Opinion ID: 1159011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: part ii: ballot title

Text: Our statutes concerning initiative petitions allow an appeal to this Court by any person dissatisfied with the wording of the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General. [11] 34 O.S. 1991, § 10. In determining such an appeal this [C]ourt may correct or amend the ballot title ... or accept [a] substitute suggested, or may draft a new one which will conform to the provisions of [34 O.S.Supp. 1992, § 9]. § 10(A). Section 9, in addition to procedural matters not pertinent here, sets forth certain requirements that must be satisfied concerning the wording of the ballot title. These are set out at § 9(B)(1)-(7) as follows: (1) the title may not exceed two hundred (200) words; (2) it must explain in basic words, easily found in dictionaries of general usage, the effect of the proposition; (3) it must be written on an eighth-grade reading comprehension level; (4) it must not contain words that have a specialized meaning to a particular trade or profession not commonly known to the citizens of the State; (5) it must not reflect partiality in its composition or contain any argument for or against the measure; (6) it must contain language whereby a yes vote is a vote in favor of the proposition and a no vote is a vote against the proposition; and (7) it shall not contain language where 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. Proponents assert the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General, in various particulars, violates § 9(B)(2)-(5). The ballot title prepared by the Attorney General, with the portions challenged by the Proponents underlined, is set out in full: This measure adds a new section to Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. This measure would place the following limits on the terms of United States Representatives and Senators from Oklahoma: 1. no Representative could serve more than three (3) two-year terms; 2. no Senator could serve more than two (2) six-year terms; and 3. no person would be able to serve more than six (6) years as a Representative and twelve (12) years as a Senator for a total of eighteen (18) years service. Terms begun by a United States Representative or Senator from Oklahoma prior to this measure's passage would not be counted in calculating term limits. This measure would not apply to persons appointed to complete a vacated term. This measure would not prohibit the casting or counting of write-in ballots. This measure would not prohibit write-in campaigns that are allowed by law. Unless similar measures are approved in other States, their United States Representatives and Senators could serve longer terms than Oklahoma's representatives or Senators. SHALL THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE? ____ Yes, for the Proposal. ____ No, against the Proposal. Normally, where the ballot title submitted by the Attorney General is found sufficient it is generally used regardless of the sufficiency of those submitted by other parties. In re Initiative Petition No. 347, supra, 813 P.2d at 1032. However, the basic statutory requirements of § 9 must be met and we have outlined the requirements of a ballot title in previous cases. Id; Arthur v. City of Stillwater, 611 P.2d 637, 643 (Okla. 1980). These cases provide the title must be in a form to allow a voter to reach an informed decision on whether to approve or disapprove the measure. The question must be specific, but it is not required to contain the proposition from beginning to end. The title must reflect the character and purpose of the measure and it must not be deceptive or misleading. It must also be free from uncertainty and ambiguity. 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. Proponents initially assert the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General is misleading because it refers to the proposition as a term limit measure, when, in fact, it is only a ballot access or restriction proposition, which would not prohibit an individual from serving terms in Congress in addition to those listed in the proposal (three (3) two year terms for House and two (2) six year terms for Senate) by the vehicle of a write-in campaign and the counting of write-in votes. We disagree with proponents. In practical effect, the proposition contained in the Petition is a term limit proposal. This is so for the reason the laws of the State of Oklahoma do not allow the counting of write-in votes. [12] In 26 O.S. 1991, § 7-127(1), it is provided, [t]he following rules shall govern the counting and recounting of ballots: 1. [i]f the name of any person is written on a ballot, said name shall not be counted[]. [13] Under 34 O.S.Supp. 1992, § 9(B)(2), the ballot title is required to explain in basic words the effect of the proposition and, under our case law, the character and purpose of the measure. Arthur v. City of Stillwater, supra, 611 P.2d at 643. In our view, the effect of the proposal, and its character and purpose, given the current prohibition on the counting of write-in votes, is to set term limits on those who would seek to serve in either the United States House of Representatives or Senate. [14] Accordingly, it is our opinion the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General is not misleading, and it cannot be faulted or found deficient, for describing the proposal as a term limit measure. That is exactly the effect of the proposition under current Oklahoma law. [15] Proponents next claim the Attorney General's ballot title violates § 9(B)(5) because it shows partiality in part of its composition and seemingly contains argument against the proposal. They rely on the last sentence of the ballot title which reads, [u]nless similar measures are approved in other states, their United States Representatives and Senators could serve longer terms than Oklahoma's Representatives or Senators. As to this aspect of proponents' appeal concerning the language of the Attorney General's ballot title we believe their argument has validity. As noted above, the general purpose of a ballot title is to explain in basic words the effect, character and purpose of the proposition. As such, the ballot title should not be couched in such a way that it presents the matter in an argumentative way either for or against the proposal. Although the Attorney General argues the sentence is couched in neutral language, we believe from reading the brief of the Attorney General in support of the ballot title that even she realizes the sentence raises the inference that if the measure is passed Oklahoma will be at some type of competitive disadvantage in Congress, unless other states pass similar measures, because Senators and Representatives from states not having similar measures could possibly serve longer (if reelected) and build up more seniority. We believe such a sentence has no place in this ballot title. The ballot title should not contain effects which might occur based on what other states may or may not do. Further, if such language is allowed to remain in the ballot title, would it then be required to inform the voting public exactly how many other states have passed similar measures or the exact number of other states that have similar measures currently before them for consideration? Other states have, in fact, passed similar measures to either limit the terms of House or Senate members or curtail ballot access to those having served a certain number of terms or years. See e.g. AR. CONST. 73, § 3; Cal.Elec.Code, § 25003 (West); WYO. STAT. § 22-5-104; OR. CONST. Art. II, § 20; MICH. CONST. Art 2, § 10; COLO. CONST. Art. 18, § 9a; MO. CONST. Art. 3, § 45(a). Is the ballot title required to spell out for the electorate exactly and precisely what these other states have enacted or might enact? We think not. The proposal at issue concerns a Petition as to what Oklahoma will do concerning its peoples' representation in Congress, not what other states have done or might do of a similar nature in the future. In essence, we believe the requirement of § 9(B)(2) concerning the effect of the proposition is satisfied when the ballot title sets out in basic language what the measure will do, not what effect it might have if other states fail to pass similar measures. Such possible effects, we believe, are better left for the arguments of the parties in support of or opposition to the proposal when they wage their campaigns prior to a vote on the measure. Accordingly, we hold the sentence challenged by proponents does violate § 9(B)(5) in that it appears to exhibit partiality against the proposal in its composition and it must, therefore, be deleted from any ballot title submitted to the electorate. [16] Proponents finally make a challenge, asserting clarity and simplicity would be fostered by changing one word where it appears in three sentences in the ballot title. The argument applies to the following language which has been underlined: This measure would not apply to persons appointed to complete a vacated term. This measure would not prohibit the casting or counting of write-in ballots. This measure would not prohibit write-in campaigns that are allowed by law. The only argument contained in the briefs of proponents concerning this challenge is that insertion of the word does should be substituted for the word would as the word does is clearer and affirmatively states what the measure does not do. In our view, although it appears the challenge by proponents is overly technical, in that we have found it necessary to delete the sentence discussed above and, therefore, cannot accept in toto the submission of the Attorney General we believe it is our prerogative under 34 O.S. 1991, § 10, to draft an appropriate ballot title which complies with the dictates of § 9 and we proceed to do so, without deciding whether this last challenge of proponents would alone require rejection of the Attorney General's submission. Accordingly, we are of the opinion the following ballot title, as prepared by the Court, should be adopted: BALLOT TITLE This law adds a new section to the Oklahoma Constitution. The law puts the following limits on the terms of United States Representatives and Senators from Oklahoma: 1. no Representative may serve more than three two-year terms; 2. no Senator may serve more than two six-year terms; and 3. no person may serve more than six years as a Representative and twelve (12) years as a Senator for a total of eighteen (18) years service. Terms started before passage of the law by a United States Representative or Senator do not count in calculating term limits. The law does not apply to persons appointed to complete a vacated term. The law does not prohibit the casting or counting of write-in votes or write-in campaigns if these things are allowed by law. Write-in voting is not now allowed in Oklahoma. SHALL THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE? []  Yes, for the Proposal. []  No, against the Proposal.