*1 No. 28000 In Re Interrogatories of the Colorado Senate of the Fifty-First General Assembly, Senate Resolution No. 5
(578 216) P.2d April Decided Rehearing May denied *2 Everall, Eason, Eugene G. Eason, P.C., Stephen L. Richard Banta & Legal Services. Committee on M. for Sprague, Robbins, General, MacFarlane, Deputy, W. David Attorney
J. D. General, First Donovan, Mary Mullarkey, J. Solicitor G. Edward Assistant, Cantrick, Assistant, for Assistant, Rees, Joel W. David K. Governor. Banc.
En of the Court. opinion delivered the MR. JUSTICE GROVES Assembly of Regular Fifty-First Session of the The Second 4, to be in session at the 1978. It continues January convened on Colorado and, time of the announcement it is will be of this anticipated, opinion light in the appropriate whatever action it deems to take position opinion. in this expressed views 26, Senate Resolution adopted
On 1978 the Colorado January interrogatories, the answers to us six it submitted By No. 5. this resolution The inter- opinion. matter of which constitute the to some Regular the First Session were passed relate to bills which rogatories 5, January on (This session convened Assembly. Fifty-First were ve- die June 22,1977.) The bills in adjourned sine 1977 and whether under the as to interrogatories inquire The the Governor. toed facts the bills became of the Governor’s vetoes. spite 16, resolution, In S.B. Senate directed attention to which on 1978. of that bill is January was introduced to authorize to Colorado Revised Statutes 1973 and to reenact Supplement the statutes set forth in such The laws to supplement. be contained designated will be those in the “Official of the Com- supplement Report that, Legal mittee on Services.” The resolution sets forth in order for the Legal designate Committee on Services of the General it needs our answers the inter- contained supplement, will be laws rogatories. do not address ourselves to 5 and and rather
answer only 3.
I. bill, which an Interrogatory 4 relates S.B. appropriation was delivered the Governor on June Portions S.B. 581 were disapproved by the Governor on June The Senate sustained the *3 partial vetoes June 1977. There are outstanding issues of fact con cerning of S.B. 581. One these issues fact is whether portions of of this bill to which the Governor objection made were ever returned to the Sen ate.
We cannot answer 4 Interrogatory the absence resolution of these issues of fact. If we were to a appoint master to take evidence and findings us, submit of fact to this session of the Assembly un doubtedly adjourn would before we could reach an opinion following such Thus, submission. longer S.B. 16 no pending. would be As this court said In Re Interrogatories Representatives, House 62 Colo. 1144 (1916): 162 P. “It has been universal rule in jurisdiction, order to secure answers to questions they must be with pending connected legis- lation . . . .”
We, therefore, do not Interrogatory answer 4.1
II. to decline answer Interrogatory 5 and 6 for Interrogatory the reason that bills there involved subject are the opinion, No. announced simultaneously herewith.
III. Paraphrasing and consolidating Interrogatories 3, they 2 and state: “Under the provisions of Section IV 11 of Article of the State Constitu- tion, 1341, 1441, 1500, Did House Bills 1547 and 1586 and Senate Bills S.B. 581 are before [1] Although us, and was the issues subject orally to appear challenge argued to be different, Anderson v. there. here on appeal on March Lamm, 1978. A number of is presently item vetoes of pending
223 Bills subject Interrogatory 1); Senate 309, 389, (the 417 526 and 116, 409 Bills (the 2); and Senate and 412 of Interrogatory 411 subject notwithstanding the 3), Interrogatory become (the and vetoes?” Governor’s days Governor more than these was delivered to the
Each of bills There- on June adjournment Assembly of the General to prior reason after, bills. Under facts or Governor vetoed each these bills, delivered each of these the Governor assumption arguendo, of our each, origin more than to to the house together objections with his the Gover- Assembly thereof the General to following delivery days sustained adjournment, one house of the General Prior to nor. bill, 309 and except veto to each the Governor’s as adjournment, prior three to Senate considered the last mentioned bill and each to override the vetoes declared no affirmative action took “lost.” Constitution,
The Colorado Article Section Provides: shall,’ law, before it a general becomes “Every passed by assembly bill sign it, thereupon he he shall and governor. approve, to If presented be law; it, with his a if he do not he shall return approve, it shall become it objections, originated, to the in which house shall enter large the bill. If objections journal, proceed at reconsider upon same, be agree pass of members elected it shall then two-thirds house, by which it shall other sent, together objections, reconsidered, be and if two-thirds the members approved by likewise house, law, notwithstanding objections to that it shall become elected governor. cases the of each house be deter- In all such vote shall noes, journal. by ayes any to be entered If bill shall upon mined be after it been days returned within ten shall have him, be the same shall a law in like manner as if he had presented *4 it, adjournment unless signed general assembly by prevent the shall their return, objections in which be case it shall filed with his in the office of state, adjournment, secretary thirty the within after such or else days become a law.” those used as for our ruling
For reasons similar to the basis Governor, 27939, the announced comtemporane- that, opinion, Legal with this the ously argues Committee on Services lapse 10-day period the of the after each bill was to the upon presented it, the same law in like as if he became manner had and the Assembly the action of one or the other of houses of the General in did sustaining declaring each veto or the bills lost the vetoed not validate Co., City Johnson v. Tennessee Eastern Electric on Relying veto. 133 632, (1916), Legal 182 587 the con- Tenn. S.W. Committee Services that, origin, the the bills were to the by they tends time returned house of law, nullities, nothing Governor’s vetoes were and the had become the 224 the Assembly might do thereafter breathe life back into ve-
General could toes. view agree contrasting by submitted the Governor. that, view consid Assembly
This is reason of acts of General in ering sustaining declaring or the Governor’s actions and the vetoes “lost,” there was with bills constitutional relat provisions ing to the vetoes. States, Wright United v.
As indicated in
302 U.S.
States,
and Edwards United
(1938)
During working hours while the General was so re cess, the Chief Clerk of Representatives, the House of Secretary Senate and members their staffs were attendance at the respective Senate; chambers of the House and and from time to the Speaker time House, Majority House, Leader of the President the Senate and the Majority Leader of the were in attendance at the respec tive chambers of the House and Senate. The briefs of the Committee on Legal Services and of the Attorney General filed simultaneously. were Committee on Legal might Services was apprehensive argued that it be that the Governor could disapproved not return a bill to the house ori gin following during period temporary adjournment. We agree with *5 Committee the that vetoed bills were to properly returnable the of origin during this 10-day recess and that the period running during was this time. 1, 2 and Interrogatories of were the the repeat,
To did become law. not part. in in and dissents part concurs JUSTICE ERICKSON MR. dissent. CARRIGAN and MR. JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE LEE dissenting in in concurring part ERICKSON MR. JUSTICE part: in part. and dissent part
I concur in respectfully holds the extent that it that to majority’s opinion only I concur in majority, my are valid. The gubernatorial proceeding the vetoes in this view, validity, the of the vetoes’ the result on correct reaches of our constitution. Vetoes recognizing does the clear mandate so without upheld solely with the letter of our constitution are comply which failed governor’s ratified the ground legislature that the has somehow the The to override them. consti- constitutionally attempting infirm vetoes however, tution, in the absence requires only vote majority letter governor fails to gubernatorial comply a valid veto. If the our the acts become law the provisions, constitution’s veto IV, them. Colo. Const. Art. governor same as if has manner the sec. 11. In Re with its majority’s opinion clearly opinion is inconsistent Fifty-First Governor Bills the Regarding the Assembly, Colo. P.2d 200. The majority that
companion persuaded by decision to be a substantial refused Nonetheless, argument. argument being an is in accepted effect No result proceeding. clear reason for the different is evident me. If fails, gubernatorial the legislature attempts to override a veto and ma- jority that has purpose concludes the constitutional been provisions met, notwithstanding comply with letter governor’s failure Yet, governor to follow letter of the constitution. if the fails consti- vetoes, the concludes respect post-adjournment majority tution with been met. that has purpose provisions the constitutional not Fifty-First Governor Regarding Assembly, supra. not that I am convinced governor’s veto has not been satisfied ac- provisions constitutional tions.
Clear, unambiguous are not mandatory provisions constitutional proce- and a new given application by majority opinion, prospective dure, constitution, If contemplated approved. is not legislature does veto and return the vetoed bill to the within consti- limitations, majority holds the bill does not opinion tutional time constitution, Colo. Const. Art. in our thereby provided become as *6 sec. but only legislature does so if the takes no action on the invalidly legislature vetoed bills. If the considers the bill and attempts to override veto, governor’s fails, then the majority opinion holds that gov- valid, bill, ernor’s constitutionally infirm veto is and the contrary to the constitution, does not become law. The constitution does establish an uncertain procedure, but that provides governor failure of the to timely veto and return a bill results in the bill becoming law the same manner governor as if the had it. Colo. Const. Art. sec. 11. I believe the better approach, regardless of application, retroactive is to prospec- tively require strict clear terms of our constitution.
The record in proceeding, this as well as that in the companion case involving governor’s interrogatories, establishes that both the executive government branches of have failed to comply with clear would, therefore, constitutional mandates. I hold past enactments and vetoes, which were carried out in accordance with heretofore non- controverted gubernatorial practice, are valid. Prospec- tively, I would endorse the position that both the legisla- and the ture must strictly comply constitution, with the letter of the as interpreted herein, for the reasons set forth in my limited concurrence and dissent in In Re Interrogatories Regarding Governor Fifty- First General P.2d 200. Assembly, 195 Colo.
MR. JUSTICE LEE dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reason that it departs from the rule of mandatory compliance with constitutional veto requirements adopted by this court in In Re Interrogatories announced simultaneously with opinion.