Court Opinion

ID: 9792114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:23:17.759257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.604229
License: Public Domain

*569MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
concurring specially in the result.
I agree that the restraining order should be made permanent, but not for the reasons given in the foregoing opinion. I do not believe it is necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to the governor. I think this follows for two reasons.
First, section 1, of Article V, of our Constitution, specifically states that “The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures referred to the people by the legislative assembly”. While strictly speaking a proposed constitutional amendment may not be a “measure” within the meaning of section 1, of Article V, I think it could well be considered as coming within the spirit of that section.
Second, the Constition provides a method by which it may be amended. Section 9, Article XIX. It is a special provision relating to that subject and is not controlled by general provisions in the Constitution and particularly not by section 40 of Article V.
Section 9, of Article XIX, was followed here, so far as obtaining the necessary two-thirds vote of the members of both Houses was concerned. It then became the duty of the secretary of state to cause the amendment to be published as therein directed. It makes no provision for the submission of the proposed amendment to the governor.
In construing a Constitution the statutory rules of construction apply. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 15, p. 71. And special provisions control over general ones. Id. § 25, p. 98. Here the special provision dealing with amendments to the Constitution was followed and that was sufficient.
I concur in the conclusion that the injunction should issue because I think the proposed amendment violates that part of section 9, Article XIX, of the Constitution, which provides: “Should more amendments than one be submitted at the same *570election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished by numbers or otherwise that each can be voted upon separately.”
No useful purpose would be subserved in elaborating upon this subject. The statement of the facts in the foregoing opinion of Mr. Justice Bottomly shows that there is more than one proposition proposed to be submitted' to the voters but all contained in the one amendment. The voters then must either accept or reject all of them together without the right to accept one and reject the rest, contrary to the above-quoted provision in section 9, Article XIX.
I thint, too, it should be said that generally the courts should not interfere with the legislative process prior to its completion, 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 151 (1), p. 724, note 38, as we are doing here.
So far as I am concerned, I justify my position in this particular case because in so doing we are settling a question of vital public concern and in addition preventing the waste of taxpayers’ money, a subject that ought to receive consideration by all departments of government, state and federal.