HARRIS GILBERT, ROBERT WILLIS, HELEN ACKERMANN, JAMES O. WYATT, VALERIE HAYNES, GORDON MANZER, PATRICK RAGOSTA, GARRETT W. HAGEDORN, FRANCIS X. HERBERT, JANE BURGIO, ROSEMARY TOTARO AND COMMON CAUSE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT E. GLADDEN, JOHN J. MILLER, JR., CHRISTOPHER JACKMAN AND JOSEPH P. MERLINO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND THE HONORABLE BRENDAN T. BYRNE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Argued February 10, 1981—Decided July 29, 1981
275
I would adhere to the established law and hold that the pension applicant, having been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, is not entitled to any portion of the pension. Hence I vote to affirm.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK—6
For affirmance—Justice CLIFFORD—1.
Steven E. Pollan argued the cause for appellants (Pollan and Pollan, attorneys; Steven E. Pollan and Patricia A. Christoff, Legal Asst. on the brief).
Leon J. Sokol argued the cause for respondents Robert E. Gladden and Joseph P. Merline (Greenstone & Sokol, attorneys).
Erminie L. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent (John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorneys; Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William Harla, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
CLIFFORD, J.
This appeal concerns the process by which legislation becomes law in this state. Plaintiffs include two members of the New Jersey Senate, two members of the General Assembly, seven private citizens and taxpayers, and Common Cause of New Jersey. Defendants Gladden and Merlino are, respectively, Secretary and President of the New Jersey Senate; and defendants Miller and Jackman are, respectively, Clerk and Speaker of the General Assembly. By leave of court Governor Byrne appears as intervenor.
Plaintiffs’ challenge centers on the constitutional provision governing presentment of bills to the Governor.
Within this framework there has developed an unofficial custom of long duration, known as gubernatorial courtesy, whereby bills that have been passed in both houses of the Legislature are not presented to the Governor for signature or veto until the Governor requests them. Consequently, when the request for a bill is withheld and therefore presentation not made until forty-five days before the end of the second legislative session, at which time the legislative house is in adjournment sine die, the Governor can prevent the bill from becoming law merely by not signing it, inasmuch as the Legislature has no opportunity to override that result. This device, often referred to as New Jersey‘s version of the “pocket veto,” is the focus of plaintiffs’ complaint.
On the other hand defendants contend that questions concerning the manner and time in which passed bills are presented to the Governor are essential to the workings of the legislative process; hence, absent any express constitutional or statutory criteria regulating the procedure, this case presents a nonjusticiable political question. Furthermore, they maintain that the lack of constitutional regulation of the procedure amounts to empowerment of the Legislature to promulgate its own regulations.
After discovery, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendants filed a cross-motion seeking the same relief. The trial court granted defendants’ application and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. We granted direct certification, 85 N.J. 450 (1981), while this case was pending unheard in the Appellate Division.
I
We note at the outset that the justiciability inquiry must be distinguished from the issue of whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. The latter question involves merely a threshold determination as to whether the Court is legally authorized
II
“The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.” Baker v. Carr, supra, 369 U.S. at 210, 82 S.Ct. at 706, 7 L.Ed.2d at 682. In New Jersey the separation of powers is expressly established in
The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this Constitution. [N.J. Const. of 1947, Art. III, 1.]
The separation of powers doctrine is a principle shared by many other states as well as the federal government. See David v. Vesta Co., 45 N.J. 301, 323 (1965). Its purpose is to safeguard the “essential integrity” of each branch of government. See Massett Building Co. v. Bennett, 4 N.J. 53, 57 (1950).3
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of а kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court‘s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. [Baker v. Carr, supra, 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. at 710, 7 L.Ed.2d at 686.]
To justify dismissal based on nonjusticiability, one of these criteria must be inextricable from the facts and circumstances of the case in question. Id.
In this case the first criterion of Baker v. Carr provides the basis for our determination that plaintiffs’ complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question. The “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” of the question of presentment of bills to the Governor can be derived from proper consideration of two constitutional provisions.
In the absence of constitutional or statutory standards, it is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature with respect to the rules it has adopted or the procedures followed in giving effect to the constitutional-ly-declared scheme. See In re Lamb, 67 N.J. Super. 39, 59
The dissent contends that the custom of gubernatorial courtesy “subverts the carefully considered framework that establishes the joint responsibility of the executive and legislative branches of our State government for the enactment of laws.” Post at 301. This argument ignores the plain fact that the custom itself represents a determination by the legislative branch on how best to exercise its share of this joint responsibility. The Legislature is free to vote for presentment of a bill to the Governor at any time after passage, regardless of whether the Governor calls for the bill. It may even vote to override a contrary decision of its leadership in this regard. It freely chooses, however, to delay presentment until the Governor indi-
The state constitution of 1776 contained no provision for the gubernatorial veto of enacted legislation. Hence, bills were not presented to the Governor for signature. The Constitution of 1844 required the presentment of bills to the Governor and also provided for gubernatorial veto, legislative override of that veto, and a pocket veto if legislative adjournment prevented return of the bill. See
The minutes of the 1947 Constitutional Convention reveal that the framers were well aware of the custom of gubernatorial courtesy. At one point former Governor Larsen was questioned about it:
MR. BARTON: To hark back to the question of signing bills that Senator Farley brought up, is there anything that stands out in your mind during your term as Governor that you now consider a sore spot in connection with the signing of bills—as to when they are received, signed, failure to sign, or anything connected with the Executive phase, anything outstanding?
GOVERNOR LARSON: I never had any.
MR. BARTON: Is there any reform that would work better, in the light of some instance that came up during your term?
GOVERNOR LARSON: I never had any trouble either in the Legislature or as Governor.
MR. FELLER: Under the Constitution, the Governor now has five days in which to sign or veto a bill.
GOVERNOR LARSON: If he receives it. He doesn‘t have to receive it; he can wait a couple of months. He simply doesn‘t ask for it from the Legislature.
CHAIRMAN: I think a lot of people feel that many of these bills signed are unconstitutional.
MRS. BARUS: Couldn‘t the Legislature swamp the Governor by sending them all at once and there would not be enough hours for him to read them if he sat up all night?
GOVERNOR LARSON: The point that Senator Van Alstyne raised is that some people question the constitutionality of these laws because they are handled that way.
CHAIRMAN: The Governor may have been studying them for two months, but the original bill doesn‘t get into his hands.
[V New Jersey Constitutional Convention of 1947 (Committee on the Executive, Militia, and Civil Officers 22-23) (S. Goldmann & H. Crystal eds. 1953)]
The issue was again raised in the questioning of former Governor Moore:
MR. GEORGE H. WALTON: Govеrnor Moore, in allowing the Governor ten days in which to consider bills passed by the Legislature, is it your thought that the subterfuge that has grown up over the terms of many Governors, of allowing the Governor to get around that five-day rule by having him call for bills as he wants to consider them—do you think that should be dropped and, if you do, is ten days sufficient?
GOVERNOR MOORE: Ten days is not sufficient if you want to consider bills very carefully, but ten days would be helpful and probably more easily gotten than anything else. I just want to point out to you that if there is trouble between the Legislature and the Governor—it often happens; I tried to get along with them, trying to be a peaceable soul—but if you don‘t, I know that on occasion they come in with these bills, hundreds of them, and then say, “Send them over to that So-and-So and let‘s see what he is going to do.” In five days he can‘t possibly. How could he? And that happens.
MR. WALTON: There were 400 bills at the end of this session. It would be humanly impossible, to my mind, to consider them in ten days.
GOVERNOR MOORE: They could have dropped them in as they went along. I suppose they did, but ten days is better than five.
MRS. BARUS: Wouldn‘t you think 30 would probably be somewhat more reasonable, especially at the end of the session?
GOVERNOR MOORE: Then again, you run into the idea that the governor might be somewhat “hipped” against the man who sponsored the bill, and maybe it would be a bill that should be signed quickly, and the Governor could punish
him by holding him up 30 days. I think ten days would answer the purpose fairly well.
[Id. at 68-69]
It is apparent from these discussions that serious thought was given to a constitutional prohibition of gubernatorial courtesy. Taken together with the evidence that the framers deliberated on the problem, their failure ultimately to change the present-ment language demonstrates a considered decision to retain the practice. It further appears that the increase of the number of days after presentment during which the Governor may consider a bill was not intended implicitly to preclude gubernatorial courtesy. An intention to abolish a well-established and widely recognized practice would have been expressed more perspicuously.6 Rather, thе most sensible explanation for the extended time period is that it merely provides an additional safety margin for the Governor in the event of a break-down in the arrangement between the Executive and the Legislature.
III
In the alternative, plaintiffs contend that in
On the passage of any bill, or the adoption of any joint resolution, by both Houses of the Legislature, the same shall be delivered to the Governor or person administering the government, who, if he shall approve such bill or joint resolution, shall sign and deliver the same to the Secretary of State, to be filed in his office, in such order that the laws and joint resolutions of each sitting of the Legislature shall be kept separately, according to the year in which they shall be passed, and not delivered to any person whatsoever, but safely kept by the Secretary of State in his office, and not suffered to be taken or removed therefrom on any pretext whatsoever. [Emphasis added.]
Plaintiffs assert that the emphasized language constitutes a significant change from that used in the Constitution and that
As with the constitutional presentment provision, this statute contains no explicit limitations on the method for presenting bills to the Governor. Furthermore, the only purpose of this statute was to insure the permanent safeguarding of the statute laws of our State. See In re Public Utility Board, 83 N.J.L. 303, 309 (Sup.Ct. 1912) (construing the predecessor statute to
IV
In response to defendants’ contention that gubernatorial courtesy is necessary to insure adequate time for the Governor to consider passed bills, plaintiffs characterize the practice as a “verbal conspiracy,” a “pernicious practice,” and “trickery.” They have provided us with examples of bills whose presenta-tion has been delayed for over eighteen months because of the Governor‘s failure to call for them and the Legislature‘s acced-ing to the practice. They claim that eighty-six bills were subject to pocket veto at the end of the 1978 legislative session. Although such occurrences arguably evince a questionable use of gubernatorial courtesy, the selection of the manner in which elected representatives exercise their legitimate powers short of a constitutional or statutory violation cannot be remedied by the courts. Kligerman v. Lynch, 92 N.J. Super. 373, 376-77 (Ch.Div. 1966), cert. den., 389 U.S. 822, 88 S.Ct. 49, 19 L.Ed.2d 74 (1967). Whether gubernatorial courtesy is to be further sanctioned or finally condemned must be determined either by the Legislature
V
Because we find this case presents a nonjusticiable political question the resolution of which is constitutionally committed to the Legislature, we do not reach the additional questions raised on appеal. The trial court‘s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action is affirmed. No costs.
PASHMAN and SCHREIBER, JJ., dissenting.
The issue raised by the plaintiffs is whether the New Jersey Constitution vests the Legislature with plenary and unrestricted authority to fix any period of time within which a duly passed bill must be presented to the Governor. The majority holds that it does. We disagree. We fail to see how this case presents a nonjusticiable political question, as the majority concludes. Ju-dicial review is not only constitutionally required here, but it is especially appropriate in this case where the political branches have undertaken an informal practice that undermines the care-fully detailed constitutional scheme which permits the Legisla-ture to override a gubernatorial veto. Because we find no
I
Relying on the factors for identifying a political question set forth in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), the majority purports to find a “‘textually demonstrable constitutional commitment’ of the question of presentment of bills to the Governor,” in
The timing of presentment is indeed a “political question” in the same sense that the promotion of the public‘s health, safety and general welfare is: both are matters for which the Legisla-ture has primary responsibility. But the fact that the Legisla-ture has discretion concerning the timing of presentation does not render the matter a political question in the sense that the courts may not review the Legislature‘s action to determine whether it has exceeded the scope of its authority. Without more persuasive evidence than the majority is able to marshall, we would not so readily abdicate our role as the final arbiter of constitutionality.
The judicial branch of the government has imposed upon it the оbligation of interpreting the Constitution and of safeguarding the basic rights granted thereby to the people. In this sphere of activity the courts recognize that they have no power to overturn a law adopted by the Legislature within its constitu-tional limitations, even though the law may be unwise, impolitic or unjust. The remedy in such case lies with the people. But when legislative action exceeds the boundaries of the authority delegated by the Constitution, and transgresses a sacred right guaranteed to a citizen, final decision as to the invalidity of such action must rest exclusively with the courts. It cannot be forgotten that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and that the judicial department has imposed upon it the solemn duty to interpret the laws in the last resort. However delicate that duty may be, we are not at liberty to surrender, or to ignore, or to waive it. [Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Woolley, 33 N.J. 1, 12 (1960) (emphasis in original)]
The constitutional provision on which the majority places primary emphasis is the presentment clause itself,
Because we conclude that the timing of presentment is subject to judicial review, we would address plaintiffs’ claim and decide what limits the Constitution imposes on the timing of presenta-tion and whether gubernatorial courtesy transgresses those lim-its.
II
Before reaching the merits of this case, it is necessary to address two other defenses raised by defendants. Defendants argue that as legislators and officers of the Legislature they are granted immunity from civil suit by the Speech and Debate Clause of the
The New Jersey Constitution provides that “for any state-ment, speech or debate in either house or at any meeting of a legislative committee, [members of the Senate and General Assembly] shall not be questioned in any other place.”
The Speech and Debate Clause is a means of protеcting the integrity of the legislative process by preventing the “intimida-tion of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary.” Gravel v. United States, supra, 408 U.S. at 617, 92 S.Ct. at 2623. To achieve this end, “voting by Members and committee reports are protected,” id. at 624, 92 S.Ct. at 2626, and “a Member‘s conduct at legislative committee hearings, although subject to judicial review in various circum-stances, as is legislation itself, may not be made the basis for a civil or criminal judgment against a Member because that conduct is within the ‘sphere of legitimate legislative activity,‘” id. In determining whether conduct other than literal speech or
an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. [Id. at 625, 92 S.Ct. at 2627; see Eastland v. United States Servicemen‘s Fund, supra, 421 U.S. at 504, 95 S.Ct. at 1821; Doe v. McMillan, supra, 412 U.S. at 313, 93 S.Ct. at 2025]
Besides legislators, the Speeсh and Debate Clause also pro-tects certain legislative personnel, such as personal aides, Gravel v. United States, supra, 408 U.S. at 618, 92 S.Ct. at 2623, and committee counsel. Eastland v. United States Servicemen‘s Fund, supra, 421 U.S. at 507, 95 S.Ct. at 1823, to the extent that the aide‘s conduct would be “a protected legislative act if performed by the Member himself.” Gravel v. United States, supra, 408 U.S. at 618, 92 S.Ct. at 2623. But a legislative employee is not immune when he performs or fails to perform a nonlegislative act in accordance with an invalid legislative di-rective. See Doe v. McMillan, supra, 412 U.S. at 315, 93 S.Ct. at 2026 (no immunity for publishing actionable material beyond reasonable requirements of legislative function); Powell v. McCormack, supra, 395 U.S. at 504-05, 89 S.Ct. at 1955 (Ser-geant at Arms, Doorkeeper and Clerk of House not immune from suit by Representative wrongfully excluded from House); Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, 103 U.S. at 205, 26 L.Ed. 377 (House‘s Sergeant at Arms may be sued for false imprisonment after executing arrest warrant issued by House).
It makes no difference that the legislative employee may be acting or refusing to act pursuant to an express order of the Legislature or that the legislators who ordered his conduct may themselves be immune from suit concerning their decision. Doe v. McMillan, supra, 412 U.S. at 316 n.10, 93 S.Ct. at 2026 n.10; Powell v. McCormack, supra, 395 U.S. at 504, 89 S.Ct. at 1955; Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, 103 U.S. at 204-05, 26 L.Ed. 377. The Speech and Debate Clause is not meant to bar judicial review of the constitutionality of a legislative decision. Rather,
Judged by these standards, the presentment of bills to the governor is not a legislative function protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. It can hardly be characterized as “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceed-ings,” Gravel v. United States, supra, 408 U.S. at 625, 92 S.Ct. at 2627. Therefore, at least as regards those defendants, Gladden and Miller, who are responsible for presenting bills to the Governor under the legislative rule governing their respective chambers, see Joint Rule 8, the Speech and Debate Clause does not bar this action.2
B
Defendants also contend that plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements for mandamus because the act of presentment is discretionary rather than ministerial, or for a declaratory judg-ment because there is no case or controversy. Because we find that there is a case or controversy and, consequently, that a declaratory judgment is appropriate, we need not decide wheth-er mandamus would also be warranted. Confronted with an authoritative judicial statement of their constitutional obliga-tions concerning the presentation of bills, we expect the legisla-
It has long been the rule that the remedy provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act,
Contrary to the belief of the court below, plaintiffs do not request an advisory opinion concerning the legality of guberna-torial courtesy. The case does not present an abstract or hypothetical question; the plaintiffs have alleged specific in-stances in which the Legislature has delayed the presentation of bills for lengthy periods.
Even if the particular bills that had not been presented at the time the complaint was filed have now been presented to the Governor, there remains an actual controversy because the Gov-ernor and Legislature can continue to follow this practice.3
III
Turning, then, to the merits of the present controversy, plain-tiffs challenge the constitutionality of “gubernatorial courtesy,” a practice whereby bills that have passed both houses of the Legislature are not officially presented to the Governor for his consideration until he calls for them. The practice is apparently informal, being based solely on unwritten agreement and cus-tom, but it is sufficiently established to be the subject of academic study and criticism, see Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers—The State University, The New Jersey Legislature 8-10 (1963).
The challenged practice arises out of those terms of the State Constitution that establish the procedures fоr the Governor‘s consideration and approval or veto of bills that have passed both houses of the Legislature.
It is this last-quoted provision that enables the Governor to “pocket veto” legislation. The Governor is empowered by the Constitution to veto any bill that passes both houses, but ordi-narily he must return any vetoed legislation “with his objec-tions, to the house in which it shall have originated.” Id. The Legislature, in its turn, can override a gubernatorial veto by a two-thirds vote. Id. If, however, the bill is presented to the Governor fewer than ten days before the final adjournment of a legislative session and such final adjournment occurs fewer than forty-five days before the end of the legislative year, the Gover-nor can pocket veto a bill merely by inaction, such pocket veto not being subject to legislative override.
Only bills “presented” to the Governor at the very end of a two-year Legislature will potentially be subject to pocket veto. But the practice of gubernatorial courtesy, by enabling the Governor to determine when bills will be “presented” to him, theoretically makes it possiblе for him to pocket veto any bill simply by declining to call for it until the end of the two-year legislative session.
Because of the absence of express constitutional standards, the majority concludes that the Legislature has complete discre-tion concerning the timing of presentment. We agree that the Legislature has discretion, but this discretion is not unfettered.
There are, of course, good reasons for there to be some discretion resрecting the presentation of bills. One, emphasized by the Governor, is to allow the Governor and his staff enough time to study a bill before deciding whether to approve or veto it. In the normal course of things the Governor has only ten days following the bill‘s presentation to act upon it. Even assuming that his staff is able to monitor the progress of many bills through the Legislature and their passage does not come unexpectedly, ten days may often not suffice for careful consid-eration of complex bills or even simple ones if a large number are presented at once, as often occurs towards the end of a session. See Cenarrusa v. Andrus, 99 Idaho 404, 407, 582 P.2d 1082, 1085 (1978); People ex rel. Petersen v. Hughes, 372 Ill. 602, 608, 25 N.E.2d 75, 78 (1939).
Some flexibility regarding presentation may also be necessary from the standpoint of the Legislature. In particular, some time may be needed after a bill has passed both houses in order to examine and authenticate the final bill before presenting it to the Governor. See U. S. v. Kapsalis, 214 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 1954), cert. den., 349 U.S. 906, 75 S.Ct. 583, 99 L.Ed. 1242 (1955); Hartness v. Black, 95 Vt. 190, 114 A. 44, 49 (1921).
Plaintiffs paint a compelling picture of such abuse. Accord-ing to an affidavit submitted with their brief, 86 bills were pocket vetoed by the Governor at the end of the 1976-77 legislative session. By contrast, only 134 bills had been pocket vetoed during the 15 years from 1948-63. The New Jersey Legislature, supra, at 8A-9A. They also point out that there were, as of December 16, 1979, 163 bills awaiting presentation to the Governor, of which 8 had been passed more than 500 days previously, 10 more than 400 days previously, 12 more than 300 days previously, and 24 more than 200 days previously. Plain-tiffs offer several examples of bills awaiting presentation to illustrate the fact that complexity of legislation is not the only criterion fоr delaying presentation. For example, a bill to require municipalities and counties to deposit their funds in interest-bearing accounts had, by the end of 1979, been awaiting presentation for 550 days. Another bill, which would make it a disorderly persons offense for deliverymen to walk across lawns rather than use sidewalks, had been awaiting presentation for 293 days. These are hardly complex pieces of legislation requir-ing time for study.
We would hold that gubernatorial courtesy, when practiced as a means of unreasonably delaying the presentation of bills, is unconstitutional. We find support for this position in the Con-stitution itself, in logic and in the decisions of other courts that have considered the problem.
The minutes of the 1947 Constitutional Convention reflect the existence of a practice of presenting bills when requested by the Governor. State of New Jersey Constitutional Convention of 1947, 22-23, 68-69 (S. Goldmann & H. Crystal, eds. 1953). However, there is no indication that bills were not being sub-mitted within a reasonable period of time. The only problem discussed was the refusal at times of an unfriendly Legislature to honor the Governor‘s request. Since the Constitution then required the Governor to sign or veto a bill within five days, such a refusal had the effect of imposing on him the obligation to act on a large number of bills within a five-day period. Id. at 66, 68. This situation was alleviated by increasing the time for gubernatorial action to ten days.
It is thus incontrovertible that the abuse of gubernatorial courtesy violates the spirit if not the letter of our State Consti-tution. It subverts the carefully considered framework that establishes the joint responsibility of the executive and legisla-tive branches of our Statе government for the enactment of laws. The majority‘s suggestion that such a subversion of the constitutional scheme is permissible as long as the Legislature knowingly acquiesces in the custom, ante at 283-284, ignores the fact that the Legislature too is bound by our State Constitution.5
To permit the practice to continue unchecked flies in the face of logic as well, since its end result could be the pocket veto by the
At the same time, the inexpediency of interpreting the Consti-tution as requiring presentation “forthwith” or within a speci-fied number of days, as plaintiffs argue, is equally clear. Com-plex legislation or a flood of bills passed over a short period may require some time for preparation to present to the Governor and for his study. Thus, the only sensible construction of the constitutional provision is that bills passed by both houses of the Legislature must be presented to the Governor for his action within a reasonable time after their passage. Reasonableness should be determined in light of the two purposes that delay in presentation may legitimately serve: preparation of bills for presentation and careful study of bills by the Governor.
This conclusion is supported by the case law of other jurisdic-tions. The federal Constitution and many state constitutions resemble New Jersey‘s Constitution in their failure to specify when, following passage, presentation is to be made. See State v. Ryan, 123 Kan. 767, 256 P. 811, 812 (1927). Yet other courts that have considered the question have said that presentation must be made within a reasonable time. See Richards Furniture Corp. v. Board of County Comm‘rs of Anne Arundel Coun-ty, 233 Md. 249, 263, 196 A.2d 621, 628 (1964); Opinion of the Justices, 106 N.H. 402, 405, 213 A.2d 415, 417 (1965); U. S. v. Pruitt, 121 F.Supp. 15, 25 (S.D.Tex. 1954), aff‘d o. b., 217 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. den., 349 U.S. 907, 75 S.Ct. 584, 99 L.Ed. 1243 (1955); see also People ex rel. Petersen v. Hughes, supra, 25 N.E.2d at 79 (state constitution sets limits to Legislature‘s discretion in presentation of bills to Governor); cf. U. S. v. Kapsalis, supra, 214 F.2d at 681 (bills presented after sine die adjournment of legislature must be presented within a reasona-ble time); accord, Preveslin v. Derby & Ansonia Developing Co., 112 Conn. 129, 151, 151 A. 518, 521 (1930); contra, City of Rye v. Ronan, 67 Misc.2d 972, 976, 325 N.Y.S.2d 548, 552 (Sup.Ct. 1971), aff‘d, 40 App.Div. 950, 338 N.Y.S.2d 384 (App.Div. 1972); Cenarrusa v. Andrus, supra, 582 P.2d at 1087.
For affirmance—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SUL-LIVAN and CLIFFORD—3.
For reversal—Justices PASHMAN and SCHREIBER—2.