*1 Grubbs, Rusthoven, J. Michael Peter J. INC., al., HEALTHCARE, Fickle, et Pollack-Mil- Stanley M Deborah D & C. (Plaintiffs Shea, below), Crandley, Thomas F. Appellants Mark gate, J. IN, Attorneys Appellants. Indianapolis,
v. KERNAN, ca Quay-Smith, in his official Mulvaney, Joseph E. Karl L. Nana the State of pacity as Governor Laramore, Sanchez, B. A. Jon Rafael (Defendants al., Appellees Indiana, et Carter, Governor, Attor- Steve Counsel below). Indiana, Gary Damon Sec- ney General Barrow, Counsel, H. rest, Frances Chief No. 49S05-0310-CV-437. General, Indianapolis, Attorney Deputy of Indiana. Supreme Court IN, Attorneys Appellees. Dec.
BOEHM, Justice.
passed
Enrolled Act 1866 as
Assembly
prohibit
would
the 2001 General
Adminis-
Family and Social Services
("FSSA")
adopting rules
from
tration
nursing
reimbursements
would reduce
passed by both
The bill was
facilities.
it and
vetoed
houses but
Governor
House after
the bill back to the
delivered
adjourned. The
had
session
nursing home facili-
are several
declaratory judgment
who seek a
ties
became law de-
House Enrolled Act 1866
The Plaintiffs
the Governor's veto.
spite
veto, subse-
the Governor's
claim
85-1, was
by a vote of
quently sustained
ineffective because
Governor's
months before
message
delivered six
it to be
calls for
the Indiana Constitution
legislature. The trial
returned to the
judgment
favor
court entered
Appeals re-
but the Court of
Defendants
versed,
with the Plaintiffs
agreeing
attempted
pre-
veto did not
the Governor's
becoming law. This
the bill from
vent
granted transfer.
Court
II,
in Part
we
explained
the reasons
For
the con-
was no violation of
conclude there
answer
But
the short
stitution.
in Part
I. In
is set forth
Plaintiffs'
claim
it is
any irregularity,
summary, if there is
*2
$99
Acting
capacity
business
in our
as
matter the courts have
leaders
not a
branch,
judicial
members
this Court
entertaining
any departure
because
from
persuade
attempted
legislature
have
wholly
procedure was
trivial
prescribed
judicial
frequently
it should
revise
provides
and
no basis to invalidate the
Indeed,
pay.
specifically
we have
contend-
veto.
Governor's
legislative,
ed
the State should place
Why
Recusing
We Are Not
executive,
judicial
regular
and
salaries on a
parties
The
cite a number of bills over
system of
review reflect inflation with-
twenty years that,
past
like the bill
large,
irregular,
out the
and sometimes
case,
in
involved
were also vetoed and
long-delayed
generated by spo-
increases
Orr,
by
Bayh,
returned
Governors
and
radic
legislation.
individual
have also
We
legislative
O'Bannon before the next
ses
argued
legislative
to both executive and
Among
providing
sion.
these is a bill
predictable,
officers
failure to have
pay
judges
legislat
raise in
for all state
and
pay adjustments
modest
costs the State
presented
in this
ors.1
issue
case is
substantially in financial
through
terms
judges
therefore
intense interest to both
high
early
turnover and
retirement and
legislators.
efficiency
also in
through loss of morale.
important legislation
long
spoke directly
We even
This
over-
Governor
many government employees,
legislative
due.
O'Bannon
favor of the 2001
Unlike
judicial
Therefore,
pay
bill.
judges,
although
legislators,
and elected executive
expressed
we have
no
on
validity
view the
salary
officers receive no annual
review.
veto,
expressed positions
we have
overridden,
if
Even
the veto had been
public
desirability
on
legisla-
of vetoed
judicial
salaries would not
tion that we
assume would be affected
kept up
have
with inflation since the last
ruling
on this case.
adjustment.
pay
The State has failed to
~-
1995,
judicial pay
address
since
with the
personal
Our
financial
interests
ex
adjustment in
particular-
last
1997. This is
pressed
normally preclude
views would
ly egregious
judges participate
because
in participation in this case. Yet we must
plan
the state medical
and bear the costs
address this claim because there is no one
employees
shifted
the State to its
Will,
else to do it. United States v.
years,
recent
but do not receive the com-
200, 211-16,
471,
U.S.
101 S.Ct.
66 L.Ed.2d
pensating
given
allowance
to executive
(1980) (because every judge
had an
result,
employees.
branch
As a
judges
interest
the outcome of the case involv
only
have not
seen declines since 1995 in
salaries,
ing judicial
the "Rule of Necessi
living,
real income measured
cost of
and ty" required
they
not recuse them
they now have their net dollars reduced as
selves);
Gore,
245,
Evans v.
253 U.S.
246-
Legislators
employment
(taxa
well.
have other
(1920)
48,
550,
40 S.Ct.
(judicial pension); ook (Del.1978) (judicial sala A.2d may it: He Ariyoshi, 57 ry); v. Haw. Schwab *3 ok (judicial salary).
P.2d is legislation our view that Despite after final (D) a veto In event of State, simply to the cannot of the General important we adjournment of a session Rather, be we are policies. Assembly, our own bill shall decree such returned in it claim, any which like oth House obliged address this the Governor Gen- day originated er, of the on our best assessment based Assembly in eral session after such must that we law. conclude applicable We ‘ adjournment.... If such bill so the Governor'sveto. sustain returned, it a law be notwithstand- shall Background Factual ing such veto. simply 14(a)(2)(D). V, § are few and The relevant facts Ind. Const. Art. the House April stated. On Cognizable I. Plaintiffs Cite No Harm in Act 1866 House Enrolled passed point prehistory At some in the of the after passed by the Senate previously form law, common courts formulated the emi it a Conference was recommended nently practical doctrine now sometimes of members of both composed Committee " colloquially referred to as "de minimis Assembly houses. General adjourned The formally but stated as "de minimis non day. The Clerk of the House Rep- Freely curat lex." translated from the the bill to Governor presented resentatives Latin, proclaims that the law does not days May 2001. Seven O'Bannon on In contemporary redress trifles.2 Ameri later, vetoed May on the Governor vernacular, way can it is the courts the House. His veto delivered the bill to saying "what," what?" If "So there is no message reported were and veto courts provide ordinary do not relief to on that date. Journals Senate litigants certainly do not interfere with 11May on House was not The session operations of the other branches of on November and first reconvened government. This doctrine is relevant Day" for the 2002 "Organization practical here. Plaintiffs cite no conse meeting day of the The initial quences delivery of the Governor's January was On 2002 session day legisla vetoed bill before the first 14, 2002, the House voted 85-1 March reconvened, ture date. rather than on that the Governor's veto. sustain And it is obvious The there were none. ready legisla bill was "returned" V, the Indiana Cén— Section Article tive action at the first moment the General part: in relevant stitution reads Assembly could consider it. No wheel (a) Every passed which shall have bill machinery slowed government was present- Assembly shall be the General change in status was and no the bill's shall ed to the Governor. Governor delivery May its 11 rather effected on days day pres- after the November 20. To the extent have seven than on pre- allegedly effect of the follows: was upon to act such bill as entment there literal, we think more to which is less but "does not re- 2. Various treatises substitute with," gard," and "cares point. "is not concerned of "does not redress" not for" for our choice delivery, expand by ery mature it was to a few before rather than "on" day the first legis- on November 20 the time the everything hours achieved necessary for the pro- matter. lature had to consider the cess to work. short, there is no substance to the Plain- Plaintiffs make much of the fact that the
tiffs' claim. language on they rely which is found closely
The de minimis doctrine is
relat
Indiana Constitution. But common sense
performance,
ed to the idea of substantial
has driven our constitution from the earliest
irregularities
which teaches that minor
ti me.3
It
order of the
that do not affect the finished product do
1816 and 1851 when that document was
*4
provide
framed,
for a
basis
lawsuit.
and in 1970 when it was amended
Max
to
the provision
Moon,
include
at issue here. The
L.
R.
Veech & Charles
De Minimis
Lex,
537,
Non Curat
45 Mich. L.Rev.
549 de
early
maxim was
developed as
minimis
(1947).
a tool for
interpretation
of documents.
may
One
view these doctrines as
denying legal
signif
it,
intervention where no
leading authority put
one
"it is a rule
As
inflicted,
injury
icant
at least for unin
reason,
of
a
may
substantive rule that
be
wrongs,
denying legal
applied
tentional
or as
inter
in all courts and to all types of
process complained
Moon,
vention where the
of is
issues." Veech &
supra, at 542.
specification
produces
out of
but in the end
Supreme
The
Court
the United States
the same result that
emerged
explained
would have
part
the doctrine "is
of the
from strict
background
conformance. - Hessel v.
established
legal principles
O'Hearn,
(7th
299,
977 F.2d
against
303-04
Cir.
all
which
enactments are adopted,
1992).
complaint
Plaintiffs'
about the Gov
all
which
enactments are deemed to
ernor's veto in this case suffers from
accept."
Dep't
both
Wis.
Revenue v. William
inflict,
Jr., Co.,
214, 231,
defects. No harm whatsoever was
Wrigley,
505
112
U.S.
2447,
(1992)4
on
legislative process.
ed
And
Thus,
deliv- S.Ct.
ry or common (1907). Because there was substantial - rule with the interpret empowered the constitution, with compliance albeit in lex." Veech non curat minimis of de aid compliance, Supreme complete Court The doctrine was Moon, at 543. supra, & upheld of Nebraska amendments. Id. Indiana became before recognized well at (Dall.) 199, 3 U.S. Hylton, v. state. Ware obvious, think it Here we ("De the reasons non minimis 268, L.Ed. 568 II, in Part in detail explained maxim."); lex, Hill's law is an old curat (Pa. language purpose issue West, here is 4 Yeates Lessee v. (Sneed) Todd, legislature Ky. that the 1804); assure havethe earli- v. Roberts early invoked and, Madison consider, if And James possible opportunity est "the issues: best to constitutional it as chooses, to override it so veto. done, may apply tobe can now be *5 message fully veto here met Governor's law, de minimis of the the maxim Constn. objective, and no one suggested that has Madison Letter from James non curat." consequence from arising nefarious 10, 1822), re (July Livingston to Edward in by the procedure followed Governor the Constitution 5 The Founders' printed rejection of Sec- making clear his the bill. Lerner Ralph Kurland & (Philip B. provide bright to designed 14 is also a tion eds.,1987). bill, the time to veto a after which line for maxim, by far the most the applying In is ineffective. The issue a returned veto is purpose factor is the behind significant We given a date means. what "on" not Moon, Veech & interpreted. phrase be bright a that the constitution sets agree recognized This was supra, at 545. deliver requires that the line and Massa of the Justice Holmes then Chief privi- forego that date or the veto a ruling on Supreme Court chusetts Rather, means whatit the issue is lege. machines voting challenge to the use on is or is not "returned" say that the bill in the explicit requirement on based explained date. For the reasons that represen that Constitution Massachusetts II, message delivered think a veto Part we In re vote." by "written tatives be chosen "re- legislature reconvenes before 605, 60 178 Mass. Bill No. no one think on that date. We turned" century ago, Over a N.E. of limitations argue that a statute would approach prevailed common sense given a "on" a suit to be filed requiring ma by voting Election over formalism. that bar a claim filed before date would the ma because was constitutional chines specified a a suit filed before date. Just as form purpose and served the chines date, that so also "filed on" date is votes, literally compli though not written day "returned on" veto Governor's Similarly, Supreme Court Id. ant. short, amend upheld constitutional Nebraska line bright surely provides constitution used to though procedures even ments power. veto their governors to execute not follow amendments did enact a deadline that line is whether The issue require of the state letter in time. point or a amend- proposed constitutional ment that trade). conspiracy to restrain with sales did not establish of interference Long ago, recognized modern observers "on" session, the first of the next it "tendency as a "vice of the law" its Thus, becomes law. to veto a bill after the Assembly General importance op adjourned, attribute undue to form as has the bill must substance, be "returned" posed to and to exalt the on that date.5 imma says constitution also to the if a bill terial level of the material." Sal "is not so it "shall become Plain mond, (6th § Jurisprudence at 25 law." returned" tiffs contend the ed.1920). meaning of this constitu theory Plaintiffs' this case provision tional is clear unequivocal pinnacles takes vice to and disre new and therefore plain meaning its must be gards many practical and sound cases given effect. Plaintiffs argue further from this recognizing Court and others governor's power "'must be prescribed immaterial variances from " strictly construed'" because is a 're See, procedures legal no fallout. e.g., have upon striction the legislative branch of the Morris, Highway Ind. State Comm'n v. and is in derogation of the government (Ind.1988) (plaintiff 528 N.E.2d general plan of government for separa who sent notice of claim to High the State (Br. powers." tion of Appellants at 10 way Commission but not Attorney (quoting Hendricks v. State ex rel. N.W. required by General as the Tort Claims Comm'n, Inc., 43, 52, Ind. Crime 245 Ind. substantially Act compliedwith stat (1964)).) 196 N.E.2d ute); State, 180, 200-01, Porter v. 271 Ind. do agree We that the provision is as (1979) (minor 391 N.E.2d irregu clear as Plaintiffs, contend. jury larities in selection did not constitute quoting Collegiate Webster's Dictionary error where reversible there had been sub *6 (1977), 990 argue that "return" should be statute), compliance stantial with the over given ordinary meaning, and that is "to State, grounds, ruled on other Fleener v. its send back." The responds State that (1980). 274 Ind. 412 N.E.2d In there an ambiguity Section that fact, IIE, explained as in Part Plaintiffs text, solely derives from its and if vetoed proposed reading of the constitution not bills must be "returned" on day, the first only problems; solves no it raises new that is what occurred here. As the Gover- ones. Because the Governor's veto sub it, puts "physical nor the return of the veto stantially constitutionally conformed to the accomplished allowed the 'return' to be prescribed process, the veto properly was {completed) on day the first of the next legislature. returned to the Because the undisputed It is that the vetoed of Representatives then sustained bill, objections, with the Governor's was 85-1, the veto a vote of the bill did not physically present on the first of the become law. next origin session the house of re- as II. The Not Violated Was Constitution (Pet. V, quired by § Art. 14." to Transfer Meaning A. The "Is Not So Re- of 5.) argues, at As the Governor if a veto is turned" in Section 14 date, given returned before a in one sense argue Plaintiffs that Section is unam- it remains returned at all times after that. biguous. says The constitution if that a nicety This on turns whether "is returned" bill governor "is not so returned" the (the a equivalent verb of be re- "to contention, authority when there is We find no for this 5. Plaintiffs also that contend enactment, doubt as to a law's it is resolved in we do not see Section 14 as biased in of favor favor of enactment. The 1972 amendment legislature either the or the Governor if the pro-enactment perspective" "reflects this be- Rather, disagree. clarity two it seeks as to act, cause whenever the Governor fails to the procedures to be used. (Br. 11.) Appellants bill becomes law. Ind. Rev Indianapolis v. Auth. Greater (it turned") of its status description aor 63, 73, Bd., 242 N.E.2d Ind.App. date). enue on this bill returned be a shall of the reading Plaintiffs' sum, although the The result was only not the failed and it is in that case certainly veto plausible, pocket text is governors pocket attempts by one. permissible future This be unsuccessful. would veto bills suggests 14 also history of Section vote, transfer. Court, denied by a the first ... on returned be that "shall Great Transp. Auth. ex rel. Mass State are not as not so returned" day" and "is Bd., 251 Ind. Revenue Indianapolis v. er 14 was claim. Section clear as (1969). As a 244 N.E.2d Ind. a number to address in 1972 amended provi- case, 14 became in the 1851 Section problems result Be- The current version attention. legislative bills. focus of veto of for the sion amendment, pro- constitution Section part the 1972 fore became law unless became in 1990. It was changes that a bill vided immaterial with returned it in the vetoed issues governor to deal with several designed days of its three origin within house of amendment Specifically, process. veto Assembly If the General presentment. "pocket veto" to abolish designed was file was to governor adjourned, gover deadline for the a short by imposing Secretary of his veto with bill this, amendment To do nor to act.6 State, return then would who post-adjournment the time extended The 1851 session." "at its next assembly required a days, from five to seven presentment provision prohibited legislature returned to the bill to be vetoed As- days of the General two within bills Secretary rather than principal adjournment. The final sembly's be the bill State, required from provisions arose over these concern legisla day of the on the first returned had "pocket veto" practice at some rather than next session ture's cases, a time. In several developed over If session." "at its next time indefinite nothing with *7 simply done had governor taken, the constitution not steps are these ad- a recess or shortly before passed bill law. that the bill becomes provides the stymie to The result was journment. was first provision This constitutional the by preventing process constitutional Assembly 1969 General by the passed the bill presenting from Secretary of State In in 1972. by the voters approved day of last On the legislature. the drafted, the language was the when practice held this Appeals of the Court dealing provision Indiana hold- invalid, that its expressly stated but was, today, retroactively to earlier vetoes as apply gubernatorial not with ing would V, provided: It Art. Section Transp. rel. Mass ex legislation. State for the Mass have been no need There would the principal brief asserts 6. Plaintiffs' been clear Transportation decision had it be: could purpose the 1972 amendment of pocket ve- practice stop the been to did not allow have Section 14 1968 that fore contends, toes, Section because State the 1970 Constitutional as the pocket vetoes. As They apparent already prohibited them. noted, Report "the Commission Revision on transfer that contention ly abandon judicial decision from resulted amendment event, any contention their In this Court. (in pocket veto the the nullifying use of plainly ... shows Transportation that "Mass case)." Authority Ind. Transportation Mass by pre-1972 prohibited vetoes were such Council, the Constitu- Report Legislative 14," V, section version of article amendment (1970). Commission Revision tional 13), (Br. the mark. misses Appellanis at If bill shall by not be returned sions called for the 1851 Constitution. governor days (Sundays within three ex- IV, 9; Ind.: § Const. Art. §§ 2- Ind.Code cepted) after it shall present- have been (West 2.1-1-2, 2000) (Historical -3 him, law, ed to it shall be a without his Notes); Statutory Ind. Chamber of Com signature, general unless adjourn merce, Here Is Your Indiana Government return; prevent ment shall its in which 1997-1998, (28th ed.1997). 28-29, at At law, case shall be a gover- unless the time, the same Legislative Services nor, days within five next after such Agency greater assumed a role and the adjournment, bill, shall file such with his legislature provided year-round for staff. objections thereto, in the office of the Walsh, supra. This change is reflected state; secretary of lay who shall both the House and Senate Standing Rules general assembly, same before the at its Orders of 1969 and 1971. In session, next in like manner as if it body's neither Rules and Orders mention has governor. returned But no possibility of filing session, been bill shall be bills before presented governor but in 1971 provide both possibili days within two next previous to the ty. All changes occurred, of these howev adjournment final general assem- er, after the amendment to Section was bly. passed drafted and first by the legis (West V, Ann. § Ind.Code Const. Art lative session. 1999) (Historical Notes) added). (emphasis In light history, of this and the practices shows, phrase As the italicized the con at the time Section 14 was stitution itself assumed that if the General written, we think it clear that the 1851 session, Assembly was not in that cireum- provision veto, gubernatorial still in "prevented" stance from "re effect in reflected an assumption of a turning" a adjournment veto. The reason citizen legislature that did not meet in the "prevented" a "return" is found years truly even-numbered disbanded history operation legislature. to return everyday life in twenty there was far permanent less staff months between the biennial sessions of the sort that had become common IV, called for in Article Section 9 as it read Walsh, the 1980s. Justin E. The Centen from 1851 until concept 1970. The of "ses- nial History the Indiana General As day" sion had been adopted recognition 1816-1978, sembly, 533-35, reality legislature that the could not Legislative Sessions and Pro conduct sixty-one its affairs in calendar law, (1998), § cedures Ind.Code 2-2.1-1 *8 days, and interim recesses prevalent were was passed first in Legisla and the in adjournment addition to until the next tive Council was first in created Ind. session. Under regime, if neither (West 2000) (His § Code Ann. 2-5-1.1-1 session, in branch was assumption the of Notes). torical Statutory Indeed, and the of the 1851 Constitution and there was no Agency Services Legislative drafters the of legislature mindset the 1969 until was § 1978. Ind.Code Ann. 2-5-1.1-7 that the General Assembly was not in busi- (West 2000) (Historical and Statutory Notes). result, ness. As a pursuant a there was no one to to constitution al approved by governor amendment whom the the could "return" a ve- voters allowing the toed bill. Assembly provision General to fix The in Section 14 that length sessions, the and frequency of its the bill be "returned on" the of first the Assembly General began meeting the next requiring session was seen as that annually rather than in the biennial ses- it possible be "returned" at the earliest discussed pay bill In addition 1982. accomplished. could be return that a
date claimed laws are above, variety there of other a procedures legislative current Under the process same by time between have been vetoed course a window is of the next day of by the first Plaintiffs' and adjournment be resuscitated and could open staff legislative when and we respond, session Plaintiffs here.7 success delivery is physical a and for business governor practice past that agree, written, time it was at the But possible. cannot validate Assembly and the General a setting as both seen 14 was Section They note process. unconstitutional an bill the vetoed that requiring and deadline in con so held Transportation Mass date to possible the earliest be available was the veto" that "pocket demning the it. Plain- override legislature allow veto, pocket The that case. subject the constitutional point tiffs make arguably however, practice involved carefully. words chosen their have framers re directly contravened on to occur an event they intend When the veto face that the quirement "on," and date, the word they use specific by sign responsibility take issue and deadline, they to create a they intend when Account returning bill. a veto and ing Given "by" or "before." words use the tor visibility governor's and ability however, time, language at the practice objectives of legitimate plainly are pedo unambiguous is contend that Plaintiffs entirely an we have framers. Here result, intended to its unclear as quite fact interpre are faced with issue. We different 1969, a possible if, thought as was susceptible that is provision of a tation a new before delivered physically bill was any No one advances readings. different convened. session was practice was frustrated policy that during adjournment, delivery physical and Executive The Practice B. at all that "is returned" a bill producing Section Branches Under Legislative the first delivery, including on times after The actions the next session. day of into is called claim clarity Plaintiffs Assembly, the General and governors both prac- decades by at least two question constitution, "flouting" the than rather legislature. and governors tice both their simply to evidence may taken be the Governor argues The State re of the constitutional understanding their indicate Assembly's actions General decades, no with two over some quirement and re- constitution understanding of the branch or from either suggestion gover- three of at least practice flect the questionable.8 practice that the court at least to dating legislature nors and 16.) (Br. Appellants at legislation." on House Jour- According to the Senate "the con- rely doctrine that the veto since instances nals, in 82 dispositive as to journals been returned are message appeared to have tents of such adjournment events," after suggest of time that in the the window not re- ensuing We have before the showing the Governor's a record absence of *9 not periods and we have earlier searched day the of on the first and its return veto underlying documentation. the examined session, did Assembly's that it next General Jour- and House relevant Senate The bills and 16-17.) (/d. Governor's The at not occur. Appendix A. are listed in nal entries Jour- in the House recorded veto was in faci at 1329 Journal Indiana House nal. "early allowing argue the also 8. Plaintiffs Thus, Adjournment"). ('Messages After purposes the "would frustrate of bills return'' argument has no merit. and Sen- requiring the House Indiana law of action public journals of all ate to maintain practice prior Both sides cite the of gov- But, on that date. that also is inconclusive legislatures ernors and as an aid as to the timing of deliveryof the vetoes. construction of Section 14. The Governor cases, In other the message simply stated Attorney and the argue past General that "I bill, have vetoed" the and said messages veto a pattern show consistent nothingabout delivery.9 its that reflects the understanding gover- nors and legislators over at twenty point least out that some instanc years procedure that the followed with re- es the veto message appears in journal spect to House Enrolled Act 1866 con- for the day first session, the ensuing formed to constitution. In all of these and contendthat this the legislature shows cases, "Messages Adjournment" After received some messages on day the first journals section of the reflects veto mes- this, reconvening. they From argue that sages, cases message most there has been no practice of consistent bears date within ten days adjourn- after delivering veto messages before the first ment and before the session. A few next day of the following session. This argu are undated. The fact messages that the ment proceed seems to from a fallacious appear the "Messages Adjourn- After premise, journal entries of veto mes session, ment" section of the old rather sages in the ensuing session in most cases journal than in the session, for the new appear on the vote, date of the override suggests that messages were indeed governor not date the delivered the by legislature received the new before veto message. The entries do purport not convened, session merely but this is an to establish that the messages were deliv inference. Similarly, some of these mes- ered on the day, first sages it is stated that that in was "veto- clear ing" and "returning" many the bill on the cases the entries date of were not the date of delivery.10It is true that in the instanc- message, suggests also delivery which message The veto following House Enrolled Act Indiana Senate Journal at 1866 at issue May in this case was dated (1982). But because the bill was not hereby and read: "I veto House En- day, considered on the message does rolled Act 1866 and return it to the House of appear not on that date. The inference seems Representatives for further action." Indiana clear that the bill was in fact received (2001). Journal at 1330 In some legislature some time on before the first or ' cases, message, the veto dated in that window day, reading and a fair of Governor Orr's time, read, example: ""Ireturn herewith message is that it was delivered on "this 5th House Enrolled Act which I have ve- 1981," day May, long before the next ses- day toed April, this 6th Indiana 1983." sion convened. example For an aof similar (1983). others, House Journal at 875 entry administration, Bayh's in Governor see dated, message, also so hereby read: ""I (the House Journal for March 29th Senate Enrolled Act 116 and return it here- day), message where the veto for House En- with...." Indiana Senate Journal at 537 10, 1989, May rolled Act appears. dated (1992). (1990). Indiana House Journal Jour- nal entries Governor Bowen's administra- example, 10. For in the case of Senate Bill tion, years, unlike those in accompa- later are message Governor Orr's 1981 read: "I nied Secretary "Statement" from the return herewith Senate Bill which I have Senate that the May, vetoed this 5th vetoed bills "have been 1981." Indiana Senate returned to Journal at the Senate and message received me." That appears "Messages entry in both the The statement Adjourn- is filed as an After for the first day, session but say is undated and does ment" of the 1981 section session and occurred, when the "receipt" "return'" or Senate Journal for the date on which override considered, February only ("have which was happened that it at some time . *10 twentieth, first, the day not the of the been") See, before the eg., statement. (1915) 459, 474, 59 L.Ed. 35 S.Ct. message the veto cite
es the "long-continued president's that a (noting all But in almost day. first on the appears in acquiesced and known to practice, also the day was cases, first the of those that presumption" "a creates Congress" to an override subject day the bill of the proper exercise is a practice the vote. Arnold, 208 Lutz v. power); president's in various appear messages The veto ("In 480, 508, 193 N.E. Ind. from clear it is Although formulations. had Legislature the determining whether governor the when entries journal the enact certain right the constitutional that and some recite message, each signed interpretation Legislature's the legislation, veto, we with is concurrent the return great weight, is entitled to power its evidence independent to no are directed long a in for acquiesced where especially was deliv- message the date on which time."). Regardless of whether period result, al- aAs legislature. to the ered before message was delivered first num- that a substantial it is clear though delivery of case, the constant day every all, bills, were perhaps of these ber fact day is a salient the first before vetoes to veto used procedure vetoed prac of the approval evidences here and in- 1866, in several Act Enrolled of current Section the life most of tice over with to determine are unable we stances is or is not the veto whether confidence likely it seems and in some category, that 14 was that Section also notes The State day. on the delivered were the bills in the change in 1990 without amended many Nevertheless, it is clear sev For at least issue here. language at of the a decade within years, beginning had be governors years before eral 14, at current Section of the date delivery of effective physical practice gun before delivered vetoes were some least a new onset of before the bills vetoed objection by the without next session there Though A. Appendix See session. legislature. delivery practice may be no consistent day of for the first waiting "early" or history contends
The State acceptable session, was deemed delivery either practice that the demonstrates by the Gener upon acted with the day consistent the first is before Amendment protest. Assembly without al certainly support There constitution. without provision a or executive the view has practice current change to eliminate constitu a on the patina can build practice suggesting factor cited as one been Sheet & Youngstown framework. tional permissible. interpretation 610-11, Ratliff Sawyer, 343 U.S. Tube Co. v. (Ind. ("[A] Cohn, N.E.2d v. 96 L.Ed. 72 S.Ct. subsequent 1998). a practice, prior Like unbroken, practice, executive systematic, disregard of justify does of Con amendment knowledge long pursued amend constitution, subsequent but ... questioned never before gress that has language change ment without on 'executive gloss as may be treated satis suggests practice construed been in the vested Power' President...." and the Gener- governors' faction with Co., U.S. v. Midwest Oil States United ap- veto and it transmitting governor's (1974). These at 7 Journal Indiana Senate opening been done pears to have practice under earlier in contrast to are Senate Jour- ensuing Indiana time, 14. At that version of Section pre-1972 message Secretary State delivered at 15 nal *11 Assembly's al provision view of how the changes began in 1967 and the Commis- applies. That is the case with sion ultimately Section 14. twenty recommended con-
stitutional amendments between 1967 and "Legislative History" C. The the 1969. Report, supra, at 1. At the time the Amendment Commission submitted its 1970 report, the amendment to Section 14 had already been helpful We are directed to no comments passed by the 1969 General Assembly, from the unknown author of Section Indiana (1969), House Journal at 1980 legislative history. and no In addition to required passage by the General Assembly relying on the text of Section Plaintiffs to be elected in November 1970 before it direct us to a 1970 Report of the Constitu would be submitted to the voters in 1972 tional Revision Commission prepared by pursuant XVI, to Article Section 1 of the Legislative Council explaining the 1972 Constitution. In the Report amendment. point Plaintiffs out that the cite, V, the amendment to Article Commission, amendment, in describing the Section 14 was expressly excluded from stated that it "requires the Governor to those identified as recommended return to Assembly the General on its first Commission. The specifically Commission day in session a bill vetoed during a recess noted introduction to the 1970 Re- its adjournment or ...." Legislative Ind. port that the 1969 Assembly General had Council, Report the Constitutional Revi- already approved nine of the Commission's ston Commussion 10 The Court of "proposals." footnote, In a the Commis- Appeals heavily report relied on this for its sion added: "A amendment, tenth also ap- conclusion that the "drafters" intended not proved, was by an individual submitted merely vetoes, to impose a deadline for but legislator resulted from the court deci- also to require a return -on a specific date. nullifying sion the use of the pocket veto. Healthcare, O'Bannon, D & M Inc. v. The ruling was issued after the Commis- N.E.2d (Ind.Ct.App.2003). On its sion had report." concluded its Report, face, the Report text of the appear would supra, at 1. This plainly footnote refers to suggest the view that the 1972 Amend the amendment that became current See- ment to Section was to provide intended tion 14 and disclaims the Commission's date, specific deadline, not a for the parentage of it. If there were doubt return of a veto. Report The did not point, on this is removed a review of address the issue physical whether deliv Report, the 1969 which was the Commis- ery before the created a "re sion's first official document and lists a turned" bill. The quoted phrase simply number of recommended amendments. a description of the amendment in the None of these affected Section 14. See course of a discussion the issue. Comm'n, Constitutional Revision Biennial The Court of Appeals apparently accept- «Report to the Indiana General 'Assembly ed Plaintiffs' assertion that the Commis- (1969). Thus, although Report sion was the author of the constitutional may approach the status of an official com- language in question. But Report mentary on the Commission's recommen- does not have the status of an authorita- dations for amendments commentary tive on this constitutional time, pending at the the Commission's de- amendment. Nor report is it a from the seription of Section 14 at is most a contem- proposer of the revision to 14. poraneous Section account of the amendment Section project which did Commission's originate study with Indiana Constitution - - - recommend the Commission. *12 pre- from the one dressing issues different Re- of the portion a cite also
Plaintiffs here. sented resolved question the described port that to Section amendment then-pending by the given pamphlet a Plaintiffs cite Finally, 14 as: to the amendment describing voters to for the given The reason 14. Section amendment sessions If the time of specific "No that amendment pre- to [(then pending an amendment the 1851 Constitu- [in prescribed return is session)] ap- during recesses vent it should tion], unclear when ... it is Assembly could General the proved, further, and, the effect what be returned more or one week recesses schedule would legislation such to return of failure af- this How would during the session. could it be acted be; killed or it be would the Gover- Should time limits? fect the time, Ind. if returned?" at a later upon a during legislation return vetoed nor Questions Council, Five Legislative day first until or wait recess argue Hoosier Voters session? statement, the lan- along with this that again, at 11. Once supra, Report, that amendment, told voters of the guage a the effect of did not address Commission a date certain was to set amendment a bill before delivery of a has to return governor a which upon it question directly answer not did says is pamphlet But all bill. vetoed that Rather, made clear simply posed. (1) a deadline for sets the amendment through exercise only "can killed bill be veto, makes clear exercising the It did supro, Report, the veto." to by failing could not governor how a veto the mechanics not address past had governors as a bill return descrip- passing than in its other delivered Questions veto. pocket through amendment. tion of Voters, It does not state at 9-11. supra, bill return a vetoed must that a observations think the Commission's We on a date certain. same by the shaped 14 are on Section of lan- the choice generated mindset Section D. The Function Commission's 14. The for Section guage 14 does language of Section are to Because in context "recess" to references us, before question clearly not resolve within a or more" a week "for recesses purpose to look to the appropriate it is adjournment between session, to as well as meaning. illuminate its provision Constitu- pre-1972 Because the sessions. applies to days proposition from This in three required the veto tion Ind. Gam as statutes. as well provisions during session a recess presentation, Moseley, 643 N.E.2d v. ing Comm'n amend- without problematic be would (Ind.1994); Cap rel. Eakin v. State ex was. 14. The amendment ment Section Managers Bd. Improvement ital veto would pocket that a make clear 474 N.E.2d sum, County, Marion a recess. during effective be 24, 25 (Ind.1985); Peggs, amend- Ind. v. Tarlton observations Commission's V, 14); among § ex (construing Art. was not State which to Section ment India Auth. Greater Transp. a recita- rel. Mass more than are little proposals, its Bd., Ind.App. Revenue napolis v. Ind. then-pending language of tion of the (1968) (same), 63, 71, 242 N.E.2d through the lens viewed amendment that the argue sides Both a "re- trams. denied. of when understanding then-current 14 are furthered purposes of Section and ad- accomplished, first be turn" could they urge. construction agree All struction of Section 14. If a "return" can- one principal goal of the 1972 amendment not be effected November, until laws hav- provide was to a date certain by which the ing passed in the spring at the end of a *13 governor must act or a bill became law usual legislative session, which frequently signature. without his pocket The veto purport to be in effect July as of will be was thus to become a relic of past. in an uncertain status for several months. And it equally seems clear that the Section Plaintiffs contend that uncertainty is in- was intended to require herent process the veto because an act on a timetable that permitted legis- possible. is But legislature override lature to respond to a during adjourn- has addressed the effective date of vetoed © opportunity, ie., ment the first bills. A veto announced and physically day first of the next session. But Plain- delivered legislature before the ef- identify tiffs no good why reason the con- fective date makes clear that the law will stitution or its framers would pro- wish to not be effective unless and until the veto is physical hibit a delivery of a veto before it 1-1-8.1-8(d) overridden. § Ind.Code - is due. The use of "returned on" simply (1998); §22, H.E.A.1866 112thGen.As- reflects the then-current understanding sem., (Ind.2001). Ist Reg. Sess. By con- that that only date was not the desired trast, if Plaintiffs are correct and a deadline, but also the first opportunity to veto cannot be completed until the next complete a "return" of a to a branch of bill session, the effective date of many bills will government that floated into and out of pass before that Anyone time. affected existence from viewed, time to time. So the law would be period left in a of several the returned status accomplished only of uncertainty months as to the lawfulness entity when the to whom return is re- of actions taken in period the interim be- quired present to receive it. This con- tween the purported law's effective date struction does no violence to the framers' and day the first the next session. objectives, text, is consistent with gives respect due branches, to views of the other Conclusion eminently and is practical. agree We that the Plaintiffs' literal read- E. ing Problems permissible with the Section 14 is View and per- Plaintiffs haps persuasive even if taken in isolation. To some it seems to defy common sense But there remains ambiguity in the lan- major consequences attach to the guage of Section 14. Both . having, it, Governor's as his counsel put and executive branches have treated nu- "sent And, his homework in early." as merous interim vetoes as long effective as I, explained in Part if even the veto was they as were delivered before the next delivered, prematurely that would not in- practical We see no reason for validate the Physical veto. delivery before the construction the urge, Plaintiffs a bill is required to be contra- "returned" significant disadvantages to it. venes no We con- policy. identified But there are clude that Section 14 places a practical also deadline for consequences to the Plain- physical delivery, permits tiffs' view that but lead us to conclude that it be time, cannot have done at long been the so as intended result the result is a language chosen returned veto on drafters of the next Section 14. The points State session. Accordingly, the at best we hold that awkward and perhaps disastrous situations Governor's veto of House Enrolled Act created proposed Plaintiffs' con- 1866 was valid. Because House then judgment The rely. Plaintiffs not become veto, did the bill sustained is affirmed. trial court the tri- requested law. implementation enjoin the
al court by FSSA adopted the rules enforcement JJ., concur, RUCKER, DICKSON Act Enrolled House conflicting with as C.J., SHEPARD, concurs with conclude we Because opinion. separate law, the did become Act 1866 Enrolled J., SULLIVAN, participating. is not on which to the flaw subject are not rules A
Appendix *14 section of Adjournment" After "Messages in the message appears case, every the veto In by a accompanied instances, message the veto most preceding parentheses elsewhere, listed that is is found the veto a date for date; not and it is where volume separate in a reproduced are session for each Indices message date. the veto under cases, neither In some an index. contains journal also journals, but each from the below, shown, except as noted action Where vetoed bill. action reflects indices or vote to sustain of the the date session on the next journal of in the message appears veto, that is indicated the Governor's to override vote was veto. Where override the Governor's to override voted houses which both dates on listing of the two and the other. is no action veto, typically there to sustain house voted If one veto. 14(a)(2)(D) V, in Article Section mandate found appearance Despite the (C)"; Clause in Clause time set out upon within and voted ("The be reconsidered must bill session"), in some cases regular the next adjournment of final (C) vote "before requires a never occurred. perhaps next session in the not occur vote did (Ind.1981) Spec. Assem., Reg. Sess. 1st 102nd Gen. 18, 1980 Nov. Commenced 30, 1981 Apr. Adjourned - 29, May 27 1981 Spec. Sess. for New Session Message Journal Veto Message Date Bill Veto
Vetoed 15, 1982 Feb. Mar. Feb. Feb. Mar. 1,May 1981 1 S.E.A. H.E.A. 1579 1 20, 1991 1, _ May 1981 15, 1982 4,May 1981 485 239 S.E.A. S.E.A. 15, 1982 5,May 1981 1 20, 1991 6,May 1981 1588 H.E.A. (Ind.1982) Assem., Reg. 2nd Sess. Gen. 102nd 17, 1981 Nov. Commenced 20, 1982
Adjourned Feb. for New Session Message in Journal Veto Date Message Veto Bill Vetoed 28, 1983 Jan. Mar. Jan. Jan. 25, 1982 442 Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. S.E.A. H.E.A. 1853 1 20, 1991 25, 1982 28, 1983 26, 1982 363 S.E.A. S.E.A. 28, 1988 26, 1982 413 reconsideration, within the 1981, the House vetoed in were Although these bills 1. 5, Consti- 14 of the Section meaning of Article until act on them legislature did not 1991, at 649-56 20, seven- Journal "Clerk identified House Indiana Mar. tution." - On bills, which dating down back handed Speaker House then teen Senate, had been House passed the had and the reconsideration bills seventeen and returned Governor vetoed them. voted on presented to not been had House but which
913 Assem., (Ind.1983) Reg. Spec. 103rd Gen. Ist Sess. Commenced Nov. 1982 Adjourned Apr. 1983 - 16, Spec. Sess. Dec. 6 1982
Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Message Veto in Journal for New Session 22, 22, Apr. Apr. S.E.A. 449 1983 1988 Feb. Mar. HE.A. - (Ind.1984) Assem., Reg. 103rd Gen. 2nd Sess. Commenced Nov.
Adjourned 1,Mar. Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Message Veto in Journal for New Session HE.A. 1297 Mar. Mar. - *15 (Ind.1985) Assem., Reg. 104th Gen. Ist Sess. 20, Commenced Nov. 1984 7, Reconvened Jan. 1995
Adjourned 15, Apr. 1985 Message Vetoed Bill Veto Date Veto Message in Journal for New Session 2 5, 21, S.E.A. 316 S.E.A. 4172 1986 Feb. Feb. Jan. 1986 H.E.A. 16352 24, 1986; 5, Feb. 1986 H.E.A. 16812 5,Mar. 1986 (Ind.1986) Assem., Reg. 104th Gen. 2nd Sess. 19, Commenced Nov. 1985 7, Reconvened Jan. 1986 5, Adjourned Mar. 1986 Message
Vetoed Bill Veto Message Date Veto in Journal for New Session 6, S.E.A. 17, 384 Mar. 1986 Feb. 1987 (1986 559) House Journal at Assem., (Ind.1987) Reg. Spec. 105th Gen. 1st Sess. 18, Commenced Nov. 1986 6, Reconvened Jan. 1987 Adjourned 29, Apr. 1987 30, (one Spec. Apr. day) Sess. 1987
Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Message Veto in Journal for New Session 4,May S.E.A. 875 19, 1987 Feb. 1988 (1987 1073) House Journal at Assem., (Ind.1988) 105th Gen. 2nd Sess. Reg. 17, Commenced Nov. 1987 instances, governor's In these veto mes- "Messages were contained in a list of After sage is undated appears as it the House Adjournment." Journals, although and Senate messages
914 4, 1988 Jan. Reconvened 29, 1988
Adjourned Feb. for New Session Message in Journal Veto Date Message Bill Veto Vetoed 7, 23, 1989; 1989 Mar. Feb. 2, 1988 Mar. 170 S.E.A. 645) (1988 House Journal 23, (Same) 1989 Feb. 1988 Mar. 189 S.E.A. (Ind.1989) Spec. Assem., Reg. Sess. 1st 106th Gen. 22, 1988 Nov. Commenced 4, 1989 Reconvened Jan. 29, 1989 Adjourned Apr. - 4,May 1989 May 2 Spec. Sess. for New Session Message in Journal Veto Message Date Bill Veto
Vetoed 1 Mar. 1991 5,May 1989 1606 H.E.A. ° > 1990; 1990 Mar. Jan. May _ 1989 441 S.E.A. House) (0 Senate; Sust. 8, 1990 Mar. 6,May 1989 S.E.A. 386 1 20, 1991 Mar. 6,May 1989 1655 H.E.A. 1 20, 1991 Mar. 6,May 1989 H.E.A.1963 Mar. 9,May HE.A. 1870 20, 1991 Mar. May H.E.A. 8,Mar. May H.E.A.1930 *16 (Ind.1990) Reg. Assem., Sess. 2nd 106th Gen. 21, 1989 Nov. Commenced 3, 1990 Jan. Reconvened 18, 1990 Adjourned Mar. New Session Message in Journal Veto Date Message Bill Veto
Vetoed 1991; 18, 17, 1991 June 15, Jan. 1990 Mar. 108 S.E.A. House) (O Senate; in Sust. houses) (0) (Both 20, 1990 20, Nov. 1990 Mar. H.E.A. 1855 20, Mar. 1991 20, 1990 Mar. H.E.A. 1373 (Ind.1991) Spec. Assem., Reg. and Sess. 1st 107th Gen. 20, 1990 Nov. Commenced 7, 1991 Jan. Reconvened 30, Apr. 1991 Adjourned - 23, May 1991 18 Spec. Sess. - 14, 1991 May 28 June Spec. Sess. for New Session Message in Journal Veto Message Date Veto Bill
Vetoed Action not found 1,May 1991 H.E.A. 1285 (Ind.1992) Assem., Reg. 2nd Sess. 107th Gen. 19, 1991 Nov. Commenced 6, 1992 Jan. Reconvened 14, 1992 Adjourned Feb. Session for New Message in Journal Veto Message Date Bill Veto
Vetoed (0) 29, 29, 22, 1993; Apr. 22, 1998; Apr. 1998 1998 Jan. Jan. 21, 28, Feb. Feb. 1992 1992 116 S.E.A. S.E.A. 76
915 (O Senate; House) Sust. in Assem., (Ind.1993) Reg. Spec. 108th Gen. 1st Sess. 17, Commenced Nov. 1992 5, Reconvened Jan. 1993 Adjourned 29, Apr. 1993 Spec. 30, Sess. June 9 1993
Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Veto Message in Journal for New Session 5, H.E.A. May 1804 19983 (See Not acted inon 1994 1994 178) Index at Assem., (Ind.1995) Reg. 109th Gen. 1st Sess. 22, Commenced Nov. 1994 4, Reconvened Jan. 1995 Adjourned 29, Apr. 1995
Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Message Veto in Journal for New Session May5, May8, May10, May10, May10, May10, _- S.E.A.443 1995 1995 21, Nov. 1995 HEA.1766 - 15, 1996; 21, Feb. Feb. 1996 -_ __ S.E.A.250 S.E.A.360 1995 1995 1995 21, Nov. 1995 1995; Nov. Jan. S.E.A. _563 Nov. HEA 1152 - 1996; Jan. Feb. (O House; Senate) Sust. May H.E.A. 1063 Action not found Assem., (Ind.1996) Reg. 109th Gen. 2nd Sess. Commenced Nov. Reconvened Jan. Adjourned 8,Mar.
Vetoed Bill Veto Message Date *17 Message Veto in Journal for New Session 12, S.E.A. 269 Mar. 1996 16, 1997; 23, Jan. Jan. 1997 (O Senate; House) Sust. 14, H.E.A. 1299 Mar. 1996 21, Jan. 1997 19, S.E.A. 106 Mar. Mar. 1996 1996 1996 1996 11, 1997; (0) 13, Feb. Feb. 1997 21, 21, 21, S.E.A. 234 18, Feb. 1997 H.E.A. 1042 Mar. H.E.A. 1280 Mar. 21, 1997; (0) 80, Jan. Jan. 1997 21, 1997; 30, (0) Jan. Jan. 1997 Assem., 110th Reg. (Ind.1997) Gen. Spec. 1st Sess. 19, Commenced Nov. 1996 7, Reconvened Jan. 1997 Adjourned Apr. 29, 1997 - Spec. 29, May Sess. 14 1997
Vetoed Bill Message Veto Date Message Veto in J ournal for New Session 12, HEA. 11603 May 12, 1997 1998; 22, Jan. Jan. 1998 - (1997 8ss) House Journal at 3. These messages were recorded twice sion on the listed date where a vote was then once on the first following special taken to sustain governor's or override the session and once in the next ses- veto.
916 12, 1998 Jan. 2,May 11773 H.E.A. 1997 23s) (Same at 3 17, 1998 Feb. 18, May 1588 1997
H.E.A. 8ss) (Same at 3 12, 1998 Jan. May H.E.A.1845 1997 88s) (Same at listed are Adjournment" but "Messages After House in the (These not listed are four bills - Adjournment.") "Messages After Journal 1996Senate (Ind.1998) Reg. Assem., Sess. 2nd Gen. 110th ' 18, 1997 Nov. Commenced 6, 1998 Jan. Reconvened 27, 1998 Feb. Adjourned New Session Message in Journal Veto Message Date Veto Bill
Vetoed Apr. 1999 S$.E.A. 1998 Mar. 185 283) (1999 Index 14, 1999; 1999 Jan. Jan. 18, 1998 Mar. H.E.A. (Ind.1999) Assem., Reg. Sess. Ist 111th Gen. 17, 1998 Nov. Commenced 6, 1999 Jan. Reconvened 29, 1999 Apr. Adjourned New Session Message Journal Veto Message Date Veto Bill
Vetoed May 18,1999 Mar. S.E.A. (Ind.2000) Assem., Reg. Sess. 2nd 111th Gen. 16, 1999 Nov. Commenced 10, 2000 Jan. Reconvened 3, 2000 Mar.
Adjourned for New Session Message in Journal Veto Message Date Veto Bill Vetoed 7, 2000 not found Action Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 1278 Mar. Mar. 1214 Mar. 1150 Mar. 1180 1124 Mar. Mar. Mar. H.E.A. 1281 (0); found action not 15,2000 15,2000 15,2000 House Feb. S.E.A. not found (O); action Feb. S.E.A. not found Action H.E.A. 1897 15,2000 not found Action H.E.A. H.E.A. H.E.A. H.E.A. HEA. H.E.A. H.E.A. found Action not *18 (0) 28, 2001; 2001 16, 15,2000 Jan. Jan. 15,2000 found Action 15,2000 found Action not 15,2000 15,2000 found Action not 1102 1073 found Action not (Ind.2001) Assem., Reg. 1st Sess. 112th Gen. 21, 2000 Nov. Commenced 8, 2001 Jan. Reconvened 29, Apr. 2001 Adjourned New Session Message Journal Veto Message Date Bill Veto
Vetoed (0) 14, 2002; 18, 2002 3, 3, Mar. _ May 2001 _ May 2001 Mar. H.E.A. 1207 1599 H.E.A. H.E.A.1908 houses) (0) (Both 14, Mar. 2002 (0) 14, 13, 2002; 2002 Mar. 3,May 2001 Mar.
917 May10, _ HEA.1083 2001 2001 13, Mar. 2002 May11, S.E.A.308 7, 2002; 14, Mar. Mar. 2002 (0 Senate; by House) by Sust. May11, S.E.A.337 2001 20, 2001; 13, Nov. Mar. 2002 (O by Senate; House) Sust. May11, May11, S.E.A.373 S.E.A.471 2001 2001 20, 2001; 13, (0) Nov. Mar. 2002 7, 2002; Mar. 14, Mar. 2002 (O by Senate; House) Sust. May11, H.E.A.2001__ 2001 13, 2002; Mar. 14, Mar. 2002 (O by House; Senate) Sust. Assem., 112th Reg. Spec. (Ind.2002) Gen. 2nd Sess. 20, Commenced Nov. 2001 7, Reconvened Jan. 2002 Adjourned 14, Mar. 2002 - Spec. May 2, Sess. 14 June 2002 Bill
Vetoed Message Veto Date Message Veto in Journal for New Session 20, S.E.A. 233 Mar. 2002 14, May (0); (No 2002 by House, action 314) see 2008 Index at 20, 21, S.E.A. 459 Mar. 2002 (0) May 14, (Same) 2002 HEA. 10834 Mar. 2002 2002 (Same) - 21, HEA. 12024 Mar. (Same) - 27, S.E.A. 152 Mar. 2002 (0) May 14, (Same) 2002 28, S.E.A. 19 Mar. 2002 (0) May 14, (Same) S.E.A. 154 Mar. (0) 2002 2002 May (Same) SE.A. 217 S.E.A. 506 Mar. Mar. 14, 2002; May June > 14,May H.E.A. 10653 Mar. 22, 2002; June June H.E.A. 12584 Mar. (Same) - SHEPARD, Justice, Chief concurring. does, end, in the I have right decided he is about what is the correct decision in this Connected bill, as it is to pay the vetoed this appeal case. painful has been a experience.
Judges prosecutors and their families gone
have now seven years without so
much as a adjustment, cost-of-living even workers,
as social teachers, university pro-
fessors, prison guards, and state employ- generally
ees have received several such
adjustments. This differential treatment
has been ruinous to the judiciary. state's
Passing through the cloud of calamity this
to decide appeal basis our *19 judgment
best law, however, about job we have chosen and been chosen to
do. place While I more value on the avail-
able history than Justice Bochm instances, governor's session without a vote taken on that date. these veto mes- sage appeared special The indices do subsequent not reflect a vote.