In re Interrogatories by the Governor

Citation181 P. 197,66 Colo. 319
Decision Date02 June 1919
Docket Number9581.
PartiesIn re INTERROGATORIES BY THE GOVERNOR.
CourtColorado 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.

BAILEY J.

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:

'The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the General Assembly consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject laws the same at the polls independent of the General Assembly, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section or part of any act of the General Assembly. * * *
'The second power hereby reserved is the Referendum, and it may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and appropriations for the support and maintenance of the department of state and state institutions, against any act, section or part of any act of the General Assembly, either by a petition signed by five per cent. of the legal voters or by the General Assembly. Referendum petitions shall be addressed to and filed with the Secretary of State not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the General Assembly that passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded. The filing of a referendum petition against any item, section or part of any act, shall not delay the remainder of the act from becoming operative. The veto power of the Governor shall not extend to the measures initiated by, or referred to the people. All elections on measures referred to the people of the state shall be held at the biennial regular general election, and all such measures shall become the law or a part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and not otherwise, and shall take effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the Governor, but not later than thirty days after the vote has been canvassed. This section shall not be construed to deprive the General Assembly of the right to enact any measure.'

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:

'That an act may take effect under a general emergency clause, and yet be subject to the referendum, is clearly contrary to the intent of the amendment, and would produce disastrous results. The clause in the amendment which reads, 'Any measure referred to the people shall take effect and become the law when it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise,' clearly means that a law upon which the referendum is invoked cannot take effect prior to its approval by the vote; and consequently no act that is subject to the referendum can be made to go into operation for ninety days after the adjournment of the session or its approval by vote.'

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
12 cases
  • Johnson v. Diefendorf
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1936
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1933
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1933
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1933
    ...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......
  • 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