In Re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639

PETITION re NO. INITIATIVE QUESTION NO. 639. STATE

No. 76109. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 11, 1991.

June Rehearing July Denied Jackson, Brockett, Anthony L. J.

B.J. City, Stanley M. Spaeth, Mark Oklahoma Bartmess, Norman, Ward, Duchess Okla- Giessmann, Norman, City, Gary L. homa Taxes. Proponents S.T.O.P. New Barrett, Roger Gayle L. Meyers, D. Kent Bacharach, Crowe & Stong, E. A. Robert City, for Protestant Dunlevy, Oklahoma Parker. Elizabeth Frasier, Frasier, & Frasier Dee Thomas Allison, Frossard, Gary Dean Emily Laura Thomas, Tulsa, Protestants C. James Brimer. Singer A. and Jason George Minnis, McCullough, Finally, protestant alleges peti- David Mi- Michael Associates, P.C., not include the full text of the chael Minnis tion does & required by measure as Art. V City, for amicus curiae. 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. HARGRAVE, Justice. are before major

Three determinations A. proceeding for resolution in this Court ISSUES RAISED BY PROTESTANTS Petition No. 347. in reference to Initiative AND SINGER BRIMER objections have filed Protestants petition and signatures count of on the challenge by protestants Singer objections legal sufficiency or validi- to the legal sufficiency and Brimer to the of Ini presented ty. Lastly, the Court has been it tiative Petition No. 347 on the basis that proposed objection to the ballot with repeal Bill must fail. seeks to House title. proposed repeal is It is here that of a law powers peo to the not one of the reserved by filed and briefed Protests have been by petition the ple initiative. Doubtless representing firms three individu- two law Bill, repeal does seek to the House but that George Singer Brimer als. A. and Jason only ancillary purpose the main of is to arguments present one set of while Eliza- restoring and edu the State’s taxation presents Parker another set of briefs. beth position obtaining cation statutes to the Taxes, Proponents, New resist the S.T.O.P. prior passage to the of that bill. There can arguments presented by groups the two of dispute petition no that as a referendum protestants. question as is this state would be invalid fully illustrated In re Peti Referendum I. p. 220 P.2d at tion No. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY (1950), following language wherein the is found: legal objections We first consider to the Question power In of refer-

sufficiency proposed ... effect it of the [the Summarized, gives people right, upon the the a objections these No. 639. endum] petition by specific qualified a number of petition as is invalid on its follows: electors, legisla- from the only repeal to House to withdraw face because it seeks legislation power finally ture the to enact power Bill 1017 and that is not included initiative; Thereunder power of the the certain instances. when the reserved legislative body seeks the has petition facially is invalid because it adopted legislation certain not declared repeal comprehensive appropriation and to necessary preser- to be for the immediate legislation; petition the is invalid be- tax health, worded, public peace, of the deceptively seriously vation cause it making appropriations readily safety, and not misleading and not understandable. institutions, the maintenance of state urged Invalidity petition is also pertaining support pub- and not of petition contains upon the basis that the schools, people, upon petition lic the a multiple subjects. alleged It is signed by requisite number deceptive gist proposal and mis- electors, right away have the to take leading language as a result of the both legislature right the ultimate from the language. used and the omissions legislation shall determine whether such petition alleged that 5 of the It is further adopted and to decide for themselves religion another and is prefers one over proposed leg- such their vote whether unconstitutional. Unconstitu- therefore adopted rejected. islation should be upon the fact that tionality premised is also process subject appropriately This would not be petition denies teachers due petition, but regard to nonrenewal of their con- addressed a referendum law impairs petition the fact is that this is not classified additionally the obli- tracts petition by respect to teachers. as a referendum virtue gation of contract with supported In the citation to therein. tion cases provisions contained repeal jurisdictions and to the Oklahoma other- Clark, Wyatt case argument par- This Constitution. stands with (Okl.1956), this was faced Court tially upon premise petition that this only the petition seeking a validity of only repeal a of taxation seeks Art. 1-13 of the charter repeal of §§ point has been shown above to be Noting petition was city Tulsa. If, argued fallacious. provision eight years filed after the charter sought repeal power tax it enacted, that the situ- the Court stated was Art. indeed be void under X 5.1 experienced question not a ation there is, however, purpose of this repeal conflicting or over- power finance repeal one taxation and school laws, part of lapping inherently which is agenda replace another. with power amend- to enact new laws or contention that protestants’ Wyatt, supra, ments old laws. runs afoul of the constitutional mandate people have re- Court observed legislature Art. X 2 to the effect that the repeal power served unto themselves defray provide must taxation sufficient to only by complying procedural law ordinary expenses government is not invoking of requirements power the any specific of ex- a mandate that level by making repeal such an referendum or a pense must be maintained. conflicting step proposing in law ancillary mat This Court has stated in dicta that ini- power the of the or amendment under prop of MAY ters revenue taxation example given in su- Wyatt, tiative. The of subjects powers for the exercise the er if pra, states that confusion would ensue Quinn v. of initiative and referendum community repeal people the of could Tulsa, p. at 1339 City P.2d of police department laws which establish the us Protestants refer to Citi without, the same or other vital office at v. Pal Against Mandatory Bussing zens time, proposing some form of amendment mason, 80 Wash.2d performance of duties to effect the the (1972) proposition for that initiative and the exactly is placed upon those officers. This procedures referendum cannot used peti- regard to this what has been done management of the state interfere in the repeal proposed laws and the tion—it has system. that case 495 P.2d school of of laws to institute a different method 661, Washington the court observed that conducting in this state than that education of administrative decisions the notion that may be some obtains. It now subject to revi school district officers are adoption of could from the confusion result a novel one in the sion referendum is assert, protestants but the this measure as any the of which would enable voters law simple of educational statutes repeal state impede purpose of Art. community to petition as a ref- classify which would constitution which IX of that state’s petition erendum is not the situation paramount duty provides it is now which this Court is faced. ample provision for the provide state legisla- scheme is a residing wisdom of its all children within education of in this authority be decided tive matter which would This case is scant borders. three people. invalidating this reasons. by the instance One, legisla seeks to amend argu protestants’ Two, second action.2 not administrative tive essence, ment, facial upon that the authority it is based constitutional any provision com in the repeal it seeks Okla ly invalid because dissimilar Three, legisla- the case homa Constitution. prehensive appropriation tax subject municipalities to the surren- tions power shall never be 1. taxation dered, away. suspended, Taxes process. contracted re Petition referendum In Referendum Norman, upon same or sub- City class shall be uniform P.2d 381 No. 1968-1 of jects. Brian, (Okl.1967); (Okl.1970); Hughes v. Zeigler, Okl. 110 P. 1052 Brazelt Washington case our caselaw 2. Similar (1910). provides func administrative also certain gral inapplicable portion petition, it revolves around the of the initiative because question of a referendum prohibition against contravene the deficit financing found in Art X 23 and 24.3 §§ argument an Protestants also make argument fallacy with this is that since repeal House Bill an inte- provides: Whereupon, duty another. it shall be the § 23 Equalization State Board of to make an estimate (45) forty-five days Not more than or less than (35) revenues that will accrue under such laws thirty-five convening days prior to the Governor, and to file the same with the with the regular Legislature, each the State session Tempore President and President Pro Senate, Equalization Board of shall make itemized Speaker Repre- and the of the House of estimate of the revenues to be received sentatives, any and the amount of increase or time state under the laws in effect at the such reason, made, resulting, any ensuing decrease from such for the next fiscal estimate is year, showing separately shall revenues to accrue laws be added to or deducted from each fund, respective Fund and as the case be. The to the credit of General Revenue special adjusted The estimate amount of each fund of the state. such estimate shall be the appropriated shall not exceed an amount which shall be de- maximum amount which can be following procedure: purposes any termined for all fund for the fiscal (1) Certify year total amount of revenue which estimated. portion every appropriation, Fund and accrued to the General Revenue each That at the end during special preceding year, fund the last fiscal of each fiscal in excess of actual revenues thereto, year; collected and allocated as hereinafter Next, which, (2) compute percentage by provided, shall be null and void. Revenues de- (5) preceding posited Treasury each one of the last five years, fiscal in the State to the credit exceeded, any special the amount of revenue or was General Revenue Fund or of fund below, (which corresponding part amount of revenue derives its revenue in whole or in shall, fees) year, average per- preceding except for next fiscal from state taxes or as to debt, centage five-year principal public of increase or decrease for this and interest on the be period computed. monthly department, shall then be Revenue of a allocated to each institu- tion, board, nonrecurring special appropria- nature shall be excluded from the commission or basis, preceding years comput- percentage revenue of the fiscal tion on a in that ratio that the ing percentage appropriation department, the increase or decrease for total tion, board, for such institu- years; special appropria- those commission or (3) percentage year If there is a decline in the tion from each fund fiscal to for that bears during preceding year appropriations increase the last fiscal as the total all from each fund compared above, five-year average computed year, to the for that fiscal and no warrant shall be compute percentage Any depart- the Board shall such issued in excess of said allocation. ment, period; agency operat- for that or institution of the state (4) Equalization, having comput- ing any The Board of on revenues derived from law or laws above, (2) (3) percentage ed the based on and on which allocate the revenues thereof to such de- certify partment, agency shall then methods; which is the lessor of the two institution or shall not incur obligations in excess of the unencumbered bal- (5) Legislature The Board shall then add to or subtract ance of cash on hand. The shall provide whereby appropriations the total amount of the revenue for the a method shall preceding year equal up monthly, quarterly last fiscal a sum be twice divided and set on a or year the lesser of the two methods. semi-annual basis within each fiscal prevent obligations being Governor, Such estimate shall be filed incurred in excess of collected, Tempore the President and President Pro the revenue to be and notwithstand- Senate, Constitution, Speaker ing Repre- provisions and the of the House of other of this Legislature pass Legislature provide appropriations sentatives. The shall not or shall that all bill, any making appro- bring enact act or measure shall be reduced to them within revenues collected, priation money any purpose actually for until such but all such reductions shall filed, institution, board, apply department, estimate is made and unless the State to each Equalization special appropriation Board of has failed to file said commission or made convening Legis- Legislature the time of estimate at lature, then, of said the State in the ratio that its total event, duty year appropriation in such it shall be the for that fiscal bears to the Legislature pursuant appropriations year; to make such estimate total of all for that fiscal amendment, however, provided, may of this all to the that the Governor appropriations deficiency made in excess of such estimate his discretion issue a certificate or void; however, provided, shall be null and that certificates to the State Auditor for the benefit may any regular Legislature any department, agency session or of state, institution or session, special purpose, defficiency called for that enact if the amount of such certifi- provide for laws to additional revenues or a cate or certificates be within the limit of the revenues, department, appropriation reduction in other than ad valorem current for that insti- taxes, transferring existing agency, whereupon or or revenues tution or the State Auditor unappropriated on hand from one fund to cash shall issue warrants to the extent such certifi-

1025 deceptively misleading petition, worded petition is not a referendum this are point that its effects concealed and not repeal of Bill would be House main, readily In the understandable. approval by its only upon effective gist argument proposes that Constitu- Art. V voters. persons to proposal led believe under the bill and The debts incurred tion. only repeal tax served by would have been the revenue raised it legislation, causing public further expended validly incurred and collected and Bill 1017 did no more believe that House during the time the bill was law. increase, taxes, thereby ignoring the than Singer fi aspects and Brimer to edu- many Protestants the bill referrable changes listed in nally argue should be cation reform. These only citation of authori- its the footnote.4 The invalid on face because declared payment of members of local boards of education —See or for the such cate certificates C, Governor, [Appendix p. 24-26] 25-27 §§ be authorized H.B. claims as size C, part of the Reform of maximum class limits—See shall become a 9. and such warrants [Appendix p. paid any money public 26-31] out H.B. 1017 28-31 §§ debt and shall day Legislature Changes in the definition of the school appropriated and made law- 10. therefor; further, provided high kindergarten fully students —See school available C, p. deficiency [Appendix 31] 1017 32§ said certificate or H.B. in no event shall aggregate of school sum of 11. Mandates more efficient uses exceed in certificates C, (1500,000.00) [Appendix p. property H.B. 1017 33 Hundred Thousand Dollars Five —See any year. 31-32] fiscal encouraging more involvement shall never create or authorize 12. Reforms The state schools, any obligation, parents— or fund or their staff and creation of debt between the deficit, state, C, depart- any any pay ment, against [Appendix H.B. §§ 32-33] See 34-35 thereof, regardless agency program par- institution or of a make 13. initiation money from which of its form or the source of as aware of their critical roles teachers ents paid, except provided in very young it is 1017 §§ children —See H.B. C, 25 of of amendment and in Sections [Appendix p. 32-33] of the State of help adopt Article X of the Constitution districts An initiative to school corpo- disciplinary Oklahoma. other than methods effective provides: [Appendix punishment H.B. 38§ ral C, —See power to con- to the above limited In addition p. 33] debts, repel contract debts tract State application of re- new accreditation 15. Broad invasion, suppress or to defend the insurrection quirements other than the to common schools war; money arising from the C, State in but the high [Appendix § H.B. 1017 39 schools—See applied contracting to the of such debts shall p. 33-34] raised, repay purpose which it was or for Qualifications Changes improving the of 16. debts, purpose and no other whatever. such of Education and the State Board members of geographic representation improving of Voluntary Early Childhood of a 4.1. Initiation the State Board of Education —See of members C, p. Program [Appendix 1017 16§ H.B. C, p. —See [Appendix 34] 40§ H.B. 1017 18-19]; accountability assuring 17. Provisions strict implementation of reform— education Funding Encouragement new tech- of of 2. C, p. [Appendix §§ 34-36] H.B. 1017 41-43 See [Ap- nology H.B. 17§ innovation —See 1017 and the teacher com- Reforms and increases in C, 18. p. pendix 19] encouragement including system, pensation Optional Extended School of an 3. Initiation pay plans incentive differential and [Appendix Program § H.B. 1017 18 Year —See —See C, p. [Appendix 36-43] C, §§ H.B. 1017 44-50 p. 19-20] continuing Strengthening education re- Competen- Student 19. to Oklahoma’s 4. Reforms administrators— quirements for teachers and Programs 19-21 cy Testing §§ H.B. 1017 —See C, p. C, [Appendix § 44] H.B. 1017 51 p. See [Appendix 20-22] Reforming minority efforts— recruitment School 20. of the Oklahoma The Establishment 5. C, p. [Appendix 44-45] Study § See H.B. 1017 52 Deregulation H.B. Committee and —See C, Technological Education Vocational and [Appendix p. 21. § 22] 22 1017 C, [Appendix p. Teaching § H.B. 1017 53 reforms —See an Alternative 6. Establishment [Ap- Program 45-46] 23§ H.B. 1017 Certification —See pro- model C, of an at-risk student 22. Initiation p. pendix 22-24] plan study implementation H.B. County Super- gram office 7. Abolition —See C, p. [Appendix [Ap- 46] § § H.B. 1017 of Schools—See intendent training leadership skills C, of a Initiation p. 23. pendix 24] Qualifications, teachers —See program administrators and Strengthening Train- C, p. [Appendix 46] Requirements H.B. 1017 Continuing ing Education ty accompanying argument bills, gener- code, is a adopting and bills digest, presumption statutes; al reference to the that statu- revision of ...” tory language was intended for some use- Proponents state this is an issue that has purpose given ful and should be effect. jurisdiction. not been decided in this How- recently However this Court has stated the ever the case of In re Initiative Petition determining sufficiency test 459, (1949), 201 Okl. 207 P.2d 266 apply required ballot title does not clearly foreshadows the solution of this statement on the In re Initiative question in that syllabus express- the Court ly states that the immediately clause fol- O.S.Supp. Title 34 3 sets out the lowing quoted provision the above appli- requirements for peti- the statement on the process. cable to the initiative Syllabus tion, requires only simple state- One that case reads: gist proposition. ment As the part That of Section Art. 5 of authority explains last cited p. at “... Constitution of the requirements The list of detailed set out “ * * * provides: no law shall be title, section 9 for the ballot opposed as revived, amended, general requirement section 3’s for the Pe- thereof extended or conferred refer- statement, proof tition’s is further ence only, to its title but so Legislature much thereof did not intend for the Petition’s revived, amended, as is or extended or particular statement to be as as the ballot conferred shall pub- be re-enacted and title.” * * * ” length: lished applies to mea- proposed by sures petitions B. well Legislature. as to acts of the ISSUES RAISED BY While re Initiative Petition No. PROTESTANT PARKER supra, p. 207 P.2d at 271 stated that the argues Protestant Parker that this quoted last second clause is all embracive is invalid virtue of Art. V 57§ applies legisla- initiative as well as of the Oklahoma pro Constitution which measures, tive the case states that the sec- part: vides entirely separable ond clause is “... “Every Legislature act of the shall em- first clause.” At 271. The first subject, brace but one which shall be clause is more limited and states that it is title, clearly expressed in except gen- applicable its “Every legislature act of the bills, appropriation general eral revenue presented ...” situation here revolves Encouragement 24. prohibition against advancing of local school districts to 30. A students to develop private/public partnerships improv- higher grade they levels unless have achieved ing programs their facilities and H.B. 1017 competency certain levels of —See H.B. 1017 —See C, [Appendix p. 56§ 46-47] C, [Appendix p. 66§ 51] Mandating training 25. a review of teacher Changes 31. in the student transfer decision Century standards for 21st H.B. 1017 —See making process [Ap- H.B. 1017 §§ 89-91 —See C, [Appendix p. 57§ 47-48] C, pendix p. 63-64] Increasing qualifications 26. of certain Changes system 33. to the transfer fee —See C, principals [Appendix p. H.B. 1017 58§ —See C, [Appendix p. H.B. 1017 92§ 64-65] 48-49] 27. ing special 34. The Establishment a account Mandating efficiency increased in deliver- general within the fund to which the new tax by requiring educational services coordina- increase monies are to be credited and to be sdchools, among public tion common only supporting used the education reforms higher system, education and the Vocational C, [Appendix of H.B. 1017—See H.B. 1017 98§ Technological system education H.B. —See p. 72] C, [Appendix p. 1017 § 59 49] prohibition against 35. Revival of a student Special The 28. Establishment of a Education purposes achieving transfers for racial bal- help Assistance Fund with which to local school public repealed ance in the special schools which was districts educate children with needs— C, [Appendix probably p. See H.B. 1017 H.B. 1017 and is §§ 61-64 unconstitutional— 50-51] B, [Appendix p. Initiation of a mandate to reduce See adminis- Initiative 78§ 73-74] expenses [Appendix trative H.B. 1017 § 65 —See C, p. 51]

1027 sec- requirement of this by the Constitution. legislative proposed act around a Walton, act call is that the title of an attention rel. tion people. v. State ex McAlister (1923). 143, 779, general subject of the act. at 782 to the Stewart 221 P. 96 Okl. apply Commission, provisions supra. 57 of Art. V Oklahoma Tax As such v. § provisions mandatory, deal- Although not those to this case and section provi- of constitutional so ing with revision receive a reasonable construction should 1 the Consti- carry prevent found in Art. XXIV fraudu- sions out its intent § as legislation surreptitious tution Oklahoma. without lent and prop- unreasonably imperilling annulling representative of Art. XXIV Cases legislation. v. Oklahoma Gas & er Binion analysis 1 re Initiative Petition are: In 356, 114 P. Company, 28 Okl. Electric 344, (Okl.1990), 326 In re 797 P.2d No. also, Owen, (1911). parte 143 1096 See Ex 342, P.2d 331 No. 797 Initiative Petition 8, (1930). P. title 286 883 ballot Okl. (Okl.1990) re Petition and In Initiative in this as the of the serves instance title 314, 625 P.2d 595 act. representative of Art. V Cases general in an at analysis disclose Art. of the 57 V 57 Oklahoma entirely legislative inclusion of tempt every to thwart two act requires Constitution in one v. subjects law. Bond subject different and that that sub to have but one (1948). 70, 200 Phelps, Okl. clearly expressed in its title. There ject be express no details or find, There is need to subject, clearly only one we it is title. legislation in the subdivisions of subject, That as expressed the title. Commission, v. Tax Stewart in its is the “... return reflected title [of] (1946). The P.2d 125 196 Okl. regulating education and taxes the laws requirement to assure purpose of the they legislature did before read single every act shall embrace a but signed Enrolled passed and Governor subject legislator so the individual Bill remainder House 1017....” notice the effect people put are on as to actually goes title into details v. legislation. Co. Gibson Products unnecessary requirement to meet (1940), Murphy, P.2d 453 Okl. provision. The ti constitutional the above Carter, citing Perry v. required a of an act is not to contain tle (1935), this Court said the Gib abstract, summary, or it is not constitu case that son Products only necessary in it. It is contained required so tionally that the title should be act are referrable contents complete as to index to all worded to the cognate subject to the title syllabus by the details of the act. Tax v. Oklahoma Commis act. Stewart holds that no elaborate Court Gibson sion, differently it is suffi supra.5 Stated neces subject of an act is statement ger- the bill are if the contents of cient in the provided sary, matters considered expressed in the title. subject maine title. germaine to the of the act are text Luther, 190 Okl. Lowden (1941). presents decision The Lowden only title protestant Parker notes the As analagous the case factual scenario contained Initiative titled There the act examined was is title. Question No. 639 the ballot bar. ...” relating to school districts it is a “An Act disagree protestant We allowed the Coun provision of that act breathtaking ti- One assumption that the ballot and Instruction Superintendent is of Public ty title of the act as as the tle could serve disorganize of Board Commissioners 57 of the Oklahoma required Art. V § 121, King, 494; Cooper 635, 37, v. County 171 Okl. v. Latim- L.Ed. Washita 82 5. School Dist. No. Grigsby, City (1935); v. er, Oklahoma 620, (1942); Lowden v. 249 P.2d 126 P.2d 280 42 190 Okl. Owen, parte 23, (1935); Luther, Ex 31, (1942); Craw- 41 697 171 Okl. P.2d 190 Okl. 120 359 Wheatley, 101, 8, (1930); Commission, State v. Corporation Okl. 286 P. 883 v. 188 Okl. 143 ford 28, (1921); Oklahoma (1940); P. 1004 Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Okl.Cr. 200 20 P.2d 806 106 Hare, Development Commission, City & Co. v. 479, 66 Okl. Land 66 P.2d 1097 Tax 190, 15, (1917). P. 407 (1937) appeal U.S. 58 S.Ct. dismissed Petition, title, adjoin- as well as the reflect school districts and attach them ballot only changes. the first of the ing districts. This Court noted a few statement very general and had part gist of the title was on the Petition does not contain the portion legislature stopped proposition with that title as the ballot does argument there be no serious explain proposal.” the effect of the enough the title not broad to cover the was reason that case does not demonstrate disorganizing provision. that, The Court there in invalidity petition of this is as noted abstracting provi- noted that the of some previous quote, purpose of the destroy sions in the title would not petition, statement on the as well as the general effect of the statement. basis “explain ballot title is to the effect of the question of this was that resolution proposal.” petition’s This statement ful- general construing in the title of an act requirement, explains fills that for it expressions are not limited or restricted proposal, explains and it effect subsequent specification par- of details or purpose in effect, total that it states the is is, expressio ticulars. That the maxim uni- regulating return of the laws education applicable is not us est exclusio alterius they to read and taxes did before 1017 construing when the effect of the title of purpose That became law. is the sole an act. Associated Industries Okla- contrast, example, this and for Commision, homa v. Industrial 342, supra, Welfare In re Initiative Petition No. p. p. 185 Okl. at provided: petition the statement re- (1939), Company Pure Oil v. Okla- previous moves from the Constitution re- Commission, homa Tax 179 Okl. corporations. strictions on business (1937). P.2d 1097 provi- statement did not indicate that the abrogating sion the fellow-servant doctrine Protestant Parker next contends being removed from the Constitution. petition’s gist statement of the IXArt. 36 of the Oklahoma Constitution petition misleading decep so is as to be abrogates the fellow-servant doctrine in misleading. O.S.Supp. tive and Title 34 simply more instances than where a busi- requires: simple A 1989 3 “... statement corporation ness is involved.6 The doctrine gist proposition print shall be abrogated “every person, as to firm or top margin signature ed on sheet_” of each engaged mining in corporation this Protestant contends In re Ini- question the state.” Without removal point supra, tiative Petition No. is on the common law doctrine of fellow-servant compels gist and the conclusion that the is far broader than the statement on the objection is flawed. Such title. We find the rule In the cited for or ballot ineffective however. case Prieto, point, repeated City had been determined (Okl.1971), applicable separate subjects. to contain five At to be to this noted, previously the Court noted “The statement on the situation. As this Court provi- 6. The common law doctrine of the fellow-serv- could have recovered under the above sions, ant, liability occurred, legal so far as it affects the of the master had not death then his or servant, resulting injuries to his from the personal representative, surviving consort or any or other servant or ser- acts omissions relatives, trustee, curator, any or committee or master, abrogated of the common as to vants relatives, guardian of such consort or shall have every every employee company railroad rights respect remedies with the same to, there- railway every company street or inter-urban negli- as if death had been caused firm, railway company, every person, and of gence every compa- of the master. And railroad State; corporation engaged mining in this ny every railway company street or inter- every employee and right such shall have the same railway company, every person, urban every injury to recover for suffered him firm, corporation engaged underground any employee for the acts or omissions of other mining in this State shall be liable under this employees or of the common master that a section, for the acts of his or its receivers. servant would have if such acts or omissions Nothing contained in this section shall restrict per- were those of the master himself in the Legislature power the of the to extend to the non-assignable duty; formance of a death, and when firm, not, any person, corporation, employees of whether instantaneous or results to any injury rights provided employee such for which he the and remedies herein for. 1357(C) judicial of a an act be broader with the invalidation the title to stated § provisions only portion newspaper but when the tax its on of sales than broader than the title a fatal of an act are contained in v. ex Dow Jones & Co. Commission, defect exists: rel Oklahoma Tax Legislature However the subject expressed in title to an The the 1357(C) upon scope in Bill a limit the of the deleted Senate act fixes § act, parts (approved emergency of an act are not and all which Sess.Laws c.280 25, 1990). are within its title unconstitutional May clause effective result void, though provisions might even such purports of the the Senate bill remove in properly have been included the act Co., exemption by invalidated Dow Jones & a broader title.... Oklahoma under supra, all which could be understood tax Prieto, supra, at 924. City v. However, newspaper periodical sales. may directly the Senate Bill 711 effect of gist protestant the This contends that change question of a before the the essence petition does not tell the voters that petition, people in initiative which is not changes tax would make to Oklahoma permitted as we have noted in Oklahoma gist is of laws. This not the case. Smith, supra, Tax v. Commission states, alia, will proposition7 inter "... and 1, supra. re put language repealed back the which was Referendum regarding taxes and school law contained ultimately If Bill 711 is held Senate in bill enact- House Bill 1017which was the directly pending change the effect of a legislature April ...” ed petition initiative Tax Commis Oklahoma petition’s a matter of literal truth the As Smith, applicable. supra, sion v. would be 41 amends 1354 of Title 68 O.S.1981so not, require this If issue does not precisely as it did before 1017 reads present to the inde Court's attention. Due passed. passed how- After 1017 was question of this at this terminate nature ever, 1357(C)of Senate Bill 711 deleted § light severability time and in the tax exempted Title 68 from sales which judicial petition, provisions in initiative newspapers and individual carrier sales in re appropriately exercised restraint periodicals newspapers on transactions gard This conclu to this issue at this time. which do not exceed $0.75. noting supported sion is further protestant con- At their brief petition protestant’s allegation that 41 of the initiative cedes that § tax laws does not inform voters that will changed prior 1354 to read as it did already have noted such changed. As we Therefore, the the effective date of 1017. on argument is not the case. Protestants pertinent inquiry is the effect of what require invalidation premise this does legislature’s taken in Senate Bill action people of the state during the time the considering petition on a an initiative objects to protestant Parker question been subject. That has related petition on additional validity Tax Commission answered ground does not inform statement Smith, (Okl.1980)and In re changes would voters 1, supra. Petition appropriation Referendum laws Okla make contained on this argument homa. The practical passage effect of however, title. It is point, from its differs to retain would be passage petition’s alleged that newspapers and nature of the nontaxable in this state. precipitate a crisis by retaining old 68 O.S. revenue periodicals, April Legislature in a gist proposition as follows: enacted 7. The Special the Governor which Session called language repeal the new measure will This August commonly began referred changed some of the increased taxes and and Tax Reform Increase” as the “Education existing new school law school law created bill. language put which was re- back the and will this measure. is a vote in favor of A “YES" vote regarding law con- pealed taxes and school against measure. is a vote bill A "NO” vote Bill 1017 which was the in House tained supra. petition “Because Section 81 of the The brief states no initiative Legislature proponent severability provision. of an initiative Assuming, is a irresponsibly petition has ever acted so deciding, argument without made reducing also to slash revenues without correct, Parker is these isolated infirmities appropriations, precise effect of the proposed would invalidate statute meticulously petition cannot be de- entirety surely in its should not be held scribed_ plainly However it would sub right people pass to block ject appropriations all to the anti-deficit ... legislation through power the reserved provisions of Article X 23 of the Okla the initiative. In In re Initiative Petition protestant homa Constitution.” Thus the 317, 1207, (Okl. p. 648 P.2d at explains passage of this initiative 1982), Doolin, J., concurring with five Jus provoke a revenue crisis. However tices, portion the Court was faced with a argument provides such an no basis for redistricting plan which was determined judicial relief. This Court is not authorized disruptive process. to be of the electoral desirability, prac to consider the wisdom or petition sought implement a Con ticability legislation working of fiscal aas gressional redistricting plan. The indefi questions proposition belong since these portion petition nite found to be legislative government. branch of objectionable related to effective dates of Turpen, State ex rel. York v. 681 P.2d 763 proposed redistricting plan and the (Okl.1984). otherwise, Stated an whether election held under it. The Court noted the unwise, enactment is wise or whether it is infirmity would not invalidate the entire theory based on sound economic or wheth petition savings because 7 contained a er it is the best means to achieve the de objectionable portion clause and the ordinarily legis sired result are matters for inseparably peti not so connected with the lative determination. The earnest conflict presumed tion that it could not vot opinion bring of serious does not it within pass portion. ers would not it without that range cognizance. judicial Palmer In the ques cause before the Court the Co., Corp. Phillips v. Oil Petroleum portions tioned of this initiative are more 543, (1950), appeal 231 P.2d 997 dis petition incidental to the main thrust of the missed U.S. 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. than in last cited case and likewise petition. would not invalidate the entire argues grounds Parker three Supreme In the case of In re petition is invalid which will be Adjudication Court Initiative Peti together, treated and these relate to the Norman, tions in Oklahoma No. &74-1 constitutionality of various 74-2, (Okl.1975), Listed, arguments these are: departed long teaching from the Court held (1) provision One violates establishment Cross, Threadgill 26 Okl. 109 P. by excusing clause Jewish children from (1910), and Oklahomans Modern Kippur; school on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Shelton, Beverage Alcoholic Control v. (2) process rights the due of tenured teach (Okl.1972). 501 P.2d 1089 As a result this provisions; ers are violated dismissal constitutionality Court considered the of an (3) salary provisions initiative before it became law. obligation violate contract refer That action was reaffirmed in In re Initia allegations ence to teachers. These are not etc., tive Petition No. 315 sufficient to defeat the submission of the questions There we said if people of this state. The constitutionality subject are raised as to alleged portion fact that a of an initiative procedure form, queries matter those petition would violate the constitution does addressed if and determined not render the invalid where the severability Court determines that such a resolution provi law contains a questioned provisions prevent expensive could and unneces sion and the could be impairing sary As noted in eliminated without effect of election. In re Initiative etc., supra, question the act. In re Initiative Petition No. Petition No. 315 tion, requiring the full text of the measure through of the an examination is answered to be included in the question. proposed severability provisions of the not severable the provisions If the are argument must fail. There is no This pas- to questions prior are determinable misleading. markings basis to hold the sage by approval of the voters. of the act explain signifi- petition not the does point also true. of this is converse marking. Prior to Section 1 of cance is questioned provision severa- Where the petition, language appears: this “Be it the ble, constitutional issues and resolution of by people the Okla- enacted State becoming would not prior to act law the following adopted homa the law be that costly prevent potentially and unneces- The new law read as follows:” which shall election, Cross, supra, sary Threadgill v. There is no as- proposed printed. is then questioned the consti- applicable is still and petition that law is un- sertion in the new ripe not for determination tutionality is derlined, previ- language from the nor that nothing it an presents since more than ab- ously-enacted carried into this act statutes question. opinion hypothetical stract on a similarly that lan- It is obvious are not. through part is to guage marked not be Lastly, petition the Parker asserts In the assertion on the act. absence include by invalid virtue of failure to the is contrary is petition the face of the proposed in the measure viola full text of people it not clear that the its is V 2 of the Oklahoma Con tion Article § by petition this misled submission of will be grounded is argument stitution. This not proposed presented to the voters. The law proposed law premise on the sub if is the that will become effective law petition actually does mitted this enacted, is to find and thus there no basis language proposed contain the entire the petition mislead the voters. the will measure, objection the in which case persuasive. argument is that II. failing proposed mark the measure as a THE TITLE BALLOT marked in legislative amendment would be 9(D) O.S.Supp.1989 to 34 the Pursuant § legislation passed by course of the usual proposed ballot title Secretary of State’s Senate, and a viola the Oklahoma House Attorney General was forwarded of Article V 2 has been established. tion Attorney determined General review. is most of argument The crux of legal form proposed title not marked and was so measure he harmony and then and in law markings in fourteen of those the absence following accordance prepared the title in deceiving, misleading and vio is instances 9(D)(3): O.S.Supp.1989 with 34 provis lating spirit of the constitutional replaces newly enacted no measure re This admits there ion.8 Protestant existing Bill the laws 1017 with be so House quirement repeals min- passage. It partial before the Bill’s marked, objection and accreditation standards for school Similarly, imum actually there marking made. curriculum, power to but restores and at made that no contention of Education to set those Board new without State tempts law to formulate programs repeals It certain required standards. of the act as printing the full text certification, training and and for teacher Constitu- 2 of by Art. V preserva- Okla.Const., necessary for the immediate provides: as to laws Art. V § health, safety), public peace, ei- tion of people is power The first reserved signed by per by petition five centum of the initiative, legal ther eight per centum of any legis- Legislature propose legal right to other bills voters voters shall have the measure, percentum per legal fifteen centum of lative legal The ratio enacted. propose right shall have upon voters stated shall be based voters hereinbefore by petition, and the Constitution general amendments every last of votes cast at the the total number full text of include the shall such receiving highest for the office election power is proposed. The second so the measure of votes at such election. number referendum, (except may be ordered changes question county option parent education. It formu- dressed to the consolidated liquor by appellant las for state assistance to the drink. The contend- repeals pay for schools and severance infirm proposed ed the ballot title was be- age employees. their It raises the liquor cause it failed to sale of on mention attending school from five to seven. It Sunday, additionally and and nonresident repeals requirement to attend kinder- corporate ownership of licenses to sell. garten. It restores student transfer fees objection was refused. This Court prior procedures suspending and or Attorney stated General’s ballot title firing County Superintendent teachers. accurately propo- reflected the effect of the prior positions of Schools and the formu- sition and informed the electorate concern- la for aid are restored. school state ing principal thrust of the size limits are raised and limits on Class option county liquor which was drink sales many how students teachers teach provided for a new enforcement repeals are removed. It all taxes enact- agency regulation and continuation of ed to fund House Bill 1017. Teachers’ Thereupon taxation of the trade. it was minimum salaries are lowered. The mea- held that the title conformed with 9 of 34 repeals many changes. sure other O.S.Supp.1983, although grammatical a O.S.Supp. In accordance with 34 change by made the Court. was parties objecting to all the ballot by Attorney title written have General Here, county option as in the case offered substitute ballot title for that above, cited the determination is made that proposed by Attorney General. Where Attorney proposed General’s ballot title by Attorney the title submitted General requirements O.S.Supp. fulfills the of 34 generally approved it is found sufficient is accurately 1989 9 because it reflects the regardless sufficiency and utilized of the proposition by informing effects of the parties. Covey those submitted other concerning principle electorate thrust Williamson, (Okl.1953). P.2d proposition. of the The character and requirements This Court has stated the adequately thrust of the law is of a ballot title that is due form to be explained. purpose proposal to the electorate in submitted Arthur v. concerning to return the laws education Stillwater, (Okl.1980) City 611 P.2d 637 point they and taxation to the at which Cartwright, and Pierce v. prior passage were of House Bill (Okl.1981). Therein we said that the ballot doing 1017. In so certain reforms are elim permit title must in a be form to the voter expressed by Attorney inated as Gener to reach an informed decision whether al’s ballot title. approve disapprove the measure. The Recently this Court considered the issue question specific, must be but is not ballot titles In Re Initiative Petition required proposition to contain the 342, supra No. 333. There the ballot beginning Sufficiency to end. is shown deceptive title held to was and mislead enough appears identify where the sub- ing accurately and to not reflect the con ject matter to reflect the character and tents of the that case the purpose proposition. question subjects covered as diverse as the deceptive misleading and must not be power of eminent domain and the terms uncertainty ambiguity. must be free of qualifications of members of the Cor The test is whether or not the voters are title, poration Commission. ballot opportunity fairly express afforded an case, only portion reflected will, question sig- and whether the their changes by to be made initiative. The nificantly apprise the voters definite to Court observed that the ballot title did not accuracy upon that which with substantial adequately explain language again propos the effect of the they voting. This proposal al. In this case the effect of the Proposed reviewed in Matter Ballot Ti- Question completely explained in the first sentence tle title Attorney There the ballot was ad- the ballot title written newly en trained or educated as to the contents of replaces “This measure General: Bill ref- or House 1017. The Bill 1017 with the laws exist acted House report eree in his fact Here, pressive opinion of rather than fact immediately above. 342 discussed substantially The referee not- many provi inaccurate. although different there are ed no evidence question, also that was introduced in the state sions included deceive, tending to an intent nor easily in show to proposal explained effect of the any sig- was that individual there evidence one sentence. petition through ner was mislead of reliance on the fact sheet the lack of III. familiarity peti- of the circulators with the SIGNATURE COUNT Bill tion or House 1017. Because of deception proof lack of actual of individ- of challenge to the This Court referred the ual voters the referee concluded the evi- signature count a referee of this Court to disqualify any specific dence did not tend conducting purposes evidentiary signatures appearing on making findings hearings, factual and re- presumed legal acts of circulators are be porting report conclusions of law. A will not not fraudulent. on the referee was made the Court allegation on the mere declared invalid February, 1991. The ref- eighth day of by signers have been misled some Initiative Petition No. report eree’s finds statements of circulators relative to the conterparts through its con- various proposed law. re effect of the Initia- 126,757 signatures. a total of valid tains Question No. tive Petition No. State 33,076 signatures than This total is more As stated V 93,683 required by Art. the number of In re Initiative 2 of Constitution. Nine- the Oklahoma Question 205, 176 signatures seventy-three thousand and teen (1936), this Court will not interfere were disallowed. of electors the theo- with the actions under days twenty for the The referee allowed signators may ry some of the have report. parties exceptions file to his been deceived. exceptions by time filed Within that were Parker and Protes- Protestant Elizabeth Singer put also on tes Brimer Singer and Brimer. tants tending dem timony before the referee groups protestants attacked The two many worthwhile onstrate that of the most sufficiency signatures validity of repealed Bill 1017 were reforms House Singer and Brimer body on different bases. only listing in by signa- protest urged invalidity of all numbers. It was repealed section deceptive practices uti- because of urged deceptive tures that this was because pro- proponents. The Parker explain lized petition did the reforms to be validity signatures for questions alleged deficiency test repealed. This including improper circula- signa reasons other all protestants these to invalidate tion, registration, voter defects lack of there was again The referee noted tures. technical defects. signator notarial act and any that this testimony no com

infirmity in their failure to resulted pe signing prehend significance A. also noted that tition. referee AND SINGER PROTESTANTS invalidity peti argument goes to the BRIMER’S ARGUMENTS law, an which was tion a matter of issue as by the his resolution order Singer in not tendered for and Brimer Protestants opinion in this As indicated that circulators reference. to show troduced evidence this Court has determined petition had not been of the initative Additionally, the referee a mat- unintelligible as a matter law found as is not signature talley ter pur- of fact petition clearly states its because the (145,796) presumptively signatures valid position pose returning the law to the Parker, was incorrect as demonstrated Bill prior passage of House accordingly he corrected this count signator necessary It is not for each deducting 155 from the count. every peti- fully to be aware of detail of valid. tion for his assent produced Protestant Parker evidence proved talley one sheet was left Kay unattended on the counter of a cafe in

B. County. teaching In accordance with the etc., of In re Initiative Petition No. 224 PARKER’S PROTESTANT 432, (1946), 197 Okl. ARGUMENTS sheet, signatures, nineteen was dis- challenges signa- Protestant Parker’s having qualified signed as not been in the tures were on an individual basis. The presence of the circulator. Parker’s re- proponents any not did controvert quest Kay County petitions that all should disqualifications signatures of as found be invalidated on the that the basis testimo- referee, disqualifications and those ny peti- showed some other unidentified challenges thus admitted. Technical re- tions were left unattended refused was 2,027 disqualification signa- sulted of the referee. tures uncontroverted evidence. Four- 45,732 signa- Seven notaries notarized signed teen individuals more sought disqualify tures. Parker all once, signatures than and thus fourteen signatures these on the basis that the nota- disqualified, fifty-one signatures were requirements ries did not adhere to the disqualified notary’s com- were because Acts, the Uniform Laws of Notarial expired. mission had O.S.Supp.1990 seq. specific 111 et In accordance with In re Initiative Peti- objection was failure to adhere to 113 of 3,203 317, challenges supra, tion No. Act, part: which reads in signatures refused. The were basis determine, the notarial must ... officer challenge signators residing outside of personal knowledge either from or from City gave post and Tulsa office evidence, satisfactory person ap- as their residence. box numbers pearing per- before the officer ... is the signature son whose true is on the state- registration challenges up- Voter were ment verified. 12,813 against signatures held on the basis that these individuals were not registered sjt ^[*] # ^[*] 9jc SjC That was also uncontro- voters. evidence satisfactory F. A notarial officer has verted. person person that a evidence is the signature whose true is on a document if presented that tended to Parker evidence person personally known to the petitions containing forty two show officer, upon notarial is identified prior pre- signatures were circulated oath or affirmation of a credible witness filing Secretary of with the personally known the notarial officer proponent adduced evidence State. or is identified on the basis of identifica- printer, from the the individuals distribut- tion documents. ing petition, the circulators and nota- presented testimony Protestant Parker responsible facially prema- for the two ries tending to show these seven notaries did signature ture sheets. This evidence uni- provision comply not with the of the above formly early dates on the demonstrated act. The referee stated: Fleming petitions Berrong and were scrive- The referee determined as a they prior personal ner’s errors. had no ... knowl- petitions edge identity matter of fact that these were of the individual them, early disqualify appearing and refused to before in no case was circulated anyone upon introduced them forty the af- signatures. witness, prima speak and none truth. The certificate is firmation a credible correct, jurat practice requir- imports verity. made a facie of the notaries prior non-appearance of the ing documents to no- However the identification affiant destroys Consequently signature. the verification. tarization each appear personally failure the affiant to led put before the referee evidence notary before was held invalidate the knew, notary him that each to conclude those signatures on sheets. In re Initia- know, number of the circulators came to Question 142, No. tive State 45,- through repeated contacts. Out 155, 205, (1936). 176 Okl. 55 P.2d See by virtue of lack signatures contested Question Also In re No. State Refer- personal knowledge the referee deter- 73, 183 endum Petition No. 32,471 were rehabilitated mined that (1938). reasoning This line of per- them that the notaries knew evidence through In continues re Initiative Petition sonally petition was returned to before the Question No. Secretary of State. pp. again 953-956 Once 45,732 signatures questioned All in the primary being issue decided was the by the in the face of were allowed referee notary an oath failure to administer what, challenge on the basis of the circulator or to call the circulator’s term, a be referred for lack of better shall swearing fact he attention to the that was knowledge. Except to as institutional the truth of the matters contained there- 3,958 signatures in this the disallowed resolving In of in. the course issue copies filed of group, all circulators had requirements the Court noted exe- the registration propo- cards the voter with in of affidavit a situation cution a valid this nents. The notaries were aware of 34 the of O.S.1981 6 where report referee stated in his the fact. The validity of such an affidavit. determine the purpose of these cards was to establish in each of the circulators involved ... voters, registered they circulators were but challenge appeared before the nota- could be considered identification doc- also public purpose ry involved for uments. doing necessary to be that which was governed by signatures is Verification of validity give or done him her to Interpretation of 6.9 O.S.1981 § signatures by him obtained each sheet governed by providing: 34 O.S.1981 § her, and, or in the absence evidence prescribed herein proceeding he or she contrary, we assume that substantially mandatory, if followed but cognizant the state- of the effect of If will sufficient. the end aimed be that it was to ment involved and knew be procedure shall be can attained and be instance, In each a sworn statement. sustained, er- and mere technical clerical in signed the affidavit affiant disregarded. rors shall public, and the notary presence of jurat notary his thereto. public held in an In an earlier case this Court affixed done in this case notary think that what was petition the certificate of We must, compliance substantial constitutes including jurat in order accom- added) (emphasis intended, O.S. 1961 ... it was plish purpose for which sheet), signers names of the provides: written the 6§ 9. 34 O.S.1981 foregoing petition, signed and this sheet containing every such sheet of Each signatures my signed in name thereto of them his each thereof, back shall be verified on the presence: each has stated his I believe that per- substantially following form address, name, post and residence cor- office petition, sheet of said son circulated said who signer legal rectly, is a voter of that each and part there- her affidavit thereon and his or of_ county and the State of Oklahoma of: of_(as city case or for be). State of Oklahoma (Signature post and office address affi- ss. of_ ant.) me and to before Subscribed sworn County I,_, of_A.D. 19_ _day sworn, say: being duly I first That (Signature title officer before whom and qualified for the State of Oklahoma elector am a address.) made, post (Here type- and his office legibly oath is written or shall copies registra- of their voter the Court not contain In the case before (so appeared provide before the tion cards as to institutional the circulators now notaries, signed acknowledged knowledge identity) their the circulator’s states, quoted signatures the last case are deter- signatures. disapproved As and those compliance. are in substantial these acts mined valid. validity emphasis in the statute is the sought addition Protestant Parker signatures as attested to registration al time to check voter cards of Protestants signature of the circulator. County prove in order to Oklahoma statutory correct attempt to focus on county’s signers were not portions of the ness of the notaries’ verification registered voters at the close of her case-in- technical merely amounts to a clerical or this time the referee denied the chief. At nothing im error. omission does Such proof. motion and Parker made an offer of peach the oath of the circulator swear proof expect she she this offer of stated elector, (2) (1) ing: that he is an twenty-five per ed to be able to show that signed presence, signers of the sheet his voters, County centum of the Oklahoma (3) that he believes their address is 10,377, challengeable were for lack of voter Irregularities in verification are correct. registration. grant Failure to additional invalidating portions without of a allowable process due time is here assailed on of a fraudulent in the absence grounds grant her for failure to reasonable guilty knowledge part tent or on the preparation of her time case. First circulator. In re Initiative Petition No. Savings National Bank & 224, etc., Board, (Okl.1977) P.2d 993 Loan (1946).10 Additionally, guilty fraud or Party Libertarian Oklahoma v. Okla knowledge part on the of the circulator will Board, F.Supp. homa Election State affirmatively imputed not but must be be (W.D.Okl.1984). unnecessary It is by protesting party. In re established argument the merits of this as the answer Ques Initiative Petition No. State fulfilled, proof, if not ex offer In 388 P.2d 290 tion No. enough signatures change clude the ulti precepts, protestant’s in view of these sufficiency mate determination of vitation to find failure of substantial com initiative In re Initiative Peti pliance with 34 O.S. 6 is refused. There etc., supra No. at tion no evidence of misfeasance or malfea is summary, In the referee determined that part any circula sance on the individual 2,027 signatures disqualified were because stating Protestant Parker is correct in tor. reality challenges. of technical these proven false circula that an admitted or challenges upon material were based de- destroys probative tor’s verification fects, of which has not been con- evidence However, proof

value of the verification. troverted, disquali- validity and the of these of a technical or clerical error in the nota signatures accepted. fications is Fourteen proof ry’s jurat interchangeable is not with disqualified by they of the fact were virtue the circulator’s verification is false. twice; finding appeared petition in the Therefore the referee’s determination of accepted. Fifty-one signatures dis- is are validity signatures contested notary’s qualified by virtue of the commis- documentary of failure to demand reason having expired. disqual- sion The referee the time the proof of identification at 12,813 However, signatures belonging as to indi- adopted. ified sheets were verified is voters; 3,958 registered signatures viduals not as evidence the referee’s exclusion of controverted, being proponent’s files did of that fact not on the basis identity body may 10. Technical and clerical errors which show the of the circulator in notary disregarded notary public’s public as certificate which certified was are items such him, certificate, sign bearing seal subscribed and sworn to before do not failure to where his attached, give post petitions in the absence of fraudulent name was or failure to invalidate his seal, address, guilty knowledge. In attach or to state date of intent or re Initiative Peti- office peti- Question expiration of or failure of the tion No. 197 Okl. commission (1946). date of verification or failure to tion to show the OPALA, Justice, concurring: Chief finding is The referee’s correc- accepted. signature presumptively valid tion of the today’s generally pronounce I concur being fifty-five hundred and count as one ment that the under consideration similarly count in excess of the actual vote of the qualifies submission signa- accepted. finding that nineteen By today I do my concurrence electorate. in the counterpart affixed to a tures were receding intend to be understood as not accepted. of the circulator absence unswerving com my continued and 3,958 signatures conclusion that referee’s Threadgill mitment to v. Cross.1 Thread lack of be excluded virtue of should conformity mea gill teaches that the of a knowledge disapproved. institutional may sure’s content to constitutional norms signatures is objection to these based subject judicial not be the of a examination errors in the nota- on clerical technical petition’s adop in advance the initiative discussed, jurat, previously as ry’s which challenges Preadoption tion. constitutional impeach the affidavit of the circu- does only vitiating address infirmities lator. process initiative itself the sanc people’s pressing legal conduit tioned Consequently presumptively valid changes.2 legis at electorate’s effort total must signature as found this Court lating should neither be scrutinized nor de by 15,079. reduced This leaves the total do not layed attacks that affect 130,717. signatures number of valid compliance qua petition’s some sine thousand, Ninety-three six hundred and requirement. submission I welcome non eighty-three signatures required effort salute the court’s to restrict peti- bring proposition to a vote. The scope challenges today the of constitutional 37,034 signatures than tion contains more initia may be entertained nu- needed for to be before goes to the electorate. tive modified, merically As the re- sufficient. approved. port of referee is

I

ADJUDICATION THE “PRUDENTIAL RULE” prudential rule is of The time-honored 317 is suf- Initiative Petition No. declared challenges court allows fended whenever a ficient, numerically legally, and for both validity legislation to the constitutional people submission the vote prudential rule it becomes before law. Question No. as State State of Oklahoma today necessity, adhered to all state by the At- 639. The ballot title submitted courts, federal holds constitutional torney approved. General is in must not resolved advance issues necessity necessity.3 No exists strict HODGES, OPALA, V.C.J., C.J., resolution of content- presubmission our LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN and do challenges a which based to measure WILSON, JJ., concur. ALMA petition’s legal fit impair the initiative SUMMERS, presub- JJ., people. a vote concur ness for KAUGER stages (a) we cannot be sure mission in result. 1. Initiative Petition V.C.J., reported in 20, dissenting ment); 1222 [1982] My 26 Okl. 1991] Okl., commitment concurring In re Petition No. 349 403, (Opala, in 796 P.2d 317, Etc., several (Opala, part); Initiative 109 C.J., P. 558 in prior In re Initiative Petition J., Threadgill, supra Okl., result); concurring concurring [No. decisions. See In [1910], 76,437, P.2d In re Initiative ^[1990] in in the 1207, 1220, 315, Etc., February note part (Opala, judg- 1, No. re 3. Smith concurring in Okl., also P.2d L.Ed. 317 lic thority, U.S. [1977]; Safety, [1983]; Schwartz 919, 937, 466, 649 688 [1936] Dablemont v. v. 467 P.2d Okl., Westinghouse U.S. Ashwander n. result). 103 S.Ct. 545, 3 288, 347, (Brandeis, Diehl, [1987]; 554-555 [1982] State, Okl., v. Tennessee 2764, 2776, Elec. I.N.S. 56 S.Ct. J., Department concurring); Corp., 564-565 v. Chadha, 77 L.Ed.2d (Opala, Valley Au Okl., 483, [1975]. Pub 462 732 see J., by an delay caused in this court petition is submitted for a vote when the inquiry pre- in overextended constitutional adopt the measure as the electorate will stages process violates (b) lively then a con submission there is not law and statutory designed to vitalize scheme troversy antagonistic adversaries provisions of initiative and referendum legal validity the press testing norm’s legislature’s our fundamental law.7 backdrop of facts unfolded against enacting intent in these applied as law. when the measure was implement power the constitutional in the there is no forensic scenario Where change their consti- people to make law or challenged law is to be context of which superimposes its this court enforced, the at tution.8 When courts will not assess path in the of that procedural own hurdles constitutional soundness in tacked norm’s regime, needlessly delays the electorate Any departure from, these basic vacuo.4 right legis- pursuit in its of the valued imper teachings Threadgill creates lag point The time directly. late between people’s on the missible burden funda an initiative and the pass protest power to initiate and mental-law petition’s people submission to the should state’s may change measures possible by permit- be reduced as much as as her statutes.5 constitution as well ting only challenges those to be advanced which, sustained, if in this court II fatally process make the initiative defective people-proposed as the law’s vehicle INITIATIVE PROCESS THE PEOPLE’S changes oper- and hence would the law BE DELAYED SHOULD NEITHER petition’s ate to submission. bar BY NOR BURDENED JUDICIAL IN- QUIRY THE INTO CONSTITUTION-

ALITY OF A PROPOSED MEASURE Ill THE PETITION IF INITIATIVE QUA WITH THE

COMPLIES SINE THE RESTRICTIONS ON PEOPLE’S REQUIREMENTS FOR SUB- NON RIGHT TO LEGISLATE MISSION A place takes judicature that

Constitutional lively controversy hob- in the of a absence THE THRESHOLD TEST FOR process the initiative bles and retards SUBMISSION court, causing clearing delay undue petition may An initiative or referendum people. for a This vote ineligible for a vote jurisprudence should be be declared court’s initiative fraught people only when it is with expeditious provide due deference most fatal It cannot people’s opportuni- impediment fundamental-law to its submission. law, for infirmities propose withheld from a vote ty power for the exercise of be which, prevent upheld, even if the statutory.6 constitutional through representatives (legisla- Westinghouse Corp., supra note tion tors). the elected 4. Smith v. Elec. 3. 5, 1-8, In Oklahoma Tax §§ 5. Art. Okl.Const. seq. re 1 et See also In Initia- §§ 7. 34 O.S.1981 Smith, Okl., 794, 610 P.2d Commission 441, 281, Question No. tive Petition No. 5, 1, 7, [1980], 2 and §§ we stated that Art. Okl., 941, [1967], 434 P.2d whereby "comprise system together an initiative 3, pertinent provisions Legislature may pro of Art. people 8. and the both Const., are: legislation independently, pose and neither can “ * * * during process the other block Petitions and orders for the initiative effort _” teaching applies equal Our Smith referendum shall be filed with the and for the Secretary judicial department. force to interference and addressed to the Gover- of State state, shall submit the same to nor of the who Legislature people. suit- shall make legislation legislation by peo- 6. Direct means carrying pro- into able legisla- Representative legislation ple. means effect added.) (Emphasis visions this article." signing peti- required warning that mus- constitutional passing measure felony. constitute a tion twice would as enforceable law ter, part, or in in whole warning qua was held to be a sine clause people. The initia- adoption by the its after petition’s validity.14 requirement to the non only pass a threshold test need tive (a) It must be qualify for submission. presubmission chal- any I would allow qua compliance with the sine substantial petition’s to con- lenge based on a failure requirements submis- procedural non qua non mandatory form to some sine sion, (b) single subject9 and address but a statutory procedural constitutional (c) appropriate for law- content embrace distinguished from a content- norms—as people.10 Once the thresh- making by the challenge to the measure based itself —if met, measure’s old submission test apparent procedural are infirmities law infirmities as enforceable potential people on the face of scrutiny until judicial must await legis- pass a constitutional claim to without applied can be adopted measure's content of com- in a manner that falls short lation lively postadoption ad- of a in the context pre- minimum pliance with the standards versary contest. procedure. scribed B Challenge To The Pe- 2. A Content-based A Noncompliance tition For With OF PERMISSI- THREE CATEGORIES Qua Requirement Non For Sub- Sine BLE CHALLENGES mission. Challenges to an initiative or referendum Adjudication Supreme In re Court classes. may divided into three Norman, Okla- Initiative Petitions advanced before sub- Two of these the court considered [Norman],15 homa mission,11 only in third is available city-law measures two initiative stages.12 postadoption ordinance and a changes16 proposed —a The court held city charter revision. Non- The Petition For Challenge I. A To not be sub- proposed ordinance could Qua Non compliance A Sine With subject matter mitted to a vote because Requirement For Submis- Procedural was found to lie outside of the measure sion. Be- legislate. range power to people’s i.e., the charter of cause the Com- Community Gas Service Norman — prohibits any legis- city’s own the court invalidated pany v. Walbaum13 constitution— subject, the authori- lation on failed to contain 344, Okl., Measures Prior to Courts Review Ballot Should Elections?, In re Initiative Petition 9. (1985). L.Rev. 919 (1990); 53 Fordham In re Initiative (1990). Okl., Part Threadgill, supra note and text in See Adjudication Supreme Initiative Court 10. In re infra; III(B)(3), Gordon see in this connection Okl., Oklahoma, Norman, Petitions 304; Grossman, Magleby, supra note 11 at Note, [1975]. 111; supra supra note at 922. note 11 at Supra 1016. note 11 at 13. presubmission permissible The two classes 11. Community challenges Gas and dealt with in Walbaum, supra note court has followed 14. The Okl., Walbaum, 404 P.2d Company v. Service See, 11, e.g., Morehead occasions. on several Adjudica (1965), Supreme Court In re and 1014 Okl., (1974); Matter Dyer, Norman, Okla Petitions in Initiative tion Okl., Petition, Initiative 8; homa, text in Part supra 10 at see also note 344, supra (1986); Petition No. In re Initiative (2), 111(B)(1) connection See in this and infra. 330; In re Initiative note 9 at cf. Magleby, Judicial Re Pre-Election Gordon supra at 333. note 9 Referendums, Notre Initiatives and view of Grossman, (1989); Ini The L.R. Dame Supra 10. 15. note Michigan The Process: and Referendum tiative city’s system, city legal constitution 16. In a (1981); Wayne L.Rev. Experience, 28 are known its statutes the charter and is called Democracy: Note, Popular Judiciary and as ordinances. very subject passed, leaving departments it to the other ty make on that is to be to law people’s direct as withheld from the question validity viewed or determine the to hand, power legislate. to On the other a only they come to en- such laws when be city proposed change in the charter was against rights they forced some one whose municipal scope held to be within Threadgill affect.”17 teaches that a mea- power. initiative electorate’s conformity sure’s to constitutional norms is legisla- subject judicial examination in ad- If a matter stands withheld from tive reach the State’s fundamental law petition’s adoption vance of as law. charter, by city lawmaking neither the may rightfully people of this state body people legislate nor the can on that any they demand an election on measure legisla- subject. Subjects upon which the propose might prove constitutionally which equally ture itself cannot enact laws are objectionable postadoption applica- in some peoples’ lawmaking by unavailable for the legislature equal- tion. The itself would be process. I would hence allow a initiative ly pass may, free to en- laws that when presubmission challenge to be advanced forced, constitutionally turn out to in- be stages city if, under the “pluck” firm. This court does not bills constitution, of the state charter or moving through legislative process upon proposed measure to be voted microscopic review of their constitutional subject claimed to deal with a on which the may people orthodoxy. judiciary not make law. That kind of Neither should the presubmission judi- attack does not call people-initiated allowed to arrest measures measure’s content cial examination of the potential probing conformity into their conformity for constitutional but rather they to the constitution’s norm be- after entirely assails the measure as dehors people qua come enforceable as law. The scope people’s for the direct reserved law- placed nearly lawmakers must be as as making authority. possible very legal position in the same In the court used occupied by legislature. Norman overbroad Both law- unguarded language appeared making processes equal merit an measure signal departure its total from Thread- shape promulgate freedom laws view, gill teachings. my In it was there 's unimpaired by judicial department’s unnecessary Threadgill. to overrule gauge compliance. of fundamental-law only say teaching court needed that its presubmission inappli- forebearance was SUMMARY challenge pressed in cable to the Norman. today prop- I would confine Norman to its petition passes Once an initiative mus- scope give vitality er continued ter under the threshold test for submission general message Threadgill’s of restraint. people to a vote of the no constitutional attacks addressed measure’s content Challenge A To The Content-based Pe- judicially as enforceable law enter- tition, Any Is Unrelated To Which tained. All other must attacks await the Qua Requirement Non For Sub- Sine adoption application measure’s and its mission And Attacks Measure’s Application lively postadoption As Invalid Law In Posta- the context of a contro- doption Stages versy antagonistic between adversaries legal standing press challenges. to entertain Threadgill we declined an My today concurrence is not to be mistaken attack launched on the constitutional validi- my for abandonment of commitment to adoption ty of a measure Threadgill’s teachings they insofar as re- recognized there the initiative We quire when has testing preadoption judicial ofproposed legislative pre- satisfied the threshold would invade the submission test measures rogative “to determine what laws shall be stands immune from constitutional attack Threadgill, supra 1 at note 563. 17. adop- on its content in advance

launched tion. Ass’n, Murdock,

Dan Oklahoma Bar Oklahoma, complainant. City, rel. OKLA ex STATE ASSOCIATION, BAR HOMA Green, pro 0. se. John Complainant, SUMMERS, Justice.

v. respondent, Hornung, 0. a/k/a John HORNUNG, John O. John O. a/k/a Green, presently John 0. before Green, Respondent. disciplinary proceedings, court two pro- 3678. These SCBD 3355 and SCBD 3678. Nos. SCBD SCBD ceedings respondent’s due to the arise Supreme Court of Oklahoma. criminal two different feder- convictions respondent re- al district courts.1 June 1991. suspension prac- from the ceived interim of law 3355. consolidate tice in SCBD We proceedings of a purpose two opinion resolving single both controver- respondent disbarred sies.2 We order practice from the of law order removal attorneys the roll of of his name from this State.

Respondent convicted in the United was for the Dis- Court Western States District conspir- of one count of trict Oklahoma by con- ing United to defraud the States of 18 cealing income violation taxable July on He was sentenced U.S.C. 371. imprisonment of five 1986 to a term appealed years.3 conviction Court then affirmed United States Appeals the Tenth Circuit. United (10th 848 F.2d 1040 Hornung, States Cir.1988). respondent petitioned then for a writ Supreme Court the United States re- certiorari, that court denied States, 489 U.S. quest. Green v. United August respondent was sus of 1986 the arises a conviction in the 3. In from 1. SCBD pended practice of in this state law from for the Western States District Court United proceeding SCBD 3355. order of this court SCBD 3678 arises of Oklahoma and District suspen suspension was an interim This order of United States District a conviction in the See, was not final. sion because the conviction Mississippi. for the Southern District Court v. Arm ex Bar Association rel. Oklahoma (Okla.1990) and strong, n. 3 P.2d See, Bar Association v. State ex rel. Oklahoma explanation suspensions on the interim Moss, (Okla.1990). basis of convictions. criminal notes sheet passage.” Bill's Herein lies ing before the peti- distributed circulators distinction between Initiative the crucial tion evidence to ex- was shown Initiative Petition No.

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jun 11, 1991

Citation: 813 P.2d 1019

Docket Number: 76109

Court Abbreviation: Okla.