Court Opinion

ID: 9696082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:35:45.70669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.296927
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(dissenting).
It is my view that Winget v. Holm, 187 Minn. 78, 244 N. W. 331, and the authorities discussed in it require a result contrary to the one reached by the majority. In that case we held that the provisions in a proposed amendment for the taxation of national banking institutions and the taxation of incomes are two related and dependent propositions germane to the purpose of widening the field of taxation. The proposal before us, however, may be clearly distinguished. It presents to the voter two unrelated subjects: (1) Extending the term of any session of the legislature for an additional 30 days; and (2) permitting legislators to serve as notaries public and seek election to other offices. These objectives are not germane to a common purpose. The proposal embraces two subjects having distinct and separate purposes.
*41While the object of both changes may be desirable, the fact remains that the voter is denied the right which Minn. Const, art. 14, § 1, gives him to vote on each separately. The wisdom and purpose of this section has not been impaired by time or conditions. It is as conducive to good government today as when it was originally adopted. As late as 1948 the voters of the state rejected a proposal to amend it which would have provided “two or more alterations or amendments to the Constitution may be submitted at one time without requiring that the voters shall vote for or against each separately.” L. 1947, c. 640, § 2. It is the design of art. 14, § 1, that the voter should not be placed in a position where to secure an amendment which he feels is necessary or expedient he will be required to accept one which he does not want. Nor should a desirable change in our constitution fail because a voter will not accept it at the price of voting for one he deems unwise. If the legislature desires to amend the constitution piecemeal rather than attempt the more cumbersome method of complete revision the requirement of stating the subject of the alteration or amendment separately should be strictly followed.
Nor do I agree with the view of the majority that in determining the rational relationship of two or more propositions the court may weigh their relative importance. The procedure and requirements established for the amendment of the fundamental law are mandatory and must be strictly followed in order to effect a valid amendment. It is not for the court to consider the wisdom or expediency of changes in the fundamental law. The question for the court to decide is whether the legislature in proposing the amendment has -observed constitutional requirements. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Mr. Justice Frank T. Gallagher took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
*42Appendix
“Extra Session
Chapter 89 — H. F. No. 11
[Not Coded]
“An act proposing an amendment to Article IV, Sections 1 and 9 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, relating to legislative sessions and qualifications of legislators for other elective offices. “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota:
“Section 1. An amendment to Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the state is hereby proposed to the people of the state for their approval or rejection, which section when amended shall read as follows:
“Section 1. The legislature shall consist of the Senate and House of Representatives, which shall meet biennially at the seat of government of the state, at such time as shall be prescribed by law, but no session shall exceed the term of ninety (90) legislative days unless the session is extended by law enacted at the regular session of the legislature immediately preceding the session for which the extension is made and then only for a maximum of thirty (30) additional days. No new bills shall be introduced in either branch of the legislature after the seventieth (70th) legislative day except as authorized by joint rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.
“Sec. 2. An amendment to Article IV, Section 9, of the Constitution of the state is hereby proposed to the people of the state for their approval or rejection, which section when amended shall read as follows:
“Sec. 9. No senator or representative shall, during the term for which he is elected, hold any office under the authority of the United States or the State of Minnesota, except that of notary public, but a senator or representative may be elected to any office for which he is otherwise qualified and when elected, his term as senator or representative shall terminate upon his qualifying for the office to which he was elected and a vacancy in his office in the legislature shall thereupon occur.
“Sec. 3. This proposed amendment shall be submitted to the people *43of the state for their approval or rejection at the general election for the year 1960 as Constitutional Amendment No. 1 in the maimer provided by law for the submission of amendments to the constitution. The votes thereon shall be counted, canvassed, and the results proclaimed as provided by law. The ballots used at the election shall have printed thereon the following:
“ ‘Shall Article IV, Sections 1 and 9 of the Constitution be amended to provide for extending by law the regular legislative session for not exceeding thirty days, for restricting the time during which bills may be introduced; and for setting qualifications for legislators to be candidates for other elective offices?
Yes........
No........’
“Approved July 2, 1959.”