*1 2000OK40 DANK,
Odilia Member of the Oklahoma Representatives,
Petitioner, Loyd BENSON, Speak- Honorable Rep- er of the Oklahoma House of resentatives, Respondent. 94,166.
No. Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
May23,
1089 *2 that her claim- We conclude
resolution. is, of an intra- it in the context presented, as nonjusticiable. dispute-is House HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL FACTS Dank, a 12 Petitioner Odilia member the Oklahoma to today asks the Court since [House] procedurally conducts how the House review of a pressing passage for the final when itself that the House has "never" asserts bill. She legislation to be "read at proposed caused it-a is taken on length" before a final vote which, her, according constitu to is process contends the con tionally mandated. Dank procedure legislative stitutionally-deficient Norman, OK, Gardenhire, for the Gary W. part efforts on her persists spite of several petitioner. petitioner past occasions change it. On to Edmondson, Attorney General W.A. Drew change its sought have the House has Atty. Oklahoma; Tevington, Asst. Andrew understanding of comport with her Gen., rules Leader, Atty. Gen.; Asst. and Neal Sr. OK, has length" requirement and she City, respondent. the "read at for Oklahoma success) (with points of order limited raised Slater, City, for amicus. Oklahoma Lee comply leadership's failure to contesting the provisions.3 § 34's art. with Okla. Const. LAVENDER, J. Attor an Oklahoma Dank has also secured {1 this Court [petitioner] asks Dank meaning opinion on the ney General's practice em and the custom decide whether at provision an pertinent constitutional Representatives when in the House of ployed understanding heighten the House's tempt to up final brought proposed legislation is length" at compliance the "read of and Const. provisions Okla. vote offends that, if 5, current provision. also asks art. 34.1 She to be constitu procedure is found (1) have the Petitioner would T3 Court deficient, what mandate tionally the Court phrase 34's Okla. Const. construe Before follow.2 procedure the House should "reading and each length" to mean "read at reached, petition can be of Dank's the merits finally proposed to be bill every word of the "justici if her claim is must decide the Court end, omis- beginning to without passed from able," i.e., susceptible of whether it is her petitioner seeks in 2. The relief which §5, Const. art. terms of Okla. provide:
1. The position she application variance with the is at "Every read on three different shall be bill argument indi- during where she oral advanced no bill shall become House, in each declaratory judgment would suffice. that a days cated unless, passage, it be read at on its law final amended has not Nonetheless, she paper- upon passed length, unless no law shall be writ of manda- cause where a work filed in this majority sought. members elected of all the a vote of a to the House mus directed law; and the of such to each House favor 5, § 34 see upon passage, be taken Const. art. question, shall terms of Okla. 3. For the nays yeas reading, note 1. upon and the its last [Emphasis journal." shall be entered Attorney Opinion No. 98-38. General's added.] (2) summary Land, sion and not in form"5 and Sapulpa 101 Okla. 223 P. condemn the House's internal custom and (1924), that: practice currently bring used to measures to (when judiciary system "The a final this state is vote these do not require proposed legislation to be "read at creature of the Constitution and the stat- length"). application Petitioner's does not *3 ute laws of the Supreme state. The sover- challenge any specific, legislation enrolled as eign power of this state people rests in the being constitutionally Rather the flawed. of the state." quest sole focus of her is reformation of the legislative process used to inform House legal The principle enunciated rightly de- members of a bill's content before great respect mands people's for the will as vote is taken on the Lastly, petition same. expressed organic in the state's Though law. paperwork er's does not draw the Court's the resolution of causes upon often turn the any specific procedural attention to infrac minutiae, tions of a constitutional dimension in the law's there are indeed conflicts- legislative current session predicts but rather such as the one now before the Court-which that they same will occur since have find much of their resolution in broader con- past.6 principles. stitutional Loyd [respondent], Benson the House Speaker, asserts absolute to the 16 Because Dank takes issue with petitioner's premised suit upon protection procedure the House bring used proposed Speech afforded and Debate clause7 legislation vote, to a final her action neces to his conduct presiding while over sarily implicates the constitutionally-commit House. Since we find that authority ted of each House8 adopt its application present justiciable does not own rules of procedure. internal The re cause and hence original decline to assume jurisdiction same, quested over the it necessary is not relief asks interject the Court to reach the respondent's merits of the legislative itself into process constitution immunity. ally committed to the Representat opinion ives and render an concerning how II body should conduct its business. While DANS APPLICATION PRESENTS Oklahoma's gives Constitution Supreme A NONJUSTICIABLE CLAIM appellate jurisdiction Court to review and
A
assess the
legislative
lawfulness of
enact
ments
jurisdiction
prescribed
over
begin
analysis
As we
our
today, we are
mindful of the
holding
Court's
in City
ies,10
entit
only under
the most exi
5. Petitioner offers that while it is the House's
§
See Okla.
Const. art.
practice
custom and
to furnish Members with a
printed form of the bill before the final vote is
§
See Okla. Const. art. 5,
30, which
provides
taken,
lengthy
bills are often
and time constraints
pertinent part:
prevent
reading
her from
length
the same at
"Each House
determine the rules of its
required
before she is
to vote. Petitioner's coun-
proceedings...."
acknowledged
sel
during
also
argument
oral
that
it
physically impossible
would be
for the House
9. See
Okla. Const.
art. 5,
length"
to "read at
1, whose
[as Dank has defined the
pertinent
provide:
terms
phrase]
legislation
pending
volume of
before
legislative
House in the current
session.
Legislative authority
The
of the State shall be
Legislature,
vested
consisting
in a
of a Senate
respondent
argument
Counsel for
in oral
be-
Representatives...."
and a House of
fore the
petitioner
Court offered-and the
did not
journal
controvert-that
the House's
reflects that
See Okla. Const.
4, whose pertinent
during
legislative
the 1999
session the Members
provide:
terms
were not
proposed legislation
asked to vote on
solely on the basis of bill summaries and were in
appellate jurisdiction
'The
Supreme
of the
provided
fact
copies
with full
of all bills before
Court shall ... extend to all cases at law and
voles were
Respondent
taken
the same.
equity....
original jurisdiction
acknowledge
did
complained
proce-
that the
Supreme
Court
general super-
shall extend to a
dures were
legislative
used in earlier
intending
sessions.
control over all inferior courts and
seope of the Court's
today
lies without
in the
intercede
we to
are
circumstances
gent
branch
jurisdiction.]
a coordinate
affairs
internal
function-
it exercises
when
government
justiciable Dank's claim
T8 To be
to it
i.e.,
or executive-committed
legislative
inquiry. This
suitable
must be
clearly
The framers
by the Constitution.11
determining
the controver
requires
whether
power1 between
separation
intended
(b)
(a)
concrete,
concerns
sy
is definite
judicial branch
executive,
among parties with adverse
legal relations
constitutional
General
government.13
es
(c)
so as
is real and substantial
interests and
department
one
when
is offended
order
deny
granting or
a decision
capable
to be
delegat
power expressly
usurps
nature.16
a conclusive
ing specific relief of
Henee,
heightened
it is with
ed to another.14
satisfy
enunci
claim fails
Petitioner's
assays Dank's
the Court
consideration
regards.
in two
ated test
*4
(a
judg
declaratory
the relief
application for
mandamus)
asks
she
which
writ of
ment and
First,
to
petitioner's claim fails
the
grant.
to
the Court
criterium,
ie.,
is the
satisfy
initial
the test's
not of a
and
fixed and substantive
claim
B
to
For
the Court
hypothetical
character.
grant the
jurisdiction and to
original
likeli
assume
is a
claims there
17 Petitioner
of
cause must be
requested form of relief the
(through its elected
House
the
hood
reality
to war
immediacy
as
and
engage in
ie.,
Speaker) will
leadership,
the
sufficient
judgment. The
pronouncement of
rant
the
will be vio-
which
conduct
procedural
future
(a)
neither
enrolled
implicates
asserted claim
In essence
lative of Okla. Const.
(b)
law nor
carrying the force of
legislation
actual,
on
is not based
claim-which
her
which
crisis
constitutional
Leg
an imminent
the current
acts of
reported procedural
in
operation. When
governmental
threatens
constitutional
not assert
and does
islature
Cullison, 1993
OK
Ethics Com'n
legislation-asks
the Court
in enacted
flaws
juris
original
assumed
the Court
which
hypothetical situation
address a
to
justicia-
diction,
clearly
the
satisfied
the case
of
the business
It is not
may not arise.
or
reality"
"immediacy and
of
bility criterium
hypo
advisory opinions on
give
to
the Court
"intolerable
specter of an
raised the
legis
since it
it different
questions.15 [Were
thetical
of
co-ordinate branches
between
conflict"
questions
the Court
pose
to
could
lators
potential
possessed the
which
government
process which
legislation-a
proposed
about
depart-
powers among the three
created
and Boards
Agencies, Commissions
all
ernmental
ments,
autocracy."
people from
to save the
by law."
U.S.,
Myers
S.Ct.
presenting
examples of circumstances
11. For
L.Ed. 160.
warranting
dimension
a constitutional
crises of
Bell
original jurisdiction, see
assumption
of
provide:
§ 1
art
of Okla. Const.
13. Theterms
Barker,
760 P.2d
and
mon v.
government of the State
powers
''The
37, 850 P.2d
Ethics Com'n
separate
three
divided into
shall be
Oklahoma
conflict"
"intolerable
cases involved
1069. Both
Executive,
Legislative,
and
departments: The
branches
co-ordinate
between
Judicial;
Consti-
except
provided in this
as
gridlock.
Id.
potential for
possessed the
which
Executive,
tution,
Legislative,
and Judicial
at 1073.
separate
government shall be
departments of
distinct,
pow-
shall exercise
and neither
most
separation-of-powers
doctrine is
12. The
belonging
the others."
properly
to either
ers
gov-
context of
appreciated
viewed in the
when
{Emphasis added.]
Mr. Justice
and balances.
checks
ernmental
separation-of-
the value of
Brandeis assessed
OK
Ass'n, 1981
Bar
v. Oklahoma
14. Tweedy
(as
gov-
the federal
powers
it relates to
doctrine
624 P.2d
ernment)
he observed:
when
powers
separation
was
doctrine of the
'The
Development
Country
Au
Fun
pro-
1787 not to
adopted
the convention of
thority,
assessed in of-powers "application doctrine. Dank's {11 By application petitioner would jurisdiction" original assume asks the Court jurisdiction have the Court assume Legislature's to issue mandamus to force the over an dispute, intra-House construe the compliance length" provi with the "read at length" provision "read at of Okla. Const. art. sion. This the Court cannot do. Oklahoma's procedure mandate rules jurisprudence extant clearly delimits be used in implement the House to power Legislature. Court's over In Court's construction pro- of the constitutional Freeman, Jones v. 193 Okla. *5 vision. (1944), it was held: declaratory 112 The relief which Dank Legislature, being "The a co-ordinate seeks is not available under the facts of her government, may branch of the not be application present because it does not cir- compelled by perform the courts to legis- a cumstances immediacy imbued with the duty, though performance lative even reality required ju- under Oklahoma's extant duty of that required by be the Constitu- risprudence grant declaratory a judgment. Further, the Court is
tion."
authority
without
interject
itself
legislative process
into the
Generally speaking,
separation-of-powers
[assigned by the constitution to the House]
prevents
doctrine
by
the Court's intrusion
by directing
body
how that
shall conduct its
writ of mandamus into the House's exercise
business. While
giving
petitioner
not
its
constitutionally-assigned
judicial
seeks,
solution she
pro-
the Court's
function.20 Because of the context in which
give efficacy
nouncement does
to the limita-
petitioner brings
application-an
her
in-
governmental
tions on
posited
function
dispute-her
suscepti
tra-House
cause is not
governmental
each
by
people
branch
ble
through specific
of resolution
relief of a Oklahoma under
the separation-of-powers
doctrine.2
conclusive nature. Because there is no ade
Cullison, supra
17.
note 11 at 1703.
any
is
need for our immediate attention.
In
view, although
question(s)
our
presented
important, petitioners
are
have
to show
sought
declaratory
Petitioner asks that
failed
immediacy
there is some
given
involved in this
"prospective"
relief
application.
be
See
troversy that would call
Support
for this Court to
Dank's Brief in
exer-
to Assume
Jurisdiction,
Original
cise its
p.
request
to hear the matter
14. Her
at the
neces-
discretion
sarily implicates
immediacy
criterium enun-
time."
added.]
present
[Emphasis
Keating
ciated
Johnson,
Cook,
P.2d
55. There the
Court held:
Puckett v.
present posture
"[The
of the case as delivered
by petitioners,
particularly
light
us
their
Romang
v. Cordell,
OPALA, J., concurring. HARGRAVE, C.J., SUMMERS, origi ¶1 today take court declines The WATT, KAUGER, OPALA, v.C.J., which tenders cognizance of this cause nal WINCHESTER, JJ., BOUDREAU, and Speaker of the against the concur. who by member-legislator certain that inter declaration seeks { HODGES, J., dissents. bills to processing nal Art. provisions passage contravene C.J., joined SUMMERS, Concurring, and urges petitioner Const.1 Okl. WATT,JJ. by KAUGER infirm offending procedures be declared crafted replaced those-to be and be opinion, it is agree with the Although I made conforma would be court2-which this Speech or that the observation my additional I write section. mandates of that to the ble Constitut Oklahoma Debate Clause my own to add separately in concurrence from suit Speaker Benson ion insulates in contest. points analysis of some Ethics Commission case. clearly distin P.2d 1069 is Opala, opinion of separate guishable. See therein, P.2d at
concurring in result
Speaker and Presi
There
1083-1085.
THIS
APPLIED IN
THE PROCESS
*6
defendants;
but nominal
Pro Tem were
dent
THE
ABRIDGE
DID NOT
CAUSE
invali
itself to
against the state
was
the suit
IMMUNITY
CLAIMED
SPEAKER'S
of the
Here the acts
specific legislation.
date
conducting
within
in
business
Speaker
he be dis-
moved that
Speaker
T2 The
are
Representatives
of the House
he "cannot be
chamber
the cause because
from
missed
made
attack is
question;
no
to answer
Supreme
into
Court
called
haled before
His motion
activities...."
legisla
for his
validity
any particular
against the
immuni-
the "absolute
applied
unmistakably
to acts of
invokes
has been
The clause
tion.
speech
by
as to
so-called
as well
legislative nature
to be conferred
ty"
claimed
5, 22,
§ OKI.
in Art.
Debate Clause
Speech or
McCormack,
Powell v.
narrowly defined.
long vintage
jurisprudence
and
Constitution,
provides:
2. Constitutional
§V 22
Art.
1. Oklahoma
authority
unmistak
shall,
unimpeachable
teaches
except for
Representatives
and
Senators
powers
treason,
privi-
separation
peace,
clarity
felony,
be
under the
breach of
or
able
Const.,
Legis-
4,
1,
during
leged
the session
the Su
§
from arrest
Okl.
Art.
commanded
lature,
returning
going
and
from
in
and
claim for itself-nor
preme
neither
Court
and,
same,
any
in either
speech or debate
pro
conferred-power
legislatively
for
exercise
House,
any
place.
questioned
other
in
not be
shall
regulate
conduct of
mulgate
that would
rules
added)
(emphasis
government other
than
any organ
state
Sterling Re
judicial
in rank.
institutions inferior
Const., are:
34, OKI.
of Art.
1. The terms
days
P.2d
446, 25
fining
different
Walker, 1933 OK
Every
read on three
Co. v.
bill shall be
Sterling
House,
description
my
become a law
earlier
no bill shall
320. For
and
in each
unless,
Nelson,
length,
passage,
read at
it be
holding,
on its
v.
see Nelson
954
final
upon
J.,
passed
a vote
dissenting
unless
law shall be
in
(Opala,
and no
n. 30
P.2d
elected to
majority of all the members
of a
P.2d
742
Cannon, 1987
part);
Petuskey
and the
law;
such
in favor of
each House
concurring);
ex
State
(Opala,
n. 4
passage,
be taken
shall
question,
26, 681
York
rel.
Turpen,
nays
yeas
reading,
and
and the
upon its last
concurring).
(Opala, J.,
journal.
upon the
be entered
shall
supplied).
(emphasis
Speaker's
II
Const.3 The
motion has not been
disposition.
pending.
reached for
It remains
TODAY'S PRONOUNCEMENT DOES
explains
opinion
The court's
that "it is not
NOT SIGNAL A RETREAT FROM
necessary
reach
respondent's
THE COURTS FUNDAMENTAL-
immunity"
claim of
because we "decline to
LAW RESPONSIBILITY
RE-
TO
original jurisdiction"
assume
over this cause
VIEW GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
grant
against
relief
no
the claimed-to-be-
THAT ARE
IN
CHALLENGED
THE
Speaker.
immunized
FRAMEWORK
AOF
JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY FOR LACK OF
immunity interposed by
3 The
Speak-
CONFORMITY TO THE COM-
er, if
cause,
in
indeed his due
does not
MANDS OF THE CONSTITUTION
law-imposed
him the
responsibility to
free
move this court
his dismissal
14 No
one need
today's
for
be alarmed
from
duty
suit.4 The
to determine whether a
accept
nonjusticiable
refusal to
claim. The
movant's
legislative immunity
public
invoked
ap
protected against
must be
judicia-
plies
ry's
to the action is cast
excessive
day-to-day
on the court enter
intrusion into
government by
duct of
taining
operating
an
Speaker's
case. Even if the
on-de-
fun
mand answering
questions
service for
about
exemption
damental-law
were deemed to be
constitutional orthodoxy.
inmunity
suit as well as
Habili-
from
from
ty,5 he is immune neither
from the court's
T Today's pronouncement
does not decide
process nor from its service.6 The court's
that all intracameral8
controversies over in-
refusal
to reach the motion to dismiss is
ternal
are unsuitable for
hence free from constitutional flaws.7
testing. Neither does it settle the notion
Const.,
(La.1994);
Crider,
The text of Art.
OKI.
is:
303 Ark.
Cundiff
(1990);
S.W.2d
Ross v. Consumers Pow
Senators
shall,
for
except
er Co.,
1095
only
justified
out of
judgments are
tutional
on
claim-based
legislator's
his/her
that
generated
particular
mecessity
the strict
participate
capacity
severely impaired
litigants
rights
which
between
cases in
pas
before
deliberation
an informed
adjudicat-
court must be
brought before the
judicial
for
bill-may
not be fit
sage of a
disagreement over
Mere intracameral
ed.14
rejection
court's
relief.
norms that chart
the constitutional
conclusion,
solely on its
challenge rests
procedures
is not
of internal
boundaries
coneur,
makes
nonjusticiability
that
I
which
justi-
the critical element
enough
supply
cogni
judicial
controversy
for
unsuitable
this
ciability.15 Muchrequired of this
more is
zance.
judicial
seeks
decla
by legislator
who
invoked
cannot be
cognizance
16 Judicial
for
that certain internal
ration
controversy-
nonjusticiable
by pressing a
passage
to final
contravene
processing bills
34,
an aca-
5,
nothing more than
presents
Const.16
provisions of Art.
Ok.
that
one
the State's
issue.10 Unlike
or abstract
demic
today's
assume from
T7 No one should
General,
serve
court cannot
Attorney
no ctreumstances
pronouncement
that under
answering
routinely
officials
when it
claim be remediable
legislator's
can a
conformity
guidance on
requests for
their
opportu-
deprived
impaired
on a
or
is rested
to the Con-
or taken actions
contemplated
delibera-
nity
participate in the
"informed
justici-
mandate.11 The barriers
stitution's
jurisprudence
Extant
federal
process."
tive
12
roving outside
judges from
ability prevent
must
persuasively demonstrates
relief
an individ-
vindicate the claim of
to abstract
giving
be
voice
judicial role
crafted
roving
public right.
commis
are not
tenders a
legislator
Courts
who also
grievances.13
ual
17
justiciable, a
two cases
found
In at least
the valid
pass Judgment on
assigned to
sions
reinstated to
expelled lawmaker was
wrongly
legislative procedures. Consti
ity
internal
Authority,
1995
601,
U.S.
Dam
Oklahoma,
v.
413
Hughey v. Grand River
Broadrick
14. See
830
2915, 37 L.Ed.2d
2908,
93 S.Ct.
610-611,
Okl.
1138, 1143; Northeast
56, 897 P.2d
OK
642-643,
634,
28,
Com'n,
(1973);
Snyder,
472 U.S.
In re
OK
Corporation
v.
Elec.
(1985); Brock
2880,
impairment access, leg of a lawmaker's in a assembly,
islative
to informed
deliberation
HODGES, J.,
dissenting:
argued
pro
could be
as akin to
expul
tanto
1 I dissent
pronouncement
to this Court's
short, judicial
sion from office.19 Im
self-
in this matter.
dispute
Because this
is based
restraint
is not without limil.
mandate,
on a constitutional
see Okla. Const.
V,
rather than
operat-
the internal
18 At the
complaint
core of
ing procedures of the Oklahoma House of
procedures
are certain internal
alleged to
Representative,
presented
this Court is
give her too little time
delibera-
for informed
justiciable
controversy.
tion
complex
processed
before
bills are
passage.
handicap
If the
dealt her
these
could be said to diminish
progress
effect on the bill's
in a manner
legislator's
akin to a
pro tanto exelusion
from participating in the work of the assem
procedures may produce adverse extracam- eral23 consequences only upon not passage of No. 93041.
bills adoption to final but also full- participation
breadth of a chamber's mem Appeals Oklahoma, Court of Civil bership.
Division No. 4.
SUMMARY March T9 The abridge Speak- court did not
er's claimed nor did it abdicate its
duty
legality
test the
of those
Powell,
supra
note
395 U.S. at
Dictionary
S.Ct.
"pro
Black's Law
defines
tanto" as
(the
at
Representatives
U.S. House of
acted
[flor
so
"for
much",
as much as
be," or "as
unconstitutionally
effectively expelled
when it
goes."
(6th Ed.1990).
far as it
Id. at 1222
See
Clayton
by majority
Adam
Powell
vote because
Turley
Fidelity
First Bank of
Deposit
Ins.
charges
misappropriated
that he had
public
Co. of
Maryland,
105,