Case Name: SAVE THE ILLINOIS RIVER, INC., the Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, and John Leonard, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma EX. REL. the OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, Steve Curry, in his capacity as Chairman of the State Election Board, Tom Montgomery, in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the State Election Board, Paul Ziriax, in his capacities as Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer of the State Election Board, Dr. Tim Mauldin, in his capacity as a Member of the State Election Board, and The State of Oklahoma ex. rel. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants/Appellees
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 2016-08-08
Citations: 378 P.3d 1220
Docket Number: No. 115,164
Parties: SAVE THE ILLINOIS RIVER, INC., the Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, and John Leonard, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma EX. REL. the OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, Steve Curry, in his capacity as Chairman of the State Election Board, Tom Montgomery, in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the State Election Board, Paul Ziriax, in his capacities as Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer of the State Election Board, Dr. Tim Mauldin, in his capacity as a Member of the State Election Board, and The State of Oklahoma ex. rel. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants/Appellees.
Judges: CONCUR: Reif, C.J.; Combs, V.C.J. (by separate writing), and Watt, Taylor, Colbert, Gurich, JJ.; and Bell and Goree, SJJ.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 378
Pages: 1220–1225

Head Matter:
2016 OK 86
SAVE THE ILLINOIS RIVER, INC., the Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, and John Leonard, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma EX. REL. the OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, Steve Curry, in his capacity as Chairman of the State Election Board, Tom Montgomery, in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the State Election Board, Paul Ziriax, in his capacities as Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer of the State Election Board, Dr. Tim Mauldin, in his capacity as a Member of the State Election Board, and The State of Oklahoma ex. rel. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants/Appellees.
No. 115,164
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Filed August 8, 2016
Heather L. Hintz, Melvin R. MeVay, Jr., and Catherine L. Campbell, Phillips Murrah P.C.; and Rabindranath Ramana, Calvert Law Firm, Oklahoma Clty, OK, for the Appellants.
Cara M. Rodriguez and Mithun S. Mansin-ghani, Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for the Appellants.

Opinion:
Taylor, J.
1 On April 21, 2015, and April 29, 2015, the Oklahoma Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives, respectively, passed House Joint Resolution Number 1012, directing the Oklahoma Secretary of State to refer a proposed constitutional amendment to. a vote of the people. The proposed amendment would add a new section to Article II, as Section 88. 2015 Okla. Sess. Laws 1598-99. The resolution was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on April 80, 2015. Id. The resolution was designated Legislative Referendum No. 368 and State Question No. 777 (State Question 777).
1 2 The proposed amendment provides:
Section 38. To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the rights of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall 'be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the fight of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominanee of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 81, 2014.
1 3 On March 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed suit in the district court seeking to have the proposed amendment declared unconstitutional and seeking an injunction prohibiting the proposed amendment from being placed on the ballot. Plaintiffs did not protest the ballot title. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss urging that there is no authority for a pre-election challenge to a legislative referendum; and, if such a cause of action exists, Plaintiffs' protest was untimely. Plaintiffs counter that a pre-election challenge to a legislative referendum is proper and that their challenge is timely.
1] 4 The district court held a hearmg on the motion to dismiss, The district court found that the challenge was timely and, by doing so, implicitly found that a pre-election challenge was proper. The district court denied the parties the opportunity to brief the substantive constitutional issues and denied the parties any opportunity to be heard on the merits; and, then, the district court summarily and orally ruled on the merits that the proposed amendment was not facially unconstitutional and dismissed Plaintiffs' petition. Plaintiffs appealed, This Court retained the matter for disposition.
T5 The parties dispute the propriety of pre-election review of legislatively proposed constitutional amendments. One way to amend Oklahoma's Constitution is through legislative referendum, by a resolution originated and adopted by the Legislature and passed by the voters. Okla,. Const. art. XXIV, § 1. "We cannot undervalue the importance of the constitutional right, under the Oklahoma Constitution, to initiative and referendum." In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122, ¶19, 838 P.2d 1, 8. For a legal challenge to a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment, both parties rely on the concurring opinions in In re Legislative Referendum No. 334, State Question 711, 2004 OK 75, 107 P.3d 556. In re Legislative Referendum No. 384 addressed an application for this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus. This Court summarily declined to assume jurisdiction. This Court's order declining to assume jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits or on any issue in the case, is not the law of the case, is not res judicata, and has no precedential value, Robinson v. State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision, 1996 OK 145, ¶ 7, 916 P.2d 1390, 1392.
T6 This Court has yet to decide the propriety of a pre-election constitutional challenge to a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment. In 1910, this Court decided Threadgill v. Cross, 1910 OK 165, 26 Okla. 403, 109 P. 558. Based on Article IV, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, this Court abstained from injecting itself into a pre-election controversy as to the constitutionality of an initiative petition, Id. M 17-28, 109 P. at 561-568, Article IV, Section 1 provides for three gofrernmental departments-the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial-which are "separate and distinct," Section 1 prohibits one department from exercising "the powers properly belonging to either of the others." To decide the validity of legislation before it is passed on by the Governor or the voters, is for a court to inject itself into the legislative process.
[7 This Court modified the Threadgill rule for citizen-initiated petitions and referendum beginning in 1975, In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Okla. Numbered 74-1 and 74-2, 1975 OK 36, ¶19, 534 P.2d 3, 9 (Norman Petitions). In Norman Petitions, this Court determined that "[i]t may consider the constitutionality of matters to be to considered under the initiative and referendum process as to procedure form and subject matter, when raised, and if in this court|'s] opinion such a determination could prevent a costly and unnecessary election." Id. This remains the rule for citizen-initiated petitions, In 2009, the Oklahoma Legislature recognized this Court's jurisprudence regarding pre-election constitutional challenges to citizen-initiatived petitions and referendums by placing a ten-day post-publication time limit on such challenges. 2009 Okla, Sess. Laws 1704, ch. 818, § 1(B) (codified at 34 0.8.2011, § 8(B)).
T8 Even if we were to adopt the Thread-gill rule to address a legislative referendum, here Plaintiffs have failed to show that the cost of adding one more question to the general election ballot, already crowded with state questions is so costly as to warrant us ignoring Article IV, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, Thus, justification for retreating from this Court's self-imposed rule of abstention is absent here. We find in this proceeding, honoring Article IV, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires this Court to abstain from addressing the substantive issues raised by the parties. The challenges raised here remain unadjudicated and intact, as does any challenge brought under the federal or state constitutions by a proper party if State Question 777 is passed by the voters.
T9 We will not reverse the trial court when it "reaches the correct result but for the wrong reason." Hall v. GEO Group, Inc., 2014 OK 22, ¶17, 824 P.3d 399, 406. ("[Thhe Court is not bound by the trial court's reasoning and may affirm the judgment. below on a different legal rationale."). Here, the district court dismissed the petition by granting the Appellees motion to dismiss on the grounds that State Question 777 was not facially unconstitutional, effectively dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the case, but do so on the basis that the district court should have abstained from the addressing legislative referendum before voted on by the people. See In re Initiative Petition No. 366, State Question No. 689, 2002 OK 21, ¶ 4, 46 P.3d 123, 125.
{10 The time to file the petition for rehearing is normally 20 days. Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1,18, 12 0.8.2011, ch. 15, app.1. But due to the exigent cireumstances here, the time to file is reduced. The parties must file any petition for rehearing from this decision in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court no later than 4:80 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2016.
AFFIRMED; REHEARING TIME REDUCED.
CONCUR: Reif, C.J.; Combs, V.C.J. (by separate writing), and Watt, Taylor, Colbert, Gurich, JJ.; and Bell and Goree, SJJ.
CONCUR IN RESULT: Kauger (Joins - Combs, V.0.J.).
DISQUALIFIED: Winchester and - Edmondson, JJ.