DeLong v. Downes

No. 13629
IN THE SUPREME: COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977

JOE A. DeLONG et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
-vs-
ALEX L. DOWTJES et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
Honorable Robert Sykes, Judg& presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:

Maore, Lympus and Dor,an, Kalispell, Montana
James Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondents:
Patrick M. Springer
Kalispell, Montana
Norbert F. Donahue

Submitted.: December 1, 1977
Decided: DEC 2 2 lgn,
.-,
--- -
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court :

This i s an a c t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n i t i a t e d

i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Flathead County, by t h e Board of County

Commissioners of t h a t county. Defendants a r e t e n i n d i v i d u a l s

whose s i g n a t u r e s appear on a P e t i t i o n f o r I n i t i a t i v e requesting

t h a t t h e Board place before t h e general e l e c t o r a t e f o r v o t e a

r e s o l u t i o n l i m i t i n g gambling within Flathead County t o bingo,

r a f f l e s and g i f t e n t e r p r i s e s t o be conducted by r e l i g i o u s and

c h a r i t a b l e organizations.

The Board, i n i t s complaint and p e t i t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y

judgment f i l e d September 16, 1976, sought judgment t h a t t h e

s u b j e c t matter of t h e P e t i t i o n f o r I n i t i a t i v e was o u t s i d e t h e

powers and j u r i s d i c t i o n of any board of county commissioners

and t h a t it be enjoined and r e s t r a i n e d from placing a r e s o l u t i o n

pursuant t o t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e b a l l o t f o r submission t o t h e

general electorate.

The City of K a l i s p e l l received a s i m i l a r p e t i t i o n and moved

t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o intervene a s a p l a i n t i f f . Supported by

s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , an o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n

was issued by the c o u r t on September 22, 1976. The cause was

submitted upon t h e pleadings of t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s .

T h e ' D i s t r i c t Court, t h e Hon. Robert C. Sykes p r e s i d i n g , i n

i t s order containing f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w ,

dated September 30, 1976, concluded t h e Board and C i t y were

without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n gambling a c t i v i t i e s ,

and without power t o l i m i t issuance of gambling l i c e n s e s t o non-

p r o f i t r e l i g i o u s and c h a r i t a b l e organizations. The c o u r t t h e r e -

f o r e r e s t r a i n e d t h e Board and City from placing t h e proposed
 r e s o l u t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t . Defendants, i n d i v i d u a l s i g n a t o r s

of t h e p e t i t i o n , appeal t h e order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court.

On September 3 , 1976, the,-described p e t i t i o n s f o r i n i t i a t i v e s

on gambling, prepared i n accordance with s e c t i o n s 37-301 and

11-1104, R.C.M. 1947, were presented t o t h e Board and t h e City

Council. The p e t i t i o n s requested t h a t those bodies submit t o

t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r a t e measures t o enact a r e s o l u t i o n and an

ordinance, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h a t such bodies:

"Section 1. *** may a u t h o r i z e Bingo, ( n o t Keno) ,
R a f f l e s o r G i f t E n t e r p r i s e s by non-profit r e l i g i o u s
o r c h a r i t a b l e organizations within [ t h e C i t y and County];
provided however, t h a t a l l o t h e r forms of gambling,
l o t t e r i e s o r g i f t e n t e r p r i s e s , f o r whatever purposes,
a r e hereby p r o h i b i t e d * * *.
"Section 2. A l l a c t s , ordinances, r e s o l u t i o n s ,
r e g u l a t i o n s o r r u l e s of [ t h e City and County] i n con-
f l i c t with t h i s a c t a r e hereby repealed."
(Bracketed m a t e r i a l paraphrased).

There i s no question a s t o t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e p e t i t i o n s o r t h e

manner i n which they were prepared o r c e r t i f i e d .

The City and County refused t o honor t h e p e t i t i o n s , on

t h e ground t h e requested measures were o u t s i d e the powers and

j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e r e s p e c t i v e bodies t o enact and were, t h e r e -

f o r e , improper s u b j e c t s f o r i n i t i a t i v e . The i n s t a n t a c t i o n

ensued.

The i s s u e t o be resolved on t h i s appeal i s : Does a

r e s o l u t i o n which s p e c i f i e s t h e types of gambling t o be l i c e n s e d

and l i m i t s t h e n a t u r e of organizations o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o be

li+benseaf o r gambling c o n s t i t u t e a proper s u b j e c t f o r p u b l i c

i n i t i a t i v e within t h e l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n and powers of

t h e City of K a l i s p e l l and County of Flathead?

The t h r u s t of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument i s t h a t l o c a l u n i t s of

government have t h e power and j u r i s d i c t i o n , pursuant t o t h e
Montana gambling statutes, section 62-701 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947,
to limit and control, as well as authorize, gambling and the

various forms thereof. Such limitation, it is argued, may be
accomplished by way of initiative or referendum, submitted to

the qualified voters in such jurisdictions. We cannot sustain

this position.

A county possesses and can exercise only such powers as
are conferred on it by the Constitution and statutes of the state,

or such powers as arise by necessary implication from those

expressly granted, or such as are required for performance of
duties imposed on it by law. Hersey v. Neilson, 47 Mont. 132,

131 P. 30 (1913); Roosevelt County v. State Board of Equalization,

118 Mont. 31, 162 P.2d 887 (1945); Helena Gun Club v. Lewis and

Clark County, 141 Mont. 490, 379 P.2d 436 (1963). Therefore,

beyond the express powers delegated counties by virtue of section
16-801 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947, and those necessarily implied
therefrom, counties are without powers. Any reasonable doubt

concerning the existence of a power should be resolved against

a county's exercise of that power. Sullivan v. Big Horn County,

66 Mont. 45, 212 P. 1105 (1923); Bignell v. Cumins, 69 Mont. 294,

222 P. 797 (1923).
Cites and towns are similarly limited in their exercise

of legislative powers. Sharkey v. City of Butte, 52 Mont. 16,

155 P. 266 (1916); Penland v. City of Missoula, 132 Mont. 591,
318 P.2d 1089 (1957); Leischner v. City of Billings, 135 Mont.
109, 337 P.2d 359 (1959).
The Montana Card Games Act and the Bingo and Raffles Law,
section 62-701 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947, by their express terms

authorize various forms of gambling. Sections 62-703, 62-717.
The gambling a c t s contain a d e l e g a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y t o c i t i e s ,

towns and c o u n t i e s , by t h i s language i n s e c t i o n s 62-708 and

"The governing body authorized t o i s s u e gambling
l i c e n s e s pursuant t o t h i s a c t may e s t a b l i s h by
ordinance o r r e s o l u t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s governing t h e
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r and t h e i s s u i n g , suppression, and
revocation of such gambling l i c e n s e s . ** *"
Theabsve s t a t u t e s make p l a i n , t h e s o l e power delegated

t o t h e l o c a l governing bodies i s a d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o regu-

l a t e t h e l i c e n s i n g of gambling. The s t a t u t e s r e v e a l no language

empowering t h e l o c a l u n i t s t o p r o h i b i t "authorized" forms of

gambling i n t h e i r e n t i r e t i e s . Neither i s such p r o h i b i t i o n

properly implied from an e x e r c i s e of l i c e n s i n g power. Thus,

n e i t h e r t h e City of K a l i s p e l l nor Flathead County has t h e power

o r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o l i m i t o r a l t o g e t h e r p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n forms of

gambling w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by way of ordinance o r r e s o l u t i o n .

Nor can l o c a l gambling r e s t r i c t i o n s be properly considered

an implied e x e r c i s e of p o l i c e powers by t h e l o c a l governing

bodies.

It i s e n t i r e l y conceivable t h a t a group of c i t i z e n s i n a

given l o c a l i t y may d e s i r e t o l i m i t o r p r o h i b i t a c t i v i t i e s such

a s gambling on t h e b a s i s of a perceived adverse moral and economic

impact upon t h e i r community. However, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e

expressly chose t o regard t h e question of gambling a s a matter

of s t a t e w i d e , a s c o n t r a s t e d with l o c a l , concern. I n effect, the

l e g i s l a t u r e has preempted t h e f i e l d with regard t o t h e a u t h o r i z a -

t i o n of c e r t a i n forms of gambling and card games. I n S t a t e ex r e l .

City of Libby v. Haswell, 147 Mont. 492, 414 P.2d 652 (1966), a

c a s e concerning a c o n f l i c t , such a s t h e i n s t a n t one,in t h e a r e a

of l i q u o r c o n t r o l , t h i s Court recognized t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e :
 "* 9; * when t h e s t a t e has e x e r c i s e d a power
through i t s s t a t u t e s which c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e
s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e deems t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n t o be a m a t t e r of g e n e r a l s t a t e w i d e
concern r a t h e r than a p u r e l y l o c a l municipal pro-
blem, t h e c i t y i s then without t h e e s s e n t i a l a u t h o r i t y
o r power t o pass o r adopt any ordinance d e a l i n g w i t h
t h e s u b j e c t matter." 147 Mont. 495.

See a l s o : C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. Herold, 130 Mont. 138, 296 P.2d

263 (1956); S t a t e ex r e l . Wiley v. D i s t r i c t Court, 118 Mont.

C i t y of Bozeman v. Ramsey, 139 Mont. 148, 362 P.2d 206

(1961) and Town of White Sulphur Springs v. Voise, 136 Mont. 1,

343 P.2d 855 (1959), while f a c t u a l l y analogous to the instant

case, a r e clearly distinguishable. I n those cases challenges

were made t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f l o c a l governmental b o d i e s r e -

garding c e r t a i n l o c a l t r a f f i c r e g u l a t i o n s a l l e g e d t o be preempted

by s t a t e s t a t u t e s . However, t h e s t a t e s t a t u t o r y scheme t h e r e

i n q u e s t i o n , t h e 1957 amendment t o t h e Uniform Act Regulating

T r a f f i c , g r a n t e d express a u t h o r i t y t o l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s t o s o

r e g u l a t e t r a f f i c , a s an e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power. Such

c a s e s have no a p p l i c a t i o n where, a s h e r e , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e g r a n t

of power t o l o c a l u n i t s of government i s p a t e n t l y a b s e n t .

A p p e l l a n t s would have us hold t h e gambling a c t s c o n f e r

upon l o c a l governments a " l o c a l option" i n p e r m i t t i n g o r pro-

h i b i t i n g gambling i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . I t i s argued

t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n t h a t l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s "may" i s s u e

licenses implies a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a l o c a l option

concerning gambling. S e c t i o n s 62-707, 62-719. Such a p o s i t i o n

i s untenable.

I t i s axiomatic t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i s f i r s t t o be

a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e language of t h e lawmakers. Green v. C i t y

of Roundup, 117 Mont. 249, 157 P.2d 1010 (1945). W conclude,
e
from t h e p l a i n language of t h e gambling acts, t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

intended t o g r a n t minimal power t o t h e l o c a l governments regarding

r e g u l a t i o n of gambling, such power being confined t o a d i s c r e t i o n a r y

l i c e n s i n g power.

W t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t l o c a l governmental bodies a r e without
e

t h e power, under t h e Montana Card Games Act and t h e Bingo and

R a f f l e s Law t o l i m i t o r p r o h i b i t gambling and t h e approved forms

t h e r e o f , except a s expressly provided by such a c t s , w i t h i n t h e i r

respective jurisdictions.

Accordingly, t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e s t r a i n i n g

respondents from placing t h e proposed r e s o l u t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t

f o r submission t o the general e l e c t o r a t e i s affirmed.

-
W Concur:
e