In re Interrogatories by the Governor
Citation | 181 P. 197,66 Colo. 319 |
Decision Date | 02 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 9581. |
Parties | In re INTERROGATORIES BY THE GOVERNOR. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In the matter of interrogatories by the Governor. Interrogatories answered.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Curran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Governor.
Charles Hayden, of Walsenburg, and Paul W. Lee, of Ft. Collins opposed.
Certain interrogatories have been propounded to this Court by the Governor, as follows:
1. Does an act of the General Assembly which contains the emergency clause, but does not contain the so-called safety clause, go into effect immediately upon the passage and approval thereof?
2. In the absence of the so-called safety clause, is an act of the General Assembly subject to the referendum, notwithstanding it contains the emergency declaration that the same shall take effect from and after its passage and approval?
3. When does an act of the General Assembly passed with the emergency clause, but without the so-called safety clause, take effect and become operative?
The emergency clause alluded to above is found in section 19, article 5, of the Constitution, as follows:
'No act of the General Assembly shall take effect until ninety days after its passage (except in case of emergency which shall be expressed in the act) unless the General Assembly shall, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house otherwise direct.'
The so-called safety clause is in section 1, article 5, as amended by the adoption of the Initiative and Referendum, as follows:
Before the emergency clause can be incorporated with an act of the legislature a two-thirds vote of both houses is required, and a separate vote is required to be taken upon the incorporation of the clause.
The questions of law raised by the interrogatories are of first impression with us. In People ex rel. v. Ramer, 61 Colo. 422, 158 P. 146, an effort was made to have this court determine the effect of the passage of an act having the emergency clause without the safety clause attached, but since that question did not then appear to be properly before the court in that case it expressly declined to determine it.
The precise questions involved were, however determined in Sears v. Multnomah County, 49 Or. 42, 88 P. 522, where the initiative and referendum amendment is, as noted in Van Kleeck v. Ramer, 62 Colo. 4, 156 P. 1108, practically identical with our own. There it was sought to establish the rule that an act passed with the emergency clause, but without the safety clause, could not be submitted to the voters under the referendum amendment, upon the theory that the two provisions were in this respect identical in effect. In discussing this question the court said:
In concluding that the emergency clause alone is ineffectual as a safety clause that court said:
'Therefore we conclude that if the act comes within the amendment of section 1 of article IV of the Constitution, and the Legislature desires to have it take effect upon its approval, it must so declare, and set it forth in the preamble or body of the act, and, as the emergency clause contained in this act does not pretend to bring it within the exception of the amendment of section 1 of article IV, it cannot operate to give it immediate effect, and therefore it became effective ninety days from the approval thereof by the Governor, and the demurrer should have been sustained.'
So also in State ex rel. Tax Commission...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Diefendorf
... ... Sales tax law declaring existing emergency therefor and ... declaring that act should be in effect from its passage and ... approval by Governor held not suspended in its operation by ... filing of petition for referendum thereon (Sess. Laws 1935, ... 1st Ex. Sess., chap. 12, sec. 35; Sess ... clause or not, is subject to referendum in Idaho. (Const., as ... amended, art. 3, sec. 1; 1933 Sess. Laws, chap. 210; In ... re Interrogatories by Governor, 66 Colo. 319, 181 P ... 197, 7 A. L. R. 526; Sears v. Multnomah County, 49 ... Ore. 42, 88 P. 522; State v. Brannon, 86 Mont ... ...
-
In re Senate Resolution No. 2 Concerning Constitutionality of House Bill No. 6
... ... House of Representatives, transmitted to the Senate, and ... passed by that body on second reading ... The ... Governor's call for the present Extraordinary Session of ... the General Assembly refers to his call for the former ... session, recites that the emergency ... exists; therefore, this Act shall take effect and be in ... force from and after its passage.' ... The ... interrogatories now Before us are introduced by a recitation ... of the title of House Bill No. 6, a statement that it has ... passed the House and passed the ... ...
-
Hutchens v. Jackson
...75 P. 222; Roy v. Beveridge, 125 Or. 92, 266 P. 230; Van Kleeck v. Ramer, 62 Colo. 4, 156 P. 1108, 1110; In re Interrogatories of the Governor, 66 Colo. 319, 181 P. 197, 7 A. L. R. 526; State v. Smith, 102 Ohio St. 591, 133 N. E. 457; Arkansas Tax Commission v. Moore, 103 Ark. 48, 145 S. W.......
-
Hutchens v. Jackson
...222; Roy v. Beveridge, 125 Or. 92, 266 P. 230; Van Kleeck v. Ramer, 62 Colo. 4, 156 P. 1108, 1110; In re Interrogatories of the Governor, 66 Colo. 319, 181 P. 197, 7 A. L. R. 526; State v. Smith, 102 Ohio St. 591, 133 N.E. 457; Arkansas Tax Commission v. Moore, 103 Ark. 48, 145 S.W. 199; Ha......