*1 NO. PETITION In re INITIATIVE QUESTION 669.
362 STATE
No. 84769.
Supreme of Oklahoma. Court
July *2 Gardenhire,
Gary Norman, W. propo- for nents, Reform, Property for Oklahomans Tax and John Branscom. Mildren, Turpén, C.
Michael Richard A. Abney, Neal, Riggs, Turpén, & Obison Lew- is, Tulsa, Wilson, Ganem, Doug and Corley & Tulsa, protestants, Barby, for Paul Frank Kellert, Short, Merlin DeSpain, Johnnie R. Oklahoma, County The Ass’n of Com’rs of Ass’n, Employees The Oklahoma Public Co- operative Council for Oklahoma School Ad- ministration, Ass’n, Oklahoma Vocational the Oklahoma State School Boards Ass’n. Meyers, Roger D. Stong, Kent A. Crowe & Dunlevy, City, Oklahoma protestants for Smith, Kelly, Barbara Leslie Rosalie Carlyle.
WATT, Justice. opinion appeal we will consider wording from the General’s ballot title Initiative Petition State Question gist and decide whether the proposition is sufficient. We will also that, pass on Protestants’ claim passed, if would be Initiative unconstitutional. The ...,” approve percentage increase mis- the Oklahoma Consti- Initiative amend requirement ad states the true limit the dollar amount of tution to both accept property, Proponents amendment. the balance payable on real valorem taxes *3 Attorney could the ballot title. change in which such taxes of General’s the manner be increased. urge Protestants us to substitute the Some “qualified the words words electors” for “vot-
I. “qualified parts in a and ers” and voters” b of TITLE AND THE BALLOT Attorney paragraph first the of the General’s GIST ISSUES title. stated below we ballot For the reasons sufficient, part part b find a is but must incomplete A title is The ballot changed. be must misleading and be corrected. proposed Section 9E.B.2 of the amendment Protestants, any tax increase must states ad valorem Proponents, and some sixty percent Attorney approved by than “not less appealed have from the General’s (60%) qualified Proponents assessing of an wording title.1 con electors of the ballot on jurisdiction, voting at an election held the language in b of the first tend that the Monday Tuesday in following the first quali than 60% of the first paragraph, “not less jurisdiction phrase compo- The has two assessing November.”2 [must] fied voters of an by Attorney prepared BE ADDED TO ARTICLE X OF THE OKLA- title the 1. entire ballot CONSTITUTION, General, emphasized AS portion HOMA TO READ FOL- the that Pro- with to, ponents object out below: is set LOWS: any ad 9E.A. The amount of valorem tax total BALLOTTITLE upon property any parcel real shall not levied of add a new This measure would section actually was exceed the of tax which amount Oklahoma Constitution. The Article X of the upon during year property total of levied such real new would limit the amount section 31, 1993, parcel to in property levied on of ended referred tax that could be a December limitation, Amount”, except provided property. real Under this new as as Section "Dollar parcel by levied on a of land actual dollar amount Section. subsection B in this par- the amount levied on that could not exceed tax of ad valorem levied B. The Dollar Amount conditions, specified cel in 1993. Under increas- upon any parcel property as is established of real es in taxes could occur when: adjusted overall Section shall be Subsection A of this millage, approve additional or a. Voters following year any events in the which of qualified voters b. Not less than 60% Subsection occur to re- of enumerated within this of assessing jurisdiction approve percentage an Amount, referred to in this flect a current Dollar previ- more that no 3%—to Amount”, “Adjusted increase—of dollar Section paid; personal property tax ous January adjustment on be effective such shall conditions, prop- specified increases in Under year following, upon the occurrence of of each parcels erty occur on individual could taxes any following and in the manner events when: specified conjunction occurrence of with the conveyance or of own- a. is a transfer There the event: ership; taxing juris- qualified of a after the electors 1. placed upon improvements are b. Permanent millage adopt above that diction additional property; or real within said tax- amount was authorized exempt the tax status of the c. of Termination 1993; pro- ing jurisdiction December as of land occurs. any Adjusted amount Dollar shall vided such parcels the tax on individual could Increases in previous Adjusted dollar not increase the not, however, only on increases in val- be based upon any tax levied real amount of ad valorem great. The new section ue—no mater how application property by than the more changes. makes other approved; millage or SHALL BY PROPOSAL BE APPROVED THIS (60%) sixty percent after less that not THE PEOPLE? assessing jurisdic- qualified an electors of _ Proposal for the Yes tion, voting election held first at an _ No, Proposal against the Monday Tuesday following ber, in Novem- the first [Emphasis added.] Adjusted dollar amount to authorize assessing jurisdiction; amendment fol- 2. The full text of said real provided, any within approval lows: shall not increase such previous Adjusted Amount of ad Dollar PEOPLE OF THE BE IT BY THE ENACTED property by upon levied said valorem tax THAT A NEW SEC- OF OKLAHOMA STATE (3%); 9E, percent than more three AS SECTION TION BE DESIGNATED TO (1) that at ers to requires, registered nents: it least 60% believe that 60% of all assessing jurisdiction voters in an have to ad valorem voting those in an tax election increase, approve any ad valorem tax increase, wheth- any vote to authorize they er or not voted in the tax increase Tuesday on a such first after election be held election. cor- These inaccuracies must be Monday a first in November. The rected. would fail General’s ballot title to inform the component. electorate of either The Attor- requirements for ballot titles are set ney O.S.Supp.1994 § title could also lead vot- forth 9.B.3 General’s ballot Part b conveyance taxing jurisdiction 3. after other transfer the estimate itsof *4 ownership properly, title and to such real or revenue in dollars increase from the thereof, any part parcel any person changes year to or who in the first full fiscal each of beyond relationship degree change; the second bears affinity consanguinity grantor; past of to the 3. and or for the current each of the four Adjusted provided, any years, such Dollar or actual Amount estimated total of the fiscal previous Adjusted year spending taxing jurisdiction, shall not increase the Dollar of the and upon any change tax levied per- Amount of ad valorem real the cumulative in dollars and in by property conveyed centage pro- more than the tax as- which will result terms from the existing posed applied changes; tax sessed under the rate as to paid repayment or 4. actual consideration received in the maximum tax- costs of the cumulative, conveyance ing jurisdiction connection with such or other annual both or title; any proposed transfer of or bonded debt to be authorized. any permanent improvement provisions specifying 4. after is E. The of this Section placed upon property by accomplishing real of such virtue method and of manner increases construction, expansion previous upon or property new of in the ad tax levied valorem real improvements upon property, apply, any made the real shall or whether such tax increase is existing improvements by renovation or upon made occasioned an increase in the real valuation of like; property, provided, property, by the real or the an increase in the assessment ratio any Adjusted any by taxing jurisdiction, such Dollar Amount of shall not an increase in Adjusted previous by increase the mean Dollar Amount or median assessment ratio established upon any Equalization, by of ad tax levied any valorem such real the State Board of or other property by than the tax millage more assessed under assessed increase or valuation increase law, applied existing capital- existing by tax rate as to the authorized or a combination construction, any ized book such new value of of two or more these of methods. like; expansion, provisions or the renovation or F. The of this Section shall be con- exempt any real from ad valorem strued in favor of the limitations established exempt provision tax shall status retain its if it herein. No otherwise of Section shall be qualifies qualify exemption to preclude or continues construed to a decrease in valo- the ad law; provided by provided, in the manner rem tax. status, upon any exempt Any taxpayer standing termination tax G. ad valorem has sue to properly such real shall be provisions assessed for taxa- to enforce the of this Section and laws provided by implementing taxpayer prevails, tion in the manner law to arrive at it. If a or he Adjusted Dollar Amount. she shall be for all reimbursed reasonable costs suit, requirement Adjusted including attorney C. No such for an dollar of the fees. provided provisions Amount as for in Subsection B of this H. The of this Section shall become change year Section January following adop- shall be used construed to effective 1 of the its any prop- any provision otherwise alter the use classification of tion. In the event of this Section unconstitutional, erty, any property but the use classification of is declared the courts shall con- governed shall continue to be defined and ac- strue the rest and remainder of this Section cording provisions severally apply to the of Section 8 of Article X and save remainder date(s) of the Specifically, any Oklahoma Constitution. this Section. is impermissibly D. Before an election is held to increase ad construed to be retroactive shall upon any day valorem year taxes levied be effective the 31st of December of the Section, provided following in Subsection B of this election enactment. required officials shall be mail notice of such O.S.Supp.1994 provides: § 3. Title 34 9.B. registered taxing election to all voters within the
jurisdiction. parties submitting The notice election shall be B. The the measure shall (15) days suggested mailed not less than fifteen nor more also submit a ballot title be which shall (25) twenty-five days prior paper than separate to the filed on a sheet election and shall not envelope petition. suggested within an that has "NOTICE OF ELEC- be deemed legibly printed TION TO TAXES”: INCREASE ballot title: words; on the front. The notice of election shall list: Shall not exceed two hundred date, hours, words, polling place, explain 1.the election text 2. Shall in basic which can summary proposal, easily general usage, or accurate and elec- found in dictionaries of number; telephone proposition; tion office address and effect of the
H49 Const., “quali- that provides Okla. the term General’s paragraph the first accurately “explain ... legislatively title does not imposed ballot includes fied elector” Id. we proposition.” When the effect of qualified exceptions to the electors to satisfy not that a ballot title does determine Thus, elector,” “qualified vote.5 the term § au- 10.A requirements, § 34 O.S.1991 9.B’s might standing alone be misunderstood to Consequently, we correct it.4 thorizes us to any person age residing over of 18 mean of the ballot title to part b have rewritten district, taxing although in the it would be of votes adequately explain the number more accurately many impossible to count how taxes and when elections required to raise persons Title 26 such there were. O.S.1991 taxes must be held. raise require qualified §§ 4—101 and 4-102 registered electors must be to vote.6 Con- Attorney General’s ballot title Neither the struing together with 26 suggested changes refer to these statutes O.S. Protestants’ nor 9E.B.2, “voting § at an language elec- § III 1-101 and Article Okla. Const, Tuesday following the on the first tion held “qualified elector” as we conclude describing Monday in November.” first “registered proposal used in the must mean term, “voting held on the at election voter,” “regis- used the term and we have *5 Monday in Tuesday following the first first voting question” in tered voters on the November,” title, we in our substituted ballot title. substituted ballot the term “General Election” have substituted Tuesday on the first for “at an election held changes in the ballot The we have made Monday in following the first November” any title make clear that vote to raise ad provides § 26 1-101 because O.S.1991 general at a valorem taxes must be held “on the Elections” are those held “General words, In the Initiative election. other succeeding Monday Tuesday the first of first being prohibit votes from held at would such November.” special, primary, or runoff elections. For in expressly reason we have said this In ballot title we have sub- the substituted any title that such vote substituted ballot “registered voter” for the stituted the term general held at a election. Our must be elector,” “qualified and the Attor- proposal’s requirement changes also show that the 60% ney “qualified voter.” We have General’s 1, voting question, § III on the change Article refers voters made this because Upon hearing ap- eighth-grade appeal of such read- is taken. 3. Shall be written on the level; may peal, court correct or amend the ballot ing comprehension court, accept any or the substitute a title before the not contain words which have Shall may special meaning particular profession suggested, draft a new one which will for a or or commonly provisions of Section 9 of this known to the citizens of this conform to the trade not state; title. composi- partiality not reflect in its 5. Shall Const, 1, provides: against § any argument Okla. contain for or 5. Art. Ill tion or measure; exceptions Legislature Subject as the to such language clearly states 6. Shall contain States, may prescribe, all citizens of the United proposi- “yes” a favor of the that a vote is vote in (18) age eighteen years, bona who are over the against propo- a vote tion and a "no” vote is state, qualified are electors fide residents of this sition; and [Emphasis added.] of this state. language whereby a not contain 7. Shall is, fact, against proposi- “yes" vote in a vote provides: § 4-101 6. Title 26 O.S.1991 is, fact, in a vote in favor of tion and a "no” vote proposition. qualified Every person who is a elector by the Okla- 1 of Article III of defined Section provides: § 10.A 4.Title 34 O.S.1991 to become a shall be entitled homa Constitution registered precinct his residence voter in the Any person the word- who is dissatisfied with may, days ing ten of a ballot title within § 4-102 Provides: by General Title 26 O.S.1991 same is filed after the permitted person to vote in Secretary provided No shall of State as with the title, by any county election board appeal Supreme conducted to the election Section 9 of this voter, registered person unless is a by petition be offered a unless such in which shall Court provided by law. otherwise for the one from which the substitute ballot title 1150 gist The substituted ballot title shall B. no one else. The the Initiative satisfies statutory
be as follows:7 requirements. complain Some Protestants that the BALLOT TITLE gist proposition adequately fails to add a This measure would new section to explain proposition.8 These Protestants Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution. gist proposition contend that the fails The new section would limit the total explain changes the extent of the amount of tax that could be levied actually be made. Protestants would property. parcel on a of real Under require gist too much of the of an initiative limitation, new the actual dollar amount petition. gist proposition, of a which is parcel levied on a of land could not exceed required appear law to top at the of each parcel amount on that levied signature page, simple need contain “a conditions, specified Under increases gist proposition.” statement of the overall taxes could occur when: O.S.Supp.1992 gist satisfy 3. The need not approve millage, requirements a. Voters additional the more extensive for ballot O.S.Supp.1994 § titles contained in 34 9. In vote, By during b. which must be held 347, Question re Initiative Petition No. State Election, reg- General 60% more of 1019, (Okla.1991); No. 813 P.2d voting question istered voters re Question Initiative Petition No. State taxes; approve increasing property no (Okla.1990). No. may previ- increase exceed 3% the gist proposition of a must be short. As it paid; ous tax appear beginning must at every page conditions, specified Under increases in *6 petition, of the it can contain no more than a property parcels taxes on individual could explanation shorthand of a proposition’s occur when: gist terms. This explained Initiative’s conveyance a. There is a or transfer of proposition would limit annual increases ownership; taxes, property establish a of vote improvements placed b. Permanent are them, people to proce increase and define upon property; the real increasing dures for them. This was suffi c. Termination of the exempt tax status cient. The gist statement of the Initiative’s of the land occurs. O.S.Supp.1992 § satisfies 34 in the tax parcels Increases on individual not, however, only could be based on in- II. creases in great. value —no matter how changes. The new section makes other THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
SHALL THIS PROPOSAL BE AP- PROVED BY THE PEOPLE? Protestants claim that the Initiative _ Yes, Proposal for the passed, would be if urge unconstitutional _ No, against Proposal us to declare it invalid and refuse to submit it to a notify people. General is vote of the For directed to the reasons Secretary section, discussed in State and the the balance of State Election we Board of the substituted hold that facially ballot title and in- the Initiative is not violative title, is, sure that the substituted ballot requirements. without constitutional It there emphasis fore, shown in legally b of the first sufficient and we direct that it paragraph, appears printed ballots. people be submitted to the for their vote. 7. The substituted ballot title differs from the At- This measure will amend the Constitution to torney only empha- General's ballot title where taxes, property limit annual increases in estab- sized. people lish vote of the to increase the amount tax, procedures of annual and define top signature page 8. At the of each of the Initia- increasing taxes. appeared following gist tive there of the proposition:
1151 pay higher ad valorem taxes than traditionally refused would has This Court owning property in ad value initiative invalid those same a ballot to declare people except where valorem taxes were frozen at 1993 vance of a vote whose ad showing facially manifest” a “clear or a distinction does not there is rates. Such unconstitutionality. Petition In re Initiative equal protection clause. violate the 658, 358, Question No. State No. (Okla.1994). right pass legislation
782
equal protection
general,
In
ini
through the
change
the Constitution
plausible
clause is satisfied if there is a
rea
right
process is a fundamental
tiative
for classification. States have broad lati
son
jealously guarded.
people and must be
Our
tude to create classifications within the con
provides,
people
“the
reserve to
Constitution
complex
tax laws. Unless a classifica
text
power
propose
laws and
themselves the
jeopardizes
of a fundamen
tion
the exercise
amendments to the Constitution and to enact
right
inherently suspect
an
tal
or is based on
polls independent
reject the same at the
characteristic,
equal protection
clause
§ 1.
Legislature.”
Okla. Const. Art. V.
legitimate
needs
further a
state interest.
of a
All doubt as to the construction
Company v.
Williams Natural Gas
State
in favor of the
initiative “is to be resolved
1219,
Equalization, 891 P.2d
1222
Board of
31-8,
re
Petition No.
initiative.” In
Initiative
Hahn,
(Okla.1994), citing Nordlinger v.
505
(Okla.
610,
Question No.
B. The Initiative does not impose upon right to travel. impair E.The Initiative would not existing rights. contract claim that
Protestants because one bought realty who moved into Oklahoma and Protestants claim that Initia pay higher ad valorem than taxes cur impair existing rights. tive would contract owners, rent the nonresident’s to travel They assump base their contention on three *8 impinged. argument is This could have force (1) 31, tions: The Initiative sets December only if one assumed that Oklahoma residents 1993, period taxing property. base for buy property would not after the effective (2) Taxing districts would incur bonded in Initiative, only date of the and that Oklahoma 31, 1993, debtedness after December but be residents own Oklahoma estate. We approved by fore the Initiative was the vot reject assumptions reject these and this ar (3) Therefore, ers. the bond holders would gument. proposed amendment would paid. disagree. not be In We the first not, face, invidiously on its discriminate place, ignores Protestants’ contention ex against nonresidents. press language in the Initiative that would any problem regard. solve in this Protes facially C. The Initiative does not point tants fail to out that the Initiative right limit the to vote. date(s) provides, “any which is construed to require impermissibly The Initiative would that no retroactive shall be effec day year tice of an election to raise taxes “be mailed tive the 31st of December of the (15) days not following less than fifteen nor more than enactment.” Where an initiative twenty-five days” “expressly provides severability” before the election. for we will
1153 ap measure at a tax increase election must of its sections unconstitution not declare one prove Although in stage. In re Initiative a tax increase. all doubt pre-election al at the (Okla. P.2d construction of a initiative “is to Petition No. 1994). initiative,” Second, unlikely as even under the in favor of the Protes be resolved entity taxing arguments require would refuse to to sumption that a tants’ would us inter adoption pret of this in a and pay its bonds because this Initiative strained unrea initiative, any provision give way bond it sonable so as to declare unconstitu right go to to court and ask the holder the tional. This we cannot do. In re Initiative (Okla. date that would court to set a later base Petition No. 1992). rights. Finally, con protect pointed its Protestants’ As we out in our discussion of wholly speculative. opinion, tention is the ballot title in I.A of this require only sixty percent of
Initiative would
F. The Initiative would not violate
voting
in an election to
those
on the issue
speech
right
right to
or the
approve
Consequently,
a tax
we
increase.
freedom of
change.
petition
government
to
reject
Protestants’ claims
uneonstitutional
for
ity on this score.
II.C, above,
in
As discussed
Section
require taxing entities to
the Initiative would
KAUGER, V.C.J.,
HODGES,
and
any
in advance of
vote
mail notices of election
LAVENDER, SIMMS,
HARGRAVE
taxes,
give
to
valorem
increase ad
SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
taxpayer
prevailed in an action to en
who
right
provisions
of the Initiative the
force
ALA, J.,
in
OP
concurs
result.
attorneys’
to a
fee. Protestants
reasonable
C.J.,
WILSON,
part,
in
ALMA
concurs
provisions
chilling
have a
claim that
these
part.
dissents
speech
petition
to
effect on free
government
change.
for
How this is so
ALA, Justice, concurring in result.
OP
us,
government
is unclear to
as it is the
today that
The court declares
the initiative
proposes
It is
increases
ad valorem taxes.
measure under consideration —which
sub-
might
government,
people,
not its
who
limit the total amount of ad
stance would
attempting
feel constrained to avoid
to raise
parcel
that could be levied on a
valorem tax
attorneys’
taxes because of the notice and
fee
property and allow increases
of real
provisions of the Initiative. Constitutional
specified
qualifies for sub-
under
government’s
to
limitations on
desire
raise
conditions—
people and
mission to a vote of the
revises
anyone’s
hardly
can
be said to violate
taxes
accurately
to more
part b of the ballot title
speech rights
free
under the First Amend
(a)
explain
required
of votes
the number
ment.
(b)
elections
raise ad valorem taxes and when
to raise ad valorem taxes must be held.
neither deceives
G.
Initiative
.
c
clearing
measure
I concur in
While
nor misleads the publi
for
election,
separately to reiterate
I write
Initiative,.would,
Protestants’
th'e
contend
n my
permissible
views on the outer limit
require
percent of all resident!
that sixty
may undergo
-scrutiny
measure
an initiative
age
eighteen
assessing
in an'
over the
of.
challenge
upon a
when it is before us
vote,
district,
registered
whether or not
alleged legal deficiency.
addition,
approve a tax increase.
Protes
*9
validity
to
the
say
requires sixty
I would not undertake
test
tants
that
the Initiative
adoption by
county.
content
its
percent
qualified
electors in a
of a measure’s
before
people. My commitment to the
Proponents
that
are de
a vote of the
Protestants conclude
Threadgill v.
con-
misleading
public by saying
undiluted
Cross1
ceiving and
the
force
Threads
voting
undiminished
only sixty percent
that
of those
tinues with
fervor:2
810,
J.,
Okl.,
(1994)
403,
(1910).
(Opala,
concur
879 P.2d
821
1. 26 Okl.
gill teaches that commands of our constitu- price paid system content to the the to be for our of consti- judicial- may not be democracy tion —state tutional authorizes the federal — peti- ly in advance the initiative examined legislate directly.4 Only in electorate to the people. adoption by the Presubmis- tion’s firmly and stable clearest case settled sion review of a measure’s fundamental-law jurisprudence absolutely constitutional fatally conformity to viti- should proposed facially a condemns measure confined process the initiative ating in enforcement, impossible application or ex- infirmities legislating The electorate’s effort at protestants ecution —and then the itself. if by directly pre-election not be hindered must standing complain have to of constitutional target than those which attacks other infirmity this court undertake ever —should qua petition’s compliance with some sine non trump petition to an initiative that otherwise requirement submission. for requirements. meets submission journey on its to the ballot box a While The measure under consideration is fit for by proposed petition initiative is measure submission; I hence concur in the court’s judicial entitled to the same deference that is rejection petitioners’ constitutional legislative progress. bill in accorded a challenge today’s pronouncement. but not in lawmaking Judges police process cannot conformity without for to constitution
raising impermissible an restraint on the free political
exercise of activities.3 Just as the seemingly infirm in
passage progress of a bill enjoined pro- to save cost of
will not be
cessing through the act the Houses so, too,
Legislature, passes an initiative that
muster submission should not be con- for adoption in demned advance of the measure’s
just costly a election. to avoid The burden by people
or borne loss when election Okl., 1, (1992) C.J., (Opala, Representatives; people 838 P.2d 18 dissent and a House of but the 348, Okl., ing); power propose In re Initiative Petition No. 820 reserve to themselves the to laws 772, C.J., (1991) (Opala, concurring P.2d 781 in and amendments to the Constitution and to result); 347, Okl., Petition No. In re Initiative 813 reject polls indepen- enact or the same at the 1019, (1991) C.J., (Opala, concurring); P.2d 1037 Legislature, power dent of the and also reserve 341, Okl., In re Initiative Petition No. 796 P.2d option approve reject at their own to at the 267, V.C.J., (1990) (Opala, concurring 275 in polls any Legislature." (Emphasis act of the result); 317, Okl., In re Initiative Petition No. 648 added.) 1207, J., (Opala, concurring P.2d 1222 in Smith, Okl., Tax Oklahoma Commission v. 315, judgment); In re Initiative Petition No. 794, 5, 1, (1980), §§ P.2d we stated that Art. Okl., 545, J., (1982) (Opala, 554-555 7, Const., together “comprise 2 and Okl. an ini- result); concurring in see also In re Initiative whereby system people tiative both the and the (No. 76,437, 20, 1991) Petition No. 349 Feb. Legislature may propose legislation independent- C.J., (Opala, concurring dissenting ly, and neither can block the the other effort of part) (unpublished opinion). added.) during process....” (Emphasis Our teaching applies equal in Smith with force to bar Advocacy against for or law is the judicial legislative as well as with interference purest political speech. upon Restraint form of process. initiative Courts should be loath to 2, speech prohibited by free is the terms of Art. impose judicial pow- restraint on the electorate’s 22, Const., provide part: Old. Supreme er to make law. As the Arizona Court write, "Every person may freely speak, pub- Osborn, aptly remarked in State v. 16 Ariz. subjects, being lish his sentiments on all (1914), re- place 143 P. to court- sponsible right...." abuse of that imposed restrictions "would be tantamount claiming power every of life and death over provisions governing 4. The constitutional the ini- people. initiated measure It would limit 1-8, §§ tiative referendum are Art. Okl. laws, people propose only valid *10 Const. The terms 1 are: lawmaking body, Legisla- whereas the other ture, Legislative authority go legal “The State untrammeled as to the shall Legislature, consisting vested in a of a Senate soundness of its measures.”