Gehring v. All Members of 1993 Legislature

NO. 94-166
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1995
JACK B. GEHRING,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1993 LEGISLATURE, ALL MEMBERS OF THE
MONTANA SUPREME COURT, Chief Justice
J. A. Turnage, John C. Harrison, William
E. Hunt, Sr., Fred Weber, R. C. McDonough,
Karla Gray, Terry N. Trieweiler; GOVERNOR
MARC RACICOT and ATTORNEY GENERAL
JOSEPH P. MAZUREK,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark,
The Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jack B. Gehring, Pro Se, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;
Deanne L. Sandholm, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Mike McGrath, County Attorney, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 16, 1994
Decided: February 6, 1995
Filed:
Honorable James E. Purcell, District Judge, delivered the Opinion
of the Court.
Jack B. Gehring (Gehring) appeals the decision of the First
Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting defen-
dant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. We affirm.
We find the following issues to be dispositive:
1. Did the District Court err in determining that the members
of Montana's Fifty-third Legislature did not violate the 1972
Montana Constitution by fixing their own compensation?
2. Did the District Court err in determining that Gehring's
right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress
was not violated?
On December 16, 1993, Gehring filed a complaint in the First
Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Montana. He
asserted two substantive claims. First, he claims that the 1993
Montana Legislature violated Article V, section 5 of the 1972
Montana Constitution by fixing its own compensation.
Second, Gehring alleges he delivered "Notice and Petitions" to
Montana's Governor, House of Representatives, Senate, Clerk of the
Supreme Court and Attorney General. Gehring claims that he did not
receive any responses from his Notice and Petitions. He therefore
argues that all the above named defendants violated his right to
peaceably assemble and petition for redress of governmental action
2
as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitu-
tion and Article II, section 6 of the 1972 Montana Constitution.
On March 10, 1994, the District Court dismissed Gehring's
complaint, finding that he had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. On March 28, 1994, Gehring filed a notice
of appeal with the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. Accompany-
ing his notice of appeal was a request that the sitting Justices of
the Montana Supreme Court be disqualified, as they were parties to
the subject litigation. On August 25, 1994, Chief Justice Turnage,
on behalf of the Montana Supreme Court, issued an order requesting
Gehring to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for
failure to file an appellate brief. On August 31, 1994, Gehring
responded that the rules of appellate procedure were unduly
complicated and conflicted with the United States and Montana
Constitutions and asked that his appeal go forward on the merits of
his district court complaint. Gehring also reasserted his request
that the sitting Justices of the Montana Supreme Court disqualify
themselves.
On September 14, 1994, the Montana Supreme Court issued an
order recusing itself and appointing five district court judges:
James E. Purcell, Ted L. Mizner, Roy C. Rodeghiero, John W. Larson
and Ted 0. Lympus, to hear this appeal. On September 27, 1994,
Gehring requested that two additional judges be appointed to hear
this case. On October 6, 1994, we denied Gehring's request for two
additional justices, concluding that this matter was properly
3
classified for decision by a five member panel pursuant to the
Internal Operating Rules of the Montana Supreme Court.
We also concluded that Gehring's original petition was
insufficient and did not constitute an Appellant's Brief as
required by the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Gehring
subsequently filed an Appellant's Brief on October 19, 1994.
Issue 1
Did the District Court err in determining that the 1333
Montana Legislature did not violate the 1972 Montana Constitution
by fixing its own compensation?
Gehring claims that the 1993 legislature established its own
compensation in violation of the Montana Constitution. Article V,
section 5 of the Montana Constitution states:
Each member of the legislature shall receive compensation
for his services and allowances provided by law. No
legislature may fix its own compensation.
This section provides that while legislators are to be compensated
for their services, no given legislature can establish the amount
of its own compensation.
Section 5-Z-301, MCA, establishes the legislature's compensa-
tion and expenses. This section reads:
[Llegislators are entitled to a salary commensurate to
that of the daily rate of an entry grade 8 classified
state employee in effect when the regular session of the
legislature in which they serve is convened under S-Z-103
for those days during which the legislature is in
s e s s i o n .
.
4
Legislators are entitled to $50 a day, 7 days a week,
during a legislative session, as reimbursement for
expenses incurred in attending a session. Expense
payments shall stop when the legislature recesses for
more that 3 days and shall resume when the legislature
reconvenes.
Section 5-2-301, MCA (1993). In 1991 the Fifty-second Legislature
had amended this section, changing the pay scale from grade 8, step
two to entry level grade 8. These changes were in full effect when
the Fifty-third Legislature began its session
Each legislative assembly is a distinct and separate entity.
Construing a similar clause restricting the power of the legisla-
ture to fix its own compensation found in the 1889 Montana
Constitution, this Court stated:
We think it is evident that the Constitution fixed the
compensation of the members of the first legislative
assembly of the State, and conferred upon that body the
power to enact appropriate laws for the payment of its
successors. Such legislation can be amended at any time,
subject to the restrictions that no legislative assembly
can pass a law which defines its own compensation.
State ex rel. Harrington v. Kenney (1891), 10 Mont. 410, 412, 25 P.
1022, 1023.
The compensation and expense reimbursement for the Fifty-third
Legislature was established by the Fifty-second Legislature. The
Fifty-third Legislature did pass laws appropriating money necessary
to pay for the cost of the legislative sessions. However, these
laws merely made the funds available. The amount of compensation
was already fixed. We conclude that the District Court did not err
in determining that the Fifty-third Legislature did not fix its own
5
compensation in violation of Article V, section 5 of the Montana
Constitution.
Issue 2
Did the District Court err in determining that Gehring's right
to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress was
not violated?
Gehring alleges he sent "Notice and Petitions" to various
members of the state government, all of which went unanswered. He
claims that since his petitions allegedly fell on deaf ears, his
right to petition the government for redress has been violated.
Article II, section 6 of the Montana Constitution and the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution both ensure
citizens the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. While an individual has a right to petition the
government, their is no corresponding right that his petition will
be acted upon. In Canfora v. Olds (6th Cir. 19771, 562 F.2d 363,
the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "neither
the First Amendment nor elsewhere in the Constitution is there a
provision guaranteeing that all petitions for the redress of
grievances will meet with success." Canfora, 562 F.2d at 364. The
First Amendment guarantees access to and free participation in the
political process, not political success. Republican Party of N.C.
v. Martin (4th Cir. 1992), 980 F.2d 943, 960.
6
We also find the substance of Gehring's petitions to be
without merit. Gehring demanded that the respondents "cease and
desist any transaction concerning money . . St He claims the
use of paper money is void under Article I, section 10, clause 1 of
the United States Constitution which states "no State shall
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of
Debts .)I This provision, by its terms, is applicable to the
states. However, this provision is not applicable to the federal
government. Juilliard v. Greenman (1884), 110 U.S. 421, 447, 4
S. Ct. 122, 129, 28 L. Ed. 204, 211. The legality of paper money has
consistently been upheld. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood (19391,
307 U.S. 247, 59 S. Ct. 847, 83 L. Ed. 1266; United States v. Wangrud
(9th Cir.), 533 F.2d 495, cert. denied, (1976), 429 U.S. 853, 97
S. Ct. 64, 50 L.Ed.Zd 79.
We conclude that the District Court did not err in determining
that Gehring's right to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress was not violated. We affirm the decision of
the District Court.
District Judge
We concur:
H n rable John W. Larson,
i trict Judge
District Judge