GENTGES v. OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD
2014 OK 8
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Gentges, a registered voter, sues the Oklahoma State Election Board to block SB 692 (Voter ID Act) enforcement.
- Suit seeks to challenge the constitutionality and implementation of voter ID requirements.
- Initial district court ruling held no presentment to Governor before referendum is required and Gentges lacked standing.
- Court granted partial relief earlier by transferring the case from Tulsa County to Oklahoma County.
- Court ultimately holds Gentges has standing to challenge the Voter ID Act but that the Act was validly enacted and properly placed on the ballot; remands for trial court to decide whether the ID requirements interfere with the right to vote and to address Gentges’ venue challenge under 12 O.S.2011, § 133.
- This decision affirms part and reverses part of the trial court’s ruling and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the Voter ID Act | Gentges has standing as a taxpayer and registered voter | Gentges lacks standing | Gentges has standing |
| Validity of referendum enactment and presentment to Governor | SB 692 not properly enacted because Governor veto consideration was not sought before popular vote | Constitution does not require Governor presentment before referendum | Voter ID Act validly enacted and properly submitted for vote |
| Effect of ID requirements on free exercise of suffrage | ID requirements may interfere with the right to vote | No interference or injury shown | Remanded to trial court to determine whether there is interference with suffrage and to resolve Gentges’ constitutional challenges (venue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparks v. State Election Board, 392 P.2d 711 (OK 1964) (free exercise of suffrage; voting law must be reasonable and protect ballot integrity)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 820 P.2d 772 (OK 1991) (voters' power; referendum; veto and republican government concepts)
- Coffey v. Henry, 240 P.3d 1056 (OK 2010) (interpretation of presentment clauses; veto power and initiative/referendum)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm., 614 P.2d 45 (OK 1980) (standing to vindicate public interest in public-law contexts)
- Russell v. Board of County Commissioners, 952 P.2d 492 (OK 1997) (public-law review; corrective relief on applicable legal theory based on record)
- Burdick v. Independent School Dist. No. 52 of Oklahoma County, 702 P.2d 48 (OK 1985) (reasonableness of voting laws in relation to constitutional rights)
- Swindall v. State Election Board, 32 P.2d 691 (OK 1934) (early standard for election laws and suffrage protections)
- Reynolds v. Special Indem. Fund, 909 P.2d 765 (OK 1986) (public-law standing and remedial considerations)
- Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance, 240 P.3d 1056 (OK 2008) (constitutional interpretation considering multiple provisions together)