Romer v. Colorado General Assembly

• Decision Date: 23 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92SA118,92SA118
• Citation: 840 P.2d 1081
• Parties: Roy ROMER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY; and the Committee on Legal Services, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1081

840 P.2d 1081

Roy ROMER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY; and the Committee on Legal Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92SA118.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Nov. 23, 1992.

Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Robert A. Gatter, Jr., L. Richard Freese, Jr., Andrew M. Low, and Office of the Governor of the State of Colo., Cole Finegan and Margaret E. Porfido, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Welborn Dufford Brown & Tooley, P.C., Gregory A. Ruegsegger, Scott J. Mikulecky

and David W. Furgason, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

Chief Justice ROVIRA delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The Governor of the State of Colorado appeals a trial court ruling that his vetoes of six bills passed during the 1991 regular legislative session were invalid. ¹ Article IV, section 11, of the Colorado Constitution provides, in part, that for bills passed within ten days prior to the legislature's adjournment the Governor has thirty days after adjournment to file the bills, with his objections, in the office of the secretary of state or else the bills shall become law. The General Assembly adjourned on May 8, 1991. Thus, the Governor had up to, and including, June 7, 1991 to file the bills, with his objections, in the office of the secretary of state. The Governor wrote the words "disapproved and vetoed" on each of the five bills and adjacent to each vetoed portion of the "long bill." ² These bills were filed with the secretary of state on June 7, 1991, within the time allowed by the constitution. No additional messages were filed with the secretary of state until after that date. ³

On June 20, 1991, the Committee on Legal Services of the Colorado General Assembly, through the Office of Legislative Legal Services, informed the General Assembly that the six bills should be considered law. On July 9, 1991, the Governor filed an "Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bills 1028 and 1217, and Senate Bills 131, 159, 178, and 227" which this court declined to answer. Thereafter, the General Assembly indicated it would publish the six bills in a supplementary pamphlet to be issued separately from the hardbound volumes of the 1991 Session Laws. The Committee on Legal Services voted on September 10, 1991, to publish the six bills without any notes indicating that there was a question as to their validity. This suit followed.

The Governor filed a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment that his vetoes of the six bills were valid and that the bills have no force or effect as law. In the trial court, the Governor and the Colorado General Assembly moved for summary judgment. In granting the General Assembly's motion and denying the Governor's motion, the trial court ruled that "Article IV, Section 11, requires more than mere notice of an objection, it demands reasons, so that the legislative branch and the general public can assess the merits of the veto." Thus, it ruled that writing the words "disapproved and vetoed" on the bills without a veto message was insufficient to comply with the constitutional requirements of article IV, section 11. Additionally, it rejected the Governor's argument that his vetoes need only substantially comply with article IV, section 11. This appeal followed, jurisdiction being premised on section 13-4-102, 6A C.R.S. (1987).

I

The issue before this court is whether, by writing "disapproved and vetoed" on the six bills, the Governor returned them to the secretary of state "with his objections" as required by article IV, section 11, which provides in pertinent part:

Every bill passed by the general assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor. If he approve, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall return it, with his objections, to the house in which it originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider the bill.... If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within ten days after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the general assembly shall by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall be filed with his objections in the office of the secretary of state, within thirty days after such adjournment, or else become a law.

(Emphasis added.) Because the words "disapproved and vetoed" fail to set forth the basis of the Governor's veto, we hold that the Governor's purported vetoes were invalid. This conclusion is mandated by both the plain language of the Colorado Constitution and by this court's prior interpretation of article IV. Thus, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

This court has noted that it is obliged to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Constitutional Convention and the people who ratified the constitution, and that intent is the primary guideline in construing our constitution. White v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 291, 298, 394 P.2d 333, 336 (1964). In determining this intent we must consider the purpose of the constitutional provision at issue--"the object to be accomplished and the mischiefs to be avoided." Institute for the Educ. of the Mute & Blind v. Henderson, 18 Colo. 98, 104, 31 P. 714, 717 (1892). In examining the purpose of the similar "return with objections" requirement in the ten-day bill provision ⁴ of article IV, section 11, we stated in In re Interrogatories of the Colorado Senate, 195 Colo. 220, 578 P.2d 216 (1978) (hereinafter Lamm II ):

[T]he purpose behind the provision requiring the executive to return a vetoed bill to the house of origin is to insure that the legislative branch shall have suitable opportunity to consider the Governor's objections to bills and on such consideration to pass them over his veto provided there are the requisite votes to do so. There is no question in the minds of the majority of the members of this court that the purpose of the 10-day provision in the Colorado Constitution is to insure that the legislative branch has a suitable opportunity to consider the Governor's objections and take appropriate action with respect thereto.

Lamm II, 195 Colo. at 224, 578 P.2d at 218-19. See Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 596, 58 S.Ct. 395, 400, 82 L.Ed. 439 (1938) (one of the purposes of similar federal constitutional provision was to enable Congress to consider the President's objections); State ex rel. Wood v. King, 93 N.M. 715, 605 P.2d 223, 227 (1979) ("The clear purpose of the [state constitutional] veto provisions ... is to give the house in which a bill originated, an opportunity to consider the Governor's veto of the bill and his objections thereto."). This purpose does not change because the legislature is no longer in session; the filing of objections after adjournment provides the General Assembly with a statement of the governor's reason for disapproving a bill, which it may consider at future legislative sessions, as well as informing the public.

If the General Assembly is to meaningfully evaluate and consider the governor's objections, the objections must inform about the reasons underlying the veto. Requiring the "objections" to convey reasons is consistent with the interpretation of similar constitutional provisions given by other courts and commentators. ⁵ It is axiomatic that to inform as to the basis of the veto, the objections must give the General Assembly, and the people of Colorado, more information than the act of returning the bill itself. Thus, the words "vetoed" or "returned" would be insufficient. Additionally, we note that with respect to ten-day bills, the Colorado Constitution requires that the "objections" be entered upon the journal of the house of origin. If we were to give "objections" a meaning that does not require the communication of reasons, then this requirement of article IV becomes meaningless. See Colorado State Civil Service Emp. Ass'n v. Love, 167 Colo. 436, 450, 448 P.2d 624, 630 (1968) (each clause and sentence of a constitution must be presumed to have purpose and use, which may not be ignored); City & County of Denver v. Holmes, 156 Colo. 586, 590, 400 P.2d 901, 903 (1965) (court should avoid interpretation leading to an absurd result).

In light of the above, the precise question becomes whether the language "disapproved and vetoed" imparts some information as to the reasons for the Governor's veto, beyond the mere return of the bill itself. We hold that "disapproved" fails to communicate any reason for the veto of the bill. Section 11 states that if the governor "[does] not approve" of a bill, the governor is to return it, with his objections. Thus, the act of vetoing a bill itself manifests the governor's "disapproval" of the bill, and the additional word "disapproved" imparts no information as to the reason for the governor's veto. "Disapproved" is the functional equivalent of merely writing "vetoed" or "returned" on the bill, and as such is not a statement of objections. See Wolfe v. M'Caull, 76 Va. 876, 888 (1882) ("I hereby return Senate Bill No. 23, entitled an 'Act to incorporate the Virginia and Carolina Railroad Company' " was held not sufficient under similar constitutional provision); Casey v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 77 N.E. 717, 717 (1906) (Mayor's statement "I hereby return without my approval" contained no statement of objections, and was of no effect); Arnett v. Meredith, 275 Ky. 223, 121 S.W.2d 36, 40 (1938) ("This bill is hereby vetoed, this March 11, 1938" held insufficient under similar constitutional provision; "a veto message is not complete unless it contains either the reasons for vetoing the particular act, or (what is the same thing) the objections of the Governor to the act.").

In reaching this conclusion we are mindful of the fact that the governor may veto a bill for any reason he c...