Opinion ID: 1386296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of gist and ballot title

Text: Protestants assert the Petition is invalid because it violates 34 O.S.Supp. 1990, §§ 3 & 9 in that neither the gist nor the ballot title explain the effect of the amendment. However, we are not persuaded by Protestants' argument. Section 3 states, a simple statement of the gist of the proposition shall be printed on the top margin of each signature sheet... . The gist on this Petition reads: This measure will amend the Constitution to require any revenue raising bill passed by the legislature and sent to the Governor for action shall not become effective until it has been approved by a majority vote of the public, it allows a revenue raising measure to become effective without a vote by the public if it is approved by 3/4 vote of each house of the legislature and acted on by the Governor but allows time for referendum by prohibiting enacting of emergency clause. The pertinent part of Section 9 states, The ballot title shall explain in basic words, which can be easily found in dictionaries of general usage, the effect of the proposition... . The ballot title prepared by the Attorney General reads as follows: This measure amends the State Constitution. It adds new provisions to Section 33 of Article 5. These would change the method by which state government makes laws that raise revenue. The measure requires that a bill to raise revenue be voted upon by the people at the next general election. A bill would not be effective until it was approved by a majority of the voters. The measure also provides a way that a revenue bill could become law without a vote of the people. A bill would have to be approved by a 3/4 vote of each house of the legislature and go to the Governor for proper action. A revenue bill approved by a 3/4 vote of each house of the legislature would not become effective until ninety days after the approval date. Such a bill would not be subject to the emergency measure provision. Shall the proposed Constitutional amendment be approved? ( ) Yes, for the Constitutional Amendment? ( ) No, against the Constitutional Amendment? Protestants' cite us to In re Initiative Petition No.344, [19] as providing the standard for testing whether the gist and ballot title are legally correct. In that case, we pronounced, that they must be brief, descriptive of the effect of the proposition, not deceiving but informative and revealing of the design and purpose of the petition. This case is factually distinguishable, however, in that the petition contained more than one subject and was therefore facially void. The proposed Petition though does not contain more than one subject and satisfies the enumerated test. The gist and ballot title sufficiently appraises the voters what the measure is intended to do, i.e., change the method by which state government makes laws that raise revenue. We therefore approve the ballot title presented by the Attorney General of this state [20] and find it sufficient for submission to the people.