464 P.3d 287
Idaho2017Background
- House Bill 67 (exempting certain food sales from sales tax) passed both houses; Legislature adjourned sine die March 29, 2017.
- The enrolled bill was delivered to Governor Otter March 31, 2017 (after adjournment); the Governor vetoed it and filed the veto with the Secretary of State April 11, 2017.
- Secretary of State Denney refused to certify the bill as law because the Governor’s veto was untimely under the Secretary’s view.
- A group of legislators (petitioners) filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel certification, arguing the Governor failed to veto within the constitutional time limits.
- The Court held petitioners had standing but construed Article IV, § 10 to require that bills be presented to the governor while the Legislature is in session; because HB 67 was not so presented, neither the Governor’s veto nor petitioners’ requested certification could be validated.
- The Court overruled Cenarrusa v. Andrus to the extent it conflicted with this opinion, but applied the new interpretation prospectively only. Costs awarded to the Secretary of State.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Governor/Secretary's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek mandamus | Legislators who voted for the bill have a concrete interest and may enforce constitutional lawmaking procedures | Governor argued petitioners lacked a concrete, particularized injury (generalized grievance) | Court: Petitioners have standing as legislators who voted for the bill to challenge veto timing |
| Meaning and timing of Art. IV § 10 (presentment, adjournment, veto window) | The Governor’s veto was untimely under the Constitution because the ten‑day post‑adjournment filing rule should not extend the Governor’s veto time where bill was presented after adjournment | Relying on Cenarrusa, the Governor argued the ten‑day period runs from presentment and that post‑adjournment presentment and a full veto window are permissible | Court: Article IV § 10 implies bills must be presented while Legislature is in session; presenting after sine die is inconsistent with the Clause; because HB 67 was not presented while in session, the veto and certification request fail. Cenarrusa overruled prospectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Cenarrusa v. Andrus, 99 Idaho 404, 582 P.2d 1082 (Idaho 1978) (prior Idaho precedent on post‑adjournment presentment and veto timing; overruled in part)
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 387 P.3d 761 (Idaho 2015) (standing of legislative interests to challenge vetoes; prior construction of veto timing language clarified)
- Troutner v. Kempthorne, 142 Idaho 389, 128 P.3d 926 (Idaho 2006) (Idaho standing doctrine summarized)
- Wilson v. Perrault, 6 Idaho 178, 54 P.617 (Idaho 1898) (constitutional interpretation recognizes express and necessarily implied prohibitions on legislative power)
- BHA Investments, Inc. v. City of Boise, 141 Idaho 168, 108 P.3d 315 (Idaho 2004) (factors for prospective-only application of judicial decisions)
- Katerndahl v. Daugherty, 30 Idaho 356, 164 P.1017 (Idaho 1917) (earlier cases on presentment/presentation requirements and versions of bills presented to the governor)