IDAHO STATE AFL-CIO v. Leroy

Anderson, County Prose as Bannock 718 P.2d 1129 AFL-CIO, unincorpo STATE IDAHO cuting Attorney and on of all behalf Kerns, in association: James E. rated situated, similarly their succes those dividually, of the Ida and as President assigns, Defendants-Appel and sors AFL-CIO; International ho State lants, Cross-Respondents. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Brotherhood No. 16074. Helpers America and Warehousemen 983; Transportation Supreme Un Court of Idaho. Local United 78; International Brother ion Local 29, 1986. Jan. 449; Workers, Local hood of Electrical May Rehearing Denied Allied and Brotherhood of Painters Oil, Trades, 764; and Local Chemical 2632; Local Atomic Workers Union City Typographical Local

Boise Union

271; Idaho American Postal Workers

Union; individually Liebenau, H. Fred capacity and in his as member

and Typographi

president City of the Boise 271; No. Hatch

cal Union Local Glen

individually, capacity and in his as president of Brother

member and Lo

hood of Painters and Allied Trades 764; Raymond,

cal Union No. Leland

individually, capacity as a and in his officer of Trans

member and United 78; Cherry,

portation Local Union Rex

individually, capacity in his as a manager Inter

member and business

national Brotherhood of Electrical 449; Local L. Wilson

Workers Carter III, individually, capacity as his president

a member and Union;

American Postal Workers Ste Gentry, individually,

ven H. in his

capacity president as a member Oil, Lo Chemical Atomic Workers 2632; McKendrick, cal Paul individual ly, capacity secretary-trea and in his as International Brotherhood

surer Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse 983; America, Helpers men and Local Electric, Inc., an Idaho and Warbonnet Plaintiffs-Respondents,

corporation;

Cross-Appellants, LEROY, capacity in his as Presi

David Senate, and his

dent of the Idaho Stivers, capacity delegates; Tom his Repre

Speaker Idaho House of sentatives, delegates; his Pete Cen

arrusa, Secretary for the of State Attorney Idaho; Jones, as Jim

State Idaho; Shawn the State General Jones, Gen.,

Jim Atty. P. Thomp- Mark son, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for defend- ants-appellants, cross-respondents. McDermott, Patricia L. Douglas James Balfour, Gaylen Box, Pocatello, L. plaintiffs-respondents, cross-appellants. DONALDSON, Chief Justice. January On Legisla- 1985 the Idaho ture overrode Governor’s and en- veto “right acted H.B. to work” bill. designated “emergency bill was as an bill” pursuant to art. 22 of the Idaho Con- stitution which allowed the thereby immediately render it effective. day, That same plaintiffs filed a com- plaint and motion in Sixth Judicial District Court, Bannock County, temporary restraining injunc- order and a preliminary (1) to enjoin Leroy, tion defendants David capacity in his as President of the Idaho Senate, Stivers, Tom capacity his as Speaker Representa- of the Idaho House of tives, law; authenticating from as the bill Cenárrusa, (2) defendant Pete Idaho Secre- tary State, filing certifying from law; (3) Jones, bill defendants Jim Attorney General, and Shawn Ander- son, County Prosecuting Bannock Attor- ney, prosecuting attorneys behalf of all situated, similarly taking of Idaho from provisions any action to enforce the bill. organizations,

Plaintiffs labor offi- are organizations, cers and members of those Defend- employer of union labor. ants, above, legislative offi- noted State, cers, Secretary Attorney restraining General, prosecuting attorneys enforcing temporary 1, 1985, February Idaho. the state of order. On this Court stay- an order and alternative writ issued charges that H.B. 2 would complaint re- ing temporary the enforcement enjoy continuing to prevent plaintiffs from straining against defendant order Cenarru- bargaining protection of collective not, however, stay This did sa. agreements entering into new collective hearing preliminary on motion for in- the abrogat- bargaining agreements, thereby February 5. junction set for rights irrepara- ing property and valuable 2 bly damaging plaintiffs; that H.B. would hearing, Before defendants the moved federally rights; that abrogate guaranteed change County pur- for a of venue Ada the supremacy H.B. 2 the clause of violates 5, February suant 5-402. On I.C. § Constitution; H.B. 2 that United States 1985, hearing to show cause held was rights plaintiffs’ violates the Judge preliminary on in- before Smith speech; of that assembly of freedom day, next junction. The defendants moved protection equal 2 clause H.B. violates testimony to strike the evidence Constitution; that of the United States plaintiffs presented hearing since 2 H.B. United States Constitu- violates give failed to sufficient notice defend- Idaho in that it tion and the Constitution produce testimony intent ants of their contract; obligation impairs the of hearing. evidence at the Defendants deprived rights plaintiffs property of argued change also that their motion for a process of without due violation any venue had to be determined before the constitutions of the United States and proceedings. other Defendants then Idaho; lastly, the state of proceedings stay moved to all until 2, emergency clause contained in H.B. change court ruled on their motion for purports which to make H.B. 2 effective venue. passage, impairs plaintiffs’ consti- stay Defendants’ motion for a was de- provi- tutional under the referendum hearings nied and further were held on sion of Idaho art. Constitution. § February day, Judge 12. next Smith allege Plaintiffs further that the declara- strike, denied defendants’ motion to but tion of ineffec- in H.B. was change granted their motion for a of venue tive, and void since no such emer- invalid District, County. Ada to the Fourth Judicial gency actually existed. temporary re- judge also extended the emphasize only portion We Jones, straining against order defendants plaintiffs’ complaint presently be- prosecuting attorneys all Anderson and relating fore this Court to the validi- days. for fourteen additional Idaho ty of the clause 2 and H.B. temporary restraining pre- 14, 1985, order and February plaintiffs moved On injunction district liminary issued pre- in Fourth District Court for a Judicial alleged invalidity court of the based on liminary injunction or of the tem- extension emergency clause. restraining beyond order the Febru- porary hearing held ary 27th A deadline. Upon filing complaint, plaintiffs’ Judge Robert Newhouse on Febru- before Judge George Hargraves of the Judi- Sixth tem- ary 27 at time he extended the re- temporary cial District issued porary restraining order until further order hearing straining order set a court. injunction February for preliminary Hargraves Judge then referred the 5, 1985, April answered On defendants Judge case to Dell Bannock Coun- Smith de- complaint injunctive and plaintiffs’ ty for final determination. and, claratory along de- relief with other fenses, challenged of the petition jurisdiction The defendants then filed legislature’s pre- court to review declaration prohibition writ of with this Court to Hargraves emergency. Judge Judge vent Smith of an May On Judge case, is- Newhouse cumstances properly re- his sued Memorandum Decision which he legislature’s view the declaration of emer- (the interpreted art. gency passes. § This issue to declare emergency in the on seemingly conflicting provisions touches preamble body act) of an and art. 1§ of the Idaho Constitution (the power to demand a refer- analysis Code. Our light must be made in endum on act legisla- separation powers doctrine ture) of the Judge Idaho Constitution. among co-equal government branches of Newhouse legislature’s concluded that the well as the extent to which the Idaho Con- declaration of would defeat provides stitution for a retention certain Therefore, voters’ to a referendum. powers by people. granted he preliminary injunction until Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution such time as a trial could decide whether reads: the legislature improperly by acted enact- “Departments government. —The ing emergency provision. powers government of this state 23, 1985, May On the defendants filed a are divided into three depart- distinct petition prohibition for a writ of with this ments, legislative, executive and judi- against Judge Court Newhouse. This cial; person and no per- or collection of petition granted per- denied the but charged sons of powers the exercise mission to the to file appeal defendants an properly belonging to one of these de- of Judge pursuant Newhouse’s decision partments any powers shall exercise I.A.R. 12. This Court further ordered that properly belonging to either the oth- Judge preliminary injunction Newhouse’s ers, except in ex- constitution in would continue full force effect until pressly permitted.” directed or further order of this Court. authority to determine the effective 1, 1985, July On defendants filed their any passed by legislature act date seeking of Appeal Notice a determination exclusively legislature pursu- vested in the legislature’s whether declaration 3, 22 ant to art. of the Idaho Constitu- emergency in an act is immune from judi- That tion. section reads: 15, cial July plaintiffs review. On filed a Cross-Appeal seeking Notice a determi- acts take effect.—No act shall “When Judge nation whether Smith erred when he sixty days take effect until from the end change ordered a of venue from Bannock of the session at same which the shall County Judge County; Ada and whether passed, except in case of emer- been Newhouse erred when he ordered a trial to gency, emergency shall be de- emergency actually if an decide existed preamble body clared or in passed, when 2 legisla- H.B. was where the the law.” already tive record on the bill was before 620, Diefendorf, Johnson v. 56 the Court. 635, 1068, (1936) (hereinafter 57 P.2d 1083 below, af- For the reasons set forth we Johnson), this Court noted that case Judge change granted by firm the of venue emergency, which is declared to exist in the District, Smith of the Judicial vacate Sixth act, preamble body or in the “it is injunction by Judge the preliminary issued left to the discretion of the District, Newhouse of the Fourth Judicial go fix it into the time when shall effect.” proceedings remand for further noted, addition, that, language “The We plaintiffs’ appeal. claims not in this raised 3, 22, no room employed art. sec. leaves interpretation.” other Id. at 635-

I. 36, 57 P.2d at 1083-84. Emergency Legislative Declarations is- dispositive of this is almost Johnson noted, sue, we for the fact appeal on this save The central issue courts, legislature or the cir- “Whether it is for the particular whether the say, finally, court to as to the legislature, existence of sion of the and his conclusion emergency within meaning regard subject is not to review constitution, is stipu- not before us. It Farrelly Cole, the courts. v. 60 Kan. trial, substance, 356, lated at the that an (State 56 Pac. 44 L.R.A. 464.’ Fair, 127, 102 existed for the enactment of 35 Wash. Am.St. 731.)” Gallet, this law.” Id. at supra 638-39, 57 P.2d at 1086. Pac. P.2d at 326-27. Johnson, however, The language of conjunction must be read in with a case The decision that a bill is preceded years urgently four which also immediately so needed as to addressed emergency, determinations of justify a declaration of emergency is a deci Gallet, sion-making 51 Idaho 10 P.2d uniquely legis function that is Diefendorf v. (1932) (hereinafter Gallet). In Gallet lative. The courts are ill equipped to make we found judiciary policy cannot second- such Borrowing decisions. from the guess governor’s determination that a analogous reasoning Supreme of the U.S. sufficient justify Carr, exists to call Court in Baker v. 369 U.S. ing extraordinary legisla session of (1962), S.Ct. 7 L.Ed.2d 663 it is clear ture. We also judiciary found that textually that there is a demonstrable con second-guess cannot legislature’s deter stitutional commitment to the mination that a sufficient emergency exists determining the issue of whether a suffi justify dispensing with the cient exists to necessitate imme requirement that before an act legislation. diate effectuation of lan printed it must 3, be and read on guage three of art. 22 interpretation and its § separate 638-39, days each house. Id. at in Johnson and bears this Gallet out. The CONST, 326-27; 3, 10 P.2d at see ID. respect co-equal art. due independent and 15. government § branch of state and finality certainty the need for about said, In Gallet we duly the status of a enacted statute con “The determination as to whether facts tribute to the reluctance of the courts to exist such as to constitute ‘an extraordi- inquire legislature’s into whether the deter

nary occasion’ is for him governor] [the justified. mination of an effective date is alone to determine. The responsibility Baker, 214-15, supra at 82 S.Ct. at Cf. his, and the discretion are not to be inter- 708-09. by fered with any other co-ordinate Similarly, there is a lack of judicially government. branch of the “ manageable discoverable and standards for ‘It unprecedented pro- would be an resolving problem of what events must ceeding for the court to entertain a con- exist to constitute a sufficient troversy proof wherein is offered to legislation such that directed to alleviate judicially ascertain whether an extraordi- justifiably im- can become nary gravi- occasion existed of sufficient mediately effective. For a court to under- ty to governor authorize the to convene independent take its own resolution of such legislature in extra session. The policy potential determinations creates the legislation character of the to be con- pro- embarrassment multifarious by legislature sidered by by nouncements different branches of governor, constitution left to the and a government Baker, question. on one Cf. discretionary review of such a act of the supra at 82 S.Ct. at 710. governor by should not be done (Utah Gallet, noted, Light courts.’ Power In & Co. v. we 226.) (2d) Pfost, 52 Fed. gov- prompted “The motives which “ province ‘It was the exclusive ernor of a state to take such action or governor, constitution, proper under the to de- make such determination are not inquiry termine whether subjects judicial inquiry. an occasion existed of Such gravity plainest sufficient require opposed an extra ses- would be both to the principles public policy and the free- enacting sentatives. The every clause of by dom of action the executive within the bill shall be as follows: ‘Be it enacted authority depart- constitutional of that Legislature of the State of Idaho.’ Gallet, government.” supra ment of people “The reserve to themselves the (quoting Moyer, at 327 re 10 P.2d power approve reject polls at the (1906)). P. 12 Idaho any act passed by legisla- or measure stated, We then “The reasoning identical power ture. This is known as the refer- applies to the urgency by determination of endum, legal may, voters under such Gallet, legislature.” supra at conditions and in such may manner as P.2d at 327. provided by legislature, acts of the de- mand a any referendum vote on act or respect We bound to the reason measure able exercise powers cause the same to be submitted to a vote expressly delegated to it the constitu people approval for their rejec- state, tion of the absence of tion. other constitutional offense cannot inter

fere with it. Id. at 10 P.2d at 323. “The reserve to themselves the concept This is a fundamental of American laws, propose and enact the government and is embodied in our own polls independent leg- same at the CONST, Id.) constitution. ID. art. islature. This is known as the initiative, legal may, voters under If there were no other “constitution such conditions and such manner as case, al offense” involved in this then our provided by legisla- acts of the inquiry, Gallet, as in could end at this ture, legislation initiate desired However, point. at the heart of this case is cause the same to be submitted to the apparent resolution of the conflict be general vote of the at a election legislature’s tween the constitutional au approval rejection.” for their thority immediately render effective, and the Our constitutional for refer- approve the voter to or reject any act endum differs from all others we have ex- passed by legislature through the ref parties argument amined and both at oral process. erendum The relevant constitu 3, language 1 is concede that art. § provision right tional on the of referendum Johnson, unique supra to our state. See 3, Constitution, art. of the Idaho § 634, Many at 57 P.2d at 1082. other state which reads: provide constitutions which the voters with right Legislative power Enacting approve reject referred 1. laws “§ — — — them, specify only types

clause certain Referendum Initiative. —The of laws legislative power of the state which can or cannot be referred.2 con- shall be Our stitution, repre- very vested a senate and house of on the other hand is broad CONST, CONST, Ill, 1; provide art. 1. Not all state constitutions their citi- S.D. art. UTAH § CONST, VI, 1; II, right zens art. § § with the of referendum as does Ida- WASH. provide ho. Those state constitutions which do examined, right, such a which we have are: provisions which 2. Those state constitutional CONST, CONST, XI, 1; ALASKA art. ARIZ. types § specifically of laws that enumerate CONST, IV, I, V, 1, 1; pt. art. ARK. art. subject § § may be made to a referendum and/or CONST, 7; 23a; IV, amend. CONST, CAL. art. COLO. types § specifically of laws that exclude certain V, 1; 171; art. KY. ME. § § CONST. are: ALASKA be referred to the voters cannot CONST, CONST, CONST, CONST, IV, I, 1; pt. XI, 7; IV, art. art. pt. § MD. art. ARIZ. art. § CONST, CONST, XVI, 2; XLVIII; 7; V, I, MASS. MICH. 1(3); § art. amend. § ARK. art. § CONST, CONST, CONST, CONST, Ill, II, 9; 49; IV, 23a; art. MO. § § art. COLO. art. § CAL. art. CONST, CONST, CONST, V, 1; IV, V, 1; 171; MONT. art. NEB. art. § ME. art. § KY. CONST. § CONST, CONST, XIX, 1; Ill, 3; XVI, 2; Ill, 17; NEV. art. N.M. § § pt. § art. 16 & MD. §§ CONST, CONST, CONST, IV, 1; II, XLVIII, Ill, 2; art. § § art. N.D. § Ref. MASS. art. CONST, CONST, CONST, II, 1; 26; Ill, II, 9; amend. OHIO art. OKLA. § art. art. MO. § MICH. CONST, CONST, CONST, IV, 1; V, 1; V, 1; 52a; § art. OR. art. § NEB. § art. MONT. § laws, approve and it is ineffectual to emergency “the people provid- measure polls any prevent act or what the constitution has reject at (Our emphasis). legislature.” Johnson, 57 P.2d passed supra ed at for.” However, in Idaho this of referendum at 1083. Johnson, self-executing,3 supra at

is not conflict which we must re- possible fact, and in was dor- 57 P.2d is, therefore, actually between the solve inoperable years until 1933 mant and authority legislature’s passed Chapter 18 of when the of a emergencies language and the declare the Idaho Title 34 of Code. says any measure referred statute which take effect “when it is people to the shall pertinent of this refer- by majority of the votes cast approved enabling legislation endum at issue here is states, thereon, Those last and not otherwise.” I.C. 34-1803 which § they present and the dilemma three words petitions “34-1803. Referendum —Time language relating to the light filing held —Effec- election —When authority to de- legislature’s constitutional petitions tive date of law.—Referendum addressed in clare an John- requisite signatures number of with the stated: son wherein secretary attached shall be filed with the (60) is meant the last sentence of days “What sixty of state not more than adjournment the ses- construed to after the final that section? Is it to be sion of the state that, re- although the constitution mean on the bill on which the referendum is legislative session the serves to each demanded. All elections on measures re- when for the enactment ferred to the of the state shall be arises, fix operation of a law regular Any had at the biennial election. effec- time when such law shall become measure so referred to the shall and, necessary, make it effec- tive when take effect and become a law when it is immediately upon approval by tive approved by majority cast the votes could, never- governor, the 1933 session thereon, [1933, and not otherwise. ch. theless, fix the date when 210, 3, p. § 431.]” shall to referendum vote laws submitted approved they are become effective when language Some states have similar majority of the votes cast thereon by a consti- last sentence of this statute their hold is to otherwise? To so and not In Ida- provisions tutional for referendum. legis- the 1933 session ho, decide that language such has not been included its wisdom and and, Johnson, lature has substituted art. as we stated sessions, with for that of future decision statutory provision “In Idaho that is a emergencies, and has future respect to which, prevent the if it was intended to deprived the constitution and amended legislature making emergency laws laws, to make successors of the its approv- immediately effective their operation of which for the enactment and by governor, al conflict with exist, ap- effective when emergencies part of the constitution which relates to CONST, CONST, CONST, VII; XLVIII, IV, 1; Ill, 3; art. Gen. Prov. MASS. § art. N.M. art. § CONST, CONST, CONST, CONST, Ill, 4; II, d; art. art. NEV. § NEB. XIX, § OHIO art. lc & OKLA. CONST, CONST, 26; II, 25, 5; IV, 1; V, 2; art. amend. § N.D. § art. S.D. § § art. OR. CONST, CONST, CONST, CONST, II, II, VI, Ill, 1; lg; OR. art. art. § art. OHIO § art. UTAH CONST, CONST, II, 18; plain II, The 1(2); art. Id. § WASH. § art. lb. § WASH. § heavily argument on the case relies tiffs' Meath, contrast, Wash. By many State ex rel. Brislawn state constitutions which (1915) jurisdictions and cases of other grant 147 P. 11 of referendum Washington’s reasoning. Since its specifically is self-exe- that followed indicate that such qualitatively different prohibit cuting legislature or referendum which the cannot CONST, Idaho’s, 1; IV, I, particularly in that the former pt. from self-executing § restrict. See. ARIZ. art. CONST, not, plaintiffs’ V, 7; latter is and the COLO. § ARK. CONST, art. amend. CONST, lb; XIV, readily distinguishable. V, 1; line of cases § MD. art. § art. proved by governor. legislative A thereby prevent not being act from competent session is not deprive fu- referred to for their approval or powers ture sessions of conferred rejection at the next biennial election. them, them, by or reserved to the consti- Johnson, supra

tution.” Plaintiffs’ 57 P.2d ultimate assertion is that at 1084. events precipitated, the enact ment of 2H.B. did not rise to the level of statutory If the language relating emergency. actual Whether this is true to referendum were to be construed as not, legislature’s we hold that the deter plaintiffs, asserted the constitutional mination emergency of an in an act is a authority legislature to declare an policy decision exclusively within the ambit emergency thereby make legislative authority, and judiciary immediately, effective would be rendered a cannot second-guess that decision. In the nullity. Where two constructions of a stat absence of a invasion of consti possible, ute are resulting one in the stat tutionally protected rights, being ute constitutional and the second ren government branch of respect must dering unconstitutional, the statute we will legislature’s defer to the policy exclusive statute, i.e., 34-1803, construe the I.C. so decisions. very Such is the nature our as to avoid conflict with the constitution. tripartite representative govern form of Johnson, Id. As we stated in “where there ment. statute, is room for two constructions of a equally both equally obvious and reason We preliminary therefore vacate the in- able, must, the court in deference to the junction imposed on the defendants legislature state, assume that it did court, district since it was based on the provisions overlook the of the constitu assumption erroneous that the courts could designed tion and the act to take effect.” probe legislature’s into the justification for Id. at (quoting 57 P.2d at Grice declaring emergency in 1985 H.B. 2. Co., 70, 117 v. Clearwater Timber 20 Idaho remand, however, We to the district (1911)). P. 112 court for further determination of the legislature of the state is autho claims, plaintiffs’ other none of which were rized the constitution to declare an subject appeal.4 of this thereby render an act effec immediately upon passage. tive II. people of the state of statutorily Idaho are approve reject legisla authorized to Venue Hence, tion at the next biennial election. Judge Smith of the Sixth Judicial is, be,

2H.B. and will continue to effective District determined at onset of 4, 1986, until at least November and there plaintiffs’ this case that the basis of cause if only approved by after the voters. The allegedly improper of action was the decla filing petition of a to refer to the voters an ration of in H.B. which arose passed by legislature oper act cannot County, in Ada where the prevent becoming ate to the act from im Therefore, sitting. Judge granted Smith mediately effective if the change of the defendants’ motion for a body declared an County Ada Coun preamble legisla venue from Bannock Similarly, of the act. ture, ty pursuant provi 5-402. That emergency, its declaration of an to I.C. § making immediately, an act can sion reads effective above, broad, only plaintiffs compre grants 4. As noted filed a and that it civil remedies by 21-page arguing among persons the the complaint classes of created hensive other one of two statute. There has been things, preempted by no determination at that H.B. 2 has been feder law, these plaintiffs’ the merits of al first district court level as to claims, that it is a violation of relief, they justify injunctive rights speech assembly, or whether amendment that it is of free unconstitutionally vague and over- or otherwise. penalties change County to Ada does not venue “5-402. Actions against change preclude any for the follow- future motions for officers.—Actions county in ing showing must be tried appropriate causes venue cir- thereof, cause, part or some where the cumstances. arose, like of the subject to the appellant. Costs to change place of trial:

court to attorney appeal. fees on No penalty or recovery “1. For the of a statute, imposed by except, forfeiture imposed it is offense SHEPARD, HUNTLEY, JJ.,

that when for an BAKES lake,' committed on a river or other concur. water, (2) or stream of situated two Justice, BISTLINE, dissenting. counties, brought more the action lake, any county bordering on such stream, opposite place river or I. where the offense was committed. practice begin is to appellate A sound officer, Against public person “2. opinion analysis with an authored duties, specially appointed to execute his in this case the Honora the district court act done him in virtue of his Judge Newhouse. New- ble Robert G. office; who, against person his house, pre conceding that he would have aid, anything command or his does judge to come ferred that some other had touching the duties of such officer.” legislature’s Bill grips with the House The second of this statute is the subsection courageously performed No. applicable part in this case. of dis function of the constitutional office public are all The defendants this case elected judge trict to which the passage emergency officers and the of an Observing ordinarily it is him. gave clause in H.B. 2 rise to immediate if province of the to determine perform by duties those officers were to (see actually there is John duties, virtue of their office. Those 56 Idaho 57 P.2d son v. Diefendorf course, voting not the actual on the were (1936), succinctly stated that it was he bill, consequence but rather arose as a him submitted to which estab evidence piece emergency legis- passage of a to whether in question lished a serious lation, i.e., signing, certifying and immedi- in fact existed when fact an had ately opposed delayed— to the normal emergen legislature simply declared an —as enforcing legislation. Plaintiffs’ domi- cy expressing any facts whatever without seeking enjoin nant cause for the de- have been such a conclusion could fulfilling fendants from those duties was question of fact “Thus such is a reached. allegedly improper passage based on the R., p. at trial.” which must be determined for which the bill with an clause abstract, deigning to deal 159. Not Hence, emergency allegedly no existed. reality Judge Newhouse dealt with emergen- legislature’s authority pass the Idaho Constitution: action which cy was the main 22 of the Constitution 4. Article § plaintiffs’ injunction claim for caused no act provides of Idaho of the State this, Recognizing Judge cor- arise. Smith Legislature shall take effect of the Idaho 5-402(2) rectly applied to and I.C. looked legisla- days from the end of the until proper for this to determine the venue session, except in the case of an tive that decision. cause of action. We affirm be de- emergency, emergency shall body preamble complaint clared portions those As to interpret only This court can against the the law. which remain to be determined to mean an not, defendants, and do this constitutional remaining we need just exist not emergency must not, there- actual proper herein decide the venue thinking. remand, wishful for. our affirmation On Legal may, 5. voters under the Idaho or any mention such emergency dur- Constitution, 3, 1, Art. under such con- ing the bill’s through course the Idaho ditions and in such manner as legislature. There is no contention to the provided by Legislature, the acts of the contrary.1 Judge Newhouse’s views are demand a referendum vote on act or Hence, am, be, patently sound. I as he will passed by measure at a why loss to understand it is that the cause the same to be submitted to a vote sought escape Court an avenue of people approval rejec- for their upholding Judge Newhouse—which course tion. The voters thus have a constitu- part of action is on the Supreme of this tional to a referendum. clearly is Court mandated. carry 6. In order to out this refer- myself, For I was blessed with a fifth endum of the Idaho Constitu- grade good teacher who founded me awith tion, 34-1801, Legislature enacted comprehension English language, of the following, of the Idaho Code. Under junior high civics teacher who thor- provides 34-1803 I.C. the law that these oughly understood the Constitutions of Ida- petitions may referendum be filed not States; presumably ho and the United days more than 60 after the final ad- Judge equally Newhouse was blessed. journment Legislature. The stat- squarely presented issue which has been specifically “Any ute states that measure only indirectly parties plain- us involves the people so referred to the shall take effect They pur- tiff and defendant. serve approved by and become a law when it is pose providing the format which this therein, majority of the votes cast Court, Highest and Last Re- Court So, not otherwise.” if no emer- there is Idaho, polit- sort will resolve whether the gency, stays a referendum the enforce- legislature by vested in the ical Right ment of the to Work Law. paramount political power to the 7. All are bound the Idaho State reserved to themselves— Constitution, legislature, only but constitutionally empowered they are unions, officials, public, elected through to assert the referendum and exceptions. and this court. There no simply put, through the initiative. More No other conclusion can be reached required is asked to and is this Court emergency this court de- than which, as to if ei- make the determination clared will defeat the ther, greater political power; is it has the deciding voter’s to a referendum people? legislature? is it the they whether or not should retain this “Right to Work” If there is no bill. proposition put, the before Otherwise legislature improper- then the whether the Court would Court NOT ly emergency provision. this enacted separation of the doctrine of a violation Only preliminary A a trial will decide. powers by deciding this confrontation of granted plain- injunction should be political powers. The real issue those two R., p. trial. 159. tiffs until this courts, go by it will will be decided the Judge legislature. New- default had been submitted evidence which that the issue could be house did not see rep- state included the filed affidavits of a avoided, delay meeting it head- nor did he senator, as well as resentative and a state proper is the that the real issue on. Of commit- minutes of the House and Senate no of the courts there can be demonstrating concern meetings hearings, tee was, doubt. fact, that there no consideration 2,” Defendants, al., passage of H.B. argue at the time of the Leroy in their No- et 36-37, brief, pp. rule of construction that "should there is a "settled vember and that conclude that review review extrinsic an Idaho court to which allows appropriate, cross- gauge legislative existence of an respondents in- attempting evidence opportu- afforded an must then be tent.” nity present as to the existence of an evidence constitution, Jones, eloquent principles in of American his the

Attorney General (or at least his in France the constitution is argument, of showed presentation oral be) immutable; and the supposed of the is to the noted work acquaintance with power no the scholar, theory is that has political DeTocqueville, M. received French part In commenting changing any of it. Democracy in America. right In of referendum, the acknowl- attorney England, parliament has an on the use of the the constitution; right modify the general "tyranny edged as of the to described this as, therefore, minority”: may constitution under- the changes, it in reali- go perpetual does not strange be a rule which It would indeed exist; a ty parliament the is at once percent allow of the to would ten voters assembly. constitutent legislative and a measure suspend the effectiveness of a are of America political The theories legislature, by the two-thirds which An simple and more rational. vote, more mea- determined was to supposed is not American constitution go to into immedi- sure had effect France; nor is it In be immutable as ately general until next election. the rule, ordi- case, susceptible by if modification the if is the of this allowable effectiveness, It suspend nary powers society England. it will as in they can of whole, which, for a as it suspended period have been of a detached constitutes percent ten of the of the you, represents months. Mind the determination doing binding it under the constitu- less on the people, voters whole is no provision, though citizen, tional referendum even legislator private the but than on representatives of elected two-thirds the be altered the will have to cases, according said this is an and we predetermined people in now. What have America to established rules. 1982, 32,653 giving, to is vot- amounts therefore, vary, but may, constitution ers, percent ten of the number of origin it is the all long exists governor you’re giving that voted for authority, sole and the vehicle — 32,000 ability some odd predominating force. legislature, overrule entire easy perceive manner It what people’s body. elected posi- must act these differences DeTocqueville wrote instead of the rights While bodies tion and majority” in American “tyranny I have If in three countries cited. phrase democracy,2 his led me use were authorized France tribunals perusal another of the French author’s ground into of their disobey the on the laws comprehensive analysis why constitution, our forms being opposed to the governments have sur- of federal and state placed in power in fact be supreme would will I submit these ex- hands, vived and survive. they since alone would their I, Chapter constitution, cerpts from Volume VI: interpreting can be modified the clauses of which I am aware that a similar [of therefore, would, authority. They legislation] been no judicial review nation, exercise place courts take claimed claimed—but vain— society as countries; sway over as absolute a justice in other but judicial power weakness of recognised it is all the au- inherent America Undoubtedly, to do. thorities; much allow them party, not a nor so would incompetent judges are it. as the French individual is found to contest as an unconstitutional, the explained to be only by the declare This fact can legisla- tyranny my majority" ‘Tyranny of in Vol- solicitude. discussed feared, One, danger beginning p. p. really 280. At most to ume ture is quotes many years to Mad- Jefferson’s letter author to be so for and will continue ison: come. government is not executive in our object principal only, perhaps not even changing the constitution is separate his opinion Kansas, in Mugler v. indirectly given body, U.S. 8 S.Ct. 31 L.Ed. legal since oppose no barrier would (1887), close in time to the era of DeT- might prescribe. alterations which it ocqueville. Justice Harlan wrote: But it is grant better to the of are, There of necessity, beyond limits changing the constitution the of cannot rightfully go. (however represent to men who imper- every While possible presumption is to be fectly) people, the will the than to of indulged in validity favor of the of a represent men who no one but them- statute, the courts must obey the Con- selves. stitution rather than the lawmaking It would be still more unreasonable to department government, the of English invest the judge with the of must, upon their responsibility, own resisting the decisions of the whether, determine any particular in body, parliament since the which makes case, these passed. limits have been constitution; the laws also makes the later, years Ten gone and Idaho now from and consequently emanating a law statehood, territory Quarles Justice powers state, the three of the in can no wrote in a similar vein for this Court in a case be unconstitutional. But neither of prevailing appellants case where the were these applicable remarks is to America. Borah, represented by Fraser, W.E. A.A. In the United States constitution Puckett, Hawley & with the State of governs legislator as much as the Attorney arguing against General private laws, citizen: as it is the first of the contention legislature had not law; it cannot be by a and it modified complied requirements with constitutional just the tribunals therefore passing in a certain act: obey prefer- should the constitution in Upon question there is some conflict ence to law. This condition is es- of authority, great weight but of sential to the the judicature; of authority reasoning and the soundest legal obligation by select support bound, only the rule that the court not which he is strictly most is the may, imperative duty but it is the of the every magistrate. natural of court, it, when this issue is before to look journals legislature, of the and see judge brought ... But the American if, passing question, in in the statute political into the independently arena proceeded in the manner his only judges own will. He the law By provided by the constitution. obliged judge because he is case. constitution, terms of said section of the political question The which he is called things in supra, six must be done upon to resolve is connected with the law, (1) passage The intro- of a to wit: parties, interest and he cannot bill, proposed by duction of the nec- abdicating to decide it without refuse (2) essarily writing; printing of the post. the duties performs his He his thereto; (3) bill, with the amendments by fulfilling as a citizen functions reading of the bill on three several belong profes- strict duties which to his House, magistrate. days, previous sion as a Id. at 103-105 to a final each added) (footnotes omitted). (emphasis thereon; (4) reading of the bill vote section; by passage, on its final section amazing The careful reader see an will (5) yeas passage, by a vote the final Judge language resemblance in the used (6) nays: major- of a the concurrence decision, Newhouse his memorandum pro- ity present. of the members These above, DeTocque- page 18 and that of M. mandatory, im- and it is the visions fifty years hundred ville written over one obey duty meantime, perative nothing ago. In the As we said in the case of Dunbar them. changed. striking One will also see a sim- (decided at ilarity language Harlan v. Board Commissioners Justice ante, legislation. term), p. hasty and inconsiderate present [5 Idaho] 416, 421-22, duty supporting Kingsley, 5 Idaho Pac. Cohn v. (1897). imposed the state is constitution P. 990-91 public by the solemn upon all mere declaration the Senate that officers oath, obligations in the House amendments” official “we concur discharged dis- obligations cannot requirements of not answer the does setting ignoring, obeying, constitution. plain provisions naught con- plaintiff, preparing pro- his case stitution, only by but obedience thereto. transcript journals both cured a construing said section of the constitu- Houses, Secretary certified tion, necessary inquire into the This is to be full and correct. State proviso application extent of the practice, we it. correct commend Id. therein, viz.: “In case of which we find at 49 P. at urgency, of the House where two-thirds additionally rehearing: and on said pending may a may such bill be regret It is a matter of that attor- nays dispense yeas and with vote state ney general of the should ridicule reading A provision.” careful constitution, provisions of any of the part that that of sec- section shows “insignificant,” or of as speak them precedes the consists proviso tion which language, which find in the use this we separate disjunctively of three clauses petition rehearing: admit that “We The first to the stated. clause relates of the state is surround- the constitution bill, introduction of the the second to the sanctity solemnity, a halo of and ed with bill, printing of the the third to the read- part is great of which fictitious.” The ing days. three are of the on several We things requires constitution certain to be context, opinion, from the condi- passage with of done connection tions which the framers of the constitu- any and all laws. It is true that thought arise, might tion and from the doing things pro- of of these a matter object view, apparent they had by right anyone But what shall cedure. proviso applies, only that said was and say any of permitted to that be apply, to pre- intended to last clause required things by constitution to be ceding proviso. It not intended was “insignificant,” may there- done are and legislature dispense authorize the to to fore be omitted? Has anyone right more proposed with the introduction of the say to things required that one of the bill, nor it was intended to authorize insignificant may and the constitution dispense printing say he has to that be omitted than the bill. framers of the constitution thing insignificant required other evidently provision to intended said If the may therefore be omitted? put legislature, it in the of hands ignore one exists the necessity promptly, pass to act case of ignore If the must all exists. court wink one, six, of instead not less than bill constitution, it at one violation imagine days, and we can a case where If must wink at other violations it. instance, urgency such would exist. For approve court must one violation place, an insurrection should take must, constitution, consistent, it to be quell appropriation should order to it. We must approve other violations of made, promptly be the "executive constitution, subject or else be to the given some not then should be subject to whims of those individuals law, given by existing itor should be sanctity of the constitution who treat necessary enlarge to forthwith the mili- provisions insignif- its object requiring printing as fictitious and tia. The God and separate cannot serve both readings three icant. We several must travel either the good is a one. It to insure the Mammon. days We against other. think that rights and interests of the one road We safety security ture, demand we contrary express mil stick to spirit the letter and the con- people. Id. 431-434, 49 P. at 1000 stitution, we obey all its man- (emphasis added).3 dates, people, until the the source all years after, Fifteen with Justice Ailshie power, it, made change provi- who its writing, the Fritchman, Court in Swain v. obey sions. Let us the constitution in 783, 792, 125 21 Idaho (1912), P. 319 said all requirements, its and treat all of Cohn: provisions imporatnt. would not be inclined at this time to [W]e depart general from the rule there enun- ... legislative “But when ciated that the court look to the a state is depart- exercised journal. It certainly would be a remark- branches, or, ment composed two as in able and appalling situation if in the states, most of the American of three rush, hurry and closing turmoil of the branches, and these branches their hours of a purported session a several duties marked out prescribed bill could engrossed, certified and by the they law to which owe their ori- secretary filed with the of state and be- gin, provides and which for the exercise come a law fact had never powers of their in certain mode and un- nor been con- forms, der certain ques- there are other by it, journals sidered clearly and the tions to than arise those of the mere fact, established yet there law-makers, intent of the and sometimes should be no remedy whereby the fraud importance. forms become least or mistake could pur- be reached and the For in such case only impor- not is it ported act prevented could going tant that will the the law-makers be of operation into force and clearly expressed, as a If but it is also essen- law. go bill, courts cannot expressed tial that it be behind the in due form of enrolled law, nothing since situation, this would be simply yet becomes law and the exact and case solely possess supposed because men who the has actually oc- legislative be, power will that shall in curred this A bill state. was en- rolled, they express unless their determination and with the secre- certified filed to pointed that in the mode out tary state as legis- a valid act effect of by the instrument legislative journals [the lature where the constitution] power, them with invests and affirmatively showed that the bill had under all the forms which that instru- passed. been instead (Em- defeated [Quoting ment has rendered essential.” added.) phasis Limita- Judge Cooley, Constitutional abundantly Judge It is clear that New- tions, ed., p. 5th ... 156.] was understanding house correct in that persistent The contention of the re- States, including in the courts these United spondent go that should court and the obli- Idaho, do have the back of the enrolled bill to the gation if determine the three journals if question to see the act in was government coordinate branches of act required in the mode the con- by respective within their limita- stitution in face of the this fact that and tions, can exercise the repeatedly may court has held do that it legislature. final word over the so, worthy is ill-advised and not of con- sideration. To hold in with accordance II. respondent this would contention eminently Judge was provisions make the the constitution That Newhouse readily in his merely directory subject and is ascertainable correct views legisla- by giving whims either House proper regard to the mother "express" “expressed” importance 3. The words and so their we later turn to retain when Infra, p. doubly may Washington emphasized been that the reader Constitution. have, thereof, by tongue (our being they writ- sec. art. Idaho Constitution by ap- English language), provide and permitted ten in the for.” orderly proaching the in Johnson, 637-38, Constitution supra, 56 Idaho at majority opinion by The com- added). manner. (emphasis P.2d at 1085-86 mencing its in Article 2 has review emphasized italics are not so words managed to avoid that which is far emphasized original, they in the nor did significant most Constitu- doubt, jus- need be. Without all tion, very in naturally is found tices of that time were well aware art. Article OF First entitled “DECLARATION Morgan succinctly pointed 2. Justice out § Immediately after section RIGHTS.” in people, that it the exercise of was (which we nature declares that all political power, in who turn autho- their equal possessed of certain free and legislature to permitted rized de- personal rights), property inalienable emergencies clare in the exercise is: section which in full follows had political power which the con- power inherent Art. 2. Political legislative department ferred people. political power in- is —All government government —which in- people. herent Government people of Idaho created their Constitu- equal protection stituted their tion.5,6 alter, benefit, they have the Morgan’s opinion crux of Justice reform or the same whenever abolish hinged upon proposition Johnson was may necessary; spe- they deem it and no stipulated trial, “It that at the privileges cial or immunities shall ever substance, emergency actually that an ex- altered, granted re- not be law,” (em- isted the enactment voked, repealed by legislature. and, added) writing Court, phasis for the he full today Our concern the first say, primary went which was “All political sentence: is inherent holding “The in the case: contention people.” Only by having this constitu- measure it because the act mind, say, precept tional well is to to referendum cannot be subject is not comprehended, proper observed can a 638, 57 P.2d at 1086. sustained.” Id. at consideration be to these other accorded otherwise, judge The trial had concluded provisions of the which are Constitution i.e., subject not to a referendum that it was Morgan today our in his concern. Justice vote, the Court held erroneous. The which opinion v. did not fail Johnson Diefendorf4 It importance opinion is two-fold. give recognition vesting to to inherent emphasis if was neces- emphasized, political of he all when people of sary, “The absolute wrote that: of themselves, alter, to and to govern approve reject to or government, is rec- or their reform abolish is in force is not full and effect expressed ognized in the constitution and powers peo- beyond political of 2____” 1, 634, at 57 P.2d at in art. sec. Id. Idaho, ple specified in and safe- of as held, stipula- It 1082. also because of guarded by 1 their consti- sec. art. of emergen- of an tution, tion to the actual existence nor is it inconsistent with not petition “does they cy, that a referendum powers of that proper exercise these of, to, continue, apply postpone the effective date put, in ef- nor laws thereon, was the emergency acts.” Justice Holden pending vote fect a referendum provides powers that: “The of Diefendorf, P.2d 6. Article 2 4. 56 Idaho 57 Johnson (1936). government into of this state are divided three legislative, departments, executive distinct the Idaho Constitution reads: 5. The Preamble to ____” judicial; Idaho, "We, grateful to of the state of freedom, Almighty its God our secure promote do blessings our common welfare establish Constitution." only other member of joining the Court “3. Of or pertaining to the exercise of opinion. that rights privileges or the influence by which the individuals a state seek Budge, writing Justice separately, did public determine or control policy; agree separately that the trial court had having to organization do with the ruling or erred that act in question was individuals, action of parties, subject to a or referendum. He interests also agreed seek filing that to control appointment referendum petitions not suspend did manage law there in action those who the affairs ** question. Id. at state; P.2d at 1087. It of a was, then, a holding three-vote widely One of the most used defini- filing of petition the referendum did not of “political” tions appears in 49 C.J. abate the effective date of an emergency 1073, taken from “Pertaining Bouvier: act, where stipulated it was an emer policy or the govern- administration of gency actually existed.7 ment.” years Two after Diefendorf, Johnson v. Masters, Fisher v. 59 Idaho opinion Justice Ailshie’s in Fisher v. Mas- 212, 217, P.2d involves the validity ters, (1938), 59 Idaho 83 P.2d 212 nonpartisan statute election of joined by justices all four of the who had judges. opinion explains the mean- case, split the Johnson case. That while ing “political” as there by saying used issue, bearing today’s it has no direct it “has no partisanship reference to respect reflects the Justice Ail- political parties control, but rather to the regarded colleagues. shie was by his As management operation govern- applicable case, to this showed aware- ‘Belonging ment. to the science of justices ness all of those meaning government; treating polity poli- ” “political power as used in the Idaho tics; political Having principles. Constitution. That meaning statement of organized system government; admin- was in turn utilized a unanimous Iowa istering polity; fully developed as a Supreme Court in Iowa v. Civic Action (Funk political community.’ Wag- & Committee, 238 Iowa 28 N.W.2d 467 Diction.) ‘Relating nails New Stand. (1947): management state; of the affairs of meaning. “Political” a word broad (Webster’s political theories.’ New Webster’s New Dictionary, International Diction.).” (empha- Intematl. Id. Edition, Second defines it as “1. Of or original). * * * sis pertaining the conduct of * * meaning turn This became that used government, *; to, pertaining of or ed., Dictionary, p. Black’s Law 5th to, or incidental the exercise of the func- subsequently appear, important As will it is charged

tions in vested those with the well in our government; relating keep mind what Constitution conduct of to the state; management political where polit- of affairs of means it declares “all * * * ical theories. in people.”8 is inherent It is the inher- Ailshie, Unfortunately, Only years 7. Justice without doubt 8. nine after Ailshie statehood Justice outstanding opinion Toncray distinguished authored the in v. Idaho’s and Court’s most con- 621, (1908), Budge, is 14 Idaho 95 P. 26 which a authority, stitutional whose time on this Court separation on veritable treatise the doctrine years within commenced thirteen after con- Although is of state and church. that issue not convention, did with stitutional not sit today, opinion it which our concern was that sat, reading many he Court. Had a of his schol- large brought antipathy to a conclusion the a arly opinions highly similar controversies people in number of Idaho toward the Mormon persuasive Givens, he have with that would sided Justice polygamy. because its earlier in church belief go whose views unmentioned in the 4, 1, adopted provides: still § Art. as written and majority opinion, which would have made it religious liberty. exer- Guaranty of —The extremely likely that Ailshie and Justice Justice enjoyment religious wor- and faith and cise together Givens a would have commanded ma- per- guaranteed; ship be and no shall forever vote, jority if not a vote. unanimous political right, shall or son be denied civil peo- in the power is reserved All political in the actively participate ent 1, Const., 2. is the art. That ple. Idaho § government. of the department legislative principle of the Constitu- foremost first and not in department, Not in the executive applies to which tion, principle general a in, in, only but and department, judicial Article Third Constitution. the entire department. Constitution, pow- dealing with the of the we are in Johnson While Diefendorf pro- legislature, of the prerogatives ers and Ailshie, we of Justice the views deprived of be the it will vides that —not Givens, which of Justice do have views not department, executive defendants, Le- totally ignored are ordinarily exer- shall department —which given no al., also are roy, et which of the on behalf political power cise that Writing opinion. majority in the mention legislature to it is the that end people. To dis- part concurred separately, he enact the power to given the sole which constitu- of the part. In his view sented govern them- will people by which laws involved, he concluded language tional gov- to be themselves and allow selves abeyance question ... "The statute BUT, at all people times erned. in the people refer- decision until the political that same to themselves reserved vote_” Johnson, Ida- supra, 56 endum may, people the extent power to no 645, This was P.2d at 1093. ho at legislature, also independent of entirely accept- dixit, on his but ipse mere based The use the Initiative. This is enact laws. Constitution, language of the ance cumbersome. is slow and initiative any way conflicted not see he did political power at people exercise of It is an S.L.1933, (then ch. 34-1803 general with I.C. elec- biennial polls specifically § the — 431). only in No- p. held sec. elections tions. Such Obvious- years.

vember of even-numbered need for and actual urgent ly, if there were III. by some laws occasioned remedial certain a to strive for today’s majority were If insurrection, riot, un- or other disaster, ig- resolution, wholly not it would proper occurrence, rational would be usual give it fail to nor art. would nore then the obtaining, § first the to await initiative and requisite to both the consideration certification filing and referendum, specifically rights are the advent and then signatures, number their Constitu- at which election reserved general of a pro and con votes individual Not would Con- their tion, only register art. be That could in- measure. written, proper proposed stitution, given If emer- affairs. state of easily and intolerable it would be terpretation, but election, general just gency arose after drawn. quickly state, provide legislature shall reli- capacity of his privilege, on account or punishment of such crimes. liberty for the opinions; of conscience gious but the Convention, pp. dis- construed to hereby shall not Idaho Constitutional See also secured 961, 1992, affirmations, 930, 943, 717, 382, 471, 143, 184, or excuse or pense oaths with polygamous or justify 1996-97, (1889). acts of licentiousness Ailshie, practices, inconsistent pernicious again other Toncray, supra, Justice state; safety peace morality court, wrote: unanimous organization, or any person, permit to nor conven- clearly appears that the It therefore indirectly or directly aid or to association prac- against and guarding acts was itself tion abet, any person to commit advise or counsel against teachings and not tices beliefs. any bigamy polygamy, or or the crime time, and can objection at that nowas There required to person shall be No other crime. now, believ- to man one no constitutional be place ministry any support attend worship, married he whom is wife to ing the that denomination, or religious sect or hereafter, and wife will be his life this consent; any nor shall against pay his tithes marrying her objection to his be no can there any religious by given preference Toncray, eternity"; .... “time and both worship. Bigamy or mode of denomination 654, at 59. 95 P. supra, at prohibited in polygamy are forever people themselves, acting with all due utes, say but to chapter 210, supra, haste within the framework as presently does apply not to emergency laws is provided, would be unable to directly enact reading into exception it an put not there the needed laws for almost 24 months. No legislature. Furthermore, section one should any have compre- trouble in 1 of article supra, provides that the hending that use the initiative in situa- legislature provide is to the “conditions” tions of emergency is not realistic. and “manner” of the exercise of the ref- erendum.... hand, This On other legislature word would have now holds been annual therefore sessions. sufficient to Even authorize the before it way in turned to which sessions, the law annual should (even off referred numbered) years, and how the legislature election (as should be conduct- now) is subject ed.... to being called into extraor- dinary special Anyone sessions. of rea- It seems to me the proper legal and son will readily concede that when there is constitutional course is section 3 if actually an emergency in state affairs the chapter 210, Laws, 1933 Session should only course to be followed is that legis- be amended it be by legislature go lature into action. rather by judicial than construction, any act the legislature For until re- reason, the same genuine when pealed, amended or modified is as bind- actually arise, situations do ing on legislators legislature any as other can more expediently use the future group citizens. The political fatal inconsisten- constitutionally in it vested cy in the other provide construction these contended laws are necessary. which for is that by such It necessarily construction the appear refer- would to follow that endum as to the legislature emergency laws is as emas- vested culated as set if section the effective article 3 date of its emergency legislation Constitution were held to not apply emergency laws, perhaps, all, laws at ignores should not be abated until the part section chapter used their supra: of referendum to go to the polls many months down the “. measure so referred to the — approve road—to of or reject those emer- shall take effect and become a law gency laws. respect In that I tend to not it is approved by when a majority of the be persuaded by the views Justice Giv- thereon, votes cast and not otherwise.” ens, although there is logic much in his 642-43, at Id. 57 P.2d (empha- at 1090-91 opinion brought him to this added). conclu- sis sion: Completely overlooked by majority Starting with Morgan’s Justice correct singular fact that case Johnson premise holding that section article was made well aware 3, of the Constitution applies legis- to all the Court’s membership was troubled acts, general lative as emergency, well legislature’s (obviously) inadvertence in leads, me, it seems to to the conclusion realizing lag the time en- would that the referendum legislation, chapter sue putting off a referendum until 210,1933 Laws, Session apply must to all general next election. Since that time the acts, general or emergency. times, has convened 33 supra, Johnson v. Diefendorf session, in its correcting now 34th without P.2d at 1090. to which its attention was Justice Givens reasoning: stated his acutely directed.9 This is what Justice Giv-

There is no statutes, conflict between the ens was suggesting. Mindful of his sworn or between the Constitution and the stat- obligation uphold Constitution continues, legislature’s If the peo- inertia clearly entitled to initiate an act of own. their ple in the political power exercise their legislative all acts passed, When effect. weight The accordingly. written, he voted In and control.... power its beyond most jurisdictions, other law from of case supported proposition this opinion our his view. written, supports of it since au- weight of the overwhelming by the IV. thorities. opinion majority main theme The anof declaration an unsubstantiated

is that this that instant case the in Wefind magi- a unto likened emergency has been be- Legislature by the taken action legislature. entrusted the wand cian’s controversy, legal a subject the come pre- no such made in Johnson The Court individual question the wherein actual of an existence There the tense. is in- power constitutional rights parties. by the stipulated to was emergency finally volved, question must day to de- for another reserved The Court Cooley’s by the courts. determined emer- an actual question where the termine Same, Limitations, pp. supra; Const. agreed not fact: was gency Legisla- the delegated to The or the legislature it is for this terms of Whether in the be found must ture finally, to the existence say, as construed provision, court constitutional new meaning within the of an intent with connection us. John is not before in this provision constitution such a incorporating at 1086. son, 57 P.2d ex rel. supra, at Attorney General Constitution. 524, 145 Mich. Lindsay, 178 v. Barbour issue, ducking the not there was The Court added). (1914) (emphasis 98, 100 N.W. duck that it would saying not was and it not a Morrison, That was arise. also, did when it issue Stein See saying bill is (holding it was after a (1904) What that Court. pussy-footed P. ques- judicial legislature declared legal effect passed, that when the its was reasons tion). its by delineating decide whether it would therefor, then Michigan Su- case the the Barbour In right to claim would would Court making rejected preme Court on the conclusions its own superimpose effective immediately legislation certain legisla- by the outlined existing as effect act took held that facts Supreme Court is what Such ture. the constitu- times, provided in normal of lower reviewing decisions often does re- this Michigan reached Court The tion. wholly Here, legislature where courts. despite contentions sult issue, facts, its to set forth failed of when judge sole positions Johnson, us. is not before ra- Certainly the effective. become would partic- justices who by all four taken Court Michigan Supreme tionale superior far were ipated in that case instance. in this applicable this 1986 integrity to what quality and contentions Defendants’ this date. does Court au- within interfering would be branch dealing emergen- A of cases review ignores legislative branch thority of general prin- shows cy declarations aspect fundamental spe- apply judicial review requiring ciples shares state, Idaho. involving cifically cases As people. power with the lawmaking clauses. has noted: Supreme Washington reasoning of the Michigan, in an error Supreme Court The whole upon which ad- case, the cases had occasion respondents extremely similar fundamental upon the proposed proposition rely is specific they based dress contro- inquiry involves attorneys. that this error defendants’ co-ordinate between opinion versy of provision relates This If the government. by the branches acts of certain passage only to the stated, might we so could equation they take as to when Legislature and 710 follow them. It cannot be so Meath, stated. v. 302, 84 P.11, Wash.

There is another factor not occurring un- (1915) (emphasis added). order, der the old where we took account The declaration that the act is necessary executive, of the representative the body for the preservation immediate of the (the Legislature), and the courts. There public peace safety has no more is now a element: people, fourth binding force than would the declaration reserving to assert its will in an act that constitutional,” “this act is legislative over the department or “this general is a and not a local government. State ex rel. Brislawn v. special act.” State ex rel. Goodman v. Meath, 84 Wash. (1915) 147 P. 16 Stewart, 57 Mont. 187 P. (emphasis added). (1920). Many other courts have had occasion to Supreme Court has come to a address similar assertions counsel to the similar conclusion when faced with a bill effect that separation powers doc- passed by Legislature the Idaho which con- precludes trine any review of legisla- tained stated, a clause effect, tive declaration of emergency. The total the law could not be construed to violate logic lack of for contrary proposition is the Idaho provisions restrict- illustrated in following cases. ing the of municipalities. indebtedness legislative The said declaration has no Neither can bind the effect, courts greater binding is no more by its upon court, declaration act shall Legislature than if the be construed to be in had declared violation of that a certain certain measure is or provisions is not of the constitution. contingen- constitutional. such The limi- cy question tations of the binding would still remain constitution are upon courts legislature, question determine. The and cannot be nulli- us is simply before fied or one construction or avoided simple device of interpretation of an act Legisla- declaring inapplicable. them Village of ture and of Moyie Constitu- Springs Idaho v. Aurora Mfg. tion, and that question. Co., 337, 348, 82 Idaho 353 P.2d 767 Nye, McClure v. 22 Cal.App. 133 P. (1960). (1913). The cases cited in this section and other Now there is no saying more reason for parts opinion of this establish the rules of measure, that a bill is emergent applicable to this fact situation. The not, when its face from courts are not indiscriminately interfere very nature subject its matter spheres within authority of the other be, just cannot Legislature because the government. By log- branches of the same so, has said it is there than de- ic, powers. exceed its cannot claring a law to be unconstitutional obliged by system courts our when it has been Legisla- government to be arbiter in the fact of ture with the Constitution and its limita- allegations govern- branch one lying open

tions before it. The sense and ment is exceeding authority. its To limit discretion of Legislature, as well as courts, contend, as defendants would to discriminate between an act be to eliminate primary reason for the falling clearly falling without and one existence of the courts. clearly Constitution, should, within if arguments The defendants’ on the re- consistent, given we are the same viewability weight clauses are rela- as a that an act is declaration emergent, tively simple. Defendants contend that but few courts have so held Madison, there Marbury since can be no review of .1 decla- [U.S.] Cranch, 187, although provide L.Ed. rations which for the their immediate long apparent inconsistencies have been effectiveness of enactments. lay mind. ex rel. Brislawn Defendants submit that this is true State wheth-

7H perceived constituting facts deprives declaration er the has no sim constitution Our emergency. or referendum right ato of their the distinguished may procedure defend- be ilar proposition, this support of not. In However, more is there a of Ore- courts basis. language from the on that cite ants difference; dis include critical Colorado, Oklahoma gon, fundamental string following other states a the six from is articulated courts tinction manner, Los highly commendable Davis v. In a case of citation. from the quote of the (Cal.App. defense in his attorney general County, the 79 P.2d Angeles candidly al., has et Leroy, defendants 1938): a they call to what attention brought our conclusion only reasonable if the But judi- a view,” provides which “minority which facts from the reached to be emergency. of of declarations cial review enactment face of the on the appear repre- candid to less than It would be immediately is not the measure that there is that to the Court sent of the preservation necessary for states in some followed minority view safety, it be- health or peace, public legis- of review judicial allows hold courts to duty of the comes For emergencies. declarations lative effec- did not become the measure that limited permits some example, California of the expiration until after tive rendered scrutiny judicial provided days as of 90 period through a declara- immediately effective constitution_ Although general by that state’s urgency tion urgency pass to of measures the Califor- assembly. Article § proper upheld he must part: provides nia constitution plain cases, nevertheless it peo- to the power reserved The second sustain the to the courts duty ref- referendum. as the be known ple shall the constitu- provisions erendum shall Legislature passed act No necessity exists fact no when tion days after until 90 go into effect leg- of the operation immediate for the of the of the session adjournment final review, sup- (emphasis under islation act, ex- such passed Legislature plied) ur- ... and calling elections cept acts at 1104. 79 P.2d im- necessary for gency measures that quote the above from is clear It public of the preservation mediate the Cali- led factor which motivating by a safety passed peace, health judi- that conclude courts to fornia the members of all vote two-thirds declara- review should ciary it is Whenever house. each elected im- the adverse tions for the immediate necessary deemed right of on the such declarations pact of peace, health public of the preservation emergen- California, an referendum. go into imme- safety a law shall that defeats a bill attached cy label facts effect, of the a statement diate voters. issue refer the right to necessity be set shall such constituting can- declaration Because act, which of the section in one forth upon right conferred a constitutional cels only upon upon passed shall be section con- citizens, its courts California’s separate vote, nay yeah a de- of such review cluded passed any law so ... call thereon roll protect necessary to termination be declared Legislature by process. referendum integrity of the into go shall measure adopted has been rulé A similar effect. immediate 1(b), II, Article Washington. § state the Cali- above-quoted The states: Washington Constitution markedly differs constitution fornia peo- by the reserved second art. language of Idaho’s may referendum, ple is the requires specifically charter California any bill, act, ordered a statement include referendum: part review emergency is State v. preme 1990 erwise reserved to the people. See, off the islature’s declaration of emergency cuts lature In Washington, it is clear ing public institutions, age tions public peacé, health or safety, support for the part except such ^[190] the state Court has held that thereof right signed of California, Coe, (Wash.1953). Like immediate other bills are enacted. legislative legal voters, of referendum which is oth- [42 necessary government, laws Wash.2d the Washington Su- preservation required declarations of to or by limited either 569] preserve and its exist- be necessary its counter- legislature, 257 percent- by peti- judicial legis- P.2d leg- abolish the concluded that a endum. The courts of these states ing of emergency is needed because such a finding review a declaration Again, it is the court to conclude it referendum which has led the Montana has an obligation to emergency declaration State v. State Board Mont. 1934). Other states have likewise concluded a showing made.... the reservation or are other question of fact judicial 121] terminates the referendum 33 P.2d facts, review of a adverse legislative of is, through urgency. [516], on the legislative Education, by the court on right exception determined as impact attempt an to refer (Mont. emer of an have find is a [97 to gency clause See, merits scrutiny. Peo The judicial branch govern- of ple v. [Stambosva], Stambosba ment [210 owes a duty to the people, in Mich. 178 N.W. (Mich.1920); 226 436] protect order to right their of refer- Molesworth v.

endum, Secretary Common they took them- wealth, Mass. selves 196 they passed [347 when N.E.2d 312 47] the seventh (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1964); amendment, Goss, Morris v. closely scrutinize every Me. act 83 containing (Me.1951). 2d [147 an Atlantic 556 emergency 89] clause coming Even if reasoning before consideration, for of these its decisions is persuasive, found to not, determine whether adoption or as a fact, matter of would an not mandate emergency actually court review of emer case, did given gency exist each (emphasis clauses attached supplied) Appellant’s Brief, Idaho. filed Oct. 1985, pp. Coe, 20-24. State v. supra, 257 at P.2d (Schwellenbach, J., concurring). A close analysis of argument defendants’ Constitution, Montana’s in art. subject, on this as well as the citations provides: The people to them- reserve purportedly supporting argument, will selves approve reject ... argument show that is neither well- polls, at the act of founded well supported. nor assembly, except as necessary to laws The Oregon State of one of was the first for preservation the immediate adopt, states to as a constitutional amend- public peace, health, safety. ment, of initiative and refer- In finding that declaration Oregon endum. passed the initiative and referendum, abolishes the referendum amendment in and it was Supreme Montana Court has held: approved by Oregon voters of in 1902. It will noted that this The seminal case vests no cited defendants’ Legislature, but support counsel in merely excepts of the doctrine of pow- from the reserved nonre- er view are, those laws declarations Kadder fact, ly Portland, necessary City for the v. 44 Or. 74 P. immediate preservation (1903). public peace, This original case health, and safety, question leading and the case for other states cited de particular to whether a law within standing falls fendants as the theory for of no arguments Thus, defendants’ because declarations. review judicial decision the 1903 fall with must sink states cited other all of Almost Court, indepth Supreme Oregon as their basis counsel defendants’ itsof and a review decision analysis of that case. Kadderly to the nonreview, citation is warranted. treatment subsequent can concerning referendum Every case an amendment Kadderly Ida- involved because distinguished theoretically be concerning, gener- Portland The City unique. Charter statute ho’s referendum dis- improvement Oregon and local ally, decided taxation Kadderly case legislature, adop- city. 1903, prior to the tricts within Supreme Court Charter, stated in Ida- Portland amendment part of the referendum tion of preserva- necessary for “was charter ho. health, and safe- peace, public tion of brief, in appellants’ cited case The Texas exempting the thus P. ty,” 74 City Rings, Inc. Class Artcarved legislative enact- from referendum. (Tex.App.1977), S.W.2d Austin, 551 statements detailed included ment also providing Kadderly as cites specifically Under declaration. supporting facts Appeals Texas basis amendment referendum particular S.W.2d review. anticipate no “necessary for laws Oregon, adopted in Supreme Similarly, Oklahoma at 790. peace, public of the preservation immediate Shields, 22 City v. Court, in Oklahoma from the excepted safety are health, or Kad- (1908), relies on P. 559 100 Okl. 10 Legisla- Oregon Id. The referendum.” The 574-76. 100 P. at ruling. derly for its clause emergency attached result. ture also same is to the cited case Colorado Charter, the charter putting 4, 156 P. Ramer, the Portland 62 Colo. v. Kleeck Van Virgin effect. into immediate is true 1108, 1110. The same El v. ruling City Roanoke ia Court of refer- reviewing whether It is 822. S.E. liott, 123 Va. 96 classifying a abolished could be endum constitution that no to note important also preser- immediate for the necessary law case, Virginia raised al were issues health, safety or peace, public vation emergency clause challenging as those emergency through an implementing any deprived were they not contend did the issue framed Oregon Court clause, the dec by the is, what question “the vital follows: 824. S.E. at 96 laration. lawa does whether is to determine tribunal ci- unquestioning this classification? this line of under Continuing not fall or does legis- Su- precedent, findings Kadderly judgment to the tation Are the they rel. sub- Ohio, conclusive, ex in State or preme assembly Court lative The 9 N.E.2d Id. 132 Ohio Kennedy, the courts?” v. review ject Schorr case, Oregon Kleeck refer- the Van (1937), cites to reviewed then Court Oregon precedent. that out pointed relied amendment endum the immedi- necessary for to be laws found v. case, Phoenix City The Arizona health, public peace, preservation ate Co., 71 Ariz. Realty Mills Landerman the refer- subject to not safety are or that merely concludes (1951), 227 P.2d laws, such “as to concluding endum, that: giving a without available is not review not does the amendment by defend- cited case Indiana The reason. restrict abridge way or State, 29 Indiana ants, v. Gentile aof which, by the insertion legislature, re- issue (1868), address does clause, unquestion- may proper citation dicta, does, view, contain but Id. effect.” go into them ably cause may or case Indiana obscure to an conclud- then Oregon Court The 720-721. asserted. proposition for the not stand Idaho referendum. subject to the Legislature is exempts certain Oregon Constitution The Const, 1.§ art. provisions of that the referendum laws from measure Any or act constitution. ed that such an emergency declaration, or McBride, supra, in the ballot box. Kad findings of necessity cannot be reviewed. derly Id. at 721. It always has rule, been the and is now appellants’ As indicate, citations the Ore- everywhere understood, the judg- gon Courts have apparently stood by the ment of the and executive de- rule laid down in Kadderly. Other courts partments wisdom, as to the expediency, have not been so inclined. necessity any given law conclu- The State of Washington adopted an ini- sive on courts, and cannot be re- tiative and referendum amendment on the viewed or question called in by them.... day same in 1912 Idaho, as did some ten powers The of the courts do not extend years after the Oregon amendments. The question mere of expediency Washington Supreme Court, in the case of necessity. Id. at 721. State ex rel. Meath, Brislawn 84 Wash. Oregon Supreme provided 302, 147 P. 11 (1915), had the opportunity following concerning answer the role of the to review the Kadderly case in terms of a courts under a theory such of separation of challenge to an act of the Washington Leg- powers: islature which contained But, argued, it is what remedy will the clause. In Washington, an emergency people have if Legislature, either in- clause has the same effect as it does tentionally mistake, through Idaho, declares providing for immediate effective- falsely or erroneously that given ness instead of period some of time after necessary for the purposes stated? adjournment of the session. The Wash- obvious answer is ington referendum provision in the consti- been vested in body, and its decision tution was similar to the provi- referendum can no questioned more be or reviewed sion the Oregon Constitution, excepting than the decision of highest the court in laws in certain areas being from subject to a case over which it has jurisdiction. referendum. As in case, the instant the Nor should it be supposed Legis- that the urged Brislawn was that Kadder- disregard lature will duty, or fail ly to prevalent was the rule and that the observe the mandates of the Constitu- inquire Court could not into the tion. The courts have no more to declaration legislature. of the 147 P. at Legislature

distrust the than it has to 12-13. The Washington Supreme Court distrust the courts. The Constitution Oregon that noted had issued the Kadderly has wisely government divided the decision, into precluding such review. ar- The separate three and distinct departments, guments urged the Washington Su- provided and has that person no charged preme Court were identical to those es- with official duties under one of poused these by defendants in this case: “that departments shall any exercise of the the powerless courts are to inquire into the another, functions of except as in the acts or discretion of legislature; the that Const, Constitution expressly provided. we governed by the same rules and art. 1. It is power true that any of the same considerations which have moved kind be abused when in unworthy the courts since the establishment of our That, hands. however, government would not be a put to judicial no restraints sufficient reason for one upon legislative co-ordinate discretion.” 147 P. 11- at government branch of the assign to 12. In analyzing ruling from Kadder- attempting to power limit the ly, Washington author- Court examined the ity of department. another If either specific of provisions referendum of their con- departments, in the and, exercise of the stitution noting after that Wash- powers it, vested should exercise them ington’s provisions referendum provided erroneously or wrongfully, remedy is any except referral act those people, with the found, and must be class, declared to be in a certain they went said by Mr. Justice Strahan in Biggs point on to out ruling that the Kadderly explain the detail to great went the Court inconsistent upon them urged Kadderly: rationale faulty constitution. language of the plain one so opinion with to match hesitate We in words reservation specific If this the writer of law in the learned all laws subject to refer- im- [Kadderly], but conscience opinion preamble enough, the not were endum argu- His conclusion. pels different it makes clear amendment Un- unsound. ment fallacious the revised assert that intended to form, Legislature was old der the clause Constitution and amended legislate. a free license acting under legislation should emergent permitting right of re- no people had reserved The letter, as was section a dead not be discretion, and implied act Its view. They repealed. expressly which was one very properly held that had courts said: government branch co-ordinate state of authority of “The of another. review discretion will Legis- shall be vested in Washington appeal or no review There was house lature, consisting of a senate discretion, however expression of be called which shall representatives, moorings violently it wrenched of Wash- of the state Legislature The declara- restraint. them- reserve ington, but final and con- emergency was tion bills, laws, propose selves such declaration But here no clusive. at the reject the same enact or and to given no immediate should be final and Legislature, independent of the polls, fairly effect, said can unless option, power, at their own also reserve preserve necessary to act act, any polls reject approve state or safety of the health, peace, bill, section, act or item, part institu- or its government support Ses- Legislature.” by the tions. P, at 13 1911, p. 136. 147 Laws sions added). (Emphasis is a amendment reservation then ad- Washington Supreme Court not,” except it shalt of “Thou declaration contention, defend- similar to dressed the state. support safety or for the case, constitu- despite the ants’ in stated, police Broadly referendum, could be right to a there tional self-defense, in is the state’s law state emergency declara- no review property. persons respect to both noted the Washington Court The tions. Sellem, Wash. 643] De v. [82 Carstens on the a contention would have effect such Pac. 934. 144 a referendum. opin- wrote the who justice The learned was 31 time At the section [referendum] error is in Kadderly Case ion in Constitution, had al- it in our written answer says the obvious when he to be other declared courts ready been remedy will the “What question, child, dying a voice a stillborn either intention- Legislature, if have command, no re- putting aof utterance falsely mistake, declares through ally or being Legislature, and upon the straint is neces- given law a erroneously that range judicial interference. beyond “that stated?” purposes sary for and under legal effect It was body, in that vested has been power had if words as no as barren construction ques- more no can its decision number. the section after been written decision than reviewed tioned or 13-14. 147 atP. it over which a case court in highest Portland, Kadderly v. jurisdiction” has Wash- analysis, upon this Based power contrary, supra. On rejected specifically Supreme Court ington withheld, as withhold- in so Kad- been holding logic and the far both the certain apt and made ing can Supreme Washington derly decision. 716 follows, words. then, It it is ques ly and with the usual reverence for “au- tion of power rather than of discretion. thority.” As Judge Dunbar said in State The limitation of must be ex rel. Oregon R., etc, Co. v. Railroad found in the terms of the Constitution Co., Wash, 52 17, 100 Pac. 179: “Law is construed connection with the intent a progressive science.” If so, this be of the people in incorporating such a courts should put not themselves to the provision in Constitution, Attorney task of groping for “authority” to sus- General ex rel. Barbour v. Lindsay, 178 tain a statute or an amendment to the 524, 145 Mich. N.W. 98. Id. 147 P. at 15 Constitution when it is clearly within the (Emphasis added). power of the Legislature pass it the people Plaintiffs have to adopt cited the it. language Id. 147 P. at 17

Washington (Emphasis great added). Court at length for sev- eral reasons. gives It compelling reason The Washington Supreme Court went on and logic for rejection of the Kadderly to hold that declaration was view. It certainly would be a cynical depri- reviewable, and they writ, issued a in ef if vation the right of referendum were de- fect, preventing the statute from taking clared the Idaho Supreme Court to be effect. Subsequent Washington Courts the stillborn child of refer- have furthered supported the Bris- endum has become in Oregon. As the ruling. lawn Swartout v. City Spo Brislawn said, Court conscience compels kane, 21 Wash.App. 665, 586 P.2d 135 otherwise. (1978); State ex rel. Humiston v. Meyers, Washington 61 Supreme Wash.2d Court 380 (1963); summa- P.2d 735 State rized the entire ex issue before Hoppe rel. Meyers, Court v. Wash.2d noted that Kadderly (1961); P.2d seed from State ex Gray rel. v. which other Martin, decisions precluding judicial 29 Wash.2d 189 P.2d 637 review had (1948); sprung, stating: State ex rel. Satterthwaite Hinckle, We think we Wash. (1929). 277 P. 837 sufficiently met the Kadderly Case. In doing so we have The other state courts addressing the also met the other on, cases relied same issue have generally adopted the they were all decided the authority Brislawn rationale rejected Kadderly. case; but, if not, we have adopted Montana initiative and referendum Kadderly Case can be distinguished in part of their constitution in that it involved an act creating a charter the case of State ex rel. Goodman v. Stew city of Portland. Cities are vest- art, 57 Mont. 187 P. (1920), ed with to exercise the police Supreme Montana Court had before it the power, and we may well say that the act very issue addressed the Kadderly and fell without exception or was so cases, Brislawn and the issue before the doubtful as to conclusion, warrant the if this case. The Legisla Montana argument, of the court. ture had a law concerning primary Without reviewing cases, election laws and further declared an emergency is enough to say that none providing them for the immediate effectiveness of

grasp the reason or philosophy the of that A law. referendum petition was recent change in the law. thereafter circulated and filed. The fundamental Good They are step in with a tune that is man case arose when Secretary the dead. It is no say answer to that courts State filed prevent an action to filing the have always rule, for, held a certain the referendum petition, urging the that shown, we have present the condition has Supreme Montana Court adopt the rule not existed heretofore. The first of the in stated and Kadderly progeny, includ adjudged cases did not note the change ing Kleeck, Van and not any review decla or rather did not count it as change at ration of that but hold it is all, and the others have followed it blind-. upon conclusive the courts. After review-

717 States, and noted case, in the United jurisdictions Kadderly of the background ing the of another of the Court decision that “The Court, Su- like the Supreme the Montana will not construing statute thereof state specifically Washington, Court preme of a borrow- by the Court state be followed criticized and rule of no review rejected the ap- statute, the decision unless ing such Oregon Court. the reasoning.” on as founded peals to it justice who the learned believe We Id. at his based opinion [Kadderly] wrote the that conclusion the Having arrived he ar- premise; on a conclusion false authorities of the trend ques- the modern question from because gues that and question, new comparatively deter- fact, authority to on the and the tion of should “somewhere,” logic, the rule we and reason fact rests from mine that Leg- by it declaration adopt not conferred is that the has the Constitution conclusive, nor necessarily tribunal, nor it must is not any islature final contempo- merely If the reason- as a Legislature. considered is to be rest with equal expression of the sound, apply with it would ing declaration was raneous arising question to whether must that the questions Legislature, and force to of the state Consti- arbiters in violation the courts as acts were be determined local and tution, passage of powerful on the bodies equally two between subjects; prohibition on the special government, laws the same branch of authority determine as to also “the for here doubt in that determination somewhere,” and “the Con- is not question rest is or it must the act whether upon any tri- purpose does not confer necessary stitution for the immediately added). (Emphasis P. at 643 be, 187 resolved bunal.” shall named, any if there pow- in whom people, of the in favor approval with quoted The Montana re- have and who originally er vested holding the Wash- the criticisms to refer to themselves served Sim- in Brislawn. Supreme Court ington enu- instances act, in those except rejected the then ilarly, Montana Court rules merated, apply seek to we will Kadderly, Kleeck leading Van son Id. at set forth. the matters down to laid case from Colorado. added). (Emphasis here, also, suggested might be It rule. to that to hold continues Montana to an driven Oregon may have been court v. District Court Haynes ex rel. State declaration erroneous District, 106 Mont. First Judicial conclusion necessity for the inevitable v. rel. (1938); ex Veeder State P.2d 937 Scott suggested Justice As reached. Education, 97 Mont. Board many State ], there were Kleeck in Van [dissent (1934). 33 P.2d to be determined questions important was but case; involved question here country leading court Perhaps the it, reading one, take No we incidental. been in this case concerning the issue case, in that emergency declaration A verita- of Missouri. Supreme Court appear it did not say presume to would come before have of cases plethora ble ne- immediate that an conclusion first a rule Missouri, applying courts Realizing inevitable. cessity existed ex rel. Westhues laid down State being necessity, and urgency (1920), 224 S.W. Sullivan, Mo. construction, the old rule familiar judi- provided have Courts the Missouri existence the absence proper declarations, and cial review referendum, possible it is the initiative emer- invalidated those many cases opinion of that the learned writer is- presented Westhues gency clauses. his wrong lane to reach merely took Secretary of enjoin by an action to sue P. at 644-645. 187 proper destination. aon petitions filing referendum from State Legislature, Missouri adopted the law Supreme Court The Montana clause. emergency an contained majority of which is followed rule which 718

The Kadderly rule urged was upon the Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. State High Supreme Comm, Missouri Court and it reject- was way Missouri, 687 S.W.2d 566 ed, with the Missouri citing Court with (Mo.App.1985). approval the rationale and criticisms found Supreme The Court Michigan has also in Brislawn. The Missouri Court very definitively rejected the Kadderly rule and clearly recognized the issue before it as provided has that emergency clauses shall whether Legislature “the can foreclose the be reviewed even though they do not in constitutional of referendum by sim- volve the issue a referendum. In Attor ply tacking on and passing an emergency ney General ex rel. Barbour v. Lindsay, clause.” Id. 224 S.W. at 333. The Missou- 524, 178 Mich. 145 (1914), N.W. 98 ri rejected Court Kadderly, saying: “This Michigan Supreme Court had before it the sound, idea is not nor does it comport with urgings of certain in Michigan officials the weight of the better reasoned cases.” the emergency declaration attached to the Id. at 334. The Missouri pointed Court out law providing for a charter for city power, the referendum similar to that Detroit was subject not judicial review. found Constitution, applies to They cited Kadderly and the cases result “any act of assembly.” Id. ing therefrom, including a case upon relied at 334. The that, Court noted had herein, defendants City Oklahoma v. framers of provision constitutional Shields, 265, 22 Okla. 100 P. (1908). 559 wished the referendum to not apply to The Michigan Supreme rejected Court emergency measures, it would have been review, rule of no even though the possibili easy to so designate. However the term ty of defeating the to a “any act” does not exclude emergency referendum even issue in that clauses. The Court correctly noted that case, as the Michigan state of apparently adoption of the Kadderly rule of no review did not have a referendum of emergency declaration would in effect their constitution at the time. The Michi make the referendum amendment “idle and gan Court instead based ruling upon nugatory.” Id. at 335. The same effect general powers of the court to have would result in this if case the Court separation review under a powers doc adopts the assertions of defendants. The trine. Supreme Missouri Court held that Michigan holding has been approved Courts must be free to review such declara- by great variety tions, of courts and and this adhered to Court should do the same. in Michigan. People Stambosva, v. 210 year One later Supreme Missouri 436, (1920); Mich. 178 N.W. 226 Todd v. Court again rejection reaffirmed its Hull, 521, 288 (1939). Mich. 285 N.W. 46 Kadderly in ex State rel. Pollock v. Beck er, 660, courts of 289 Mo. (1921). 233 state South Dakota S.W. 641 As similarly Justice had Graves pointed Kadderly urged rule out his concur ring opinion, them in the case of Case, Kadderly “The Or. 48 118, dealing P. clause not 74 75 P. Oregon, referendum. does not ex Whisman, State rel. announce sound Richards v. doctrine.” 233 36 S.W. (1915), at 646. S.D. 154 Missouri N.W. 707 consistently dis- appeal held 241 to such missed opinion and has U.S. 36 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed. reviewed (1916), 1218 Supreme declarations for their Court of South factual basis. State rejected ex rel. Dakota Kadderly Highway State doctrine and v. Thompson, adopted Comm. Mo. instead espoused by 19 (1929); S.W.2d 642 Washington Supreme State rel. ex City Brislawn. Holman, Charleston v. 355 S.W.2d 946 Such rule has enabled the South Dakota (Mo.1962); Roos, Padberg v. courts to S.W.2d review clauses (Mo.1966); Meers, situations, many v. overturning such declara- Hatfield (Mo.1966); S.W.2d State ex Tyler rel. v. they tions when found them to be on un- Davis, (Mo.1969); 443 S.W.2d 625 Osage grounds. sound Kleppe State ex rel.

7]9 Steensland, 342, pro- withstanding 192 N.W. 749 that the Court has been 46 S.D. (1923); of, all, Equitable perhaps v. Assur Culhane vided with abundance Life States, 65 S.D. Society ance the United authority, simply available has refused to 337, (1937); 274 N.W. 315 ex rel. State presented. meet the issue Blomstrom, 526, 37 Hurd v. 72 S.D. (1949); Loh, N.W.2d 247 v. 86 State Van V. 22, (1971); Gravning 294 S.D. 191 N.W.2d majority derives far more out of Zellmer, (S.D.1980). v. 291 N.W.2d 751 Gallet, 619, 51 10 P.2d v. Diefendorf Many Supreme other state Courts (1932), put 307 than was into it Justice rejected Kadderly urged upon doctrine Leeper. At the outset the Court Gallet judi this Court and have held it within the noted, as was later so in v. Johnson Dief- emergency cial to review declara endorf, presented the issues were on an Every tions. other that has ad case, agreed and before that Court were provided dressed a similar issue has general inquiry. three lines of “One has and, fact, required are free courts impose do with the state to declarations, emergency review whether tax net incomes. The second is con they deal with the of referendum aspects cerned the constitutional with Harrison, 916, not. Ark. Gentry v. 194 provisions particular of this various (1937); 110 Conkling, S.W.2d 497 Amos v. regularity The third relates to the law. 206, 126 (1930); McIntyre 99 Fla. So. 283 Gallet, supra, the enactment of the law.” Commonwealth, 16, 221 Ky. 297 S.W. 931 624, 10 major 51 Idaho at P.2d at 312. The (1927); 283, Dye, Graham v. 308 Ill. 139 is, really if ity’s today, concern such it (1923); Goss, N.E. 390 Morris v. 147 Me. regularity of the to do with the third —the 89, (1951); 83 A.2d Mayor City 556 majority’s law. The “con enactment of the Hofrichter, Council Baltimore v. 178 largely cern” is self-manufactured as 91, (1940); 11 Md. A.2d 375 Burnsville v. predicate reading more into Johnson 84, City Bloomington, 268 Minn. 128 doing actually than can be found there. In (1964); N.W.2d 97 Secretary Sears v. so, being majority will be seen as a wee Commonwealth, 369 Mass. 341 emergency: bit loose in use of the word (1975); N.E.2d Tierney, Todd v. 38 Gallet[1] we judiciary found (1933); N.M. Flushing P.2d 991 second-guess governor’s de cannot Corp., Nat’l Bank v. Mutual Assistance termination that a sufficient 40 N.Y.2d N.E.2d N.Y.S.2d calling extraordinary justify exists to (1976); State ex rel. Duncan v. Frank legislature. We also session of the Dist., County lin Conservancy 92 Ohio St. judiciary cannot second- found that the (1915). 110 N.E. 726 guess legislature’s determination important point necessarily exists sufficient providing the number of cases dispensing the constitutional justify declarations, review of but the act that before an requirement rights asserted and the ratio- read on printed and it must be logic espe- nale and of those cases. This is days in each house. separate three cially given true the fact that Idaho’s con- Majority op., p. 1133. provisions unique stitutional and this is impression. a case of first thusly: 9 reads Article legislature. Extra sessions Taking attorney gener- its lead from the —The extraordinary occa- may, on brief, governor and in an emulation of a al’s enviable sions, by procla- bird, majority, not- convene noted Australian study opinions, and today old Recognizing nothing that it is but a matter of is for us style, majority overreaching reasoning logic were a bit seems ascertain the found, supreme it writes in what "we" wherein terms of earlier decidendi of those the ratio said, presently and did in Gallet. None of us courts. holding yet grade It office were out of school. mation, stating purposes majority’s which does not the least bolster the it; provided when so con- conclusion that has a rea- he has convened but Gallet power legislate soning proposition legisla- vened it shall have no to for the that the subjects speci- simply say “emergency,” ture can any on other than those without proclamation; may pro- laying public display but out for fied facts expenses for the of the session and which are seen to mount to vide by English-speaking peo- other matters incidental thereto. He the word is used also, may by proclamation, ple. convene This is an in-house matter. The not extraordinary for the here far senate session issue broader and involves transaction of executive business. basic and fundamental reserved laws, people pass themselves—both to did enumerate The Gallet Court itself approve polls reject and to at the those special call a ses- the Governor’s passed by persons merely repre- who those any of the issues it had to decide. sion people are known as sent and who above, quotation simply recit- In the it was representatives. senators and ing the obvious—which was that Court going go was not behind the AFL-CIO, al., Today it is et who are facts to have which the Governor declared peoples’ right engaged in the constitutional prompted his action. The Gallet Court may legislation. Tomorrow it be of direct might comparison have drawn better it an associa- day the farmers. One (1899). 57 P. 706 Boyle, In re question college tion of students. presented people is not who of the wants to pertinent, as here reads Article § exercise the of direct legislature may “in case of part —it people. The enough they are Idaho of either urgency,” by a two-thirds vote ability defeat the legislature claims the dispense pending house where a bill is by declaring emergency without people which reads therein contained emergen- specified pointing fact to an one any a law unless the “nor shall bill become provides that cy. The Constitution three shall have been read on several same easily people be so right of the cannot days previous to the final vote there- ... denied. equal emergency. Urgency on.” does not legislature goal set a for ad- If the majority is it of succor to Nor nigh, drawing

journment, and that time is a struggle along hope on the that there perceive to make legislature could such legislature’s between the possible conflict along. But urgent speeded a bill be legislature’s power and the being emergency. that does not rise to controversy is Not so. The own statute. proposition which strictly It is an in-house people legislature and between the any way concern either the does not provid- it. The statute which which created government or department of the executive effectuating initiative ed the manner of If judicial department. the Governor and the referendum: to the bill—in- objection does have some petitions— Referendum 34-1803. enactment, pre- cluding manner of its filing held— election Time for —When power will be exercised. sumably the veto peti- date of law.—Referendum Effective Supreme similarly has rules Court signa- requisite number tions with the of its regulates the movement which it filed with the tures attached shall degree progress. Where some opinions sixty than not more secretary of state perceived, (urgency) is expediency (60) adjournment final days after the pro- accelerate the by agreement can the state the session of think that like to cess. One would the refer- passed on the bill on proper concern procedure in-house is not All elections demanded. endum is departments. of the other of either people of to the referred measures regular biennial had at the state shall be with which nothing in There is Gallet so referred however, Any measure case, election. anyone disagrees. That second-guess judiciary and become law cannot that deci- shall take effect _ approved by majority govern- when it is branch of sion [T]he thereon, respect legis- votes cast and not otherwise. defer to the ment must policy At lature’s exclusive decisions. There is to discuss what no occasion p. 1136. happened had the would have

not, act, law, up today which makes set receiving What the at the machinery operation people’s for the is the ultimate of all of hands of this Court right of initiative and referendum. The ipse dixit decisions. Omitted from the it The further fact is fact is that did so. intervening sentence which above is an legislature that some laws made the legislative “In of a inva- reads: the absence grants power speci- the reason of the constitutionally protected rights, sion of (a great fied in the number of Constitution government must judicial the branch of ready-at-hand example them—a of which is respect legislature’s and defer to the exclu- that all vacancies shall be filled as But policy p. sive 1136. decision.” At law, 19). provided by art. But the Indeed, § there is there is no such absence. their initia- established constitutionally a invasion of repeal or tive also have the rights protected rights, and it is the change changing the laws—which includes being trampled upon. people which are meanwhile, In the 34-1803 is 34-1803. § simply policy deci- The Court has made law, is, and that law the away sion—which is hands-off and years ago, that as Justice Givens noted it now offending legislature. As law which the take to a referendum stands, judicial department may be vote “shall take effect and become a law abetting the passively aiding seen as and approved by majority when it is legislature’s unconstitutional inroads on thereon, votes cast and not otherwise.” people. political power reserved in the Nothing plain. could be more Even with- matter, but nevertheless As an incidental words, strong out the last three us, issue before apropros to the real language. completely The final clause readily provide inter- 1931 Session laws any attempt shuts the door on to defeat the proclamation by ested reader with the And, of referendum. called the C. Ben Ross Governor pointed earlier, many legisla- out are the special session which into any tures which have not taken action to eventually produced the case. No Gallet slightest. amend or alter it in the of an extraordi- ipse mere dixit declaration

The majority opinion would have a better occasion, succinctly and nary the Governor had been restricted to this much and no sufficiently detailed the factual reasons more: him, left no and he also which motivated he purposes for which legislature’s hold that the determi- doubt as to

[W]e simply did of an in an act is a convened it. The Governor nation merely “proclaim” legislature has policy exclusively decision within the am- as the legislative authority, bit of the and the “declared.”

PROCLAMATION laws, WHEREAS, Legislature to enact tax regular failure of the session special convening requires of a pressing demands of the State to meet Legislature; session of the State Idaho, by THEREFORE, Ross, virtue of NOW, I, governor of the State C. Ben Legislature the State of Idaho proclamation authority call in me vested County, City, Idaho on Capitol, in Ada special at Boise to meet session at following purposes, and none March, M. for the day twelve o’clock 6th 1931 at other to-wit: purpose considering enacting For imposing raising laws taxes for revenues, public considering determining scope needful the form and of such taxation, same, taxation, levying subjects the manner of and the of such every necessary laws, each and matter a full consideration and enactment of such affecting public levying collecting all matters revenues and the public purposes, propose of taxes for and to consider and amendments to the provisions

revenue of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. Legislature session, provide expenses also and other matters incidental thereto. WHEREOF, IN my I WITNESS have hereto set hand and caused the seal of the Secretary March, day State of Idaho to be affixed of State this Fifth ROSS,

(Signed) C. BEN Governor (GREAT SEAL)

Attest: LUKENS,

(Signed) FRED E.

Secretary State of later, years Seven publicize Governor Barzilla the circumstances which motivat- recognized implicit obligation Clark ed him special to call a session:

PROCLAMATION worthy, men, Because The welfare and actual needy, existence of thousands of but children, Idaho, women and now residents in all directly sections of the of State acutely legally threatened necessary lack of funds available for their relief assistance, behalf, and immediate action must be taken in their and for the best Idaho; interests of the State of and because the funds available for the actual Penitentiary maintenance of the entirely Idaho State and the inmates is insufficient 31, 1938, ending Clark, for the biennium I December Barzilla W. as Governor of the Idaho, hereby extraordinary State of grave emergency do declare that an occasion of now exists the State of Idaho. I, Clark, Idaho, by Therefore, Barzilla W. Governor of the State of virtue of me, do, authority proclamation, Legislature vested in call the Boise, extraordinary Capitol State of Idaho to inmeet session at the in Ada Idaho, November, County, A.M., Monday, day on next the 28th at 10 o’clock day, other, following purposes of said for the and none to-wit: purpose considering enacting legislation providing First: For the for the appropriation money from the State General Fund of the State of Idaho into the Cooperative Emergency aged, needy Revenue Fund financial assistance of individuals; blind; crippled needy relief of the relief of and assistance to the and/or children; who, dependent persons physical relief of those reason of infirmi- ties, work, and, also, generally needy are unable to for the relief of residents of the State of Idaho. purpose considering making appropriation Second: For the additional Penitentiary funds out of the Fund for the General of the State Idaho State ending upon for the biennium December Providing expenses Third: for the of the session and other matters incidental thereto. WHEREOF, I have hereunto IN WITNESS Great Seal of my and caused the set hand by the be affixed of Idaho to the State State, day of Novem- Secretary this 25th SEAL) (GREAT ber, 1938. CLARK, BARZILLA W. Governor. Attest: MASTERS, H. IRA Secretary State. aware, which the found forth the facts no one far as I have been made So emergency, Gov- create an actual questioned has ever exist and to session; nor has special ernor to call controversy. not have the same we would leg- any right in either the anyone claimed facts or legislature set out no But the Supreme Court to review islature or the declara- support of its reasons whatever legisla- Executive’s decision. Chief emergency. of an tion ture, however, obliged pass is not opinion, mention page At 1142 of this has deemed legislation which the Governor emphasizing the words “ex- was made of is not necessary, and the Governor turn earlier Su- pressed” “express” hap- from use his veto—as prohibited Cohn, supra, connection preme Court called into pened when the was Washington with the constitution of —to to special July session in of 1981: appropriate it is which state’s decision 2. To consider and enact differ- There is no discernible now turn. reapportioning membership and “declar- “expressing” ence between and the mem- the Idaho State Senate Cohn, made repeating, the Court ing.” bership of the Idaho State House “expressed” where it could have this use of Representatives among the several using required by message by the Constitu- “de- conveyed counties as the same States, by tion of the United clared”: “ taking population into account statis- important that the will only is it [N]ot reported tics the 1980 United clearly expressed law-makers be Census; .... States that it also essential [declared], but it is accomplish legislature passed The a bill to form of in due expressed be [declared] vetoed it. purpose. that Governor simply law, law nothing becomes since and no adjourned, then possess the solely men who because special at that session. such bill was be, it shall legislative power will Similarly, questioned one has ever no express their deter- they unless [declare] 4, 4 under art. to power of the Governor § point- in the mode mination to that effect insurrection, which Gov- proclaim a state of which invests by the instrument ed out the 4th Steunenberg did on ernor Frank all the power, and under them with the However, May, as with call- day of ren- has which that instrument forms legislature, the ing special sessions of the Cohn, 5 Idaho supra, dered essential.” set forth the facts proclamation Governor’s 421-22, 49 P. at 490-91. at him take such drastic prompted to which fact, Con- the Constitutional A little-known (which obtaining included action action Washington con- were of Idaho and vention military force from the Presi- States United help- It is the same time. at almost vened dent) recited facts and the truth of those provisions of each ful to examine re inquired into or reviewed. In will not be on the effective the limitation governed (1899). P. If the 6 Idaho Boyle, state. date of laws each here in issue had set legislative enactment entered on the be taken ed son is that at the time of the two Constitu- wise direct preamble thirds of all the members elect- act) the Legislature shall gency any emergency ninety days ment of the bills, No law, Washington, art to What is to be drawn from enacted, each house; must shall by yeas or in except appropriation session which it after the take effect until unless in case of case of expressed journals. a vote of two- (which said vote to body § nays adjourn- other- emer- the the the the law. session at sixty have been No Idaho, art. 3, preamble act shall take effect until days which the same shall emergency, from the end of the shall passed, be compari- declared in except body timid, decision just before it.... passed by stitution and its is nature of Now there is so, unconstitutional and had a decided because its face than bill fiat. is an emergent measure, when there it is no more subject-matter Legislature It Legislature limitations not, stated: for declaring a law to when it has been aversion to and from reason for saying with the Con- had said it lying cannot open very be, In passing upon all questions tional Conventions it involving mattered not whether construction should declare statutes and emergen- constitu- cy or express tional an emergency in limitations, order declarations and there avail itself expedite no better effec- test than to consider the old date legislation. tive law, The two words are mischief, and the remedy. It interchangeable, as been noted first was a favorite premise of those venera- language in Cohn and also by resort to sages ble who have digested the common a dictionary, and particularly ato dictio- preserved in authoritative nary of that time: writings. It is still the vital principle in express— ... 7. To manifest or re- every inquiry into the legality of consti- veal external tokens. 8. represent To tutionality statute, of a for— in language; put words, into set “the fairest and most rational method forth.... to interpret the will of legislator declare— manifest, ... 2. To show by exploring his intentions at the time forth, known; make unfold, forth; set when the made, law was by signs the describe, state in detail.... A New most probable. natural and And these English Dictionary, Oxford: At signs are words, the context, either the (1897). Clarendon Press subject-matter, the effects and con- Earlier pointed herein was out the further sequence spirit or the and reason of coincidence that Idaho Washington the law.” 1 Black Meath, Com. 59. adopted also their initiative and refer- supra, 147 P. at 13 (emphasis added). endum amendments date, on the Maj. same Op. p. at When in the course of events, human it There acceptable is no reason for this becomes necessary for a legislature to de- Court’s failure to apply precedential clare a state of emergency and in- make decision of State ex rel. Brislawn v. legislation tended immediately effective, a Meath, 84 Wash. (1915). 147 P. 11 respect decent for opinion There many why sound reasons it requires that it should declare causes Notwithstanding should. that each of the impel which it to such action. parties to this controversy provided us When Thomas Jefferson wrote those with all law from which we should make (which words I slightly), have altered but decision, our the majority studiously avoids he went against on to state case doing so. It is said that there are no states King, prove this, and stated: “To with let facts similar provisions, constitutional hence, world,” be submitted to a it is candid and there- necessary beg to off with the lame excuse that it is enumerated over policy separate 25 of- decision—an ipse fenses, dixit ratio decidendi if ever there was one of which was that “He has one. The Washington Court was not judges dependent alone, so made on his will it, legislature’s determina- pressed “the offices of their tenure respectable As all emergency.” anof their salaries.” tion of payment amount viewed authorities of precedent predicate Closing on that determination heretofore, factual all, I rest of Declaration them greatest prerequisite is a exists state People of Idaho the case behalf is It emergency. an declaration ato transgres- to an absolute resistance their made determination factual that Constitution. of the Idaho sion to inclined are not courts which de- such however, no Here, second-guess. FOR OF PETITION ON DENIAL fact. conceded made—a was termination REHEARING A determi- Yes. made? was A declaration BISTLINE, Justice. nation, no. I. II. rehearing was insuffi- grant a My vote to case, way in no this sorry aspect A ad- not take cient, does the Court and so any member this to Court attributable opportunity recon- final vantage of the heard, I have thereof, insofar that is in favor holding basis its sole sider discover, one not able read, or been It people. against account radio, television newspaper, Court’s by the who were was accurately, even was opinion this Court’s constitu- of their disenfranchised opinion correct, given close to reasonably referendum. right of tional all was the case what reading public for the opinion review the present A which or broadcast Every article about. year January of this issued in which Court it as portrayed my attention came where opinion basis of yields sole right-to- to whether decision Court’s holding and gives its Court page constitutionally valid was work in two sentences: reasoning however, not That, was law. under assertion Plaintiffs’ ultimate by the Court. issue, considered or even the enact- precipitated the events it. consider asked to we Nor were the level rise H.B. did not ment emergency. Whether actual III. legislature’s not, true or we hold this state- closed opinion My earlier act of an determination left the reader ment, purposefully exclusively within decision policy ais to: being alluded of what ignorant authority, and ambit Legislature, 48th Bill No. “House second-guess that deci- judiciary cannot George King Session, somewhat smacks sion. provocation 11. Even n. P. 1163 III.” That as the fallacy interest. obvious of media stir no caused have been might not it, there presented wrote Bill was House Crow, Bayer, of an the level Infanger, did rise to events Representatives no Allan, were this Court that there while Jones, emergency But, Slater, actual — under consideration. whatever. decision events had our still towas of the bill purpose The declared an emer- simply declared judicial second increment repeal the holding The true nothing. gency based legislature. by granted raise pay then, is, opinion the Court’s presently con- Court, membership as its policy

stituted, as a will matter making policy of legislature’s

yield to of an emer- declaration unsupported cutely ex- not, the Court

gency, and George King III. Session, somewhat smacks Legislature, 48th No. Bill 11. House

Case Details

Case Name: IDAHO STATE AFL-CIO v. Leroy

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 29, 1986

Citation: 718 P.2d 1129

Docket Number: 16074

Court Abbreviation: Idaho