In re Opinion of the Justices

• Decision Date: 27 March 1930
• Citation: 171 N.E. 294,271 Mass. 582
• Parties: In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

271 Mass. 582

171 N.E. 294

In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

March 27, 1930.

Opinions of the Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, to questions propounded by order of the Senate relative to the constitutionality of the proposed initiative petition of Frank A. Goodwin and others for the establishment of a State Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund to provide compensation for injuries and death due to motor vehicle accidents.

Senate, March 27, 1930.

Whereas, A document purporting to be an initiative petition for a proposed law under Article forty-eight of the Amendments to the Constitution, in the form shown by the petition blank, has been transmitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Commonwealth; and

Whereas, Said document and said proposed law (printed as House, No. 202), have been referred for consideration to the joint committee on Insurance of the two branches of the General Court; and

Whereas, There is pending before the General Court and likewise referred to said joint committee, the report of the special commission to study compulsory motor vehicle insurance and related matters, printed as Senate No. 280, a copy of which is likewise submitted herewith, in which certain important questions of constitutionality and other questions of law are suggested in connection with said document and said proposed law; and Whereas, Grave doubt exists as to whether said Article forty-eight has been so far complied with that said document properly constitutes an initiative petition and therefore whether said proposed law is legally ‘introduced and pending’ before the General Court so that the procedure required by said Article forty-eight in relation to measures proposed by initiative petitions should be followed; and

Whereas, Grave doubt further exists as to the constitutionality of the provisions of said proposed law, if enacted, therefore be it

Ordered, That the opinions of the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required by the Senate on the following questions of law, which do not appear to have been raised before, or passed upon by, the Court:

1. Does the ‘description of the proposed law’ (as it appears on the petition blanks, copy of which is submitted herewith and as reprinted on pages 130 and 131 of said Senate, No. 280) required by said Article forty-eight to be printed at the top of each signature blank and also upon the ballot, meet the requirements of said Article forty-eight and adequately inform the voters as to the provisions of said proposed law, especially as to the differences between said provisions and the present system of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance?

2. May a citizen of the Commonwealth be constitutionally required to make the contribution to the proposed fund as provided in said proposed law and be held to the terms of the contract as therein provided, as a condition precedent to the right to operate a motor vehicle on the ways of the Commonwealth, as defined in section one of chapter ninety of the General Laws?

3. Is the business of motor vehicle liability insurance such a public function or so subject to public regulation as to authorize the creation of a monopoly, such as is provided in said proposed law, and to require insurance therein as a condition precedent to the right to operate motor vehicles on such ways?

4. Is it constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle, as a condition precedent of the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to forego his present right to contract for insurance in a company of his own choice and to require him to contract for the same in a ‘fund’ as constituted in said proposed law?

5. Under the present law, a person wishing to register a car for use on the highways has the option of making a deposit of money or securities, of filing a bond, or of providing an insurance policy, whether of a stock company or of a mutual company, from among some sixty or more insurance companies authorized to do business in the Commonwealth. Would it be constitutional to deny him this option?

6. Would it be constitutional to require a person, as a condition precedent of the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to buy insurance of a concern whose only assets at the time the first contribution was accepted and the contract of insurance made would be the contribution received and the anticipation of other contributions, such assets being subject to a liability already incurred by loan necessitated for organization purposes, as provided by said proposed law?

7. Is it constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle to purchase insurance in such a quasi-public corporation as is established by said proposed law, which is without the usual reserves and other safeguards required by law of insurance companies, in the absence of any guaranty of the solvency of such corporation by the Commonwealth?

8. Is the official machinery set up in said proposed law subject to the requirements of Article sixty-six of the Amendments to the Constitution, relative to the organization of the executive and administrative work of the Commonwealth?

9. If so subject, does said machinery conform to such requirements as affected by the existing organization of the executive and administrative work of the Commonwealth?

10. Do the provisions of said proposed law, especially those contained in proposed sections twenty-six, twenty-nine A, thirty-three A and thirty-four A of chapter ninety of the General Laws, contemplate the unconstitutional use of public funds for a purpose not public?

11. If a motor vehicle owner who is registered under the provisions of said proposed law is also insured against personal liability by a private insurance company of his own choice, would said provisions or any of them constitute an unconstitutional interference with his right to defend himself against such liability or the right of said insurance company to conduct such defense?

12. Would said proposed law, if enacted, unreasonably create a monopoly and thereby violate the constitutional rights of companies now engaged in insuring under the present system of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance?

13. Would it be constitutional to subject the policyholders, in a mutual company organized under the laws of Massachusetts, to losses incident to the creation of a monopoly such as is established by said proposed law?

William H. Sanger, Clerk.

A true copy: Attest: William H. Sanger, Clerk of the Senate.

To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit these answers to the questions propounded in an order adopted on March 27, 1930, and transmitted to them on March 31, 1930, copy whereof is hereto annexed. These questions relate to an initiative petition for a proposed law under article 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution.

[1][2] The first question in substance is whether the ‘description of the proposed law,’ required to be printed at the top of each blank for signatures and also upon the ballot, conforms to the requirements of said article 48 and adequately informs the voters as to the provisions of the proposed law. The words of said article 48 on this point are in ‘General Provisions,’ Part 3, that such proposed law ‘shall be described on the ballots by a description to be determined by the attorney-general,’ and in ‘The Initiative,’ Part 2, § 3, that the Secretary of the Commonwealth ‘shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers [after the first ten], and shall print at the top of each blank a description of the proposed measure as such description will appear on the ballot,’ and in ‘General Provisions,’ Part 3, that the ‘secretary of the commonwealth shall * * * cause such question * * * to be printed on the ballot. * * * In the case of a law: Shall a law (here insert description * * *) be approved?’ In said article 48 there is no definition of the word ‘description.’ The debates of the Constitutional Convention which framed said article 48 do not disclose any definition. Those debates indicate that the duty of preparing the description was cast upon the Attorney General to the end that one learned in the law and under a high official responsibility should draft that description. It would seem to be rational to infer that the purpose of the requirement that a description of the proposed law be printed on the initiative petition blanks, provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to be signed by the requisite twenty thousand qualified voters, is that such signers may have before their eyes and in their minds when deciding whether to sign the petition an impartial statement of the dominant and essential provisions of the proposed law so that thereby they may obtain an accurate conception of its main characteristics. It may also be inferred that the reason for requiring the printing on the ballot of the same description is that the voter may have at hand some means for making up his mind whether to vote to approve or to disapprove the proposed law. Under ‘General Provisions,’ Part 4, the full text of each measure to be submitted, together with other information, must be sent to each voter. Nevertheless, the description must be printed on the ballot. ‘Description’ in these circumstances signifies a fair portrayal of the chief features of the proposed law in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by the persons entitled to vote. It must be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law. It ought not to be clouded by undue detail, nor yet so abbreviated as not to be readily comprehensible. It ought to be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy. It must contain no partizan coloring. It must in every particular be fair to the...