Title: Oklahoma Corrections Professional Assoc., Inc. v. Jackso

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONS PROFESSIONAL ASSOC. INC. v. JACKSON2012 OK 53Case Number: 110349Decided: 06/12/2012THE 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. 

OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., a not for 
profit corporation; DAVID RAMSEY, individually; GLEN COLEMAN, 
Plaintiffs/Appellants,v.OSCAR B. JACKSON, JR., Administrator and Cabinet 
Secretary for Human Resources and Administration of the State of Oklahoma, 
individually and in his official capacity, Defendant/Appellee.
Certified Questions of Law from theUnited States Court of 
Appealsfor the Tenth Circuit.
¶0 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified two 
questions under the Revised Uniform Certified Questions of Law Act, 
20 O.S. 2011 §§1601, et seq. We 
address a single reformulated first impression question:
"Whether the two thousand (2,000) membership numerosity requirement of 
62 O.S. 2001 §34.70(B)(5), if determined to 
conflict with constitutional guarantees of free speech, may be severed pursuant 
to 75 O.S. 2011 
§11a?"
We answer the question "yes."
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.
Michael Salem, Salem Law Offices, Norman, Oklahoma, for 
Plaintiffs/Appellants.M. Daniel Weitman, Assistant Attorney General, Margie 
Weaver, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.
WATT, J.:
¶1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified two 
questions of Oklahoma law to this Court under the Revised Uniform Certification 
of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2011 §§1601, et. seq. We are 
not asked to determine whether the Legislature's amendment of §34.70(B)(5) of 
title 62,1 which raised the required membership minimum from 1,000 
to 2,000 employees for organizations seeking to have dues withheld through a 
system of voluntary payroll deductions, violates constitutional standards of 
free speech. Rather, we were requested to address two related first impression 
questions.2 We address a single reformulated first impression 
question:3
"Whether the two thousand (2,000) membership numerosity requirement of 
62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5), if determined to 
conflict with constitutional guarantees of free speech, may be severed pursuant 
to 75 O.S. 2011 
§11a?4" 
¶2 The question is answered in the affirmative. We hold that, if the federal 
court determines that the numerosity requirement of 62 O.S. 2001 §34.70(B)(5) conflicts with 
constitutional guarantees of free speech, the offending statutory provision may 
be severed pursuant to 75 O.S. 2011 §11a.
¶3 In the second question, we were asked to address the issue of whether 
severance pursuant to 75 O.S. 2011 §11a would revive the prior 
membership requirement of one thousand (1,000) found in 62 O.S. Supp. 2005 §7.10(B)(5)5 or eliminate the 
numerosity language in its entirety. Here, the membership number at issue 
approaches nineteen hundred (1,900).6 Therefore, if the federal court determines the 
statute is unconstitutional, whether the former membership requirement of 
one thousand (1,000) is imposed or it is completely eliminated, any 
pronouncement on the issue would be advisory in nature.7
CERTIFIED FACTS8 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 The plaintiff/appellant, Oklahoma Corrections Professionals Association 
(Corrections Association), is a non-profit organization devoted to lobbying on 
behalf of state correctional employees. Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5)9 allows such organizations 
with a minimum membership to collect voluntary payroll deductions from those 
they represent. Prior to 2008, a non-profit organization was required to have 
one thousand (1,000) dues paying members for the organization to qualify for the 
automatic payroll withholding. The statute was amended that year to raise the 
required minimum membership to two thousand (2,000) employees.
¶5 In December of 2010, the Corrections Association, having a membership of 
approximately nineteen hundred (1,900) state employees, filed suit against the 
defendant/appellee, Oscar B. Jackson, Jr., Administrator and Cabinet Secretary 
for Human Resources (Jackson/administrator),10 in federal district court. It sought a preliminary 
injunction prohibiting the termination of voluntary payroll deductions for 
members of the Corrections Association scheduled to terminate on January 31, 
2011 along with preservation of the "status quo" which it defined as an order 
requiring reinstatement of dues collection through the voluntary payroll 
deduction program should payroll deductions be terminated before the district 
court could act.
¶6 The Corrections Association alleged that the 2008 amendment was designed 
to eliminate, by doubling the membership requirements for voluntary payroll 
deductions, the organization as a rival to the Oklahoma Public Employees 
Association (Public Employees Association). The Corrections Association 
contended that its very existence was dependent on collecting membership dues 
through the payroll deduction system. It asserted that: 1) the Public Employees 
Association was unfairly exempted from the numerosity requirement; and 2) the 
new membership requirement should be invalidated as unconstitutional viewpoint 
discrimination11 in violation of the First12 and Fourteenth13 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Further, 
the Corrections Association argued that the statute was unconstitutional, on its 
face and as applied, because of its impact on the associational rights of its 
members.
¶7 The federal district court issued an order on April 19th of 2011. It dismissed the Correction Association's 
federal claims for lack of standing and declined to exercise supplemental 
jurisdiction over any state law claims. Specifically, the district court held 
that the Correction Association had not met standing requirements of 
redressability. Even assuming the statutory provision's unconstitutionality, it 
reasoned that: 1) striking the offending statutory subsection would not restore 
the availability of voluntary payroll deductions; and 2) because the Legislature 
would not have included the provision without the numerosity provision, severing 
the requirement would amount to "rewriting" the law.
¶8 On April 19, 2011, the Corrections Association filed its notice of appeal. 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified questions to 
this Court on February 2, 2012 pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of 
Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2011 §§1601, et. seq. We set a 
briefing cycle which was concluded with our order accepting the Corrections 
Association's filing of its response brief out of time on March 20, 2012.
¶9 IF THE FEDERAL COURT DETERMINES THAT THENUMEROSITY 
REQUIREMENT OF 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5)CONFLICTS WITH 
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH, THE OFFENDING STATUTORY 
PHRASEMAY BE SEVERED PURSUANT TO 75 O.S. 2011 §11a.
¶10 The Corrections Association asserts that the potentially constitutionally 
infirm language of §34.70(B)(5) of title 62 is clearly severable whether the 
numerosity requirement is entirely eliminated or the prior membership status of 
one thousand (1,000) is revived as a part of parsing the statutory provision. 
Jackson argues that the statute is not severable. The administrator contends 
that the Legislature simply would not have enacted the provision without 
including the minimum membership requirement of two thousand (2,000) 
dues-paying, state employees. We disagree with Jackson's contention.
¶11 Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.7014 governs voluntary payroll deductions generally and is a 
part of the Oklahoma State Finance Act, 62 O.S. 2011 §34, et seq. Several provisions of the 
statute allow state employees to request voluntary payroll deductions without 
imposing any numerosity requirement; e.g. deductions requested to 
Oklahoma credit unions, banks, or savings associations; salary adjustment 
agreements included in an authorized flexible benefits plan; payments to a 
college savings account administered under the Oklahoma College Savings Plan 
Act; subscriptions to Oklahoma Today magazine; payment of insurance premiums for 
long-term care due private insurance organizations regulated by the Insurance 
Commission; employee contributions to the Oklahoma Employment Security 
Commission Retirement Plan; retirees' premium payments for group insurance; 
payroll deductions for employees of the Oklahoma School for the Blind or the 
Oklahoma School for the Deaf to any statewide educational employee organization 
or association; Department of Correction employee contributions to the 
Correctional Peace Officer Foundation; and any statewide association granted a 
payroll deduction prior to January 1, 2008. Numerosity requirements of 
five hundred (500) are imposed for: premium payments to private insurance 
organizations offering supplemental life, accident, and health insurance; 
insurance premiums for legal services; and supplemental retirement plans. 

¶12 Only subsections (B)(5) and (6) impose the two thousand (2,000) 
membership requirement. The first for voluntary payroll deductions for any 
statewide dues-paying association other than the Oklahoma Public Employees 
Association. The second for contributions to any non-profit foundation, other 
than the Oklahoma Public Employees Association, with a minimum membership of two 
thousand (2,000) dues-paying state employees. 
¶13 We are in a unique procedural posture. We are not asked to determine 
whether the statute at issue contains an unconstitutional provision. Rather, the 
federal court requests that we determine whether, if it finds the numerosity 
requirement to be unconstitutional, the balance of the statute should stand. In 
so doing, we begin with a cardinal principle of statutory construction "to save 
and not destroy."15 A severability analysis is necessary when some, but not 
all, provisions of an enactment are condemned as unconstitutional and void.16 Considerations relevant to severability are outlined in 
75 O.S. 2011 §11 A. 17 It is a general provision creating a presumption that 
if one portion of a statutory provision should fail, the balance should retain 
its validity.18 The statute requires that we determine whether: a) the 
purpose of the statute would be significantly altered by severing the offending 
language; b) the Legislature would have enacted the remainder of the statute 
without the offending language; and c) the non-offending language is capable of 
standing alone.19 
¶14 Title 62 O.S. §34.7020 contains no legislative statement that severance is 
forbidden. It, like all other subsections of the statute, relates to 
situations where voluntary payroll deductions are allowable. General rules of 
statutory construction require that we construe provisions in pari materia 
together.21 Striking the numerosity requirement of subsection 
34.70(B)(5) will not affect the clear intent of the whole of the statutory 
provision - to allow state employees the convenience of utilizing voluntary 
payroll deductions in certain instances. Furthermore, nothing in the 
numerosity requirement itself leads this Court to believe that the Legislature 
would not have enacted the statute without the potentially offending 
provision. Finally, the surviving provisions can be fully executed 
without relying on the severed portion for meaning or enforcement.
¶15 Should the federal court determine the numerosity requirement of 
62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5) is 
unconstitutional, we conclude that the portion of the statute sought to be 
severed, requiring a membership of two thousand (2,000) dues-paying state 
employees to qualify for voluntary payroll deductions, is not essentially and 
inseparably connected with and dependent upon the rest of subsection (B)(5) or 
other provisions of the statute. It can be severed from the rest of the 
subsection, leaving the balance operational.22 The altered statute is capable of being executed in 
accordance with the legislative intent to allow state employees the 
opportunity to enjoy the convenience of payroll deductions. Therefore, we 
conclude that the Legislature would have enacted the payroll deduction provision 
without the membership requirement should the federal court determine it to be 
unconstitutional. Our view is consistent with the general legislative directive 
in 75 O.S. 2011 §11A23 that if any part of a statute is found to be 
unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall be valid.24
CONCLUSION
¶16 Severability of Oklahoma statutory provisions is a matter of state law.25 In our view, the Oklahoma Legislature would have, in 
the event the federal court determines the numerosity provision of 
62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5) is 
unconstitutional, enacted the balance of the statutory provision allowing state 
employees to opt for voluntary payroll deductions for membership dues. After 
excision of the subsection's numerosity requirement, the balance of the statute 
can most certainly stand on its own just as do multiple other subsections 
requiring no minimum membership or a substantially lower amount of 
participation.
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR 
FOOTNOTES
1 Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70 providing in pertinent 
part:
"A. 1. Upon the request of a state employee, a state agency shall make 
voluntary payroll deductions for the employee to any credit union, bank, or 
savings association having an office in this state.
. . . B. Upon the request of a state employee and pursuant to procedures 
established by the Administrator of the Office of Personnel Management, a state 
agency shall make payroll deductions for: 
1. The payment of any insurance premiums due a private insurance organization 
with a minimum participation of five hundred (500) state employees for life, 
accident, and health insurance which is supplemental to that provided by the 
state;
2. The payment of any insurance premiums due a private insurance organization 
or service company which is regulated by the State Insurance Commissioner and 
with a minimum participation of five hundred (500) state employees for legal 
services;
3. Premiums or payments for retirement plans with a minimum participation of 
five hundred (500) state employees for retirement plans which are supplemental 
to that provided for by the state;
4. Salary adjustment agreements included in a flexible benefits plan as 
authorized by the State Employees Flexible Benefits Act.
5. Membership dues utilized for benefits, goods or services provided by the 
Oklahoma Public Employees Association to the organization's membership or any 
other statewide association limited to state employee membership with a minimum 
membership of two thousand (2,000) dues-paying members. For purposes of this 
paragraph, state agencies shall accept online or electronically submitted forms 
from the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and other state employee 
associations. The Office of Personnel Management shall develop and implement a 
verification process for online or electronically submitted forms which may 
include the use of electronic signature technology or other process as 
determined appropriate;
6. Contributions to any foundation organized pursuant to 26 U.S.C., Section 
501(c)(3) of the Public Employees Association or any other statewide association 
limited to state employee membership with a minimum membership of two thousand 
(2,000) dues-paying members;
7. Payments to a college savings account administered under the Oklahoma 
College Savings Plan Act pursuant to Section 3970.1 et seq. of Title 70 of the 
Oklahoma Statutes;
8. Subscriptions to the Oklahoma Today magazine published by the State of 
Oklahoma through the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department; and
9. The payment of any insurance premiums due a private insurance 
organization, which is regulated by the State Insurance Commission, for an 
Oklahoma Long-Term Care Partnership Program approved policy pursuant to the 
Oklahoma Long-Term Care Partnership Act.
. . . D. Any statewide association granted a payroll deduction prior to 
January 1, 2008, shall be exempt from the minimum state employee membership 
requirement. 
F. The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission is authorized to deduct from 
the wages or salary of its employees the employees' contribution to the Oklahoma 
Employment Security Commission Retirement Plan.
G. Payroll deductions shall be made for premium payments for group insurance 
for retired members or beneficiaries of any state-supported retirement system 
upon proper authorization given by the member or beneficiary to the board from 
which the member or beneficiary is currently receiving retirement benefits.
H. Upon request of instructional personnel employed at either the Oklahoma 
School for the Blind or the Oklahoma School for the Deaf and pursuant to 
procedures established by the Administrator of the Office of Personnel 
Management, the Commission for Rehabilitation Services shall make payroll 
deductions for membership dues in any statewide educational employee 
organization or association.
I. Upon the request of a state employee of the Department of Corrections, the 
Department shall make voluntary payroll deductions for the employee to the 
Correctional Peace Officer Foundation." 
2 As originally certified, the questions provide:
"(1) Is a court authorized by Okla [sic] Stat. Tit. 75, § 11a to sever the 
numerosity requirement in §34.70(b)(5) if found to conflict with free 
speech?
(2) If so, when a provision, as here, has been altered but not added anew, 
does severance of the altered version restore the old, superseded one?" 
3 Questions of law may be reformulated pursuant to 
20 O.S. 2011 §1602.1. Tyler v. 
Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., 2008 OK 9, fn. 1, 184 P.3d 496; McClure v. ConocoPhillips 
Co., 2006 OK 
42, fn. 1, 142 P.3d 390; Strong v. Laubach, 2004 OK 21, ¶1, 89 P.3d 1066. 
4 Title 75 O.S. 2011 §11a providing:
"In the construction of the statutes of this state, the following rules shall 
be observed:
1. For any act enacted on or after July 1, 1989, unless there is a provision 
in the act that the act or any portion thereof or the application of the act 
shall not be severable, the provisions of every act or application of the act 
shall be severable. If any provision or application of the act is found to be 
unconstitutional and void, the remaining provisions or applications of the act 
shall remain valid, unless the court finds:
a. the valid provisions or application of the act are so essentially and 
inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the void provisions that the 
court cannot presume the Legislature would have enacted the remaining valid 
provisions without the void one; or
b. the remaining valid provisions or applications of the act, standing alone, 
are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the 
legislative intent. 
2. For acts enacted prior to July 1, 1989, whether or not such acts were 
enacted with an express provision for severability, it is the intent of the 
Oklahoma Legislature that the act or any portion of the act or application of 
the act shall be severable unless:
a. the construction of the provisions or application of the act would be 
inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature;

b. the court finds the valid provisions of the act are so essentially and 
inseparably connected with and so dependent upon the void provisions that the 
court cannot presume the Legislature would have enacted the remaining valid 
provisions without the void one; or
c. the court finds the remaining valid provisions standing alone are 
incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the 
legislative intent." 
5 Title 62 O.S. Supp. 2005 §7.10(B) providing in pertinent 
part:
"Upon the request of a state employee and pursuant to procedures established 
by the Administrator of the Office of Personnel Management, a state agency, 
board, or commission shall make payroll deductions for:
. . . 5. Membership dues in the Oklahoma Public Employees Association or any 
other statewide association limited to state employee membership with a minimum 
membership of one thousand (1,000) dues-paying members. . . ." 
6 Plaintiffs-Appellants OCP, Ramsey, and Coleman 
Supplemental Brief Regarding Certified Questions, providing in pertinent part at 
p.17:
". . . The minimum membership prior to passage of SB 1866 was only 1,000 and 
OCP would have qualified with its approximately 1,900 members. . . ."
Admissions in a brief may be regarded as a supplement to the appellate 
record. Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc., 
2011 OK 9, fn. 16, 247 P.3d 1183; White v. Heng Ly 
Lim, 2009 OK 
79, fn. 10, 224 P.3d 679; Tyler v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., see 
note 3, supra. 
7 This Court does not issue advisory opinions or answer 
hypothetical questions. Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 
2007 OK 80, fn. 3, 184 P.3d 463; Scott v. Peterson, 
2005 OK 84, ¶27, 126 P.3d 1232; City of Midwest 
City v. House of Realty, Inc., 
2004 OK 56, fn. 14, 100 P.3d 678. 
8 In answering a certified question, the Court does not 
presume facts outside those offered by the certification order. In re 
Harris, 2002 OK 35, ¶4, 49 P.3d 710; Jones v. University 
of Oklahoma, 1995 OK 138, ¶5, 910 P.2d 987. Although we will neither add nor delete 
such facts, we may consider uncontested facts supported by the record. 
McQueen, Rains, & Tresch, LLP v. 
CITGO Petroleum Corp., 2008 OK 66, fn. 4, 195 P.3d 35; In re Harris, this note, 
supra. 
9 Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70, see note 1, supra. 
10 All references to "Jackson" or "administrator" are 
intended to encompass the now substituted party, Preston Doerflinger, the 
current Administrator and Cabinet Secretary for Human Resources and 
Administration of the State of Oklahoma. 
11 "Content discrimination" occurs when the government 
chooses the subjects that may be publicly discussed. Giebel v. 
Sylvester, this note, infra; Moss v. United States, 
Secret Serv., this note, infra. "Viewpoint discrimination" is a 
subset or particular instance of the more general phenomenon of content 
discrimination, in which the government targets not subject matter but 
particular views taken by speakers on a subject. Make the 
Road by Walking Inc. v. Turner, 378 F.3d 133 
(2nd Cir. 2004). It happens when the government prohibits speech by particular 
speakers, thereby suppressing a particular view about a subject. Giebel 
v. Sylvester, 244 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001). It targets not the subject 
matter, but the views taken by the speaker on the subject. Children 
of the Rosary v. City of Phoeniz, 154 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1131, 119 S. Ct. 1804, 143 L. Ed. 2d 1008 (1999). "Viewpoint neutral restrictions" 
are those not imposed simply because public officials oppose the speaker's 
viewpoint. Knudsen v. Washington State Executive 
Ethics Bd., 156 Wash. App. 852, 235 P.3d 835 (2010). They do not 
attempt to suppress activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view. 
Jackson v. City of Stone Mountain, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2002); Warner v. City of 
Boca Raton, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D.Fla. 1999), aff'd, 420 F.3d 1308 (2005). "Viewpoint neutral" restrictions restrict some expression 
while permitting other expression, but are "neutral" as to the views it allows 
to be presented. Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. 
Department of Transportation, 340 Or. 275, 132 P.3d 5 
(2006). 
12 The United States Const., Amend. 1, providing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of 
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
Government for a redress of grievances." 
13 The United States Const., Amend. 14, providing in 
pertinent part:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which 
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws. . . ."
Oklahoma's Due Process Clause, Okla. Const. art. 2, §7, is coextensive with 
its federal counterpart, although there may be situations in which the Oklahoma 
provision affords greater due process protections than its federal counterpart. 
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 
Mothershed, 2011 OK 84, fn. 65, 264 P.3d 1197; McClure v. ConocoPhillips 
Co., 2006 OK 
42, fn. 54, 142 P.3d 390; Black v. Ball Janitorial Serv. Inc., 
1986 OK 75, fn. 9, 730 P.2d 510. 
14 Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70, see note 1, supra. 
15 Conaghan v. Riverfield Country 
Day School, 2007 OK 60, ¶23, 163 P.3d 557; In re Application of 
the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation, 
2002 OK 74, ¶27, 64 P.3d 546. 
16 Liddell v. Heavner, 2008 OK 6, ¶29, 180 P.3d 1191. 
17 Title 75 O.S. 2011 §11a, see note 4, supra. 
18 Wilson v. Fallin, see note 21, infra; 
In re Oklahoma Dept. of Trans., 
2002 OK 74, ¶31, 64 P.3d 546. 
19 Title 75O.S. 2011 §11a, see note 4, supra; 
Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 
see note 15, supra. 
20 Title 62 O.S. 2011 §34.70(B)(5), see note 1, supra. 

21 Wilson v. Fallin, 2011 OK 76, fn. 10, 262 P.3d 741; Cowart v. Piper 
Aircraft Corp., 1983 OK 66, ¶4, 665 P.2d 315. 
22 Liddell v. Heavner, see note 16, supra. 

23 Title 75 O.S. 2011 §11A, see note 4, supra. 
24 The term "may" is ordinarily construed as permissive 
while "shall" is commonly considered to be mandatory. MLC Mort. 
Corp. v. Sun America Mort. Co., 
2009 OK 37, fn. 17, 212 P.3d 1199; Osprey LLC v. 
Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Inc., 1999 OK 50, ¶14, 984 P.2d 194; Shea v. Shea, 
1975 OK 90, ¶10, 537 P.2d 417. 
25 Leavitt v. Jane, 518 U.S. 137, 
116 S. Ct. 2068, 135 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1996); Local 514 Transport 
Workers' Union of America v. Keating, 
2003 OK 110, ¶13, 183 P.3d 835.