IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 397, STATE QUESTION NO. 767
2014 OK 23
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Proponents Take Shelter Oklahoma and Kristi Conatzer filed Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767 in September 2013 seeking constitutional amendments to fund storm shelters in schools.
- The Secretary of State forwarded the petition and proponents submitted a ballot title for review; the Oklahoma Attorney General prepared a competing ballot title.
- Proponents challenged the Attorney General's ballot title by appealing to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Court held that proponents must file or submit a copy of the petition and ballot title to the Attorney General when filing with the Secretary of State, under 34 O.S. § 9(A)-(B).
- The Attorney General must respond to a ballot title within five business days from the date the ballot title is filed with the Secretary of State, under 34 O.S. § 9(D).
- The Court determined the Attorney General’s § 9(D) response to the ballot title is statutorily effective even if two days late; the five-day clock runs from the Secretary of State filing, not from receipt by the AG.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to file a new ballot title | Proponents: AG lacked jurisdiction after untimely objection. | State: AG’s construction and duty persist; five-day period governs objections. | AG had jurisdiction; timing governs objections under § 9(D). |
| When the five-day period to object begins | Clock starts when proponents file petition and title with AG. | Clock starts when the ballot title is filed with the Secretary of State and forwarded to AG. | Five business days commence from the Secretary of State filing, not from AG receipt. |
| Effect of a late AG response | Late response voids the ballot title process. | Late response remains effective under statute. | AG’s § 9(D) response is statutorily effective even if two days late. |
| Burden in ballot title appeal | Proponents bear burden to show AG ballot title is legally incorrect or biased. | AG defends the title; proponents must show statutory/constitutional noncompliance. | Proponents must prove the AG’s title is legally incorrect or not impartial; court defends title if compliant. |
| Validity and impartiality of the AG ballot title | AG title is biased and inaccurate about effects. | AG title accurately reflects current law and effects. | AG ballot title is legally correct, impartial, and reflects the measure’s effects. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553, 649 P.2d 545 (Okla. 1982) (90-day signature period begins after ballot title appeal completes)
- School District No. 61, Payne County v. Consolidated Dist. No. 2, 237 P.1d 1111 (Okla. 1925) (timeliness generally directory unless statute says otherwise)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 360, State Question No. 662, 879 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1994) (statutory construction for ballot titles and public policy concerns)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 927 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1996) (balancing legal effect and ballot title clarity)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Mothershed, 264 P.3d 1197 (Okla. 2011) (public interest/publici juris considerations in official actions)
- Bradshaw v. Oklahoma State Election Bd., 98 P.3d 1092 (Okla. 2004) (agency deference in statutory interpretation of election laws)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 789 P.2d 1305 (Okla. 1990) (agency constructions are persuasive but not controlling)