Opinion ID: 2682794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Attorney General's Ballot Title

Text: Proponents claim that the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General violates statutory law and displays partiality. ¶41 Petitioners' initially proposed ballot title, now the substitute ballot title offered on appeal, states as follows: This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new section 44 to Article 10. Bonds could be sold. Up to Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000.00) could be available. Bond money would be used for school districts and career technology districts. Bond money would be used for storm shelters or secure areas. State franchise taxes would repay these bonds. If money from franchise tax was not enough, the Legislature could use the General Revenue Fund to repay the bonds. State bond money could be used by school districts or career technology districts to reduce local debt or eliminate local debt incurred for storm shelters or secure areas. If enough money from franchise tax remains after state bonds are paid for, the balance of franchise tax could be used for grants for storm shelters for people and businesses. When state bonds are paid off, additional bonds could be sold to keep the programs funded. Laws would be written for details about using bond money. State agencies could make rules about state bond money. These rules would have the effect of law. The Oklahoma State Constitution is being amended to allow state bond money to pay for shelters and secure areas in schools. ¶ 42 The current ballot title for the initiative, the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General, states as follows: This measure adds Article 10, Section 44 to the Oklahoma Constitution. The new section authorizes the issuance of up to 500 million dollars in State bonds. The bond money would be used by local school districts and career technology districts for storm shelters and campus security. The measure does not provide for new State revenues to pay for the bonds. Under the measure the State franchise tax revenues would no longer go into the General Revenue Fund, which is the primary fund used to pay for State Government. Rather, franchise taxes revenues would be used for annual bond payments (principal and interest). In any year in which the franchise tax revenues are not sufficient to make annual payments, the Legislature, at its discretion, could use General Revenue Fund monies to make the annual bond payment. In years in which not all the franchise tax revenues are needed to make payments, the remaining franchise tax revenues - with Legislative approval - could be used for storm shelter grants to individuals and businesses. In authorizing these bond and grant programs, the measure creates exceptions to the Constitution's prohibitions on gifts and the use of the state's credit. ¶43 A ballot title has six basic requirements set forth in 34 O.S. § 9 (B). A suggested ballot title: 1. Shall not exceed two hundred (200) words; 2. Shall explain in basic words, which can be easily found in dictionaries of general usage, the effect of the proposition; 3. Shall not contain any words which have a special meaning for a particular profession or trade not commonly known to the citizens of this state; 4. Shall not reflect partiality in its composition or contain any argument for or against the measure; 5. Shall contain language which clearly states that a yes vote is a vote in favor of the proposition and a no vote is a vote against the proposition; and 6. Shall not contain language whereby a yes vote is, in fact, a vote against the proposition and a no vote is, in fact, a vote in favor of the proposition. 34 O.S.2011 § 9 (B), in part. ¶44 Proponents' arguments against the Attorney General's ballot title are that it is legally incorrect and displays partiality. In their original brief the only argument challenging the ballot title is that it is designed to over emphasize the franchise tax issue and under emphasize the true purpose of the Initiative which is storm shelters and secure areas for schools and children . . . The proposal from the Attorney General is misleading, confusing and will not help the average voter when he or she votes. Their Supplemental Brief makes the following four arguments against the ballot title. 1. The second paragraph shows partiality because it makes an argument against the proposition because it states that no new revenues are raised to pay for the bonds; 2. The second paragraph shows partiality because it suggests potential harm to the General Revenue Fund since it states that the franchise tax revenue will not be deposited to that fund; 3. The second paragraph is legally incorrect because by the time the Proposed Measure is adopted the Legislature could direct franchise taxes to some fund other than the General Revenue Fund; and 4. The last paragraph is legally incorrect since passage of the measure amends to [sic] Constitution to provide for such. These first three arguments object to ¶ 2 of the title which states that: The measure does not provide for new State revenues to pay for the bonds. Under the measure the State franchise tax revenues would no longer go into the General Revenue Fund, which is the primary fund used to pay for State Government. Rather, franchise taxes revenues would be used for annual bond payments (principal and interest). ¶45 Proponents object to the first sentence and state that it reflects partiality. The sentence: The measure does not provide for new State revenues to pay for the bonds is factually correct, as the measure states that the franchise tax in section 1201 et seq. of Title 68 will be used to pay the bond obligation. ¶46 During oral argument before the Court en banc , Proponents refined this argument and used the language in the first sentence and the mention of franchise tax in more than one place in the ballot title as evidence of partiality. In other words, they argued that the Attorney General overemphasized use of the franchise tax, and it is this overemphasis which shows partiality. ¶47 The proposed measure contains the following language. E. The Legislature shall provide by law for the apportionment of the revenues currently derived from the levy of the franchise tax imposed for the privilege of doing business in this state as authorized pursuant to Section 1201 et seq. of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes, as amended, so that one hundred percent (100%) of such franchise tax revenue , or so much thereof as may be required on an annual basis, is dedicated for the repayment of the obligations issued pursuant to the provisions of this section. F. The Legislature may provide by law for the use of revenues derived from the levy of franchise tax which are not required for repayment of obligations issued pursuant to the provisions of this section in order to provide a grant program for construction of storm shelters for individuals and business entities. Such program shall be administered by the Office of Emergency Management or its successor. The use of franchise tax revenues for storm shelters as authorized by this subsection shall be deemed in furtherance of a public purpose and shall not be deemed a gift of state tax revenues. G. If the revenues described by subsection E of this section are insufficient to repay the obligations pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Legislature may use monies in the General Revenue Fund of the state not otherwise obligated, committed or appropriated in order to ensure the repayment of such obligations. Two paragraphs of this proposed measure expressly refer to the franchise tax and one refers to the revenues which is a reference to revenue from the franchise tax. A ballot title shall explain the effect of a proposition. 34 O.S. § 9 (B) (2). We may summarize the effect of these paragraphs and enumerate the references in the measure to franchise tax revenue as follows: In paragraph E (1) The Legislature shall provide by a legislative apportionment that 100% (or so much as is needed) of the franchise tax revenue is dedicated to repayment of certain obligations. In paragraph F (2) The Legislature may use amounts from the franchise tax revenue that are not necessary for repayment of certain obligations for a grant program for construction of storm shelters for individuals and business entities. (3) The use of franchise tax revenues for storm shelters as authorized by this subsection shall be deemed in furtherance of a public purpose and shall not be deemed a gift of state tax revenues. In paragraph G (4) If the revenues described by subsection E of this section [i.e., franchise tax revenues] are insufficient to repay the obligations pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Legislature may use monies in the General Revenue Fund . . . . In the proposed measure there are three express references to the franchise tax revenue and one grammatical reference, or a total of four references. In the Attorney General's ballot title there are five references to the franchise tax revenue that are used to explain the four references we have identified in the proposed measure. We also note that the phrase franchise tax(es) expressly appears four times in Proponent's proposed ballot title. ¶48 The difference of one reference is attributed to the sentence in the Attorney General's ballot title which states that Under the measure State franchise tax revenues would no longer go into the General Revenue Fund, which is the primary fund used to pay for State Government. The proposed measure does refer to the General Revenue Fund in paragraph G of the measure but without giving a definition for General Revenue Fund. This reference to the Fund in the proposed measure, as well as the express reference to the Fund in Proponent's substitute title, are not references to the franchise tax revenue going into the Fund prior to an enactment of the measure. ¶49 In one case we stated that a single sentence may express partiality and be argumentative, if when explaining a proposed measure it also includes what other states have done or might do with a proposal similar to that to be voted on by the citizens in Oklahoma. 57 For the purpose of examining partiality in a ballot title, we noted the difference between a ballot title stating what other States might do and what the proposed Oklahoma measure would do under then current law . 58 In this circumstance, the possibility of what voters in other states would do was considered to be beyond the legal effect or legal scope of the proposed measure; i.e. , it amounted to a policy argument and not a statement of a legal effect created by the enactment of the proposed measure. ¶50 A similar issue arose in another case where we discussed legal effect and noted that a portion of a ballot title was misleading. The misleading nature of language in the title was not because the title expressed something as a legal effect when it was a contingency, but because the title did not explain the correlation between the contingency and the legal effect of the measure. 59 ¶51 Current law states that the franchise tax shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund. 60 Proponents do not dispute that the General Revenue Fund is the primary fund used to pay for state government. 61 While the measure does not state that the current franchise tax is paid into the General Revenue Fund, and the measure does not define General Revenue Fund, one effect from the proposed measure is clearly to change the franchise tax revenue from deposit into the Fund to a dedicated purpose of funding the construction of storm shelters. Proponents argue that [w]here the revenue of the franchise tax is currently being deposited is irrelevant and has no impact as to the legal correctness of the ballot title as it does not matter where such revenue is deposited since the petition would direct that the revenue from the franchise tax be used to repay the bond debt. Section 9(B) expressly states that the ballot title: Shall explain in basic words, which can be easily found in dictionaries of general usage, the effect of the proposition. 34 O.S. § 9(B)(2). Since (1) the franchise tax is currently being collected and being used for one use (deposited in the General Revenue Fund) and the measure states a new use for the tax (to pay for bonds), and (2) one purpose of a ballot title is to explain the effect of a proposed measure with reference to current law, the Attorney General did not impermissibly explain that funds currently being deposited in one fund will be used for a different purpose. We do not find the one additional reference to the franchise tax and the definition of the General Revenue Fund to be argumentative or displaying partiality. ¶52 A ballot title shall not exceed two hundred words, 34 O.S. § 9(B)(1). We do not view the use of five references to the franchise tax as opposed to four to be excessive to the point of displaying partiality when the Attorney General is attempting to summarize a measure in less than two hundred words and uses grammatical shortcuts to achieve this goal. ¶53 Stating that funds currently deposited in one fund will be used for a different purpose does not, by itself, state that a harm will occur to that fund. The claim that the title is contrary to law because the Legislature could change the state fund where franchise taxes are deposited, or change their use prior to a vote on the proposed measure, is a claim simply without merit. The ballot title is required to state its effect on current law. While it is certainly possible that a Legislature could create a law with an effective date sufficiently in the future so as to have an impact upon an initiative petition, Proponents have pointed to no law which has been created for a future effective date that would alter the proposed measure's legal effect. ¶54 Proponents object to the last paragraph of the Attorney General's ballot title and argue that it is legally incorrect. The last paragraph states:  In authorizing these bond and grant programs, the measure creates exceptions to the Constitution's prohibitions on gifts and the use of the state's credit. Their objection is that passage of the measure itself provides for amending the Constitution. ¶ 55 We note that while Proponents' substitute title does not mention gifts or the state's credit, the proposed measure states in paragraph F that the use of the franchise tax for the storm shelters as authorized by this subsection  . . . shall not be deemed a gift of state tax revenues and in paragraph M the measure states that: The proceeds from the sale of obligations issued pursuant to the provisions of this section may be made available to any common school district or any career technology district for the purposes authorized by this section and enabling legislation enacted pursuant to this section notwithstanding any other provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that would otherwise prohibit or restrict the use of such proceeds or the use of tax revenue for the repayment of principal, interest, reserves, issuing costs or other costs related to the sale of the obligations authorized by this section. Any provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that would otherwise restrict the use of tax revenues for repayment of the obligations or in any way restrict the operation of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to have been amended in order to remove any such restrictions. Proponents argue that the proposed measure states that the Constitution is amended, and their substitute ballot title states that  The Oklahoma State Constitution is being amended to allow state bond money to pay for shelters and secure areas in schools. The Attorney General argues that while bond money is to be used to pay for shelters, the proposed measure also enacts a means or method for attaining this goal or ultimate purpose, and that means is achieved by amending the Constitution and creating exceptions to the Constitution's prohibitions on gifts and the use of the state's credit. Proponents' have not demonstrated that the Attorney General has incorrectly stated the legal effect of the measure on this point. ¶56 Proponents also argue that the Attorney General makes a claim that there may not be any funds available to pay the bond holders, and Proponents argue that the statement  . . . is false, so this false statement is irrelevant to the legal correctness of the ballot title as submitted by the Petitioners. The Attorney General's ballot title does not contain this language. The actual statement in the ballot title is: In any year in which the franchise tax revenues are not sufficient to make annual payments, the Legislature, at its discretion, could use General Revenue Fund monies to make the annual bond payment. The actual statement in the proposed measure states that: G. If the revenues described by subsection E of this section are insufficient to repay the obligations issued pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Legislature may use monies in the General Revenue Fund of the state not otherwise obligated , committed or appropriated in order to ensure the repayment of such obligations. The language in the Attorney General's ballot title summarizes this language in the proposed measure and is not misleading. ¶57 Proponents argue that the Attorney General's ballot title creates doubt whether the Legislature is required to repay the bond obligations. Again the actual provision of the Attorney General's ballot title states that: In any year in which the franchise tax revenues are not sufficient to make annual payments, the Legislature, at its discretion, could use General Revenue Fund monies to make the annual bond payment. Again, this language summarizes paragraph G of the measure and is not misleading. The Attorney General correctly indicates that the Legislature could use funds from the General Revenue Fund or from another source to repay the bond obligations. Paragraph G. of the proposed measure states that  . . . the Legislature may use monies in the General Revenue Fund of the state . . . . (emphasis added). The Attorney General's ballot title language is not a false statement. ¶58 Proponents state that the ballot title reflects partiality because it states that franchise taxes will not be paid into the General Revenue Fund. The substitute ballot title by Proponents discusses a relationship between the franchise tax and the General Revenue Fund: If money from franchise tax was not enough, the Legislature could use the General Revenue Fund to repay the bonds. Proponents challenge the meaning of language on a point which they have in their substitute ballot. The Attorney General's language explains the effect of the proposition, and under current law, is factually correct. This objection is without merit. ¶59 If the Attorney General's text for the ballot title is not clearly contrary to the command of statutory law, then his ballot title is accepted and the Court need not examine Petitioners' substitute ballot. A ballot title must reflect the character and purpose of the measure and it must not be deceptive or misleading, and it must also be free from uncertainty and ambiguity. 62 We have stated that: The test is whether the title is couched in such a way that voters are afforded an opportunity to fairly express their will, and whether the question is sufficiently definite to apprise voters with substantial accuracy what they are asked to approve. 63 ¶60 Nothing in Proponents' arguments show where the Attorney General's ballot title fails to state the legal effect of the proposed measure under current law. Further, we conclude that the Attorney General's proposed ballot title fulfills the requirements of 34 O.S.2001 § 9, because it accurately reflects the effects of the proposed amendment to the State Constitution by informing the electorate concerning the principle thrust of the proposition; i.e. , to fund the construction of storm shelters by using franchise tax revenues, bonds, and other resources within the discretion of the Legislature.