Opinion ID: 883268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: balanced budget

Text: The majority opinion deals with Article VIII, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution which requires a balanced budget, and that part of Article III, Section 5, which prohibits referenda rejecting appropriations, in isolation, and thereby, concludes that neither prohibition was violated. However, in doing so, the majority opinion violates a cardinal rule of constitutional construction, which is that  [a]ll of the provisions of the Constitution bearing upon the same subject are to receive appropriate attention and be construed together.  Board of Regents v. Judge (1975), 168 Mont. 433, 444, 543 P.2d 1323, 1330. For that reason, in Board of Regents, 543 P.2d at 1330, we held that our task is to harmonize in a practical manner those provisions of the Constitution which would otherwise be in apparent conflict. The majority opinion fails to do so. On the one hand, the majority concludes that Referendum 112 did not cause an unbalanced budget because the Legislature exercised its only alternative which was to come into special session and cut appropriations. On the other hand, the majority concludes that Referendum 112 did not affect appropriations since it did not directly prohibit the expenditure of money. By isolating its consideration of these separate provisions, the majority has failed to harmonize in a practical manner the various provisions of the State Constitution. The practical effect of Referendum 112 is that the Legislature was left with one of two alternatives. It could either leave the budget unbalanced in violation of Article VIII, Section 9, or it was forced to reduce expenditures in violation of the prohibition found in Article III, Section 5(1). Considering the practical effect of Referendum 112 and harmonizing the provisions of Montana's Constitution requires the conclusion that under the facts in this case, the referendum was a rejection of the appropriation of money, and therefore, unconstitutional pursuant to Article III, Section 5(2). This conclusion finds support in other jurisdictions under similar circumstances and based on similar constitutional provisions. Other states which have considered similar constitutional restrictions on referenda to protect appropriations passed by the Legislature have held that when appropriation bills, such as House Bill 2 from the 1993 regular legislative session, are dependent on revenue bills, such as House Bill 671, then the bills must be read in pari materia for purposes of determining whether they may be referred, and that where they are interdependent, revenue bills may not be referred for a vote. Winebrenner v. Salmon (Md. 1928), 142 A. 723; Dorsey v. Petrott (Md. 1940), 13 A.2d 630; Kelly v. Marylanders for Sports Sanity, Inc. (Md. 1987), 530 A.2d 245; County Road Assoc. v. Board of State Canvassers (Mich. 1979), 282 N.W.2d 774. In Dorsey, 13 A.2d at 637, the Maryland Court reasoned: It follows that revenue measures to raise the public funds to pay the appropriations of the Budget Bill are excepted from the operation of the Referendum Amendment, although the revenue thus procured is disbursed by the Treasury through the provisions of the Budget without any express authorization in the money bill for its disbursement. Likewise, in this case, House Bill 671 cannot be considered in a vacuum. Its enactment was interrelated with the appropriations enacted in the 1993 regular session of the Legislature, and those appropriations depended upon the revenue that it raised. The effect of Referendum 112's suspension of House Bill 671 was to also reject those appropriations which were dependent on the revenue that it generated. For these reasons, I conclude that Referendum 112 did, in fact, reject an act of the Legislature for appropriation of money, and therefore, was unconstitutional in violation of Article III, Section 5(1), of the Montana Constitution.