IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 397, STATE QUESTION NO. 767
2014 OK 23
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Proponents filed Initiative Petition No. 397 (State Question 767) with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on Sept. 18, 2013, together with a proposed ballot title; the Attorney General (AG) later prepared and filed a different ballot title.
- The Secretary of State sent the AG notice/copies by interagency mail; AG received notice Sept. 20, 2013, and filed a written objection with the Secretary of State on Sept. 27 and a replacement ballot title on Oct. 11.
- Proponents challenged the AG's ballot title in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing (inter alia) the AG’s objection was untimely and that his ballot title was partial or legally incorrect.
- The statutory scheme at issue: 34 O.S. § 9 (requirements for filing/submitting petition and ballot title, and AG review within five business days) together with §§ 8, 10, and 11 (publication, appeals, and interaction with the 90‑day signature period).
- The Court resolved (1) procedural questions about who must receive copies and when the AG’s five‑day review period begins; (2) whether an untimely AG response deprived him of authority to act; (3) burden and standard on ballot‑title appeals; and (4) when the proponent’s 90‑day signature period begins if a ballot‑title appeal is pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Proponents) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proponents must file a copy of the petition and ballot title with the AG when filing with Secretary of State | Not required to file separate copy with AG; five‑day clock starts on filing with Secretary of State regardless | Statute requires filing with AG too; five‑day clock starts when AG receives the copy filed with him | Proponents must submit a copy to the AG when filing with Secretary of State; statutory language so requires (34 O.S. §9(A),(B)). |
| When the AG’s five business‑day review period begins | Starts on filing with Secretary of State (proponents) so AG had from Sept. 19 | Starts when the AG actually receives/filed copy with AG | Court holds five‑day period begins from filing with Secretary of State (when Secretary of State submits title to AG for review). |
| Whether AG’s two‑day late response (filed Sept. 27) divested him of jurisdiction to issue a replacement title | Time limits are mandatory and jurisdictional; late response voids AG action | Time limits are directory; late filing does not strip AG of authority; mandamus available to compel timely action | Time limits are directory, not jurisdictional; AG’s Sept. 27 response was statutorily effective despite being two business days late. |
| Who bears burden on ballot‑title appeal and standard for review | AG must prove original proponent title was legally sufficient | Proponents must show AG title is legally incorrect, partial, or misleading | Burden on proponent to show AG title is legally incorrect, partial, or fails to reflect effects; court will accept AG title unless clearly contrary to law. |
| When the proponent’s 90‑day signature period begins if ballot‑title appeal pending | 90‑day period commences on initial filing with Secretary of State | 90‑day period need not wait for final ballot‑title appeal; circulation may proceed | 90‑day signature period does not begin until the ballot‑title appeal is finally resolved (aligning with In re Initiative Petition No. 315). |
Key Cases Cited
- School Dist. No. 61, Payne County v. Consolidated Dist. No. 2, 237 P. 1110 (Okla. 1925) (directory vs. jurisdictional time limits for public officials)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553, 649 P.2d 545 (Okla. 1982) (90‑day circulation period begins after ballot‑title review and exhaustion of appeals)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 360, State Question No. 662, 879 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1994) (ballot‑title requirements and limits on argumentative language)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Mothershed, 264 P.3d 1197 (Okla. 2011) (time limits construed as non‑jurisdictional where statute does not clearly state contrary)
- U.C. Leasing, Inc. v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Public Affairs, 737 P.2d 1191 (Okla. 1987) (party challenging public official action bears burden to show invalidity)