*1 \r\ 'O
triсt must be approved by both school districts. Act designed to circumvent that law.
The chancellor held that this was local and special legislation agree I with that decision. I would affirm the decree. Rose Smith JJ., join in this dissent.
Georse Mays, F. WELLS, et al v. John Paul RIVIERE, Secretary of State of the STATE of Arkansas 80-100 S.W. 2d Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered June *3 Lane, F. appellants. for James Gen., Clark, Meeks, Atty. by: Steve Deputy Atty.
. Russell Gen., appellee. *4 'Williams, W. Wright, Lindsey & in- Jennings, for J.
tervenor, Harvey. Robert question The presented by this Justice. Darrell Hickman, appeal concerns authority constitutional Arkansas General Assembly to act after a regular 60-day ses- issue, sion. In order to it is neces- properly examine that sary in to relate in and proceedings detail the the trial court the undisputed facts.
This began Chancery suit Court of Pulaski Coun- F. ty. lawsuit, Wells filed taxpayers individually and John Arkansas, on of the Independent behalf Voters of Inc. against Riviere, Paul Secretary Arkansas State. sought Wells proceeding Riviere from injunction prevent place an amendments on proposed constitutional the ballot three November, the General Election of 1980. proposed
The three constitutional amendments relate to (Senate property assessment of taxation Joint 1), (House 9, usury Resolution and the Resolution Joint (House and venue jurisdiction of Arkansas courts Joint 10.) Resolution Harvey, taxpayer, was allowed to intervene Robert support validity property assessment taxa- amendment, tion Senate Resolution Joint
The parties stipulated facts, to the relevant par- and all ties filed summary motions for judgment. The chancellor found that the proposed three amendments to the Constitu- tion had properly been adopted denied the request injunction. for an
There are procedural no problems with this case. The appellants have right taxpayers prevent to sue as il- CONST, legal 16, exaction. Ark. art. The chancellor § 13. had jurisdiction. also question
The to us is one of the constitutional granted to the legislative branch of government. Arkansas CONST, The General Assembly is authorized Ark. art. 22 to propose amendments to the Constitution. However, the proposed amendments cannot exceed three in number and approved must be by a majority of the members of each house at a regular session of the Assembly. appellants argue since the proposed amendments were approved not at a regular session, they were legally proposed and should not be certified to the votеrs approval rejection.
There are two kinds of sessions of the General Assembly in Arkansas. A regular biennial session of the CONST, provided for Ark. art *5 §§ 5 and 17.
The other session of the Assembly General by authorized the Arkansas Constitution is one convened CONST, governor on extraordinary 6, Ark. occasions. art
161 168, (1967). It 2d 284 v. 242 Ark. S.W. Jones, Purcell § 19- special in a session Assembly was not that the General agreed is amendments. approved proposed it the three when Assembly Seventy-Second General are that the The facts 8, January on session regular at its Arkansas convened convened, Resolution Senate Concurrent After it 1979. session. sixty-day regular extending adopted was it that Assembly found the General provided that resolution introduced all the measures to consider impossible would be and, therefore, regular an extension of sixty days within limit the extension. nо time necessary. There was session was recessed; it 1979, 4, the General April On 20th, by Con- 20, Senate April On April on reconvened 1979- recessed 92, session regular Resolutions current January, until for months 1981. five actually provides Resolution Concurrent
Senate ex- Assembly had First, it confirmed things, may it Second, says that it indefinitely. itself tended Third, it purposes. for limited May on reconvene January, Monday the second 1980. may it reconvene says provisions, three notwithstanding these other Fourth, says, General Seventy-Second That January, Monday until the second extended is Seventy- Assembly, General the next day that is the same by providing concludes Third, The resolution convenes. the Presi- Representatives the Flouse Speaker Seventy- may reconvene the Senate tern of pro
dent joint time their Assembly at Second proclamation. regard in eaсh
The actual of the resolution language follows: extension,
First, the indefinite regarding WHEREAS, Seventy-Second session of the indefinitely extended in the has been
manner authorized . . . Arkansas Constitution [Emphasis added.]
Second, regarding reconvening Assembly May: Notwithstanding provisions
SECTION other of this 3. Resolution, Seventy-Second Assembly may Wednesday, May be reconvened on the by joint proclamation Speaker of the of the Represen- House' of tatives and the President Tem the Pro Senate declar- ing the need for such reconvened session. In the absence proclamation, of such the Seventy-Second General Assembly shall continuein provided recessas this Resolution. [Emphasis added.]
Any session pursuant reconvened to this Section shall purpose be for the sole of: (1) correcting going errors to the validity of bills pаssed prior recess, to the
(2) appropriate action on fiscal including matters bills, bills, but not limited to appropriation revenue purchasing and accounting procedures, and revenue allocation, classification (3) reconsideration parts of bills or disap- of bills proved by Governor,
(4) select, referral of matters standing, special or committees or to Interim Committees for ac- Joint study, tion or
(5) matters of and procedures. rules Upon recess of a session reconvened pursuant this Section all then pending business in committee or on the calendar nullity, shall except become a proposed amendment of the Arkansas Constitution previously adopted by except both houses and matters of and proce- rules dures. January, 1980: reconvening
Third, relating of this provisions Notwithstanding other *7 SECTION Assembly shall General Seventy-Second Resolution, the 1980, un- January, Monday in the second on reconvene and the Representatives of House of the Speaker less the proclamation by joint the Senate Tem of Pro President requiring matters no substantive are there that declare Assembly. General Seventy-Second the of the attention President and the House of Speaker the that event In the no need there is determine the Senate Tem of Pro General Seventy-Second the reconvening of for 1980, the January, in Monday the second on recess continue Assembly shall General Seventy-Second added.] [Emphasis herein. provided otherwise the General 1 declares Fourth, Section General Seventy-Third the day that same until the recessed It reads: Assembly is convened. mutually day aon of business At the close 1.
SECTION Representatives of House agreed Seventy-Second Resolution, the to this pursuant Senate Mon- the second recess until Assembly shall stand General time, the conven- prior which at January, day in Assembly, Speaker General Seventy-Third ing of Pro the President Representatives House of the General Seventy-Second Senate of Tem of die, sine respective bodies their adjourn Assembly shall shall, at General Seventy-Second unless for date earlier thereof, on an decide earlier session added.] [Emphasis adjournment. die sine reconven- regarding Fifth, the resolution language of any time at reads: ing Assembly, Seventy-Second SECTION 5. by joint time at reconvened recess, bemay
standing President the House Speaker proclamation majority aof address by joint the Senate tem of pro Seventy- house to each elected the members added.] Assembly. [Emphasis Second 164
Apparently the General Assembly did not reconvene in May as provided Section 3. It did reconvene in January, and at that “session”
adopted the three proposed amendments in question. After
adopting these proposals, it recessed again, still
adjour
ning sine die. It is still in an “indefinite recess” or “indefinite
ly extended” until January,
Was
the “session” in
January, 1980, a regular session, a lawful extension of a
regular session? If it
not,
was
proposed
amendments were
not properly adopted
a legislature
because
cannot enact
legislation after the expiration of its
State,
session.
ex rel Heck’s
Center,
Discount
Inc. v. Winters, W.
Va. 861,
S.E.
2d
(1963).
also,
See
Dillon v. King,
Assembly shall meet at the seat of government every two years on the first Tuesday after the second Monday in November [second Monday in January] until said time be altered by law. The duration of such a session is controlled by 5, Article 17,
§ which reads: — Section 17. Duration of sessions. The regular biennial session shall riot exceed sixty days in duration, unless a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of said General Assembly. . . .
A fair reading of the Constitution cannot mean that the General Assembly can legally extend a session indefinitely for no valid legislative purpose, nor indefinitely go into a recess so that it may later reconvene itself and conduct its business as though it were a regular session. On the hand, other there is doubt, no two-thirds
vote of the of members the General Assembly, a regular ses- sion can be lawfully extended beyond the sixty days of a
ON KJ\ question CONST, a It is 5, 17. § art Ark. session. lawful. is an act such whether toas fact the Arkansas provisions relevant all When prohibits Constitution together, read are Constitution case. it did what doing legally Assembly from General shall biennial “The says: 5, Article 5, provides 5§ Article duration.” sixty days exceed years. every two meeting of convene governor 6, gives Article § 19 are Those extraordinary occasions. Assembly on the sessions limiting provisions Constitutional lawfully ex- session, unless 60-day one biennial Assembly to said: supra, we Jones, v. Purcell In tended. Constitu application
... a rule of universal It is that, at get whole, considered must be tion light in the it, read we must any part meaning of shir Ches subject. the same relating to provisions of other The Constitut 2d S.W. Ark. Copeland, v. sense to the according be construed tion v. Rankin of its authors. intention and the usеd terms 2d 646. S.W. 224 Ark. Jones, *9 its Assembly sees that the General There is no doubt at available it to be requiring times in these modern duty But that belief state. this the business to handle all times Arkansas’ 1874 circumvention realized cannot be Constitution. work Assembly great deal of its
The General does Council, which Legislative and the its through committees prac- With year. general this throughout regularly meet However, of the a session quarrel. legal there is no tice involving the function essentially is one necessarily it legislation; involves considering passing regard that government, branch of legislative entire meeting limits the Constitution can be extended biennial that to a — legislation. passing work legislative on finish The General Assembly found on April 1979, in its resolution approving recess, indefinite it had completed its business. That resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, begins:
WHEREAS, the Seventy-Seсond has completedits business-, essential . . . [Emphasis added.] Thereafter, Resolution approved Senate Concurrent Resolutions which we quoted have entirety. almost If we were to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution and actions of the General Assembly in case, on these facts, we would be holding that the General Assembly can ex- tend itself indefinitely, meet at any times, and all monthly, biannually or annually any for and all reasons. The General Assembly simply does not have power under the Arkan- Constitution; sas Arkansas’ Constitution contemplates General Assembly will convene once every years, two meet days, or longer if necessary, but finish its buisness and go home. Only the executive branch of government granted the authority to reconvene the General Assembly if it becomes necessary.
Also, too many of рrovisions of the Constitution would become meaningless if the General Assembly could act as it proposes. For example, only the governor has the authority to call the General Assembly into session after a regular session. is an That important power constitutional granted to the executive branch of the government. It would become meaningless if the General Assembly could any meet time chose and call it a regular session. The provision same that authorizes the governor to convene a special session of the General Assembly does grant the General Assembly the authority to remain in session for no more days, than 15 after it has finished with the governor’s business. That is a grant of power to the General Assembly to check abuse of by the executive branch in calling a special session.
The apрellee, and especially intervenor, the argue that Resolution left open question the 91 of a constitutional amendment regarding property and, therefore, taxation the Assembly consider to properly arguments General could in in It that such meeting argued is Constitution at the time the General subject pending legislation a was Assembly lawfully and that it at recessed could be considered a later time. It is true that houses of the General both Assembly had amendment approved proposed a to Arkansas regarding property Constitution taxation. However, it at same time is conceded there had no been joint approval any of other usury amendments. jurisdiction court amendments were first approved both in January, houses proposed even the amendment regarding taxation, it property finally as was in approved January, 1980, a different proposal was than that approved during regular back in session A in vague reference 1979- Resolution referring any jointly to approved proposed amendments enough justify is not to holding that the meeting Assembly of the General of a lawful was a extension of regular That session. is too small a nail upon hang which to such a If large cloak. claim, Resolution is anything, is is a clearly staked out General that it can meet any at time and consider subject matter that it deems proper. Such a posture, if approved, would a strike serious blow to checks and balances that e-xist Arkansas government, severely limiting the authority constitutional the executive branch government. Consequently, we can- accept not argument light of all the language other in Resolution 91. authority unduly limit mean to
We do not recess, reconvene as adjourn or go into clear. That is necessary finish its business. — — we not Assembly decides essentially And whether an extension its business it has finished whether But even a conceded required. session is aWhile manner. in an unconstitutional can exercised be legali- strong presumption a creates declaration legislative facts by objective can be rebutted ty, presumption Are there sufficient with a declaration. such are inconsistent purpose had find that the General to' facts support find evidence We do 20 months? recessing for Resolu- Concurrent Senate example, purpose. For such Assembly determined tion 14 the *11 168 regular it its extended in order for to finish
had to be session, it Then, in staying regular than the rather business. Assembly into a go the would decided that General was What could the General 20 months. action recess for had January, pending in All business Assembly take 1981? con- except proposed a reference to been declared void may that have houses. passed amendments both stitutional up have taken proposed amendments could not been Such beyond time the election which would that is a because 1981 n decide Consequently, what validity the of such amendments. Assembly recessing had in the General have purpose could it might that While Resolution declared be for months? 1980, at necessary May January, to reconvene of 1979 May only the same time the session could be convened Representatives the of the House of and the Speaker order of Senate, January, pro President tem of the ses- declared the would held unless those same officials sion be Assembly unnecessary. On the onе hand session meet, it it for 20 months. declares that needs to then recesses Assembly it hand the General declares that has On other business, that it argues pen- finished its essential but now has any the 20- during that it can consider at time ding business any argued it is that constitutional month recess. Now reference was made amendments can considered because be pending All matters passed to those that had both houses. voided, may subjects it new be ad- argued were but now is only argument dressed. Such an can be based on broad lánguage Resolution 91. Assembly,
The intent from all gathered evidence, legally attempt is that it did recess or to ex- not im- tend a finish Most regular regular session to business. Assembly the General to recess for portant, attempt months, power any to call itself back at time reserving concept, any pur- That is the without real any purpose. the General pose, exceeds constitutional —the claim the right to extend a to recess reconvene for reason necessary. later deems We can conclude that actions January, during not of the General were lawful extension of a session. whether us of question have the before
We do May, meet in legislature lawful for have been would matters legislation and consider proposed, itas *12 sup- would The facts in Resolution in detail were set out What we have Assembly. by the General action such port the pursuant called year the next meeting us is before in Resolution language other 91- House, which is affidavit, the by Speaker the
In an Seventy- of the record, that committees it is stated part of handling in actively engaged Assembly are General Second others, are fact, аs well as and this matters legislative its of- completed Assembly had not evidence that the General as the same is not ficial through business. Work committees its in when all Assembly a session by General work present. authorized to be present are members facts, all the we can conclude When we review was not and the by appellee claimed lawfully to as extended intervenor. cause,
Finally,
good
it was
with
contemplated,
by
change
proposals made
Time is
proposed
Constitution would be
at
session.
published
important
an
factor. Those amendments must be
general
in
at
in advance of the
newspapers
least six months
Const,
19, 22.
Ark.
art
election.
We do not even
that we
imply
have
Assembly,
legislative
dictate to the General
of this
branch
government,
proceeds
state
how
It can
about
business.
Purcell,
it pleases.
Wellsv.
Ark.
S.W.
convene
However,
(1979).
2d 100
whether its acts are lawful is a matter
Supreme
for this court. That was decided
the United States
in
in
opinion
Court
written
Chief
Marshall
Justice John
Madison,
Marbury
(1803).
v.
Our Constitution a deal say has to about the enact- laws, ment which legislative power. of exercise of No láw passed except by shall be No law bill. bill shall become a unless it in enacting passed has clause and is a certain way. All subject governor’s bills are to the and possi- veto to approval disapproval by popular ble or referendum. make, alter,
The General Assembly’s power to and repeal case; laws in presump- is not even involved this sо the legislative authority tion of has with nothing ques- to do simply interpreting tion. We are that in the part language of Constitution which creates the of state govern- framework —ment of here the The authors legislative branch. language imaginable Constitution declared the clearest that the General every years. shall meet two session, 60-day that the regular may ex- vote, tend the two-thirds and that between governor may legislators sessions the call the special into session. The language of Constitution is so plain really if, it interpretation. needs no But dis- of the decision argue, opinions senting then power, legislative of an exercise indefinitely is to recess of interpreter final Assembly has become Constitution. dissenting concurring part; Justice, Purtle, I. John to important extremely here are presented, The issues part. Having precedent no Arkansas. of the state of
every citizen com- only our with left we are opinion, our guide to law case natural It is reason. power to our and mon sense importance of such in matters opinion of there are differences courts. interpreted been previously which have for this logical and basis a rational to set forth In order begin is best I believe dissenting opinion, concurring of Arkan- the State of the Constitution with the Preamble which sas states: Arkansas, grateful the State of
We, people own form choosing our privilege for the God Almighty liberty, religious civil and our government, the same and secure blessings desiring perpetuate and establish ordain posterity, do to ourselves Constitution. in Art. Consti- is described source Arkansas:
tution of *14 govern- and people in the inherent power All- political security and protection, their for ment benefit; is instituted alter, to reform or right and have they they may think in manner as such the same abolish proper. were establish- departments government separate
The 4 1 as in Art. follows: by people § ed the State of government of Arkansas The power departments, three each of into distinct divided shall be body magistracy, to separate confined be to them one, legislative are to those which which Those to-wit: another, are executive judicial those which are to another. governmental the three separates
The next constitution any persons one by person or departments prohibiting department exercising any power inherent either from departments. Naturally, the other two Art. legislative powers granted by people rest the Senatе Representatives. ex- legislative, House of Neither judicial have departments granted ecutive or not them, people, constitution amendments thereto.
The people through declared Art. that the regular 17§ legislature biennial session of the shall not exceed days un- less such session is extended a two-thirds vote of each Assembly. house of Several other specific restric- However, tions were expressly provided. plain reading of clearly the constitution demonstrates the people did in- tend the General Assembly to remain in session years. for two It apparent is likewise people reserve to themselves right to change the they constitution as think proper. Up until this time the citizens have fit not seen to change the con- stitution to require or allow the remain to. in permanent doubt, session. No the people anticipated the possible need for sessions of the General Assembly between sessions; and, purpose, they wisely provided for extra sessions Art. through which states: § 19 may, Governor by proclamation, on extraordinary
occasions convene the General Assembly . . . and he shall . specify . . the purpose for which they are conven-
ed .. . after which they may, by a vote of two-thirds of all the . . . members remain in session not exceeding fifteen days.
This being a case of impression, first we should face the issue squarely and use our common sense trying to inter- pret the intent of the people when they adopted the constitu- tion. Obviously, the voting citizens expected the General Assembly to complete its business on the basis *15 aof biennial 60-day regular It session. apparent also that thе people the General when times might be there realized allotted; days the 60 within its work complete could not session. extending the for provision the therefore, they added necessary time the intended for was doubt, the extension No the General before pending then the business complete to the General expected people the It seems obvious Assembly. pending all completion of after die sine adjourn Assembly to business. to granted powers into the read to unreasonable It is not adequate afford to recess to right the branch legislative
the com- intelligently necessary to the materials prepare to time hint slightest the is not There business. any pending plete session again” again”/“off “on intended people the that expec- the with It was entire biennium. the over extending adjourned stand Assembly would General the that tation given was the Governor its business completion after Otherwise, there Assembly. General the authority to convene power. this the Governor grant to no need have been would special the to attached was then, safety valve Even and, Governor; the be called might which sessions remain to right the special session the valve allowed safety extraordinary Governor’s of the expiration the after session the desired people Had the days. period of for completion after remain recess Assembly to sim- easy and have been would business, matter this pending state. ple to the reserve people opinion, in this earlier As noted In proper. deem they the constitution change to
right provided idea, Art. furtherance three consti- to up propоse authority to with The General session. a regular during amendments tutional but change constitution empowered not was the considera- changes suggest merely empowered was realized people Subsequently, people. tion changes all propose possibly Assembly could therefore, amend- needed; were thought public general This adopted was the constitution VII to ment utilized to be procedure specifically provided amendment constitution. changes in proposing people *16 Amendment VII provided also a means for the people to ratify reject or by actions taken the General Assembly. The referendum part of amendment VII part: states in
. . . petition Such shall be filed with the Secretary of State not later than ninety days after the adjourn- final ' ment of the session at which act such passed, was except when a or adjournment recess shall be taken temporari-
ly for a longer period than ninety days; . . . It appears the people had realized the General Assembly may need to period recess for a in excess of days. Neverthe- less, it is still they expected obvious recess up to the day before the commencing of the next assembly could allow a petition referendum filed in be March of on a measure enacted in January of 1979. Such results clearly were not intended nor envisioned people of Arkansas when they adopted the constitution and amendment VII. The 72nd General Assembly convened on January 1979, and remained continuous 4,1979- session until April At it
that time recessed until April 20, 1979, and on day this it convened and recessed until January After meeting 1980. days for ten rеcessed, then January 17, on 1980, until January Thus, we see the 72nd General Assembly has had or will have had at least four sessions during the two years for which it was elected. If the legislature has this power, it has the power to convene and recess as often itas desires for the years. entire two
I feel the majority opinion would in some instances thwart the intent of the framers of the constitution in allowing a reasonable extension of a session in order to allow for ade- quate preparation for completion of exceptional matters which sometimes confront the General Assembly. Although it is unusual to allow long recess as as the one under con- sideration, it is not beyond reason. Therefore, I would hold under exceptional circumstances and for good cause shown a recess of several is months not absolutely beyond the limitations of the present constitution. to indicate intended is opinion in this Nothing the activities control supervise has
Court opinion, majority in the is, as stated It legislature. taken actions certain validity of to determine effort that there seriously argued cannot be Assembly. It it can- *17 Assembly, authority of the limit to the no authority or power the limit to that there no argued not be All government. the of judicial branches or executive the of the people to whatever limited are branches three subsequent the in the constitution them delegated to amendments. special sessions regular limits on the
By placing the by intent was no there it Assembly, is obvious the General ses- in continuous to remain legislature permit the to people in- do not changes for constitutional proposals Present sion. en- for the in session them to remain for any provisions clude in- that the clear indications me, are these To tire biennium. Assembly enough the General to allow was of the people tent it at a before pending matters on all complete action time to session. regular to would be interpretation logical
A reasonable and a extend Assembly to the General allow A business. pending necessary complete to time period the to allow be would procedure necessary incident to or a committee allow time needed to period for a recess complete to needed information to obtain committees assembly upon acted the entire before proposals pending matters. above, hold I would expressed the ideas to
In adherance its within acting Assembly was the General which proposal tax study property a recess declaring fact Assembly. The 72nd at was before change did not recess after the modified was proposal doubt, was, no There business. pending nature of the General members among concern general decision Court Supreme recent of a results Assembly as to information Obviously, more taxes. property relating to people. proposal a sound present were needed to time else, submitted someone Assembly, or Unless acceptable proposal, this property tax matter would have been left to the local authorities.
If Supreme Court decision had the in- effect of creasing the county, city, taxes, and school district this in- crease would be determined the local authorities whether accept thе higher rates change them because they have If, the power to do so. for example, a county had over the years paid only part present legal obligation, its taxes would be raised to the standards set the constitution and with a combined vote of the local taxing On authorities. hand, other if another county had been paying more than its taxes, share of the it would be free to vote the rate lower to whatever level it deemed Thus, proper. the taxing authority would have been left primarily to local control itas related to property taxes. *18 Applying this line of reasoning to the other two
proposals, and I would 9 hold these proposals HJR HJR were outside the authority the of General Assembly to con- sider at the session or prior to the next regular session in January These two proposals 1981. were not pending before the General Assembly when it discon- tinued to meet in the regular session. Neither as items to be considered at some later date. they were listed
Intervenor, taxpayer Harvey, correctly contends that 1 was a matter of business pending at the SJR time of the recess. He correctly insists it was within the scope the un- of finished business and a proper therefore matter to consider after the unusually long it Although recess. the rule stretches of reasonableness almost to the breaking point, I would agree with Harvey, court, trial 1 was a proper and SJR legal subject for legislative consideration and would allow to be considered at the next general election. To allow 10 to be considered would be HJR HJR in violation of the idea that the must ad- journ sine die after completion of all pending business. To allow new matters to be considered when the was for recess the purpose of gathering additional information and material ses- a continuous allow would matters pending complete to entire biennium. for the sion 1 but toas the trial court
Therefore, affirm I would SJR as to reverse HJR HJR I dissenting. believe Justice, Chief A. Fogleman, John only when well It works checks and balances. system of the three between the boundaries final of arbiter my majority, itself. The checks government of
departments it, instead, judicial branch I that; see view, doing is not the domain upon to encroach itself permitted has question oPdeciding branch, to the extreme even legislative by that determination fact, independent which was for ques- by approaching error fell into majority The branch. duty of it was assumption that the mistaken upon tion authorized what constitution dеtermine this court deter- is to duty of this The court Assembly to do. implica- constitution, by clear expressly or mine whether it did it did. I submit doing what tion, it from prohibited Mr. Stroud. opinion of not, dissenting in the join Iso Justice majority opin- The dissenting. Justice, F. Stroud, John of the con- us is one question “The erroneously states ion branch legislative granted stitutional grant of a not one question government.” Arkansas power. rather, there is limitation whether power, but v. Mar- Bush clearly expressed in rule was This fundamental the court said: (1927) when tineau, 214 Ark. S.W. 9 *19 grant of not State is . . . of this Constitution [T]he enabling, Legislature, powers to enumerated 629), Gordon, Ark. v. 27 restraining act but {Straub powers exercise may Legislative rightfully that the of and restrictions the limitations subject the State of States and the United Constitution Arkansas. followed has been premise basic constitutional
This 1 Ark. Ashley, v. 513 State statehood. throughout оur this court Austell, v. 45 (1872); Vance Gordon, Ark. (1839); Straub v. 27 625 513, Dist., Ark. Levee (1885); v. St. Francis 59 Ark. Carson 400 178 (1894); S. 27 S.W. Louis, 590 I.M. & S. Ry. State, Co. v. Ark. 99 1, (1911); Butler S.W. Board, 136 etc., v. 938 100, Ark. 99 137 S.W. (1911); Connor v. Blackwood, 251 139, Ark. 176 2 S.W. 2d
44 (1928); Adams v. Spillyards,
641,
Ark.
187
Five months ago, this court again reiterated the proposi- Purcell, tion v.Wells 456, Ark. 267 S.W. (1979): 2d 100 592
It always must be remembered that the state’s constitu tion is neither an enabling act nor a grant of enumerated powers, and the legislature may rightfully exercise the power of the people, subject only to restrictions and limitations fixed the constitutions of the United States and this state. Mears, v. 825, Ark. 256 Jones 510 857; S.W. 2d St. L.I.M. & Ry. S. State, Co. v. Ark. 99 S.W. Under our system 938. of government legislature represents the people and is the reservoir of all power not relinquished to the government federal prohibited by the state constitution. v. Hogue, Rockefellеr 1029, 429 Ark. 85; Hackler S.W. 2d Baker, v. Ark. S.W. 2d To determine if the three proposed constitutional amendments were validly adopted by the Arkansas General Assembly at the extended session of the legislature in January requires a review of the provisions relevant of the Arkansas Constitution and cases them. construing
Article of5 the Constitution establishes the Legislative Department as a separate and independent branch govern- ment. In article, § 5 the date of the meeting of the General Assembly every years two defined, but the article continues “until said be time altered by law.” legislature has exercised that right and changed the date by the adoption of Ark. Stat. Ann. 4-101 1976). (Repl. It also exercised its *20 Ark. Ann. adoption with the Stat. power § inherent 13-339 two 1979) period the from changed which biennial (Repl. period beginning on years calendar to a fiscal consecutive deter- years thereafter. We two July ending 1st 30th June Purcell, legislature supra, mined in v. as Wells we have no government, separate and coordinate branch of man- by writ of authority supervise or control its actions legislative process, interfere with the but damus or otherwise validity determine the we do have the acts. legislative There that the which is no contention this case session 7, 1980, January special was a session called began on Therefore, extended was Governor. reconvened session void, majority. either a held regular sessionor was 19, Constitution, in setting Article of the out the procedure Assembly propose General must follow to con- election, general provides: stitutional amendments at a Either a regular branch of at session . . my propose thereof amendments tо this Constitution added.) (Emphasis
The the legislature may biennial session of ex- be beyond days pursuant tended to Art. which § 17 provides that “The shall exceed biennial sessions duration, sixty days by a unless vote of two-thirds of elected . . . members to each house of said General “There ex- placed is no limitation on the duration of such an tension other article of the The or constitution. did, however, impose framers of the constitution a limitation in Art. special on duration of extention of § 19: may, by extraordinary proclamation, Governor on at the
occasions convene seat government, place, or at a different if that shall have their adjournment dangerous become since last from disease; enemy specify contagious he shall his convened, they are which purpose proclamation be thеrein shall than that set forth and no other business *21 180
transacted until the same shall have of, been disposed they after which may, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected houses, to both upon entered their journals, remain session not exceeding days. fifteen added.) (Emphasis An inflexible limitation on the extension of a ses- sion just could easily have been included in the document. The failure of the of framers the constitution to so is do perhaps the best evidence they that did not want a maximum stated. Some of the may drafters have had sufficient vision to anticipate that the passage of time would result in a growth and complexity of life that would require more and longer legislative sessions to handle the affairs government. of Ob- viously, the electorate intended to discourage, but not prohibit, long sessions the adoрtion in of Amend- 1913 ment No. to the 5 Constitution which all per eliminated diem legislators of after days an 15 of extraordinary session and after the first 60 days of regular session, although this restriction has since been removed. Also of significance is the fact that places constitution no restriction on the legislature in determining when they will adjourn, with one exception not applicable 6, here. See Art. It is not our prerogative to judge the of wisdom
legislative actions nor to determine whether that body has abused reserved it by the people. This court made position very clear in that regard in Wells v. Furcell, supra, when it said:
The legislature is responsible to the people alone, not to courts, of, for its disregard or failure to perform, a duty clearly enjoined upon it by constitution, the remedy is with the people, by electing other ser vants, and not through the courts. Fergus Marks, v. 321 510, Ill. 557, 152 N.E. 46 ALR (1926); 960 Fouracre v. White, Boyce (Del.) 25, 7 (1917); A. 186 Person v. Doughton, 723, 186 N.C. 120 S.E. (1923). also, In See re Senate Resolution 54 Colo. P. (1913). The majority has correctly indicated that is for the General Assembly to decide whether it has finished its of extension whether business the decision that held have incredibly they But required. subject fact question ais regard legislature in the constitution this court. No review justification is offered court of this decision any prior legislative process into encroachment This position. separation the doctrine substantially abuses *22 ex- at adopted legislation all over pall also casts powers, but the legislature. sessions tended affirm I would opinion, in this expressed the reasons
For three that the finding the Chancellor judgment validly upon acted were amendments constitutional proposed legislature. of the aat
Fogle J., join man, C.J., FIolt, in this dissent. MURPHY, of Arkansas STATE
Aca v. Jr. 2d S.W. CR 80-46 Arkansas Court of Supreme delivered Opinion June