Title: MAHONEY v MURRAY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12255
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 1972

N o 12255 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 CHARLES H MAHONEY, Relator, F R A N K M U R R A Y , Secretary of S t a t e , S t a t e of Montana, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: For Relator: P h i l i p W Strope, argued, Helena, Montana. Robert L Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. John C Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Lawrence D Huss, argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana. For Respondent : John Risken, argued, Helena, Montana. Amicus Curiae: Wesley Wertz, argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: April 7, 1972 Decided: APR 2 1 1 m Filed: ApR 2 1 1 9 % Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to receive and f i l e a declaration of nomination for public office, that of State Treasurer, by the relator. On ex parte appli- cation, this Court issued i t s order of April 3, 1972, accepting jurisdiction, ordering the Attorney General to be joined as a relator, and setting the matter for hearing on April 7, 1972. Relator Charles H. Mahoney i s a resident citizen of Jefferson County, Montana, and a qualified elector. Relator was elected on November 2, 1971, from District 12, comprising Jefferson, Broadwater and Lewis & Clark counties, as a member of the Constitutional Convention. Relator was elected as an Independent candidate. The Constitutional Convention was called by the Forty-second Legisla- tive Assembly, Chapter 296, Laws of Montana 1971, as amended by Chapter 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Forty-second Legislative Assembly. The amendments came about as a result of the case "The Forty-second Legis- lative Assembly of the State of Montana, and Frank Murray, Secretary of State of the State of Montana v. Joseph L. Lennon, Clerk and Recorder of Cascade County, Montana", reported i n 156 Mont. 416, 481 P.2d 330, and here- inafter referred to as the Lennon case. The Convention assembled, and i t s members were sworn with Relator Mahoney a member, in an organizational meeting on November 29, 1971. There- after, the Convention assembled again in plenary session on January 17, 1972. I t continued to meet until noon on March 24, 1972, when, after motion made and carried, i t "adjourned sine die". Respondent Frank Murray i s Secretary of State whose duties are s e t forth i n Art. VII, Sec. 1 , of the Montana Constitution, and in section;82-2201, e t . seq., R.C.M. 1947. These duties include the f i l i n g of declarations of nomi- nation for public office. Respondent Frank Murray i s the same public officer who as a party sought declaratory judgment in the Lennon case. - 2 - Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General of Montana, because of the constitutional issues involved, was ordered joined as a re1 ator. Attorney -General Woodahl , on January 28, 1972, had, i n response to a request by the President of the Convention, issued an opinion appearing in Volume No. 34 of Attorney General ' s Opinions as Opinion No. 34, in regard to the el i - gibility of members of the Convention to become political candidates in the year 1972. Briefly, and w e acknowledge before any facts concerning adjourn- ment, election dates for Convention proposals, completion of work, or anything else, the opinion stated that members could, after adjournment sine die, serve i n any public office. Because that opinion was rendered, i t appeared the Attorney General should also be a relator. Five days after the previously mentioned "adjournment sine die", Re- lator Mahoney attempted to f i l e his declaration of nomination and filing fee for the office of State Treasurer. The Secretary of State refused to accept the filing and advised Relator Mahoney that his filing was refused as he was a duly elected member or delegate of the Constitutional Convention, " * * * since the Montana Supreme Court i n [the Lennon case] appears to hold that a Member of the Constitutional Convention i s a public officer coming within the Constitutional provisions prohibiting publ i c officers from simultaneously hold- ing more than one publ i c office." Fol 1 owing this occurrence, the present action was commenced by Re1 ator Mahoney. This Court accepted original jurisdiction, a t least in part, due to the fact that the filing date for candidates for nomination for election to public office expires on April 27, 1972, and in fairness to a l l , time i s short. Respondent Murray appeared by answer. The answer set up three de- fenses, essentially (1) that there was no claim for relief stated; (2) that the purported "adjournment sine die" was not an adjournment i n the sense of a "termination" in that the Convention adopted i t s Resolution No. 14 which perpetuates the Convention f o r an i n d e f i n i t e time i n the f u t u r e by creating a committee w i t h f u l l a u t h o r i t y t o manage and conclude a l l o f the Convention's procedural, administrative, and voter education a f f a i r s , and t o spend funds o f the Convention whether appropriated by the 1 egi s l ature, received from federal funds o r otherwise; and (3) t h a t Relator Mahoney i s prohibited from holding two c i v i l o f f i c e s by A r t . V, Sec. 7, o f the Montana Constitution and t h i s Court's decision i n Lennon. Oral argument was had w i t h argument by counsel f o r Relator Mahoney, Re1 a t o r Woodahl , Respondent Murray and by Amicus Curiae Wesl ey W. Wertz. The p e t i t i o n o f Relator Mahoney seeks a w r i t o f mandamus and a reason- able attorney fee. The answer and b r i e f o f Respondent Murray would challenge the remedy o f mandamus as being an improper remedy i n any event. W e need not dwell here on the appropriateness o f the remedy. Whether mandamus would be an available and proper remedy would depend on whether Relator Mahoney i s qua1 i- f i e d t o f i l e f o r public o f f i c e , notwithstanding the refusal o f Respondent Murray. The basic question, therefore, i s whether a t the time o f attempting t o f i l e f o r o f f i c e Relator Mahoney was s t i l l a delegate and one who does presently "hold any public o f f i c e " w i t h i n the meaning o f t h i s Court's opinion i n Lennon. Putting the f i r s t p a r t o f the basic question another way, does a delegate have a term o f o f f i c e ? Hereinafter a l l references t o A r t i c l e s s h a l l be t o the Constitution o f Montana. Chapter 1 o f the F i r s t Extraordinary Session, Vol. 11, Laws o f Montana 1971, amending Chapter 296, Laws o f Montana 1971, s h a l l be referred t o herein as the Enabling Act. A r t . X I X , Sec. 8, provides: "The l e g i s l a t i v e assembly may a t any time, by a vote o f two-thirds o f the members elected t o each house, submit t o the electors o f the s t a t e the question whether there shall be a convention t o revise, a1 t e r , o r amend t h i s constitution; and i f a m a j o r i t y o f those voting on the question shall declare i n favor o f such convention, the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly shall a t i t s next session pro- vide f o r the c a l l i n g thereof. The number o f members o f the convention shall be the same as t h a t o f the house o f representatives, and they shall be elected i n the same manner, a t the same places, and i n the same d i s t r i c t s . The legislative assembly shall in the act calling the convention designate the day, hour and place of i t s meeting, fix the pay of i t s members and officers, and provide for the payment of the same, together with the necessary expenses of the convention. Before proceed- ing the members shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Montana, and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the convention. The qualifications of m e m - bers shall be the same as of the members of the senate, and vacancies occurring shall be filled in the manner provided for f i l l ing vacancies in the legislative assembly. Said convention shall meet within three months after such election and prepare such revisions, a1 terations or amendments to the constitution as may be deemed necessary, which shall be submitted to the electors for their ratification or rejection a t an election appointed by the convention for that purpose, not less than two nor more than six months after the adjournment thereof; and unless so submitted and ap- proved b y a majority of the electors voting a t the election, no such revision, a1 teration or amendment shall take effect." Art. V, Sec. 7 provides: "No senator or representative shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office under the state; and no member of congress, or other person holding an office (except notary publ ic, or in the m i 1 i t i a ) under the United States or this state, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office." Art. VII, Sec. 4, referring to state offices of governor, secretary of state , attorney general , treasurer, audi tor, superi ntendent of publ i c instruction and lieutenant-governor, states in part: " * * * N o officer mentioned in this section shall be eligible to, or hold any other public office, except member of the state board af educatIion during his term of office." Art. VIII, Sec. 35, prohibits justices of the supreme court and judges from holding other public office while he remains in office. In the Enabling Act i t i s provided, i n Section 2, that the number of delegates shall be the same as provided for the election of members of the house of representatives and Section 3 provides that the qua1 ifications of delegates shall be the same as that of members of the state senate. Section 4(1) states: "Delegates to the constitutional convention shall be elected in the same manner as members of the house of representatives * * *." Section 5 requires the constitutional oath of office required by Art. XIX, Sec. 1. Section 6 provides for vacancies to be filled in the same manner as for legislative vacancies. Section 7(6) states: " I t shall be the duty of the delegate elected to assemble in plenary session in the chambers of the house of representatives in the state capitol building i n the city of Helena, a t 10:OO a.m. on January 17, 1972. The convention, which may recess from time to time, shall then remain in session as long as necessary." ' Section 16 refers to pay and expenses as the same as legislators and in subs. (4) refers to "officers and employees of the state and i t s political subdivisions who are not prohibited by the Montana Constitution or Laws of Montana from serving as delegates * * * . I 1 Section 21 provides for appropriations for the biennium ending June 30, 1973. Section 24 provides for repeal of the Enabling Act on June 30, Relator Mahoney contends that his "term" expired on adjournment sine die on March 24, 1972. Respondent Murray contends the term i s for two years, the same as that of a representative, beginning January 17, 1972 and ending January 17, 1974. Respondent Murray's position i s essentially correct since the term continues to run until the repeal of the Enabling Act on June 30, Referring n o w to the Enabling Act, the Legislature's intent seems clear. Delegates were elected for a term ending on repeal of the act; funds were provided until repeal of the act; the convention could remain in ses- sion "as long as necessary" subject to the repealer clause; i t s duties con- tinued through submission of i t s proposals to the people a t an election to be held after "adjournment" within a specified time as specified in Art. XIX, Sec. 8; i t s members or delegates were to be paid and treated in all other respects in the same manner as legislators, particularly as house of represent- ative members. In Lennon a t page 422 of 156 Mont. this Court said: "Directing our attention to the f i r s t issue before us for determination, w e find that i t contains two questions which w e answer as follows: "Any state and local officers who are prohibited by the constitution or laws of Montana from holding more than one office may not serve as delegates to the constitu- tional convention. A delegate to the cons ti tutional convention i s a 'state officer' holding a publ i c office of a civil nature. "These restrictions prevent such officers from holding any other 'public office' or 'civil office' of the state, these two terms are synonymous. State ex re1 . Barney v. Hawkins, 79 Mont. 506, 257 P. 411. * * *" This Court went on to say: "In our view delegates to a constitutional convention also ' possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the publ ic' satisfying requirement (2) of Barney. Plain- t i f f s and relators argue that this requirement i s not satisfied, drawing a distinction between officers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state government and delegates to a constitutional convention who act as agents of the people occupying no position in any recognized branch of state government. O u r attention has been directed to several cases from other states up- holding such distinction under their particular state history and the particular provisions of their state con- stitutions. These cases are not persuasive as applied to the present controversy in Montana, being distinguishable on the basis of such factors as historical considerations peculiar to such state, legislative precedent, existing rather than proposed legislation, inherent .legislative powers t o call a constitutional convention, different constitutional provisions, and dissimilar issues present- ed for decision [citing cases] * * *. " A delegate to the constitutional convention exercises sovereign powers of a legislative character of the high- est order. That the final product of such legislative authority i s subject to referendum, renders i t no less an exercise of sovereign power. The delegation of unlimited power i s not essential to the exercise of sovereign power. T o draw a distinction between other state officers and delegates to a constitutional convention, both of w h o m act as agents of the people exercising sovereign powers in their behalf , i s to deny our basic concept of govern- ment." "The purpose of the Montana cons t i tuti onal restrictions against certain officers serving as delegates to a con- stitutional convention i s readily apparent. I t i s to insure independent consideration by the delegates of the provisions of the new constitution, to reduce concentra- tion of pol i tical power a t the constitutional convention by el iminating as delegates incumbent off ice holders , and to foreclose the possibility of such officers creating new offices for themselves or increasing the salaries or compensation of their o w n offices. See Kederick v. Heintzleman, D. C . , 132 F.Supp. 582, for the expression of similar principles in prohibiting a state senator from filing for the position of delegate to the Alaskan constitutional convention. These considerations cannot be given effect unless a delegate to the constitutional convention holds a 'public office' thereby placing him within the ambi t of constitutional prohibitions. "Requirement (5) of Barney that an office must have some permanency and continuity and not be only temporary or occasional in order to cbnstitute a ' ~ u b l i c office-' i s satisfied in the case of a delegate to the constitutional convention. This requirement i s a relative matter and must be interpreted in the light of the purposes for which the position was created. A delegate to the con- stitutional convention holds his position for the entire period of time the constitutional convention i s in session. His position i s permanent and continuous in the sense that i t continuously exists until the duties for which i t was created have been completed. I t i s not temporary or occasional in that i t i s a full time posi- tion for the length of time required for completion of the convention's work. While i t i s true that constitu- tional conventions are ca1 led b u t seldom, when a partic- ular constitutional convention i s called the delegates are elected for that particular constitutional conven- tion alone and the convention possesses permanency and continuity until i t s purpose i s completed; there i s nothing temporary or occasional in the work of i t s dele- gates while the convention i s i n session and carrying out i t s duties. Contemporary experience notwithstanding, a public position need not be conceived and created in perpetuity in order to qualify as a pub1 i c office." (Emphasis suppl ied. ) The foregoing underlined words [while] in session, are the words that Relator Mahoney stresses on his contention that adjournment sine die ends his status or position. However, that connotation cannot be placed on the meaning of the two words "in session" as used in Lennon. There the Court did not have before i t the situation w e have now. Rather, w e have almost the reverse. The same purposes of the constitutional prohibitory language referred to above apply equally to Constitution Convention members. While w e recognize that there may be some argument made that a state treasurer does not have policy making functions, yet the same purposes of the prohibitions apply to a l l constitutional officers. B y our analysis of the Enabling Act, the Constitutional Articles pertinent, and our language i n Lennon, w e find the prohibitions applicable. W e also find by the 1 anguage and analysis that the 'term' of the prohibition goes on to the repeal of the Enabling Act. Again, w e give recognition to overall intent of the legislature t o treating the members of the Convention as Legislators. The Enabling Act was drafted and enacted w i t h Lennon and i t s language as the declaratory judgment guide that i t was. So f a r w e have discussed the basic question in the light of the Enabling Act, the Constitution, and the Lennon judgment in the main. NOW, w e look to the Convention's actions. W e referred before to the motion made and carried that the Convention "adjourned sine die". Amicus argues that, previously quoted Art. XIX, Sec. 8, provision setting the limits of an elec- tion for submission of proposals to the people, requires by i t s language an "adjournment" with a finality or termination of a l l functions, or that i t be- come functus officio, before an election can be held on June 6, 1972. I t seems plain t o as that an adjournment referred t o in Art. XIX, Sec. 8, need not have that finality with respect to a l l functions, but only with respect to finality of the revisions, a1 terations or amendments to the constitution to be submitted t o the electorate. A t any rate, the Convention, on March 16, 1972, passed i t s Resolution No. 14 which, among a l l of the other proceedings of the Convention, i s a matter of record i n Respondent Murray's office. Respondent Murray does not question the validity or legality of Resolution No. 14. Resolution No. 14 i s as follows: "WHEREAS, the Montana Constitutional Convention has nearly completed i t s substantive activities and i s making arrangements for adjournment sine die i n order to meet i t s election date commitment of June 6, 1972; and " W H E R E A S , prior to adjournment sine die the Convention will not be able to complete i t s procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, a l l of which must be concluded in an orderly and responsible manner; and "WHEREAS, the Convention anticipates that i t will need to establish an appropriate committee to manage and conclude a l l of i t s procedural, administrative and voter education affairs after adjournment sine die; "NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS R E S O L V E D BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL C O N V E N T I O N OF THE STATE OF MONTANA A S F O L L O W S : "1. The Convention hereby creates a committee to act with the President of the Convention on i t s behalf after adjournment sine die, delegating to i t full authority to manage and conclude a l l of the Convention's procedural, administrative and voter education affairs, and to spend the Convention's funds therefore, b u t only within the limits of i t s appropriation and such other funds as the Convention may have. "2. The Convention hereby appoints to said committee the President, Leo Graybill, Jr., who shall act as i t s chair- man, and the following delegates: John Toole, Dorothy Eck, Bruce Brown, Jean Bowman, Margaret Warden, Fred Martin , Robert Vermillion, Katie Payne, Betty Babcock, Marshall Murray, Catherine Pemberton, John Schiltz, Thomas Joyce, George Harper, Bill Burkhardt, Jerome Loendorf, Oscar Anderson, Gene Harbaugh. "3. seek June N o delegate may serve on the committee who shall public office in the primary election to be held on 6 , 1972. The President, as chairman of the committee, shall have authority to substitute other Convention dele- gates for any committee members named herein who may de- cide to seek public office. "4. The Convention hereby delegates authority to the com- mittee to receive, disburse and account for all Federal funds which the Convention may receive. "5. The Convention also delegates authority to the com- mittee to supervise and edit any and all voter education materials prepared on behalf of the Convention 6r by other persons relative to the work of the Convention. "6. The committee shall terminate i t s work a t such time as a1 1 of the Convention's procedural , administrative and educational affairs have been completed, and all require- ments of the Enabling Act have been met." In the Resolution the Convention states that i t will not be able to complete i t s procedural, administrative or voter education affairs and i t i s necessary to create a Committee. From a reading of Section 1, i t i s obvious that the Convention continues to exist. The Committee acts on behalf of the Convention, in i t s place and stead. I t carries on until the procedural, administrative and voter education affairs are concluded, and the money appropriated to i t has been spent. These particular items of business are substantial parts of the business of the Committee and the Convention. I t would appear that the only thing that the Committee cannot do that the Con- vention did i s propose further constitutional provisions or change or modify those proposed. Other than that, the Committee has all of the power of the Convention. This i s the way that Respondent Murray interpreted the Resolution. Anticipating that a delegate might wish to seek a public office, the Convention adopted Section 3 of Resolution 14. I t i s agreed that Mahoney was not a member of the Committee appoint- ed by this Resolution, but i t i s of interest to note that the Convention anticipated that some of i t s members might desire to go on to other public office, in spite of the fact that the business of the Convention was not fin- ished. Not only did the Convention perpetuate i t s e l f , b u t i t opened the door for members who aspired to other offices. The Committee, in Section 4, has carte blanche authority as to the money, Federal or that l e f t over from the Convention. W e can see no differ- ence in what the Convention was doing before March 24, 1972, and what the Committee was authorized to do, other than making proposals for inclusion i n the new constitution. The final provision of Resolution 14, Section 6 , states: "The committee shall terminate i t s work a t such time as a1 1 of the Convention's procedural , administrative and educational affairs have been completed, and a l l re- qui rements of the Enabl ing Act have been met . w s suppl ied .) W e emphasize here that w e are not concerned i n this case about the validity and legality of Resolution No. 14. In what w e shall refer to as a companion case, #12260, State ex re1 . Kvaalen v. Leo Graybill, J r . , e t a1 . , the validity of Resolution No. 14 i s an issue. For this additional reason, the contents of Resolution No. 14, Re- lator Mahoney's status as a delegate i s continuing whether he, as an individual, has any duties or not. The fact i s that the Convention, of which he i s a member, s t i l l i s i n existence, a1 bei t adjourned. Accordingly, w e find that Relator Maho.ney now holds a public office, and he i s prohibited by the Constitution from holding another public o f f i c e . His term has n o t expired, and he continues t o be a delegate t o the Convention. Respondent Murray was correct i n refusing t o f i l e the declaration f o r nomination, and the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s denied. ~ s s o c a t e Justice