State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, 83-1408
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 464 N.E.2d 153,11 Ohio St.3d 141,11 OBR 436 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1408,83-1408 |
| Parties | , 11 O.B.R. 436 The STATE, ex rel. DIX, v. CELESTE, Governor, et al. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1984 |
Page 141
v.
CELESTE, Governor, et al.
Syllabus by the Court
The one-subject rule contained in Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution is merely directory in nature; while it is within the discretion of the courts to rely upon the judgment of the General Assembly as to a bill's compliance with the Constitution, a manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of this rule will cause an enactment to be invalidated. (Pim v. Nicholson, 6 Ohio St. 176, approved and followed, and extended; State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102, paragraph seven of the syllabus, modified.)
The parties stipulated and agreed to the truth of the following facts and to the authenticity of the documentary evidence in support thereof.
Relator, Thomas J. Dix, was appointed by the Governor of the state of Ohio, with the consent of the Senate, to the Ohio Development Financing Commission for a term beginning January 1, 1978 and ending December 31, 1984. Relator's compensation, as specified by R.C. 122.40, was $5,000 annually, payable in monthly installments.
On July 14, 1983, Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 227 (Am.Sub. S.B. No. 227) was signed by Richard F. Celeste, Governor of the State of Ohio. The subject matter of this Bill, as expressed in pertinent part in its title, is as follows:
"To amend * * *, to enact * * * and to repeal sections [various sections of the] Revised Code to abolish the Ohio Development Financing Commission and transfer its duties to the Director of Development, to create the Development Financing Advisory Board, the Development Financing Policy Board, and the Division of Development Financing in the Department of Development * * *, to abolish the Development Advisory Committee, to provide for the appointment of legislative members to the various development program advisory boards and commissions, and to generally consolidate and reorganize the state's economic development assistance programs, and to make an appropriation."
The bill became law immediately upon approval of the Governor, containing an [464 N.E.2d 155] appropriation for the current expense of state government.
On September 9, 1983, relator filed this original action in mandamus and prohibition, naming as respondents the following officials of the State of
Page 142
Ohio: Richard F. Celeste, Governor, Thomas E. Ferguson, Auditor, Mary Ellen Withrow, Treasurer, Alfred S. Dietzel, Director of Development, Myrta Cristina Sale, Director of Budget and Management and William G. Sykes, Director of Administrative Services. In his complaint relator prayed this court to declare that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 227 is unconstitutional and void, that the Ohio Development Financing Commission continues in force, that members of the Ohio Development Financing Commission as of July 13, 1983 may serve to the ends of their respective terms, and that a writ of mandamus issue to effectuate these ends. Relator further sought a writ of mandamus to cause legal payroll warrants to be issued in payment of his statutory compensation as a member of the Ohio Development Financing Commission for July and August 1983. Additionally, relator prayed for a writ of prohibition to be issued to respondents Celeste and Dietzel barring them from taking any further action to implement Am.Sub.S.B. No. 227 and to respondent Withrow prohibiting the issuance of state of Ohio revenue bonds pursuant to Am.Sub.S.B. No. 227.Gerald A. Donahue and John M. McElroy, Columbus, for relator.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Kathleen McManus and Richard A. Green, Columbus, for respondents.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stanley J. Dobrowski and Simon B. Karas, Columbus, urging denial for amicus curiae, Ohio Building Authority.
Boyd & Boyd Co., L.P.A., and Robert E. Boyd, Jr., Columbus, urging allowance for amicus curiae, Lewis R. Trembly, Jr.
WILLIAM B. BROWN, Justice.
The general issue presented is whether Am. Sub. S.B. No. 227 was enacted in violation of Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution which provides in part that "[n]o bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title * * *." For the reasons that follow, this court holds that Am. Sub. S.B. No. 227 is not unconstitutional; and relator's requests for writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied.
Perhaps there is no task more grave in the adjudication of civil controversies than passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The legislature possesses, subject only to the limitations of our state and federal Constitutions, plenary power to make the laws. This court, in considering the issue presented by this case, has remained mindful that there is a strong presumption supporting the constitutionality of a legislative enactment.
Ohio is one of among forty-one states whose Constitution contains a one-subject provision. 1 The primary and universally recognized purpose of such provisions is to prevent logrolling--"* * * the practice of several minorities combining their several proposals as different provisions of a single bill and thus consolidating their votes so that a majority is obtained for the omnibus
Page 143
bill where perhaps no single proposal of each minority could have obtained majority approval separately." 2 1A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (4 Ed.1972), Section 17.01; see 73 American Jurisprudence 2d (1974) 335, Statutes, Section 119. In Pim v. Nicholson (1856), 6 Ohio St. 176, this court likewise recognized that the one-subject provision was directed at logrolling.The one-subject provision attacks logrolling by disallowing unnatural combinations of provisions in acts, i.e., those dealing with more than one subject, on the theory that the best explanation for the unnatural combination is a tactical one--logrolling. [464 N.E.2d 156] By limiting each bill to a single subject, the bill will have unity and thus the purpose of the provision will be satisfied.
The one-subject provision also has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Barkley, Bankruptcy No. 00-14344. Adversary No. 00-1395.
...nature." State ex rel. Ohio AFL — CIO v. Voinovich, 69 Ohio St.3d 225, 229, 631 N.E.2d 582, 586 (1994); State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 145, 464 N.E.2d 153, 157 (1984). Notwithstanding, that court has invalidated statutes that violate the one-subject mandate. See, e.g., Gof......
-
State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Employees Assn., AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 104 Ohio St.3d 122 (OH 12/15/2004), Case No. 2003-1010.
...the omnibus bill where perhaps no single proposal of each minority could have obtained majority approval separately.' " Id. at 142—143, 464 N.E.2d 153, quoting 1A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (4th Ed.1972), Section 17.01. These provisions prevent such a practice "by disal......
-
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2006-1212.
...{¶ 78} This provision exists to prevent the General Assembly from engaging in "logrolling." State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, .11 OBR 436, 464 N.E.2d 153. This practice occurs when legislators combine a disharmonious group of proposals in a single bill so that the......
-
State ex rel. Ohio Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n v. State, 12AP–1064.
...Riverside v. State, 190 Ohio App.3d 765, 2010-Ohio-5868, 944 N.E.2d 281, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141, 142–43, 464 N.E.2d 153 (1984). “The one-subject provision attacks logrolling by disallowing unnatural combinations of provisions in acts, i.e.,......