Opinion ID: 852961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Legislative History of the Amendment

Text: We are directed to no helpful comments from the unknown author of Section 14 and no legislative history. In addition to relying on the text of Section 14, Plaintiffs direct us to a 1970 Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission prepared by the Legislative Council explaining the 1972 amendment. Plaintiffs point out that the Commission, in describing the amendment, stated that it requires the Governor to return to the General Assembly on its first day in session a bill vetoed during a recess or adjournment .... Ind. Legislative Council, Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission 10 (1970). The Court of Appeals relied heavily on this report for its conclusion that the drafters intended not merely to impose a deadline for vetoes, but also to require a return on a specific date. D & M Healthcare, Inc. v. O'Bannon, 793 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). On its face, the text of the Report would appear to suggest the view that the 1972 Amendment to Section 14 was intended to provide a specific date, not a deadline, for the return of a veto. The Report did not address the issue whether physical delivery before the first day created a returned bill. The quoted phrase is simply a description of the amendment in the course of a discussion of the issue. The Court of Appeals apparently accepted Plaintiffs' assertion that the Commission was the author of the constitutional language in question. But the Report does not have the status of an authoritative commentary on this constitutional amendment. Nor is it a report from the proposer of the revision to Section 14. The Commission's project to study the Indiana Constitution and recommend changes began in 1967 and the Commission ultimately recommended twenty constitutional amendments between 1967 and 1969. Report, supra, at 1. At the time the Commission submitted its 1970 report, the amendment to Section 14 had already been passed by the 1969 General Assembly, Indiana House Journal at 1980 (1969), and required passage by the General Assembly to be elected in November 1970 before it would be submitted to the voters in 1972 pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1 of the Constitution. In the 1970 Report that Plaintiffs cite, the amendment to Article V, Section 14 was expressly excluded from those identified as recommended by the Commission. The Commission specifically noted in its introduction to the 1970 Report that the 1969 General Assembly had already approved nine of the Commission's proposals. In a footnote, the Commission added: A tenth amendment, also approved, was submitted by an individual legislator and resulted from the court decision nullifying the use of the pocket veto. The ruling was issued after the Commission had concluded its report. Report, supra, at 1. This footnote plainly refers to the amendment that became current Section 14 and disclaims the Commission's parentage of it. If there were any doubt on this point, it is removed by a review of the 1969 Report, which was the Commission's first official document and lists a number of recommended amendments. None of these affected Section 14. See Constitutional Revision Comm'n, Biennial Report to the Indiana General Assembly 1-4 (1969). Thus, although the Report may approach the status of an official commentary on the Commission's recommendations for constitutional amendments pending at the time, the Commission's description of Section 14 is at most a contemporaneous account of the amendment to Section 14, which did not originate with the Commission. Plaintiffs also cite a portion of the Report that described the question resolved by the then-pending amendment to Section 14 as: If the legislative sessions amendment [(then an amendment pending to prevent recesses during session) ] is approved, the General Assembly could schedule recesses of one week or more during the session. How would this affect the time limits? Should the Governor return vetoed legislation during a recess or wait until the first day in session? Report, supra, at 11. Once again, the Commission did not address the effect of a delivery of a bill before the first day and did not directly answer the question it posed. Rather, it simply made clear that a bill can be killed only through exercise of the veto. Report, supra, at 11. It did not address the mechanics of how a veto is delivered other than in its passing description of the amendment. We think the Commission's observations on Section 14 are shaped by the same mindset that generated the choice of language for Section 14. The Commission's references to recess in context are to recesses for a week or more within a session, as well as to adjournment between sessions. Because the pre-1972 Constitution required the veto in three days from presentation, a recess during session would be problematic without the amendment to Section 14. The amendment was to make clear that a pocket veto would not be effective during a recess. In sum, the Commission's observations on the amendment to Section 14, which was not among its proposals, are little more than a recitation of the language of the then-pending amendment viewed through the lens of the then-current understanding of when a return could first be accomplished, and addressing issues different from the one presented here. Finally, Plaintiffs cite a pamphlet given to voters describing the amendment to Section 14. The reason given for the amendment was that No specific time of return is prescribed [in the 1851 Constitution],... and it is unclear when it should be returned and, further, what the effect of failure to return such legislation would be; would it be killed or could it be acted upon at a later time, if returned? Ind. Legislative Council, Five Questions for Hoosier Voters 10 (1972). Plaintiffs argue that this statement, along with the language of the amendment, told voters that the amendment was to set a date certain upon which a governor has to return a vetoed bill. But all this pamphlet says is that the amendment (1) sets a deadline for exercising the veto, and (2) makes clear that a governor could not veto by failing to return a bill as governors had in the past through the pocket veto. Questions for Voters, supra, at 9-11. It does not state that a governor must return a vetoed bill on a date certain.