Senator Megan Hunt Nebraska Legislature, 041621 NEAGO, AGO 21-006
Case Date | April 16, 2021 |
Court | Nebraska |
1. How is this "dual service" appointment consistent with the Conway prohibition against concurrent service in two branches of government?
2. If it is your opinion that Mr. Synhorst's dual service on these commissions is improper, what is the remedy for resolving this unconstitutional arrangement?
3. Section 71-2603 provides for a removal process of Board of Health members for various reasons, including the "failure to maintain the qualifications for the position for which appointed." Would removal of Mr. Synhorst from the Board of Health be the remedy for resolving the conflict with Conway?
4. Or. would the Legislature's most recent confirmation of Mr. Synhorst to the Board of Health be given deference? If so, and stated another way, is there a process available for removal from Mr. Synhorst from the Judicial Nominating Commission [that would] be the preferred remedy?You have requested guidance on these questions, "and any other related subjects you identify, regarding the issue of the predicament of Mr. Synhorst's dual service on the above-referenced commissions." ANALYSIS In Op. Att'y Gen. No. 157 (December 24, 1985), the Attorney General clarified the policies relating to the issuance of opinions to members of the Legislature:
In the case of requests from members of the Legislature, we have limited the issuance of such opinions for "valid legislative purposes" only. The Legislature's purpose is, of course, to make, alter or repeal laws. See, Nebraska Public Power District v. City of York, 212 Neb. 747, 326 N.W.2d 22 (1982). It is the function of the executive branch to apply and enforce those laws, and the judicial branch to interpret those laws. Consequently, it has been and continues to be the policy of the Attorney General that we issue legal opinions to state legislators which pertain only to pending or proposed legislation. In this regard it is also our policy to decline opinion requests from legislators concerning the constitutionality, or seeking interpretations, of existing statutes. . . .
There are two exceptions to this policy. The first exception is where the interpretation of an existing statute is directly related to the proposed or pending legislation, or in turn where the proposed legislation is dependent upon such an interpretation. The second exception is where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial