Court Opinion

ID: 9845040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:14:06.215159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.652025
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
Initially, I state the issue somewhat differently than has Justice McDevitt at page 5 of the slip opinion. This is accomplished by rephrasing: The issue before the Court is whether the Idaho Legislature may, by resolution, rescind the rules promulgated by an executive department board or agency pursuant to the authority of I.C. §§ 67-5205, et seq. If the issue were whether the legislature could do so by enactment, there would be no need to take pen in hand: “The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a senate and house of representatives. The enacting clause of every bill shall be as follows: Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho.” IDA- [¶] CONST., art. 3, § 1. “No law shall be passed except by bill, nor shall____” IDA- [¶] CONST., art. 3, § 15.
*678Seventy-three years ago this Court in Griffith v. Van Deusen, 31 Idaho 136, 169 P. 929 (1917), came to the same principle enunciated by Justice Ailshie, joined by Justices Sullivan and Stuart in Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 107 P. 493 (1910). Significantly, the author of Griffith was Justice Morgan, and the two Justices who joined his opinion were Justices Rice and Budge. Even of more significance, Justice Morgan had not been made aware of the Balderston rationale, did not mention it, but decided the issue independently.
Eighty years ago this past January, Justice Ailshie authored the opinion for a unanimous Court which was confronted with a difficult proposition, the determination of which could not help but be unpopular with the entire general population of Idaho. Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 107 P. 493 (1910). Under the provisions of an 1894 congressional enactment, 28 Stat. at Large, 372 and 394, the governor of Idaho in July of 1901 applied to the commission of the General Land Office for a survey of Township 44 North, Range 2 and 3 East, Boise Meridian, in Shoshone County. Notice of the application was published in the Idaho State Tribune, Wallace, Idaho, and the federal government made the survey. Plats were filed with the United States Land Office at Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, on July 5, 1905. Acting on the 1901 published notice of application, a number of settlers went upon the lands and made their residences. On completion of the survey and ruling of approved plats, the settlers submitted their homestead filings, only to be rejected because the commissioner of the land office had neglected to give notice to the local land office at Coeur d’Alene of the Governor’s application on behalf of the state. An appeal by the state from those rejections to the commissioner of the General Land Office was to no avail. A second appeal by the settlers taken to the Secretary of Interior was to no avail. The lands stayed in state ownership.
With that being the state of affairs, and the general election of 1908 coming on, candidates of both major parties generously promised that on election the state would relinquish ownership in favor of the settlers. On March 2, 1909, the campaign promises became more than illusory, at first blush at least. The legislature voted into effect, House Joint Resolution No. 10, which is found in the 1909 Idaho Sess. Laws. 451, in the midst of a considerable number of senate and house joint memorials and joint resolutions. No. 10 provided for the appointment of a commission authorized to take testimony, make findings, and to file the same with the State Land Board together with recommendations that certain tracts of land claimed by the various settlers be relinquished and that the state’s filing thereon be cancelled.
The action which culminated in Balderston was filed to prevent the foregoing from taking place. There were many interesting issues raised by the pleadings, some of which were given brief discussion before the Court approached — not the validity of the resolution — but rather its legal effect:
Passing now to a consideration of the action of the legislature, we find that the joint resolution of March 2, 1909, under which this commission was appointed and the report has been made, is not a law of the state. It is not enacted in the manner provided for the enactment of a law (sec. 15, art. 3), and it is not contended that it is a law. On the other hand, it directs ‘that the state board of land commissioners shall, within thirty days after the filing in their offices of the report and recommendations of the said commission, relinquish or cause to be relinquished all the rights of the state of Idaho to the lands claimed by said claimants, or such portion thereof as may be recommended to the favorable action of the state board of land commissioners.’ This is not advisory or recommendatory, but is made mandatory.
Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 577, 107 P. 493, 496. By that last sentence, this Court was there holding, just twenty years into statehood, that the force and effect of joint resolutions or concurrent resolutions is just that much, advisory or recommendatory, but nothing more. Just seven years ago this March, Balderston v. Brady, to*679gether with Griffith v. Van Deusen,7 were cited for the same proposition, i.e., that legislative action by resolution is not law. Idaho Power Co. v. State of Idaho; Water Resource Board, 104 Idaho 570, 661 P.2d 736 (1983). Hence it has no legal effect whatever. That-principle has been so long ago well settled and laid to rest that it should indeed startle jurists and scholars to see this day one and more justices voting to give any effect to a resolution, other than to note that it is advisory or recommendatory.
As intimated earlier herein, the case law is sound and is controlling. Nothing stands in the way of the legislature, however, should it care to do so, proceeding with the enactment of a bill into law. In that regard it should take note of the views of Justice Johnson, with which I generally agree. Specifically, I agree with his Part III, and concur therein. In doing so I also stand firmly on that which I wrote in Part III B of Holly Care Center v. State, Dept. of Emp., 110 Idaho 76, 81-82, 714 P.2d 45, 50-51 (1986).
In sum, the resolution, if it had the effect of law, would command affirmative rule-making and rescission-ordering on the part of the Department of Health and Welfare. In my view, far better to do it the old-fashioned way — enact it!

. Cited as 31 Idaho 136, 169 P. 929 (1917).