Opinion ID: 2367442
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Vacancy as construed

Text: We think our reading of the Constitution, both conceptually and literally, is consistent with past judicial construction. [13] In Opinion of the Justices, Del.Supr., 189 A.2d 777, 778-79 (1963), in reference to Article IV, § 3, judicial appointments, this Court stated: The term `vacancy', as used in our Constitution in connection with public offices, ordinarily means `that the office is unoccupied and without an incumbent, who has a legal right to continue therein until the happening of some future event.' There is ordinarily no `vacancy' on expiration of term because `Section 5 of Article 15 was apparently enacted for the very purpose of preventing a possible vacancy or interregnum in an office where there [is] not a properly qualified successor at the expiration of the usual statutory term of such office.' State v. Caulk, 3 W.W.Harr. 344, 351, 33 Del. 344, 351, 138 A. 354, 357. This is the general rule. But we are of opinion that Section 3 of Article IV, above quoted, creates an exception to it. It is plain from the express language of this section that the expiration of the term of a constitutional judge is deemed to be a `vacancy'. The inference, therefore, is that when the term of a constitutional judge expires his office is vacant. In State ex rel. Satterthwaite v. Stover, 159 A. at 244, the Court held that a recess appointee did not hold over and could serve as a de jure officer only until the expiration of his Commission at the end of the next session of the Senate. The following language in the opinion supports our view of Article III, § 9: Under article 3, § 9, there is vested in the Governor a general grant of power to appoint to office and also a special grant of appointing power. The general grant is vested in the Governor acting with the consent of the majority of the members elected to the Senate. The special grant is restricted to filling for a limited time vacancies occurring during the recess of the Senate and was made to avoid the inconvenience to the public service which would arise from leaving offices vacant during the interval which might elapse before the re-assembling of the Senate  the coordinate branch charged with the duty of approval or consenting to appointments. One fundamental principle is that in the filling of public offices where the compensation is over $500 the sovereign people acting through the confirmation by the Senate have a right to a voice in the selection of proper persons as public officers and when a vacancy is caused by the death or resignation of a person so approved by the Senate then this right to a voice in the final selection of a successor should be restored at the earliest proper time. Id. Further, in State ex rel. Southerland v. Caulk, 138 A. at 357, the Court considered the juxtaposition of Article III, § 9 and Article XV, § 5 in relation to an elected office: The material question to consider, therefore, is whether there was a vacancy in the office in dispute at the expiration of Mr. Hart's term. In determining this question, section 5 of article 15 of the Constitution must, also, be read in connection with section 9 of article 3. The word `vacancy,' as applied to a public office, ordinarily has no peculiar or technical meaning, and there is nothing to indicate that it was not used in its ordinary and usual sense in the Constitution of 1897. In that sense, the word `vacancy' means that the office is unoccupied and without an incumbent, who has a legal right to continue therein until the happening of some future event. [citations omitted] Section 5 of article 15 was apparently enacted for the very purpose of preventing a possible vacancy or interregnum in an office where there was not a properly qualified successor at the expiration of the usual statutory term of such office. [citations omitted] . . . . . It is true that the four year term for which Mr. Hart was elected would have expired in January of the present year if the law had provided for the election of his successor in November of 1926; but where there is an express constitutional provision that all public officers shall hold their respective offices until their successors shall be duly qualified, as in section 5 of article 15, the mere expiration of the usual statutory term does not create a vacancy if there is a person who has the lawful right to perform the duties of such office. Moreover, in Walker v. Hughes, Del. Supr., 36 A.2d at 50, the constitutional holdover provision was discussed in the context of a holdover whose re-election was contested. The Court noted in part: In a proper case he holds de jure in the full sense of the term and is entitled to the emoluments of the office as of right, as, for example, where there has been no election of a successor, or where a duly elected successor is disqualified to hold the office. Finally, such an interpretation is in accord with the meaning given the term vacancy in paragraphs two and three of Article III, § 9 relating to appointments to elective office in State ex rel. Satterthwaite v. Highfield, Del.Supr., 152 A. 45 (1930). In that case the term vacancy was construed as meaning an event occurring during an unexpired term of elective office. The Court reasoned: While regular biennial general elections were provided for, the framers of the Constitution naturally realized that interruptions in its general scheme, with respect to offices, would necessarily occur from time to time, by reason of death, removal, resignation and the like, and at times when the vacancies caused thereby could not be immediately filled in the regular manner. Id. at 50-51. Prior Delaware case law thus clearly dictates there is no vacancy on the mere expiration of a term. Case law from other jurisdictions construing similarly worded holdover provisions supports our conclusion that these provisions prevent a vacancy from arising at expiration of term. See Zemprelli v. Thornburgh, Pa.Cmwlth., 55 Pa.Cmwlth. 330, 423 A.2d 1072, 1077 (1980), construing a statutory holdover provision; State ex rel. McCarthy v. Watson, Conn. Supr., 132 Conn. 518, 45 A.2d 716, 721-22 (1946), construing statutory provisions. See also cases collected in Anno.  Vacancy in Office, 164 A.L.R. 1248 (1946) and in the Governors' Constitutional Powers of Appointment and Removal, 22 Minn.L.Rev. 451, 461-2 (1938), which cites eighteen states which have found that no vacancy is created by expiration of term as opposed to nine states which found vacancy at such expiration. On July 1, 1978 no qualified successor to Mr. Killen's office existed and, he therefore, had lawful title to continue in office. No vacancy arose. Any other construction of the term vacancy would nullify the legal effect of Article XV, § 5. Further, this construction integrates the purposes of Article III, § 9 and Article XV, § 5 with the underlying constitutional norm of senatorial consent to gubernatorial nominations. Where there is no approved official in esse to holdover (Article XV, § 5) and the consent of the Senate cannot be acquired (Article III, § 9), the Governor has the exceptional and limited authority to act alone to see that the public duties are discharged, by granting a temporary commission to a person whose authority exists only until the Senate has an opportunity to consent. We think that this resolution is precisely that intended by the framers. In People ex rel. Baird v. Tilton, Cal.Supr., 37 Cal. 614, 621 (1869), the Court discussed a constitutional appointment power and offered a rationale against finding a vacancy when a holdover was available: It was manifestly the intent of the Constitution that the Governor should appoint only where there is no party authorized by law to discharge the duties of the office. The object was to prevent a public inconvenience arising from the want of a party authorized for the time being to discharge the duties of a public office. When there is a party expressly authorized by law to discharge those duties temporarily, till the power upon whom the duty of election, or appointment, is devolved can regularly act, there is no occasion for calling into exercise this extraordinary power vested in the Governor to make a merely temporary appointment. There is no good reason for appointing a party to temporarily discharge the duties of an office when there is already a party expressly authorized by the Constitution, or laws to temporarily discharge those duties. The very reason upon which the power is vested in the Governor fails, and the case provided for has not arisen. And it can make no difference whether the language expressly authorizing a party to hold over and discharge the duties of an office temporarily till a successor duly elected and qualified appears, is found in the Constitution, or in the statute. We feel that a similar intent is manifest here. See also State ex rel. Satterthwaite v. Highfield, 152 A. at 52.