State Ex Rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship

214 S.E.2d 467, 158 W. Va. 390
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 5, 1975
Docket13514
StatusPublished
Cited by50 cases

This text of 214 S.E.2d 467 (State Ex Rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 214 S.E.2d 467, 158 W. Va. 390 (W. Va. 1975).

Opinions

Haden, Chief Justice:

On September 4, 1974, the relators, the Honorable William T. Brotherton, Jr., as a member and President of the Senate of West Virginia, and the Honorable Lewis N. McManus, as a member and Speaker of the House of Delegates of West Virginia, and both as citizens and taxpayers of the State, sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court through the issuance of a writ to require the respondent, C. A. Blankenship, Clerk of the House of Delegates and, as such, the keeper of the rolls and the custodian of the Acts and Joint Resolutions of the Legislature, “to publish the true Budget Act in such manner as to include the full and lawful purposes and as appropriated by the Legislature without the void deletions, reductions and vetoes attempted by the Governor and without giving effect to the unlawful and unconstitutional additions of figures and language and amendments and changes in the Budget Bill attempted by the Governor and to furnish Petitioners true copies of the Budget Act as so published....”

Thereafter, on September 9, 1974, this Court acting upon the allegations of the petition, issued a rule returnable September 24, 1974. The Honorable Arch A. Moore, Jr., Governor of the State of West Virginia then, on September 16, 1974, filed a motion praying that he be granted leave to intervene in this proceeding as a party respondent. That motion was granted by this Court. On September 25, 1974, upon the petition and exhibits, the demurrer of the respondent, the intervenor’s demurrer and separate answer with exhibits filed in opposition to the petition, the joint stipulation of the parties, the [395]*395briefs and oral arguments of the respective parties, and the brief amicus curiae of Honorable George H. Seibert, Jr. as a member and Minority Leader of the House of Delegates of West Virginia, and as a citizen and taxpayer of the State, and upon the reply brief of the relators, this case was submitted for decision.

On November 6, 1974, this Court, by order, granted the relief prayed for in certain instances, denied such relief in other instances, and molded the writ in others to give appropriate relief required by the questions presented. On December 5, 1974, the relators and the respondent, C. A. Blankenship, Clerk, deeming themselves aggrieved by the rulings contained in the previous order of this Court, filed separate petitions for rehearing, assigned purported errors on the face of said order, and requested that the matters contained in the former order be set down for a full rehearing, that this Court correct its former order, and grant the relief as originally prayed for in the petition of the petitioners. This Court denied the two separate petitions for rehearing on December 13, 1974.

This opinion is now filed for the purpose of stating the reasons for, clarifying, and elaborating upon the holdings in the order of November 6, 1974.

As was true in two former cases decided by this Court, State ex rel. Browning v. Blankenship, 154 W. Va. 253, 175 S.E.2d 172 (1970) and State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, _ W. Va _, 207 S.E.2d 421 (1973), resolving matters of dispute between the legislative and executive branches of government arising from the interplay of those branches pursuant to the Modern Budget Amendment, West Virginia Constitution, Article VI, Section 51, the primary issue presented is whether the several actions of the Governor in the exercise of his veto powers in relation to the Budget Act for fiscal year 1974-1975 are valid.

The Legislature, on July 3, 1974, enacted Enrolled Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 9, referred to [396]*396herein as the Budget Bill, providing for the budget of the State of West Virginia for the fiscal year 1974-1975. The Budget Bill was then presented to the Governor for his consideration in accordance with the provisions of the West Virginia Constitution, Article VI, Section 51, Subsection D(ll). On July 15, 1974, the Governor signed the Budget Bill as approved with reductions and deletions and returned it with Executive Message No. 6 to the Legislature for further consideration by that body upon its return from recess. Both houses of the Legislature then gave consideration to the veto actions of the Governor in regard to the Budget Bill, but in so doing failed to muster the two-thirds vote required of both houses of the Legislature to override the veto actions of the Governor. The relators, not being satisfied with particular Budget Bill modifications made by the Governor through his veto actions, and believing those vetoes to be unlawful and unconstitutional, instituted this action praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the Clerk to publish the Budget Act unaffected by such veto actions.

Although the authority of the relators to maintain this proceeding in the official capacities as President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Delegates, respectively, does not appear, they nevertheless demonstrate proper standing as citizens and taxpayers to maintain this proceeding to test the validity of the veto actions affecting the public revenue. See, Delardas v. County Court of Monongalia County, _ W. Va. _, 186 S.E.2d 847 (1972).

Due to the manner in which the Governor altered the Budget Bill after its passage by the Legislature, and due to the challenges made by the relators, the following basic issues are presented for resolution in this proceeding:

I. Does the Governor have the constitutional authority under the Modern Budget Amendment at the veto stage to veto any part of the accounts of the Legislature [397]*397of West Virginia appropriated for the operation of that branch of government as contained in the Budget Bill?

II. Does the Governor have the constitutional authority under the Modern Budget Amendment at the veto stage to delete from the Budget Bill language of purpose, finding, direction and condition, and nevertheless retain for expenditure purposes the moneys appropriated in certain accounts of the Budget Bill?

III. Does the Governor have the constitutional power under the Modern Budget Amendment at the veto stage to delete language of purpose and itemization and amounts relating thereto, contained in an account in the Budget Bill and thereafter reinsert lump sums and language of purpose or subject relating thereto in such account?

IV. Does the Governor have the constitutional authority under the Modern Budget Amendment to reduce the amount of money in accounts of the Budget Bill and thereafter modify such account by the insertion of new language, items or parts of items and new amounts therein?

The issues thus stated are in a form substantially as presented by the relators, and in this opinion we shall endeavor to treat and resolve those issues with a statement of facts giving rise to each issue and the law applicable thereto seriatim.

I

Accounts Nos. 101, 102, and 103 in the Budget Bill are the account appropriations providing for the operation of the West Virginia Legislature, as a separate branch of government, for fiscal year 1974-1975.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Clawges
702 S.E.2d 611 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2010)
Louk v. Cormier
622 S.E.2d 788 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2005)
Hinchman v. Gillette
618 S.E.2d 387 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2005)
State ex rel. League of Women Voters of West Virginia v. Tomblin
550 S.E.2d 355 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2001)
STATE EX REL. v. Tomblin
550 S.E.2d 355 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2001)
State Ex Rel. Farley v. Spaulding
507 S.E.2d 376 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1998)
State Ex Rel. Lambert v. Stephens
490 S.E.2d 891 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1997)
Washington State Legislature v. Lowry
131 Wash. 2d 309 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
State Ex Rel. Frazier v. Meadows
454 S.E.2d 65 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1994)
Snyder v. Scheerer
436 S.E.2d 299 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1993)
Kincaid v. Mangum
432 S.E.2d 74 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1993)
W. VA. EDUC. ASS'N v. Legislature
369 S.E.2d 454 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
West Virginia Education Ass'n v. Legislature of West Virginia
369 S.E.2d 454 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
Rogers v. Hechler
348 S.E.2d 299 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Pauley v. Gainer
353 S.E.2d 318 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
704 P.2d 1371 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)
Oakley v. Gainer
331 S.E.2d 846 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1985)
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. Donaldson
322 S.E.2d 510 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Karcher v. Kean
479 A.2d 403 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984)
State Ex Rel. Hamstead v. Dostert
313 S.E.2d 409 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 S.E.2d 467, 158 W. Va. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brotherton-v-blankenship-wva-1975.