*1 AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATED
CONTRACTORS, et al.
Respondents, VENTURA, al, et
The Honorable Jesse Defendants,
petitioners, Appellants, Inc., City Electric, et Inter
Granite al.
national Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, 292, petitioners, Ap Local
pellants, Intervenors. C8-98-1383,
Nos. C1-98-
1385, C4-98-1428.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March *2 Larson,
Felhaber, Vogt, & Paul Fenlon Zech, O’Brien, Miller, Minneapolis, J. Bloom, Miller, D. Richard A. Brendan Hatch, Cummins, Minneapolis, Mike Attor- General, Raschke, Jr., ney Kenneth E. As- General, Paul, Attorney Ap- sistant St. for pellants. Seaton, Seaton, Douglas
Burk P. & Rob- Kelleher, Edina, Respondents. in N. P.A., Knutson, Olsen, Flynn, & Deans Paul, Flynn, Joseph E. St. for Amicus Curiae Minnesota School Boards Associa- tion. P.A., Meyer, D.
Hammargern & David Edina, Amicus Curiae Hammargren, Minnesota State Senators. Barnett, P.A.,
Moss J. Fahn- & Vincent lander, Minneapolis, for Amicus Curiae Association, Employer’s Inc. Contractors, OPINION N.W.2d. 137. We af- firm the of appeals. STRINGER, Justice. The appropriate analysis context for our begins history prevail- with a brief An amendment *3 ing wage passage law and of the chal- providing prevailing wages law must lenged prevailing amendment.2 The wage paid in all or remodeling be construction payment law-a law requiring the wages of projects exceeding of educational facilities projects on financed with state funds to be $100,000 part was enacted as of a 1997 comparable wages paid for similar work tax relating omnibus bill to tax relief community in the as a whole-was first Respondents reform. Associated Builders introduced as House File 134 on January (Associated Builders), and Contractors In- 11, 1973 and was the hearings of (ISD dependent School District No. 882 both the House Labor-Management Re- 882) Electric, Inc. Wright (Wright lations Committee and Senate Committee Electric) challenge constitutionality of on Labor passed аnd Commerce.3 It was claiming amendment violates by 84-39, of by house vote the senate 56- Subject Single and Title Clause 0 and was enacted 724 on May as Constitution, IV, Minnesota Article Section 24, 1973.4 The prevailing 17, which states “No law shall embrace explained wage pref- in the statute’s subject, more than one which shall ex- be ace: pressed title.” The district court public It is in the public interest granted respondents’ summary for motion buildings public and other be con- works judgment ruling that the vio- amendment structed and by maintained the best lates 17. both clauses Section The court highest means and quality of labor rea- affirmed, of appeals holding pre- sonably persons available and that work- wage vailing amendment was “not remote- public compensated works be ac- ly related [to bill’s tax of] cording real value of the services relief,” reform and provi- title they perform. It policy is therefore the sion was violated because title no made laborers, wages of this state that topics “prevailing reference to such as workers, and mechanics on projects fi- wage,” “school districts” or “labor.” Asso- by nanced in whole or part state funds ciated Builders and Contractors v. Carl- comparable wages paid should be son, 130, (Minn.App.1999). community similar work as a The of appeals then severed the whole. . pursuant amendment to Minn.Stat. (1998) (1998).
§
permitting
§
645.20
severance of an
statutory
Minn.Stat.
177.41
The
unconstitutional
un-
emplоyees
where it is
scheme
requires
working
remaining provisions
connected
pro-
on certain state funded construction
jects
law. See Associated
paid
Builders and
an hourly wage based on
single subject
1. This
and title
Representa
4.See
1 Journal of the House of
Constitution,
originally
28,
(68th
1973);
Minnesota
Article
Minn.Leg.
tives 965
Mar.
27.
(68th
In 1974 it
17.
became Section
Minn.Leg.
Journal of the Senate 3093
Const,
IV, §
Minn.
17.
1973).
May
original
The
Act
entitled
** n
relating
prohibiting
"An act
to labor
wage
wage
2.
prevailing
prevailing wage
law is found in Minn.
rates lower than
rates
**
(1998).
§§
May
Stat.
177.41-.44
Act ch.
Í973
Minn. Laws 2077. The words
"financed
part by
whole or in
state funds”
added
were
Representa-
See 1 Journal
House
§
(68th
to Minn.Stat.
177.41 in 1975
a bill enti
Leg.
tives
Jan. 11
labor;
1973);
relating
providing
tled "An act
Mar.
1 Journal of
Senate 861
(68th
29, 1973);
Minn.Leg.
prevailing wage
the determination of
rates for
Mar.
Journal of
* *
(68th
Minn.Leg.
projects
May
May
Senate 2186
state financed
Act of
1973).
ch.
Laws
where
byA
all educational facilities
including
id.
in the area. See
prevailing wages
“erection,
building
exceeds
estimated cost
con-
defined
project
of a
$100,000:
struction, remodeling,
repairing
public work
other
public building or
fi-
Statutes,
Minnesota
funds.”
in whole or
nanced
state
[123B.71,
2],
by adding
is amended
subd.
.
177.42,
subd.
Minn.Stat.
a subdivision
read:
Cos.,
1995, in
Inc. v. Inde-
NewMech
The construc-
1A. PROJECT.
Subd.
Dist. No.
pendent Sch.
tion,
improvement
remodeling, or
(Minn.1995),
we held
facility
educational
building or site of an
“financed
language
statute
$100,000
exceeding
an estimated
cost
*4
did not
part by
funds”
in whole or
state
177.42,
under
projеct
a
section
subdi-
to
payments
school dis-
include state' aid
2.9
vision
Equalization
through
tricts
Debt Service
prevail-
Notably
bill did not amend
(DSEA)
Agricultur-
Aid
or Homestead
it
wage
directly-instead,
amended
(HACA)
pay-
Aid
those
al Credit
because'
123B.71,
to
relating
§
subd.
Minn.Stat.
provide property
were intended to
ments
and comment
school district
“review
con-
taxpayers,
relief to
subsidize
by adding new definition
construction”
thus narrowed
struction costs. NewMech
wage law.
“project”
prevailing
under the
by limiting
wage law
its
prevailing
Thus,
only by cross reference could
funding only.
application to direct state
substantive
amendment be tracked
Id. at 805.5
effect.
NewMech,
In
in
response to our decision
meeting Tom De-
During the committee
overturning
and with
stated
ans,
for the Minnesota
legal counsel
School
it,
prevailing wage
to the
an amendment
Association,
this comment
Board
offered
“project”
introduced
law’s definition of
was
about the bill:
Representatives on March
in the House of
pro
This bill makes
school district
all
referred
the House
1997
was
jects,
projects
purposes
that are
Labor-Management
on
Rela-
Committee
law,
prevailing
all of them over
wage
in
companion
There
no
bill
tions.6
was
$100,000, that means
or not
whether
1512, now
File
codified
senate. House
money
is a dime of
there
state
123B.71,'
(1998),7
§
was
Minn.Stat.
subd.
* *
in, n
require
comes
this would
[those
Thomas Bákk
by Representative
described
pay prevailing wages well
districts] to
as
bill,
á
four lines
“pretty simple
as
little
* * * [stating
on
that]
school construction
Minnesota,
public
it [should be]
here
* * *
is,
doing
you’re
what
policy
you’re
school construction over
So
$100,000
higher
paying
by
taking
Minnesota’s
those
costs [from
cost be covered
prevailing wage
law.”8 The bill
rather than
lower
prevailing wage rate
previous
wage]
you’re passing
them onto
“project”
definition of
amends
(Supp.1997).
payments do
subd.
la
See Act of June
"Because DESA and HACA
5.
‘
particular
relationship
§
Laws
not bear
direct
ch.
1997 Minn.
121.15,
project, we conclude that
§
construction
2629.
Minn.Stat.
subd.
123B.71,
meaning
la,
of ‘financed in whole or
§
as Minn.Stat.
renumbered
encompass
pay-
aid
state
does not
state
funds’
2.
subd.
through DSEA or
ments to school districts
NewMech,
HACA.”
There no High was discussion on in Wright County Monticello School and, wage by amendment the senate to be financed funds received than it during other brief references to sale of 882 parties agreed ISD bonds-the Tax on no meetings provided. Conference Committee state was The funding 16, 1997, May 13 and originally there was no sub- bids were scheduled be sub- stantive discussion comply merits of the mitted October of 1997 but to amendment, or prevailing wage amendment how it was related with the to tax ISD relief and The delayed reform.16 Omnibus Tax Bill 882 the bid until deadline Decem- 19, passed legislative ber, both on May requested houses 1997. It then that contrac- bids, vote 127 to 6 and two house tors submit one based on the 0 in signed wage 66 to the senate17 and into prevailing amendment and one with- 1512, Hearing Hearing on H.F. H. Comm. Labor- 16. See 10. on H.F. Comm. Tax Rel., Management Conf., Leg., Leg., May 80th March 80th 13 and (audio tape). (audio tape). 11. See id. Representa- See 5 Journal of the House of 17. (80th 1997); Minn.Leg. May tives 5252-53 Tax, Hearing 12. See on H.F. Comm. H. (80th Minn.Leg. the Senate 4290 Journal of (audio Leg., April tape). 80th Minn. 19, 1997). May 13. House debate on H.F. 80th Minn. (audio Leg., April tape). 18. See Act of June ch. 2640. Minn. Laws Id. 14. Representa- The itself 3 Journal of the House of title contains over words. 19. (80th 1997). Minn.Leg. Apr. tives 3172 See id. at 2394-95. affirmed, also appeals court of prevailing Wage
out consideration violated the for the elec- that the amendment holding The low bidder amendment. respondent subcontracting Subject work Clause of the Single trical Title. $2,217,187.00on bid at Wright Electric Associated Minnesota Constitution. See Contractors, without consideration оf submitted 590 N.W.2d at Builders Appellant amendment. bill’s 137. The court reasoned City was the low bidder Electric Granite tax subject was tax reform re- broad at subcontracting work the electrical amendment, wage the prevailing lief but wage $2,310,000.00 prevailing on the based facilities built since it covered educational con- 882 awarded the amendment. ISD was not “re- regardless funding, of state subcontracting tract for electrical work id. at related to either. See motely” bidder. Wright Electric as the low that absent The court also observed Electric, Wright ISD and Associated sug- words that even the bill’s title were and, Contractors, a Builders construction prevailing the inclusion gested commenced industry organization, “labor,” trade such as “school wage amendment Ramsey County District this action districts,” “prevailing “construction” against Court on November .1997 wages,” repeated and noted this court’s Minnesota, the Minnesota Governor that omnibus warnings Industry, of Labor Commissioner running high risk of afoul of bills were Children, Minnesota Commissioner of single subject and title constitutional injunctive Learning seeking Families requirements. See id. at 135-36. The a declaration that relief and amend- pursu- court then severed the amendment or, inapplicable by its terms ment was leaving intact ant to Minn.Stat. 645.20 *6 alternatively, Single that the violated chapter Asso- the remainder of 231. See IV, 17, of Subject of Article Section Clause Contractors, ciated Builders and 590 the Minnesota Constitution.20 N.W.2d at 135-36. summary judgment motions for On cross Appellants challenge ap- the court of prevailing that district court ruled the the decision, peals prevailing that the arguing subject single and wage act violated the not violate the Sin- wage amendment does IV, of Article requirements title Section Subject of Article and Title Clause gle rejected appellants’ court first 17. The that, does, if it court and Section chapter encompassed that 231 argument sever it and must invalidate cannot of “the single subject matter common 231 in its entirety. government opera- notion of taxation and tions,” in that holding several Constitutionality I. nothing government Act had to do a appeal summary operations and dispute is no judgment where there unconstitutionally adopted amendment was material fact our review is limited to deter beyond in 17 a reason- violation lower in mining whether the court erred The court able doubt. also concluded application Metropoli of the law. See provision, noting the Act violated title v. Property tan and Ins. Co. Metro Cas. although the title contained over 800 Comm’n, numerals, 538 politan Transit N.W.2d and neither words words (Minn.1995). “labor,” districts,” Where constitution “wages,” “school “con- struction,” ality a statute is at issue our review is “project,” nor “Minn.Stat. Behl, novo, de see v. appeared § 177.41” in the title. State Association, permitted trial tional Electrical Contractors 20. The intervention associations, Electric, City Granite three trade Brotherhood Electrical International Asso- Workers, the Minnesota Mechanical Contractors a labor union whose Local ciation, Metal, Conditioning Air Sheet City Electric. members work Granite Association, Roofing Na- Contractors (Minn.1997), proceed Supervisors and we on the Board Ramsey v. County Heenan, 291) Minnesota are presumption (Gil.281, statutes power (1858), our constitutional and that de- upheld a constitutionality of a clare statute unconstitutional should be reorganizing county township gov- id,.; exercised with extreme caution. See requiring register ernments also Merrill, N.W.2d State deeds tax to deliver documents to the (Minn.1990). challenger of the consti- county of supervisors. board We conclud- of a validity tutional statute must meet the subject ed that the single requirement was heavy very demonstrating burden of be- not offended because at- there “no yond fraud, reasonable doubt tempt statute interpolation at or the of mat- Behl, unconstitutional. See N.W.2d ter foreign expressed in the Merrill, 566; at 321. title.” Thirty-three years Id. later we fur- ther developed our analysis in Johnson v. Early history potential Minnesota Harrison, 47 Minn. 50 N.W. together for mischief in into bundling one (1891), when we held that act to “[a]n disparate legislative provisions bill establish providing Probate Code” well In the Minnesota known. Democratic procedures in probate prop- courts and for pro- Constitutional Convention erty rights in deceased’s estates did not posal only addressed the requirement violate either the provi- or the title give title some indication sion of In doing Section 17. so we clarified bill following contents of the was amended Single Subject and Title the comments of Mr. Meeker:21 prevent “log-rolling legislation” Clause-to object amendment, My moving or “omnibus bills.”22 guard against practice which has extent, preva- to a greater been or less explained however, We that despite in this as well Territory, lent as other restrictions, these constitutional States, grouping dif- together several subject provision interpreted should be lib- bill, subjects ferent passing erally and the restriction would if be met through by system them means of a the bill general were to one sub- known log-rolling. ject: *7 The and Proceedings Debates of provision yet this is mandatory, [W]hile 124,
Minnesota Constitutional Convention liberal, it be given is to and not (Francis Smith, 1857). reporter 262-63 H. strict, intended, construction. It is in Thus evolved the current Arti- language as, nor should it so to be construed 17, cle that “No law shall em- embarrass legislation by making laws subject, more than one brace which shall unnecessarily scope restrictive in their Const, expressed be in its title.” Minn. operation, by multiplying and or their IV, § 17. number, byor preventing
The first to test this in émbracing case constitutional from one act all matters requirement properly was decided this court in general connected with one 1858, only year adoption. subject. after its In in ‘subject,’ term as used Bradley appointed judge Meeker logrolling B. We defined as the "combination 22. measures, character, territory of new different dissimilar in of Minnesota in and 1849 * * * * * * together compelling united presided at the first of term court in Minne- requisite support passage.” to secure their apolis. leaving After the bench he was a 312, (1875) Cassidy, State v. 22 322 Minn. member of the constitutional convention in (subject provision’s purpose to to is "secure county 1857. Meeker is named for him. every legislation sepa- distinct measure of XIV Collections Minnesota Historical of decision, dependent rate consideration and 1655-1912, Society, Biographies Minnesota merits, solely by prohibit- upon its individual (compiled by Upham 501 Warren and Rose ing the fraudulent therein insertion of matters 1912). Dunlap, Barteau foreign”). wholly
300 constitution, single subject provision be given to be a broad violated is * * “Consolidation; bridging *. All that cause it included meaning and extended Mississippi; at should em- taxation.” See id. is that act necessary 410). (Gil.394, In v. subject; 535 Anderson Sulli general
brace some one van, 126, 130-31, 75 meant, all matters 72 Minn. N.W. 8-9 merely, that (1898), authorizing a law some one we held that . fall under treated should idea, county compensation to in general be connected with or officers’ be so i other, logically or was invalid because it each either creased related to title, understanding, parts expressed the act’s “An act autho as popular to of, to, subject. rizing direсting county commis general or nn * compensation to reduce the sioners Minn, Johnson, 577, N.W. at 924. at employ and number of officers and other provision, explained As the title we ees of such counties.” We observed prevent the clause is intended permit logrolling otherwise would hold surprise upon or fraud salaries of some officers at the increase prohibiting public by the inclusion at expense of See id. 75 N.W. others. gives no “provisions in a bill whose title at 8-9. proposed of the intimation of nature id., Later, we v. legislation,” 50 N.W. at in State Women’s & Children’s 137, 138-39, Hosp., accord the same liberal coñstruction 143 Minn. N.W. (1919), subject provision. pro- ex we held that an act See State tecting rel. abandoned or homeless children Olsen v. Board Control State Insts., 165, 172, agencies regulation 85 Minn. and “for the receiv- 88 N.W. out, “[ejvery ing placing we held such children care Olsen during be in favor and women confinement” violated presumption reasonable should Subject title.” N.W. be- Single Id. at Title Clause Again v. State ex rel. Pearson Probate cause the second Court, during to women confinement” “relating 287 N.W. (1939), generality way germane we of was “in no the former noted .that-the grounds places act for inval to with [and] title is not has do where mothers life long every idation as as the title walk of are received gives notice almost during general because “the title was and cared confinement.” Final- Burt, Finnegan law.” never intended to be an index State ex rel. ly, (1947), relating We held that the “An Act title persons having psychopathic personali the title was violated held ty” providing relating discharge for the commitment of when a law employees appeared title in an act sexual offenders did not violate the demotion *8 gave it that act “An act to a clause because notice the entitled establish classification per system and in all “sexually irresponsible salary concerned counties this 552-53, at at held that sons.” See id. 287 N.W. state.” We also the law covered distinct, subject separate 301.' a not sug- and in the act. id. gested title the at objective policy While the of the consti- at 656-57. N.W.2d tutional and framework for restriction settled, analysis long early have been chal- Since the late 1970’swe have addressed statutory to Title lenges Single Subject enactments under Sec- Clause in five tion 17 more than in re- in have held were successful cases and no instance we that years. being cent In & R.R. offended the con- challenged Winona St. Peter Waldron, (Gil.392, Co. v. 11 Minn. In Wass stitutional restriction. 410) Anderson, 394, 399-400, (1866), this’ court held that an act to 312 Minn. (1977), rejected a “facilitate the railroad 135-36 we construction N.W.2d subject westerly by way plaintiffs challenge single from Winona of St. Peter” that
3Q1 by “an not provision relating was violated act hesitate to down strike oversweeping transportation” incorporated legislation to a con- Subject violates the Single levying Clause, stitutional amendment taxes on and Title regardless of the conse public highways fuel for vehicles on quences. rel. State ex Mattson v. Kied (Minn. highway bonds issued to finance construc- 391 N.W.2d rowski tion. held that there was evidence 1986), We no an permitting act single subject provi- of fraud responsibilities transfer of .the Trea State proposed sion not violated was because the surer to the Commissioner of Finance was constitutional amendment was challenged ground act vio general subject separation same as the act’s other lated powers doctrine as See id. at 252 N.W.2d at well single as the subject and title consti provisions. rejected plaintiffs We claim 135-36. tutional restrictions. held act un We “transporta- and that term logrolling separa constitutional as a violation of the tion, express tion” too a single broad powers doctrine and therefore we subject though “transporta- because even issue, did not reach the single term, general tion” it is a mislead- in concurring opinion Yetka, by Justice 401-03, id. ing. See at at Simonett, 136- joined,by disparate Justice heldWe “it is not essential that the of the act prompting were cited émployed, best or even an accurate title be Justice Yetka to declare that “now all restraint, if suggestive be sense bounds of reason and seem to legislative purpose.” Id. at (Yetka, have been Id. at 784 abandoned.” Minn, Olsen, (quoting J., N.W.2d at at referenced, concurring specially). .He 537). 88 N.W. for example, provisions relating agricul land, tural a council of Asian-Pacific Min Similarly, v. Metropolitan Lifteau nesotans and the a recy establishment of Comm’n, Sports Facilities cling id. program. See Justice Yetka (Minn.1978), rejected 752-53 questioned whether this has been too. claim an act “An relating titled act lax in permitting .legislation and ob .such metropolitan government; providing for merely worm that was vexa “[t]he facilities; sports served. establishing sports com- century tious the 19th has become prescribing mission and powers *” * * eating monster the constitution in the duties violated title 20th.” He Id. concluded with an alert to empowered Section 17 when it a commis- the legislature as to what was to come if pursuant sion established to the act to act violated title work the Metropolitan Council to im- provisions in the future: pose percent tax two on the sale of n alcohol near stadium. We reiterated signal [W]e should- send a clear to the of the title type held will of act provided the act’s title sufficient no- Garbage condoned the future. tice of the contents. See id. at 753. appear We Christmas tree bills to be a di- judicial rect, also took notice of the that no cynical fact of our violation constitution * * proposal received more coverage *. It is cléar me that the more media and the legislative process than deference shown courts *9 n what then as was known the bill. legislature stadium and the more timid the ,are See id. acting against courts constitution- infringements, al the become bolder In the three most recent to cases come those would who violate them. however, before this court we while have * * * held that the not challenged publicly did violate warn the [W]e should quite Section we have taken legislature a different that it if does hereafter enact approach. In legislation each instance we took the Chapter similar to which Const, occasion to sound an alarm we art clearly would violates Minn. the bill and the title of of an omnibus fiscal to strike will not hesitate we to consequences taxation. We concluded the bill included regardless
down of courts was property germane or the tax public, the the legislature, id. also unexpected. not See We generally. the bill could acknowledged while at Id. 785. have been more consistent A note of alarm was sounded similar prior subject it was enacted requirement, v. years later in Blanch Suburban three about constitu- warning to the Blanch District, 449 Park Hennepin Regional bills.” Met- frailty “garbage tional of (Minn.1989), a law where N.W.2d Comm’n, 478 Sports Facilities ropolitan au- challenged was under Section N.W.2d to metropolitan park district thorized develop a in an park and to acquire land history of the benefit of the With organization and “relating act titled to court, turn 17 in this we to Section government.” com- operation of state We Appellants parties as claims of the here. thread which “[t]he mented that common wage amendment prevailing sert chap- through runs the various sections of tax of relief filament,” we indeed a ter 686 is mere “operation govern of and local state park bill upheld because the ment” since the amendment intended legislature designed allow NewMech, impact decision to overturn appropriate preceding funds from the ses- prior rulings None our ing tax relief. subject of it fell under the broad sion-thus reasoning such a indulge would strained operation of state appropriations however, do we the clear word nor believe at 155. Yet- government. See id. Justice permits ing inclusion concurred, again joined again ka once provisions in bill. disparate such Simonett, observing that while Justice may tax the amendment have a While be- correctly challenge resolved the costs, impact affecting construction op- cause the did have clearly its that is not nowhere heed earlier warn- portunity to the court’s relief and reform is consideration tax Mattson, ing “[t]he hereafter text. The very mentioned short full over- consequences has notice of the connection between the amendment in its stepping constitutional limitations any subject tax in the Tax Act Omnibus (Yetka, J., Id. drafting of omnibus bills.” falls far of even the mere filament short Pоpo- concurring specially). Chief Justice test. The other sections picked up cudgel when he vich also subjects property concerned such as tax observed, opinion, concurring in a reform, re property income taxes and tax increasingly “the court is concerned about taxes, funds, special incre sales and tax possibilities of future violations of financing ment and mineral taxes-all sub * * * IV, § justices The views of the event, jects any related to tax reform. today as expressed be considered should clearly impact on fi more than an state instructive, co-equal branch of alerting a mini required nances is even a establish government, legislature, our con- virtually germaneness, mum thread C.J., (Popovich, cerns.” Id. at 156-57 con- financ government bill that relates to curring specially). affects, in government operations Metropolitan Sports Then in Facilities way, expenditure state funds. some County Hennepin, Comm’n (Minn.1991), pre Respondents held that contend vailing ger is even exempting space wage a law certain in the Met- amendment less financing oper property rodome from taxation did mane *10 under single subject provision government of Sec- ation of local because violate the re- part prevailing wages are tion 17 amendment was the amendment because the paid law,” of' quired regardless to whether first requires, “sunshine Ap- project publicly the schоol is funded. legislature larger, not fold into more pellants counter did popular bills, wholly po- unrelated and apply beyond not intend the amendment to tentially unpopular provisions may projects.23 publicly funded We do not re- pass not pur- as a stand-alone bill. The argument statutory ambigui- solve that of pose of preventing is to logrolling pre- ty, language but note of the subjects clude appearing unrelated contains no apparent amendment limita- bill, popular not to unpop- eliminate projects tion on school to which it ular in a bill genuinely $100,000 applies than the require- other encompasses general subject. We ment. We have held that taxes on motor fully recognize legislature’s that it is the and vehicle fuel bonds issued to finance prerogative pub- establish our state’s highway germane construction are to the lic policy in prevailing the area of wages subject transportation, property tax ex- and that legislative process is not emptions in the Metrodome are bound rigid textbook rules. None- taxation, subject metropoli- and theless, lawmaking must occur within park tan acquisition ger- district of land is the framework of the constitution. So appropriations mane to an But bill. even while we do not conclude that there was under a interpretation-to liberal avoid suspicious conduct on part of the legislation-to “embarrassment” of construe imрugn nor in in- its' motive requiring prevailing wages amendment cluding prevailing any express public wage amendment lacks limitation to subject related to in a funding predominately financ- bill that was tax re- and operation gov- of state local relief, form and we are concerned about push ernment would the mere filament to single subject lack of a and the figment. mere We decline to do so.24 First, pre- characteristics of logrolling. vailing have wages historically been dis- Appellants next argue there committees, cussed in the labor not tax was no impermissible logroll evidence of committees.25 Amendments ing and therefore the mischief the con 123B.71, 2, § pre- Stat. subd. where stitutional restriction was intended to vailing wage appears, amendment now present. address Appellants’ con historically have through come about ed- Single tention is misdirected. The Sub Clause, ject and Title as Minnesota’s ucation That bills.26 most discussions on argue Appellants government operations. 23. property that the inclusion of the state 123B.71, 2, See, 16, power § § e.g., (addressing amendment Minn.Stat. subd. art. districts); entitled "review and authority sanitary § comment school dis- application trict appeal construction” restricts its (addressing eminent of certain do- However, public seqtion, awards). schools. revisor’s headnotes remaining article main part are the statute thus do not prohibits section rebates in connection scoрe meaning. determine its or See Minn. cigarettes, prohibition with the sale (1998) ("The printed Stat. 645.49 headnotes implications. clear tax reform Unlike these type sections, in boldface before and subdivi- sections related article section nei- sions in editions of Statutes are Minnesota ther of tax nor to state reform mere catchwords to indicate contents of government financing operation. or are not section subdivision and supra statute.”). note 3. See, 3, 1996, Apr. e.g., Act ch. argues 24. The dissent that article section (entitled relating Laws 739 "An act greater has a connection to * * * amending education Statutes than Minnesota other in articles 15 sections * * n However, [123B.71, 2]”); Act of eight subd. June and 16. sections listed dissent, actors, Spec. pertain 1997 Minn. Sess. seven to state ch. Laws (entitled relating "An act education example Commissioner Commerce n * n amending in article 15 of Reve- Minnesota Statutes 1996 Commissioner * n * [123B.71, 2]”). they nue in article refer to subd. *11 rebates, reform, tax and tax in tax relief rate wages place took prevailing taxation, an logrolling, if not tax and tax suggests, truth local levies committee history from the unexplained deviation themes tax reform and relief. credits-all of on the labor, labor discussions of committee there is a reference to Nowhere act. a wages, myriad or school construction suggest other that would words Second, prevailing wages issue of provision having potentially contains senate, bill in the re- companion had no significant impact on the cost of school in the house ceived little consideration title construction. The first clause in the into hearings was inserted committee and virtually generic, bill of the bill seems to be popular much and broader Third, passed in the appropriations theme. other bills entirely legislative different legislative acknowledge we that the have same legislative while same session complicated and rationale process title-“relating organization is to the general an- particular process pursuing for government”27- and operation state clear, obviously a more always other likely of “the interests hardly giving notice adopting direct route to the amendment Wass, required to be affected” we Minn, “project” to would have been redefine 134, at at or that is 177.42, which includes the Minn.Stat. the legislative sense of “suggestive prevail- Minn, original “project” definition Olsen, purpose.” at 88 N.W. wage factors raise ing purposes. These “every pre- at 537. Even with reasonable * * * legislative process, concerns about and id., sumption title,” in favor of the to the germaneness gener- with the lack of chapter 88 N.W. the failure at reform, al of taxes and tax give prevailing even a hint wage prevailing conclude that the amend- wage leads amendment was of the bill single subject provision ment violatеs the us to the conclusion that the title did not of our constitution. provide sufficient notice of the amendment and to meet legislators school districts appellants argue chap Finally, requirement the constitutional of Section provision title ter 231 does violate 17. gave title of Section 17 because its suffi pre
cient notice of the amendment
vailing
and
wage
law. The
Severability
II.
title
17 are often
en
We consider next whether the
title
together,
discussed
but the
chapter
must be held uncon
tirety
requires
purpose
and
serves
different
stitutional because it contains
than a
more
The
analysis.
somewhat different
single subject
give
its title
and
does not
prevent
of the title
fraud or
contents,
reasonable notice of its
or wheth
public-
surprise
legislature and the
on the
er
be a
of the offend
there can
severance
provide
notice of
nature
essence
permitting to
amendment
stand
Johnson, 47
of the bill’s contents. See
Minn,
statutory provisions of
231.
Here,
chapter
other
305
law
of
.require
tion
the entire
theme
the law.
a hundred years
does not
Over
Sullivan,
be declared unconstitutional.
ago,
provi-
we invalidated one
upheld
sion of a law but
the remainder:
First,
do
of Section 17
not
the words
(cid:127)
that,
The familiar rule on the
is
By the
require such a draconian outcome.
part
of
is
while
the statute
unconstitu-
article,
pro-
it
not
plain words of the
does
tional, that fact
not
does
authorize the
it
becoming
hibit a bill
law if
does
from
courts to
declare
remainder void
subjech-it only
embrace more than one
also,
provisions
unless all the
are con-
law shall
more
states that “No
embrace
in subject-matter, depending
nected
on
expressed
than
which
subject,-
one
shall be
Const,
other,
together
operating
for the
each
its title.”28
purpose,
same
or otherwise so connected
implicit
judicial
It is at least
that on
re-
view,
it
together
meaning
cannot
option
bringing
be
court has
of
presumed the legislature would have
the law
compliance
into constitutional
passed the one without the
severing provision
germane
is not
other.
Sullivan,
law.
Minn,
theme of the
72
at
Cf.
72
Third, certainly entire remedy invalidating the severance result of law is not particularly not novel resolution how far the effect useful. In Women’s & Chil- unconstitutionality Hospital, we ruled the law reaches when dren’s challenged provision is Section 17 and invalidated the en- unrelated violated history light of the 28. The constitutional casts no cast over the nature much a.shadow wording, practical re- would be in relation of but the work which wording might courts. sult of a more draconian have doubt until reviewed as the Importantly, clear- at law, were circumstances tire dissent seems special from those here. See concurrence distinguishable ly Minn, overlook, specifically distinguished at 402. There 173 N.W. subjects and “cases distinct law contained two circumstances Naftalin *13 survive, to court provision was the to prerequisites if either where the constitutional in a required engage balancing be to have would enactment of a law been followed two-clearly the a importance between parts of the act are unconstitutional where of Here, where process.29 legislative to reason for some other such failure Const, provision clearly a that is not includes 231 comply 17].” Minn. [§ Minn, (em the mas- of otherwise 199, 74 at 261 not legislation, engage we added); sive need Goff, phasis Freeman v. see.also pursuit.30 a such 238, 241 Minn. 287 N.W. Naftalin, 246 ex rel. Foster v. In State (1956), heavily appeals of relies The court 645.20,31 on enacted that an entire law is unconsti- Minn.Stat.
we observed
unconstitu
permitting courts
sever an
generally in two instances: where
tutional
law.
provision from a
pro-
comprehensive
tional
conflict with a constitutional
its terms
the
vision,
that
act of
of
We have reservation
an
or where the method
enactment
substantively determine
comply
legislature could
with constitutional re-
does
There,
the
sweep
the breadth of
of Section
we held unconstitu-
quirements.
separation
principles
under traditional
of
a law that included
amendment
tional
See,
Inte
powers.
e.g.,
of
passed by
legislature.
the
See id. at
Petition
never
Minnesota,
185,192,
gration
Bar
74 N.W.2d at
inval-
We
of
of
(1943) (“The
199, 12 N.W.2d
noting
although
the entire law
idated
thereby
final
constitutionally
supreme
court is
made the
a
enacted
the balance
[interpreting]
upheld
provision authority
if one
and last resort in
can be
even
law
* *
*
constitution.”).
constitution,
legis
the
the
does not fol-
the
Since
“[i]t
violates
that,
to do
whеre
has
lature cannot authorize the court
low
a bill never
become
prohibits,
what
we reiter
for failure to follow constitutional man-
the constitution
law
enactment,
authority
the offend
process
in the
ate
our
sever
dates
provision
legisla-
comes not
it can be
Id. at
from
sustained.”
unconstitutional,
engage
in far
special
would
29. The
concurrence
dissent as-
pro-
greater
legislative
analysis ignores the
encroachment
that our
distinctions
serts
bill,
ruling
cess
here.
than our
a law and a statute.
between
However
years
consistently
we have
for over
severability
appropriate remedy
provides:
viewed
as the
31.This
provision
law is
when
of a
unrelated to
provision
there is a
in the law
Unless
general subject,
en-
law's
and invalidated the
severable,
provisions
shall not
be
only
two
tire law
when it contained
distinct
provisions
all laws
severable.
If
shall be
subjects.
provision of a law found to be uncon-
void,
remaining provi-
stitutional
opportunity
30. We take
observe
valid, unless
sions of the law shall remain
severing
are
both dissents
of the view
provisions
finds the valid
court
offending provision
discourage
will do little
essentially
inseparably con-
law
so
are
obscuring
legislature
public
from
with,
dependent upon, the
nected
and so
may
unpopular
view laws
unless we
pre-
provisions
void
that the
cannot
step
declaring
the more
take
draconian
sume the
would have enacted
per-
law
We do
entire
unconstitutional.
remaining
provisions
valid
without the
one;
responsibility.
that as
ceive
our
thrust
void
finds the
or unless the court
alone,
ruling
legislative
provisions, standing
the court’s
is to honor
remaining valid
being
by upholding,
possible,
incomplete
incapable
process
where
are
and are
constitutionality
legislative
principle
of the law in
in accordance with the
executed
constitutionally
only
offending
rejecting
intent.
§ 645.20.
provision. Were we to declare the entire law
Minn.Stat.
tare,
the constitution itself and
consistent with our
but from
constitution
interpreting
provisions
precedent
interpreting
cases
violation of
Subject
the Single
and Title Clause. This
to our determination
Central
decision both informs the
from a law is whether
sever
we do not hesitate to declare unconstitu-
“all the
are connected
sub
statutory provision
tional a
violating the
Sullivan,
ject-matter.”
72 Minn. at
Clause,
Single Subject and Title
but avoids
that in Blanch we
questioned
whether we
respectfully
would
entire laws in future viola
I
I do so
invalidate
dissent.
because I
Blanch,
tions of Section 17.32 See
disagree
449
conclusion
with
court’s
path
Bill,
2,
N.W.2d at 155. We decline that
now
1997 Omnibus Tax
Act of June
1997,
231,
2394,
pragmatic
favor of a more
result
that is
ch.
1997 Minn. Laws
vio-
special
ap-
32.The
concurrence and dissent refers
chaos
could
result if
omnibus
* * *
signaling
path the
to Blanch as
court will
propriation bill was declared invalid.
a
take if it holds
bill to violate Section 17.
likely possibility
improp-
if an
[A]
exists that
ruling
That
Blanch,
our
Blanch.
was not
major
is
appro-
er
included in a
upheld
constitutionality
we
of the
priation law the entire
could fall.
law
This
dictum,
law
17
under Section
and in
cau-
greater
approach clearly
a
would be
deter-
tioned, "we are constrained to observe that
risking a
rent
constitutional violation
presence
since it
than
is
of more
one
-
severing only challenged provision
than
subject
constitutionally
renders a
which
bill
approach
the latter
would
because
then
infirm,
appears
unlikely
to us at this time
permit
take a
"to
chance”
any portion
of such a bill could survive
law
fall.
since
entire
would not
Blanch,
scrutiny.”
constitutional
449
Blanch,
C.J.,
(Popovich,
sion of this'law and the remainder ANDERSON, (concurring H. PAUL J. to continue in majority’s effect. The anal- part part). in dissenting ysis ignores plain the constitution’s lan- guage, confuses phases various People sausage respect who love n through legislative which a enactment law should never watch either themof pass, ultimately must encourages the being von Bismarck1 made.—Otto very mischief designed Section 17 was I agree majority chapter with the prevent. Single Subject 231 violates the and Title worded, Section 17 is directly stating IV, of Article Clause Section that: “No law shall embrace more than Constitution, Minnesota I do not agree subject, one expressed which shall be in its simply that we can excise offending Const, IV, § title.” Minn. 17. The provision and allow the remainder of majority language claims this does not Therefore, I law continue effect. require us to invalidate 231 in its respectfully dissent on Part II of the ma- entirety. But a reading ignores such jority opinion. IV, 17 is Section contained Article which expressed majori- For the in the procedures reasons defines the and the ty opinion, prevailing by such, the inclusion of a legislation which is enacted. As wage concerning school language meaning only construction Section 17’s has essentially laws; what was a tax bill violated the context of enacted session other- wise, application Article Section 17 of the Minnesota of Section 17’s title Constitution. While the “mere filament” would be meaningless. The title many years, test has only respect served court for law exists interpretation part has now become def- session law and so of the statutes erential as to render Section 17 ineffectual. as codified the revisor of statutes. See I majority opinion correctly generally Part of the Fur- Minn.Stat. 3C.08 thermore, way reflects the of our court’s 17 in trend decisions no addresses past years: validity on Section 17 over the and the aof law. The proper interpretation returns our court to its in majority’s essentially role would interpreting this section of our constitu- rewrite Section 17 to read: “No tion, namely give each of the con- of a law shall be valid unless it is embraced *18 opinion, by any preference only by personal footnote 33 of court's ed pref- court makes reference to the "dissent's constitution's clear mandate. To the extent declaring guided by any preference, my pref- erence that I am the entire law unconsti- * * give meaning erence would be that this court tutional That statement is based on a IV, language to article premise. preference section 17’s and com- false I have no for de- First, ply with mandate. claring the entire law unconstitutional. indicated, my reading as I have of article chapter light section 4 of of our case origin 1. While the exact and form of this IV, purposes underlying law and the article ascertainable, quotation readily are constitution, section 17 of our me leads comparison sausage making of law and conclusion that 231 does not violate widely attributed German Chancellor Otto Moreover, (1815-1898). my the constitution. conclusion Von Bismarck-Schoenhausen Eigen Siegel, the court lacks the constitutional authori- Lewis D. Jonathan P. The See & Quotations ty offending provision Dictionary to sever an of a law Macmillan Political guid- that violates article section 17 is not law, containing that the law which there ed on the basis by the of the provision properly enacted one, challenged shall be ex- and which only shall be subsequently a court has deter- and that But 17 does in its title.” Section pressed requirements or provision’s mined that the to hold authority by which us give constitution. Such prohibitions violate the As a law unconstitutional. provision a saying is different from a determination above, sim- 17’s mandate is Section stated containing provision itself that the clear, more “No law shall embrace ple and infir- The latter validly was not enacted. expressed subject, which shall be than one challenged mity only is not fatal to Const, IV, § 17 art. in its title.” every provision of provision, but to other added). (emphasis law. A violation of Section the same appreciate fails to the dis- majority The law, not validity at the of the entire strikes bills, laws, and statutes. tinctions between provision.2 We merely challenged that has not proposed legislation A bill consequence on the of viola- commented way legis- completely through made its in Blanch v. Suburban tion of Section that have process. Laws are bills lative Regional Park District when Hennepin and then by enacted been constrained to observe “[W]e we said: are by governor, enacted after signed more than presence it is the since inaction, or days gubernatorial three a bill constitu- which renders passed legislative override of the infirm, tionally appears to us at this time it Const, veto. governor’s See any portion such a bill imlikely that IV, § are laws that 23. Statutes enacted scrutiny.” 449 could survive constitutional codified, organized, are and assembled (Minn.1989). 150,155 Our reason- generally of statutes. the revisor is no ing in Blanch was sound and there (1998) § (defining 3C.10 Minn.Stat. depart reasoning today. from that cause to of stat- publication powers revisor when agree Page I with Justice he notes utes). severing challenged in his dissent that authority court has articulated Our provision purpose defeats the of Section (1998) pro- Minn.Stat. 645.20 to sever only encourage 17. Not would severance has to be vision of a law that been found it. “logrolling,” may well facilitate In the context of a stat- unconstitutional. majority correctly notes that the ute, any particu- makes sense because law.” 17 is that of a “Sunshine of Section provision may have been lar statute designed 17 is to ensure that bills years apart from the passed remainder passed are with reasonable notice of their reflects the the statute. This section also contents, legislators both to and to that, possible, intent when legislature’s public large. designed It is also only of a unconstitutional unpopular provi- unrelated ensure that validly law be stricken and that enacted not hidden in voluminous bills or sions are balance, preserved. law be popular attached to bills to ensure their However, a law severing a challenged provi- passage. Severance of 17 is found to be violation of Section law found to be in violation of sion of a profoundly severing different from an un- pur- 17’s Section would defeat Section provision under constitutional pose judiciary and establish the as a “su- 645.20. per-legislature.” *19 severance, majority es- severability By allowing
The
of a
of a law
pass
predicat-
sentially permits
legislature
in
as articulated
section 645.20 is
passed by
majority
in
fatal variance between the bill
2. The
refers to our comment
Fos-
legislature
signed by
governor,
Naftalin,
and that
ter v.
(1956),
246 Minn.
The I because heeded. find this understandаble. complex, may writings justices ter 231 is so sever an While the of individual important judi- unrelated as we would an unconstitu- this court are parts tional validly process, only speaks enacted law. cial this court a co- Again, argument ignores equal government through fact basic branch its authority majority generally that the aforementioned to sever decisions. See Anchor Miller, 585, 585-86, specifically articulated Minn.Stat. Cas. Co. v. (Minn.1960). Here, authority 645.20. our comes di- 105 This court rectly warnings which has issued no of a like nature dictates single subject require- through majority opinions.3 title clause and the my majority today argues adopts position concurrence in that such warn- Blanch, Kiedrowski, given [v. Blanch. Justice Mattson (Yetka, J., (Minn.1986) concurring special- majority opinion Yetka "the claimed that *20 pre- that the inclusion of the I believe Laws Minnesota
vailing wage provision sub- chapter 231 violates of Article
ject requirements title the Minnesota Constitution
Section 17 of 17 renders of Section
and that a violation However, law invalid.
the entire session previously I have stated
for all the reasons precedent rulings of our
and under the 588 N.W.2d
Holmberg Holmberg, v. Blondell, (Minn.1999), v. Nieting
726-27 122, 132, N.W,2d 597, 603
(Minn.1975), v. Mounds View Spanel District No.
School (Minn.
292-94, 803-04
1962), I have the effect of this deci- would prospective, only to those applying
sion be passed opinion. after the date of this
laws may legisla- application give
Such also desires, opportunity,
ture an if it so amendments
consider such constitutional
necessary exempt legisla- omnibus fiscal 17.4 requirements
tion from the of Section Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE of GUSTAFSON, petitioner,
Terri
Appellant.
No. CX-98-1465.
Supreme Court of Minnesota. 18, 2000.
May However, single subject provi- ly) majority Many did not states that have Blanch ]." have created sions constitutional legislation. their constitutions also explicitly appears apply do so and the same exceptions fiscal lor omnibus up- deferential "mere filament” standard to Rudd, generally Millard R. challenged legislation. hold the Id. at 155. Than One Sub- "No Law Shall Embrace More tepid warning Blanch is a at best. ject," 42 Minn. L.Rev. n. 102