State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 19 August 1929
• Docket Number: 29870
• Parties: The State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. L. D. Thompson, State Auditor
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 S.W.2d 642

323 Mo. 742

The State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. L. D. Thompson, State Auditor

No. 29870

Supreme Court of Missouri

August 19, 1929

Peremptory writ denied.

Edgar Shook, Carl Trauernicht and Benjamin H. Charles for relator.

(1) The official ballot title was legally sufficient. Sec. 4943, R S. 1919. (a) The official ballot title for the proposed constitutional amendment had to be expressed in not more than twenty-five words. (b) The sufficiency of a constitutional ballot title is not measured by rules governing the titles of statutory enactments. The purpose of the constitutional ballot title is merely to enable the voter to identify a particular proposed amendment with the proposition upon which he is about to vote, so as to distinguish it from other propositions submitted at the same time. The ballot title is to advise the voter, when at the polls, as to the general subject of each proposition as numbered. The title therefore, need refer to the general subject only, and should not attempt to descend into details, which may be impossible because of the statutory restriction upon the length of the title. Sec. 4943, R. S. 1919; State v. St. Louis, 5 S.W.2d 1084. There is no limitation upon the number of words which may be used in framing the title of a legislative bill. Sec. 28, Art. IV, Mo. Constitution. (c) But even if the rules as to the sufficiency of titles to legislative bills could be made applicable to mere ballot titles, such as this, the title certified by the Attorney-General is sufficient. State v. Whitaker, 160 Mo. 59; O'Connor v Transit Co., 198 Mo. 622; Coffey v. Carthage, 200 Mo. 616; Nalley v. Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1; State v. Thomas, 301 Mo. 603; State ex rel. Gentry v. Sewer District, 4 S.W.2d 467; Fahey v. Hackmann, 291 Mo. 378. (d) The various subjects alleged by respondent to have been included in Proposition No. 3 and not covered by the ballot title were incidents of, and depended for their effectiveness upon, the one major subject, namely, the issuance of road bonds, and this was clearly expressed in the Attorney-General's official ballot title. (e) The ballot title certified by the Attorney-General to the Secretary of State became and was conclusive by reason of not having been appealed from by any citizen within ten days after such certification. R. S. 1919, sec. 4943; 12 C. J. 693 (Note 83a); People v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369. (2) Section 44a, of Article IV, Missouri Constitution, is not violative of section 2, Article XV, of the Constitution, as amended (Laws 1921, p. 711), as containing more than one subject. (a) The subject is single, viz.: "Roads," or "The Construction of Roads and the Issuance of Bonds Therefor." All details which are covered are merely incidental and germane to that one thing. Gabbert v. Railroad, 171 Mo. 84; State ex rel. Otto v. Kansas City, 310 Mo. 542; Coffey v. Carthage, 200 Mo. 616; Nalley v. Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1. (b) The fact that an amendment may make more than one change in the Constitution does not make it more than one amendment. Gabbert v. Railroad, 171 Mo. 84; State ex rel. Otto v. Kansas City, 310 Mo. 542. (3) The validity of Proposition No. 3 is not dependent upon the character of its subject-matter if the items therein dealt with are not violative of Section 2, Article XV, of the Constitution, as amended, Laws 1921, p. 711. There is no limitation upon the subject-matter nor the details thereof which the people may insert in their organic law. Whether or not various provisions of Proposition No. 3 were more properly subjects for the action of the Legislature than for inclusion in the Constitution is not a consideration determinative of the validity and the binding force of said amendment as the organic law. 1 Cooley's Constitution Limitations (8 Ed.) 91; 12 C. J. 702. (a) The Constitution itself assumes that it may be appropriate or even necessary to add to the main subject of an amendment "matters properly connected therewith." Sec. 2, Art. XV, Mo. Constitution, as amended Laws 1921, p. 711. (b) There is no rule by which the courts may declare a constitutional amendment void because of its being legislative in character. There is no provision of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting a constitutional amendment from being legislative in character, and there is no such principle of law outside the Constitution. (c) The courts have been unanimous in holding that it is not a proper exercise of the judicial function to inquire into the expediency of any provision of, or amendment to, a constitution. 12 C. J. 702. (d) The inclusion of detailed directions in a constitutional amendment has the effect of making the amendment self-enforcing, rather than rendering it void as being legislative in character. Fahey v. Hackmann, 291 Mo. 378. (4) The statutes no longer require the Secretary of State to certify to each county clerk the full text of each proposed amendment to the Constitution (except copies thereof for posting at the polls). (1st) Sec. 4940, R. S. 1919, must be read in connection with Section 4819, as amended by Laws 1927, p. 184, and also with Section 4820, as amended by Laws 1927, p. 185, and when so read, it is plain that it is not the full text of the amendment, but only the official ballot title, that the Secretary of State is required to certify to each county clerk, because: (a) The certification by the Secretary, as required in said Section 4940, must go to each county clerk "not less than twenty days before the election;" whereas, the Constitution requires publication of the full text of the amendment once a week for four consecutive weeks next preceding the election. Sec. 2, Art. XV, Constitution, Laws 1921, p. 711. Such publication for four consecutive weeks could not be made if the Secretary certified the proposition to the county clerks as late as twenty days before the election. (b) The publication required to be made by each county clerk is not the four weeks' publication required by the Constitution, but the seven-day publication, for two times, one of which shall be upon the last day upon which the newspaper is issued before the election. (c) The publication to be made by each county clerk is not made in the one newspaper designated by the Secretary of State, but is one which is to be made "in two newspapers representing each of the two major political parties, if such there be, and if not, then in two newspapers," etc. Sec. 2, Art. XV, Constitution, as amended Laws 1921, p. 711; Secs. 4940, 4942, 4944, R. S. 1919; Sec. 4819, R. S. 1919, as amended Laws 1927, p. 184; Sec. 4820, R. S. 1919, as amended Laws 1927, p. 185. (2nd) Sec. 4942, R. S. 1919, requires him to designate a newspaper in each county and in the city of St. Louis in which the text of the amendment is to be published; and it would be a useless addition to the official machinery to have the proposition go from the office of the Secretary of State first to each county clerk and then on to the designated newspaper, instead of directly from the Secretary to the paper. (3rd) Every qualified voter in Missouri was advised, by two different notices, as to first, the official ballot title, and secondly, as to the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment; and these two were linked together in these advertisements as "Proposition No. 3." (a) The Secretary of State complied with the statutory provision (Sec. 4942, R. S. 1919), with respect to publishing the text of this Proposition No. 3 by designating a newspaper in each county and in the city of St. Louis and by sending the full text of the amendment to each of these papers for publication for the four weeks required by the Constitution. Sec. 2, Art. XV, Constitution, as amended Laws 1921, p. 711. (b) He also complied with the requirement found in Sec. 4944, R. S. 1919, that he certify the official ballot title to each county clerk and to the proper officials in the city of St. Louis, for publication with the names of nominees for office, as required of the county clerks by Sec. 4819, R. S. 1919, as amended by Laws 1927, p. 184. (5) The act of the Fifty-fifth General Assembly of Missouri (Senate Bill No. 3), approved by the Governor on the 15th day of February, 1929, has been in full force and effect since the date of its approval. (a) The facts stated in Section 14 of the act, are admitted as true by the respondent's return. (b) The facts, thus legislatively declared by the General Assembly, were and are based upon all of the facts surrounding the entire State road situation, as detailed in the application for the writ. (c) Section 36 and Section 57 of Article IV of the Constitution, are to be read together. State v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 546; State ex rel. Pollock v. Becker, 289 Mo. 660; State ex rel. Harvey v. Linville, 300 S.W. 1066. (d) The emergency was properly stated on the face of the bill and is made clear and conclusive by all the facts before the court. State v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 546.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Smith B. Atwood, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The official ballot title for Proposition No. 3 fails to express all of the subject-matter embraced within its provisions, no less than ten of such subjects being dealt with therein which, although related to each other, were not included or referred to in said ballot title. Sec. 4943, R. S. 1919; Sec 2, Art. XV, Constitution (Laws 1921, p. 711). (2) Said Proposition No. 3 was not properly submitted to the people, in that it contained more than one subject, in violation of Sec. 2 of Art. XV of the Constitution, as amended November 2, 1920 (Laws 1921, p. 711). State ex rel. v. Wilder, 217 Mo. 261; State ex...