the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Rosalind in the State of Washington case, joined by two others, does address the problem: "The real and only party against whom relief is demanded is the legislature and that body is one which is not amenable to suit... [T]he people have seen fit to protect the members of their legislature from harassment by litigants while they are in session (Const. art. 2, ?16). [Note: Our Kentucky Constitution does likewise in ?43; see Wiggins v. Stuart, Ky.App., 671 S.W.2d 262 (1984) ]. When they are not in session, they are not a legislature. The legislature is not a corporate body, and its officers are not authorized to accept service on behalf of their fellow members. Furthermore, it is contrary to the nature of our representative form of government to permit interference by the court with the internal functioning of the legislature." [Emphasis added.] 585 P.2d at 127. Using a very liberal procedural construction, our Majority Opinion reaches the conclusion that the President Pro Tempore and Speaker of the House "were in fact named in a representative capacity." The question is, representing who? Certainly not the individuals who will serve in the next General Assembly. This Court cannot assert power over these future legislators to direct their future actions or to punish them for contempt if they fail to legislate in response to our mandate in a manner that we deem appropriate. In Legislative Research Comm' v. Brown, Ky., 664 S.W.2d 907 (1984), wherein it was the General Assembly trying to expand the nature of its legislative function rather than the judiciary seeking to direct it, we stated: "The Kentucky General Assembly is not one of continuous session... A legislative body ceases to exist at the moment of its adjournment." 664 S.W.2d at 915. The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate were elected to preside at the last legislative session. They cannot be designated as representatives of a body that "ceases to exist." Under our Constitution the House of Representatives and the Senate have power to choose officers anew "biannually." Ky. Const. ?34. This means they must be elected anew every two years, when the General Assembly regenerates and reorganizes as provided for in the Kentucky Constitution ?36. Who is the legal representative for the next General Assembly between sessions when it has no official existence? For that matter, who is to say that an order entered against the leadership while in session is binding upon the members of the General Assembly? In sum, it is pure fiction, not legal fiction, to hold that the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House at the last legislative session represent the General Assembly, or that the General Assembly is before this Court in this case for purposes of adjudication. This is a lawsuit with no defendants. It is one thing to order a school district to take some specific actions required by the constitution or statutes, or to desist from actions contrary thereto, as was done in Wooley v. Spalding, Ky., 293 S.W.2d 563 (1956), and quite a different thing to declare unconstitutional the action of legislators as individuals or as a body in failing to enact "appropriate legislation" to "provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the State [Ky. Const. ? 183]," particularly when we have not been asked to designate any specific legislation as constitutionally inappropriate. A school district is a legal entity created by statute with a corporate existence. Its actions as a body may be judicially reviewed and it may be ordered as a body by a court to take certain specific actions that the law requires. Such is not the case with our General Assembly. Finally, there is one further procedural problem when we undertake to order legislators what to do. The manner in which legislative power is exercised, like judicial power, is discretionary. It is fundamental premise of mandamus against public officials in the exercise of legislative or judicial power, that mandamus will not lie to compel the exercise of a discretionary power in any particular way. Fannin v. Keck, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 226 (1956); Childers v. Stephenson, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 797

Select target paragraph3

Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents