Opinion ID: 1693032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title Requirement

Text: In addition to the single-subject requirement, article III, section 29 commands that the subject of the act be embraced in the title. While legislation is given a presumption of constitutionality, the purpose of the title requirement must not be frustrated. State v. Nickelson, 169 N.W.2d 832, 834, 837 (Iowa 1969). In Western International v. Kirkpatrick, we outlined the law on this provision as follows: While this legislation is given the benefit of a presumption of constitutionality, State v. Nickelson, 169 N.W.2d 832, 834 (Iowa 1969), we must insure the purpose of the title requirement is not frustrated. The purpose of the requirement is to guarantee that reasonable notice is given to legislators and the public of the inclusion of provisions in a proposed bill; thus it is said to prevent surprise and fraud. Long v. Board of Supervisors, 258 Iowa at 1284, 142 N.W.2d at 381.... A title is sufficient, even though it is broad, if it gives fair notice of a provision in the body of an act. [ Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Streepy, 207 Iowa 851, 856, 224 N.W. 41, 43 (1929).] The enactment is constitutionally valid as to the title unless matter utterly incongruous to the general subject of the statute is buried in the act. Witmer v. Polk County, 222 Iowa 1075, 1085, 270 N.W. 323, 328 (1936). In State v. Talerico, 227 Iowa 1315, 1322, 290 N.W. 660, 663 (1940), we stated, [T]he title need not be an index or epitome of the act or its details. The subject of the bill need not be specifically and exactly expressed in the title. The title must, however, give fair notice of the act's subject and it must not deceive its reader. See State v. Nickelson, 169 N.W.2d at 834; N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 18.10 (C. Sands 4th ed. 1985) (Generality of the title is not reason enough to strike the act unless the title is misleading or deceptive.). In determining the sufficiency of a title, courts examine whether anyone reading the title of an act could reasonably assume that the reader would be apprised of all of its material provisions. 1984 Op. Iowa Att'y Gen. 173. Western Int'l, 396 N.W.2d at 365. The IUB and the attorney general argue the statute should be upheld, stating that the title does not have to be an index of the bill. See Green v. City of Mt. Pleasant, 256 Iowa 1184, 1199, 131 N.W.2d 5, 15 (1964) (stating that it is not necessary for the title of an act to function as an index of the details of the act). They point to the dates of March 27, 1996, when the language in section 12 was filed, and May 1, 1996, when the bill passed both houses, to show the bill was not logrolled or slipped through at the last minute. With the history of the bill and its numerous amendments as support, the IUB and the attorney general claim the legislators were not deceived or misled by the bill's title. They argue the subject matter of section 12 is not utterly incongruous as related to the subject of energy efficiency and energy efficiency mandates. Finally, they claim that the title requirement is merely procedural; it does not protect substantive rights of citizens versus government. I believe that the subject matter of section 12 is clearly the prohibition of competition by regulated gas and electric companies in the area of appliance service and repair. Section 12 may be deemed to be fairly well buried in the Act. But of greater moment is that this subject matter is utterly incongruous to the general subject matter of energy efficiency found in the title of Senate File 2370. The title contains no words or statement regarding public utility regulation. Nothing in the title gives the reader fair notice that the bill includes an anti-competition section. Without fair notice, the reader is deceived by the title as to the contents of the bill. Nothing in the title remotely apprises the reader to expect the inclusion of an anti-competition provision. Through its Service Guard program, UtiliCorp provides repair and protection for a customer's furnace, water heater, stove, clothes dryer, and other appliances. The customer pays a monthly fee for these services. UtiliCorp is able to provide these services during its downtime, when it is not doing utility work that is rate regulated. UtiliCorp is not permitted under the law prior to the passage of section 12 to pass on to its customers the costs attributed to providing nonutility services in its regulated rates or charges. Iowa Code § 476.78. Section 12 that amends Iowa Code section 476.78 now prevents UtiliCorp and other rate-regulated gas and electric public utilities from using their vehicles, equipment, and employees to provide nonutility services to their customers. The obvious result is that section 12 eliminates these public utilities as an economic competitor for this work. Nothing in the title of Senate File 2370 suggests this legislative result. The constitutional restriction regarding titles is not satisfied by a showing that some legislators knew of the provision or that the time between introduction of the bill and passage was reasonably long. Nor is the constitutional requirement fulfilled by showing that legislators were not misled. The true standard is objectivewhether, from the title, the content of the legislation is indicated, so that a reasonable person, legislator or nonlegislator, reading the title, would anticipate that the questioned legislation is included. See National Benefit Accident Ass'n v. Murphy, 222 Iowa 98, 105-06, 269 N.W. 15, 19 (1936). In applying the criteria set forth in our prior cases for determining the constitutional sufficiency of the title of legislation, I conclude that section 12 fails to pass each of the aforementioned tests. Section 12 of Senate File 2370 should be held to be void as being unconstitutional legislation by reason of violating the title requirement of article III, section 29 of the Iowa Constitution. IV. Given my views that the single-subject requirement and the title requirement of the Iowa Constitution have been violated by section 12, Senate File 2370, additional constitutional challenges by UtiliCorp need not be addressed. CARTER and LAVORATO, JJ., join this dissent. TERNUS, J., joins in Division III of this dissent.