Opinion ID: 835450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Post-1910 Amendments

Text: We now consider whether, assuming that the initial adoption of Article VII (Amended) in 1910 was improper in one or more of the ways that defendant suggests, the people's repeated votes on specific changes to that article demonstrate that they impliedly have cured any such defect. We begin by considering cases from Oregon and other jurisdictions regarding the circumstances in which subsequent laws have been held to ratify or validate earlier laws that allegedly had been adopted improperly. Oregon courts long have held that defects in laws can be cured by subsequent legislative action, as long as the subsequent action does not impair vested rights or the obligation of contract. In Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or. 539, 58 P. 883 (1899), for example, the issue was whether the city could collect a street assessment when the petition for the improvement had not contained the names of one-half of the affected property owners, as required by the city charter. The city argued that the procedural defect in the assessment had been cured by a legislative amendment to the city charter enacted after the assessment had been made. This court agreed with the city: It is true, the [later ordinance] does not, in language, purport to validate or legalize irregularities in proceedings for the improvement of a street, but defects of this character may be cured by implication   . And when the legislature authorized the city to bring an action against the property owners to recover the amount of the assessments, notwithstanding any irregularity or defect in the proceedings, it necessarily intended to and did render immaterial such defects, and it can be no objection to the validity of the act that it does not used the words `ratify,' `confirm,' or `validate.' 35 Or. at 556-57, 58 P. 883 (emphasis added). See also State ex rel. v. School District No. 23, 179 Or. 441, 460-61, 172 P.2d 655 (1946) (dismissing challenge to defective school consolidation order on grounds of laches and stating that three elections  one for school district directors, another ratifying district's selection of school site, and a third approving the sale of bonds  were, in effect, successive ratifications by the voters of the consolidation order). Cases from other jurisdictions similarly hold that subsequent legislation can validate constitutionally defective laws by implication. In Wrought-Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N.C. 328, 24 S.E. 352 (1896), the legislature had passed and the governor had signed a tax statute, but the president of the senate and the speaker of the house had not signed the bill, as required by the state constitution. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld assessments made under the tax statute, because a statute that was properly enacted at the same legislative session referred to the tax and treated it as effective. Similarly, in Comm'rs of Leavenworth Co. v. Higginbotham, 17 Kan. 62 (1876), the president of the senate failed to sign an 1865 bill that otherwise was properly adopted. Statutes passed in 1866 and 1867 treated the 1865 statute as valid, and the Kansas Supreme Court held that the subsequent statutes effectively validated the defective 1865 statute. In a more recent case, Beck v. Beck, 814 S.W.2d 745 (Texas 1991), the Texas courts had held that a statute authorizing certain prenuptial agreements was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution in effect at the time that the statute was enacted. In 1980, the legislature proposed, and the people adopted, a constitutional amendment under which those agreements would be valid. Although the constitutional amendment did not refer to the earlier statute or to existing agreements, the Texas Supreme Court held that, under the doctrine of implied validation, the previously unconstitutional statute  and actions authorized by that statute  were validated, to the extent that validation did not interfere with vested rights or impair the obligation of contract. See Beck, 814 S.W.2d at 747 (describing doctrine of implied validation). The cases discussed above involve the subsequent validation of defective statutes, rather than defective constitutional provisions. However, the same rationale applies to the people's constitutional authority to amend that organic law, and we reach the same conclusion here: Irregularities in the people's adoption of a constitutional amendment may be cured by subsequent constitutional amendments that the people enact that implicitly validate the earlier, defective amendment. [8] We now consider the application of that principle to the unusual circumstances here. As discussed in detail above, since its adoption almost a century ago, the people have amended, through 10 different votes, the original version of Article VII (Amended). In adopting those 10 amendments, the people (1) necessarily viewed each amendment as a valid exercise of their authority to change the constitution, and (2) necessarily assumed that Article VII (Amended) was a valid part of the constitution that could be the subject of amendment or repeal. Moreover, each of those amendments necessarily was approved with the intent of the people to amend Article VII (Amended) as it had been presented to the voters in 1910 (or as amended by post-1910 amendments). The post-1910 amendments, of course, are of equal dignity as the 1910 amendment that adopted Article VII (Amended) and therefore could  and did  correct, modify, and repeal parts of that earlier constitutional provision. See In re Fadeley, 310 Or. 548, 560, 802 P.2d 31 (1990) (later-enacted constitutional provision was of equal dignity as earlier provisions and therefore modified earlier provisions). By properly adopting those amendments, the people necessarily, if implicitly, validated the 1910 adoption of Article VII (Amended) and cured any irregularities that might have accompanied its adoption. The people's assumption, in subsequently amending Article VII (Amended), of the validity of that article is consistent with the treatment of that article in several of this court's cases. Although not addressing the specific issue presented here, those cases implicitly relied on the validity of Article VII (Amended) and, particularly, the authority that that article conferred on the legislature to create inferior courts. In State v. Harvey, 117 Or. 466, 242 P. 440 (1926), for example, this court rejected the defendant's claim that the court of domestic relations did not have jurisdiction over his alleged crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court began its opinion by quoting Article VII (Amended), section 1, providing for the creation of courts by law, and held that the legislature had created the court of domestic relations by law and that that court had jurisdiction over the defendant's case. Similarly, in State ex rel Madden v. Crawford , this court treated Article VII (Amended) as a valid part of the constitution and explained that it had authorized the legislature to create new and additional courts[,] even stating in dicta that the legislature may provide for an intermediate court of appeals   . 207 Or. at 83, 295 P.2d 174. As this court stated even more bluntly 80 years ago, That the whole judicial system may be changed by the legislative power is taught in Section 2[] of Article VII [(Amended)]. LaGrande v. Municipal Court et al., 120 Or. 109, 115, 251 P. 308 (1926). [9] For the reasons set out above, we conclude that the irregularities, if any, in the adoption of Article VII (Amended) in 1910 have been cured by the implicit subsequent validation of that article by the people. [10] We therefore hold that Article VII (Amended) is now valid. It follows that the creation of the Court of Appeals in 1969, pursuant to the authority granted by Article VII (Amended), section 1, was within the legislature's authority. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' appeal in this case. That court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal and proceeded to decide the merits of that appeal. [11] The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.