Court Opinion

ID: 9633444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:47:53.743028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:35.596794
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur in the result of the ultimate holdings of the majority as to the fate of H.B. 1743, i.e. no part of it became law and the fate of H.B. 1271, i.e. only distinct items of appropriations not disapproved by the Governor became law. I also concur in that part of the opinion that holds the Governor does not possess a line item veto over parts of general legislation presented to him in one bill, whether containing one constitutional subject or more than one. I, however, cannot agree with much of the rationale of the majority, nor its overruling of State ex rel. Wiseman v. Oklahoma Board of Corrections, 614 P.2d 551 (Okla. 1978).
The majority applies to H.B. 1743 (a bill it assumes contains nothing but general legislation) part of the Wiseman decision that recognizes a general legislation bill must be vetoed or approved in toto pursuant to the mandate of OKLA. CONST, art. 6, § 11. In that the Governor purported to veto the first two sections of the bill, but not the third, none of the bill became law. Although the majority completely overrules Wiseman they admit it accurately described the limits of the veto powers of the Governor under § 11 when presented a bill containing only general legislation. In other words, the Governor does not have any line item veto power under § 11. 614 P.2d at 555. The majority continues to adhere to this view in the instant case. Thus, I fail to see why anything in regard to the controversy involving H.B. 1743 requires overruling Wiseman as to its analysis of § 11 when that case correctly determined the Governor does not have line item veto power under § 11 when presented with a bill containing only, general legislation, something the majority admits is a correct exposition of the law.
The majority, however, as I read the opinion, determines in part they must overrule Wiseman because it somehow decided we would never rule on a one-subject violation argument made pursuant to either OKLA. CONST, art. 5, § 57 or the last sentence of OKLA. CONST, art. 5, § 56 prior to addressing the Governor’s veto powers. We neither expressly or impliedly (as the majority says) so ruled. Although one-subject arguments based on both §§ 56 and 57 were made in Wiseman we did not reach them because of no necessity to do so, as was clearly explained. We said:
Respondent argues that sec. 17 of HB 1567 bears no legitimate connection with or natural relation to the appropriations made by HB 1567, or for that matter, any of the general legislation sections of the bill. Respondent contends sec. 17 is invalid under the one subject standard set forth in sections 56 and 57 of Art. V, Okl.Const. In view of our reaching the conclusion heretofore set forth and for the further reason neither party contends the remainder of HB 1567 is unconstitutional, we will not consider or determine whether HB 1567 contravenes sections 56 and 57, supra. See Schwartz v. Diehl, Okl., 568 P.2d 280 (1977), wherein we said that Courts will pass upon the constitutionality of a statute only when it is necessary to a determination of the merits of the case, (emphasis added)
614 P.2d at 557.
As can be seen from the emphasized portion of the quote, neither party in Wise-man claimed any of the items of appropriation contained in H.B. 1567 were unconstitutional. Nothing else could be meant by the words “the remainder of HB 1567” because after we decided none of the general legislation sections became law because of the improper attempt to exercise a line item veto in contravention of § 11, nothing remained of the bill except the *706appropriation sections. Thus, in my view, it was not error to determine there was no necessity to decide the one-subject issue because no party to the action claimed the appropriation sections were rendered unconstitutional thereby. If we would have decided the issue it would have been on our own, with no insistence from either party, something I believe is contrary to well-settled constitutional jurisprudence expressed in Wiseman, that courts should normally pass on “the constitutionality of a statute only when it is necessary to a determination of the merits of the case”. Id. at 557. This determination in Wiseman is surely not, as the majority says, an implied ruling we will never reach a one-subject issue in a case that involves the Governor’s veto powers. It is exactly what the majority in Wiseman said it was, a determination there was no necessity to decide the one-subject issue to rule on the merits of the case.
The majority also says we must overrule Wiseman because it “failed to adequately curb logrolling and other legislative attempts at veto-proofing bills”. I simply do not understand such logic. As noted above, Wiseman properly did not decide a constitutional issue because there was no necessity to decide it in that particular case. In other words, we had no occasion there to contend with the one-subject mandate of §§ 56 and 57 or the issue of logrolling. Very simply, nothing in that case cried out for this Court to expound on its views concerning logrolling or veto-proofing of bills, when it was not necessary to deal with these issues and, as noted, under well-recognized constitutional jurisprudence would have been improper for us to do so. I am unfamiliar with the doctrine espoused by the majority, that a case admittedly decided correctly by this Court on the merits is subject to being overruled because it went no farther to decide a constitutional issue concerning remaining legislation which no party to the case claimed was unconstitutional.
In regard to H.B. 1743, in that no part of the bill became law because of the improper attempt of the Governor to veto a part of the bill, we also have no occasion here to decide the constitutionality of that bill. This, however, does not mean we condone legislative logrolling or we would not condemn it in a proper case or controversy. Had the Governor approved the entire bill we surely could have grappled with the one-subject issue in a case brought by an aggrieved agency that was unsatisfied by the space allocation provisions of sections one and two thereof. Further, application of Wiseman to H.B. 1743, gives little solace to those in favor of legislative logrolling. Under that case no part of the bill becomes law, even though approved by both houses of the legislative branch of government. Assuming it had become law by the Governor’s approval and someone successfully challenged the enactment, surely one proper remedy under OKLA. CONST, art. 5, § 57, would be to strike down the entire enactment as unconstitutional, the same result reached under the teaching of Wiseman.
While I may agree with the majority the bills before us are multi-subject and violate the one-subject rule of OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 57,1 we should only be deciding the *707issue when it is determinative of the outcome of the case. To dispose of the Attorney General’s argument supporting line item veto power for the Governor when he is presented with multi-subject general legislation requires us to only assume the bills are multi-subject.
It is also my view the majority is led to the mistaken view Wiseman must be overruled because it gives much too much emphasis to the relationship between the one-subject rule and the Governor’s veto power. I do not deny there is a practical relationship between the one-subject rule and the Governor’s veto power. See Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078, 240 Cal.Rptr. 569, 578, 742 P.2d 1290, 1299 (1987). However, our cases have made it quite clear the primary purpose of the prohibition against multi-subject bills is to prevent legislative logrolling, i.e. putting legislators in a position of having to vote for one bill which contains more than one constitutional subject for the purpose of garnering the necessary legislative votes for the various subjects, when one or more of the subjects which constitutionally should have been placed in separate bills, could not alone garner the necessary votes for passage by the legislative branch of government. We said this succinctly as early as 1908 in In Re County Com’rs, 22 Okla. 435, 98 P. 557, 558 (1908):
The abuses which called [§ 57] into existence are clearly understood, and are twofold. Each subject brought into the deliberation of the legislative department of the government is to be voted on singly, without having associated with it any other measure to give it strength. Experience had shown that measures having no common purpose, and each wanting sufficient support on its merits to secure its enactment, have been carried through legislative bodies and enacted into laws, when neither measure could command or merit the approval of a majority of that body.2
To me, it would, thus, be inappropriate to definitively determine the multi-subject question based on the supposed relationship between the one-subject mandate of § 57 and the Governor’s veto power.
Disposition as to H.B. 1271 also does not require the overruling of Wiseman because contrary to the majority’s application of Wiseman to that bill, that case does not control the disposition here under the majority’s own interpretation of the nature of the bill. The majority says “H.B. 1271 is a general appropriation bill with general legislation provisions rolled into it”. Assuming the bill is what the majority says it is, disposition here is settled by other prior case law. Although the result here would be the same as in Wiseman, a different analysis would be appropriate. The appropriate analysis would not, however, approximate the result the majority says they will follow in the future, i.e. the entire enactment would be rendered unconstitutional and is required to be treated as such by the Governor.3
In State v. Carter, 167 Okla. 32, 27 P.2d 617 (1933), we were faced with a situation *708where the general appropriation bill was deemed by us to contain general legislation. We did not there find it necessary to determine the entire enactment was unconstitutional as the majority will apparently do in the future. We upheld the appropriation at issue even though we held general legislation in the bill was invalid because OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 56 positively and unambiguously prohibits general legislation in the general appropriation bill. Id. 27 P.2d at 624-625, 627. We upheld the appropriation because we were able to determine that without the general legislation the appropriation at issue was separate and distinct from the general legislation provision so that it was clear or could be presumed, the Legislature would have enacted it anyway had it known the general legislation was invalid because improperly contained in the bill in violation of § 56.4 Id. at 627. Thus, assuming the majority is correct H.B. 1271 is a general appropriation bill with general legislation rolled into it, the appropriations are valid if it is clear or if it can be presumed the Legislature would have passed the appropriations anyway had it known the unrelated general legislation contained therein was invalid. From my review of the bill and, in fact, from the express position of the legislative leadership they have no desire here to challenge the validity of the appropriations not disapproved by the Governor, I would have little problem presuming the appropriations not so disapproved would have been enacted by the Legislature and are valid.5
For the reasons stated herein, I concur in part and dissent in part.
I am authorized to state Chief Justice OPALA and Justice HARGRAVE join in the views herein expressed.

. H.B. 1743 contains three sections. The first two involve space allocation in the State Capitol Building and the third, a multi-million dollar sale of water from the Sardis Reservoir. H.B. 1271 is what I would call omnibus legislation, which contains many varied and seemingly unrelated general legislation provisions and appropriations and increases or decreases in appropriations to various state agencies in all three branches of government, i.e. legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative leadership apparently argues the bills are not multi-subject because each deal with state government. The argument has been squarely rejected by the California Supreme Court under a similar one-subject mandate. See Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078, 240 Cal.Rptr. 569, 581-583, 742 P.2d 1290, 1302-1304 (1987) (the multi-subject rule obviously forbids joining disparate provisions which appear germane only to topics of excessive generality such as government, public welfare or fiscal affairs). Although this Court has proceeded cautiously when faced with a multi-subject challenge [See e.g. Rupe v. Shaw, 286 P.2d 1094, 1098-1101 (Okla.1955) (legislation is not multi-subject merely because it contains many details as long as the details are incidental to accomplishing the general object of the enactment) ], I certainly have found no *707precedential case remotely supporting the leadership’s argument.

. The second abuse concerned the mandate of OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 57, that the subject of the bill pending in the legislative body be clearly expressed in its title so that matters foreign to the main objects of a bill would not find their way into an enactment surreptitiously. In re County Com’rs, 22 Okla. 435, 98 P. 557, 558 (1908). Although there is potentially overlap in regard to the two abuses no party here claims as to either bill the title did not adequately express the contents of the bills.

. The last sentence of the majority opinion provides, "[i]n the future, however, when the Governor is presented a bill which violates the one-subject rule, he is required to treat the bill as unconstitutional”. To be very frank, I do not understand what this sentence means. The Governor always has the option of "treating" a bill presented to him as unconstitutional. However, under the Oklahoma Constitution if he does not desire the bill to become law, he must exercise his veto powers either positively or by his inaction, in conformity with our Constitution, i.e. OKLA.CONST. art 6, §§ 11-12. As I have previously stated, if a bill does become a law, in a proper case where all requirements for judicial review are satisfied (e.g. standing, ripeness, etc.), the Governor, like anyone else aggrieved by it, could bring a challenge to the constitutionality of the provision or a part thereof and final review would be available in this Court.

. OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 57 expressly provides that general appropriation bills are not subject to its one-subject mandate.

. If the majority is incorrect and H.B. 1271 is not a general appropriation bill with general legislation rolled into it, but is instead some type of special or hybrid appropriation bill with general legislation in it, Wiseman accomplishes the same practical result as to the general legislation, i.e. those provisions never became valid law. As to the appropriations therein not disapproved by the Governor they would then appear to violate the last sentence of § 56, which provides that all other appropriations than those contained in the general appropriation bill, must.be made by separate bills, each embracing one subject. Although no party specifically relies on the last sentence of OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 56, to argue the unconstitutionality of the entirety of H.B. 1271, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, a party respondent hereto, alternatively claims the bill in its entirety is unconstitutional for violating the one-subject mandate of OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 57. Thus, unlike in Wiseman, the occasion would exist to determine the fate of the remaining portions of the bill, i.e. the appropriation sections. Only then would it be necessary to decide whether our decision should be given prospective application because of some perceived reliance on Wiseman or for some other appropriate reason, such as the possible destructive effect the ruling would have on the fiscal affairs of the agencies involved, should it be definitively determined the appropriation sections violated the Constitution. I would not, however, be inclined to overrule Wiseman in any event because the appropriation sections of the bill involved there bear little resemblance to the appropriation sections of H.B. 1271. The appropriations in Wiseman all concerned the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, one agency of state government, and I do not see said sections as violating the last sentence of § 56. See Draper v. State, 621 P.2d 1142, 1145-1146 (Okla.1980) (OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 56 does not mandate a general appropriation bill and Legislature is not prohibited from enacting a separate appropriation bill for a single agency for one fiscal year). I would also not be inclined to overrule Wiseman even if we had determined there a violation of the one-subject mandate of OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 57 occurred by reason of appropriations for a single department (a legislative option expressly approved of in Draper) being combined with unrelated general legislation also involving the Department of Corrections, because an analysis under State v. Carter, 167 Okla. 32, 27 P.2d 617 (1933), would seemingly have resulted in validation of the appropriations under a presumption the Legislature would have enacted the appropriations anyway had it known the general legislation in the bill was invalid.