*1 C. TURN rel. Richard ex STATE General, Appellee, ER, Attorney COMMISSION HIGHWAY STATE
IOWA Thompson, Derby commissioners, and its Barry, Voorhees, Chairman, Robert Kort Jo Gray Bernard Mercer William Ap Highways, seph Coupal, Director of R. pellants, Schlaegel, Lamborn and Clifton C. A.
Gene Mogged, Intervenors. Charles G.
No. 54152.
Supreme Court Iowa.
April 9, 1971.
Rehearing Denied June
REES, Justice. equity brought This is an action Richard C. on the relation of of Iowa State Turner, enjoin the General, to Iowa, Highway Commission State thereof, members the individual removing Highways, from to' Director of engi- the resident other locations highway by the neers’ offices established The relator General commission. petition asserted the removal engineers’ resident presently established offices would be violation Session, 823,chapter First of House File Sixty-third Assembly (1969). lawyer, Schlaegel, a realtor and A. Gene Iowa, County, taxpayer of Clifton Johnson Lamborn, Senator from 19th C. State Maquoketa, District, like- resident of Mogged, taxpayer, and Charles wise G. Sena- then Senator from Second District, petitions filed of interven- torial allying plaintiff. themselves Septem- petition Plaintiff’s was filed on ber and on the same date an order Clarke, was entered the Honorable Wade District, direct- Judge of Ninth Judicial ing the issuance out of the office of the County of the district court of Polk clerk temporary injunction, enjoin- writ of ing restraining from the defendants removing “permanent engi- presently neers’ offices established Highway Iowa State Commission present until order location further subsequent- this Court.” The defendant ly plaintiff’s peti- filed motions to dismiss tion, temporary injunction, dissolve modify same, which came on for Throckmorton, Parker, Dickinson, Mann- 13, 1969, hearing hear- October Raife, Moines, appellants. heimer for Des & taken, ing evidence was and on October Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard Richard C. defendant’s Judge Clarke overruled Gen., Haesemeyer, appellee. E. for Sol. dismiss, the writ motion to and ordered that injunction theretofore issued should con- Nolan, City, D. .C. for A. Gene and effect for the tinue to be full force Schlaegel Mogged, and Charles G. inter- expressed purpose in the writ. On the same venors. date the court overruled motions Wright, Maquoketa, Goodenow petitions for inter- & defendant to dismiss the Lamborn, Clifton C. Following rulings, intervenor. further vention. such Secretary transmitted issues were to the of State and the pleadings were filed approving excep- on measure with the came same cause thereafter up and made to. tion of 5 above referred the Honorable item hearing trial and before Secretary letter of transmittal Holliday, of the Ninth Judge C. Gibson State, stated, introduced the Governor district. Evidence Judicial *3 the was filed 12, there January and on 1970 approved 823 was “House File June fact, of law conclusions finding court’s exception: am following 1969 the “I the ordered and in which court decree the approve designated unable to item 5 as ‘Sec. issued on theretofore temporary injunction ** hereby S’in disapprove the Act *. I permanent, be made September 1969 item as provided for in the Amendment of them each and that the defendants and the Constitution the State of Iowa enjoined and restrained permanently were adopted in 1968. en- permanent resident removing the from “My following: the action is based the gineers’ presently established on offices Highway function the from The Commission Highway Commission State is to and and court retained construct maintain roads present locations. The in resolving highways the jurisdiction purpose the State of Iowa the most for possible. regarding efficient and effective manner might arise questions later which equipment personnel or the transfer of “Restricting the or relocation of location any moving any of said offices or engineers’ resident offices inhibit the will particular city or of said offices within a operate commission’sefforts to at maximum A for motion clarification town. efficiency. injunction filed defendants was later in minor clarifying Coupal, and an order the same Joseph high- director “Mr. R. subsequently by the respects ways, entered was estimates that this restriction could $100,- court. cost of Iowa an estimated State during 000 the biennium.” Sixty- File 823 of the Acts of the House any made No kind was endorsement of is, Assembly was, ap- third an the bill itself when it transmitted ap- propriation provided It for measure. Secretary by the of State’s office propriations road primary from the fund It was obvious intention of Governor. year highway state for commission each power item the Governor to his exercise and July 1969 beginning biennium File veto as of House ending of funds for adminis- June authority acting under the and support services, develop- tration, planning, part afforded the veto measure Gov- ment, headquarters operations, opera- field so-called veto” amend- ernor “item tions, replacement equipment and additional by vote of the ment to the Constitution is equipment. Section of House File general of the state at elec- electorate follows, as tion November of constitu- 1968. permanent engi- “Sec. resident is question amenda- tional amendment presently by the neers’ offices established Constitution, tory to Article Section Highway shall Commission not be provides, and however, locations; moved from their may governor approve appropria- “The may commission establish more than may and dis- part, bills or in whole temporary engineers’ two offices bill; approve any appropriation item of within state needed.” a law. appoved shall become and disap- appropriation bill passage gen- Any After both houses of the item of an returned, assembly, proved by governor shall be eral bill was submitted to the approval to the house in which objections, his or executive with his for Governor originated, deposited by him action. or shall be On June secretary proposition in the I. in the state In their first office of reversal, they rely an bill for assert submitted defendants approval during beyond governor action matter for jurisdiction days (a) last three a session the General of the court for Assembly, procedure deprived jurisdiction by each case reason 679.19, provided 1966; bills. of section the same (b) shall be the same as other Code party plaintiff defendant; bill Any (c) such item of both notwithstanding authority into law lacks the enacted action; governor’s objections, the same manner General maintain provided bills.” (d) for other the interventions are insufficient jurisdiction. clothe the court with It was established measure—House 679.19, provides: passage 823—after both houses Section File Code *4 Assembly the reached the Gover- General Disputes between governmental "679.19 during days of first the last three the nor agencies. Any litigation adminis- between Sixty-third session of the General Assem- departments, or boards trative commissions deposited with the bly, and then Secre- government of All prohibited. state is the the letter the tary of State with disputes governmental agen- said between days to within above referred cies be submitted to of arbitra- a board shall adjournment Legislature. of the of the of composed tion members of three to be agreement parties The as to seem to be appointed by two the de- members to be us, they exact that the issues before while partments dispute and involved the issues in couch reference to the different appointed gover- third by member to be the agree they that the phraseology seem be nor. of shall The decision the board by mo- issues before the trial made court final.” tion, reply, and which are raised answer and by appeal, this are: highway com That defendant the gov mission is a commission of the State juris- the below had (1) Whether unquestioned. ernment seems be of diction the matter an action of however, General, Attorney status of the by Attorney instituted the the General of so is not relation to section 679.19 against Highway state the State Commis- con readily The defendants determined. sion, director, and and commissioners Attorney is an tend the office General’s plain- side of the on the of the intervenors part of the department, a administrative ; tiff government, of executive branch state Whether the (2) Governor constitution- namely, On Department the of Justice. ally his exercised item veto over hand, ar Attorney the other General 5 of section File 823 of the Acts of office, House gues is not department, that his Sixty-third Assembly; and government, General part branch of of the executive depart judicial but of rather of (3) Whether section 5 File 823 House support his conten ment, urges in of and Acts of the of the is 63rd G.A. constitu- Arti a section the fact of Judicial tional. V, Constitution, Article cle of the his foregoing Judge In addition to the issues which his office. Clarke creates parties agree us, plain- overruling are motion before order defendant’s obviously tiff pre- temporary injunction, asserts is that additional issue dissolve by inadvertence, of appeal: (4) sented a matter concluded as Whether even vetoed, of Attorney if “head effectively had been is the law the General moving there was any Branch Government for Judicial however, Attor highway conclude perma- commission’s Iowa”. We officer; that nent ney judicial not a engineers’ offices. General County is a con- trict court of Marshall his motion his irrespective the fact office permission appear grand for before the and is a creature of stitutional one document, jury county present- and make a organic our Article of Judicial ment of Attorney evidence of commission General posture advocate, certain he of an never crimes in his motion always grand he is re- tended is, would not be made to the stance an arbiter. True duties, jury and quired defining statute therefore interests the State 13, Code, opinions jeopardized. Objections would Chapter to render Iowa however, nature, questions public granting Attorney of a leave “judicial”, appear the term General to and prosecute is not before function grand county generally accepted. filed attor- jury were ney. motion was General’s to conclude be difficult us It would permission sought appear overruled and falls attorney general the office grand jury before the was denied and cer- Code, 679.19, proscription of within the brought. page tiorari was At disputes concerning prohibiting litigation Report page N.W., of 141 departments, com- administrative between said, this court government. the state missions or boards of powers The duties “executive” recognize words statute, are defined and we interchangeable “administrative” *5 Legislature given take it that the has However, attorney gen- the synonymous. by the in powers him statute all the and obvious- eral officer is a constitutional judgment permitted their he ought to be did Legislature in the not ly, judgment, our exercise, they imposed upon and him 679.19, in contemplate the enactment of § which, judgment, all the duties in their Code, should come that executive officers imposed upon should be him as such offi- proscription the of the section. within claimed, however, cer. has It he addition, the matter before us now does powers large are not common-law which controversy dispute or between involve a statute, provided having for in the high- attorney general’s and the office the origin early somewhere in dawn of such, way an involved commission but civilization, revision of but under the question to the manner mode of and 124), defined (section which governor a state an item veto exercising Attorney powers duties and of the then legislative of a therefore measure. We General, ‘The as follows: and which read does attorney general conclude office of Attorney appear shall General purview proscrip- not come within and all prosecute defend suits state and and tion of 679.19 Code. criminal, in proceedings, and and civil party inter- the state shall which have the benefit in this case of requested so when to do ested prepared exhaustive and well and briefs Governor,’ ‘and or other state officers arguments parties. on the both state prosecute and shall defend for Attorney insists he and his General Supreme in all causes Court powers are clothed with office common-law party, interested’— state be a statutory and that even absent specific held had no this has that he court suit, authority to maintain the such com case prosecute and criminal appear permit powers mon-law it. We however Court, except Supreme court question conclude this has been answered him given other because no Bradshaw, Cosson v. 160 Iowa statute.” N.W. and in State ex rel. Fletcher Council, Fletcher, Attorney Executive 207 Iowa N.W. ex rel. General State case, Iowa, Attorney 737. In Cosson the then v. Executive Council the State General, Cosson, George Execu- equity against filed the dis- was an action General, Attorney that of the and likewise the members thereof
tive Council upon the mandate performed who has Highway Commission against the State signal and with purpose with sincere members, him enjoin the enforcement duty re- judicial ability. Nevertheless Chapter comprised legislative act legal he has no say that G.A., quires us to com- the 42nd the Extra Session case, and in this Act, plaintiff standing as a monly as the Road Bond known implying criticism we do this without unconstitu- ground the act was body.” legislative upon him upon to dismiss tional and void. A motion petition predicated upon grounds demur- of this pronouncements judgment, In our filed, pleading of such rer was the substance are deter- and in Fletcher in Cosson court constitutionality being the assertion of the issue, and we reiterate of this minative Legislature the act. The had directed cases, and said principle involved both of Attorney institute an action General to this Attorney hold the General constitutionality. One to test the act’s powers not clothed with common-law State, Chrisinger, a resident maintain this suit. real estate and of an auto- owner of taxable fee, joined license payor mobile and of a Schlaegel, Mogged and II. Intervenors Attorney in the mainte- General taxpayers of Lamborn are citizens and reversing nance the suit. In the district Maquoketa, respectively. City, Fairfield sustaining the to dis- court’s order motion They timely to intervene on petitions filed miss, N.W.) page of 223 (at Rule of the side of under Iowa said, allege grounds Procedure 75. Intervenors allega- against the similar to the defendants procedure adopted
“The herein cannot be peti- tions found General’s approved. presented, As carries tion. aspects some of the a moot one. The legislative call opinion our concluded Since Division I of *6 act, constitutionality to test the of the standing Attorney that the no had General by himself, brought by action overlooked action, bring the to we next consider upon the limitations defendant’s assertion that the intervenors judiciary, quite ignored legitimate and standing plaintiffs. also have no scope powers Attorney of the Gen- is since basic contention the defendants By office, very eral. nature of his existing contemplates an suit intervention statute, by adviser, legal and he is the and competent jurisdiction in a court of both Executive and of the Council ancillary because intervention is to Assembly. require General To him to action, should original cause intervention maintain this put action is to him in a nonexistent not be allowed to revive position repugnant which is to his other Attorney Defend- lawsuit of the General. official Nor the judiciary duties. has Attorney argue ants that because Gen- any power merely of this state to render a action, standing maintain this eral had no to declaratory judgment. juris- We have jurisdiction, subject-matter the court had no diction only justiciable to entertain caus- consequence, the intervention and as a es, prosecuted by 'a litigant, bona fide or revive the intervenors could not bestow private rights whose alleged to Rule R.C.P. subject-matter jurisdiction. invaded an unconstitutional act. We provides, recognize the legislative fact that the call anwas act of judiciary person deference to the “Any interested State, as a department co-ordinate litigation, the success matter of the and in hereby fully action, turn such deference against is party of either to the reciprocated judicial department. any time parties, both intervene legislative manifest, good plain- faith is begins by joining before trial adversity in this Fuller v. standing no lawsuit. have claiming defendant tiff or Cir., Volk, F.2d was a case to both.” plaintiffs, group original necessity, interest, not capacities taxpay- suing in their Sufficient citizens intervene right ers, attempted implementation restrain the test for disadvan desire, advantage nor plan. The desegregation grade-school neither the controlling. parents or defendant in the were whose intervenors tage of 319-320, 122 upon the King, was bottomed 255 Iowa cause of action Price v. is remedial plan dis- proposition desegregation 322. Intervention N.W.2d end liberally against construed them on the basis of criminated should be and more may be reduced The federal court racial classification. litigation that Town of In re original plaintiffs because of determined. dismissed the expeditiously Waconia, 82 N.W.2d than requisite “more 248 Iowa failure show v. State jurisdiction. $10,000” Mechanicsville for federal 765; Town of amount 517, 530, Board, upheld 111 N.W. was appeal original Iowa dismissal Appeal On Nichols, 242 plaintiffs-taxpayers v. 317, 325; Edgington grounds that the 2d 556-557. to make aggregate their claims 49 N.W.2d could appeals jurisdictional amount. The above, the defendants contend As noted the intervenors’ cause court remanded Attorney has no that because General factual determination. action further jurisdiction and has no standing, the court observed the In its discussion the court cause plead the same because intervenors independent good had a cause intervenors they too as the General action they alleged discrimination action for sub- no should be found have basis the intervenors did not race jurisdiction. ject-matter A remand was allege injury taxpayers. necessary appeals because the court policy Keeping mind of rule 75 tell from record whether unable to is, above, provide set out remedial directly had children affected intervenors expedite litigation, relief order to we subsequent desegregation plan. apply find defendants’ do not contentions the intervenors were allowed action specific in this case. issue before us showing tinue directly affected. Fuller children were See We found in that the Division I Volk, D.C., F.Supp. 81. This case capacity his official factually distinguishable one at had standing no to maintain this cause *7 specific holding in Fuller because the bar action based on the Cosson and Fletcher 323, Volk, Cir., relating to the 3 F.2d v. cases, supra. The status of the intervenors get was a remand in order to intervenors They is different. taxpay are citizens and uncertainty In the the factual resolved. plaintiffs ers and their status as is not Volk, in Fuller course of discussion v. type to the same attack on “However, 328, said, supra, at the court standing basis of as was the status pleading has discretion treat Attorney Had the General. intervenors separate action in intervenor as a order brought this original party plain action as might adjudicate that it the claims raised capacities tiffs in their as citizens and tax 329, 323, the intervenor.” At F.2d payers to allegedly illegal restrain use of continued, discretionary “This the court funds, they would proper have stated a procedure properly utilized a case cause of Harding Super action. v. Bd. appears which it that the intervenor has a 560, County, visors of Osceola separate independent juris- basis for 237 N.W. adjudicate diction and in which failure rely Defendants on three federal cases only unnecessary the claim will result support proposition delay.” intervenors Gallion, D.C.,
Robertson F.Supp. p. “Ordinarily intervention cannot by defendants, factually cited is also be used lawsuit, to revive a but a court distinguishable. case, original may In that treat separate intervention as a ac- plaintiff brought tion, alleging an action especially coun- when the intervenor has ty redistricting plan invidiously an independent dis- jurisdiction.” basis for criminatory thereby on its face and that it We therefore conclude that the inter- deprived right him of his to vote. Inter- venors this case have standing to main- alleged essentially venors the same cause tain their cause of action. Our conclu- plaintiffs action and both and inter- sion is based policy on the set out venors were dismissed. The basis Iowa cases interpreting rule R.C.P. dismissal in both instances was that of interpretation issue of the item redistricting statute was not unconstitu- veto important is an matter and to dismiss tional on its face and that no cause this action would not serve the interests action prior could be maintained ato show- of either intervenors or defendants. As ing of depreciation voting rights. actual pointed out, has been policy our on inter- independent, Thus there was good no cause vention is remedial in order to reduce intervenors, of action stated a situ- expedite litigation. To dismiss the ation inconsistent with the case us before intervention contrary would be to our here. policy. law and its holding Our allowing Again, in United States ex Texas rel. standing intervenors maintain Portland Cement McCord, Co. v. 233 U.S. also based on their different status as 34 S.Ct. 58 L.Ed. both the taxpayers compared Attorney original plaintiff and the intervenor were General his capacity. official While qualified special creditors under the the causes Attorney of action stated federal statute involved that case. taxpayers-intervenors General are There independent ground was no for a similar, grounds considering good cause of action that could have been standing to maintain that cause action asserted intervenor because of are not similar. The General's operation of the federal creditor statute cause of action is because our dismissed law, original previously plaintiff. says set out in Division I specific capacity he cannot The federal case, Atkins v. Board maintain such an action. The intervenors Carolina, of Education of North 418 F.2d taxpayers have a different status than 874 (CA-4) is a involving interven- General and that difference tion. supports language set out supports holding the intervenors supra from Fuller v. Volk. the Atkins proper parties in this cause action. plaintiff case the brought an action to require Winston-Salem, North Caro- requir III. ground further As lina Board of provide Education to a ra- reversal, ing defendants contend section cially integrated unitary system. school House File Acts of the 63rd claimed status to maintain Assembly, never became a taxpayer, action because he was a *8 the of statutes because the ve Governor grandparent of attending public children section; said toed 5 was schools and a Negro. The district court appropriation of an bill to found that plaintiff’s the interest in the n condition, proviso veto and was not a or subject matter of the lawsuit insuf- was bill, restriction on the and that the Gov However, ficient to standing. establish properly exer ernor’s veto was plaintiff’s daughter and son-in-law cised. parents who were of children the Win- public Conversely, ston-Salem The plaintiff schools intervened. contends restriction, court allowed the intervention and stated 5 of House File 823 was upon appropriation Highway an The limitation dition or Commission had asked the Assembly bill and not within the appropriation as such was Gov- General for an of that, disapprove, $80,000 pay ernor’s and to moving to the cost of certain be, therefore, not and was of by section 5 could the 48 maintained it as offices resi- not, by constitutionally engineers’ vetoed dent Gov- offices other towns and appropriation specifically ernor. cities. No for purpose by this was covered House File Acts of H.F. 823 of the When 63rd houses, G.A., passed by having been both 20, On 1969the following Governor returned reached the office Governor’s June bill, original House File adjournment as enact- the first session of the ed both Legislature assembly approval of the gubernatorial for houses Secretary veto, with a letter opinion State over signature, requested by which he advised and was Solicitor General he was transmitting approved by the bill whether he could veto him with the orally exception of item or sec- item 5 of H.F. and was advised tion above referred He made opinion of the to. no Gen- any endorsement or writing kind eral section a line item 5 was not of an itself. bill appropriation but was rather a bill condi- appropria-
tion limitation item veto amendment to Article attempted that an veto and 16, of our Constitution has hereto- § contrary item or be section would come judicial fore under scrutiny. our meaning of Article Consti- again Here we are favored with exhaus- tution as amended. No advice tive briefs persuasive arguments by and requested to the manner of exer- parties to appeal. both Both cising an and none item veto was volun- compare and or contrast defendants teered plaintiff. provision item veto of our Constitution provisions “An similar in the House File 823 is entitled Act to constitutions jurisdictions. Appropriate Primary of sister From the Road Fund Highway to the State Commission”. Gen- Either design, circumstance or our erally speaking, provides appropria- for item veto amendment no makes reference primary tions from the road fund appropriations money” provi- “of in its Highway year State for each Commission sions which governor approve enable July beginning biennium appropriation part, bills whole or and ending 1971 of certain June permits and disapproval any “item” administration, support amounts for serv- of an bill. defendants ices, development, headquarters planning call attention that the to the fact Minne- operations, operations, field additional sota and New York Constitutions contain equipment, replacement equipment, provisions permitting item veto “items provides that unless generally otherwise money” does provided primary road fund should Jersey. Constitution plain- of New Both appropriated highway construction. tiff emphasize defendants dis- 823, provides, Section S of H.F.
tinction “item” between words permanent engineers’ “part” “parts” “The appear of- as the same variously fices presently provisions established item veto Highway shall not our Commission be moved Constitution and of the constitutions however, locations, persuaded of sister Com- states. are not mission not more than there is significant establish distinction between *9 temporary engineers’ terms, two among resident of- or these are nor we dis- posed fices within import any the State needed.” to to the word “item” 150 party employed to this in meaning. phraseology such constitution-
technical
Neither
provisions.
questions
823 is
al
appeal
that House File
of
The inclusion
an
act.
By the terms of the recent amendment
it be
in
whether
section 5
the measure
Constitution,
power
to the Iowa
of
“part”
nonetheless
an
or
is
termed
“item”
approval
confined to the
by the
of the bill
enacted
a section
disapproval
or
appro-
of items within an
Assembly.
priation
permit
bill and
does
“item
any
veto”
comparison
feel a
of section
of
The
other measures.
Su-
above,
preme
Lane,
in
which
set out
full
Court
Texas
Fulmore
said,
499, 512,
foregoing
passing
4 is of more than
Tex.
section
S.W.
provides,
interest. Section
“Nowhere
the Constitution is the
authority given
moneys appropriated by
approve
to
“No
this act
the Governor
part
improvements,
capital
disapprove
shall be used for
a bill.
only
authority
pay
but
be used for overtime
additional
to dis-
approving
employees
in technical trades.”
a bill in
that given
involved
whole is
items,
object
to
an
to
item or
where
It should be noted
no
places
section 5
bill contains
appro-
several
items
prohibition against
any moneys
the use of
priation.
conclusively
It
follows
appropriated by
moving
the act
power
where the veto
attempted
permanent
engineers’
pres-
offices
object
exercised to
paragraph
to a
ently
established
the defendant com-
portion
or
of a bill other than an item
language
mission. Had such
as used
items,
or
language
or
qualifying
an
employed
been
S we
appropriation or
directing
method
impelled
view
section 5
uses,
of its
he exceeds the constitutional
proviso
would have
such
been
authority
him,
vested in
objec-
and his
expenditure
condition
paragraph,
portion
such
appropriated,
lacking
funds
but
such
bill, or language
appro-
an
qualifying
phraseology
obviously
is not.
priation,
directing
its
method of
use, becomes noneffective.”
ap-
When
of Iowa in
voters
Our
must
determination
be as to wheth-
proved and ratified the amendment to the
er or not section 5
is in
truth
H.F.
permitted
State Constitution which
and in fact an
feel
“item”. We
it ob-
State’s chief
disapprove
executive
“qualify
appro-
vious section 5 did not
an
any
bill,
item of
Iowa
priation” or “direct the method of
use”
its
became the
incorporate
43rd state
condition,
in no
qualifica-
and is
sense
provision.
constitution an item veto
tion or proviso
expendi-
which limits the
Prior to that time the
Iowa
Governor of
ture
appropriated
the funds
had no
under the Iowa Constitu-
House File 823.
any portion
tion to veto
of a bill. We
have observed above that the constitution-
theory
least
the Governor
al provision known
“item veto
of Iowa does not
to contend with
have
amendment” has not before come to us
so-called “riders”
appropria
attached to
for consideration, and we must therefore
tion bills submitted for
approval
which
look to judicial pronouncements of the
seems to be a
governors
circumstance
courts
jurisdictions
other
in determin-
cope
other states have with.
ing
question
now before us.
Ill,
Constitution,
29, provides,
Art.
“ev
We must also look
the language
ery act shall
subject
embrace but one
the item veto amendments of the other
therewith;
and matters properly connected
42 states which
adopted
have
them and
expressed
shall be
in the
the cases which
interpreted
have
title.” This
appeal
area of the
before
*10
by
legislature and his
originally passed
wish
we
infra, but
be dealt
will
us
thereof,
approval
remaining parts
which
result
view
express
our
to
ex-
under
has
was unauthorized
Wisconsin
governor
a
where
might attend
constitution,
to the
veto
item veto amendment
to
authority
attempting
ceeded
grant of
appro-
because the constitutional
not
is
an
a
which
portion of
bill
a
ap-
appro-
to the
that
to
Governor
portion of an
a
bill
priation
or
prove parts
an
and to
appropriation
“item”
bill
a so-called
than
priation bill other
grant
disapprove parts thereof did not
our Constitution
In
a bill.
of such
approve
appropriation
him to
affirma-
to
require
not
Governor’s
does
a
or
in-
disapprove
proviso
condition
it
a bill before
becomes
approval of
tive
separably
appropriation,
require
law, but, conversely,
connected
does
appropria-
disapprove parts
in ex-
to
disapproval
nor
an
affirmative
Governor’s
necessarily
appropriation.
tion bill
are
an
It
not
power.
ercising the veto
said,
At 260
490 the court
N.W.
should the Gover-
therefore that
follows
at-
authority and
exceed his
of Iowa
nor
“In passing
those contentions we
non-
in a
an item
disapprove
tempt
unnecessary
find it
decide
bill,
disapprove
or to
appropriation
empower-
is
whether the Governor
not
which is
appropriation bill
of an
disapprove
ed
proviso
or condition
“item”,
natural result
of itself an
in an
bill
is in-
would
as a whole
be that
bill
would
separably
appropria-
connected with the
approved
had
though he
law as
become
upon analyzing
tion
the terms
because
affirma-
failed to exercise
had
.or
question
concluded
we
bill
have
disapproval required
our Constitu-
tive
for
that the
hereinafter stated
reasons
tion.
parts
disapproved
which were
provisos
Governor were
condi-
not
consti-
“item”
used
The term
inseparably
tions which were
connected
states
several
tutional amendments
appropriation.
they
If
had been
appro-
portion
of that
is definitive
decision
ex rel. Teachers
em-
is
priation bill which the Governor
Holder,
158,
& Officers v.
Miss.
by his
powered
the bill
to sever from
support
23 So.
would afford
generally
have
disapproval. The courts
However,
plaintiff’s
contention.
is
agreed that
the Governor
limited
parts
view of our
conclusion
vetoing
specifically appropriating
items
objected
were not
Governor
conditions,
money
placing
least
re-
at
provisos
inseparably
conditions
thereof.
provisos
the use
strictions or
nected to the
there re-
appropriation,
Dodson,
v.
176 Va.
Commonwealth
plaintiffs
mains the
contention
“item”
S.E.2d
term
authority granted
under
Virginia
as used in the
State Constitu-
5, Wis.Const.,
respect
ap-
art.
to an
may be
“something
tion is
be
said to
propriation bill,
empower
not
does
affecting
taken out
bill without
to disapprove parts
thereof
purposes
provisions.
It
some-
other
appropriation.
that are not an
That the
bodily from it
thing which can be lifted
bill
is an
bill within
than
damage
rather
cut out. No
can
term,
meaning of that
in sec-
used
tissue,
surrounding legislative
done to the
Wis.Const.,
ques-
art.
nor
scar
there-
should
tissue result
hand,
tioned.
On
other
the words
from.”
provisions
used in the
of that section
parties
Both
cite us
ex rel.
to State
action,
which are
in this
involved
so
Telephone
Henry,
Wisconsin
Co.
plain
unambiguous,
insofar as the
Henry
Wis.
152 in pieces legislation history par separable nature of the enact of veto Interesting Legisla- an bill. As the power. appropriation
tial veto and excel matters, state, in are lent those ture that there as well can do discussions of in have pernicious practices why as the and evils should reasons power partial veto, to legis connection the enactment a of coextensive lation, pass, in which have resulted constitu enable in the exercise him to function, provisions, under which the exec each quasi legislative tional his on on enlarged separable legislation was in power piece utive veto or law necessary partial a in some right clude the veto its That is not own merits. they in v. respect, many found Fairfield in have will be states because Foster, 146, 319; provisions prohibit 214 25 Ariz. P. Com stitutional which Barnett, Legislature passing monwealth rel. Elkin v. 199 a which ex bill 884; 976, 882, subject. Pa. 55 L.R.A. than Wis- 161, 48 A. more one contains 293, Riley, however, 192 219 P. consin, prohibi- Wood v. Cal. has no such Russel, 304, 966; private Ill. 110 bills Fergus except v. 270 and local as Ann.Cas.1916B, 18, 1120; (article as Wis.Const.). N.E. As far Holder, general concerned, Leg- ex rel. & legislation Officers v. Teachers supra; Lane, many may, pleases, Fulmore v. 104 Tex. it islature if unite as 405, 1082; Porter, subjects Mills in S.W. v. bill as it chooses. There- one 592; fore, Mont. prevent 222 P. 35 A.L.R. order to check or Forsyth, State ex consequences rel. v. evil of improper joinder, Jamison Wyo. 359, 521; People far, least, 133 P. ex rel. so bills at as Churchyard concerned, Board of may Councilmen well have been necessary, 51. It is (Super.Buff.), 20 N.Y.S. true deemed in the good interest of states, permit most of the which government, to confer the Gover- partial commonly nor, veto, language was done the amendment 5, Wis.Const., used provisions constitutional autho art. rizes every the exercise the right independently of such executive to pass disapproval only as separable piece ap- to one or more of of legislation in an ‘any propriation ‘items’ or appropria item of bill.” embracing tion’ of an bill An excellent exhaustive treatise distinct items.” on the item amendment veto to the Iowa Constitution is found in Volume Drake And, at page Report- 260 N.W. Review, page Law page 245. At er, the Wisconsin court went say, on to observe, the author was moved to Henry case, “It probable would seem should may “It well be that section art. Legislature attempt the Iowa to coerce 5, Wis.Const., not was intended to em- approving Governor into a lump sum Governor, vetoing parts appropriation by combining purpose and of an appropriation bill, to dissever or amount, interpret the court would dismember single piece legislation liberally term preserve ‘item’ severable, which is not so as to leave purpose of item veto amendment.” £he merely provisions which are not a com- of the author observation plete or subject fitting separate Law Review above article referred to enactment Legislature. Although indeed prophetic. adopt We do such an intended, have been there interpretation “item”, term nothing in provision which war- conclude that section 5 of 823 was H.F. rants the inference or conclusion that gubernatorial item item veto. the Governor’s power partial veto was not intended to be as coextensive We further hold the veto the Gov- Legislature’s join ernor and the manner he exer- purposes transmitting the funds for the and uses referred same, namely, cised sepa- pur- Had section 5 of Act. Secretary State with bill condition, disapproval pose pro- as a restriction or his indicating letter rate indicating accomplished by specific viso been drafts- proper method item 5 was a manship, 4 of the same vetoing was section disapproval in *12 Act, then it indicate of course could not have been authority which would find no germane said 5 was one. not to the proper not a procedure such bill general subject matter of the itself. and fur additional As an IV. sub-proposition might A be deem- reversal, the de ground justifying ther ed proposition collateral to the urged sec that proposition fendants advance any 5 H.F. section of 823 is event is unconstitutional tion 5 of H.F. 823 unconstitutional is advanced defend- event; have the defendants any argument ants that there are no constitutionality challenge the standing to “permanent” engineers’ offices they fact that it, irrespective of Highway maintained the Iowa Commis- statute; violating the charged novo, sion. is de As our review here we part not if sec. H.F. 5 of 823 attempted have to the record in interpret Art. it bill violates of particular. say this it fair feel to We Constitution; and Ill, 29 of the Iowa commission, highway the witness an unconstitution that sec. 5 create would Highways, Coupal, the Director of Mr. Fund. Primary Road al diversion of the engineer’s indicated that no resident office way By of to the contentions refutation designated permanent had been op- defendants, asserts posed other office which had been unconstitutionally vague, is5 not designated temporary. This evidence defective, indefinite or uncertain. reference, therefore, not refuted. A in section of H.F. 5 823 to removal of concluded, sec- As we have hereinbefore permanent engineers’ offices the ab- appro- is a of an tion 5 of H.F. 823 guidelines accepted sence identifying necessary bill, priation we deem do appear meaningless them would be un- unduly. proposition to belabor this “presently less reference to those es- identify might tablished” be construed said have often the Constitution permanent the existing offices all as of- liberally be one Act should construed so fices. we do Such construction not feel reasonably all embrace matters under the record made would realistic. subject expressed with the nected thereto, utterly incongruous title and not disposed find We are not section 5 every doubt must reasonable of H.F. for having 823 unconstitutional constitutionality. be resolved favor multiple subject embraced matter in its Enterprises, Tax Lee Inc. v. Iowa State context. 730, 737, (Iowa), N.W.2d Commission cited; Long therein v. Board and cases proposition The last V. for our County, Supervisors of Benton plain attention here that raised 1278, 1283, 381; Iowa N.W.2d appropriated tiff that no funds were Rapids Independent Dist. Cedar School defray expense moving resident en Comm., Security Employment Iowa gineers’ refer again offices. We 1301, 1313, N.W.2d undisputed testimony of the Director Highways effect that under legislature may intended to have condition, department for the personnel make of section 5 H.F. 823 provided a fund was tti which commis expenditure proviso limitation or on the defray sion it in no have resorted would and enacted funds but as drawn expense moving employees. We feel appropriated way restricted the use plain- part of the contention on the is without merit. tiff orders, judgments decrees continuing trial force ordering
temporary injunction writ temporary injunction perma- be made
nent are therefore reversed.
Reversed. concur, except BECKER
All Justices RAWLINGS, spe- JJ., who concur
cially. BECKER, (concurring special- Justice
ly). opinion all majority
I concur
points except ruling relation to standing General’s to sue. view, pro-
my Code, 13.2(2) statutory At- for the authorization
vides
torney institute action General to the in- type judgment,
this “when in requires action.” such
terest special
RAWLINGS, J., joins
concurrence.
Raymond J. Louise THORNBERRY and Thornberry, Appellants, BOARD
STATE OF REGENTS the State Iowa, Iowa, Appellees. State of
No. 54322.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 9, 1971.