*1 (1967); Wakeley 192-93 see also representative capacity their mem State, Neb. 225 N.W. bers of the 71st General Iowa, cash, jewelry, To forfeit the rifle and food Appellants, stamps, therefore, the evidence must show they illegal came from an source or were BRANSTAD, Terry E. Governor of illegally used. None these items was State of Iowa in his Official drugs drug found near or account books. Capacity, Appellee. cash, Except they were not found No. 88-1791. on person. or near Rush Rush's testified having legitimate considerable income Supreme Court of Iowa. over the years. stamps’ last The food few Nov. large, jewelry’s value was the- not location does not use as indicate its consideration drugs and the rifle was not even load-
ed. person greatly The cash on Rush’s sought
exceeded the amount to be tied $700 illegal
to an drug This cash not sale.
segregated by any Rush amount. $700
Nevertheless, sought the State forfeiture $700,
not of money. but of all Rush’s drug
ethereal to a connection sale is obvi-
ous; gross overreach State is being punitive.
and tantamount to myopic should not take view
drug ignore forfeiture nor cases the reali- society.
ties of this scourge But the
myopia ignoring requirements occurs proving statutory elements for for-
feiting property overwhelming because
evidence illegal drug owner doing,
dealer. In so the rule of law is
forfeited with property. JUNKINS, Senator;
Lowell State Don
Avenson, Representative; State C.W. (Bill) Welsh, Hutchins and Joe State
Senators; Arnould, Robert C. John H. Welden,
Connors and Richard W.
Representatives; individually and in
481 Shearer, Ann M. Ver Heul of Hintze & P.C., Moines, Templer, West Des and Dan Moines, Dudley, appellants. L. Des A. Van Vooren and Maria Miha- Robert Waterman, of Lane & Dav- lakis Waterman Burnett, enport, and Barbara Brooker Des Moines, appellee.
SCHULTZ, Justice. appeal plaintiffs, legislators,
In this of section seek to have Governor’s veto 27 File declared unconstitu- of Senate tional. May Assembly 1985 the 71st General
passed 570 entitled: Senate File making
AN ACT corrections and other relating reorganization, changes to court fees, court-imposed fines costs court li- suspension of motor vehicle re- censes and setoff of income tax rebatеs, administrative clo- funds 601A, ability chapter under sures fine, criminal retire- pay a procedures system, ment and other making procedures retroac- certain tive. Defendant, Gover- Iowa Acts eh. 197. Branstad, Terry invoking E. the au-
nor III, 16 of the Iowa thority of article section Constitution, vetoed section This increased File 570. section must judges that Iowa contribute аmount fund as mandated 602.9104(1) (1985). Code section Iowa seeking petition filed a de- Plaintiffs judgment against Governor Bran- claratory his item veto of claim that stad. authority granted 27 exceeded the section III him article section assert that while Plaintiffs Constitution. “dis- governor to provision allows the bill," any item of an approve appropriation bill. File 570 is not an рending in the this case was still While court, the 71st General district judgment, (2) legislation summary enacted the motion for conclud- which returned judge’s fund contributions to ed Senate File contains an (3) prior File passage priation level effect concluded that Senate Senate Pile was an 570. This bill within signed meaning law Governor Branstad and July 1, prospec- became effective 1986 on Iowa Constitution. *3 only. tive basis Acts See 1986 Iowa ch. Application Adjudication I. for 1243, (codified 35 at Iowa Code § Summary Motion Law Points and for of 602.9104(1)(1987)). addition, In the Gen- § Judgment. application adjudication An for passed 2175, eral File points summary law motion for of and a appropriation which bill defined an as “a judgment appropriate only when bill which its primary purpose has as question in issue should be decided making money of of from than court as a matter of law rather public treasury.” 1986 Acts ch. Iowa presented to v. the factfinder. Kriv 1245, (codified 2011 at Iowa Code 3.4 § § 1189, Co., 237 Northwestern Sec. Iowa
(1987)). 1195, (1946). 24 754 issue N.W.2d At legislation, Because of this new the dis in this case 570 is whether Senate File granted trict court the Govеrnor’s motion appropriation should considered for summary judgment, concluding that the subject governor's make to so to it case was appealed power. moot. Plaintiffs that veto court, judgment. This in Junkins Bran accepted The defen trial court stad, (Iowa 1988) 421 130 N.W.2d {Junkins discovery dant’s further was that I), summary judgment reversed the for genuine needed that there were fаct defendant and remanded the case to the issues be decided. While we said have district proceedings. court for further permit discovery that courts should held that the 1986 did not re apply appropri learn facts to better period solve -the beginning issue law, ate of substantive rule Carter v. Jer July 1, ending 1,1986. July 1985and Id. at (Iowa 1975), nigan, 227 N.W.2d 136 addition, 133. In we stated that the detеr only questions remaining here are mination of is an appropriation what bill questions of law. In I Junkins we stated Constitution, under the Iowa notwithstand judgment this in declaratory that action ing definition, legislative is a matter for a volves determination at courts. Id. governor’s 421 authority. constitutional remand, On the district court overruled at N.W.2d 134. We said that the determi plaintiffs’ appliсation separate adjudica- for appropriation nation of what was points tion of law summary question motion for awas for the courts. at 135. Id. judgment. Therefore, case The was the court tried to whether Senate File is an in 1988. The trial court a held that bill is issue of constitu which analysis presents is an question tional which a for purposes gov- for law the courts. The court must rule power legal ernor’s item points and that sections in pleading. raised a Iowa 25, 27, 37, 105; File each R.Civ.P. Bankers Iowa v. Iowa Credit contain an Dep’t, The court there- Union court, fore therefore, concluded that Senate File was an The trial erred subject overruling plaintiffs’ summary motion for power item veto under judgment apрlication adjudication article III for appeal points. the Iowa Constitution. Plaintiffs of law ruling. We affirm. Our review of the record our solidifies appeal plaintiffs present On three issues conclusion that the re- additional evidence unnecessary consideration. claim the trial that ceived was to the court’s re- (1) court it ap- erred when their generally overruled sult. evidence addressed le- plication adjudication points undoubtedly gal law issues and some appropriation? B. What referred The court the court. aid to recognized that correctly court The trial ar- testimony but of the witnesses’ some jurisdictions have ad the various of law. at its own conclusions rived reached a thеse issues have not dressed ultimate, well-reasoned the court’s view of appro what constitutes an consensus as to issues, the error legal rulings on those purposes. The priation for constitutional harmless. motions is overruling plaintiffs’ court’s approval cited with a Nevada Appropriation II. Definition set appropriation as “the definition of an gov- allows state constitution Bill. Our public funds for ting apart portion or to veto items an entire bill ernor purpose.” Pyne Const, art. appropriation bill. of an 25, 26, Grave, 41 P. 23 Nev. La veto, Ill, section 16 16. As to an item § however, urge, Plaintiffs part: states spend there must be approve appropriation governor may legislation. four corners of thе within the *4 may disap- part, and in whole or bills They ex rel. Parker cite State bill; prove any item of an 423, 426, 11 N.W.2d Youngquist, 69 S.D. a part approved shall become and the 84, (1943), proposition that “[t]he law.... appro an act test of whether [contains] money may paid be priation is whether is However, “appropriation bill” the term treasury state on au or drawn frоm the defined. not thority of the act.” meaning parties do not on The The Gov- “appropriation term bill.” “appropriation” as dictionary defines legislative that a takes the ernor for a “money aside formal action set of reve- allocation bill that Ninth New Colle- specific use.” Webster’s specific fund is an nue to a provides a This giate Dictionary claim, however, that an plaintiffs bill. The definition, understood which can be simple more than must deal with appropriation bill passed this constitution- by the that voters funds; they deposit of and the collection is in accord provision. This definition al ex- authorize the urge that the bill must Repre- of the House of the conclusion of those funds. penditure mоney of out Rules that: on sentatives Committee challenge single allocation They also [Tjhere general agreement [among the is theory, maintaining that an isolated setting appropriation is a that an states] not turn it into priation in a bill does public revenue of an identifia- aside from urge that the bill’s bill. money specific object for a ble sum of must bе to specific purpose primary and such a manner that officers money in for that bill to appropriate order money, authorized to use that and no bill. be considered more, object.... for that A. Construction. Constitutional Comm, Representatives of House of Staff language “appropriation bill” undefined Sess., Rules, Cong., Item 99th 2d Veto: requires interрretation ambiguous and Application to Experience and Its provisions are the court. Constitutional (Comm. Situation, at the Federal same rules of con- generally subject to the 1986). Print Fed’n La- as statutes. struction funds, 443, that the allocation Serv., We believe 427 N.W.2d Dep’t Job bor v. a general fund or from from the 1988). a constitu- whether (Iowa construing bill, separate intо revenue-producing tion, is to ascer- purpose of the court longer can no fund that the State distinct the framers. Redmond the intent of tain subse- purposes absent utilize for other N.W.2d Ray, appropriation as legislation, is an quent words em- first look at “We must 16. This intended meaning in their natu- giving them ployed, triggering of the would allow commonly definition understood.” ral sense and money is set power when Id. creased of actuarial valuations out specific purpose. aside This view is number fund, although the fund. The held for a purpose of the item of consistent with constitution, by a state provision special purpose, is administered of our and is a state fund. The authoriza- gives larger role officer appropria- budgetary process. payment tion of this would be an Colton v. Bran- (Iowa 1985). stad, tion. 25, 27, The trial C. Sections 37 and Single Appropriation versus D. that sections 37 and
court concluded
Primary Purpose Tests. Our determina
47 each contained an
Three
forty-nine
tion that four sections
of those sections
for the distribu-
appro
File 570 contain
sections
revenue,
authorizеs the
tion
one
question
priations does not answer the
payment
expense.
of an
Section 25 allo-
“appropria
whether this
portion
cates a
of the fees and costs for the
argue
tion bill.” Plaintiffs
that an isolated
filing
complaint
general
of a criminal
appropriation in a bill does not turn a bill of
state,
fund of the
the court revenue distri-
general legislation
appro
otherwise
into an
judicial
bution account
priation
They maintain that the test
percentages
fund. Section 27 increases the
“appropriation
of whether a bill is an
paid
judges’
salaries that are to be
into
primary
is if the
aim of the
retirement fund. Section 37 legislature
to make
portion
allocates a
of the docket fees that money
public treasury. They
from the
paid
are to
primary
specific pur
maintain
requires
fund.
*5
Section
the
admin- pose
up prior-
of Senate File 570 is to clean
istrator to cause an actuarial valuation
system legislation.
The Governor
judicial
be made of the
retirement fund and
opposite
takes the
view and claims the
provides
paid
that the cost be
from such proper test is whether the
fund.
single appropriation. The trial court
test,
adopted
“single appropriation”
the
We conclude that sections
concluding
any
that contains an
clearly appropriations.
are
and 37
These
is an
bill.
provide
sections
that state revenues shall
separate
be set aside into a
fund for a
rejection
with the trial court’s
is, in part,
use. While each section
“primary
specific purpose
test.”
measure,
revenue-raising
the allocation of
quite easy
legislature
the
It would be
for
judicial
that revenue into the
retirement
deprive
governor
of the constitutional
fund,
provides annuity
which
benefits
powers conferred on the chief executive
judges, is a transfer of revenue into a fund
by including specific
officer
items of
that cannot be utilized
the
State
priations
general
adopt
in
bills. To
the
purposes.
other
See Iowa Code
602.-
§§
primary purpose
require
test
be to
would
9104(2)(1985)(judges'
depos
contributions
instance,
governor,
the
in such an
to choose
judicial
ited with state treasurer credited to
approving acceptable
between
substantive
fund)
602.9111(1985)(state
disapproving the entire
or
treasurer to invest
retirement fund
prevent
expenditure
order
items of
prescribed
earnings
as
credited to
governor
the
feels are not in the
which
best
fund).
These
sections
revenues from
becоming
from
interest
law.
placed
27 and 37
the
into
Colton,
See
We also conclude that section 47 is on an ad hoc basis and determine requires It the court ad whether the bill contains an pay significantly gover- ministrator to in- affect the cost the which could Comm’n, way If the test rеsponsibility. budgeting nor’s exercise met, properly can governor the veto as to
the item con- opinion in ex rel. Turner State into consideration money. This test takes authority may be the item veto cluded that responsibility of both the constitutional if the nonappropriation items extended to government. branches characterized may somehow be entire interpreta- That appropriations case, application of Turning to this highly undesirable re- has led to two tion clearly that Senate test demonstrates our First, it serves to extend sults. “appropriation bill” within File 570 amendment to items which of the item veto III, section 16. meaning of article and, appropriations consequently, are not require File 570 Three sections subject to item not intended to be were revenues the allocation substantial by the framers of the constitutional veto retirement fund. obvi Second, present as the con- amendment. for the allocation of legislative purpose ous shows, interpretation in troversy solvency of improve these funds was validity Turner does not turn prevent a future bail-out this fund and item on the nature of vetoed veto an under general fund of from the state’s (which controversy is is what item pay- plan. The choice funded retirement rather, about), but, inexact and on some fund or funding of a retirement as-you-go arbitrary characterization of the bill incurred liabilities financing presently the vetoed itеm is contained. which squarely within future taxation fits It accom power. purposes of the discussing much which After scheme of bal the constitutional modates it ulti- contrary to was authority to make ancing legislature’s mately adopted, the court State ex rel. allowing Note, only a discussion from Turner cited meet that office’s power in order to (1969) in 18 Drake Lаw Review ap The three sections budgetary duties. interpretation. The discus- support of its fund funds to the retirement portioning opinion in the quoted sion which was “appropriation clearly make this bill as follows: pay the the direction to Whether bill.” probable that should It would seem *6 study, by an audit or insignificant cost of the Legislature attempt to coercе pow itself, trigger the veto sufficient to lump ap- sum approving Governor gen otherwise governor the over an ers of purpose and by combining propriation not answer is a matter we need eral bill interpret the amount, the court would today. pur- the liberally preserve term “item” that Senate the item veto amendment. summary, pose we conclude subject bill File 570 is read within quoted If the statement item veto under the Governor’s discussion, it does not the entire context of the Iowa Constitution. section 16 of interpretation of the the court’s support court. the trial affirm amendment. constitutional AFFIRMED. being made point which was combining of review note was law CARTER, (concurring specially). Justice nonfiscal mеasure appropriation with a an appropriation item from would not save important case which will This is suggesting that writer was not veto. The the executive and weigh heavily on how in a bill ren- appropriation placing hereafter conduct will legislative branches subject to item in that every item government. dered in the business themselves suggesting that thе writer Nor was presents veto. this case The uncertainties which turned on validity an item veto interpre- product of an unwarranted is the In- as a whole. es- characterization item veto amendment tation firmly makes review note ago in deed the law eighteen years by this court poused weight of point that under High- Turner v. Iowa State from other “item” is jurisdictions the term interpreted limiting and Delores E. M. Robert JOHNSTON Johnston, Appellees, vetoing only specifi- those items which cally appropriate money gen- some and not provision incorporated eral in a law SOUTHERN CORPORATION NORFOLK appropriation items. which contains some subsidiary Norfolk and Western and its Although applaud majority opinion I Railway Company, Appеllants. argument rejection for its No. 88-1617.
that a item a bill subject makes all in that to item items Supreme Court of Iowa. veto, majority adopts the test which the Nov. 1989. purposes of the “characterization of the Rehearing As Amended on Denial of provides meaningful guid- criterion no Dec. ance for future' cases. Reasonable minds often an entire will differ as to whether
composed of a mixture of fiscal and nonfis- legislation may
cal be characterized as be-
ing predominantly
Moreover, there is no valid reason to make
the character of the bill as a whole deciding
determinative factor controver- type.
sies of this In order to meaningful measuring
more criterion for governor's authority, we
should abandon the “characterization of
the bill” test in favor of a test which focus-
es the item vetoed is on whether which is appropriation.
itself an
Although it is not essential the ratio- case,
nale under which it decides the
majority concludes that the item which was
vetoed Because I conclusion, support
find sufficient for that being correctly
I this case is
decided, although disagreeing the test majority applied.
which the has
NEUMAN, J., joins specially concur-
ring opinion.