Case Title: FENT v. HENRY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109026

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
FENT v. HENRY  FENT v. HENRY 2011 OK 10 Case Number: 109026 Decided: 02/15/2011 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. JERRY R. FENT, as a voter, attorney and taxpayer of the State of Oklahoma, and on behalf of the other 358,925 voters who objected to State Question No. 752 Legislative Referendum No. 352, Petitioners, v. BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; State of Oklahoma, ex. rel., Oklahoma Bar Association, a State entity, and State of Oklahoma, ex. rel., Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission, Respondents, and CLARK JOLLEY, as a duly elected member of the Oklahoma State Senate and as a voter, Intervenor. PETITION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ¶0 This is an original proceeding to challenge the validity of State Question No. 752, Legislative Referendum No. 352 and the Judicial Nominating Commission. State Question No. 752 amended art. 7-B §3, of the Oklahoma Constitution to require that none of the lay members of the Commission have any "immediate family" members who are lawyers. It also amended the Constitution by adding two additional members, one to be selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the other by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The amendment did not, however, change the constitutional language referring to six congressional districts which existed when the provision was first adopted, even though there are currently only five congressional districts. Because this cause is publici juris, we previously assumed original jurisdiction. We hold that: 1) the referendum submitted to and approved by the voters was an amendment to the Okla. Const. art. 7-B §3, not a repeal of that section of the Constitution; and 2) regardless of the Constitutional amendment, the Commission's decisions are valid when decided by a majority of its members. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED. REQUEST FOR RELIEF BY PETITIONER AND INTERVENOR DENIED. Jerry Fent, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se Petitioner. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Kevin McClure, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents Governor Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma ex. rel. Judicial Nominating Commission. Gina Lynn Hendryx, General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent, Oklahoma Bar Association. Richard Lee Slater, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Intervenor Senator Clark Jolley. PER CURIAM: ¶1 This original proceeding challenges the validity and requirements of State Question No. 752 Legislative Referendum No. 352. We previously assumed original jurisdiction in this publici juris matter and hold that: 1) the referendum submitted to and approved by the voters was an amendment to the Okla. Const. art. 7-B §3, not a repeal of that section of the Constitution; and 2) regardless of the Constitutional amendment, the Commission's decisions are valid when decided by a majority of its members. FACTS ¶2 Legislative Referendum No. 352 (S.J.R. No. 27/State Question No. 752) passed the House of Representatives on April 23, 2009, and the Senate on May 19, 2009. It was received by the Secretary of State on May 20, 2009, and referred to the Attorney General for review of the ballot title on the same date pursuant to ¶3 On June 1, 2009, the Attorney General notified the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of State that the ballot title did not adequately explain the effect of the proposition. On June 15, 2009, a preliminary ballot title was prepared by the Attorney General which was followed by the final ballot title on July 1, 2009. Again notice was given to the same parties. On August 10, 2010, the Governor issued an executive proclamation which ordered the question be submitted to the voters. On November 2, 2010, State Question 752 was approved by the voters by a margin of 606,805, yes to 358,925, no and became effective when the election was certified. ¶4 All of the proposed legislative joint resolutions refer to the change as an amendment, ¶5 On December 20, 2010, the petitioner, Jerry Fent, a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and member of the Oklahoma Bar Association, challenged the validity of the Judicial Nominating Commission when he filed an application to assume original jurisdiction in this Court. The petitioner also requested that the actions of the Judicial Nominating Commission be stayed and that four of the Justices on this Court be disqualified/recuse in the matter. We denied the request for a stay on December 20, 2010. Those Justices declined the petitioner's request, and in oral argument, the petitioner withdrew his objection to the composition of the Court. ¶6 On December 27, 2010, Senator Clark Jolley petitioned to intervene asserting an interest in the matter as a member of the Senate who voted on the measure. We granted the motion to intervene. ¶7 After the measure was passed by the voters, the chairman of the Judicial Nominating Commission submitted two questions to the Attorney General: 1) Do the new qualifications for non-lawyer of the Judicial Nominating Commission, found in Okla. Const. art. 7-B §3, adopted by State Question No. 752, apply to the current Commission members who were appointed prior to the adoption of State Question No. 752? 2) What does the term "immediate family" in Okla. Const. art. 7-B §3, adopted by State Question No. 752, mean? Before the questions were answered, the three members of the Commission who had "immediate family" members who were lawyers resigned, and they were replaced by the Governor. On December 8, 2010, the Attorney General recognized that new requirements for holding a constitutionally created office are not enforced against an incumbent during a term of office which began before the effective dates of the new requirements. ¶8 On December 20, 2010, we denied the petitioner's motion for a stay and granted until January 5, 2011, for the briefing cycle to be completed. Because the matter concerns the public interest, i.e., the case is publici juris in nature, which essentially means affecting the people or community at large, we assumed original jurisdiction to decide the matter. I. ¶9 THE REFERENDUM SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE VOTERS WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE OKLA. CONST. ART. 7-B §3, NOT A REPEAL OF THAT SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. ¶10 The parties allege that the voters repealed the previous constitutional provision. The petitioner argues that: 1) when the Commission was created there were six congressional districts and the Commission required membership from each district "existing at the date of the adoption of this Article;" 2) the number of congressional districts has changed since the Commission was first created and now there are only five congressional districts but the new version of art. 7-B §3 repealed the prior version and does not properly reflect the change in congressional districts; and 3) because the change from six to five was not made a conflict has been created. ¶11 After Oklahoma's Court reorganization in the late 1960's, the way in which Justices and Judges were selected in Oklahoma was changed by the voters and embraced by Legislative Referendums which amended the Oklahoma Constitution. Article 7-B §1-7 was created in 1967 and with its adoption, §7-B specifically included a clause referring to the repeal of previously existing articles which would apparently conflict with this new provision. ¶12 On November 2, 2010, State Question 752 was approved by the voters by a margin of 606,805, yes to 358,925, no. Where an act is not complete in itself, and is clearly amendatory of a former statute, it falls within the constitutional requirement that the statute be re-enacted as amended, whether or not it purports on its face to be mandatory thereof. ¶13 Art. 5 §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that amendments published at length are re-enactments of existing laws as amended. ¶14 Obviously, the Legislature intended to use the 1967 congressional districts which existed when the Judicial Nominating Commission was first established. Had they not, they easily could have expressly repealed the prior version and amended that portion of the referendum; but they did not do so. This is obvious when one looks at the earliest versions of the referendum which were submitted to the Legislature. ¶15 Nor are we persuaded by the petitioner's argument that the Constitutional Amendment approved by the voter's was indirectly, implicitly amended pursuant to the general state statute ¶16 Section 2.3 provides that "[e]xcept where otherwise specified by law." II. ¶17 REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS ARE VALID WHEN DECIDED BY A MAJORITY OF ITS MEMBERS. ¶18 The Attorney General determined that because there was no language in either the ballot title or the amendment which indicated an intent otherwise, the amendment could not be applied retroactively, and that the current commission members appointed prior to the November 2010 amendment of the Okla. Const. art. 7-B §3 were not subject to the new qualifications. We agree with the Attorney General's opinion. Notwithstanding the Attorney General's opinion, all of the members who did not meet the new qualifications resigned and were replaced by new appointments who did meet the new qualifications by the end of 2010. Consequently, the Commission met all of the new constitutional amendment requirements except for the appointment of the two additional members by the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker who were not sworn into office until February 9, 2011. ¶19 The amendments to art. 7-B §332 imposed 30-day and 90-day restrictions on membership appointments selected by the Commission itself and the Oklahoma Bar Association, respectively. However, no such restrictions were placed on the Legislature. Generally, when a law establishing a newly created office takes effect, a vacancy in the office exists at once.33 However, as the Supreme Court of Nebraska noted in Garrotto v. McManus, 185 Neb. 644, 177 N.W.2d 570 , 574 (Neb. 1970): . . .The elementary rule applicable to such appointment is: 'A newly created office which is not filled by the legislative act creating it, and for which no provision is made by the act for filling it, becomes vacant on the instant of its creation, and remains so until it is filled by an incumbent. . . . The general rule is: 'Where the office is newly created, the term begins when the office is first filled." (citations omitted).34 ¶20 The Okla. Const. art. 5 §§28-29 provides that at the beginning of regular session and at such other times as may be necessary, the Senate and the House elect a President Pro Tempore and a Speaker.35 They hold office for the two year legislative session until the 15th day succeeding the General Election. Because the election was held on November 2, 2010, and the provision became effective when it was certified on November 9, 2010,36 each of these officers had until November 16, 2010, to name commissioners to the Judicial Nominating Commission. At oral argument, the intervenor's lawyer admitted that these legislative leaders could have made appointments but did not do so. ¶21 Pursuant to art. 5 §26 of the Okla. Const., the Legislature selects its leaders on January 4, 2011.37 Regardless, the vacancy in office did not preclude the Commission from conducting its business and selecting three persons to be sent to the Governor for appointment to the Supreme Court. State Question 752 reaffirmed Okla. Const. art. 7B §3(c) which provides that: The concurrence of the majority of the Commissioners in office at the time shall be sufficient to decide any question unless otherwise provided herein. The Commission shall have jurisdiction to determine whether the qualifications of the nominee to hold Judicial office have been met and to determine the existence of vacancies on the commission. No one has asserted that the acts of the Commission either before or after the recent amendment were not done by the majority of its members. The Commission's acts are valid and art. 7-B §3(c) grants the Commission the authority to act. CONCLUSION ¶22 We previously assumed original jurisdiction in this publici juris matter and hold that: 1) the referendum submitted to and approved by the voters was an amendment to the Okla. Const. art. 7B§3, not a repeal of that section of the Constitution; and 2) regardless of the Constitutional amendment, the Commission's decisions are valid when decided by a majority of its members. ¶23 Should the parties choose to file a petition for rehearing, it must be done within five days of the day this opinion is filed. Two additional days will be allowed for a response. This time limitation will not be extended. Otherwise, the time allowed for filing rehearing will be held to have expired five days after this opinion is filed and it shall become final.38 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED. REQUEST FOR RELIEF BY PETITIONER AND INTERVENOR DENIED. TAYLOR, C.J., COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, JJ., concur. COMBS, J., recused. FOOT