Opinion ID: 2612481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: viii(c bill title specificity and accuracy

Text: The general principle was specifically recognized by this court in Smith, 386 P.2d 98, discussed in detail hereafter, and re-recognized with the broader, non-specific title in State ex rel. Fire Fighters Local No. 946, I.A.F.F. v. City of Laramie, 437 P.2d 295, 303 (Wyo. 1968), which stated: In Smith v. Hansen, Wyo., 386 P.2d 98, 101, we pointed out, since the legislature may make the title to an act as restrictive as it pleases, it is obvious that it may sometimes so frame a title as to preclude matters which might with entire propriety have been embraced, but which must now be excluded because the title is unnecessarily restrictive and the courts cannot enlarge the scope of the title. We found that to have happened in the Smith case. If the title for the act now being dealt with had been restricted in the manner which the city contends for, it is entirely possible the act would be suffering the same fate as the act in the Smith case did. The criteria of the Wyoming constitutional provision that the subject be clearly expressed in the title was recognized in early Colorado cases: Moreover, we are bound to assume that the word `clearly' was not incorporated into the constitutional provision under consideration by mistake. It appears in but few of the corresponding provisions of other state Constitutions  a fact that could hardly have been unobserved by the convention. That this word was advisedly used, and was intended to affect the manner of expressing the subject, we cannot doubt. The matter covered by legislation is to be `clearly,' not dubiously or obscurely indicated by the title. People v. Friederich, 67 Colo. 69, 185 P. 657, 658 (1919) (quoting In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 24 P. 3 (1890)). That court followed the same thesis in Friederich, 185 P. at 658: In determining the first question: whether the title of the Act fails to clearly express the subject of the statute, we are aware that no legislative act should be nullified upon constitutional grounds unless such legislation is plainly in violation of the Constitution. It is equally true, however, that the authority of the fundamental law of the state must be recognized, approved and enforced. Section 21 of Article 5 is practically identical with provisions found in most of the state Constitutions, providing that the subject of any act shall be expressed in its title. Our Constitution, however, declares that not only must the subject be expressed in the title, but that such subject must be clearly so expressed. The rule, as announced in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.) page 178, is as follows: As the legislature may make the title to an act as restrictive as they please, it is obvious that they may sometimes so frame it as to preclude many matters being included in an act which might with entire propriety have been embraced in one enactment with the matters indicated by the title, but which must now be excluded because the title has been made unnecessarily restrictive. The courts cannot enlarge the scope of the title; they are vested with no dispensing power; the Constitution has made the title the conclusive index to the legislative intent as to what shall be operative; it is no answer to say that the title might have been more comprehensive  in fact the legislature have not seen fit to make it so. By all authority and precedent it is firmly settled that the purpose of a statute must be ascertained and determined by its title, and that the title is presumed to be the controlling and conclusive index of the legislative intent. See also Gronert v. People, 95 Colo. 508, 37 P.2d 396 (1934). The clearly expressed subject is a mandatory requirement: The fact is this: that whatever constitutional provision can be looked upon as directory merely is very likely to be treated by the legislature as if it was devoid even of moral obligation, and to be therefore habitually disregarded. To say that a provision is directory, seems, with many persons, to be equivalent to saying that it is not law at all. That this ought not to be so must be conceded; that it is so we have abundant reason and good authority for saying. If, therefore, a constitutional provision is to be enforced at all, it must be treated as mandatory. And if the legislature habitually disregard it, it seems to us that there is all the more urgent necessity that the courts should enforce it. And it also seems to us that there are few evils which can be inflicted by a strict adherence to the law, so great as that which is done by the habitual disregard, by any department of the government, of a plain requirement of that instrument from which it derives its authority, and which ought, therefore, to be scrupulously observed and obeyed. 1 T. Cooley, supra at 312-13. The Nebraska court, in considering a comparable constitutional provision in State ex rel. School Dist. No. 6 of Pierce County v. Board of County Com'rs of Pierce County, 10 Neb. 476, 6 N.W. 763 (1880), found an amendment of a bill without a change in the title unconstitutional in purpose extension. In a succeeding lien controversy, that court restated the principled purpose of constitutional provisions in Miller v. Hurford, 11 Neb. 377, 9 N.W. 477, 479 (1881): Our constitutional provision, that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, is but making inviolable the rule governing legislative bodies that no proposition or subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. Experience has shown that in the absence of constitutional restrictions the rule at times is liable to be overthrown, and objectionable and pernicious legislation is the result. To guard against this evil our constitution prohibits more than one subject being embraced in a bill. And while this provision has sometimes been attended with inconvenience, as in case of a revision of the laws, it is a safeguard against corrupt or improvident legislation, and its effect has been to simplify legislation and place every bill upon its true merits. But if, under the pretext of amending a section, a subject entirely foreign to the subject-matter of the section to be amended can be introduced, this barrier will be entirely broken down, and the constitutional guaranty in effect destroyed. See likewise Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340, 55 N.W. 869, 871 (1893), which stated: We are fully conscious of the importance of the principle which forbids the courts to declare a statute unconstitutional where any substantial doubt exists, but we have no doubts in this case. The act is, upon its face, clearly violative of several constitutional provisions. To sustain it would be to invite their disregard in the future, if not to countenance the practice suggestively designated as logrolling. In such a case the duty of the court to set aside an act is as clear as its duty generally to presume the validity of statutes, and no considerations based upon the importance of interests affected can discharge the courts from performing such duty.
In terms of legislative enactment process, this prosecutorial veto was not constitutionally inserted; in terms of notice for citizen participation, nothing was provided. The majority fails in constitutional responsibility on this test also. [28] The ability of many nonviolent persons to function as productive members of society will be destroyed by the ability of prosecutors to insist unilaterally that they be branded as felons despite the judgment to the contrary by the trial judge. I dissent against the grant of power to an advocate to act as a judge then empowered needlessly to add numbers to our members of society who are stigmatized as felons and more likely to be unproductive burdens on those of us who must work. Who is pushing and who is leading all of us to the cliff of economic non-competitiveness is painfully obvious. I also dissent with profound concern for what has been done to the precious division of governmental power which helps keep tyranny at bay.