Court Opinion

ID: 9796930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:08:36.589022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:47.935725
License: Public Domain

TROUT, J.,
dissenting.
The Court today allows the Coalition’s petition to proceed to the ballot because it concludes the case is not ripe for review. Presumably due to the perceived lack of ripeness, the Court does not determine whether the placement of a monument in a park is legislative, and therefore the proper subject matter for the initiative process, or whether it is administrative, in which case it exceeds the lawful scope of an initiative. I must respectfully dissent because I believe the matter is ripe for review. Furthermore, I believe the administrative nature of what the Coalition seeks precludes the use of an initiative election.

Ripeness

The Court frames the issue as “whether the initiative process should be interrupted ... to consider the validity of the initiative on an otherwise qualified initiative petition prior to submission to the voters.” (emphasis added). The subsequent analysis of case law suggests the Court is making no distinction between the constitutional validity of the proposal and the constitutional validity of the process. The process is controlled by Article III, Section 1, of the Idaho Constitution, whereas the proposal is governed by the will of the people. It is not until the proposal becomes law that it must satisfy all constitutional provisions. This distinction is especially important here, where neither party is challenging or defending the constitutionality of placing a certain monument in a park. Rather, the challenge is whether this is a legislative matter which is properly subject to a vote of the people. In short, the Court’s blurring of the line between process and proposal has led it to mistakenly overrule Weldon, Gumprecht, and Perrault, three cases which do not conflict with Noh, the case on which the Court relies.
The question presented in Gumprecht v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 104 Idaho 615, 616, *258661 P.2d 1214, 1215 (1983) was “whether local zoning ordinances may be enacted or amended in Idaho through an initiative election.” If an initiative election were not the proper means for enacting zoning ordinances, the Court explained, then the city council “would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction in holding the election.” Id. at 617, 661 P.2d at 1216. Similarly, in Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition, 124 Idaho 31, 37, 855 P.2d 868, 874 (1993), the critical issue was “whether Idaho law providing for referenda and initiative encompasses county budget decisions.” Likewise, the concern in Perrault was whether the operation of a Sunday movie theater was beyond the scope of a local referendum. Perrault v. Robinson, 29 Idaho 267, 158 P. 1074 (1916). Gumprecht did not involve a constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance (such as a takings claim); the issue in Weldon was not whether a certain budget decision violated a tax provision in the constitution; and there was no First Amendment challenge to the Sunday operation of movie theatres in Perrault. Instead, these cases presented the exact question confronting the Court today: Whether the proposed initiative fell within the scope of Article III, Section 1, of the Idaho Constitution. In other words, the focus was on the initiative process itself — whether the subject matter of the initiative was appropriate given the constraints of Article III, Section 1, which limits the initiative power to legislative matters.
Clearly distinguishable is Noh, a case in which the petitioners sought to prohibit an initiative from appearing on the ballot because the proposal itself — allowing Indian gaming — was allegedly unconstitutional, not because the subject of Indian gaming was beyond the scope of the initiative process. Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 799, 53 P.3d 1217, 1218 (2002). The alleged constitutional infirmities included a violation of the Idaho Constitution’s prohibition against gambling and equal protection violations. Thus, unlike Gumprecht, Weldon, Perrault and the instant case, the Court in Noh recognized that in the case before it, “[tjhere was no challenge ... that the subject matter is beyond the reach of the initiative.” Id. at 803, 53 P.3d at 1222 (emphasis added). In fact, in declining to consider the constitutionality of the Indian Gaming Initiative, the Court adopted the rationale of Associated Taxpayers of Idaho, Inc. v. Cenarrusa, 111 Idaho 502, 725 P.2d 526 (1986), which it described as involving an initiative “on a subject appropriate for the initiative process, though the substance of the initiative might violate the state constitution.” Noh, 137 Idaho at 802, 53 P.3d at 1221. In Noh, the Court concluded first that the petitioners had no standing because they had not alleged an injury in fact; they had only argued they would suffer injuries if the initiative became law. 137 Idaho at 800, 53 P.3d at 1219. The Court next determined the case was not ripe because the initiative had not become law and there was no present need for adjudication. Id. at 801, 53 P.3d at 1220. It seems clear that, other than issues relating to Article III, Section 1, a constitutional challenge to an initiative will likely never be justiciable because an initiative is simply a proposal and not a law. The initiative is analogous to the debates that take place in the legislature, and until those discussions turn into law, a complaining party would be hard pressed to satisfy traditional standing and ripeness requirements.
Thus, I agree with the Court that “the reasoning in Noh is sound.” But, the reasoning in Noh is inapplicable for the same reason Weldon, Gumprecht and Perrault should not be overruled: The question here is not whether a proposal is constitutional, as in Noh, but whether the initiative election itself would be a proper exercise of the peoples’ power, as in Weldon, Gumprecht and Perrault. A fair reading of Noh, together with the Weldon line of cases, suggests a proposal need not be “constitutional,” but must be legislative. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, so the Court’s overruling of Weldon, Gumprecht and Perrault is as unnecessary as it is erroneous.
Because Noh is distinguishable from the instant case, I believe the case before us today is ripe for review, as were the issues in Weldon, Gumprecht and Perrault. The issue before the Court is merely whether the matter qualifies for the initiative process. That issue is ripe because there is a controversy today as to whether the proposed act is *259legislative or administrative and there is a present need for adjudication to make that determination before the City is required to fund an expensive election. Thus, unlike Noh, harm here will occur before the vote is taken; not only if the measure passes. Holding otherwise changes the inquiry from whether a proposal is legislative such that it may be placed before the voters, to whether a proposal that has already gone through the initiative process and passed is legislative. If this determination need not be made until the process is complete, then the threshold requirement that only legislative matters may be voted on becomes meaningless.

Legislation or Administration

The Court correctly identifies the subject of the Coalition’s petition as an ordinance for the placement of a monument in a city park. As the Court notes, if a subject is legislative, it is appropriate for action by initiative, whereas if the subject is administrative, it may not be enacted through an initiative election. I agree with the Court’s observation that there is no bright line rule clearly distinguishing legislative matters from administrative ones. Nevertheless, we may look to courts in other jurisdictions for guidance. Under any of the frameworks presented, the subject of the Coalition’s petition is an administrative act that does not qualify for the initiative process.
One rule for distinguishing between legislative and administrative matters is that an initiative is legislative if it adopts a new policy or plan, whereas it is administrative if it merely pursues a policy or plan already adopted. Worthington v. City Council of City of Rohnert Park, 130 Cal.App.4th 1132, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 59, 65 (2005). In this case, the requested action — the placement of a monument in the park — is clearly governed by an existing plan. The legislature has provided that the management of real property owned by a city rests with the judgment of the city council. I.C. § 50-1401. By an ordinance adopted in 1995, the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners was given the responsibility to “direct the ornamenting, adorning, laying out and improving” of the City parks. Boise City Code § 2-05-04. A plan establishing the procedure for the placement of memorial plaques and monuments in City parks was adopted in 1999, five years before the Coalition’s petition was submitted to the City. Together, I.C. § 50-1401, Boise City Code § 2-05-04, and the 1999 monument plan can be considered the enabling laws providing the basis for the very specific actions contemplated by the Coalition’s petition. Because the Coalition seeks to place a monument in the park, an act that falls within the purview of an already adopted plan, the petition is an administrative act beyond the reach of the initiative process.
Another framework for distinguishing between the two has been used by the Supreme Courts of Kansas, Montana, and New Mexico. In addition to the making new law/executing existing law distinction, a relevant consideration is whether the act declares a general public purpose and provides ways to accomplish that purpose generally, in which case it is usually legislative; or whether it is an act that deals with a small segment of an overall policy question, in which case it is likely administrative. City of Wichita v. Kansas Taxpayers Network, Inc., 255 Kan. 534, 874 P.2d 667, 672 (1994); Town of Whitehall v. Preece, 288 Mont. 55, 956 P.2d 743, 749 (1998); Johnson v. City of Alamogordo, 121 N.M. 232, 910 P.2d 308, 312 (1996). In this case, the Coalition’s initiative petition dictating the size, wording and placement of a particular monument in a particular city park is clearly not a law of general applicability. Another consideration is that decisions requiring specialized knowledge and experience in municipal government may be characterized as administrative, even though they may also be said to involve the establishment of a policy. City of Wichita, 874 P.2d at 672. Under this framework, the project-specific petition that involves specialized knowledge and experience in park layout is clearly administrative in nature. Also, many have noted the initiative power is “restricted to measures which are quite clearly and fully legislative.” 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 318; City of Wichita, 874 P.2d at 672; Town of Whitehall, 956 P.2d at 749.
*260In sum, under any of these analyses, the subject of the Coalition’s petition is administrative, so it does not fall within the scope of the people’s power to enact legislation. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion and would affirm the decision of the district court.