Opinion ID: 2598122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pivotal to the integrity of the circulation process is the Oklahoma residency of circulators.

Text: ¶ 17 Oklahoma citizens are endowed with the right of the initiative by the Oklahoma Constitution, art. 5, §§ 1 and 2. [27] The right is fundamental. [28] Therefore, this Court zealously preserves the precious right of the initiative to the fullest measure of the spirit and the letter of the law. [29] Although states allowing ballot initiatives have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process, [30] we will not cripple, avoid or deny by technical construction the initiative right. [31] Rather, because the right of the initiative is so valuable, all doubt as to the construction of pertinent provisions is resolved in favor of a measure. [32] Nevertheless, the right of the initiative is not absolute. It is subject to constitutional and statutory limitations. [33] Each citizen has a right to protest the sufficiency and legality of an initiative petition and the safeguards afforded the individual challenging a measure are as necessary to the protection of the right as are those granted the proponent. [34] It is this Court's duty to ensure that, in the exercise of the initiative, the provisions of the Constitution and duly enacted statutes are upheld. [35] ¶ 18 The proponents recognize that under art. 3, § 1, [36] to qualify as a circulator, an individual must be a bona fide Oklahoma resident. The dispute arises over how residency is defined for constitutional purposes. Largely, NVO was unconcerned with whether circulators met residency requirements during the TABOR petition drive as it did not ask for Social Security numbers, driver licenses or any identification before it made payments for signatures gathered. [37] The organization's attitude on residency was that if a circulator came into Oklahoma with the intention of staying only for the duration of the petition drive [38] or could provide some address within the state, [39] the circulator was an Oklahoma residenta premise not supported by Oklahoma law. The organization allegedly adopted this position based on information provided by an employee of the Oklahoma Secretary of State's office. [40] This, in itself, is curious as NVO represents itself as an organization armed with the essential elements of a campaign including knowledge of local law. [41] Furthermore, an entity relying on representations of a public official does so at its perilsuch reliance is not sufficient to excuse ignorance of the law as it actually exists. [42] ¶ 19 The terms residency and domicile are interchangeable and synonymous. [43] Although generally the issue of residency is a question of fact for the trier of fact [44] to determine from the clear weight of the evidence, [45] the residency requirement for voting in the constitutional sense is a judicial question. [46] A bona fide resident for purposes of art. 3, § 1 is equated with a person's honest intent to make a place one's residence or domicile, a conscious decision to make a location an individual's home. Physical presence, as in merely crossing the Oklahoma state line, will not constitute residency. [47] Residency requires a person to have a true, fixed, permanent home to which the individual, when absent, expects to return. [48] It is where the person lives. [49] Although an individual may have multiple dwellings, a natural person has but one residence. [50] The dominant element in determining legal residence is the intention to abandon a former domicile and to acquire another without any intention of returningpresent abode, in and of itself, is not conclusive. [51] ¶ 20 Just as it is this Court's constitutional duty to determine residency as it relates to elections, the Legislature shoulders the constitutional responsibility pursuant to art. 5, § 8 to enact laws to prevent corruption in making, procuring, and submitting initiative and referendum petitions. [52] It has done so in three provisions relating to circulators in title 34. Section 3.1 [53] makes it a crime punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.00 and a year in the county jail for any person other than a qualified electora United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma residentto circulate an initiative petition. Section 6 requires circulators to verify every petition by sworn testimony that the circulator is a qualified electora United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma residentsigning the verification and giving an address. [54] Pursuant to § 23, it is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $500.00, imprisonment up to two years in a state penitentiary, or both to sign or file any certificate or petition knowing the same or any part thereof to be falsely made. [55] Therefore, any circulator signing a verification who is not a qualified electora United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma residentor anyone who aides and abets a circulator in doing so commits a felony. ¶ 21 The Legislature's focus on the circulator's pivotal role in the initiative proceedings acknowledges the importance of the signature gathering process. Indeed, the integrity of the initiative process in many ways hinges on the trustworthiness and veracity of the circulator. [56] Although the Secretary's records may be utilized to verify whether a certain individual is a registered voter, the Secretary and this Court have no ability to ascertain whether a particular voter actually signed a petition. Residency requirements ensure that when such issues arise, the circulators will be Oklahoma residents who may be located within state lines and be subject to service for appearance in Oklahoma Courts. [57] ¶ 22 The Legislature has made it the responsibility of the circulator to verify that an individual voter actually signed the petition. Circulators must swear that the individual listed on the petition sheet signed the petition in their presence. Furthermore, each time that a circulator executes the verification of signatures, the individual must swear to be a qualified elector of the State of Oklahoma and provide a post office address. [58] Nothing less than an accurate address for the circulator will constitute substantial compliance with the statutory requirement of providing a post office address. [59] Not only does the proven execution of a false affidavit constitute fraud, it destroys all probative value of the verification. [60] ¶ 23 c)The overwhelming evidence reveals that NVO knowingly used in excess of sixty out-of-state circulators, recruited other out-of-state organizations to bring in circulators, and allowed a foreign national to collect signatures and another circulator to verify the petitionall of which are illegal activities under Oklahoma law. ¶ 24 The evidence presented leads to one undeniable conclusionthe out-of-state circulators had no intention to make Oklahoma their legal residence. The question is not whether out-of-state circulators were used in the initiative drive, the question is only how many. We can be certain that there were more than sixty out-of-state circulators working the Tabor petition. ¶ 25 Circulators act as agents for those on whose behalf they are collecting signatures. [61] When Johnson admitted that she had brought in circulators from other states, she couldn't remember the exact number, their identities or their states of residence. [62] When questioned about sixty-two pros whom she had indicated in an electronic mail transmission would be coming in, she couldn't recall who any of those individuals were. [63] Not only did NVO use it's own out-of-state circulators, it drafted assistance in the circulation efforts from other foreign petition firms. [64] Johnson remembered contracting with a manager from California who agreed to provide a team of circulators and to collect 10,000 signatures. [65] Also, Johnson was aware that pros were recruiting people from outside Oklahoma to circulate the TABOR petition; and, armed with this knowledge, she allowed the signature collection to continue. [66] Johnson knew that at least one foreign national collected signatures and that those signatures were submitted under another circulator's name. [67] Although she admitted that NVO paid travel and hotel expenses for these out-of-state circulators, she couldn't remember which circulators were paid for plane travel. [68] Where travel was paid, Johnson assumed it was for out-of-state circulators. [69] ¶ 26 Many of the out-of-state circulators were referred to as pros by NVO and its agents or independent contractors operating in Oklahoma. These individuals were known to NVO to be people who made their living moving from state to state acting as circulators in multiple petition drives. [70] The manager of the Tulsa office acknowledged that he had pros working out of his office and that he knew there were pros working under other managers in Oklahoma, but he could not remember their names or exactly how many circulators were involved. [71] ¶ 27 When a notary was questioned about the identifications provided her, she indicated that she received out-of-state identifications from the states Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. The notary also stated she couldn't remember all of the out-of-state individuals and that when she entered the majority of their names on her notary log, she did not utilize the address on the out-of-state identification but an address where they could be located in Oklahoma. [72] When the protestants realized that at least one notary had been notarizing petitions without a bond, they flew circulators back into Oklahoma so that their signatures could be properly notarized. [73] ¶ 28 The petition managers had circulators in the field about whose validity they were concerned. During December, the petition managers became aware that at least one of their circulators was turning in signatures collected by others under his name. [74] To ensure that out-of-state circulators questioned by police and asked for identification would not be arrested or ordered to cease signature collections, circulators were encouraged to obtain Oklahoma identification. [75] ¶ 29 d) NVO's resistance to discovery and the secrecy surrounding its operation warrants an inference that the organization and the entire circulation process lacked all integrity. [76] ¶ 30 To say that NVO resisted discovery efforts would be a gross understatement. The protestants attempted service on the organization's President on a number of occasions and even hired a private investigator to locate Johnson but were entirely unsuccessful. It was only after this Court issued an order on June 23, 2006, directing the parties to cooperate in the discovery process and to complete discovery in a timely manner that the protestants were able to depose Johnson, the organization's President, and Jeff Johnson (Tulsa Manager), who ran and organized the NVO campaign in the Tulsa area managing an office identified as PoliticalActivists.org. Even then, Johnson testified to facts and produced documents only on the issues she deemed relevant rather than complying with the subpoena issued. [77] Documents promised for production during the Tulsa Manager's deposition have yet to be produced. ¶ 31 A party intentionally concealing evidence necessary for a tribunal to make a correct decision and preventing the complaining party from having its interest fairly presented or fully considered by the court commits fraud. [78] ¶ 32 The record in this case is replete with credible, unchallenged instances of actual fraud in the circulation of petitions. Not only were numerous petition circulators non-residents of this State, they engaged in outright fraud by using false addresses purportedly to satisfy Oklahoma law. [79] Furthermore, some circulators were encouraged to further the fraud and to hide true residential status by obtaining Oklahoma identification cards. NVO's admitted activities include bringing in numerous out-of-state circulators, contracting with out-of-state firms to come into Oklahoma and collect signatures, allowing at least one foreign national to circulate a petition and having another out-of-state circulator turn in and sign that petition, and encouraging circulators to obtain Oklahoma identification to circumvent any questions regarding their residency while collecting signatures. ¶ 33 These admitted activities constitute criminal activities as defined by the Oklahoma Legislature. The evidence which was uncovered points to systemic wrongdoing; i.e., an established pattern of fraud demonstrated by out-of-state circulators representing themselves as Oklahoma residents when they verified petitions, thereby committing felonies, [80] and by acting as circulators in violation of the requirement that they be bona fide Oklahoma residents. [81] The evidence of these activities coupled with NVO's resistance in the discovery process warrant an inference that the entire operation of the organization lacked integrity. [82] With the limited evidence the protestants were able to extract from NVO, it is abundantly clear that the wrongdoing extended all the way to the top of the hierarchy of the organization Susan Johnson, its President. ¶ 34 Once NVO had collected the number of signatures it deemed necessary to qualify TABOR for the ballot, it removed itself from the state [83] presumably taking its pro circulators on to the next most profitable petition drive. NVO and its out-of-state circulators were paid, imported entities in search of signatories for their own economic benefitnot for the benefit of Oklahoma citizens or their laws. Both Oklahoma's initiative process and its voters deserve more. The importation of out-of-state residents to obtain signatures for a ballot measure in an Oklahoma state election paid for by out-of-state contributors in which these people have no interest is illegal, fraudulent and unsettling. Such activities may not be countenanced where the Legislature has seen fit to provide safeguards against fraud, corruption and chicanery. It is this Court's duty to ascertain and to give effect to the legislative intent making the safeguards feasible, workable and effective. [84] ¶ 35 The primary purpose of the statutory scheme is to protect the public from corrupting influences that might be brought to bear upon the electoral process by agents who are financially interested in the petition's success. This protection can be fully accorded only if petitions which are tainted by illegal circulation may be barred from the public ballot. If the State's sole remedy is merely a criminal prosecution, then the public will be forced to bear the burden of dealing with the very sort of petition which the statutes seek to prevent. Were we to decree the validity of such a petition, we would be affirmatively sanctioning the type of corruption which the statutes outlaw and we would be depriving the public of the protection which the Legislature has conferred. This we will not do. Therefore, we determine that the initiative petition must be struck in its entirety. [85] ¶ 36 2) The initiative petition fails for numerical insufficiency of signers. ¶ 37 The Legislature has provided that procedural requirements of the initiative and referendum process are not mandatory but that substantial compliance is sufficient. [86] We apply this standard, as we have in a long line of Oklahoma jurisprudence. [87] Nevertheless, an independent review of the materials presented during the hearing before the Referee along with the exceptions to the Referee's report confirm that the petition fails for numerical insufficiency. ¶ 38 The gross number of signatures received from the Secretary totaled 299,029. The number of signatures required to place the measure on the ballot is 219,564, [88] requiring that 79,466 challenges be sustained to avoid a vote of the people on the measure. ¶ 39 Indisputable evidence demonstrates that 57,850 signatures must be disallowed as collected by out-of-state circulators. [89] The parties recognize that 7,175 [90] signatures must be eliminated for failure of the notary to have a bond in place. [91] A total of 7,071 challenges stand unrebutted. [92] Six hundred and sixty five signatures are disallowed for giving only a post office address in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, [93] and 295 names are disallowed for the date of the signature coinciding with the date of the petition's signing. [94] Finally, 7,048 [95] names were successfully challenged on surrebuttal. ¶ 40 Without considering the more than 75,000 protestant challenges based on non-matching addresses, [96] the total number of successful challenges is 80,014. The protestants' signature collection effort failed by a minimum of 638 legally sufficient signatures. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that, even if we had determined to take the narrowest feasible remedy and exclude only the petition sheets of NVO's and other organization's out-of-state circulators rather than to strike the TABOR petition in its entirety, it would be inappropriate for the initiative to go to a vote of the people as an insufficient number of signatures were collected to qualify the proposal for the ballot.