Court Opinion

ID: 7913865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 22:08:39.312678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:32:42.596389
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(concurring specially): I concur in the judgment that the writ should be denied, but do not agree altogether with what is said in the opinion as to the reasons therefor, especially with reference to the second paragraph of the syllabus.
The opinion in effect places its conclusion upon a distinction between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution. The holding is that had this been a joint resolution the lieutenant governor could not have voted on .its passage. I can see no reason why this should be true. What is there about a joint resolution that its passage should be expedited, while the passage of a concurrent resolution should be made more difficult? If any distinction should be made it seems to me that as important a step as a change in the federal constitution should be hedged about with more safeguards than a *406resolution expressing the opinion of the two houses of the legislature on some public question.
I prefer the view that the president of the senate has the right to vote on any matter that comes before the senate when the senate is equally divided. I believe this position may be maintained by an examination of the language of the constitution.
In the first place, section 13 of article 2 does provide that a majority of all the members elected to each house voting in the affirmative shall be necessary to pass any bill or joint resolution. It is true that the president of the senate is not elected to the senate, that is, he is not elected to it as a senator, but it is hardly correct to say that he is not elected to it at all.
We must consider all the sections of the constitution. Section 1 of article 1 provides for the executive branches of the state and government. Among the officers provided for are .the governor and lieutenant governor. Then follow some sections that define the duties and powers of the governor. Then section 11 of article 1 provides that in case of the death, impeachment, resignation, removal or other disability of the governor, the power and duties of the office for the residue of the term or until the disability shall be removed shall devolve upon the president of the senate. It should be noted that this section does not say “lieutenant governor” — it says “president of the senate.” The next section is as follows:
“The lieutenant governor shall be president of the senate, and shall vote only when the senate is equally divided. The senate shall choose a president pro tempore, to preside in case of his absence or impeachment, or when he shall hold the office of governor.”
The language should be noted carefully. The first statement is that the lieutenant governor “shall be president of the senate.” With this provision in the constitution it is plain that when the people elect a lieutenant governor they are electing a president of the senate. Indeed, with a single exception, only one lieutenant governor ever did anything more than act as president of the senate. That was the occasion when Nathaniel Greene succeeded Governor Samuel J. Crawford, who resigned as governor in 1868 to accept a commission as colonel of the 19th Kansas Volunteers to fight Indians on the western frontier of our state.
Let us examine the next statement in the first sentence of this section. It says that the president of the senate shall vote only when the senate is equally divided. The section does not say that *407the president of the senate shall not vote on the passage of a bill or a joint resolution, but it says he shall vote only when the senate is evenly divided. A fair inference to be drawn from this language is that he could vote on any matter before the senate when the senate is equally divided.
We thus have a constitution, the various provisions of which it is our duty to construe together. When this is done I have no difficulty in reaching a conclusion that the lieutenant governor is a part of the senate and has the right to vote on any matter that comes before the senate where the senate is equally divided. I do not concur in the language in the opinion wherein it is stated that the action of the senate was not a legislative act. To my mind it was a legislative act of a high degree of importance.