Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Neb. 211

Weston v. Ryan

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1903

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1903-11-05

<p>1. Constitutional Law. “Changes or modifications of existing statutes, as an incidental result of adopting a new law covering the whole subject to which it relates, are not forbidden by section 11, article III of the constitution.” De France v. Harmer, 66 Neb. 14.</p> <p>2. General and Special Laws. It is for the legislature to determine as to the applicability of a general law to a given emergency, and as to the consequent propriety or otherwise of a special law.</p> <p>3. Act Constitutional. This court will not undertake to say as to the act of February 23, 1887, under which, the ballots as to the adoption of the amendment to section 4, article III of the slate constitution, were counted, and the result declared, that a general law would have been applicable, and that the act in question was therefore unconstitutional.</p> <p>4. Legislative Acts. Something more than mere irregularities and improprieties in declaring the result of an election'should appear, to warrant this court in attempting to set aside the solemn acts of the legislative bodies and the executive of the state as to the fundamental law of the state, especially after such legislative and executive action has been acquiesced in for sixteen years.</p> <p>1. Submission of Constitutional Amendment. Tbe submission by tbe legislature to tbe electors of a proposed constitutional amendment is not a legislative act. In making sucb a submission, tbe legislature act in a capacity strictly analogous to that of a constitutional convention and are subject to sucb constitutional restrictions and limitations, only, as bave direct reference to tbe exercise of that power.</p> <p>2. Constitutional Law. An act is not obnoxious to tbe constitutional inhibition against special legislation, if tbe subject with wbicb it deals is special and particular in its nature.</p> <p>3. Amendment to Constitution: Power of Legislature. When a proposed constitutional amendment has been duly submitted to tbe people without prescribed regulations with reference to the manner of counting, canvassing or returning the ballots, or ascertaining or authenticating the result of the election, it is competent for the legislature to provide by special enactment for so doing.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1903-11-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1971

9 state decisions

4019031910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Oldham, 0.,

¶1concurring.

¶2In my judgment the question as to whether general legislation is applicable to a particular condition rests in the sound, rather than the arbitrary, discretion of the legislature. It seems to me, that the duty of canvassing and declaring the result of the election on the proposed constitutional amendment presented a question of procedure not at that time covered by general legislation, and created an emergency sufficient to authorize special legislation, if such were necessary, for the purpose of determining the will of the people, as expressed by the -votes cast *223at the election on the amendment. I think, however, that entirely independent of the question of the regularity or irregularity of the manner in which the result of the election was ascertained, the constitution itself is self-executing, in declaring that the vote of a majority of those present and voting at the election should adopt a proposed amendment properly submitted by the legislature. It is conceded that the amendment was properly submitted; that an election was held, and that votes were cast both for and against the proposed amendment. The legislature, acting Avithin the scope of its apparent authority, attempted to and did canimss the returns of this election and, presumably, after a recount of all the votes cast for and against the amendment, declared the amendment to have been adopted. Proclamation of this result was made by the executive branch of the government. The result was and has been acquiesced in by all departments of the state government for sixteen years before the institution of the instant case; consequently, I think, we would not be justified in overturning the annex to the frameAvork of our state government attached by this constitutional amendment, short of clear and convincing proof that a majority of the voters voting at the election did not vote for the adoption of the amendment.

/70/neb/211 · .json · Public domain