Opinion ID: 874086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does This Court Have the Authority To Modify an Unambiguous Statute If the Result of Applying It As Written is Palpably Absurd?

Text: Plaintiffs quote from Federated Publications, Inc. v. Idaho Business Review, Inc., 146 Idaho 207, 210, 192 P.3d 1031, 1034 (2008), wherein we stated, Unless the result is palpably absurd, this Court must assume that the legislature meant what it wrote in the statute. Relying upon that quote, they contend, The literal wording of a statute cannot be honored if it creates unreasonable, absurd results.... They then argue that applying Idaho Code section 39-1392b to bar their access to the peer review records would be an absurd result. The language upon which Plaintiffs rely had its genesis in State, Department of Law Enforcement v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, 100 Idaho 150, 595 P.2d 299 (1979). That case involved the timing of a hearing in contested asset forfeiture proceedings under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. A party contesting the asset forfeiture was required to file a verified answer. The statute in question stated, If a verified answer is filed, the forfeiture proceeding shall be set for hearing before the court without a jury on a day not less than thirty (30) days therefrom; and the proceeding shall have priority over other civil cases. I.C. § 37-2744(d)(3)(D). In Willys Jeep, the party contesting the for-feiture filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings, contending that the hearing had not been held within thirty days of the filing of the verified answer as required by the statute. The magistrate court denied the motion to dismiss because the clear wording of the statute required the hearing to be at least thirty days after the verified answer was filed, not within ninety days of filing the verified answer. The district court reversed, holding that the hearing must be held within thirty days of the filing of the verified answer in spite of the statute's literal language, stating that once the verified answer was filed, the hearing was to be not less than thirty (30) days therefrom. Willys Jeep, 100 Idaho at 151, 595 P.2d at 300. In reversing the district court on appeal, this Court stated: The most fundamental premise underlying judicial review of the legislature's enactments is that, unless the result is palpably absurd, the courts must assume that the legislature meant what it said. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous the expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect. Worley Highway Dist. v. Kootenai County, 98 Idaho 925, 576 P.2d 206 (1978); Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 548 P.2d 861 (1976); Herndon v. West, 87 Idaho 335, 393 P.2d 35 (1964). Referring to a virtually identical Arizona statute, the Arizona court stated that the purpose of the statute was to provide the law enforcement agencies with 30 days in which to prepare prosecution of their case. State ex rel. Berger v. McCarthy, 113 Ariz. 161, 164, 548 P.2d 1158, 1161 (1976). Likewise, the Idaho legislature may have intended to provide the state with a thirty day period in which to prepare its case. A literal reading of the statute is not necessarily irrational or absurd. Therefore, the statute must be interpreted as written. Id. (footnote omitted). The Willys Jeep Court began its analysis by stating, The most fundamental premise underlying judicial review of the legislature's enactments is that, unless the result is palpably absurd, the courts must assume that the legislature meant what it said. Id. at 153, 595 P.2d at 302. It concluded its analysis by stating: A literal reading of the statute is not necessarily irrational or absurd. Therefore, the statute must be interpreted as written. Id. at 154, 595 P.2d at 303. Because there was no contention that the statute was ambiguous, the Court was stating that it must interpret an unambiguous statute as written, unless the result of doing so is palpably absurd. The Court did not cite any authority for that statement. None of the three cases cited Worley Highway District, Moon, and Herndon  support that statement. In Worley Highway District, we said, `This Court has consistently adhered to the primary canon of statutory construction that where the language of the statute is unambiguous, the clear expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect and there is no occasion for construction.' 98 Idaho at 928, 576 P.2d at 209 (quoting State v. Riley, 83 Idaho 346, 349, 362 P.2d 1075, 1076-77 (1961)). In Moon, we said, where a statute or constitutional provision is plain, clear, and unambiguous, it `speaks for itself and must be given the interpretation the language clearly implies.' 97 Idaho at 596, 548 P.2d at 862 (quoting State v. Jonasson, 78 Idaho 205, 210, 299 P.2d 755, 757 (1956)). In Herndon, we said: We must follow the law as written. If it is socially or economically unsound, the power to correct it is legislative, not judicial. 87 Idaho at 339, 393 P.2d at 37. In the Willys Jeep case, the Court simply made a misstatement. If this Court were to conclude that an unambiguous statute was palpably absurd, how could we construe it to mean something that it did not say? Doing so would simply constitute revising the statute, but we do not have the authority to do that. The legislative power is vested in the senate and house of representatives, Idaho Const. art. III, § 1, not in this Court. As we said in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177, 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone. We have recited the language from the Willys Jeep case or similar language numerous times, usually without even addressing whether we considered the unambiguous statute absurd as written. See State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158, 244 P.3d 1244 (2010); Statewide Constr., Inc. v. Pietri, 150 Idaho 423, 247 P.3d 650 (2011); Viking Constr., Inc. v. Hayden Lake Irrigation Dist., 149 Idaho 187, 233 P.3d 118 (2010); State v. Pina, 149 Idaho 140, 233 P.3d 71 (2010); Kootenai Hosp. Dist. v. Bonner County Bd. of Comm'rs, 149 Idaho 290, 233 P.3d 1212 (2010); Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 147 Idaho 307, 208 P.3d 289 (2009); Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Idaho Business Review, Inc., 146 Idaho 207, 192 P.3d 1031 (2008); State Dept. of Health and Welfare v. Hudelson, 146 Idaho 439, 196 P.3d 905 (2008); State v. Mubita, 145 Idaho 925, 188 P.3d 867 (2008); State v. Hensley, 145 Idaho 852, 187 P.3d 1227 (2008); In re Daniel W., 145 Idaho 677, 183 P.3d 765 (2008); Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008); State v. Kimball, 145 Idaho 542, 181 P.3d 468 (2008); State v. Parkinson, 144 Idaho 825, 172 P.3d 1100 (2007); State v. Grazian, 144 Idaho 510, 164 P.3d 790 (2007); In re Estate of Miller, 143 Idaho 565, 149 P.3d 840 (2006); Kirkland v. State, 143 Idaho 544, 149 P.3d 819 (2006); Employers Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Department of Ins., 143 Idaho 179, 141 P.3d 1048 (2006); McNeal v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 142 Idaho 685, 132 P.3d 442 (2006); Rahas v. Ver Mett, 141 Idaho 412, 111 P.3d 97 (2005); Kootenai Med. Ctr. v. Bonner County Comm'rs, 141 Idaho 7, 105 P.3d 667 (2004); State v. Thompson, 140 Idaho 796, 102 P.3d 1115 (2004); Garza v. State, 139 Idaho 533, 82 P.3d 445 (2003); Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526, 81 P.3d 1236 (2003); State v. Schwartz, 139 Idaho 360, 79 P.3d 719 (2003); Inama v. Boise County ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs, 138 Idaho 324, 63 P.3d 450 (2003); State v. Jeppesen, 138 Idaho 71, 57 P.3d 782 (2002); Ahles v. Tabor, 136 Idaho 393, 34 P.3d 1076 (2001); State v. Daniel, 132 Idaho 701, 979 P.2d 103 (1999); State v. Knott, 132 Idaho 476, 974 P.2d 1105 (1999); Idaho Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Jackman, 132 Idaho 213, 970 P.2d 6 (1998); City of Sun Valley v. Sun Valley Co., 123 Idaho 665, 851 P.2d 961 (1993); In re Application for Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 828 P.2d 848 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 805 P.2d 452 (1991); George W. Watkins Family v. Messenger, 118 Idaho 537, 797 P.2d 1385 (1990); In re Miller, 110 Idaho 298, 715 P.2d 968 (1986); and Parker v. Wallentine, 103 Idaho 506, 650 P.2d 648 (1982). In several cases, we have responded to arguments that the wording of an unambiguous statute would produce an absurd result, but we have never agreed with such arguments. See Idaho Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 300, 256 P.3d 708 (2011); State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326, 208 P.3d 730 (2009); St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Board of Comm'rs, 146 Idaho 753, 203 P.3d 683 (2009); Glaze v. Deffenbaugh, 144 Idaho 829, 172 P.3d 1104 (2007); State v. Yzaguirre, 144 Idaho 471, 163 P.3d 1183 (2007); Driver v. SI Corp., 139 Idaho 423, 80 P.3d 1024 (2003); State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 988 P.2d 685 (1999); and Moses v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 118 Idaho 676, 799 P.2d 964 (1990). Thus, we have never revised or voided an unambiguous statute on the ground that it is patently absurd or would produce absurd results when construed as written, and we do not have the authority to do so. The public policy of legislative enactments cannot be questioned by the courts and avoided simply because the courts might not agree with the public policy so announced. State v. Village of Garden City, 74 Idaho 513, 525, 265 P.2d 328, 334 (1953). Indeed, the contention that we could revise an unambiguous statute because we believed it was absurd or would produce absurd results is itself illogical. A statute is ambiguous where the language is capable of more than one reasonable construction. Porter v. Board of Trustees, Preston School Dist. No. 201, 141 Idaho 11, 14, 105 P.3d 671, 674 (2004). An unambiguous statute would have only one reasonable interpretation. An alternative interpretation that is unreasonable would not make it ambiguous. In re Application for Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 823-24, 828 P.2d 848, 852-53 (1992). If the only reasonable interpretation were determined to have an absurd result, what other interpretation would be adopted? It would have to be an unreasonable one. We therefore disavow the wording in the Willys Jeep case and similar wording in other cases and decline to address Plaintiffs' argument that Idaho Code section 39-1392b is patently absurd when construed as written.