Court Opinion

ID: 9850844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:03:34.484834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:44.455836
License: Public Domain

*669Andersen, J.—
Facts of Case
The 62nd amendment to the Constitution of the State of Washington sets forth the veto power of the Governor. It provides that a governor "may not object to less than an entire section" of a nonappropriation bill. Const. art. 3, § 12 (amend. 62). We hold that the 62nd Amendment means what it says, and that the Governor's vetoes of less than entire sections of the Motorcycle Dealers' Franchise Act (a nonappropriation bill), enacted at the 1985 regular session, are void.
In 1985 the Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 3333, the Motorcycle Dealers' Franchise Act.1 The act as passed by the Legislature contained 15 numbered sections and many more numbered and lettered subsections. The purpose of the act is to regulate relations between motorcycle dealers and motorcycle manufacturers.
On May 21, 1985, Governor Booth Gardner vetoed certain of the language in sections 3(2), 3(8), 3(16), 4(l)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(l)(g), 4(7), 4(11), 4(17) 4(18), 4(20), 4(21), 4(22), 4(24), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1), 8(2), and 10, and vetoed all of sections 6, 7, 11 and 12. As partially vetoed, the bill became law (RCW 46.94) on July 28, 1985. The Legislature took no action to override the vetoes.
The Washington State Motorcycle Dealers Association (Dealers) brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment declaring void and unconstitutional all of the Governor's vetoes except for those sections he vetoed in their entirety. Named as defendants were the State of Washington, Booth Gardner, as Governor, and the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (Industry), a trade association of motorcycle manufacturers. The trial court also allowed the Washington State Legislature and two members of the Legislature to join as plaintiff-intervenors.
*670The Dealers and the Legislature moved for summary judgment. After considering briefs and hearing oral argument, the trial court upheld the vetoes of language in sections 3(2), 3(16), 4(7), 4(11), 4(17), 4(18), 4(20), 4(21), 4(22), 4(24), 5(4), 5(5) and 10 as valid exercises of the Governor's power. The court also upheld the Governor's vetoes of sections 6, 7, 11 and 12 in their entirety, and to which no appeal has been taken. The court, however, struck down the Governor's vetoes of language in sections 3(8), 4(l)(a), 4(l)(b), 4(l)(c), 4(l)(g), 8(1), and 8(2) as unconstitutional. The Governor and the Industry appeal the portion of the trial court's order invalidating certain vetoes. The Legislature and the Dealers cross-appeal the portion of the order declaring valid partial vetoes of less than entire numbered sections.
A single issue is dispositive.
Issue
Under Const. art. 3, § 12 (amend. 62), were the Govern- or's vetoes of parts of numbered sections of the Motorcycle Dealers' Franchise Act2 valid?
Decision
Conclusion. We answer the question posed by this issue in the negative. Under the veto powers clause of the constitution in its present form (Const, art. 3, § 12 (amend. 62)), gubernatorial vetoes of less than entire sections of nonap-propriation bills are void.
Before the 62nd Amendment was adopted, the veto powers clause of the constitution, Const. art. 3, § 12, provided that the Governor "may object to one or more sections or items". (Italics ours.) The original text of that section of the constitution is set forth in full in the margin.3 Legislative bills are ordinarily divided into separate sections *671clearly labeled "Section 1", "Section 2”, etc. Presumably for this reason, governors through most of our state's history have generally vetoed entire bills, entire sections and entire appropriation items when exercising their veto powers.4
In the 1950's a new trend in the use of gubernatorial partial vetoes emerged, and then in the 1960's and thereafter that trend escalated.5 This resulted in part from the decisions of this court in Cascade Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 176 Wash. 616, 30 P.2d 976 (1934) (holding that a "section" in the original Const. art. 3, § 12 would be construed to mean any portion of a bill with separate, distinct and independent subject matter), and State ex rel. Ruoff v. Rosellini, 55 Wn.2d 554, 348 P.2d 971 (1960) (holding that an "item” under original Const, art. 3, § 12 was not limited to matters in an appropriation bill). This trend peaked in about 1971-72 when the then Governor exercised 149 partial vetoes on bills passed by the 42nd Legislature, 123 of *672which removed less than an entire section from nonappropriation bills, and 26 of which removed less than an entire item from appropriation bills.6
In response to the greatly expanded use of the partial veto, the voters were asked to approve the placement of curbs on this power in the state constitution. The proposed changes were submitted to them in 1974 as Senate Joint Resolution 140. The "Statement for" the constitutional amendment in the Official Voters Pamphlet made clear what was intended:7
Washington is the only state in the nation in which the Governor exercises practically unlimited power to remove portions from laws passed by the Legislature. This "item veto" power has been interpreted by recent Governors to apply to any element of a bill down to a single word.
It empowers our Governors to act in effect as an un-separated third house of the Legislature to alter measures substantially prior to signing them into law. This is contrary to the grant of authority allowed our nations' Presidents under the Federal Constitution — which is to reject entire pieces of legislation by veto, not to change them.

SJR 140 is a moderate compromise proposal passed with bipartisan support. It will not completely eliminate this unparalleled power, but limit it to the veto of sections of bills as well as entire bills, and even provides that budget bills would still be subject to the item veto.

*673(Italics ours.) SJR 140 was adopted by the voters with some 498,745 votes being cast in favor of what is now Amendment 62 to the Constitution of the State of Washington.
The text of Amendment 62 is also set forth in the margin in full.8 The amendment wrought three things. First, it limited use of the item veto to appropriation bills. Second, it added a new express prohibition against partially vetoing anything less than "an entire section" (italics ours) of a nonappropriation bill. And third, it provided the Legislature with authority to reconvene itself into extraordinary session within 45 days after adjournment to override *674vetoes. The case now before us concerns the second of these three changes, the governor's veto power over entire sections of nonappropriation bills.
All of the arguments supporting the Governor's vetoes of less than full sections of the bill in question in this case boil down to a single conclusion — that when the people wrote into the constitution the limitation that the governor "may not object to less than an entire section" of a nonappropriation bill, what they really meant was that the governor may object to less than an entire section of such a bill! To adopt this reasoning would skew the state constitution off the course set by the people and violate the basic constitutional precepts that the constitution means what it says, and when it is not ambiguous there is nothing for the courts to construe.9
Even were we to consider the 62nd Amendment ambiguous, which it is not, it was directly enacted by the voters and must therefore be read "'. . .as the average informed lay voter would read it.'"10 There is no reasonable way that "entire section” in the 62nd Amendment could have been read by an informed lay voter as meaning "part of a section".
The importance of the case before us is that it deals directly with one of the cardinal and fundamental principles of the American constitutional system, both state and federal: the separation of powers doctrine. "It has been declared that the division of governmental powers into executive, legislative, and judicial represents probably the most important principle of government declaring and *675guaranteeing the liberties of the people, and preventing the exercise of autocratic power, and that it is a matter of fundamental necessity, and is essential to the maintenance of a republican form of government." (Footnotes omitted.)11 In this same connection, it is also the law that "American courts are constantly wary not to trench upon the prerogatives of other departments of government or to arrogate to themselves any undue powers, lest they disturb the balance of power; and this principle has contributed greatly to the success of the American system of government and to the strength of the judiciary itself." (Footnote omitted.)12
In the opinion of the people of the State of Washington, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government had gotten out of kilter, and they reacted directly and forcefully to restore that balance when they adopted the 62nd Amendment. By our opinion herein, we honor the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches that the people struck by adopting the 62nd Amendment, and we will not trench upon that balance under the guise of "interpretation" or "construction". Under our state constitution " [a]ll political power is inherent in the people".13 The people have now spoken on this issue; therefore, we must abide by their decision and require that the governor veto entire sections of nonappro-priation bills, not portions of sections. The principal rule of construction we cite in support of this conclusion is the rule of construction provided by the people themselves when they wrote our state constitution:
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
*676(Italics ours.) Const. art. 1, § 29.14 Accordingly, we hold that the constitution mandates voiding all of the Govern- or's vetoes of parts of sections of the nonappropriation bill before us,15 and upholding his vetoes of entire sections of the bill (Laws of 1985, ch. 472).16
It must be conceded that in the past this court has been less than entirely clear or consistent in favoring our governors with guidelines as to what governors constitutionally can and cannot veto. Originally, this court ruled that the affirmative-negative test was to be used. Under that test, the Governor could only exercise the partial veto power in a negative or destructive way, i.e., the veto could only be used to prevent some provision from becoming law, but could not be used to add a new or different result from that which the Legislature intended.17 That test was formulated about 191018 and last applied in 1980 when it was used to uphold the veto of an election provision in a bill creating judgeships.19 Then in 1984, the court entirely abandoned the test, declaring that it had "outlived its usefulness", was subjective, unworkable and that no one could safely predict whether any given partial veto would be upheld or struck *677down.20 As the court also explained when it abandoned the affirmative-negative test, it "is an intrusion into the legislative branch, contrary to the separation of powers doctrine, and substitutes judicial judgment for the judgment of the legislative branch." (Citations omitted.)21
Another test used by this court in the past to determine the validity of partial vetoes to nonappropriation bills is the separate subject test, also mentioned above. Under that test, the focus of the veto is on the subject matter vetoed, with the veto being upheld if the portion vetoed contained separate, distinct and independent subject matter.22 This test is every bit as vague and uncertain as the affirmative-negative test. As one commentator who recently analyzed this issue recommends:23
Just as it abandoned the affirmative-negative test, the court should abandon the separate subject matter test for a section. Both tests have been relied on when the court has apparently not been comfortable with the constitutional allocation of powers, and the application of either test shifts the constitutional balance of legislative power. Moreover, the separate subject matter test is just as flawed in practical terms as the affirmative-negative test. It is equally difficult to apply and is no more predictable,
It is this "separate subject" test which the trial court applied to uphold some of the vetoes of less than full sections of the bill in this case. In deciding whether to perpetuate this test, we heed the words of the learned trial judge who wrestled with the separate subject test in earnestly *678endeavoring to apply it in this case. As he candidly declared in his Memorandum Opinion:
This task has been, frankly, extremely difficult, because of the degree of subjectivity inherent in each determination of what constitutes a separate subject and, thus, an "entire section." The Court is sympathetic to the argument of plaintiffs that the "separate subject" test lends itself to line-drawing of a type that renders pre-dictibility [sic] difficult.
(Italics ours.)
We conclude that there is no longer valid reason to perpetuate an outmoded subjective test like this that renders predictability virtually impossible. When this court recently discarded the "affirmative-negative" test after many years of frustration on the part of all concerned, it leveled a number of criticisms at the test. Each of those criticisms is equally applicable to the "separate subject" test. The "separate subject" test too has outlived its usefulness because it too is "unworkable and subjective", with "no standards to predict"24 whether any given partial veto will be upheld or struck down; and it "is an intrusion into the legislative branch, contrary to the separation of powers doctrine, and substitutes judicial judgment for the judgment of the legislative branch." (Citations omitted.)25 We agree with the aforementioned commentator who summed up and recommended as follows:26
Court challenges to specific partial vetoes began as early as 1910 and continue to occur today. The Washington Supreme Court has evaluated the constitutionality of partial vetoes both in terms of the express restraints in the constitution and in terms of restraints the court found to be necessarily implied. The tests developed by the court have been difficult to apply. Further, they have not enhanced predictability or efficiency in the legislative *679process. Changes in the partial veto power found in the express language of the 62nd amendment eliminate the need for semantic tests of validity, at least for the section veto power. One such test, the affirmative-negative test, has recently been abolished. The court should do the same with its separate subject test for determining what a "section" is.
(Footnotes omitted.)
We now decline to continue to use either of the subjective semantic tests this court has seen fit to resort to in the past. They are no longer necessary or justified. The 62nd Amendment obviates the need for either of those artificial tests where, as here, vetoes of parts of nonappropriation bills are concerned. Henceforth, should a governor in such situations wish to veto anything in any section, the governor should veto the "entire section" containing the material considered to be objectionable; then the Legislature may or may not attempt to override the gubernatorial veto as it deems fit.
With regard to the anxiety expressed in Cascade Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 176 Wash. 616, 30 P.2d 976 (1934), that the Governor's veto power over a bill might possibly be frustrated through "the artful arrangement of the subject matter and an arbitrary division into sections,"27 we fail to see that as a serious problem. Because of the liberal provisions of the veto power that are still contained in the 62nd Amendment, the Governor of the State of Washington is not bound (as the governors of most other states are hound) to veto an entire nonappropriation bill but can simply veto any one or more sections of such a bill which the governor determines to contain objectional provisions. We believe this is obviously what the people meant should henceforth be done when they adopted the 62nd Amendment. It would be an unfortunate alternative for this court to spend the next century of statehood wrestling with one unsatisfactory semantic veto test after another, as it has for much of the first century of statehood, to the continued *680frustration of both the executive and legislative branches of state government.
In only one case since the people adopted the 62nd Amendment, with its requirement that the governor "may not object to less than an entire section", has this court followed the "separate subject" test. That was in Fain v. Chapman, 94 Wn.2d 684, 619 P.2d 353 (1980) and involved a unique 1-sentence bill creating a number of judgeships. Included within the bill's single sentence was an election date for the new judges. This court applied the "separate subject" test and upheld the veto of the election provision28 without, to our view, carefully considering or analyzing the new constitutional language delineating the governor's veto power and without reviewing the intent and history of SJR 140. Fain does not now prevent this court from abandoning the discredited and no longer necessary "separate subject” test. We have no duty to yield to Fain where to do so perpetuates error.29 As we perceive our obligation, it is to now set the record straight, and declare that when the people adopted the 62nd Amendment in 1974, they said what they meant and meant exactly what they said. We overrule Fain. To the extent that overruling Fain establishes a new principle of law, our ruling is prospective only.30
We do not in any way fault any governor, past or present, with exercising the veto power to the maximum extent he or she considers appropriate. This is because in the final analysis, "[t]he ultimate power to interpret, construe and enforce the constitution of this State belongs to the *681judiciary"31 and it is the judiciary that has in the past been sending mixed and confusing signals to our governors concerning the manner in which their veto power was to be constitutionally exercised.32 It is our purpose herein to clear up the confusions of yesteryear and avoid reopening old wounds between the executive and legislative branches of state government or perpetuating the possibility of future misunderstandings between them. The people themselves settled these differences when they adopted the 62nd Amendment in 1974.
For the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to void all of the Governor's vetoes of less than an entire section of the bill before us.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part.33
Pearson, C.J., and Brachtenbach, Dore, Callow, and Durham, JJ., concur.

 Taws of 1985, ch. 472; Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 3333, 49th Legislature (1982).

 Laws of 1985, ch. 472.

 Original text — Const, art. 3, § 12. "Veto Power — Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to *671that house in which it shall have originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon the journal and proceed to reconsider. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law; but in all cases the vote of both houses shall be determined by the yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for or against the bill shall be entered upon the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days, Sundays excepted, after it shall be presented to him, it shall become a law without his signature, unless the general adjournment shall prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless the governor, within ten days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, shall file such bill with his objections thereto, in the office of secretary of state, who shall lay the same before the legislature at its next session in like manner as if it had been returned by the governor. If any bill presented to the governor contain several sections or items, he may object to one or more sections or items while approving other portions of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the section, or sections; item or items to which he objects and the reasons therefor, and the section or sections, item or items so objected to, shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's objection, as hereinbefore provided." (Italics ours.)

 Burke, The Partial Veto Power: Legislation by the Governor, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 603, 606-07 (1974).

 See Burke, 49 Wash. L. Rev. at 606-08, 616 (appendix).

 Burke, 49 Wash. L. Rev. at 607.

 Statement for Senate Joint Resolution 140, Official Voters Pamphlet (General Election 1974) (part). The bipartisan committee for SJR 140 who were signators of the "for" statement in the Official Voters Pamphlet, were as follows:
"Committee For Senate Joint Resolution 140:
"Harry B. Lewis, State Senator, Republican and Allen Thompson, State Representative, Democrat.
"Advisory Committee: James K. Bender, Executive Secretary, King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO; William E. Burch, Chairman, Association of Washington Business; Henry R. Dunn, Prosecuting Attorney, Cowlitz County; Bruce Hei-berg, Publisher, the Bellevue American; Blair Patrick, President, Washington Education Association."

 "Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor. If he approves, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon the journal and proceed to reconsider. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the vote of both houses shall be determined by the yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for or against the bill shall he entered upon the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days, Sundays excepted, after it shall be presented to him, it shall become a law without his signature, unless the general adjournment shall prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless the governor, within twenty days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, shall file such bill with his objections thereto, in the office of secretary of state, who shall lay the same before the legislature at its next session in like manner as if it had been returned by the governor: Provided, That within forty-five days next after the adjournment, Sundays excepted, the legislature may, upon petition by a two-thirds majority or more of the membership of each house, reconvene in extraordinary session, not to exceed five days duration, solely to reconsider any hills vetoed. If any bill presented to the governor contain several sections or appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contain one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items. In case of objection he shall append to the hill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the section or sections, appropriation item or items to which he objects and the reasons therefor; and the section or sections, appropriation item or items so objected to shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's objection, as hereinbefore provided. The provisions of Article II, section 12 insofar as they are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. [Amendment 62, 1974 Senate Joint Resolution No. 140. Approved November 5, 1974.]" (Third italics ours.) Const. art. 3, § 12 (amend. 62).

 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 16, at 63 (1984); 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 85, at 411-12 (1979); Seattle Sch. Dist. 1 v. State, 90 Wn.2d 476, 500, 585 P.2d 71 (1978); Anderson v. Chapman, 86 Wn.2d 189, 191, 543 P.2d 229 (1975); see also Britton v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 104 Wn.2d 518, 528, 707 P.2d 125 (1985) (insurance contract); PUD 1 v. Public Empl. Relations Comm'n, 110 Wn.2d 114, 118, 750 P.2d 1240 (1988) (statute).

 Estate of Turner v. Department of Rev., 106 Wn.2d 649, 654, 724 P.2d 1013 (1986), quoting In re Estate of Hitchman, 100 Wn.2d 464, 467, 670 P.2d 655 (1983).

 16 Am. Jur. 2d § 296, at 808; see Seattle Sch. Dist. 1, at 505-06.

 16 Am. Jur. 2d § 309, at 829.

 Const. art. 1, § 1.

 See Seattle Sch. Dist. 1, at 500.

 The following should thus be declared void:
(1) The partial veto of section 3, subsections 2, 8 and 16;
(2) the partial veto of section 4, subsections 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(g), 7, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24;
(3) the partial veto of section 5, subsections 4 and 5;
(4) the partial veto of section 8, subsections 1 and 2; and
(5) the partial veto of section 10.

 As the trial court ruled, the Governor validly vetoed sections 6, 7, 11 and 12 in their entirety, but that part of the decision was not appealed from by any party.

 Washington Ass'n of Apartment Ass'ns v. Evans, 88 Wn.2d 563, 565-66, 564 P.2d 788 (1977).

 Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. Lyttaker, 59 Wash. 76, 86, 109 P. 316 (1910).

 Hallin v. Trent, 94 Wn.2d 671, 678, 619 P.2d 357 (1980).

 Washington Fed'n of State Employees, Coun. 28 v. State, 101 Wn.2d 536, 546, 682 P.2d 869 (1984).

 Washington Fed'n, at 546.

 Cascade Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 176 Wash. 616, 619-20, 30 P.2d 976 (1934).

 Note, Washington's Partial Veto Power: Judicial Construction of Article III, Section 12, 10 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 699, 713-14 (1987).

 See Washington Fed'n, at 546.

 Washington Fed'n, at 546.

 10 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. at 702-03.

 Cascade Tel. Co., at 619.

 Fain v. Chapman, 94 Wn.2d 684, 688-89, 619 P.2d 353 (1980).

 See State ex rel. Bloedel-Donovan Lumber Mills v. Savidge, 144 Wash. 302, 309-10, 258 P. 1 (1927).

 In reaching our decision to apply this ruling prospectively only (except as to the instant case), we have given full consideration to the three factors set forth in National Can Corp. v. Department of Rev., 109 Wn.2d 878, 881, 749 P.2d 1286 (1988). See also In re Marriage of Ortiz, 108 Wn.2d 643, 647-49, 740 P.2d 843 (1987).

 Seattle Sch. Dist. 1, at 496.

 As the Affidavit of Governor Booth Gardner filed herein explains, his office, "relied upon Fain v. Chapman, 94 Wn.2d 684, 619 P.2d 353 (1980) ..."

 See footnotes 15 and 16.