Opinion ID: 2461858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: does the general assembly have the power in the budget bill to suspend or modify existing statutory law?

Text: As stated, SB 294, while denying the power of the General Assembly to repeal or amend existing statutory law through the device of a budget bill, did indeed authorize that legislative body to provide in a budget bill for the suspension or modification of the operation of a statute. No matter how one slices it, the General Assembly is permitted through the reduction or elimination of an appropriation, to effectively eliminate the efficacy of existing statutes, subject only to the finding of a financial emergency and further subject to the time limitation of the budgetary period. We believe that this statutory scheme is clearly within the constitutional powers of the General Assembly. It is clear that the power of the dollar  the raising and expenditure of the money necessary to operate state government  is one which is within the authority of the legislative branch of government. The Constitution of the Commonwealth so states and we have so stated. Kentucky Constitution Section 230, is as follows: No money shall be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. The purpose of this section is to prevent the expenditure of the state's money without the consent of the General Assembly. Ferguson v. Oates, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 518 (1958). As we said in Legislative Research Commission v. Brown, Ky., 664 S.W.2d 907 (1984), The budget, which provides the revenue for the Commonwealth and which determines how that revenue shall be spent, is fundamentally a legislative matter.... Ky. Const. Sec. 49-50 empowers the General Assembly to contract debts; and Ky. Const. Sec. 53 empowers the General Assembly to provide for investigations into the accounts of the Treasurer and Auditor of Public Accounts. . . . In a word, the final action on the enactment or adoption of the budget is a legislative matter. It is, of course, the duty of the Governor . . . to carry out and to implement the budget which is passed by the General Assembly. Ky. Const. Sec. 81. Id. at 925. (emphasis added). In Brown, we approved a legislatively mandated budget reduction plan applicable to all three branches of state government, the operation of which was triggered when a state revenue shortfall occurred. Also in Brown we declared invalid a statutory provision that required the budget be submitted as a resolution, as opposed to the mandate of Kentucky Constitution Section 88 that it be presented as a bill. Significant to the issue in the case sub judice, we declared When the budget is enacted as a bill, the provisions thereof could repeal existing statutes. But if the budget document is introduced in the form of a resolution, it can not have the effect of repealing any existing statutes. Id. at p. 927. (emphasis added). We thus twice stated that a budget bill could be used to repeal existing statutes. Our statement there should not come as any surprise when one considers our previous decisions. In Mattingly v. Kirtley, 285 Ky. 795, 149 S.W.2d 521 (1941), a statute enacted in 1920 established a State Board of Athletic Control and authorized a $5,000.00 appropriation for the Board's operating expenses. That amount was not changed by a repeal of or an amendment to the statute. In the 1940 Budget Act, the appropriation to the Board was increased to $6,500.00. A suit was then filed seeking a determination of which amount was proper. The Court of Appeals gave effect to the last word of the General Assembly as expressed by the 1940 increased appropriation and permitted an amendment of the 1920 bill by the 1940 Budget Act. id. at 523. Mattingly stands for the proposition that  at the very least  the General Assembly may appropriate funds in a Budget bill in amounts that are different from those in previously enacted statutes. Interestingly enough, in that case the court did not attach any conditions such as emergency, etc., to the amendment permitted. In Commonwealth ex rel. Meredith, Attorney General v. Johnson, 292 Ky. 288, 166 S.W.2d 409, 414 (1942) the questioned budget bill permitted the Governor the widest discretion to expend and to transfer money from one fund to another, upon the finding by him that an emergency existed for which public money should be spent. The court said: To hold that the state government could not take the precaution of anticipating such miscellaneous items [as an emergency] would be to retard the progress and operation of public affairs. Id. In Johnson , the court declared that a budget bill could allow not only the transfer of funds from special accounts but also that selfsame bill would properly authorize the unappropriated and unbudgeted expenditure of funds, if an emergency (or other miscellaneous items) were found. If it is proper for the General Assembly to delegate to the Governor the power, in a budget bill, to transfer funds and to spend them for unbudgeted items, why is it not, a fortiori, proper for the General Assembly, in the limited circumstances of an emergency financial situation of state government, to transfer funds and to suspend and modify the operation of a statute? We think the question answers itself. The United States Supreme Court agrees. In United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), our highest court specifically held that the United States Congress could modify statutory law in an appropriation bill. In an unanimous opinion, the Court quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 1035, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940) said: [W]hen Congress desires to suspend or repeal a statute in force, `[t]here can be no doubt that . . . it could accomplish its purpose by an amendment to an appropriation bill ...' Id. at 222, 101 S.Ct. at 484. At this point, it is necessary to remember that the questioned statute SB 294  by its own terms  denied the General Assembly the power to repeal or amend an existing law. It permitted only suspension or modification. It may well be argued, that if the General Assembly has the constitutional power to repeal or amend existing statutes in a budget bill, it should have the power to suspend or modify such statutes in that selfsame budget bill. This conclusion is supported by logic, and it is also supported by law. Kentucky Constitution Section 15, is as follows:  Laws to be suspended only by General Assembly. No power to suspend laws shall be exercised unless by the General Assembly or its authority. There have been a minimal number of cases interpreting this section. In Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 285 Ky. 326, 147 S.W.2d 1029 (1941), a statute authorizing a court to probate the sentence of a person convicted of a crime was held to be a constitutionally valid suspension of the criminal statute. We said: The legislature makes the laws that declare what are criminal offenses and define the processes by which these laws are enforced. Having the power to make, it has the power to modify and provide for abatement or suspension. Id. at 1034. [T]the power in the legislature to authorize the courts to suspend those laws is in the logically implied affirmation contained in Section 15 of the Constitution of Kentucky .... Id. (emphasis added). It is beyond cavil that the General Assembly can suspend the operation of statutes. Moreover, under Lovelace, the General Assembly delegated that authority to the Courts. See also, Gering v. Brown Hotel Corporation, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 332 (1965). Because of the General Assembly's exclusive authority with respect to public funds and the budget, we have no problem in deciding that Ky. Const. Sec. 15 applies to statutes which can be affected by the budget bill of the Commonwealth. The General Assembly is mandated to operate the financial offices of the Commonwealth under a balanced budget. If revenues become inadequate, the General Assembly must be empowered to use adequate devices to balance the budget. Provisions in the budget document which effectively suspend and modify existing statutes which carry financial implication certainly are consistent with those duties and responsibilities. We have reiterated the proposition that the General Assembly may constitutionally repeal or amend existing statutes by the terms of a budget bill, so long as said bill complies with Ky. Const. Sec. 51. We have emphasized the obvious, viz, that the General Assembly may also suspend or modify existing statutes in a budget bill. Since, under paragraph (1) of SB 294, the General Assembly denied itself the power to repeal or amend and further said in paragraph (2) thereof it granted (or recognized) in itself the power to suspend or modify existing statutes, we must, perforce, examine the questioned provisions of the budget bill and determine whether they are only suspensions or modifications, and therefore, proper under the General Assembly's self-imposed limitation. Prior to that, however, we must address appellant's argument that both challenged acts violate Section 51 of the Kentucky Constitution.