Opinion ID: 1354417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: bill's one subject must be expressed in the title

Text: The test of the sufficiency of the expression of the subject of a bill is that it must give notice of its object so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into its contents. In other words, the title of the bill should reasonably inform a reader about the subject matter of the bill. Flanders v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 183, 558 P.2d 769 (1977); Brewster Pub. Schs. v. PUD 1, 82 Wn.2d 839, 514 P.2d 913 (1973); State Sch. Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Indus., 82 Wn.2d 367, 510 P.2d 818 (1973); American Fed'n of Teachers, Yakima Local 1485 v. Yakima Sch. Dist. 7, 74 Wn.2d 865, 447 P.2d 593 (1968); State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wn.2d 659, 445 P.2d 1017 (1968); Treffry v. Taylor, 67 Wn.2d 487, 408 P.2d 269 (1965), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 10, 17 L.Ed.2d 10, 87 S.Ct. 70 (1966). State v. Winters, 67 Wn.2d 465, 466-67, 407 P.2d 988 (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 208, 16 L.Ed.2d 481, 86 S.Ct. 1461 (1966), stated: [T]he purposes of [article 2, section 19] are to: 1. Protect members of the legislature against provisions in bills of which the title gives no intimation. 2. Apprise the public concerning subjects of legislation being considered. 3. Prevent hodgepodge or logrolling legislation. With equal frequency it has been said that a title complies  with the constitution if it gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicates to an inquiring mind its scope and purpose. (Footnote omitted.) House Bill 1328 deals with the issuance of general obligation bonds and the funding for a myriad of capital projects. The title of the bill gives no notice of the authorization of general obligation bonds to provide for funding those projects which would impose a $285 million debt upon the State. While it is proper for the Legislature to refer to sections of the revised code in the title of an act, this cannot take the place of the constitutional requirement that the title must contain some statement indicating the actual content of the bill. State ex rel. Seattle Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. 317, 68 P. 957 (1902). If notice were to be given to the members of the Legislature and to the general public of the subject of the bill, there should have been added to its title the phrase, and providing for the funding thereof by the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds. When the Code Reviser published the contents of the bill as chapter 4 of Laws of 1985, 1st Ex. Sess., the insufficiency of the title apparently was recognized and the words bonds for capital projects were added as a heading at the beginning of the chapter long after the passage of the bill by the Legislature. The session laws reflect this at page 2289, in the following form. CHAPTER 4 [House Bill No. 1328] BONDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS AN ACT Relating to capital projects authorized in the state capital budget acts; amending RCW ... HB 1328 concerns the issuance of bonds to fund innumerable capital improvements for the executive and administrative departments of state government. The term Capital Budget in the title provides no notice that the capital projects will be paid for by the sale of bonds, yet every act that the bill amends (now amending sections of the Revised Code of Washington) contained the word  bond in its title. See Laws of 1969, ch. 13; Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 135; Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 308; Laws of 1979, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 230; Laws of 1980, ch. 141. The contents of the bill were in the following format: Sec. 1. The state finance committee is authorized to issue general obligation bonds of the state of Washington in the sum of two hundred eighty-five million eight hundred fifty-one thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be required, to finance the projects authorized in section 2 of this act and all costs incidental thereto. ... Sec. 2. Bonds issued under section 1 ... are subject to the following conditions and limitations: (1) General obligation bonds ... in the sum of thirty-eight million fifty-four thousand dollars . .. for the purpose of providing funds for the department of general administration ... (2) General obligation bonds ... in the sum of four million six hundred thirty-five thousand dollars, ... for ... a Washington state agricultural trade center ... (3) General obligation bonds ... in the sum of thirty-eight million seven hundred sixty-two thousand dollars ... for the purpose of providing funds for the department of social and health services and the department of corrections to perform capital projects... (4) General obligation bonds ... in the sum of three million two hundred thirty thousand dollars . .. for the purpose of providing funds for the department of ecology, parks and recreation commission, department of fisheries, department of game, and the department of natural resources to acquire real property and perform capital projects .. . The bill continues for section after section in the same recitations regarding the authorization of the issuance of general obligation bonds. The bill dealt with the issuance of general obligation bonds and the title should have said so. It is a commonsense requirement that the title of a bill expressly indicate its content without the need to search further, or to imagine all of the possible subjects which might be encompassed under a particular title. The news media reports the titles of bills, and the titles only, from  time to time for the information and edification of the general public. The titles of the bills alone are printed as an index for those interested in legislation. The passage of bills is often upon a reading of the bill by title only. When that title does not indicate that the bill is an indebtedness authorization or a spending bill, it may well escape the notice of those that the framers of the constitution meant to inform. The majority relies upon Gruen v. State Tax Comm'n, 35 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 211 P.2d 651 (1949) which quotes from State ex rel. State Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wn.2d 13, 24-26, 200 P.2d 467 (1948), as follows: The purposes of this constitutional mandate are threefold: (1) to protect and enlighten the members of the legislature against provisions in bills of which the titles give no intimation; (2) to apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, concerning the subjects of legislation that are being considered; and (3) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation. We have declared that when laws are enacted in violation of this constitutional mandate, the courts will not hesitate to declare them void. Another rule which has been frequently stated by this court is that the title of an act need not be an index to the contents of the legislation that follows, nor need it express in detail every phase of the subject which is dealt with by the enactment, but that it is sufficient if the title gives such notice as should reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body of the act itself, or indicates, to an inquiring mind, the scope and purpose of the law. [Citing cases.] In applying this latter rule, however, there is a distinction between the effect of a broad, general title and that of a narrow, restricted one. If the title is general and comprehensive, it will be given a liberal construction; in such case, no elaborate statement of the subject of the act is necessary, and a few well-chosen words suggestive of the general subject treated is all that is required. If, however, the title is a restricted one, it will not be regarded so liberally, and provisions which are not fairly within such restricted title will not be given force. It is recognized that the application of these rules can be  restrictive or flexible, but it is submitted that they should not be so interpreted as to weaken Const. art. 2, § 19 to the extent that its threefold purposes will not be accomplished. See Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co. (Mut.), 69 Wn.2d 392, 418 P.2d 443 (1966). A capital project is any physical public betterment or improvement. Gerges v. Koch, 62 N.Y.2d 84, 464 N.E.2d 441, 476 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1984); State ex rel. Sullivan v. Burns, 51 Ariz. 384, 77 P.2d 215 (1938). The word capital may have different meanings when used in different connections. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation v. Filoon, 310 Mass. 374, 38 N.E.2d 693 (1941). The term can refer to property, money, wealth, the place where legislative and executive offices are located, the sum total of corporate stock, or that portion of the produce of the industry of a country that may be made directly available to finance production. Black's Law Dictionary (5th rev. ed. 1979); Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It usually refers to many things other than the funding of projects by the issuance of bonds. It is argued that the subject matter of the bill is included in the words Capital Projects. If that construction is to be the future guide to the interpretation of Const. art. 2, § 19, then such general undescriptive topics as state business and legislative concerns may well be approved bill titles in the years to come. When the State Constitution was formulated it borrowed heavily from the Organic Act which established the territorial government of Washington. In the act we find in section 6 To avoid improper influences, which may result from intermixing in one and the same act such things as have no proper relation to each other, every law shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title. I submit that to embrace in one bill the issuance of bonds for the funding of projects for the Department of Social and Health Services, for Fisheries, for Higher Education, and for an agricultural trade center, among others, covers more than one subject. Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Terr.  131, 144, 13 P. 453 (1887), though handed down nearly 100 years ago, is applicable today. It finds no difference in the terms object and subject and states in part, quoting from decisions of other states: The purpose to be effected by this section was to prevent the incorporation in one bill of provisions of a nature totally diverse and without necessary connection, with a view to effect a general combination of the particular friends of each measure, and thereby secure their enactment, when some or all of them would likely fail if left to stand on their own merits; and also the entrapping of legislators into the support of a bill into which by dexterous management some insidious provision had been inserted of which the title gave no intimation. [Texas.] These provisions were adopted to prevent the legislature from passing what are commonly known as `omnibus bills.' [Arkansas.] The object of this provision was, that neither the members of the legislature nor the people should be misled by the title. [New York.] The intent of this provision of the constitution was to prevent the union in the same act of incongruous matters, and of objects having no connection or relation. And with this it was designed to prevent surprise in legislation, by having matters of one nature embraced in a bill whose title expressed another. [Iowa.] The object of this constitutional provision was to require so clear an expression of the subject of the bill in the title, that it would at once apprise legislators and others interested of the precise subject of the proposed legislation. [Missouri.] Harland v. Territory, supra , was overruled by Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 28 P. 520 (1891), which held that so long as the title embraces but one subject it is acceptable even though the bill contains any number of sub-subjects. With this I cannot quarrel. However, neither Marston nor later cases permit the true content of a bill to be unexpressed in its title, nor do Marston and the following cases grant approval to omnibus-catchall bills.