Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />2. If the act uf executing the A~rcement is deemed nun-administrative, then neither <br />alternative suurce of authority-Article 4, ~ 2 of the Colorado Constitution nor <br />C.RS. ~ 37-@-t()9-liI~dy provides the Governor with authority to negotiate and <br />sign the Agreement. <br /> <br />^s discllssed above, it is the ppinion of the authors that the Seven Basin States Agreement is <br />likely within the Guvernor's authority to administer interstate cUlllpacls. If. however, the ^greelllent <br />is viewed as not being within the (iovernor's administrative authority, there are two other possible <br />sources of gubernatorial authority: ^rticle 4, ~ 2 of the Colorado Constitution and C.R,S, ~~ 37-hO- <br />109. Howevcr, neither 0 r these sources of authority likely provide the Govemor with authority to <br />negotiate and sign this Agreement. <br /> <br />a. Art. IV, ~ 2 of the state constitution likely fails to provide gubernatorial <br />authority to sign the Agreement. <br /> <br />The Colorado Constitution vests "the supreme executive power of the state" in the Governor <br />and charges the Governor with the responsibility of ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed. <br />COLO. CON ST. ART, IV, ~ 2. I f the Governor's actions in executing the Seven Basin States <br />Agreement is not viewed as an "administrative" action within the meaning of C.R.S, ~ 24-1-109, it <br />could be argued that the Govemor nonetheless has the authority to execute the Agreement under the <br />Governor's general ^rticle IV authority to ensure that laws are 1~lithfully executed. <br /> <br />It is unlikely such an argument would succeed. If the exceution of the Agreement is not seen <br />as an administrative act, then a court would likely find that the Governor's execution of the <br />agreement to bc an unconstitutional exercise of a legislative function. <br /> <br />Colorado courts have not specifically addressed whether the execution of interstate <br />agreements is within a Governor's constitutional authority. New Mexico and Kansas courts, <br />however, have addressed somewhat analogous situations in which Governors claimed to have the <br />authority to bind their states to compacts with Indian Nations. S'ee New Mexico v. Johnson, 904 P.2d <br />II (N.M. 19(5); Kilnsils v. Finne,', 836 P.2d 1169 (Kan. 1(92),~ The Johnson and Finney courts <br />held that the Governors of New Mexico and Kansas respectively lacked the authority to bind thcir <br />states to such compacts, The Johnson and Finney courts held that permitting the Governors to <br />exercise such authority under their inherent constitutional power would prevent the legislative branch <br />ti'om accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. Id. <br /> <br />The Johnson and Finne1' courts set forth the following 1~lct()rs as relevant in c\etennining <br />whether a Governor's cxecution of an agreement would invade the authority of the legislative <br />branch:' <br /> <br /> <br />Sin each ofthesc cases, the Govcrnor argued that thcir state's constitution granted him the supreme executive power <br />of the state thereby vesting him with the authority to execute gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory <br />Act. See also Carr-Howard, Maxwell, Tribal-State Relations: Time For Constitutional Stature?, 26 N.M. l. Rev. <br />293, 30 I (1996). At the outset, it should be noted that these cases can he distinguished from the instant action. The <br />Governor in each of these cases entered into a gaming compact with an Indian Nation based upon negotiations <br />initiated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Although the Seven Basin States Agreement is an agreement <br />amongst sovereigns, it is not a eompact and is not intended to rise to that level of formality. <br /> <br />7 <br />