Dutcher v. Hatch

Citation19 A.D.2d 341,243 N.Y.S.2d 80
PartiesApplication of Henry R. DUTCHER, Jr., and Thomas R. McHugh for an Order Compelling the Filing of Petitions for Referendum, Appellants, v. A. Gould HATCH, Clerk for the County of Monroe, New York, Respondent.
Decision Date01 October 1963
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Thomas R. McHugh, Rochester, for petitioners.

Leo T. Minton, Monroe County Legal Adviser, Rochester (Raymond H. Schwartz, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.

Arthur B. Curran, Jr., Corp. Counsel, City of Rochester, Rochester, amicus curiae.

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HENRY and NOONAN, JJ.

BASTOW, Justice.

This appeal presents the question as to whether or not a referendum to the voters of Monroe County is required in the approaching general electin pursuant to the provisions of section 2, article 9 of the State Constitution. Chapter 1022 of the Laws of 1963 amended article 9 of the Optional County Government Law by adding thereto a new section (1006-a), commonly known as a 'Weighted Vote Law' which in substance grants to certain supervisors of a county, which has adopted Plan 'B' of that law, multiple votes based upon a formula set forth in the enactment.

Section 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution, as approved by the People on November 4, 1958 effective January 1, 1959 authorized the Legislature to provide by law alternative forms of government for counties and for the submission of one or more of such forms of government to the electors in such counties. Subdivision (f) grants the right to a stated percentage of electors to petition for a referendum within at least sixty days after final enactment of any law passed by the Legislature pursuant to subdivision (b) of the same section which does not apply alike to all counties in the State and which 'abolishes or creates an elective office, changes the voting or veto power of or the method of removing an elective officer, changes the term of office or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office, abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective officer, or changes the form or composition of the elective governing body of such county.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Respondent county clerk contends and Special Term in substance has held that the Legislature may enact laws in effect applicable (as we shall subsequently see) only to Monroe County authorizing any of these changes and that the required number of electors are powerless to petition for a referendum to have all the electors in the county pass thereon at a general election. In other words, not only may a local law, such as this one, providing for weighted voting by certain supervisors, be enacted by the Legislature without any right to a referendum but also local laws, among other things, abolishing or creating elective offices, changing terms of office and changing the form or composition of the elective governing body. We are unable to agree with this conclusion.

Our own conclusion is reached by the following reasoning. Historically, one of the early provisions authorizing adoption of an optional form of county government is found in an amendment to then section 26 of article 3 of the Constitution approved by the People on November 5, 1929, effective January 1, 1930. This empowered the Legislature to provide such alternate form of government for the counties of Westchester and Nassau. It is significant, however, that the amendment specifically provided that after such adoption no law which, among other things, 'changes the voting or veto power of or the method of removing an elective officer * * * shall become effective without adoption [and approval] by the electors of such county.'

In 1934 and 1935 the Senate and Assembly adopted concurrent resolutions again amending section 26 of article 3 of the Constitution. This amendment was approved by the People at the general election on November 5, 1935, effective January 1, 1936. This provision empowered the Legislature to provide alternative forms of government for all counties outside of New York City. Again it was provided that after the adoption of a form of government by a county 'no law, special or local in its terms or in its effect, which * * * changes the voting or veto power of * * * an elective officer * * * shall become effective without adoption by the electors of such county * * *.'

Keeping in mind that this constitutional amendment was approved by the People in November, 1935, we turn to chapter 948 of the Laws of 1935. This legislative enactment, without benefit of constitutional amendment, (although the one heretofore described was pending) authorized any county, other than one in New York City, to adopt one of two forms of government therein described as Plans 'A' and 'B'. This enactment became effective on May 16, 1935 and the same fall (November, 1935) the permissive provisions thereof were implemented by the electors of Monroe County, who adopted Plan 'B' to take effect on January 1, 1936--the same date the constitutional amendment to section 26 of article 3 became effective. The constitutionality of this enactment was upheld in Cort v. Smith, 249 App.Div. 1, 291 N.Y.S. 54, affd. 273 N.Y. 481, 6 N.E.2d 414.

Significantly, this statutory enactment of 1935 contained no provision for approval by the electors of the county or a permissive referendum to them upon the passage of any subsequent law by the Legislature dealing with certain subject matters such as abolishment of elective offices, changes in voting power or the method of removing elective officers. Equally significant, however, is the provision in section 7-c of this enactment that '[o]ther provisions of law relating to counties and their government * * * if not inconsistent shall apply to such counties' which had adopted a plan under the enactment.

It is the position of respondent, and so Special Term held, that the provisions of section 26 of article 3 of the Constitution as approved by the People effective January 1, 1936 and the present provisions of section 2 of article 9 of the Constitution are in no way applicable to Monroe County because the latter adopted a form of government pursuant to the authority of chapter 948 of the Laws of 1935 which contained no provision for a referendum in the many areas, including changing the voting power of supervisors, which the People in every constitutional amendment since 1929 have consistently stated may not be changed without approval by the county electors or reserving to them the right to petition for a referendum.

In our opinion such a conclusion takes a much too narrow view of the applicable provisions of the Constitution and statutes. To hold that the referendum provisions set forth in the Constitution since 1936 are here applicable in no way conflicts with chapter 948 of the Laws of 1935. The fact that Monroe County adopted one of the plans authorized by that law did not foreclose the People speaking through their Constitution from placing restrictions on drastic changes by the Legislature in certain governmental areas without the right of a stated percentage of electors to petition for a referendum. (Cf. People ex rel. Williams Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Metz, 193 N.Y. 148, 157, 85 N.E. 1070, 1073, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 201.) 'It may be assumed as an undoubted proposition that a new constitution of a state, as the supreme law, supersedes all laws, existing when the constitution takes effect, in conflict with its provisions, if it appears from a just construction of the instrument that it was intended to have a present binding and operative force upon the matter or thing upon which the conflict arises.' (People ex rel. Inebriates' Home for Kings County v. Comptroller of City of Brooklyn, 152 N.Y. 399, 404, 46 N.E. 852, 854.)

It is true that each of the constitutional provisions, including subdivision (f) of section 2 of article 9 of the present Constitution, prefaces the prohibition against legislative changes in certain matters without the right to a referendum by the words 'After the adoption of an alternative form of government by a county pursuant to this section.' But we view as unsound the contention that this deprives the electors of Monroe County from seeking a referendum because that county never adopted a plan pursuant to any constitutional provision but instead under the 1935 enactment. It is conceded that Monroe County is the only county that took advantage of the 1935 law. The contention of respondent boils down to the ultimate fact that Monroe is the only county in the State adopting an alternative form of government that may seek and obtain from the Legislature what amounts to a local law authorizing, without the right to referendum, not only 'weighted voting' but abolishing or creating elective offices, changing terms of office and the form or composition of the elective governing body. (Cf. Farrington v. Pinckney, 1 N.Y.2d 74, 79, 150 N.Y.S.2d 585, 591-592, 133 N.E.2d 817, 821-822; Matter of Mayor of New York (Elm Street), 246 N.Y. 72, 77, 158 N.E. 24, 26; Matter of Henneberger, 155 N.Y. 420, 426, 50 N.E. 61, 62, 42 L.R.A. 132.)

We find in the 1935 enactment evidence of a contrary legislative intent. Section 7-c thereof, as heretofore stated, provides in part that 'Other provisions of law relating to counties and their government which are inconsistent with the provisions of this article shall be inapplicable to counties to which this article applies but if not inconsistent shall apply to such counties.' (Emphasis supplied.) The referendum provision in the Constitution is in no manner inconsistent with any part of the 1935 enactment and should be given life and vitality upon the facts here presented. This view is fortified by the Memorandum of then Governor Lehman in approving chapter 948 of the Laws of 1935. The Governor wrote in part as follows: 'Fortunately, the provisions of this bill are so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Elliott, 26085
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 12 Agosto 1974
    ...... Ho., 44 Haw. 154, 352 P.2d 861; Ex parte Dalton, 73 Idaho 542, 255 P.2d 333; State v. Spence & Goldstein, 6 So.2d 102 (La.App.); Dutcher v. Hatch, 19 A.D.2d 341, 243 . Page 459. N.Y.S.2d 80; Kneip v. Herseth, S.D., 214 N.W.2d 93. There is no language in the Equal Rights Amendment ......
  • Caparco v. Kaplan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Enero 1964
    ...in the State which adopted and is operating under the county manager form of government pursuant to plan 'B' (cf. Matter of Dutcher v. Hatch, 19 A.D.2d 341, 243 N.Y.S. 80). Section 1008 provides that 'Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, if the c......
  • Bay Ridge Medical Group v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Noviembre 1964
  • Urban League of Rochester, New York, Inc. v. Monroe County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Julio 1979
    ...by that body. (For a brief history of the development of the optional form of Monroe County government, see Matter of Dutcher v. Hatch, 19 A.D.2d 341, 243 N.Y.S.2d 80.) In any event the county manager form of government, as codified in Article 2-a of the County Law of 1909, eventually becam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT