Court Opinion

ID: 9559099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:22:39.839549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:48.569057
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Justice
(dissenting).
I proposed the adoption of the following as a per curiam opinion:
“Within the time provided by law this appeal from the substitute titles submitted by the Attorney General was filed and presents only one question, the , sufficiency of said proposed substitute titles.
“On such appeal this court ‘may correct or amend the title before the court, or accept the substitute suggested, or may draft a new one which will conform to this chapter”. 34 O.S.1951 § 10; State ex rel. Murray v. Beard, Okl.Sup., 264 P.2d 305.
“Without criticism of any of the various titles suggested; we think that the following titles fairly state the gist of the propositions to be voted on:
*460“House Bill No. 933, Referendum Petition 106, 'State Question No. 360:
‘ “ ‘Amending turnpike law; creating Turnpike Authority, appointed and removable by Governor; prescribing powers, duties, etc.; authorizing and empowering Authority to construct and operate parts in Oklahoma of turnpikes between: Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls, Texas; Tulsa and Joplin, Missouri; Oklahoma City and Wichita, Kansas; issue bonds, payable solely from revenue, to pay therefor; fix tolls; lease concessions; acquire property, etc.; and do everything necessary to execute granted powers, subject to prescribed limitations; such turnpikes, when paid for, to belong to State, for use free of tolls/
“Senate Bill No. 454, Referendum Petition No. 105, State Question No. 359:
“ ‘Amending turnpike law, as amended by House Bill Number 933, Twenty-fourth Legislature; authorizing' and empowering Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to: construct and operate' that part in Oklahoma of turnpikes between.: Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls, Texas; Tulsa and'Joplin, Missouri ; and Oklahoma City and Wichita, Kansas; issue bonds, payable solely from revenue, to pay for turnpikes; fix tolls; lease concessions; acquire property; repay State not exceeding $1,500.00 per mile survey, preparatory expense; make contracts; fix wages; and do everything necessary to execute granted powers, subject to prescribed limitations;’
“The foregoing titles shall be used, as provided by law, in the submission of said acts of the' Legislature to a vote."
' It will be noted that the opinion proposed and rejected states simply every issue here directly in question' or' that inheres. '34 O.S.1951 § 10.
Everybody ' concedes 'that the issue pointed out is the only issue. Surely nobody doubts the authority of this court to write a title though all those submitted may be: technically sufficient, In re State- Question No. 349,' Initiative' Petition No1. ’249 (Ashton v. Williamson), 203 Okl. 520, 223 P.2d 756. .
Fencing and jockeying for advantageous position should be and can be under the authority and duty of this court obviated. Neither of the titles • proposed will, in my judgment, fairly submit the questions to the voters.
The Attorney General’s substitute title is quoted in the majority opinion and the one I proposed for adoption is hereinbefore set forth. The difference is apparent and my reasons, under the circumstances of this case, are obvious.
The opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Welch, partially at the direction of the conference, State ex rel. Murray v. Beard, supra, amounts to the first announcement •by this court that Section 9, 34 O.S.1951, applies to a referendum petition. I dissented to the opinion and expressed my views. However, by reason of stare de-cisis, I do not now take the position that the titles used by the Legislature in passing the acts and used by Mr. Beard in .obtaining the necessary signatures to the petition to refer .the acts must be used. .Those titles are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution as to titles of all acts of the Legislature, and the requirements of. the statute on referendum and initiative. The 100-word provision of Section 9 is directory. This is conceded by the Attorney General and all lawyers in this case. So the fact that one of the titles used by the Legislature and Mr. Beard contains more than 100 words makes no particular difference. The approval and use of the titles employed by the Legislature would settle now any question of the constitutionality of the acts as far as sufficiency of the titles is concerned. Surely the voters would be better informed, that is if they read the titles on the bállot, and would therefore be in a better position to cast "an intelligent vote. The purpose of the title is to inform the voter of the general contents of 'the act which the voter is voting to approve or disapprove.-
So I say the spirit of the law requiring absolute fairness to the electors would be better sérved- if .the titles used by the Leg*461islature in the passage of the acts and Mr. Beard in securing the signatures to the petitions to refer were used in the submission of the acts to a vote.