IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779
2016 OK 1
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Proponents filed Initiative Petition No. 403 to add Article 13‑C to the Oklahoma Constitution, creating the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund funded by an additional 1% sales/use tax.
- The proposed article prescribes percentage distributions (common ed 69.5%, higher ed 19.25%, career/tech 3.25%, early childhood 8%), and requires 86.33% of common education funds be used for a $5,000 teacher pay raise.
- Section 5 requires funds from the new Fund to supplement and not supplant existing education appropriations, and directs the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) to audit and report supplanting; if supplanting is found, the Legislature must replenish the Fund before making other appropriations.
- Opponents (OCPA, Inc. and Bond) challenged the petition solely under Article 24, § 1 (the one general subject rule), arguing the measure impermissibly combines unrelated subjects (logrolling), improperly affects legislative appropriations, and misleads voters.
- The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and reviewed whether the initiative embraces one general subject; the Court upheld the petition as legally sufficient for the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative 403 violates Art. 24 §1 (one general subject) | Petition impermissibly combines unrelated items (teacher pay, sales tax, higher ed, SBOE powers) — logrolling | Petition is a single, interrelated scheme to create and implement an Education Improvement Fund; sections are germane | Court: Does not violate one general subject rule; legally sufficient for submission |
| Whether SBOE oversight unconstitutionally usurps legislative appropriations | SBOE enforcement (blocking appropriations until replenishment) improperly shifts appropriation power from Legislature to an executive board, violating separation of powers | SBOE already has constitutional/statutory duties to certify and audit funds (e.g., Lottery Fund); proposed duties are analogous and speculative concerns don’t justify pre‑election invalidation | Court: Declined to invalidate pre‑election; SBOE duties paralleling existing roles do not render petition invalid at this stage |
| Whether combining common and higher education is improper logrolling | Combining constitutionally and historically distinct systems forces voters to accept unrelated changes to obtain popular teacher pay raise | Common & higher education funding and purposes overlap in practice and in prior trust‑fund measures; distribution provisions are germane to the Fund’s design | Court: Distribution among K‑12, higher ed, career tech, early childhood are germane to single scheme and permissible |
| Whether the ballot gist/summary deceives or omits material changes | Gist fails to disclose significant SBOE powers and the novelty of constitutional pay raises, thus deceiving signatories/voters | Ballot title/gist procedures are pending; only one constitutional challenge (single‑subject) is before the Court | Dissent: Gist is inadequate and deceptive; Majority: did not decide ballot title challenge (not before Court) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1980) (articled amendments may cover multiple changes if they form a single subject; limits on multifarious proposals)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 319, 682 P.2d 222 (Okla. 1984) (germaneness test applied to article‑style amendments; related provisions upheld as single scheme)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 363, 927 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1996) (when adding a new article, test is whether changes are germane to a singular common subject)
- Rupe v. Shaw, 286 P.2d 1094 (Okla. 1955) (early single‑subject/germaneness precedents considered in initiative analysis)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 344, 797 P.2d 326 (Okla. 1990) (initiative combining loosely related executive‑branch changes violated one general subject)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 342, 797 P.2d 331 (Okla. 1990) (measure reworking Corporation Commission struck down for covering numerous unrelated subjects)
- Fent v. Contingency Review Board, 163 P.3d 512 (Okla. 2007) (separation‑of‑powers concern where a board retained control over appropriation administration)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 358, 870 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1994) (court declines to resolve certain separation‑of‑powers or implementation questions at pre‑election stage)