Court Opinion

ID: 9663542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:42:14.975533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:51.585805
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. The decision in this case rests entirely upon the construction that is to be given to section 104 of the constitution and section 44-01-04 NDCC and I am unable to agree with the construction the majority has placed on section 104 or their conclusion that section 44-01-04 is unconstitutional.
The critical language of section 104 of the constitution reads:
“ * * * The term of office of a judge of a district court hereafter elected shall be six years from the first Monday in January succeeding his election and he shall hold his office until his successor is duly qualified. * * * ”
Section 44-01-04 NDCC provides:
“If any person elected to any state, district, or county office shall fail to qualify and enter upon the duties of such office within the time fixed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant and shall be filled by appointment as provided by law.”
It may be conceded at the outset of this discussion that the holdover tenure of a district judge is a part of his term and that such holdover tenure terminates only upon the contingency provided by the constitution for its termination, namely the qualification of a successor. In this state the legislature has provided for the selection of a successor by appointment in cases where the regularly elected successor fails to qualify and enter upon the duties of the office. The decisive question in the case is whether the legislature had the power to enact that statute.
A state constitution is not a grant of power. A state legislature has plenary powers and it may enact any law not expressly or infcrentially prohibited by the state or national constitutions. State ex rel. Gaulke v. Turner, 37 N.D. 635, 164 N.W. 924; Aubol v. Engeseth, 66 N.D. 63, 262 N.W. 338, 100 A.L.R. 853. The majority opinion holds that there is an implied prohibition to enact the statute in question contained in the words “until his successor is qualified.” It is their view that the word successor means only the person regularly elected pursuant to section 104 of the constitution, supra, that is to say: to a person-elected as judge for a full term of six years. They would, in effect, provide that the failure of the regularly elected successor to-assume his office would automatically create a holdover term of six years for the benefit of the incumbent. I cannot accept this view, the word successor as used in the phrase “until his successor is qualified” is entirely unmodified or limited by express language. No significance can be given to the word qualified, because as we said in Jenness v. Clark, 21 N.D. 150, 154, 129 N.W. 357, 358, “ * * * the meaning of the word ‘qualified’ as thus used merely refers to the taking of the required oath of' office and giving an official bond as required by statute where that is necessary.” Ordinarily, of course, the regularly elected successor to an office qualifies and terminates the holdover tenure to his predecessor. I am sure that it was this contingency which was foremost in the minds of the writers of the constitution. The constitution, however, made no provision whatever for selecting a successor to a district judge whose regular term had ended and' whose regularly elected successor had failed to qualify. I cannot see how it can be inferred from this oversight that no such: *695provision can be made by the legislature. A constitution cannot be expected to provide for every contingency. In fact it would not be a proper constitution if it did. And with respect to a state constitution, any area not covered by its provisions is a field for the exercise of the plenary power of the legislature.
There appears to me to be much confusion in the cases cited by counsel in this case in their discussion of the question of a vacancy in office and of the right of a legislature to declare a vacancy. In my opinion most of this discussion is entirely beside the point. There is no need to declare a vacancy in the term for which the non-qualifying officer was elected for that is an absolute vacancy as complete as a vacancy caused by death or resignation. There is no need to declare a vacancy in the tenure of the holdover officer because that tenure ends by constitutional limitation upon the qualification of a lawfully selected person to fill the vacancy in the succeeding term. Such lawfully chosen person becomes a successor to the holder of the preceding term.
The objection, that a provision for the selection of a person to fill the succeeding or vacant term of office is an unconstitutional limitation upon the term of the holdover officer, is invalid. Concededly the term for which a judge is elected includes both the primary or specific term and the holdover tenure if and when it comes into being. There is, however, a distinct difference in the nature of the two. The incumbent has a right to the primary term for a fixed period of time. Where this right is established by the constitution it may not in any way be limited by legislative action. On the other hand the holdover term is contingent and indefinite. It comes to the incumbent as a duty imposed upon him in the public interest so that there shall be no hiatus or interregnum in the occupancy of office. This interpretation of the constitutional language was adopted by this court in State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie, 65 N.D. 340, 258 N.W. 558, at page 567, wherein we said “The purpose of a holdover provision is to conserve the public interest by preventing a vacancy in office. Such provision is not designed or intended to extend the tenure of office by an incumbent for his own benefit beyond the specified term.” It follows that, since the holdover provision is not designed or intended to extend the tenure, such tenure, has no constitutional protection as to its duration. This tenure expires upon the happening of the contingency provided in the constitution for its termination. There is no constitutional limitation which would prohibit the legislature from providing for the happening of this contingency or of accelerating its arrival. In fact if the legislature did not so provide, the holdover provision would do exactly what we said in the Moodie case it was not intended to do, namely, “extend the tenure of the office of the incumbent for his own benefit.” On the basis of this statement it may well be inferred that the constitution contemplated such a law. It was so held in State ex rel. Gibbs v. Rogers, 141 Fla. 237, 193 So. 435. However, to sustain the statute such an inference is unnecessary. It is sufficient if the statute is not prohibited.
The statute provides for filling the absolute vacancy in the succeeding term and thereby terminating the tenure of the holdover officer. Section 78 of the constitution provides:
“When any office shall from any cause become vacant, and no mode is provided by the constitution or law for filling such vacancy, the governor shall have power to fill such vacancy by appointment.”
This provision expressly recognizes the power of the legislature to provide for the filling of vacancies, unless provision is made for the filling of such vacancies by the constitution. The constitution makes no other provision for filling vacancies except with respect to the offices of governor and the supreme court judges. A provision that officers shall continue in office until their *696successors are duly qualified, is not a limitation upon the power to fill vacancies in the succeeding term of any county or state office. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 65 Fla. 434, 62 So. 363, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 365; People ex rel. Mattison v. Nye, 9 Cal.App. 148, 98 P. 241; State ex rel. Covington v. Thompson, 142 Ala. 98, 38 So. 679; Campbell v. Dotson, 111 Ky. 125, 63 S.W. 480; State ex rel. Finch v. Washburn, 17 Wis. 658; Adams v. Doyle, 139 Cal. 678, 73 P. 582; People v. Pillman, 284 Ill.App. 287, 1 N.E.2d 788; People ex rel. Mitchell v. Sohmer, 209 N.Y. 151, 102 N.E. 593, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 1202. While there are decisions to the contrary I think the rule stated here is the better rule. The decisions which hold that there is no vacancy in an office, held in holdover tenure, which can be filled, when there exists an absolute vacancy in the succeeding term, bring about a result which was clearly not intended by our constitution and magnify the rights of such holdover officer far beyond what this court has said those rights are. Our constitution itself recognizes that the holdover period shall be terminated by a filling of the vacancy in the succeeding term. Section 71 of the constitution provides that the governor shall hold his office until his successor is elected and qualified. Section 72 of the constitution provides that if a regularly elected governor shall fail to qualify, the office shall devolve upon the lieutenant governor. If the theory of the cases, that hold that the fact there was no vacancy in the holdover term prevented the filling of the vacancy in the succeeding term, applied in this jurisdiction, these two sections would be contradictory. Certainly the lieutenant governor could not succeed to the governorship when there was no vacancy in the office because the holdover tenure could not be ended except by the qualification of one who had been regularly elected as governor. Here the constitution recognizes that a proper way to end a holdover term is to fill the vacancy in the succeeding term. That is all that section 41-01-04 does. It provides for the termination of the holdover tenures with respect to other offices in the same manner that the constitution terminates the holdover tenure in the office of governor. I think therefore that the power to enact such a statute is not only not denied but also that the statute itself is clearly within both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
In my opinion the holdover term of Judge Friederich should be held to have terminated upon tire qualification of Judge Foughty.