Shandorf v. Calvert
2015 OK CIV APP 79
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs submitted an initiative to amend Guthrie's charter to require voter approval before any city-controlled water or sewer rate increase; the City refused to place it on the ballot.
- Plaintiffs sued the mayor and city clerk seeking an order that the petition was legally sufficient and must be placed on the ballot; defendants argued statutory deficiencies and constitutional invalidity.
- The district court held an evidentiary trial, found the Guthrie Public Works Authority (GPWA) a separate legal entity from the City, and concluded the initiative would unduly burden and effectively destroy the City’s power to operate a municipal utility; it denied the petition.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court improperly decided (1) the GPWA’s separate-entity status, (2) factual issues that should be left to voters, and (3) that the court’s decision lacked competent evidence.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the City failed to show the initiative clearly and manifestly violated Art. 18 § 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPWA is a separate legal entity | Court erred in deciding entity status not pled; issue not presented | GPWA is a separate public trust (presumption under statute) and evidence supported trial | Court: evidence was properly received; trial court’s entity ruling was within issues tried |
| Whether court could hold evidentiary trial on undue-burden question | Whether wisdom/burden is for voters, not the court; scope limited to facial (textual) constitutional violation | Norman allows courts to consider factual undue burden that could negate city’s power to operate utility | Court: trial courts may hold evidentiary hearings to determine if initiative would so burden municipality as to violate constitutional right to engage in business |
| Whether evidence supported finding that initiative clearly and manifestly violated constitution | Initiative’s effect on operation must be tested on its face; voters should decide burdensome policy | City presented testimony that GPWA breakeven, needs rate increases, voters historically reject increases, risk of default/bankruptcy | Court reversed: City’s speculative testimony about likely voter rejection did not meet the ‘‘clearly and manifestly’’ standard required to invalidate the initiative |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma Numbered 74-1 and 74-2, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla. 1975) (initiative cannot contravene municipal right to operate utilities; factual burdens not assumed by court)
- Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa, 270 P.3d 113 (Okla. 2011) (a public trust presumptively is a separate legal entity; may be an alter ego in certain circumstances)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 384, 164 P.3d 125 (Okla. 2007) (court review required to ensure initiative complies with statutes and constitution)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 382, 142 P.3d 400 (Okla. 2006) (preserve initiative rights; subject to constitutional and statutory limits)
- Knight ex rel. Ellis v. Miller, 195 P.3d 872 (Okla. 2008) (appellate courts do not decide advisory or hypothetical questions)