74 Neb. 188 | Neb. | 1905
Since the adoption of the present constitution, the statutes as heretofore existing have, provided for the election of the judges of the supreme court, the regents of the uni\ersity, judges of the district courts, and county judges, all of whose terms of office are fixed by the fundamental law, at a general election held in November of the odd numbered years. The terms of the different offices named vary; some being for six, some for four, and some two years, begining on the first Thursday after the first Tuesday of January of the year next succeeding the time of the ('lection. It is expressly provided by the constitution that the elections for state executive officers shall be held in i he even numbered years, the first election to be held at the general election in November in 187C, and each succeeding election at the same relative time in each even year thereafter. Const, art. V, sec. 1. The legislature at its last session passed, and the governor approved, an act, the object and purpose of which is to provide for the election of all state, district, and county officers in even numbered years, and to repeal all existing laws in conflict therewith. This act is known as the biennial election law, since, if valid, general elections will be held hereafter in
The relator in this action has challenged the validity of the new act (laws 1905, ch. 65), on the ground that it is in conflict with several provisions of the organic law. The single issue before the court presented by the pleadings is in respect of the authority of the legislature to enact into law the measure referred to. The following sections of the constitution seem to have a bearing on the act under consideration either direct or remote, and which should here be stated as the basis of the discussion to follow. Section 13, article XVI, entitled “Schedule,” declares that “the general election of this state shall be held on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of November of each year, except the first general election which shall be on the second Tuesday in October, 1875. * * * Judges of the supreme, district and county courts, * * * shall be elected at the first general election, and thereafter at the general election next preceding the time of the termination of their respective terms of office.” Section 14 of the same article provides: “The terms of office of all state and county officers, of judges of the supreme, district and county courts, and regents of the university shall begin on the first Thursday after the first Tuesday in January next succeeding their election.” Section 4 of article VI provides: ' “The judges of the supreme court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large; and their terms of office, except of those chosen at the first election, as hereinafter provided, shall be six years.” Section 10 of article VI divides the state into six judicial districts, and provides for the election of a judge of the district court in each of said districts, “whose term of office shall be four years.” Section 15 of the same article provides: “There shall be elected in and for each organized county one judge, who shall be judge of the county court of such county, and whose term of office shall be two years.” Section 20 provides: “All officers provided for in this article
The distinctive features of the present act and the one attempted to be repealed are quite marked. Section 1 of the old act, which embraced a general election law, provided the general election shall be held in November of each year. The same section of the new act provides that the general election of this state for the election of officers named in section 7 of this chapter shall be held in November of each even numbered year; and section 7 enumerates all state,, district and county officers who under the ohl law were to be elected in the odd numbered years (with possibly some feAv exceptions provided for in separate acts), so that at the present time, if the new act be held valid, there are no offices to be filled and no officers to be elected at a general election to be. held in the odd numbered years; and there being no officers to elect, there can, of course, be no election.
Keeping in mind the generally accepted canons of construction for the testing of the validity of legislative enactments when challenged on constitutional grounds, which are to the effect that the constitution is not a grant of powers, but is a limitation upon the authority to be exercised by the legislative branch of government, and that all reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of
1. We assume, without extended discussion, that if the act fails in its purpose to provide for biennial elections, and that notwithstanding its provisions annual elections are required to be held for the election of officers for one or more offices therein mentioned, because of the requirements of the organic law, the act is void in toto and of no effect for any purpose. -It is hardly to be doubted that the principal, if not the sole, inducement for the passage of a measure of the kind being considered was for the purpose of avoiding the holding of general elections once in each and every year, and if this is not accomplished the whole act must fall and be declared invalid under the rule now well established in this jurisdiction. State v. Farmers & Merchants Irrigation Co., 59 Neb. 1; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 60 Neb. 754; State v. Poynter, 59 Neb. 417; State v. Magney, 52 Neb. 508.
2. It is argued in behalf of relator that the portion of section 13, heretofore quoted, which says, “The general election of this state shall be held on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of November of each year,” etc., is an imperative command requiring annual elections. The language used, when considered alone, does not, as it seems to us, unmistakably call for such construction, especially when viewed in the light of conditions existing at the time the present constitution was adopted. Prior to its adoption, and under the 1866 constitution, the elections for state and county officers in this state were held in the month of October, while the election of federal officers was required to be held in November. The principal object sought to be attained by the constitution makers, as it seems to us, was to have the general election for both state and federal officers held in November, and thus bring about greater uniformity, as well as add to the convenience of the electorate, and insure economy in time and
Had the language been, “A general election shall be held,” etc., using the indefinite article “a” instead of the definite article' “the,” the language would have been, we think, more strongly in favor of the construction contended for by the relator. It would have added something to the view that the framers of the constitution, and the people in adopting it, intended that there should be an election in each year. Reading the sentence in the exact language in which we find it constructed, and keeping in view the conditions then existing in respect to the time of holding state and national elections, and it appears not to be an unreasonable construction to say that the main thought expressed is that the time of the general elections shall be in November of each year in which such an election is required to be held to fill any office created by law. The legislature having given such construction to the language regarding a subject of legislation purely political in its nature, we would now hardly be warranted in construing it differently in passing on the validity of such provision. It would lead to an absurdity to say that the constitution commanded that an election should be held annually, unless there were other provisions which necessarily require that certain of the offices therein created must be filled at such elections. Unless we can find in other provisions of the permanent law some requirements to the-effect that certain officers ought to be elected at a general election, the time of the holding of which is so regulated by that instrument as that such election must be held in the odd numbered years as is required in the even year's, we do not think we are driven by the language under consideration to the conclusion that a law providing for biennial elections is in excess of legislative authority. We are not to be understood as saying this language, when considered with its context and with other sections of the constitution, is not to be construed as an expression of the constitution makers indicative of an intention to so ar
3. Construing the language of the several sections of the constitution which are quoted above as they relate? to and have a bearing on each other, we find no serious difficulty in satisfying our minds that the purpose sought to be attained thereby is reasonably clear. If we arc? right in our construction of the several provisions as to their force and effect, they can readily be applied to the act under consideration in testing its validity. The terms of the offices of the judges of the supreme, district and county courts are fixed with definiteness and certainty. Section 4 is devoted exclusively to the terms of the supreme judges, while sections 30 and 15 refer especially to the offices of district and county judges. There can be no doubt and no room for construction as to the intention of the lawmakers in this regard. By the provisions of section 13, article XYI, it is, in terms that cannot be well misunderstood, declared that the first general election shall be held in 1875, that judges of the supreme, district and county courts shall be elected at the first general election, and thereafter at the general election next preceding the time of the termination of their respective terms of office. That is, by these several sections, when construed together, as of course they ought to be in an effort to determine their
The law as a science possesses, it must be admitted, some elements of uncertainty, and can hardly be classed as one of the exact sciences. ■ In respect, however, of the matter under consideration, the meaning of the framers of the constitution and of the people adopting it, it would seem, can be ascertained to almost the certainty of a mathematical demonstration. The first election to fill these offices is required to be held at the general election in 1875. The terms of office are six, four and two years, respectively. The terms begin on the first Thursday after the first Tuesday of January next succeeding the time of the election. The election of successors is to.be had at the general election next preceding the time of the termination of their respective terms of office. The terms Jiegin and end in January of the even numbered years, and the general election next preceding is the election to be held in the odd numbered years. Thus, as it appears to us, the constitution declares in unmistakable terms that these officers shall be elected and the offices filled at a general election which is required to be held in the years alternating with the general elections provided for state executive officers in the even numbered years. Of course, the language used to express the will of the people in this regard in the fundamental law could have been more specific and direct, but we must accept the wording as we find it in the law, and give to it its fair meaning and reasonable import.
But again, by the provisions of section 21, if the office becomes vacant, the governor is to api>oint a person to fill such vacancy, and such appointee can hold only until his successor is elected and qualified, and the successor, when
4. Our discussion to this point has proceeded on the theory that the terms of office, as used in the provisions of the constitution quoted, when construed with reference to the correct meaning of that instrument in providing for the election, the time thereof, the terms of office, and the
We are here met with the proposition that section 20, which says, “All officers provided for in this article shall hold their offices until their successors shall be qualified,” etc., is to be construed as making the constitutional term of office the fixed and definite periods of six, four and txvo years, respectively, and in addition thereto the uncertain and indeterminate period of “until their successors are qualified.” Consequently, it is argued the act in question violates none of the provisions relative to the length of the terms of the offices therein provided for. It is said the authorities are uniform as to this proposition. In a sense, they undoubtedly are, and, in another sense, the authorities are equally uniform to the point that the legal definition of the word term is the fixed and definite period of time stated in the laxv. It all depends on the viewpoint — on the nature of the question xvhich is receiving judicial attention. These hold-over provisions in the laxv are generally understood to be for the purpose of having an incumbent in a public office at all times —to provide for the one holding an office to continue therein and to discharge the duties thereof until a successor, either by election or by appointment, is installed. In this sense, the officer continues to hold his office de jure in continuation, and as a part of the definite term and fixed period of time for xvhich selected. But, in the sense of fixing tenures of office and providing for the duration thereof, and for the selection of a successor it cannot, we think, be said, in strict correctness, that the definition of the word term means the uncertain and indeterminate period which an incumbent may hold over his fixed term, because of some fortuitous circumstance
“Whether we take the phrase, Term of office,’ in its ordinary or popular sense, or in its technical import, it means one and the same thing — ‘a, fixed and definite period of time.’ ”
In that case the decision was under a statute authorizing the appointment of an oil inspector for the term of two years, and Avhich fixed the beginning and the ending of his term, and thereby determined the beginning and ending of the term of his successor, each holding for the term of tAvo years. It was also provided that the officer should hold his office until his successor Avas appointed and qualified. It Avill be noticed, at once, that, in principle, the provisions of the statute there being considered and the constitutional provisions we are discussing are
“It is apparent that the provision ‘or until his successor is elected and qualified’ does not reduce or change the term for which the officer is elected, but the meaning of such phrase is to extend the time in which he may hold the office beyond his term to a period when the office is filled by another who has been elected and qualified.”
Say the supreme court of Kansas in State v. Breidenthal, supra:
“It is the opinion of the court that, as a ‘term’ means a fixed and definite period of time, the time definitely fixed in the law at four years is the term of office.”
The term of office so fixed by the legislature was for four years, and until a successor was appointed and qualified. The constitution of that state provides that the legislature shall not create any office, the tenure of which shall be longer than four years.
State v. Tallman, supra, is relied on by both parties to the present controAersy as authority in their favor. As we read the decision, it recognizes the term to be that fixed and definite period of time which the law prescribes that
5. With the term of office of the officers named in the constitutiofial provisions quoted fixed and made definite and certain, the time of the beginning of such term and the termination thereof provided for, and with the time of the election for the first and subsequent terms stated in express terms, how stands the case and what is the effect of these several provisions on the act in controversy? The inevitable result of the act, if it be a valid one, is to extend the terms of all present incumbents of the offices provided for by such constitutional provision for' one year, and to defer the time of the election of successors from the time of the general election, as heretofore held in the odd numbered years, to the next succeeding general election to be held in the even numbered years. The successors of the present incumbents, if Ave are correct in, our definition of the words “'term of office” as used in these several provisions, should, if they be given force and effect, be elected at a general election held in November, 1905, 1907 and 1909, respectively. By the terms of the
In State v. Thoman, 10 Kan. 191, it is held that,, as “the constitution of the state fixes the term of office of the judges of the district court at four years, and it is not in the power of the legislature to increase or extend that term either directly or indirectly,” and that when the manifest purpose of the constitutional provisions are to secure not only a fixed term of office, but also to the people at stated intervals the opportunity of changing the incumbents, these provisions must prevail as the paramount law, over those expressed in the statute in conflict therewith. Says Brewer, J., writing the opinion of the court:
“The term of office is, as we have seen, four years. This being a constitutional provision is beyond legislative change. It is a fixed quantity.” And again: “The manifest purpose of the constitutional provisions is to secure not merely a fixed term of office to judges, but also to the people at stated intervals the opportunity of changing the incumbents. * * * The constitutional provision is, that in each district There' shall be elected by the. electors thereof a district judge, who shall hold his office for the term of four years/ This does not apply to the first district judges alone, but establishes a permanent rule. It would seem a fair implication that such election should be held at the last general election prior to the commencement of such term. That would be consonant with the general rule governing all elections everywhere, and a constitution, as well as the statutes, must be construed in the light of settled and general usage.”
In a very recent case (Gemmer v. State, 163 Ind. 150, 71 N. E. 478), the supreme court of Indiana, in passing on a. statute deferring the time of the election of certain officers
“The office being constitutional and elective, the voters of the county are authorized to fill it at the 'first opportunity given under the constitution. This right cannot be taken away from them by the legislature, either directly or indirectly, by an act postponing the choice of the officers named until a general election at which they might*204 be elected has passed. When the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it said in that instrument that ‘there shall be elected in each county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections,’ the officers named, they could have meant nothing else than that the succession to these offices should be secured, without vacancies or unnecessary extensions of terms by holding over after the expiration of the constitutional terms, by the election by the voters of each county of successors to such officers, who would be ready to take the offices and discharge their duties immediately upon the expiration of the terms of the previous incumbents. The only natural and reasonable time for such selection would be at the general election next preceding the expiration of the term of the incumbent. If the power of the legislature to postpone the choice of the successors to the incumbents of these offices at such election is conceded, it follows that the time for the election of such successors rests wholly in the discretion of the general assembly. If this is the law, the control of the offices affected is taken from the people and resides exclusively in the legislature.” And again: “The argument that the legislature may fix the time of the commencement of the terms of office, where that time is not fixed by the constitution itself, and that if the term of an incumbent is extended beyond the constitutional limit, the officer holds over by virtue of section B of article XV, constitution, which provides that an officer shall hold his office for the constitutional term, and until his successor is elected and qualified, is fallacious. The latter provision was intended to prevent vacancies in the public offices to which it applies. It cannot be understood to confer on the legislature the power to postpone unnecessarily the election of a successor to the office, and thereby create a condition authorizing the incumbent to hold over after the expiration of his term. The mischiefs which would result from this construction of the constitution and the recognition of this authority in the legislature are too evident to require discussion.*205 By the adoption of measures of this character the legislative department could appropriate to itself an extensive and dangerous power and influence over a great number of offices and officers.”
We should not pass from this subject without referring to State v. Hedlund, 16 Neb. 566. In that case it appears that a statute providing for township organization contained the provision that county judges in such. counties should be elected at the first general election after the adoption of township organization, and each second year thereafter. This, in the case cited, is construed to mean “the first general election at which the county officers named are to be elected,” and it is held the general statute, which provided that county officers should be elected in the year 1879, and each second year thereafter, controlled and required the election of county judges under township organization to be held in the odd years. Quoting the constitutional provision relative to the term of county judges, the court then observes: “County judges -were elected in October, 1875, and every second year thereafter until and including 1883. The legislature possesses no power to change the year in which such (flections are to be held, nor shorten the term of office.” It is apparent that this expression as to the effect of the constitutional provision relative to the tenure of office of county judges was given as another reason for construing the statute as the court in that case did. It seems to be conceded by counsel for respondent that this opinion of our own court is opposed to their construction of the constitution, hut it is argued that, in so far as the case may be said to he against them, it is merely'dictum arid without binding force. The language used can hardly be regarded as wholly dictum for the reason above stated. It appears to be the deliberate expression of the court, and, so far as we can observe, a correct construction of the constitutional provision there under consideration.
Chief reliance for authority in support of the validity of the act of the legislature being considered is placed by
6. It is argued by respondents that, because the provisions of the constitution relative to the holding of general elections for judicial officers are found in article XYI, called the “Schedule,” such provisions should be regarded as having been inserted for temporary purposes only, and without permanency of character. These provisions, it is said, are to be held merely as temporary expedients, necessary for the time being, in bridging over the break between the old and the new order of things. The reason for the creation of the “Schedule” is, it is suggested, made manifest in its introductory, wherein it is stated: “That no inconvenience may arise from the revisions and changes made in the constitution of this state, and to carry the same into effect it is hereby ordained and declared.” It
Writ allowed.