State Finance Committee v. O'Brien
| Decision Date | 09 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 51945-5,51945-5 |
| Citation | 105 Wn.2d 78,711 P.2d 993 |
| Parties | STATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, Petitioner, v. Robert S. O'BRIEN, Treasurer, Respondent. En Banc |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Elvin J. Vandeberg, Clifford D. Foster, Jr., Sp. Assts., of Kane, Vandeberg, Hartinger & Walker, Tacoma, for petitioner.
Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., David E. Walsh, Deputy, Olympia, for respondent.
Edward Fleisher, Martin Brown, Olympia, amici curiae for petitioner.
This is an original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the state treasurer to sign resolutions authorizing the sale of state bonds.
The petitioner correctly and precisely states the issues:
Whether chapter 4, Laws of 1985, 1st ex. sess., which authorizes the state to issue bonds for a number of capital projects, violates Const.Art. 2, § 19 because it embraces more than one subject or is not properly titled?
The writ shall issue.
The issues arise from Const.art. 2, § 19: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
The title to the bill at issue provides that it is "an act relating to capital projects ..." Lines 6 and 7 of the first section of the bill authorizes the State Finance Committee to issue general obligation bonds of the state in the amount of $285,851,000 to finance projects therein described.
The two issues are title and subject matter. Our decision is made with two long established premises in mind. First, the statute is presumed to be constitutional and the challenger bears a heavy burden to overcome that presumption. Second, article 2, section 19 is to be liberally construed in favor of the validity of the legislation. State Higher Educ. Assistance Auth. v. Graham, 84 Wash.2d 813, 529 P.2d 1051 (1974); State v. Grisby, 97 Wash.2d 493, 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1205, 75 L.Ed.2d 446 (1983).
Examining the title it admittedly is broad in scope, but so be it. In a comprehensive opinion, 90 pages including the dissent, this court dealt with the title issue. Gruen v. State Tax Comm'n, 35 Wash.2d 1, 22, 211 P.2d 651 (1949), overruled on other grounds in, State ex. rel. State Fin. Comm. v. Martin, 62 Wash.2d 645, 384 P.2d 833 (1963). We there said, and it is still good law:
Titles to statutes may be general or restrictive; or, in other words, broad or narrow, since the legislature in each case has the right to determine for itself how comprehensive shall be the object of the statute. And it also has a wide discretion in the particularity of the title selected to express it, provided that, by a fair construction, such title complies with the constitutional provision in question.
Gruen, 35 Wash.2d at 22, 211 P.2d 651.
This title gave fair notice to legislators and the public that the Legislature was considering capital projects. That, in fact, is what it was considering. Turning to the subject matter issue, the attorney general argues that the act authorizes a wide range of capital projects with separate and distinct purposes. It is correct that the authorized capital projects range from fisheries to educational facilities. However, it is equally true that the overall subject is singular--capital expenditures to carry out legitimate governmental purposes.
In a landmark decision by Justice Hamilton, this court established the fundamental rules about subject matter. Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co., 69 Wash.2d 392, 403, 418 P.2d 443 (1966). We said:
The basic purposes of the constitutional mandate regarding the title to legislation is to enlighten the legislature and the general public as to what matters are being considered for legislation and to prevent logrolling in the legislative process. Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. State, 62 Wn.2d 504, 383 P.2d 497 (1963). However, this constitutional requirement is to be liberally construed so as not to impose awkward and hampering restrictions upon the legislature. DeCano v. State, 7 Wn.2d 613, 110 P.2d 627 (1941). Consequently, the legislature is deemed the judge of the scope which it will give to the word "subject." Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 28 Pac. 520 (1891), overruled on other grounds, In re Shilshole Ave., 101 Wash. 136, 172 Pac. 338 (1918). So long as the title embraces a general subject, it is not violative of the constitution even though the general subject contains several incidental subjects or subdivisions. Robison v. Dwyer, 58 Wn.2d 576, 364 P.2d 521 (1961); Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. State, 49 Wn.2d 520, 304 P.2d 676 (1956). All that is required is that there be some "rational unity" between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions. If this nexus can be found, the act will survive the light of constitutional inspection. State ex rel. Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 61 Wn.2d 28, 377 P.2d 466 (1962).
A branch of government which is independent and coequal, which the judiciary is, must respect the decisions of an also independent and coequal branch, which the Legislature is. Absent a clear violation of the constitution, which we do not perceive here, the Legislature is entitled to determine what is within the "subject" of a bill. It did so and we should not inquire further.
The writ shall issue.
Article 2, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution reads:
Section 19. Bill to contain one subject. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
The title of House Bill 1328 reads as follows:
An act relating to capital projects authorized in the state capital budget acts; RCW 75.48.020, 28A.47.792, 28A.47B.010, 28B.10.850, 28B.14C.010, and 43.83.150; adding a new chapter to title 43 RCW; and declaring an emergency.
There is no reference in the title to the incurrence of debt by the issuance and sale of $285,851,000 of general obligation bonds.
The test of the sufficiency of the expression of the subject of a bill is that it must give notice of its object so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into its contents. In other words, the title of the bill should reasonably inform a reader about the subject matter of the bill. Flanders v. Morris, 88 Wash.2d 183, 558 P.2d 769 (1977); Brewster Public Schools v. Public Util. Dist. 1, 82 Wash.2d 839, 514 P.2d 913 (1973); State School Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Indus., 82 Wash.2d 367, 510 P.2d 818 (1973); American Fed'n of Teachers, Local 1485 v. Yakima School Dist. 7, 74 Wash.2d 865, 447 P.2d 593 (1968); State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wash.2d 659, 445 P.2d 1017 (1968); Treffry v. Taylor, 67 Wash.2d 487, 408 P.2d 269 (1965). State v. Winters, 67 Wash.2d 465, 466-67, 407 P.2d 988 (1965), stated:
[T]he purposes of [article 2, section 19] are to:
1. Protect members of the legislature against provisions in bills of which the title gives no intimation.
2. Apprise the public concerning subject of legislation being considered.
3. Prevent hodgepodge or logrolling legislation.
With equal frequency it has been said that a title complies with the constitution if it gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicates to an inquiring mind its scope and purpose.
(Footnote omitted.)
House bill 1328 deals with the issuance of general obligation bonds and the funding for a myriad of capital projects. The title of the bill gives no notice of the authorization of general obligation bonds to provide for funding those projects which would impose a $285,000,000 debt upon the State. While it is proper for the Legislature to refer to sections of the revised code in the title of an act, this cannot take the place of the constitutional requirement that the title must contain some statement indicating the actual content of the bill. State ex rel. Seattle Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. 317, 68 P. 957 (1902).
If notice were to be given to the members of the Legislature and to the general public of the subject of the bill, there should have been added to its title the phrase, "and providing for the funding thereof by the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds." When the Code Reviser published the contents of the bill as Chapter 4 Washington Laws 1985, 1st Ex.Sess., the insufficiency of the title apparently was recognized and the words "BONDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS" were added as a heading at the beginning of the chapter long after the passage of the bill by the Legislature. The session laws reflect this at page 2289, in the following form.
AN ACT Relating to capital projects authorized in the state capital budget acts; amending RCW ...
HB 1328 concerns the issuance of bonds to fund innumerable capital improvements for the executive and administrative departments of state government. The term "Capital Budget" in the title provides no notice that the capital projects will be paid for by the sale of bonds, yet every act that the bill amends (now amending sections of the Revised Code of Washington) contained the word "bond" in its title. See Laws of 1969, ch. 13; Laws of 1973, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 135; Laws of 1977, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 308; Laws of 1979, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 230; Laws of 1980, ch. 141.
The contents of the bill were in the following format:
Sec. 1. The state finance committee is authorized to issue general obligation bonds of the state of Washington in the sum of two hundred eighty-five million eight hundred fifty-one thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be required, to finance the projects authorized in section 2 of this act and all costs incidental thereto.
* * *
Sec. 2. Bonds issued under section 1 ... are subject to the following conditions and limitations:
(1) General obligation bonds ... in the sum of thirty-eight million fifty-four thousand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Broadaway
...as opposed to broad. See id. at 22, 211 P.2d 651; Washington Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555, 901 P.2d 1028; State Fin. Comm. v. O'Brien, 105 Wash.2d 78, 80, 711 P.2d 993 (1986). It is of specific rather than generic import. Olympic Motors, Inc. v. McCroskey, 15 Wash.2d 665, 672, 132 P.2d 355, 15......
-
Washington Federation of State Employees v. State
...Clerk's Papers, at 81, 85. Const. art. 2, § 19 is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislation. State Fin. Comm. v. O'Brien, 105 Wash.2d 78, 80, 711 P.2d 993 (1986); Washington State Sch. Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Indus., 82 Wash.2d 367, 371, 510 P.2d 818 (1973). "Th......
-
Amalgamated Transit v. State
...§ 19 is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislation. Wash. Fed'n,127 Wash.2d at 555,901 P.2d 1028; State Fin. Comm. v. O'Brien, 105 Wash.2d 78, 80, 711 P.2d 993 (1986); Wash. State Sch. Dirs. Ass'n v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 82 Wash.2d 367, 371, 510 P.2d 818 (1973). Art. II, § 19......
-
Kincaid v. Mangum
...the imposition and administration of the oil extraction tax and does not violate the one-subject rule); and State Finance Committee v. O'Brien, 105 Wash.2d 78, 711 P.2d 993 (1986) (a bill authorizing the issuance of bonds for various capital projects does not violate the one-subject rule).1......
-
The Constitutional Validity of the Modification of Joint and Several Liability in the Washington Tort Reform Act of 1986 Gregory C. Sisk
...241 (1951) (quoting Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 275, 28 P. 520, (1891)). 268. See State Fin. Comm. v. O'Brien, 105 Wash. 2d 78, 80-81, 711 P.2d 993, 993-94 269. Casey, 56 Wash. App. 749, 785 P.2d 484 (1990) (listing the "extreme and obvious" cases in which violations of article II, § 19 ......