Court Opinion

ID: 9576900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:29:55.919967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:42.545264
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion, which also speaks for me, but I believe that I must express my confusion as to whether this exercise was at all necessary. Perhaps there is an *363easy answer to resolve my confusion concerning the matters discussed in this separate opinion, but in the limited time this matter has been before us I have not found it.
As observed by the majority, 296 Or at 354, a companion bill “enacted” a sales tax. Enrolled House Bill 3026,1983 Special Session, consisting of 64 printed pages, was passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate on October 10, 1983, and signed by the Governor on October 12, 1983. The Final Legislative Calendar for that special session, according to its cover, “Published Under Direction of President of the Senate and Speaker of the House,” states that the Enrolled House Bill 3026 is to be denominated “Chapter 3, First Special Session 1983 Oregon Laws” and that its “Effective date” is October 11,1983.
Article IV, section 28, of the Oregon Constitution provides that no act shall take effect until 90 days after the end of the session at which it is passed unless an emergency is declared in the preamble or in the body of the law. If there is such a declaration in House Bill 3026, I have quite simply missed it. Moreover, Article IX, section la, proscribes the declaration of an emergency “in any act regulating taxation or exemption.” I perceive House Bill 3026 to be such an act. Furthermore, Article V, section 15b, of the Oregon Constitution states that a bill which has passed the legislative assembly “shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the governor; if he approve, he shall sign it.” According to the final calendar, this bill became effective the day before the governor signed it. Apparently it is now to be considered a part of our statutory law, however, for it has been denominated chapter 3, First Special Session 1983 Oregon Laws.
The foregoing would make it appear that House Bill 3026 has become law in the contemplation of the legislature. The language of Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 30, signed by the President and the Speaker on October 11,1983, and filed with the Secretary of State on the same day, raises a question, however, as to that apparent fact. Paragraph 2 of SJR 30 proposes the addition of a new article to the Oregon Constitution to be known as Article IX-B. Just what is to be the text of Article IX-B is not at all clear, for Paragraph 2 states that the new article is to “read:” and then states three sections of text with no quotation marks. It does not seem reasonable that the *364matter contained in Sections 2 and 3 is to be a part of the new article. In any event, Section 1(8) provides that “sections 1 to 166 of House Bill 3026, as passed by the first special session of the Sixty-Second Legislative Assembly, shall become law on the effective date of this amendment.” The effective date of the amendment cannot be ahead of an election by the people to adopt the amendment.
Paragraph 3 of SJR 30 provides in part:
“(1) Senate Joint Resolution 30 (1983 first special session) is rescinded on March 10,1984, unless:
* * * *
“(b) Senate Bill 792 and House Bill 3026 both become law.”
March 10, 1984, is a date well ahead of any date on which an election may be held for the adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment.
It appears that the entire SJR 30 will be “rescinded” not “as of’ but “on” March 10, 1984, because a major part of House Bill 3026 cannot have “become law” by that date.
If SJR 30 is rescinded on March 10, 1984, I do not venture what may be the fate of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of SJR 30, although it would seem to me that the legislature meant for the people to vote on the constitutional amendment proposed in Paragraph 4 on the date proposed in Paragraph 5, no matter what the fate of the sales tax and spending limit amendments.
As I have stated above, the solution to the problems I see may be easy, but I do not readily grasp that solution at this moment. If SJR 30 is “rescinded” on March 10, 1984, however, it appears quite useless to hold an election on the resolution’s proposed amendments at some later date.
These matters are not before us under the terms of House Bill 3027 (Or Laws, First Special Session, ch 4), section 8, and under the pleadings in this case. There is no occasion for this court to seek the solution in this case.