OCPA IMPACT, INC. v. SHEEHAN
2016 OK 84
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Respondents filed Initiative Petition No. 403 (State Question No. 779) proposing a new Article 13‑C to create the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund funded by a one‑cent sales and use tax to increase education funding and raise teacher salaries by $5,000.
- Petitioners (OCPA Impact, Inc. and Bond) earlier challenged constitutionality (one‑subject) and lost; the Court found the initiative embraces a single subject and allowed circulation.
- After proponents submitted signature boxes, the Attorney General rewrote the ballot title, identifying omissions/misstatements in the proponents’ title.
- Petitioners filed post‑circulation objections challenging (1) the sufficiency of the gist (on circulated signature sheets) and (2) the Attorney General’s rewritten ballot title.
- The Court held the gist challenge untimely under the 2015 statutory scheme restricting post‑circulation objections to signature validity or ballot‑title challenges, but found the Attorney General’s ballot title deficient and rewrote it to include tax increment language, allocation percentages, teacher‑salary floor, audit and Board of Equalization appropriation limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of post‑circulation challenge to gist | Petitioners: may challenge gist after circulation; gist insufficiency remains reviewable | Respondents: 2015 amendments limit post‑circulation objections to signatures or ballot title; gist challenge is untimely | Challenge to gist is untimely; cannot be raised post‑circulation under current statute |
| Sufficiency of Attorney General’s rewritten ballot title | Petitioners: title omits Board of Equalization power, misstates tax increase format, omits allocation, implies audits/salary restrictions for all recipients | Attorney General: rewrote title to correct several defects; his version sufficiently describes measure | Court finds rewritten title deficient in key respects and exercises §10 authority to amend the ballot title |
| Need to disclose Board of Equalization authority in title | Petitioners: omission is misleading and material | Respondents/AG: original omitted or insufficiently emphasized it | Court: inclusion required; title must state that Board of Equalization can limit legislative appropriations until replaced funding is restored |
| Level of detail in title (tax amount and allocations; audits/salary limits) | Petitioners: title should state one‑cent per dollar, allocation percentages, and clarify audit/salary scope | Respondents/AG: title should be concise but accurate; AG partially fixed wording | Court: requires ‘‘one cent per dollar’’ language and inclusion of allocation percentages and audit/salary limitations for school districts, but declined to add extraneous detail beyond 200‑word limit; adopted amended title drafted by Court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Initiative Petition No. 360, 879 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1994) (ballot title must fairly apprise voters of measure’s character and purpose)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 384, 164 P.3d 125 (Okla. 2007) (gist requirement prevents fraud in initiative process)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 362, 899 P.2d 1145 (Okla. 1995) (gist need only be a short, simple statement)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 363, 927 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1996) (failure of gist can be fatal where it misleads signatories)
- R. R. Tway, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, 910 P.2d 972 (Okla. 1995) (legislative acquiescence to judicial construction)
- TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Com’n, 829 P.2d 964 (Okla. 1992) (statutory construction must comport with presumed legislative intent)