Title: IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382, STATE QUESTION NO. 729

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382, STATE QUESTION NO. 729  IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382, STATE QUESTION NO. 729 2006 OK 45 142 P.3d 400 Case Number: O-103021 Decided: 06/20/2006 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382, STATE QUESTION NO. 729. ¶0 This is an original proceeding to challenge the sufficiency of Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729; and an appeal from the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General. Initiative Petition No. 382 proposes to add a new section to Title 27 of the Oklahoma Statutes that would prohibit (with certain exceptions) the use of the power of eminent domain when the taken property would be ultimately transferred to a private entity and that would require a payment of just compensation (with some exceptions) to any property owner whose property value was adversely affected by the enactment or enforcement of a zoning law. Because we find that Initiative Petition No. 382 is violative of the "single subject rule" of Okla. Const. art. 5, §57, we hold that it may not be submitted to a vote of the people. Consequently, the appeal of the ballot title is rendered moot. INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382 IS DECLARED INVALID; ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE BALLOT. Jack S. Dawson, Kieran D. Maye, Jr., Robert E. Norman, Miller Dollarhide, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for proponent, Rick Carpenter. Margaret McMorrow-Love, Diane M. Drum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for protestants, Oklahoma Professional Economic Development Council, Inc., The Oklahoma Association of Business and Industry, d/b/a The State Chamber, The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, and Don Woods. Kenneth Dale Jordan, Diane Lewis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for amicus curiae, The City of Oklahoma City. Kauger, J., ¶1 The issue presented is whether Initiative Petition 382 is constitutional and thus able to be submitted to a vote of the people. We hold that because it violates the single subject rule of art. 5, §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution, it may not, and we order that it be stricken from the ballot. FACTS ¶2 On September 21, 2005, Rick Carpenter (the proponent) filed Initiative Petition 382 (IP 382) with the Secretary of State, and within 90 days after it was filed, the proponent submitted signatures to the Secretary of State. On January 31, 2006, the Secretary of State verified that it contained the required number of signatures and delivered IP 382 to this Court. On February 7, 2006, Attorney General Drew Edmondson determined that the ballot title did not comply with ¶3 Art. 5, §§1 and 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution endow the citizens of Oklahoma with the right of the initiative. Section 1 provides: Section 2 provides in pertinent part: The right of the initiative is precious, and it is one which this Court is zealous to preserve to the fullest measure of the spirit and the letter of the law. ¶4 IP 382 seeks to add a new section to Title 27 of the Oklahoma Statutes. ¶5 IP 382 next proposes that an owner of private real property is entitled to just compensation for any reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the enactment or enforcement of a zoning law, with the following exceptions: 1) zoning laws that protect public health and safety; 2) zoning laws required by federal law or nuisance law; 3) zoning laws limiting the use of property for nude dancing or selling pornography; and 4) zoning laws enacted prior to the effective date of the proposed act. IP 382 also contains provisions placing the burden of proof on the public body and providing for an award of attorney fees, costs, and expenses to the landowner. IP 382 sets no minimum amount of reduction in property value to constitute an actionable claim, does not establish the method of valuing property, does not delineate how a landowner may establish causation between a reduction in property value and a zoning law, and sets no statute of limitations for making a claim. Construed broadly, IP 382 renders inefficacious any zoning law that falls outside of the exceptions in subsection 3. ¶6 BECAUSE INITIATIVE PETITION 382 VIOLATES THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE OF ART. 5, §57 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, IT MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ¶7 Protestants argue that IP 382 violates the single subject rule of art. 5, §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution because it addresses the separate subjects of: 1) limiting public bodies' power to take private property by eminent domain; and 2) requiring public bodies to pay landowners compensation when property values are adversely affected by zoning laws. The proponent contends that IP 382 addresses the single subject of regulating the government's power to take and damage private property, and that it merely attempts to restrict both physical and regulatory takings, each of which falls under the auspices of the single subject of comprehensively regulating governmental taking power. ¶8 Art. 5, §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "Every act of the Legislature shall express but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. . . ." This provision is commonly known as the "single subject rule." The purposes of the single subject rule are: 1) to ensure that the legislators or voters of Oklahoma are adequately notified of the potential effect of the legislation; ¶9 This Court interprets the single subject rule using a "germaneness" test: if the provisions are germane, relative, and cognate to a readily apparent common theme and purpose, the provisions are related to a single subject. ¶10 The first provision in IP 382 involves curtailing the power of public bodies to take private property by eminent domain. The inherent power of an entity to take private property for public use is called the power of eminent domain. The power of eminent domain is also limited in art. 2, §§23 & 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Section 23 provides: Section 24 provides in pertinent part: This power remains dormant until the Legislature, by specific enactment, delineates the manner by which and the entity through which it may be exercised. ¶11 The second provision of IP 382 involves a requirement of just compensation to landowners whose property values are adversely affected by the adoption and enforcement of certain zoning laws. Land use or zoning laws are ordinances or other legislative enactments which govern the development or use of real estate. ¶12 The proponent would have us buttress his proposition that IP 382 addresses a single subject by adopting his nomenclature. He deems the use of the power of eminent domain a "physical taking," and the enforcement of zoning laws a "regulatory taking." While these terms may have some utility in the political debate on this issue, from a legal standpoint the latter term, as used by the proponent, is simply inaccurate. Zoning laws and takings are mutually exclusive. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, While the question of whether a regulation has gone "too far" is decided on a case by case basis, So, when a zoning law interferes significantly with the use or enjoyment of property, the governmental unit has overstepped its police power, and the zoning law becomes no longer a land use regulation, but a taking that requires just compensation. It is precisely this legal delineation between zoning laws and takings that IP 382 seeks to erase. IP 382 does not address two types of takings, but instead takings and zoning laws. ¶13 The proponent maintains that IP 382 meets the germaneness test because the test is broad, liberal, and satisfied by all proposed laws but those with the most scattered and disconnected provisions, citing as an example the case of Johnson v. Walters, ¶14 While a passing glance at these cases may seem to bolster the proponent's conception of an expansive germaneness test, a reader of these cases must be mindful of the instruction of our decision in In re Initiative Petition No. 314, ¶15 IP 382 presents a voter with exactly the sort of choice the single subject rule was enacted to prevent. The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d. 439 (2005), has prompted a national discussion on the proper limitations on the power of eminent domain. Before Kelo, this Court addressed the issue in City of Midwest City v. House of Realty, Inc., CONCLUSION ¶16 We cannot undervalue the Oklahoma Constitutional right of initiative, but we also may not ignore our constitutional duty to ensure that in the exercise of the right of initiative, the provisions of the Constitution are adhered to. ¶17 Curtailing the power of public bodies to take private property by eminent domain is nothing new to this Court. See Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee County v. Lowery, supra at ¶15; City of Midwest City v. House of Realty, Inc., supra at ¶15. However, IP 382 violates art. 5, §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution. To hold an expensive and unnecessary election on a proposal which could not withstand a subsequent constitutional challenge would be to do a disservice to the proponent, the protestants, and the people of Oklahoma. We order Initiative Petition No. 382 to be stricken from the ballot. ¶18 The proponent maintains that the severability clause found in paragraph 9 of the proposed act permits this Court to sever the unconstitutional portions of IP 382 from the constitutional portions and submit the latter to a vote of the people as State Question 729. This argument is inapplicable to the instant case. We do not today make any ruling on the constitutionality of any particular portion of IP 382, but hold that because the proposed act is comprised of two subjects, the entirety of IP 382 is fatally constitutionally flawed. Nothing prevents the proponent or any other citizen of the State from severing the two subjects, restarting the process of initiative, and, if successful, resubmitting the initiative petitions for certification as State Questions. INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 382 IS DECLARED INVALID; ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE BALLOT. Watt, C.J., Winchester, V.C.J., Kauger, Edmondson, Taylor, Colbert, JJ., concur. Lavender, Hargrave, Opala, JJ., dissent. FOOT