Court Opinion

ID: 9794095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:59:12.476634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:39.963573
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring in the result)—I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion but for a different reason.
The pleadings admit and the journals of the house and senate disclose that chapter 120 of the Laws of 1951 was enacted in violation of Art. II, § 38, of the state constitution, which provides:
“No amendment to any bill shall be allowed which shall change the scope and object of the bill.”
The purpose, necessity, and importance of this constitutional provision are apparent to everyone acquainted with the legislative process.
The house and senate journals are public records. Art. II, § 11, Washington constitution. When the challenge of *884the constitutionality of the enactment process is based upon these records, and brings them before us, we may and must consider them. If they disclose that a statute has been adopted in a manner contrary to Art. II, § 38, we should follow the express terms of the constitution and declare the statute thus adopted unconstitutional.
“Public policy and convenience” are given as the reasons supporting the “enrolled bill” rule announced in State ex rel. Reed v. Jones, 6 Wash. 452, 34 Pac. 201, 23 L. R. A. 340. However, when the legislative journals themselves disclose a constitutional defect, which is the situation pleaded in this case, neither reason, to my mind, overbalances the scale in favor of disregarding Art. II, § 38.
Olson and Schwellenbach, JJ., concur with Weaver, J.