Case Name: Mike FAIR and Camilla Nockels, Petitioners, v. The STATE ELECTION BOARD OF OKLAHOMA and Betty McElderry, Chair; Mona Lambird, Vice-Chair; George Krumme, Member, Respondents
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1994-08-01
Citations: 879 P.2d 1223
Docket Number: No. 83968
Parties: Mike FAIR and Camilla Nockels, Petitioners, v. The STATE ELECTION BOARD OF OKLAHOMA and Betty McElderry, Chair; Mona Lambird, Vice-Chair; George Krumme, Member, Respondents.
Judges: HODGES, C.J. and HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 879
Pages: 1223–1227

Head Matter:
Mike FAIR and Camilla Nockels, Petitioners, v. The STATE ELECTION BOARD OF OKLAHOMA and Betty McElderry, Chair; Mona Lambird, Vice-Chair; George Krumme, Member, Respondents.
No. 83968.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Aug. 1, 1994.
As Corrected Aug. 2, 1994.

Opinion:
ORDER
SIMMS, Acting Chief Justice.
We assume original jurisdiction to consider this matter involving a ruling by the State Election Board and decide the issue whether that portion of Article 5, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma which provides that no member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be elected to any office in the State, the emoluments of which shall have been increased during his term of office, is in conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Petitioners state that at a hearing conducted July 20, 1994 on a Contest of Candidacy filed against petitioner Fair, the State Election Board incorrectly found that Petitioner Fair, as a mid-term State Senator during the 1994 legislative session that enacted a pay increase for the office of Labor Commissioner to be effective in January 1995, was prohibited by Article 5, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma from being a qualified candidate to seek the office of Commissioner of Labor. Petitioners' sole contention is that Article 5, Section 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution is in conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. The First and Fourteenth Amendment rights they seek to vindicate are: 1) Petitioner Fair's right to equal treatment as a member of the state legislature to be a candidate for Commissioner of Labor, and 2) Petitioner Nockels' First Amendment right to vote for and support the candidate of her choice. Petitioners ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the State Election Board ordering them to place Petitioner Mike Fair's name on the state election ballot as a Republican candidate for Commissioner of Labor for the Primary Election scheduled for August 23, 1994, and the Runoff Primary and General elections should he receive enough votes to qualify.
Petitioners' argument is that because the terms of state representatives expire in November after the general election, as do the terms of twenty-four Senators whose terms happen to expire in November of gubernatorial election years, and because the terms for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Auditor and Inspector, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Commissioner of Labor do not begin until the following January, only the twenty-four Senators who are at mid-term during gubernatorial elections years are prevented by Article 5, Section 23 from becoming candidates for the listed statewide offices.
After weighing all the factors, we find that Article V, § 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution does not place an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of Senator Fair or voter Nockels, and is not violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 6 contains a similar provision resulting in a similar classification. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution of the United States provides that no Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time. The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States sets out that the two-year terms of the members of the House of Representatives and the terms of those Senators whose six-year terms are expiring, shall end at noon on January 3, before the new presidential term begins on January 20. With such classification appearing in the United States Constitution, we cannot find that our constitutional provision is violative thereof.
In State ex rel. Anderson v. Chapman, 86 Wash.2d 189, 543 P.2d 229 (1975) the constitutional provision under attack by two midterm legislators was virtually identical to Article Y, § 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Washington Supreme Court disposed of the Equal Protection violation argument by noting the "substantially identical" provision contained in the Federal Constitution. Likewise, in Hall v. Baum, 452 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. 1970), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 397 U.S. 93, 90 S.Ct. 818, 25 L.Ed.2d 79, involving a similar Constitutional provision, the Texas Supreme Court observed that if the Texas constitutional provision creates an unreasonable classification by not applying to all legislators, then the Constitution of the United States does so as well. Neither do we find that petitioners' First Amendment rights have been violated because petitioner's rights have not been impermissibly burdened. See, Bur-dick v. Takushi — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992).
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
HODGES, C.J. and HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
OPALA, J., dissents.
LAVENDER, V.C.J., disqualified.