Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. Marino, 89 N.Y.2d 235 (1996)
The New York State Constitution mandates that a bill passed by both houses of the Legislature must be presented to the Governor within a reasonable time for either enactment into law or veto.
Summary
This case addresses whether the New York State Constitution requires the Legislature to present bills passed by both houses to the Governor. The Court of Appeals held that the practice of retaining legislation passed by both houses of the Legislature violates the Presentment Clause of the New York State Constitution. The Court reasoned that withholding bills effectively nullifies the will of the People’s representatives and undermines the separation of powers. This decision ensures that the Governor has the opportunity to either enact or veto legislation, maintaining the integrity of the law-making process.
Facts
Senate Bill No. 3248, the “Maintenance of Effort Bill,” was passed by both the Senate and Assembly in 1994. The bill aimed to ensure that large city school districts maintained existing levels of per capita spending for public schools. The Legislature, however, never presented the bill to the Governor before the end of the 1994 legislative session. Appellants then filed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, claiming this violated the Presentment Clause.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding that the appellants had standing but failed to state grounds for relief because the New York Constitution does not specify when a bill must be presented to the Governor. The Appellate Division affirmed, deeming the matter an internal legislative affair. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the practice of the New York State Legislature retaining bills passed by both houses, and thus not presenting them to the Governor, violates the Presentment Clause of the New York Constitution (Article IV, Section 7).
Holding
Yes, because implicit in Article IV, Section 7 of the New York Constitution is the requirement that bills passed by both houses of the Legislature be presented to the Governor within a reasonable time; the practice of withholding such bills violates this provision and the principles of separation of powers.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Article IV, § 7 of the Constitution, which states, “Every bill which shall have passed the senate and assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor,” implicitly requires that bills passed by both houses be presented to the Governor within a reasonable time. The Court stated that withholding bills effectively nullifies the vote and will of the People’s representatives. The court stated that “To hold otherwise would be to sanction a practice where one house or one or two persons, as leaders of the Legislature, could nullify the express vote and will of the People’s representatives.”
The Court further cited Matter of King v. Cuomo, 81 N.Y.2d 247, where the practice of recalling bills after presentment to the Governor was deemed unconstitutional. The court stated that “[t]he practice of withholding passed bills while simultaneously conducting discussions and negotiations between the executive and legislative branches is just another method of thwarting open, regular governmental process, not unlike the unconstitutional ‘recall’ policy which, similarly, violated article IV, § 7.” The Court expressly rejected the argument that the phrase “before it becomes a law” grants the Legislature unreviewable power over a bill. Citing federal cases interpreting the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Court emphasized the implicit directive to present bills for executive action. Though the practice was deemed unconstitutional, the Court determined that a retroactive ruling was not warranted, making the decision prospective from the date of the ruling.