Court Opinion

ID: 9579976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:34.938431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:56.488349
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the filing of explanatory statements on July 8,1994, for an election to be held on November 8,1994, was not timely. I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the majority has adopted a strained construction of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-707.01 (Reissue 1993), a construction which prevents the inclusion of the legislative resolutions on the November 8 ballot.
It is undisputed that the word “month” means calendar month unless the context is shown to intend otherwise. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-801(13) (Reissue 1993). Thus, the sole issue is whether July 8 is 4 calendar months prior to November 8. The term “calendar month” was defined in State v. Oldfield, 236 Neb. 433, 461 N.W.2d 554 (1990). A calendar month denotes a period terminating with the day of the succeeding month numerically corresponding to the day of its beginning, less one. If there is no corresponding day of the succeeding month, the calendar month terminates with the last day thereof. For example, the calendar month beginning January 1 denotes the period terminating with the day of February 1, less one, or January 31. Thus, a filing on January 1 is 1 calendar month prior to February 1.
The majority concludes that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2221 (Reissue 1989) applies in determining the filing deadline. I disagree. Section 25-2221 does not apply in this situation. Time computation under § 25-2221 relates only to the “period of time within which an act is to be done in any action or proceeding____” (Emphasis supplied.) The situation in the case at bar is not an action or proceeding as those terms are defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-520.02 (Reissue 1989), which states: “The term action or proceeding means all actions and proceedings in any court and any action or proceeding before the governing bodies of municipal corporations, public corporations, and political subdivisions for the equalization of *820special assessments or assessing the cost of any public improvement.” (Emphasis supplied.) The act of submitting explanatory statements, as required by § 32-707.01, is not an action or proceeding, but is a purely legislative act.
The majority finds that § 25-520.02 does not define an action or proceeding for purposes of § 25-2221, but that § 25-520.02 is limited by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-520.03 (Reissue 1989). The Legislature, in the very section relied on by the majority, states that the definition of the phrase “action or proceeding” is one of statewide concern. The majority does not consider Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-522 (Reissue 1989), which states that it is the right of any plaintiff or petitioner, when necessary, to obtain service by publication. Read in the context of § 25-522, the second sentence of § 25-520.03 merely affirms that all parties who may sue and be sued shall be given the benefit of service by publication. It does not restrict the scope of § 25-520.02. The definition of the phrase “action or proceeding” contained in § 25-520.02 applies to § 25-2221.
I also believe that § 25-2221 does not apply because under § 32-707.01, the computation of time operates retroactively from election day, while under § 25-2221, the computation operates prospectively from the date of an act. In my opinion, the two methods of computing time are irreconcilable.
As § 25-2221 is applied to actions and proceedings, the day of the past act is excluded. Section 25-2221 computes a deadline for filing from the date of a previous act. For example, the time for filing a notice of appeal, which must be filed within 30 days of a final order, would not include the date of the final order as a part of the 30 days for filing. The counting to determine the end of the 30-day period begins with the day after the previous act.
In the case at bar, § 32-707.01 requires the Legislature to file the statements “not less than four months prior to the general election.” The counting is based upon a date certain in the future. Section 32-707.01 does not mandate excluding the date the statements are filed when computing the 4-month period. A statement filed on July 8 is not filed less than 4 months prior to November 8. November 8 is the date in the future which determines the last date on which the statements can be filed. *821November 8 is excluded because the filing must be prior to that date, but in my opinion, there is no rational basis for excluding July 8, the date the statements were filed.
A similar question was addressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Pafford v. Hall, Secretary of State, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950). The Arkansas Constitution directed that the petition be filed “ ‘not less than four months’ ” before the election. Id. at 739, 233 S.W.2d at 74. The election was scheduled to be held on November 7, and it was argued that the filing of the petition on July 7 was 1 day too late. The court rejected that argument and stated:
That result can be reached only by excluding both the first and the last day, and would involve saying that January 1 is less than a month before February 1. The law does not care about fractions of a day, however, and we have consistently held that only one of the two days need be excluded.
Id. I agree with the Arkansas court’s reasoning. A filing on January 1 is not less than a month prior to February 1. A filing on July 8 is not less than 4 months prior to November 8.
In the case at bar, § 32-707.01 uses as its reference point a date certain in the future, the day of the election, November 8, 1994. The statute requires filing of explanatory statements 4 months prior to the day of the election. For purposes of this statute, the first month was July 8 to August 7,1994; the second month was August 8 to September 7; the third month was September 8 to October 7; and the fourth month was October 8 to November 7. November 7 is the day before election day. Thus, July 8, 1994, was the last possible day on which the explanatory statements could have been filed. In my opinion, the explanatory statements were timely filed with the Secretary of State.
Hastings, C. J., and White, J., join in this dissent.