Opinion ID: 1746530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of Section 13 of House Bill 1279 (2004)

Text: ¶ 5. When Mississippi faced a serious budget shortfall in 2004, Governor Haley Barbour proposed Operation Streamline, which suggested reorganization of state agencies as one of the ways to cut expenses. House Bill 1279 (HB 1279) was signed into law on May 27, 2004, and published as Chapter 595 in the 2004 Session Laws of Mississippi. The pertinent part of HB 1279 is as follows: (1) For the period beginning upon the effective date of this section and through June 30, 2005, the personnel actions of the Mississippi Department of the Corrections regarding employees at the central offices of the department, the State Penitentiary at Parchman and the Central Correctional Facility in Rankin County shall be exempt from State Personnel Board procedures. However, all new employees of the Department of Corrections at those locations shall meet the criteria of the State Personnel Board that presently exists for employment. Whenever an employee at any of those locations is dismissed or involuntarily terminated under the authority of this section during that period of time, that employee's position shall be terminated. (2) The Department of Corrections shall consult with the Office of the Attorney General before taking personnel actions permitted by this section to review those actions for compliance with applicable state and federal law. Act of May 27, 2004, ch. 595 § 13, 2004 Miss. Laws. Pursuant to this new law, MDOC terminated more than 160 employees, including Hemba. ¶ 6. Although statutes may be amended in several ways, Section 61 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits amendment by reference to title only, and requires amended statutes to be reenacted and published in full, as amended. [2] The purpose of Section 61 is to prevent ambiguity and uncertainty with reference to the amendment of previous acts. Jackson v. Deposit Guar. Bank & Trust Co., 160 Miss. 752, 764-765, 133 So. 195 (1931). Because Section 13 directly amended Section 25-9-127(1) [3] without any reference to it, and because the purported statutory modifications were not inserted at length into the statute, Hemba argues that Section 13 runs afoul of Section 61 of the Mississippi Constitution. Conversely, MDOC argues that Section 13 is not a direct amendment [4] but an amendment by implication, [5] which is allowed under Section 61. See City of Belmont v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 860 So.2d 289, 306 (Miss.2003) (citing Lamar County Sch. Bd. v. Saul, 359 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss. 1978)). ¶ 7. Furthermore, where an act is passed as original and independent legislation and is complete in itself so far as it applies to the subject matter properly embraced within its title, and requires no reference to any other statute to render it intelligible and to determine its meaning and scope, it does not fall within the spirit or meaning of Section 61. Hart, 113 So. at 901. See Heidelberg v. Batson, 119 Miss. 510, 526, 81 So. 225 (1919); Magee v. Lincoln County, 109 Miss. 181, 182, 68 So. 76 (1915). Therefore, Section 61 does not apply to an amendment by implication when the amending statute is complete within itself. Belmont, at 305-306. ¶ 8. Section 13 contains no reference to any specific Mississippi statute that was altered or amended by the legislation. Moreover, the language of Section 13 does not purport to insert any words or expressly change any of the terms in Section 25-9-127(1) and, therefore, is not a direct amendment. Instead, it exempts the personnel decisions of a specific agency, MDOC, from State Personnel Board procedures regarding terminations for a period of one year. ¶ 9. While Section 13 does have an indirect effect on Section 25-9-127(1) by suspending it for a specified period of time, it requires no reference to § 25-9-127(1) for an understanding of its meaning and scope. Thus, it qualifies as an amendment by implication, which is complete in itself and is not violative of Section 61 of the Mississippi Constitution. ¶ 10. For these reasons, we do not find persuasive Hemba's argument that Section 13 of HB 1279 is unconstitutional.