*1 MODIFIED; refusing appoint discretion in AND MODIFIED, abused its AS AF- children, FIRMED, attorney represent an AND REMANDED FOR EN- 598.12, conformity with section OF parties TRY DECREE IN CONFORMITY Code, 1975. HEREWITH. MOORE, J., RAWLINGS, C. REES 598.12, Code, provides: Section REYNOLDSON, JJ., concur. an may appoint attorney rep “The court the interests of resent minor child or HARRIS, J., concurs in result. parties.” We children have not been required to address this heretofore. us, however, provi
It is obvious that the
sions of section 598.12 the Code are direc and not
tory only mandatory and acted per
trial court within latitude refusing missible discretion in REDMOND, Petitioner, appoint James M. attorney represent children. find no merit therefore issue stated Hon. James H. CARTER et by the appellant. review al., Respondents, appendix in this case consists of Turner, of Iowa State ex rel. Richard C. pages. The entire transcript of testi Attorney General, Intervenor. mony, pages plus about 40 pages of 59949. No. exhibits, reproduced is embraced in the ap pendix. Most of the transcripted testimony Supreme Court of Iowa. unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues Nov. 1976. stated. The cost certificates appellant’s attorney printer Rehearings indicate Denied Jan. the cost of appendix 10, 1977. printing glar $821.94. Feb. This ing 344.1, violation of rule Rules of Civil
Procedure, is more striking when we ob appellant’s
serve the brief and argument of only
consists 18 pages, including cap sheet, index and table authorities,
and appellee’s brief and consists pages
of 10 including caption page, one
page showing proof of service and two
pages index and table of authorities.
Certainly parties must share the respon
sibility for the expenditure wasteful of mo
nies in printer’s fees for the preparation of appendix. court the trial the decree of
We conclude II out in division as set modified
must be this case for remand
hereinabove by the trial orders proper
entry of to the’ regard with the decree
modifying minor money for the support
payment otherwise affirmed. This case is
children. respondent- taxed two-thirds
Costs are petitioner-appel- and one-third
appellant
lee. *2 M. pro
James Redmond se. Turner, Gen., Atty. C. Richard for inter- venor. Davis,
Eugene David J. Grace, John K. Davis, and Paul E. Horvath of Vernon Scott Grace, Moines, Des respondents for & Car- ter, Oxberger. Allbee and Harry Druker John B. of Cart- Grier Marshalltown, wright, Ryden, Druker & for Donielson and respondents Snell. McCORMICK, Justice. accepted original jurisdiction of this supervisory our power under order
case
whether district court
to decide
are
eligible
to the Iowa Court
Appeals.
We hold
are
accordingly dismiss
supervisory
pe-
review and
petition
court to which they
nominated,
intervention.
tition of
and shall be of such age
will be
able
serve
initial and one regular
Appeals
Court of
is an interme-
The Iowa
term office which they are nominat-
appellate
diate
court created
Acts 66
reaching
before
ed
age
of seventy-
G.A.,
July
effective
1976. The
S.F.
*3
years.
person
two
No
shall be eligible for
court,
court,
like the district
has
supreme
by a
nomination
commission as judge
always
provided
been
for in the Iowa Con-
during the term for which he was
However,
legislature
the
elected
has al-
stitution.
to
appointed
commission.”
empowered to create
ways been
additional
supreme
of the
the level
courts below
court.
Respondents
Carter,
James H.
Robert G.
V,
art.
1.
Ia.Const.
§
and Leo Oxberger
Allbee
were among From 1857 until
the
Constitution
persons nominated to fill the five initial
“ * *
judge
a district court
provided
on the court of
positions
appeals, and they
any
office,
ineligible
shall be
to
other
ex-
among
five persons appointed
were
the
to
Judge
Supreme Court,
of
cept that
of
by
court
the Governor. At the time of
during the term for which he was elected.”
their
and appointment
nomination
they
V,
art.
In 1962 the
Ia.Const.
§
judges.
were district court
Respondents
Iowa
people
adopted
of
to
amendment
and
Snell,
Allen Donielson
Bruce M.
Jr.
establishing
nonpartisan
the Constitution
persons
the other two
appointed
were
to the
judicial
of
system
merit
selection and ten-
of appeals
court
from the list of nominees.
V, 5,
repealed
ure.
amendment
The
art.
§
question
No
is raised regarding the statu-
following
and included the
language re-
tory eligibility of respondents to receive
garding eligibility
judges
of district court
appointments. Rather,
their
petitioner,
hold other office:
a taxpayer
and
who
senator,
state
and
Supreme
“Judges
Court and Dis-
intervenor State of Iowa challenge the eli-
ineligible
shall
trict Court
other
of
gibility
respondents Carter, Allbee and
the state while
of
serving
office
said
Oxberger
V,
under art.
18, of
§
the amend-
thereafter,
years
and
two
court
ex-
Constitution.
ed
Petitioner also contends
Judges
cept
that District
shall be
ineligibility
of
respondents
these
has
office
Supreme
Judge.”
to the
of
Court
effect
invalidating
of
appointments
art.
18.
Ia.Const.
§
respondents
of
Donielson
Snell,
and
but in-
The amendment added:
tervenor does not share that view.
judicial
“Other
officers shall be selected
The determinative question is whether
manner
shall
and
have such ten-
V, 18,
art.
must
§
be construed and applied
ure, compensation
qualification
and other
to make
court
judges ineligible for
bemay
by
fixed
law.”
appointment
court
appeals
until
legislation creating
The
of ap-
court
years
two
after
leave the district
peals provides
appointees
court
to the
court.
satisfy
appeals
require-
the same
arguments
judges
supreme
ments as
the parties
court.
on this
G.A.,
along
fall
two
Acts 66
S.F.
principal
14. Statutory
lines. One
to ascertainment
qualifications
supreme
for the
relates
and
the intent
court
are prescribed
46.14,
provision.
district court
framers
Petitioner and
intervenor
Code:
insist that its meaning is evident
the language
used and that
“Such nominees shall be
such lan-
chosen
guage plainly
vote
makes
affirmative
of a
district court
majority
judges
of the full
ineligible for
statutory
number of
commissioners
years
the basis of their
until two
qualifications
and with-
after
leave the
regard
political
Respondents Carter,
out
Nomi-
court.
affiliation.
Allbee
Iowa,
nees shall be members of the
Oxberger
bar of
insist that
a reasonable shall be
residents of
state or district
practical construction of
provision,
(Fla.1972);
State,
Johnson
pur-
demonstrable
light of its evident and
Civil Service
application
deny
Department,
its
dis-
precludes
Minn.
pose,
N.W.2d 747
right of
State ex
Walsh,
trict
rel. Gralike v.
higher
judicial office.
state
See,
70 (Mo.1972).
S.W.2d
generally, An
not.,
can be
it.
ration of
The district court and
(Iowa
Vogelmann,
N.W.2d
appeals
court of
nonpartisan;
both
1973).
hence such exclusion does not serve the goal
of nonpartisanship.
Judges are selected for
The construction of Ia.Const. art.
appeals
the court of
through
nonpartisan
by petitioner
advocated
and inter
system,
merit
which intervenor acknowl
making
the effect of
venor has
district
edges properly makes
judges ineligible
as a class for ap
judicial
other
eligible
officers
for the su
to the court of
until
pointment
two
court;
preme
thus the exclusion does not
years
after
leave
district court.
the goal
advance
of inhibiting trafficking in
meeting
lawyers
All other
the statutory
public office either.
requirements,
including judicial officers
magistrates,
part-time
such as
full-time
Petitioner and
rely
heavi
magistrates
judges,
and district associate
ly
principle
on the
that a person does not
comprise
persons
the class of
right
a constitutional
public
em
appeals.
However,
ployment.
is not the issue.
time,
judges join
At the same
issue whether the state can arbitrari
group
up
make
the class
persons eligi
ly
regulate public employment.
It is well
highest
that,
the state’s
ble for
court. Neither
settled
“To state that a person does
petitioner nor intervenor contends that
not have
right
govern
*5
18,
V,
of art.
framers
intended to make
employment
§
ment
say
that he
in,
Yet,
defending
such classification.
comply
must
reasonable,
with
lawful, and
their
pro
construction of
constitutional
nondiscriminatory terms
by
laid down
prop
vision,
argues
petitioner
that the classifica
er authorities.”
Slochower v. Board of
tion is as unavoidable as it
Higher
is absurd. This
Education of New
City,
York
350
ignores the effect
551, 555,
of
four
637,
U.S.
76
639,
S.Ct.
100 L.Ed.
teenth
A
692,
amendment.
classification
(1956).
which
699
against
is absurd cannot be sustained
The same principle was applied in Turner
challenge;
equal protection
absurd,
if it is
Fouche,
v.
396
346,
532,
U.S.
90 S.Ct.
24
it is avoidable.
(1970),
567
L.Ed.2d
a case in which the
Petitioner and intervenor have not sug-
Supreme
United States
Court sustained an
any state
facts
gested
of
which reasonably
equal protection challenge to Georgia
con-
of
justify
judges
provision
can
exclusion
district court
conditioning
stitutional
eligibility
class
persons eligible
appointment
from the
for
to county
for
school board on
appeals
including
while
them freeholder status. The Court said:
for
among
eligible
the state’s highest
those
may
“We
appellants
assume that
court, and we have found none.
right
have no
to be appointed to the
Taliaferro County board of education.
acknowledges
provisions
Intervenor
appellants
But the
members
V,
18,
like
supposed
promote
art.
“are
§
do have
class
a federal constitutional
separation
governmental power,
help re
right
to be
public
considered for
service
judges
politics
move
and inhibit traf
without
burden
invidiously dis-
office,”
ficking
public
citing
ex
State
rel.
criminatory disqualifications. The State
Sutton,
147,
v.
Minn.
Childs
63
273
la.
power delegated
exercise
The conformance of a state constitu
Const,
V,
Having
1.
established
art.
§
provision
tional
with the federal constitu
involved,
may
the State
not
offices
judicial
tion is not fixed forever in every possible
privilege
deny district
application by conditions existing when it
such offices
the basis of invidi-
holding
A
adopted.
provision
discriminatory
ously
distinctions.
stop
not
Moreover,
does
the clock.
provi
apparent
applica-
In an
effort
to defeat
of law which is
sion
constitutional when
principle,
alleges
tion of
applied in one
may
situation
be unconstitu
absurdity
classi-
consideration
applied
tional when
in another. Alabama
making
judges ineligible
fication
Federation
State
of Labor v.
325
McAdory,
of appeals
precluded by
the court
the fact
462,
450,
65
1384, 1390,
U.S.
S.Ct.
89 L.Ed.
subsequent
the court was created
to the
1725,
(1945).
V, 18,
adding
1962 amendment
art.
§
result,
As a
a classification which does
argues
Iowa Constitution.
Intervenor
equal
deny
protection
not
in one set of
a state constitutional
is not
circumstances
do so when circumstanc-
invalid under the federal
when
constitution
es change. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
v.
Co.
adopted
cannot be made invalid
subse-
Fachman,
Iowa
125 N.W.2d
legislature.
act of
quent
Intervenor
see Chastleton
v.
Corp.
suggests that
if there is a choice between
Sinclair,
264 U.S.
44 S.Ct.
V,
sustaining
art.
the statute
(1924); Vigeant
L.Ed.2d 841
creating
Postal Tele-
appeals,
the court of
the statute
graph
Co.,
Cable
But,
Mass.
fall.
without citation of
157 N.E.
authori-
us
ignore
intervenor then invites
This is one
ty,
reason courts will
equal protection clause and save
ordinarily
the court
avoid formulating a rule of con-
holding
appeals by
art.
makes
law
stitutional
required
broader
than
judges ineligible
facts
precise
which it is
applied.
course,
agreed
it. Of
if
with the rest of
Raines,
United States
U.S.
analysis, we could
disre-
intervenor’s
519,
District specially). equal protection clause of under rights I Although agree with the conclusion amendment as fourteenth do now. the majority, reached by I not agree do our V, applied be now to cannot Art. § should rest on decision a federal constitu- rights. The fact infringe those conflict. I tional therefore concur exist if would not circumstances problem result. changed by not been creation of had The majority correctly points out the re- does not diminish the fed- appeals spondent judges urge grounds two to sus- rights constitutional of district court eral validity tain the eligible judges. holding Nor does First, they say office. a reasonable and appeals enlarge sit on the court of those interpretation proper of the Iowa Constitu- recognizes rights; simply ap- them and supports Secondly, them. they claim them new circumstances. The ef- plies any other result would violate equal sustaining equal protection chal- fect clause protection under the 14th Amend- lenge is not strike state constitution- ment to the Federal Constitution. or to it in provision previous invalidate al majority bases decision its on the inapplicable but to make it applications, ground and second asserts it is therefore the overriding here because of the situation unnecessary to reach the first. I would equal protection clause. assurances process. I say reverse this the appoint- V, by petitioner Art. as construed § ments should be validated the first intervenor, equal pro- cannot withstand ground and that the second should not be analysis present application. tection in its considered. judges burdens district with an It particular provision disqualification. invidiously discriminatory repeated issue here for convenience: ap- hold that this cannot be We “Judges Supreme Court and dis- judges appoint- to bar plied trict court shall receive salaries from the to the court of because to do ment state, be shall members of the bar of the infringe rights so state, and shall have such other qualifica- equal protection class prescribed tions as by law. law. Judges the Supreme Court and District We do the constitutionality not decide ineligible Court shall be any other of- V, other application. art. serving fice of state while on said Carter, that respondents hold Allbee thereafter, years court and for two ex- Oxberger ineligible are not made cept Judges that District shall be Ia.Const. art. Supreme to the office of Court Judge. *7 Therefore, Appeals. Iowa the Court judicial Other officers shall be selected in reject plaintiff’s challenge the validity such manner and shall have tenure, all respondents. the compensation qualification and other ** not do not decide need and whether if the by be fixed law (Iowa judges ineligible district were the appoint- Constitution, 18.) Art. respondents ments Donielson and Snell persons appointed Three of five to the have been invalid. newly-created court of were then The petition supervisory review and judges. challenges Petitioner petition accordingly intervention are dis- right to qualify because of the constitution- missed. just set out. joined al He is in by General, the Attorney this contention Costs are taxed to intervenor. who intervened in cause. All LeGRAND, Justices except concur petitioner Both the and HARRIS, JJ., MASON and spe- who concur they concede the result argue is cially REES, J., and part. who takes by no and was absurd unintended the constitu- gard Yet question. amendment in purposes different tional they serve. is unavoidable because of statutes, result Unlike say constitutions set out broad clear, unambiguous lan- explicit and general principles. A constitution is a liv of the amendment. guage ing and vital Its very instrument. purpose is to endure for a long time and to meet partially case majority rests its conditions neither contemplated nor fore result must neces- conclusion an absurd at the time seeable of its adoption. Bechtel 14th Amendment sarily against the offend City of Des Moines, al., et 225 N.W.2d protection suggests clause. This equal (Iowa 1975). not tolerate ab- Constitution will Federal impotent we are to avoid surdity, but that polestar interpretation all is the our own consequences under Consti- similar intention with which the instrument is reject problem I view. This tution. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional drawn. Law 16§ under should—be resolved our may—and p. 72 at Am.Jur.2d Constitutional wring not Constitution. We need our (1964). Of equal 64 at 239 Law § impor- despair look elsewhere for hands of the purpose tance a determination Any other conclusion itself ab- succor. served. 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional surd. Law 65 at 241 Sometimes the why I discussing say Before we should language disregarded literal must be be- give language the constitutional not it does cause violence to the meaning and interpretation petitioner interve- literal of the enactment. intent urge, briefly background I relate nor In 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law 76§ When amendment the constitutional facts. (1964), principle is stated this adopted was Iowa was way: by only appellate one court—the served Su- “In accordance with the basic rules that no preme ap- Court. There was language in a constitution is to be then and none contemplated. was peals, deemed to have been used therein in its (which facts submitted affidavit Under sense, ordinary and that a constitution is challenged by petitioner are not or interve- construed, liberally the principle has nor), it is clear the purpose developed that in framing been a consti- judges was to remove amendment tution, words employed in a compre- fray limiting their state service political sense as expressive general hensive judiciary, as trial or appellate either rather, finer ideas than of shades of accomplished This was judges. specify- thought distinctions, or of narrow judicial in the two ing they could serve ordinarily words in an instrument like the (For existing. present pur- then positions United Constitution do not States judicial disregard positions.) I lesser poses narrow, meaning, pre- contracted but are concede, petitioner and intervenor Both ei- sumed to have sense, been used a broad explicitly tacitly, or ther intent covering with a view of all contingencies. limit service of judicial department. within the Where words are used which have both a admit, too, They expressly tacitly, either general meaning, restricted and a vigorously that the result for which so general prevail over the restricted strange inexplicable contend creates a subject unless nature of the *8 matter of anomaly. clearly context indicates that the lim- sense is ited intended. Stated different- then, we, adopt language Must the literal ly, forced, the rule is unnatural, that no defeats of the purpose which amend- narrow, or technical construction should That, course, is the ment? of ultimate deci- placed be ever language of a made. sion to be ”* * * constitution. are provisions Constitutional construed general principles A number the same of prob- under courts have considered construction, statutory with re govern due like that which lems this case raises. 276 ** * ex Dearing, ly rel. Dalton v. 364
In State nearly can, As as we 381, (1954), S.W.2d 386 Mo. 263 put place ourselves in the of those Supreme Court refused to Missouri invali- words, who uttered the try and to define gubernatorial appointment to a met- date they how would have dealt with the un- ropolitan transportation commission made situation; and, foreseen although their days the time fixed in the Constitu- after 67 are by far the words decisive most evi- tion. of they dence what would done, have reaching said, In conclusion court are no means final.” quoting case, mann, (1921): tive laid down tion case] “There are certain well-understood rules determining U* “Another constitutional or State ex intent the same as those of constitutional [*] enactments. in [*] discussing part Mo. general rule and purpose rel. the true the courts from an earlier City It was said statutory provisions 229 of provisions, meaning governing legisla- of the lawmakers. Carthage of general S.W. importance [in and construc- Missouri rules of v. Hack scope prior for the word “or,” said: substituting the word “and” junctive statutes, constitutional amendments and other ascertaining the is mere writing is the substance and the verbiage carelessly used, are interchangeable, disjunctive conjunction “It is familiar law in In Re discover the intent 41 So.2d writings, Opinion form, conjunction ‘and’, sometimes and courts are of the 563 that intent of the the intent of such Justices, ‘or’, interpretation hold that writing.” and the con- at liberty 252 Ala. court, of in provisions construction case, An Arizona Board of Supervisors v. organic subject law is Pratt, Ariz. 57 P.2d general rules same construction oth- as refusing depart while (1936), from the laws, due regard being er had to the language aof literal constitutional amend- objects scope former, broader ment, interesting had this comment: government. a charter popular as “It is where there is no doubt as to of such an intent instrument prime the intention of those who frame an object attained in construing it. amendment or statute that a court Corpus Juris, 700, “In 12 C.J.S.2d 16§ [16 alter or modify, supply words that will 73-74], Constitutional Law it at is said: any repugnancy to ‘obviate or inconsist- court, therefore, should constantly intention,’ ence with so doing objects keep sought in mind the to be ‘particular provisions’ permit to be read accomplished by its adoption, otherwise ‘according or construed than evils, any, sought prevented if ” meaning.’ the literal remedied. Thomson, al., In Schaefer et “And also 12 Corpus Juris, 702, [16 F.Supp. (D.C.Wy.1964), the court 80], 18 Constitutional Law C.J.S.-§ it is with a was confronted Wyoming statute interpretation If literal said: dealing reapportionment with which a num language used in a constitutional provi- citizens claimed provi violated the ber give would effect in sion contraven- Wyoming sions Constitution. purpose tion of the real and intent of the instrument deduced from considera- brought, a literal time suit At the its parts, all such intent must with compliance meaning.” over the literal prevail substantially in ex- legislature ain resulted this the discussing In members. cess Guiseppi Walling, In 144 F.2d 623- said: (2d 1944) Judge Cir. the late Learned Hand, Wyo- concurring opinion, “However, in a said: it is obvious *9 “ * * * Convention which Constitutional ming way There is no surer mis- intended constitution a state than agreed document to read it literal-
read legislative be com- analogous the bodies should Somewhat that to the present case small. It could have envi- not paratively Advisory is In Opinion Re to Governor, 223 would such an absurd result as be sioned N.C. 28 S.E.2d 570-571 (1944), brought about if the state senate is con- a which involved North Carolina constitu- county with each senatorial a stituted provision tional a prohibiting person from county district and the with the election holding two offices profit of trust or at the population fixing as near as be least comptroller time. The same the State representa- unit for minimum of Education a Board asked leave of ab- policy While wisdom or of con- tion. accept sence so that he could a temporary ques- be provisions are not to stitutional in captaincy the United Army. States The tioned, still to act required courts was direct whether the applicant brings such manner which about in a give up would have to his position State palpable absurdities. 16 Constitu- C.J.S. a order to become member of the Armed 18; Law 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitu- tional It conceded Forces. that the accept- Law 76.” tional ance of a second office forbidden Supreme The Illinois refused to Court operate would ipso language the literal constitutional follow facto to vacate first office. Lowden, v. Ill. N.E. Mitchell question was whether under these circum- (1919) when that course would captaincy in the stances Armed Forces con- consequences. led to unintended a accepting stituted second office. said: court held did not and doing so argued is language “[I]t significant made several statements includ- Constitution, itself, and the law is not following: ing uncertain, is but definite obscure “Certainly spirit of the Constitution unambiguous no con- and leaves room for envisage such * * ‘The * [no result]. true, literally is This struction. meaning found, of a Constitution is to be perfectly it is clear is not the that it but letter, not in a slavish adherence to the meaning of the the law Constitution that killeth, which sometimes but in the dis- not, therefore, receive a constitutional did spirit, covery of giveth its life.’ majority; meaning involves ** * nee(j ke; gives way If letter absurdity holding the framers promote equity spirit. An instrument, adopt- and the people prohibition usually inhibition or extends it, ing prohibit intended to the creation of * * * the reason on no farther than which it is proposition debt unless the a ** *” founded. its creation at an elec- should receive greater vote than all electors opinion Later in that the court said: ** * A consti- entitled to cast were should “A constitution not receive a tech- provision must like tutional be construed construction, as if it were nical an ordi- object statute with reference to nary or statute. instrument It should be accomplished, pur- real and when the carry as to out interpreted general so apparent language must be pose government, principles of and not carry purpose so as into construed defeat them.” * ** Not the letter of the effect. general lending For other statements only, words, spirit its its mere law but v. support my substantial view see State object, considera- must be taken into Fergus District No. 1 of County, School tion, particular to ef- and when a intent 797, 801, 348 P.2d Mont. 78 A.L.R.2d manifest, specific re- purpose fect Toberman, (1960); v. State 363 Mo. paid to that When must be intent. spect (1952) (an 250 S.W.2d en statute, literally words of followed banc); County Board Commissioners consequence, there is absurd lead McCulloh, 52 N.M. 195 P.2d reason the lan- depart sufficient City County Mahood of Den guage.” *10 278 338, 379, (1948); This
ver, Colo. 195 P.2d 380 means must meet and 118 be ap- State, 13, 174, plied 177 P.2d new v. 51 N.M. to and changing Flaska conditions.” Abbington, 176, (1946); Bailey v. 201 180 I am convinced the case now before us 1072, 176, 148 178-180 Ark. S.W.2d meets all criteria set out the forego- 136, 140 544, Boyce, P. v. 20 Ariz. 185 Clark ing degree. cases to a marked (1919). No matter which standard we turn to— language Iowa which Nor is without ” instrument; the “intent or “the of what our conclu- indication gives some ” objects sought to accomplished; be or the Pritz, Parte 9 be. In Ex Samuel sion should ” compulsion absurdities; “palpable avoid (1858), 32 this court stated: Iowa necessity or of meeting “new and ” interpretation of the “In the Constitution conditions; changing rule “a * * * we are to ascertain meaning usually extends prohibition no farther than those getting the intention of mak- it the reason is founded” —this instrument. ing the is a classic illustration case that it is some- thought “What in the minds of was those folly times to insist literal language must making the was [w]hat Constitution — be followed the exclusion of all else. intention, the great leading rule I am not unmindful of strong lan- of construction.” guage used cases like v. Hunter Colfax 710, 718, Edge Brice, In 253 Iowa 113 Company, Consolidated Coal Iowa 175 (1962) 759 N.W.2d said: 270-273, 154 N.W. I do proper “It is in our determination to con- place say not a court should a consti- sider the intention the framers of the (or upon provision statutory tutional a en- used, language object as the provision a actment) construction to suit its own ends attained, remedied, or the evil to be or to achieve what it considers desirable. I the circumstances at the time of say only that if a result by point- reached adoption indicate.” less adherence to words alone is indefensi- Cemetery In Cedar Park Memorial Asso doubt, all beyond ble need upheld. not be Associates, Inc., ciation v. Personnel I this recognize to be undertaken (Iowa 1970), N.W.2d this court said In lightly. Kruidenier v. McCulloch, 261 interpreting obligation that in statutes our 1309, 1315, 158 170, 174 N.W.2d (1968), Iowa legisla out the intention of the is “to seek the judicial we considered correction leg placing upon ture and avoid statutory way: islative errors this strained, a language impractical, or absurd specter “The resulting of abuses from a Fulton, construction.” See also Janson . quick too judiciary to intervene for the (Iowa 1968) 162 N.W.2d legislative correction ambiguities, mis- case, In a Pitcher recent v. Lakes Amuse- takes, errors and omissions is too obvious Co., (Iowa ment 236 N.W.2d 335-336 require extended discussion. The evils 1975), considering we were an attack on resulting greater therefrom would far I, 9 of the Iowa Constitution Article in- than those which such action was de- trial volving right by jury. In reach- prevent.” signed ing the conclusion that statute which au- give true Failure effect to consti- less jury thorized than did not intent case present tutional against offend Consti- slow, quick, too judiciary rather than too said: tution we intervene. increasingly has “Time demonstrated it illogical to our freeze forever concep- In the Kruidenier v. McCulloch case re- * * * jury trial. tion of 1121, 1131, ported at Iowa 142 N.W.2d “* ** (1966), Constitutions must we said this court is the flexibility interpreted so as to be enough final arbiter of what the Iowa Constitution must, the public should, accordance with interest. means. accord the *11 meaning the appointment of that instrument provisions objects to its gives life and substance judge office of of the court appeals. petitioner Instead purposes. For stated, the reasons I concur only in what court to thwart ask the the result reached majority intention of concede court. amendment. disputed are said to ab- Frequently courts reach HARRIS, JJ., join MASON spe- regard results when themselves surd cial concurrence. logical. sound conclusions is now Ironically, importuned the court an absurd result.
deliberately reach me, least,
For includes denial. I would hold the 1962 Con- own
its prohibit does not
stitutional Amendment