Opinion ID: 1317045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: validity of paragraph 3

Text: We therefore turn to the respondent's arguments on the merits. The Secretary of State's response and supporting brief do not directly defend the constitutional validity of a procedure that makes the assent of local officials a necessary step between the legislative approval of a constitutional amendment and its referral to a vote of the people, beyond a plea to allow the legislature some flexibility. A defense is hard to state in view of the clear mandate of the constitutional amendment procedures. Oregon Constitution, article XVII, section 1, provides: Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislative assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and referred by the secretary of state to the people for their approval or rejection, at the next regular general election, except when the legislative assembly shall order a special election for that purpose. If a majority of the electors voting on any such amendment shall vote in favor thereof, it shall thereby become a part of this Constitution.... The section plainly requires that the Legislative Assembly itself must reach agreement on the desirability of submitting the proposed amendment to the people and that thereafter the amendment shall be referred to the people for their approval or rejection. No statute or joint resolution can add a requirement that a proposed amendment also be requested or ratified by someone else. Instead, respondent points to the phrasing of the proposed article IX-B, Section 3, which provides that if the requisite applications are not filed, the proposed articles IX-A and IX-B are repealed on June 30, 1984. She contends that under this section, local government assent is not a precondition for the enactment of the ballot measures, but the absence of local government assent is a fact which causes the amendments to self-destruct after enactment. This argument, however, does not deal with the explicit statement in Paragraph 3 of SJR 30 (first special session), the joint resolution containing both measures, that the joint resolution shall not be effective unless local government units representing at least a majority of the population of the state and a majority of such units ratify this amendment and request its placement on the ballot as provided for in this paragraph. To meet this problem, respondent suggests that the legislature merely chose to avoid a needless election on measures which, by their own terms, would be doomed to repeal before they were even enacted. The argument does not disguise the legislative compromise that the sales tax package would be submitted only if the requisite number of local governments first took steps to ratify the sales tax amendment and request its referral to the voters. With respect to article XVII, section 1, respondent notes that the amendments were proposed in one of the branches of the Legislative Assembly, that the legislature agreed to them, and that they were referred to the people for their approval or rejection, all of which are steps required by that section. But the apparent compliance with the words of the constitution fails at its second step. The legislative record leading to the measures before us is clear that the Legislative Assembly did not arrive at agreement on submitting these proposals to the people. To the contrary, the legislature had reached a stalemate which was broken only by the device of shifting a part of the political responsibility for the proposals to the shoulders of local officials. There is no question that the insertion of this local ratification of the package was an integral element of the compromise. Without setting out the legislative history in this expedited opinion, the premise of the provision also appears on the face of Paragraph 3 of the joint resolution. The paragraph begins with the disclaimer that [t]he Legislative Assembly does not desire to propose a sales tax for the use of the government of the State of Oregon, that the state government does not need these tax dollars and does not want them, and that [l]ocal government units will be the users of these funds if approved by the electors. The essential relation between this disclaimer and the immediately following requirement that the local officials ratify the sales tax amendment and request its placement on the ballot is clear. This injection of third parties into the amendment process is no mere technicality. Its importance extends beyond this case and the immediate issue of a controversial tax. The constitution is the basic charter of state government, a charter that should not be lightly filled with details of laws that may require frequent reexamination and adjustment. It therefore is essential that the Legislative Assembly itself reach agreement on the important question whether to submit to the people a proposal to amend their constitution. A decision to submit an amendment only upon the intervening request or application of third parties, as in this instance, contravenes the clear responsibility of the Legislative Assembly to decide for itself whether referral of the proposed amendment will or will not best serve the constitution of the state. The effect of article XVII, section 1, is reinforced by the provision of article I, section 21, also cited in petitioners' attack on the present procedure. The relevant words forbid that any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution. The section refers us back to what is provided in the constitution, which is the direct referral of constitutional amendments by the legislature to the people without interposition of any extrinsic authority. A question was raised at oral argument whether the disputed Paragraph 3 was severable from the remainder of SJR 30. In reply it was pointed out that severability had not been raised by the pleadings and was not an issue in this proceeding, although if it were, both parties would favor holding the paragraph severable. The conference committee preparing the final package actually considered proposals for specifying that the local ratification requirement could be severed or that it could not be, but both proposals were defeated. In any event, severance is not the applicable concept in this case. This is not a law composed of independent provisions, one invalid and most valid, where the issue is whether the legislature intended the valid parts to become law without the invalid part or whether they are inextricably interrelated. The validity of the proposed amendments, if properly adopted, is not in issue. What is in issue, what Section 8 directs this court to examine and adjudge, is the legality of the enactment process itself. The Legislative Assembly never agreed to submit these proposals to the voters without the ratification and request of the local governments. To the contrary, the legislators expressly made their agreement contingent on that local action. The legislature did not say it would like local ratification and applications if possible. It did not say that both houses would agree to submit for this package of amendments with or without that local assent. We have no basis for assuming that they would do so, or that they would not, once this court provides the declaration specially provided for and in dispute between these parties. The petitioners asked not only for a judgment declaring Paragraph 3 of SJR 30 to be unconstitutional but also for an order directing the respondent Secretary of State to place the proposed amendments on the ballot and for such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. [3] The prayer for such an order or other relief is beyond the jurisdiction placed in this court by the special statute. [4] Those requests are extraneous to the present proceeding. As already stated, we cannot here declare the proposed amendments, if adopted, either constitutional or unconstitutional, and we can issue no order or advice to respondent under the terms of this special proceeding. We therefore grant only petitioner's request for a declaration that the procedures required by Paragraph 3 of Senate Joint Resolution 30 do not constitute compliance with Oregon Constitution Article XVII, section 1. We deny petitioners' requested order that the respondent place the proposed constitutional amendment on an election ballot.