since they involve a far-reaching phase of state-municipal relationships. In re Funding of County Indebtedness, 15 Colo. 421, 24 P. 877. The Act in question is as follows: Serious questions of constitutionality have been presented to us, and they are as follows: To assure that an informed court would answer the questions propounded, briefs have been prepared and filed by the Attorney General and by the Colorado Municipal League, appearing as amicus curiae by our leave. These briefs have assisted the court immediately in its effort to solve the problems presented by the Governor's interrogatories, and have lessened considerably the time within which answers could be given. Since we are convinced that Senate Bill No. 72 is an invalid delegation of legislative power in violation of Article V, Section 1 of our Constitution, our answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes." Further, since we are convinced that Senate Bill No. 72 authorizes the adoption of special and local was in violation of Article V, Section 25 of our Constitution, our answer to Question No. 2 is in the affirmative. It should be noted that the Colorado Municipal League admits that Questions No. 5 and No. 6 create serious doubts concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Act. We agree, but need go no further than to answer the first two questions. SUTTON, J., not participating.