IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779
2016 OK 1
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Respondents filed Initiative Petition No. 408 to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding Article 18-C creating the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund funded by a new 1% sales tax.
- The proposed fund would distribute revenues to public education, higher education, career/tech centers, and early childhood programs, plus a $5,000 teacher pay raise funded from the distribution.
- Petitioners opposed argued the measure violates the one general subject rule of Article 24, §1 of the Oklahoma Constitution and challenges its overall constitutionality.
- The Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the petition embraces one general subject and is legally sufficient for submission to voters.
- The measure interrelates multiple education sectors and funding mechanisms within a single proposed article, forming a cohesive funding scheme.
- Dissenters argued the proposal violates separation of powers, imposes executive control over appropriations, and suffers from an inadequate gist/ballot title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Initiative Petition No. 408 violate the one general subject rule? | Opponents claim multiple subjects exist; logrolling concerns. | Provisions are germane to a single general subject: education improvement funding. | No; petition complies with the one general subject rule. |
| Are the changes a single interrelated scheme or multiple subjects? | Argues disparate topics (pay raises, tax, Board power) are separate subjects. | Court-accepted liberal germane test shows interrelated components form one scheme. | Single general subject; interrelated provisions form a cohesive package. |
| Does the petition violate separation of powers by expanding Board of Equalization authority over appropriations? | Gives executive-branch board power over legislative appropriations, usurping legislature. | Board already has constitutional authority; no usurpation shown at pre-enactment stage. | No violation found on the record; not needed to invalidate at pre-election stage. |
| Is the gist/ballot title for Initiative Petition No. 408 sufficient under Title 34, §3? | Gist misleads voters by lumping changes; fails to reveal Board power and other changes. | Gist describes the overall proposal; statutory requirements satisfied at the time. | Gist is sufficient; ballot title valid for pre-election review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Initiative Petition No. 344, 797 P.2d 326 (1990 OK) (one general subject; executive branch improvement; liberal germane test)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 342, 797 P.2d 331 (1990 OK) (corporations; one general subject; testing unrelated topics)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d 595 (1980 OK) (amendment by article; single-subject/scope considerations)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 363, 927 P.2d 558 (1996 OK) (germane to general subject; intervention of liberal construction)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 358, 870 P.2d 782 (1994 OK) (logrolling considerations; pre-election constitutional review)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 384, 164 P.3d 125 (2007 OK) (gist sufficiency; deceit and fraud concerns in ballot title)