236 P.2d 91, 93 (1951); Higer v. Hansen, 67 Idaho 45, 52, 170 P.2d 411, 415 (1946). It is also well established that when a case can be decided upon a ground other than a constitutional basis, the Court will not address the constitutional issue unless it is necessary for a determination of the case. Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 710, 791 P.2d 1285, 1289 (1990). We begin, therefore, with an analysis of the relevant statutes enacted by the legislature, which we assume did not overlook the provisions of the constitution in designing the legislation. See Johnson v. Diefendorf, 56 Idaho 620, 625, 57 P.2d 1068, 1073 (1936), quoting Grice v. Clearwater Timber Co., 20 Idaho 70, 117 P. 112 (1911). See also Idaho State AFL-CIO v. Leroy, 110 Idaho 691, 698, 718 P.2d 1129, 1136 (1986)(<HOLDING>). The statute provides in part that “[t]he
recognizing that immigration policy is the clear purview of the legislative branch holding that court clerks performing duties relating to the administrative operation of the courts including the release of judicial records are subject to the control of the florida supreme court not the legislative branch recognizing that citizens who exercise their rights under the initiative provisions act as and become in fact the legislative branch of the municipal government  holding that prison officials should not be made to paydamages for the consequences of legislative and judicial decisions holding that in the absence of a legislative invasion of constitutionallyprotected rights the judicial branch of government must respect and defer to the legislatures exclusive policy decisions