*1 JOHNSON, Speaker of the House D. Glen Representatives, and Robert V. Culli
son, Tempore Pro of the Sen President Petitioners,
ate, WALTERS,
David al., Respondents.
et
No. 77919.
Supreme of Oklahoma. 29, 1991.
Oct. *2 Atty. Loving, by Neal
Susan Brimer Gen. Gen., Leader, City, Atty. Asst. Oklahoma respondents. for Fowler, Jr., Willis, Lindil C. and Lu Okla- Com’n, re- Corp. City, Oklahoma homa Corp. spondent Oklahoma Com’n. Nesbitt, Secretary of Cabinet Charles Okl., Harris, Energy, State Michael L. Deputy Secretary Energy, Oklahoma curiae Nesbitt. City, for amicus Charles Estes, Gossett, Stipe, Stipe, Harper, Stipe, McCune & Parks Gene Oklahoma Develop- City, for amicus curiae Kiamichi Authority. ment HODGES, Vice Chief Justice. day regular the last of the 1991 ses- On Legislature, sion Oklahoma Representatives House of and the Senate 1748) (H.B. Bill passed enrolled House presented it to Governor Wal- David sections of the bill ters. first two empowered to allocate Capitol Building and space in the State third relocate various officials. The bill’s surplus the sale of wa- section authorized ter from Sardis Reservoir.
The Governor claimed bill embraced separate subjects in violation of two against multiple prohibition general legislation (non-appro- subjects in vetoing than all of priation) bills. Rather treated each approved only the separate as a dealing Reservoir. third section with Sardis Also, session, day of on the last passed House House and Senate enrolled (H.B. 1271). That bill a bud- Bill 1271 get measure a seven- reconciliation with requiring over page title and 157 sections pages of text. Claiming embraced that this bill multiple legislation provisions covering subjects, along appropriations, general legislation Governor vetoed several provisions included Jones, Givens, Bogan by & sections. These vetoed Gotcher Jr., Tulsa, on the Luthey, exemptions, sales tax restrictions Graydon Dean Scott Emerson, Counsel, and limits on the private prisons, House Oklahoma use Chief Corpo- powers of the Oklahoma Representatives, Ramsey, personnel Coun- Mark addition, ap- Senate, several sel, City, for ration Commission. Oklahoma Oklahoma propriation were vetoed. sections petitioners. Corrections, man v. Oklahoma Board of original proceeding, Speaker In this (Okla.1978). Representatives the House of and the (the Tempore President Pro Senate Wiseman held that section 11 applies Legislature) partial claim Governor’s containing bills and bills *3 beyond veto of the two bills was his consti- Id. at 555. only one item appropriation. of prohibition authority. tutional A writ of to approve The disapprove Governor must boards, commissions, respondent agencies, id. See Any these bills in attempt toto. to prevent sought implemen- and to officers is qualify approval is null and the bill legislation provisions tation of all does not become It is as if law. the Gover- Attorney of both of- bills. The General’s “pocket nor had exercised a veto.” Corporation fice and the Oklahoma Com- Wiseman further held that section 12 response mission briefs. have filed Amicus operates exception as an to section 11 for filed curiae briefs have the Gover- been bills “making appropriations money em- Energy Secretary nor’s and the Kiamichi Id. at 556 (quoting bracing distinct items.” Development Authority. Legislature The 12). grants section Section the Gover- responded has to the amicus curiae brief of nor the to line item veto distinct Energy. Secretary appropriation, provided item of the item is Id. rejected in toto. at 555-56. issue, scope At is the the Governor’s constitutionally power. addressed Wiseman was veto problem conferred Be- The in great public cause this is a matter of applied con- section when the Governor Phillips cern, jurisdiction is assumed. See presented was containing gener- a bill both Comm’n, Oklahoma Tax legislative provisions al (Okla.1978). money There, embracing distinct items. attempted to exercise a sub- ject veto provi- over a
THE GOVERNOR’S VETO POWERS
sion.
The Governor’s
Wiseman veto
are de
held
that section 11
scribed in
and 12
sections 11
of article
applied
VI
to the
provisions
of the Oklahoma Constitution.1 These sec
of the
12 applied
bill and section
to the
State ex rel.
Wise
tions were
in
provisions
construed
making appropriations
money
it,
provides:
shall,
signed
Legislature
Section 11
had
unless
return,
adjournment, prevent
their
its
Every
passed
have
bill which shall
the Senate
which case it shall not become a law without
Representatives,
every
and House of
reso-
of the Governor. No bill shall
requiring
lution
the assent of both branches
adjournment
become a law after the final
shall,
Legislature,
of the
before it becomes a
Legislature,
approved by
unless
the Gover-
law,
Governor;
presented
ap-
to
if he
days
adjourn-
nor within fifteen
after such
it;
not,
prove,
sign
he shall
if
he shall return
ment.
objections
it with
to the
his
house in which it
requires:
Section 12
originated,
shall have
who shall enter the ob-
Every
Legislature,
passed by
making
jections
large
proceed
in the Journal and
to
money
embracing
If,
distinct
reconsideration,
reconsider it.
after such
items, shall,
law,
before
becomes a
two-thirds of the members elected to that
Governor;
presented
disapproves
to the
if he
agree
pass
joint
house shall
the bill or
item,
resolution,
sent,
the
contained,
therein
together
it shall be
with the
house,
disap-
he shall
objections,
communicate such
to the other
which it
therefor,
proval,
reconsidered; and,
with his reasons
to the house
shall
ap-
likewise be
if
originated,
proved by
which the bill shall have
but all
two-thirds of the members elected
house,
disapproved
items not
shall have the force
to that
become a
notwith-
according
original
standing
objections
effect of law
of the Governor.
cases,
Any
item
all such
or items so
the vote
both houses shall void,
disapproved
by yeas
nays,
repassed by
shall be
unless
determined
and the names
vote,
voting
according
a two-thirds
members
shall be entered
the rules and
on the
prescribed
respectively.
preceding
Journal of each house
limitations
If
sec-
Provided,
bill or resolution shall not be returned
tion in reference
other bills:
days (Sundays excepted)
emergency
Governor within
That
five
this section shall
relieve
him,
requirement
after it shall have been
bills of the
of the three-fourths
same
shall be a law like manner as if
vote.
he
flagrant
ture’s
violations of the
items. The result
embracing distinct
purposes
history
along
rule
with the
general legislative
all the
that rule.
gubernato-
law for lack
failed
become
provi-
approval.
rial
While sections
and 12
of article
however,
sions,
ap-
specific
not need
did
power,
the Governor’s
VI limit
proval
law.
from the Governor and became
Legislature’s
rule limits the
at 556-57.
Id.
ability
power.
circumvent that
“The
peti- purpose
dispute,
requirement
In this
single subject
line
that but a
be included
arguing
tioned
log
impossible by
bill is to make
appropria-
item veto
extends
*4
rolling
unpopular
devices the enactment
general legislation provi-
tions and not
including
leg
defense,
by
popular
respondent
with
By way of
the
sions.
entirely
subject.”
islation
an
on
different
claims the bills violated the one-
82,
Phelps,
70,
Bond v.
200 Okla.
subject requirement found in sections
(1948).
preven
In
addition
the
V the
and 57
article
Oklahoma Consti-
legislation,
rule is
tion
such omnibus
should,
He
that he
there-
tution.2
asserts
at
also aimed
the undesirable
fore,
sepa-
be
to divide each bill into
able
a
practice
attaching
rider to a
in
subjects
approve
for
or
veto.
rate
him to
“veto-proof” the
It was
order to
measure.
dispute presents
urges
The Governor
this
“prevent
foreign
intended to
matters
impression
first
an issue of
because
objects
finding
main
a bill from
their
did not address
Court
“whether
Wiseman
way
surreptitiously.”
into such enactment
there
a connection between the one-
Comm’rs,
County
In re
Okla.
provision
and
...
(1908).
98 P.
However,
powers.”
review of the
veto
a
objectionable legislative practices
These
parties in
decision and the briefs of the
unique
are not new and are not
to Okla-
one-subject
reveals that
viola-
Wiseman
By the end of the nineteenth centu-
homa.
argument
was raised.
decision
widely
one-subject
rule
ry,
had become
following
application
of sec-
*5
consistent
powers.
with his limited veto
ment.”
The
presented
bills
to the Governor
recognize
Wiseman refused to
clearly violated
one-
placed
Legisla
constitutional limits
on the
subject
general appro-
rule. H.B.
1271 is
ture
rule before address
priation
general legislation provi-
bill with
ing
powers.
the Governor’s veto
Constitu
requires
sions rolled into it. Section 56
compliance, however,
required
tional
is
general appropriation
“[t]he
Legis
from the Governor but from the
nothing
appropriations.”
embrace
but
The
shortcoming
lature
well. The
impermissibly
bill also
combined unrelated
approach
Wiseman
was that it did not ade
topics
general legislation
in contraven-
quately remedy
Legislature’s
continu
“[ejvery
tion of the section 57 mandate that
ing
log
practices
rolling
at
other
legislature
act
shall embrace but one
tempts
veto-proofing
ap
A
bills.
new
subject.” H.B. 1743 also violated section
proach
required.
is
by combining
general
legisla-
unrelated
approach
The
suggested by
subjects.
the Gov
tion
ernor would
him
allow
to treat each
These violations of
sections
in multi-subject
separate
bill as a
enact
required
57 would
have
Governor to
However,
provision
ment.
no
in the Okla
treat both bills as
under
unconstitutional
grants
homa Constitution
that power.
approach adopted
However,
today.
Thus,
attempt
partial
Governor’s
at a
Legislature’s possible reliance on Wiseman
veto in this matter exceeded his constitu
acknowledged.
must be
Because Wiseman
authority.
suggested
tional
His
approach
applicable
approach
at the time
rejected.
must therefore be
presented
Governor,
these bills were
V,
section 57 of
general
Under
article
today’s
given only
decision will
prospec
special appropriation
bills and
Therefore,
tive effect.
will be
Wiseman
bills are
one subject.
limited to
Section 56 applied
dispute.
to this
requires
general appropriation
em-
bill to
nothing
appropriations.
brace
but
These
APPLICATION OF WISEMAN
legislative power
obviously
rules limit
. TO H.B. 1743
were intended to
Legislature.
bind the
H.B. 1743 contained three sections.
However, it must also be understood that:
space
Two
the sections dealt with
alloca
engaged
considering
while
bills which
Capitol Building.
the State
These
passed
Legisla-
have
both houses
object
were the
of the
veto.
Governor’s
ture, and
which are
him for
disapproval,
The third section authorized
Okla-
acting
capacity
homa Water Resources Board to sell sur-
Wiseman,
proval from
Governor. See
The
from Sardis Reservoir.
plus water
$3,000,000.00 614
at 557.
provided that
further
section
develop
proceeds would be used
CONCLUSION
remainder to
Kiamichi River with the
De-
Water
deposited into the Statewide
summarize,
part of H.B. 1743 be-
To
Revolving Fund. The Governor
velopment
legislation pro-
All the
came law.
third section
approved
failed
H.B. 1271 also
to become
visions of
H.B.
appropriation
sections of
law.
sections
parties agree that all three
law
items of
except
those
became
legislation.3 Ap-
were
disapproved
the Governor.
decision,
section
plying Wiseman
requires
VI
article
hereby prohibited
from
Respondents
Thus,
toto.
be vetoed
They
implementing any part of H.B. 1743.
attempt
par-
to exercise
this Governor’s
prohibited
implementing
from
are further
Wiseman,
ineffectual. Under
tial veto was
except
any part of H.B. 1271
for those
to a
qualified approval
tantamount
“[a]
disapproved
items of
the bill
not become
‘pocket veto’ and
does
the Governor.
Therefore, no part
veto-proofing over- bills. It is therefore OF APPLICATION WISEMAN applied to this ruled. That decision was TO dispute only approach new an- because the today given prospective nounced reached The same conclusion cannot be *6 future, however, the In the when effect. regard H.B. 1271. That bill con- to presented a bill which violates Governor is legislation provisions and tained rule, required treat the he is to disapproved The Governor appropriations. the bill as unconstitutional. provi- general legislation both some of the TO ASSUME ORIGI- APPLICATION and items. sions GRANTED; PETI- NAL JURISDICTION Wiseman, Following WRIT PROHIBITION TION FOR OF provisions are controlled sec legislation GRANTED. appropriations and tion 11 of article VI money embracing distinct items are con WILSON, DOOLIN, ALMA KAUGER 12. section Id. at 556. There trolled SUMMERS, JJ., and concur. fore, general legisla as with H.B. all C.J., OPALA, and LAVENDER and provisions H.B. 1271 failed to be HARGRAVE, JJ., in and concur at come law virtue the Governor’s part. dissent in partial approval. a tempt at But different J., SIMMS, disqualified. applies appropriations. result to concurring: WILSON, ALMA specifically grants 12 Section provi I in mandate that future today's to concur power line-item veto Governor strictly comply with the money em making appropriations of sions provi- one-subject rule. The bracing items. exercised this constitution’s distinct He Constitution, Article appro sions the Oklahoma power by disapproving some of self-executing V, plain, 57 H.B. 1271. These ve 56 and are priation sections of §§ powers of upon legislative law. The restrictions toed did become remaining Legislature and the Governor. With appro did not veto the Governor Thus, prudence dic- ap respect legislation, future the non-vetoed priation items. set in to- positions narrow out have force and effect tates the propriation items 1) day’s If they specific ap- opinion: law because need no Authority, Development 3 among parties that section makes it is Kiamichi This consensus amicus, provision. unnecessary argument of H.B. 1743 an to address 700 a
presents multi-subject bill to the Gover- These in light results fashioned Y, nor, 57; and, 2) v. Oklahoma violated If Wiseman Board Correc- art. tions, (Okla.1978). Today’s Legislature presents a bill to the Gover- Wiseman, opinion upon notes reliance as nor which makes to all three argued parties. interpret- Wiseman government branches of and includes sub- VI, ed the veto in art. 11 and 12. §§ provisions, it stantive law has violated art. legislative involved a bill making Wiseman V, appli- and applaud 57. I our strict §§ system for the corrections V, 57, however, cation art. I §§ legislating relating substantive law directly would address issue of whether corrections. Neither H.B. nor partial approvals of House 1743 is similar the bill in involved Bill House Bill 1743 exceeded controversy. legal I sup- Wiseman find no VI, powers granted in art. §§ port for Wiseman H.B. 1721 nor H.B. Today require reject we the Governor as to the his any multi-subject duty rejection. Within I bill. remain committed my Wiseman, dissenting spe- vote power to initially determine whether assignment cial while I served district multi-subject. duty bill is This in- should judge. Clearly, the line-item clude the to reduce the multi-sub- VI, does authorize the Gover- jects one-subject. anticipa- provi- nor line-item veto substantive law next, tion of imminent I controversy, applaud sions I hold, therefore, grant overruling of fiction Wiseman its VI, legislative power imposes in art. 11§ the Governor treat single implied duty upon an to con- two where the bill includes provi- form self-executing of appropriations items and substantive V, is, sions of art. 56 and 57. That provisions. law leg- would vitalize the Governor’s role aas did not foreshadow the consti- safety islative valve. on tutional violations the face H.B. The constitutional violations committed and H.B. controversy, 1743. With this its challenged the two measures circumstances, facts and future controver- *7 herein provisions are obvious. The anticipated. can sies Accordingly, I wholly House Bill 1743 relate to two un- that, matter, prefer in pro- would we subjects: 1) related Authority to allocate VI, ceed to art. construe 11 and 12 to §§ and, space 2) in Capitol Building; the State Governor, require functioning the when Authority to sell water from the Sardis legislator, strictly V, a comply to with art. Today, Reservoir for use out of this state. 56 and 57. §§ provisions Sardis, relating we hold the to Imposition application strict a of art. 1743, rejec- failed with the Governor’s V, upon 56 and 57 the exercise of all §§ provi- tion of provisions. the unrelated legislative power would all confine those 1721, budget sions of H.B. the reconcilia- legislative power with vested the to same bill, many subjects: 1) Appro- relate to Thus, when, clear and certain rules. in the priations to all three branches state future, the Governor is with a government; and, 2) myriad subjects A 1743, bill such as H.B. hold that provisions which of law are may approve the Governor all legislated. uphold Today, only ap- we the subject within the bill which relate to one 1721, propriations in H.B. not line-item ve- or the may reject that Governor the multi- toed. subject entirety.1 bill its Today require reject, destroys power approve. we the Governor to in its rule the Governor's to entirety, legislative duty enactment vio which The Governor's to a determine whether bill is, one-subject Underlying impermissible, constitutionally lates the ing, rule. rul our is that wheth implied rule, duty complies is the of the Governor to er it with the should legislative power approve part execute V, art. his duties consistent with include the to that of the or, ruling constitutionally permissible; 56 and 57. The of our is that §§ effect bill which is reject to Legislature’s the violation those which the render bill 1;2 3) Justice, concurring: This Court cannot construe
KAUGER,
and
power3
way
in such a
as to
1)
right:
wrongs do not make a
Three
give
authority which
the Governor
review
(H.B. 1743),
leg
a
Bill 1743
House
constitution,
by
granted
is not
the
nor can
(H.B.
House Bill
and
islation
empower
Legislature
the
to enact multi-
1271),
multi-subject,
legisla
a
expressly
bills which are
forbidden
bill, violate art.
tion/special
5,
Assuming arguendo that
by art.
against multi-sub-
proscription
57’s1
multi-subject challenge
proper
the
was not
bills; 2)
usurp
ject
Governor
raised,
ly
unnecessary
or that
it was
ex
State
rel. Wise
authority
specif
the State
the
address art.
Corrections,
man
Bd.
v. Oklahoma
art.
ically
to the
reserved
approve
separately,
is
some
the items
Such a construction
con
unconstitutional.
approve
reasoning
early
being required
all.
them
in our
decisions
without
sistent with the
power
approval power
11 is
interpreting
and with
The Governor’s
in §
Governor’s veto
duty
recognize
implied
governing
validity
we
vitiated unless
rules
our established
power
to con-
and attendant
of the Governor
legislation.
impermissible legislation
facially
to the
form
Childers,
Peebly
217 P.
In
95 Okla.
v.
constitution, prior
approval
of the enactment.
(1923), notwithstanding
separation of
self-executing
position
na-
Such a
enforces the
doctrine,
recognized
powers
we
that
Gover-
V,
Cain,
Ex
ture
56 and 57.
Parte
legislative power strictly
power
veto
is a
nor’s
(the
(1908)
validity
P. 974
of these
Okla.
said:
limited
the Constitution. We
upon
legislative process without
restrictions
(T)hat,
considering
engaged
while
enactments).
further
passed
Legisla-
both houses of the
which have
Withholding
approve
Governor’s
ture,
presented to
which are
him for
multi-subject
legis
renders
of a
bill
disapproval,
Governor
act-
is
is,
enactment vain and useless. That
lative
ing
legislative capacity
and not as an
multi-subject
bill
when the
reviews
executive;
exercising
while
this function
that
reject
impermissible
duty-bound
he
special agent,
is a
entirety
useless
When
as vain and
act.
its
Constitution,
only
can
act in
limited
he
multi-subject
review a
courts
mode,
specified
only
exercise
can
Governor,
legal presumption that the
granted
attempts
powers;
if he
to exercise
thing
legislature has not done a vain and useless
mode,
pow-
them in
or to exercise
a different
See,
Cannon,
will
v.
remain.
Farris
given,
wholly
ers not
his act will be
ineffectu-
(Okla.1982),
we
that the
wherein
said
every
purpose.
al for
procedure
duty-bound
to fashion
court is
Regents
University
Trapp,
State
legislature
based
effectuate the intent of
(1911), we held that the
Okla.
113 P.
legislature
upon
presumption
Governor does not have
to line-item
useless
presumed to have done vain and
never
relating
expenditure
directions
authority
thing
cited at note 4.
single
Underlying
appropriation.
of a
item of
approval power to
Exercise
Governor’s
holding,
explained that the evil to be
we
impermissible por-
constitutionally
remove the
forcing
destroy
prevented
the Governor
our established rule
tions is consistent with
good
in order to defeat one bad item:
parts
of an act
violate
those
*8
VI,
meaning
foregoing
[art.
the
section
The
of
Englebrecht v.
will be stricken.
constitution
obscure,
object was
is not
and the
§ 12]
585,
(1949);
Day,
In re
Okla.
P.2d it is bill like H.B. 1271 does not today.4 meet the definition.6 approach is valid here Wiseman Because H.B. H.B. violate solely to the extent that all distinct items of 5, proscription against art. 57’s multi- § appropriations 1271, in H.B. not line-item bills, subject general legislative provi- Governor, vetoed in toto constitute sions contained within bills are void duly appropriations. This enacted result entirety. may their pick The Governor not appropriate only at the because time and choose which sections of Legislature passed Wiseman approve reject and which may —nor still we had foreshad- Legislature multi-subject enact bills and development owed the of the rule of law challenges by asserting avoid constitutional today.5 Were announced we continue to exceeded his/her apply approach, mechanical Wiseman’s authority. may This not confer presented by issue the enact- upon powers the Governor reserved to the multi-subject, ment legisla- of a tion/special Legislature by 5, appropriations like H.B. 1. Pursuant bill to art. § place 57, would continue to Chief Legislature required position. Executive an untenable The present the Chief with single- Executive Governor would be forced to choose either subject Likewise, bills. can approve multi-subject legislation or to only exercise those veto conferred reject possi- offensive sections and face the by art. bility legal challenge of a to the exercise of Despite argument contrary, power. the veto A blind adherence to Legislature’s duty single subject to enact always be outcome deter- bills is not diminished the last sentence appropriations contained within minative— provides: of art. hybrid glare would survive the judicial scrutiny only because this Court if “That embraced provisions chose to surviving treat those contrary act of this though they comprised gen- severance section, only such act shall be void as to essence, eral bill. so much the law as not be ex- Court would continue to exercise pressed in the title thereof.” today denies the Governor—severance of a only Art. pre- 57 was enacted not bill enacted as one into multi-subject legislation, vent log-rolling pieces of legislation, thereby two perpetu- public but also Legis- to enable the and the ating multi-subject hybrid bills. This activ- lature to the scope understand effect despite ism would occur the fact that art. legislation. pending Generally, 56 defines multi-subject, general A legislation/special pending notice publica- is a agreement respondents 4.The Court was peremp- as to the contend tory treatment of the in State rule ex rel. writ of mandamus should be issued Corrections, Wiseman v. Bd. Oklahoma against carry this court them to out the (Okla.1978). dissent, In his Jus- terms and Section of House urged tice Doolin the Court to address the char- Bill No. 1567 because such section of House multi-subject presented. acter of the He Bill No. 1567 violates Section Article *9 joined by was Justice Simms and then 57, District and Sections 56 and Article 5 of the Okla- Wilson, Judge acting Special Alma as a Justice. homa Constitution.” They right. Additionally, appears were it from pages page Three of the seven document were respondent’s response peti- the brief in argument devoted an that the various sec- application original jurisdic- tioner's to assume logical tions of H.B. No. or 1567 bore no natural petition tion and for writ of mandamus in Wise- connection each other. viability man that issue of the of multi- See, 537, legislation presented Johnson, to the Governor for 5. United States v. 457 U.S. 549, approval 2579, 2586-87, 202, specifically presented. was The re- 102 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 73 spondents page (1982). wrote on 2 of the brief: 213-14 "Notwithstanding question validity 5, the veto Section 17 of House Bill No. The § 6. Okla.Const. art. 56.
703 subject expressed option power in has a third “line The tion of its title.7 —the scope.8 portion How- an act limits its item” veto a the bill.13 the title of ever, every provision of Constitution Const, No article or section of the Okla. purpose and presumed to have a useful gives power Governor the become a finding A that the given must effect.9 Legislator” “Super by dividing legislation 5, prohibits 57 phrase final art. § body presented by law-making into long multi-subject bills so challenge of multiple single- in order to avoid the bills are in the title of an subjects all included 5, subject mandate of art. 57. This Court portion render first act would 40, Childers, Peebly held in v. 95 Okla. 217 permit log-roll- nugatory; section 1049,1051 (1923)that P. if the Chief Execu- gubernatorial ing, and would vitiate power specifically tive exercises a not 6, 11 in art. and contained §§ granted by reviewing the constitution while may 12. do. This we by Legislature, legislation presented Although powers legislative, wholly ineffectual for such actions executive, judicial departments and every purpose. Except to the extent may overlap, may pow- neither exercise the appropriations, controls the specifically granted to the The ers other.10 attempt to divide H.B. 1743 Const, 5, art. 1 vests Okla. Fail- 1271 was unconstitutional. power in the and the House of Senate recognize ure to these constitutional re- Representatives, in the require strictions would us to condone ac- in a The Governor acts Governor.11 governing tions authorized doc- legislative capacity legisla- reviewing when ument. function, exercising tion. While presented con- here is Governor’s are limited The situation distin- may The exer- guishable stitution. Chief Executive that the from faced power specifically granted. cise Carter, rel. v. 167 with State ex Hudson Any attempt authority results 32, 617, (1933). exceed In Okla. 27 P.2d 626 Car- ,to being wholly the actions rendered ineffec- ter, gener- asked review a Court was every purpose.12 tual for pro- al bill which included a vision allowed Governor alter constitutionally the veto an for the the amount of 6, upon conferred the Governor art. Carter, Corporation dele- Commission. 11 and 12. The or veto of provision one Court of offensive general legislation governed by intended in the first left what was instance 11, the 11. Pursuant 6. general appropria- the Legislature may: 1) options, approve he/she two —a all Striking tions bill. Legislature; 2) presented by or provisions of H.B. 1271 leave what objections return it with the house appears general appropriations to be a originated. governs which it Section 12 between the situation difference general appropriations provides bills and presented here is that such disap- may approve Carter that the in the nature of the bill prove action would result the bill item being as a gener- altered. What started multi- it contains. When with a subject, appro- the Chief Executive al legislation/specif Childers, 40, 1049, Comm’n, Peebly 10. 217 7. Stewart v. Tax Okla. v. 95 Okla. P. Oklahoma 125, (1946); (1923); 168 P.2d John Deere Plow 1.§ Okla.Const. art. Owens, Co. v. Okla. (1943). Rathburn, 11. Carter 209 P. v. Okla. (1922). Sanders, Ins Co. v. Safeco Brient, (Okla.1990); City v. Okla. Oklahoma Childers, supra. Peebly see note *10 (1941). P.2d 459-60 132, Chrysler Corp., 9. Darnell v. P.2d Regents Trapp, P. 28 Okla. 910-11 v. (Okla.1984); Corp., Piper Cowart v. Aircraft (1911). (Okla. 1983). gen- operating parameters priations bill would be converted within of con- a metamor- eral bill. Such stitution. this rul-
phosis supported by is not Court’s Adams, Perhaps John one of the found- ing by the in Carter or constitution. fathers, writing ing in defense of the Brit- in the ish soldiers Boston Massacre Trials pronouncement in ex rel. Cra Our State said it best: Carter, 187 Okla. 103 P.2d ble v. 1) (1940) helpful respects: in two things; “Facts are stubborn and whatev- support adds to the conclusion that wishes, inclinations, may er be our or only may Governor exercise those of our passions, they the dictates cannot specifically granted in the Constitution alter state facts and evidence.” 2) legislation; pro reviewing when may this Court Nor alter fact that support proposition vides for the that we Const, Legisla- empowers Okla. neither authority legislative are without to confer pass multi-subject ture to does it nor authority upon the not review provide authority the Governor with the in found our constitutional framework. legislation presented as divide one bill into Crable, it legislation the Court had before multiple may The acts. Chief Executive presented to the Governor which included a legislative not assume functions15 and provision empowering the Governor re single Legis- duly passed by treat an item an duce bill. The pieces legislation. lature as or more two recognized concept the fundamental Legislature’s authority to enact bills is separation powers Crable, as well proscription restricted art. 57’s as the limits imposes constitution against multi-subject judiciary bills. leg on the Chief Executive reviewing when constitutionality as arbiter of the
islation. may ignore enactments16 not attempt held in properly challenged. We Crable that an enactment However, enlarge addressing challenge, the exercise of the we change Chief Executive’s veto or to cannot anoint the Governor with the specific authority mode of its granted by manner exercise exercise review not holding void. The promulgated was the constitution. despite the belief that a different result separately I write express my might be desirable. We said in Crable: concurrence, questions full but to address (T)he scrupulously “... courts must writings raised filed this powers delegated leg- maintain the majority opinion cause. The should islative executive branches of indicating may read that the Governor government, at the time must but same authority exercise not found within the carefully maintain the constitutional bounds the constitution. The Chief Ex- imposed upon restrictions exercise may legislation properly ecutive not divide powers, for those herein lies the safe- presented multiple as one bill into enact- guard representative govern- satisfy ments in order to art. 57’s ment. ...” against proscription multi-subject bills. expressed by majority The views may create today The result we reach “mega-veto” power disruptive in the govern- be the least state However, superintending control in this Court. How- ment. the failure to conform ever, sign should with constitutional mandates evidenced the Governor choose to imperils multi-subject presented by Legisla- one case most basic ture, government— safeguards representative the enactment would stand as law independent government properly challenged. three branches until Art. 11 and Adams, Argument 14. J. in Defense of the 16.Dow Co. v. ex [Brit- Jones & State rel. Oklahoma Comm’n, Boston (Okla.1990). [De- Soldiers Massacre Trials ish] Tax cember 1770]. Rathbum, 11, supra. 15. Carter see note Okla. Const, 1.
705
not
the Governor does
have line item veto
shall return
provide
12
that
§
origi-
presented
11
which it
under
when
with a
vetoed bill to
house
a
§
objections.
legislation,
Nei-
along
containing only, general
his/her
nated
bill
upon the
places any restriction
something
majority
ther section
admits
is a cor-
rejecting a
Nor
reason for
Governor’s
exposition
the law.
rect
of
require
Legisla-
12
that the
do
11 and
however,
I
majority,
read
any
for override other
ture meet
standard
they
opinion,
part
determines
must over-
pronounce-
Our
than
two-thirds vote.
rule Wiseman because it somehow decided
empower
today
be read
ment
cannot
rule on a
viola-
we would never
or
restrict
super-legislator
Governor as
argument
pursuant
made
to either
tion
Legislature’s authority to
override
CONST,
art.
or
57
the last
OKLA.
§
gubernatorial veto.
CONST,
art.
sentence of OKLA.
56§
addressing
veto
prior
LAVENDER, Justice, concurring
part;
expressly
impliedly
neither
or
powers. We
part.
dissenting in
(as
says)
Although
ruled.
majority
so
I
in the result of the ultimate
concur
one-subject arguments based on
both §§
of
holdings
majority
as to the fate
of
made
we did not
and were
Wiseman
part
no
of it became law and
H.B.
i.e.
necessity
reach them because of no
to do
only
fate
H.B.
i.e.
distinct
of
so,
clearly explained. We
as was
said:
disapproved
of
not
items
Respondent argues
sec. 17 HB
that
of
the Governor became law.
also concur
legitimate
connection with
bears
that holds the
opinion
of
or natural relation to the
possess
a line item veto
Governor does
matter,
by HB
or for that
made
parts
general legislation presented
over
of
of the
sections of
bill,
containing one
him in one
whether
Respondent
17 is
the bill.
contends sec.
I,
subject more
than one.
under the one
standard
invalid
however,
agree
cannot
with much
V,
forth in sections 56 and 57 of Art.
set
overruling
nor its
majority,
rationale of the
reaching the
In view of our
Okl.Const.
v.
of State ex rel.
Oklahoma
Wiseman
forth
conclusion heretofore set
and for
(Okla.
Corrections, 614 P.2d
Board
of
party
reason
con-
neither
further
1978).
HB
remainder
1567 is un-
tends the
(a
applies H.B.
majority
constitutional, we
will
consider
nothing
it assumes contains
but
whether HB 1567 contra-
determine
legislation) part of
decision
the Wiseman
57, supra.
venes sections
See
recognizes
Diehl, Okl.,
pronouncement which Wise- (2) to exer- requires man and EI- THE RULE ANNOUNCED TODAY power whenever cise the constitutional veto THE GOVERNOR THER GIVES for his he that the act “finds” OVERRIDE-PROOF MEGA-VETO11 pro- approval 56’s and 57’s violates OR CREATES A BLUE- POWER (a) combining impermissi- against hibition PRINT FOR IMPERMISSIBLE single multiple subjects within a ble OF EF- CHILLING OVERRIDE (b) appro- against including one bill within FORTS purely legislative priations intermixed with provisions.9 My analysis own counsels A privilege fundamental-law A comes to the Gover- bills, conjunction to veto when viewed nor for is not law but rather doc- 56 and does with the of §§ umented action which the Gover- *16 pre-approval testing legis- require a prevent nor either transform into or can conformity constitution. lation for its to the becoming approv- from law. The executive government is No institution of burdened disapproval al or of enacted is scrutiny of a constitutional enacted stage in lawmaking process.12 the last except responding court statutory law a of a content What bill’s survives Gover- challenge acting proper case and a emerges nor’s veto and hence as effective controversy.10 When with bill must be measured the outer limit of law no need do more than exer- authority conferred Governor's the veto cise or decline to exercise provisions and 12.13 §§ 11,12, on office Art. 6 conferred that §§ officials, (a) Like other the Chief Executive may supra. The Chief Executive either rely judicial must on a decision14to treat a perceived find the whether infirm not, constitutionally imper- bill as infirm for an unacceptable as to veto it in a so subjects manner consistent with his constitutional missible combination viola- and, (b) authority approve the law if tion of Art. 5 56 and 57.15 Neither the §§ Governor, official, validity, let the nor other executive dubious of its constitutional bills, bills, originated, in which the bill shall have but all revenue code, disapproved adopting digest, items not shall have the force or revision of stat- bills utes_" according original effect of law Any so of the bill. item or items void, disapproved repassed by Com'n, unless 10. Co. v. State ex rel. Tax Dow Jones & vote, according to the rules and a two-thirds supra at note 5 845. prescribed preceding sec- limitations Provided, reference to bills: tion in other "mega 11. For a definition of veto” see text at emergency That this section shall not relieve 1(B) Part infra. requirement bills of the of the three-fourths added.) (Emphasis vote.” supra 12. See note 1. today’s disposition, 8. Under of HB 1743 supra pertinent provisions See note 7 for the 13. law; as of HB becomes 11 and 12. §§ 1271, only distinct items of disapproved by the Governor survive as law. Com’n, 14. & Co. v. State ex rel. Tax Dow Jones supra note 5 845. supra pertinent provisions See note 4 for the Art. OkI.Const. Some multi- §§ of subject permitted "general Supra note 4. bills are under 57—
7H judicial in advance declaration court review. This court unfavorable should neither inspire sanction nor any legislation for constitutional condemn practice. every Constitutional blackmail is nonconformity nature. The terms log bit as odious rolling,18 which the prohibit 56 and certain of §§ today. court condemns self-executing only bills, multi-subject are they that the sense effective without Today’s judicial per- cure for what is statutory implementation.16 They may not impermissible legislative game ceived as an accepted self-executing cum in the sense veto-proofing log rolling clearly is nonjudicial their text offi- authorizes without textual warrant. Its ante- pronounce nullity cers to a sentence of cedents cannot be found extant constitu- jurisprudence Legis- tional of this upon perceived a bill that to contain an State.19 lative enactments have never been improper subjects. combination of several nullity
to an executive declaration of through than the exercise of the Gover- B nor’s veto in conformity to the stan- Today required to treat dards of 11 and 12. constitutionally objectionable as void all authority This multi-subject legislation. II may be “mega- described as a new form of IN PRE-ENACTMENT THE STAGES Mega veto". is one fortified GOVERNOR HAS NO STANDING message judicially whose terms raise a TO A ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL mandated constitutional cloud INFIRMITY appear makes the irremovable and flaw override interbranch Standing, legal right person of a futile17 —a form of posturing accomplished by the threat challenge judi- the conduct of another in a provision self-executing 16. A adjourn- bill shall become a law after the final given Legislature, "when it can be approved by effect without the aid of ment of the unless nothing days there is to indicate that the Governor within fifteen after such *17 legislation contemplated opera- adjournment.” added.) is to render it (Emphasis tive, and when there is a manifest intention that effect, Log rolling "legislative prac- go is defined as a it should into immediate and no ancil- embracing lary legislation necessary enjoyment tice of matters, in one bill several distinct is which, right given, perhaps singly duty none of could a or the enforcement of a Cordell, Okl., imposed.” Latting legislature, obtain the assent of the 197 Okl. then (1946). procuring passage by its combination minorities in favor of each of the measures into majority adopt that will them all. Practice of 17. This is so because a Governor’s veto with a including judicially instigated in one statute or constitutional constitutional blast would proposition, equally trump tend to amendment more than one ing induc- vetoed bill as well as its all, notwithstanding they override. The voters to vote for override 11, Okl.Const., might pro- are found in Art. 6 not have voted all if amendments or which pertinent part: separately.” vides in statutes had been submitted * Dictionary, “* * Black’s Law 5th Ed at 849. If, [by after such reconsideration originated], house in which the act shall have prior can find no Oklahoma decisions in two-thirds of the members elected to that which this teaches that court agree pass joint house shall resolution, the bill or fa- cially impermissible void for an combination of sent, together it shall be with the 57, Okl.Const., subjects proscribed by Art. 5 house, objections, by to the other 4; supra identify note nor have I been able to reconsidered; and, ap- shall likewise be if any authority under extant for the doctrine that proved by two-thirds of the members elected house, special law, 56 a bill that combines § appropriations to that it shall become a notwith- patently void. The text of standing objections of the Governor.... only 57 makes that content of a bill void If bill or resolution not be returned which mum, embraced its At a maxi- (Sundays is not title. days the Governor within five subjects an act that combines discrete excepted) after it shall have been him, be voidable. When violation same shall be a law in like manner void, it, signed an act is voidable but not it continues in as if he had unless the shall, judicial ruling adjournment, contrary prevent their its effect until a is made. its re- turn, Grisham, Okl., in which case it shall not become a law H.J. Truck Line v. Jeffries (1964). without of the Governor. No forum,20may of will not assess the attacked norm’s consti- cial be raised level on its tutional judicial process the court soundness in vacuo. predicat- Standing motion.21 must be own “direct, immediate ed on interest Ill concept The of stand-
and substantial.”22 A ing party invoking focuses on whether the jurisdiction legally cogni- the court’s has a THE GOVERNOR HAS NO POWER zable interest the outcome of contro- OP JUDICIAL REVIEW versy.23 party seeking A relief must show judicial nonconformity The test of a bill’s injury of some kind.24 actual or threatened precede to the constitution cannot but must party inquiry is whether the has fact follow the bill’s conversion into effective injury protected legally suffered to a inter- approval. law Governor’s This does contemplation statutory est within the not occur when the Governor receives the provisions.25 constitutional Today’s pronouncement requires pre-enactment stages In the Governor Governor to make a constitutional decision standing challenge bill for legislation perceived and to veto as an im- infirmity. No one can be permissible multi-subject bill. Neither the adversely by legislation affected until nor Chief Executive administrative applied has been or enforced as effective agency probe has the into the law showing law. No of actual or threatened orthodoxy.27 for its constitutional In our injury can be made before bill becomes tripartite system government fundamen- short, only person effective law. scrutiny tal-law lies within the exclusive against ap- whom effective law has been judiciary. probing domain of the Judicial standing challenge plied would have its (a) place adversary posture must take in an constitutionality. (b) triggered by standing one with challenge legislation. infirm
Moreover, we do not decide constitutional
necessity. Today’s
If
HB
issues
advance of
1271 and HB
opinion
“pruden-
today
offends
time-honored
1743 were to be tendered
for a test
necessity”26
conformity
tial rule of strict
because it
of their
to our fundamental
Governor,
challenges
legisla-
attempt
allows constitutional
would fail.
agency
respon-
it becomes
there
before
law. Where
is well as the
heads who are
here,
scenario in
stage
no forensic
the context of which dents
would at this
lack stand-
enforced,
challenged
ing,
is to
courts
law
either as so-called Hohfeldian or non-
*18
Com’tt,
Cartwright
prudential
necessity,
20. State ex rel.
v. Okl. Tax
26. The
rule of strict
ad-
Okl.,
1230,
(1982);
courts,
653 P.2d
1232
Matter
today by
hered to
all state and federal
of
Okl.,
1059,
D,
Adoption
Baby Boy
742 P.2d
holds
constitutional
issues must not be re-
of
(1985).
1062
necessity.
solved in advance of strict
In re
Question
Initiative Petition No. 347 State
No.
Doan, Okl.,
574,
21. Matter
Estate
727 P.2d
of
of
639, Okl.,
1019,
(1991) (Opala,
813 P.2d
1037
(1986).
576 n. 3
C.J., concurring);
Westinghouse
Smith v.
Elec.
514,
Okl.,
Okl.,
466,
Lathrop,
(1987);
Corp.,
22. Underside v.
P.2d
645
517
n.
732
467
3
IMS.
(1982);
Party
Estep,
Chadha,
919, 937,
2764,
Democratic
Oklahoma v.
v.
462 U.S.
S.Ct.
103
of
Okl.,
271,
(1982);
652 P.2d
274 n. 13
Matter
2776,
(1983);
Hohfeldian section, expressly establishes a multiplicity subjects. That grounds acts on functions, government division of If, exercising power, tripartite the Gover- before legislative governmental one required to test offended whenever indeed nor were constitution, conformity usurp powers express- is allowed to law for its branch authority delegated exceed that which ly his to another. by the content of textually demonstrable 1 interdicts Just as Art. Nay, Chief Execu- 11 and 12. Art. 6 §§ judges,31 nonjudicial duties on imposition responsibility with tive would be invested from Supreme forbids the it also whose breadth statutory nullification for saddling the Governor with nonexecutive claim for itself. judiciary could never judges If indeed constitu- functions. are short, 1271and no HB1713 ofHB tionally protected being from burdened adversary an stand here under can fun- duties, Depart- nonjudicial Executive is so be- scrutiny. This damental-law equally officials must be shielded ment standing to parties has cause none judicial imposition from both review the acts’ invoke constitutional tasks. of nonexecutive veto n Only efficacy contents. today our tendered outer reach is SUMMARY legal assessment. legislation is The Governor’s over
B by the constitution. He can- circumscribed expense expand his veto at the PRONOUNCEMENT, WHICH TODAY’S judiciary. legislature of either the DUTIES UPON IMPOSES JUDICIAL multi-subject infirm When an SERVICE, ABRO- THE EXECUTIVE approval, for his he must decide THE DISCRE- GATES GOVERNOR’S it, and then let approve whether to veto or POWER TO APPROVE TIONARY act the courts decide whether AND LAW HENCE LEGISLATIVE pass muster. When ART. 4 OKL. VIOLATES approv- presented for the Governor’s bill is CONST.29 duty probe provi- into its al he bears imposition of constitutional The court’s conformity to our constitution. sions for responsibility upon the Governor review today marks product final Executive’s The court’s abrogation and its Chief mega- reject the birth of an extra-constitutional discretionary power approve opinion by from its announc- clearly separa- offend the veto. recede legislative action to the tradi- ing my continued commitment enjoined on this tion-of-powers doctrine 1, Okl.Const., plaintiffs persons fundamental Art. 4 whose 28. Non-Hohfeldian judicial inflexibly expressly vindication is nei- com- supra interest tendered for note Cohen, proprietary. personal Flast v. government ther nor be di- the functions of mands that supra at 119 n. 88 S.Ct. note 392 U.S. Sterling Refining departments. three vided into J., (Harlan, dissenting); Oklahoma n. 5 Walker, Okl. Co. v. (1933). Okl., Nigh, City Ass’n v. News Broadcasters *19 J., (1984) concurring (Opala, P.2d 78 n. result). 29; Const., supra also note see 31.Art. 4 Okl. Dis- Approval Rules Mandated In Re: 1, Okl.Const., of Art. 4 are: 29. The terms Act, O.S.Supp.1985 pute §§ Resolution government powers of the State "The J., 8, 1986) (Opala, seq., (April OBJ et separate be divided into three Oklahoma shall participating), rules where this court Executive, Legislative, departments: The regulations services autho- Judicial; for mediation except provided in this Con- Executive, stitution, Dispute act Resolution Act. That Legislative, rized and Judi- government sepa- management departments placed of mediation services cial distinct, Okl., Lynch, Department; and neither shall exercise rate and State v. the Judicial properly belonging 1150, 1165, (1990) to either of the (Opala, 1166-1167 V.C.J., others.” dissenting concurring part). government tripartite division of 30. A Constitution; explicitly the U.S. mandated testing that fundamental-law precept tional institutions, judicial confined within processed only proper when a
there to be controversy presented. legis- If
case or compliance
lative enthusiasm for strict pres- 56 and 57 is not standards §§ evident,
ently primarily it is because post-statehood jurisprudence
court’s extant that, upon seen fit to direct invalidation,
penalty judicial bills con-
form to the standards of those sections. announcing
This is the first case mandato-
ry compliance with all the and 57 §§56 Winkle, Rip
strictures. Like the court Van
suddenly very long sleep from a awakens parameters that the of these two
to realize predict-
sections are critical and should be
ably enforceable in the courts. While I effort, today’s
salute cannot condone
legal framework which it is accom-
plished. job enforcing
and 57 strictures should left to the or-
derly process post-enactment litigation.
The Chief Executive should not be saddled job
with the this court has been slow to do
since the birth our commonwealth. WILSON, Appellant,
Neomah Rice STILL, Appellee.
Naomi
No. 73310.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct. notes note, accepted. Enforcing One- See one-subject and no issue of tions Veto, Subject Subject rule: The Case for only ap- compliance remained because (1987). Hastings Most L.J. into propriation were enacted presently states have some form of Thus, 614 P.2d at law. During in same rule their constitution. approach of impliedly rejected the time, gubernatorial also veto one-subject ad- applying the rule before on gained acceptance as a limitation wide dressing powers under the Governor’s veto legislative power. Id. at 569. Today, 11 and 12 of article VI. sections however, viability theory, one-subject In rule should Wiseman’s continued light Legisla- log rolling veto-proofing in and other must be reassessed deter applies general Every embrace but 2. Section 56 act shall provides: clearly subject, expressed bills and one shall be bills, title, except general appropriations bill shall embrace its bills, nothing expenses adopting but for the revenue and executive, judicial legislative, statutes; and de- code, digest, and no or revision of State, partments of the and on the for interest revived, amended, provi- law shall salary public em- debt. The of no officer or conferred, by refer- sions thereof extended or State, any ployee of the subdivision there- only; much as ence to its title but so thereof of, shall shall be increased such nor extended, revived, amended, or conferred any appropriation be made therein for length; published shall be re-enacted Provided, employee, employ- his such officer unless any subject be That if embraced salary, have ment the amount of his shall contrary to of this act already provided by for law. All other been appropriations bills, section, only shall as to so such act be void separate made expressed not be much of law embracing subject. each but one the title thereof. operates exception Section 56 as an following provision found in section 57: however, executive; attempts. practice, exercising these con- an that while function special agent, stitutional violations continue to circum- the Governor powers Constitution, governor’s power, vent the as demon- limited only specified mode, and he can act in the strated the two bills examined here. only granted pow- and can exercise a cursory Even examination of ers; attempts if he to exercise them a they combine the bills reveals mode, or powers different to exercise legislation provisions which bear no rela given, wholly his act will be ineffectual tionship example, to each other. For every purpose. topics 1271 includes the of state unrelated Childers, Peebly 95 Okla. 217 P. benefits, employee gener coal-fired electric Thus, (1923). the Governor is plants, ating indigent system, defense one-subject also bound rule while reimbursement, travel state officer acting special agent with the limited bla verification of traffic citations. Such a found 12 of sections arti- tant violation of the rule cannot Therefore, cle VI. the Governor must en- petitioners’ justified by assertion that force the rule in a manner provision govern each relates to “state