07/03/2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF WYOMING KERRY AND CLARA POWERS, on ) behalf of themselves and the citizens ) of Wyoming, and CINDY HILL, on behalf ) of herself and as the SUPERINTENDENT ) OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. S-13-0052 ) STATE OF WYOMING and ) Matthew H. Mead, Governor, in his official ) capacity, ) ) Appellees. ) BRIEF OF APPELLEES Angela C. Dougherty Gregory A. Phillips Dougherty Law Office, P.C. Wyoming Attorney General 1623 Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82003 Peter K. Michael (307) 432-4006 Chief Deputy Attorney General ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS John G. Knepper Senior Assistant Attorney General 123 Capitol Building Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-7841 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES....................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ........................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 2 I. Nature of the Case ................................................................................................. 2 II. Course of Proceedings and Disposition Below ..................................................... 4 III. Statement of the Facts ............................................................................................ 4 A. The Origins of the Office of Superintendent and the Early Assignment of Duties to the Office by the Territorial and State Legislatures ........................... 5 B. Reform of the Office of Superintendent in the Early 20th Century ................ 10 C. Legislative Changes to the Office of Superintendent and the Development of the Department of Education in the Second Half of the 20th Century ........... 14 D. The Office of Superintendent Today ............................................................... 19 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 21 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 26 I. Standard of Review .............................................................................................. 26 II. The Wyoming Constitution does not imbue the office of Superintendent with pervasive, inherent power over education in Wyoming. ..................................... 30 A. The text of the Constitution expressly envisions that the Legislature will dictate the powers and duties of the Superintendent. ...................................... 30 1. The phrase “as prescribed by law” means that the Legislature can decide what powers and duties the Superintendent will exercise. ........................... 33 2. By its plain meaning, the first clause of Article 7, section 14 of the Constitution does not grant the Superintendent broad power over education in Wyoming. ................................................................................................. 38 i B. Wyoming’s constitutional debates show that the Framers thought the Superintendent’s authority would be provided by statute. .............................. 44 C. During the first twenty-five years after statehood, no Superintendent claimed to have been granted broad, inherent authority by the Constitution. .............. 48 D. The powers and duties that Superintendent Hill suggests are core powers of her office are recent grants of authority from the Legislature and not duties that Superintendents have historically exercised. ............................................ 49 E. Even were this Court to hold that the Constitution grants inherent authority to the office of Superintendent, the current statute preserves sufficient power so as to satisfy the Constitution............................................................................ 55 III. The Constitution’s guarantee that all power is inherent in the people and that they may alter their government does not prevent the Wyoming Legislature from using its authority to modify the powers of the Superintendent by statute. ........ 59 A. The Constitution specifically envisions that the Legislature can change the powers of the Superintendent by statute. ......................................................... 59 B. The Constitution does not require that the Legislature delay any changes to the powers of the Superintendent until after the incumbent leaves office. ........... 61 IV. The Constitution expressly grants to the Legislature the authority to create the powers and duties of the Superintendent and the exercise of this authority does not violate the division of powers guaranteed by article 2, section 1 of the Wyoming Constitution......................................................................................... 64 A. Separation of powers concerns cannot overcome the Constitution’s clear delegation of authority to the Legislature. ....................................................... 64 B. Superintendent Hill’s understanding of the division of responsibility for education in Wyoming is directly contrary to this Court’s recent opinions.... 65 V. The Wyoming Legislature has not passed an impermissible “special law.” ....... 69 A. The Education Act is a generally applicable statute, and it is constitutional under this Court’s prior decisions.................................................................... 69 B. This Court has explicitly rejected Superintendent Hill’s argument that the “special law” limitations in the Wyoming Constitution reduce the Legislature’s authority over education. ........................................................... 70 ii C. Superintendent Hill’s assertion that the Education Act is “personal” does not mean that the Legislature has enacted a “special law.” ................................... 71 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 73 iii TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Cases Application of Okla. Capitol Imp. Auth., 958 P.2d 759 (Okla. 1998) ............................................................................................. 33 Atkinson v. State, Order, No. 09CVS006655 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 17, 2009) .......................................... 52 Baessler v. Freier, 2011 WY 125, 258 P.3d 720 (Wyo. 2011) .............................................................. 39, 72 Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401 (Wyo. 1990) ............................................................................................. 27 Byington v. Fuller, 587 P.2d 636 (Wyo., 1978) ............................................................................................ 37 Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995) ..................................................................... 6, 16, 66, 67, 71 Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 2008 WY 2, 181 P.3d 43 (Wyo. 2008) .......................................................................... 55 Cathcart v. Meyer, 2004 WY 49, 88 P.3d 1050 (Wyo. 2004) ................................................................ 26, 32 Dir. of the Office of State Lands and Invs. v. Merbanco, Inc., 2003 WY 73, 70 P.3d 241 (Wyo. 2003) ........................................................................ 28 Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315 (Wyo. 1999) ............................................................................................... 4 Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc., 839 P.2d 903 (Wyo. 1992) ................................................................................... 4, 29, 68 Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) ........................................................................................................... 37 iv Hamlin v. Transcon. Lines, 701 P.2d 1139 (Wyo. 1985) ........................................................................................... 42 Howard v. Cook, 83 P.2d 208 (Idaho 1938) .............................................................................................. 33 In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006) .................................................................... 57 Indep. Cmty. Bankers Ass’n of S.D. v. State ex. rel. Meierhenry, 346 N.W.2d 737 (S.D. 1984) ................................................................................... 60, 73 Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 2009 WY 11, 200 P.3d 774 (Wyo. 2009) ................................................................ 26, 30 Langer v. Totten, 175 N.W. 563 (N. Dak. 1919) ................................................................................. 30, 31 Leyen v. Dunn, 461 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. App. 1970) ................................................................................. 60 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ........................................................................................................... 37 Mariano & Associates, P.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Sublette Cnty., 737 P.2d 323 (Wyo. 1987) ............................................................................................. 37 Mau v. Stoner, 14 Wyo. 183, 83 P. 218 (Wyo. 1905) ..................................................................... passim Miech v. Sheridan Cnty., 2002 WY 178, 59 P.3d 143 (Wyo. 2002) ........................................................................ 5 Pirie v. Kamps, 229 P.2d 927 (Wyo. 1951) ....................................................................................... 69, 70 Redco Const. v.