Court Opinion

ID: 9559098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:22:39.835285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:48.537548
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The following facts are deemed necessary to a full understanding of the issues here involved. The Twenty-fourth Legislature adopted in the 1953 regular session, H.B.No. 933, approved May 7, 1953, c. 6a, p. 357, S. L. 1953, 69 O.S.Supp. § 652 et seq., providing for the construction, financing, and operating of turnpikes, and Senate Bill No. 454, approved June 8, 1953, c. .6b, p. 370, S.L. 1953, 69 O.S.Supp. §§ 654, 655, 674, dealing generally. with the same subjects and amending, some sections of H.B.No. 933.
Prior to the effective dates of these acts Lyman Beard and others filed with the Secretary of State Referendum Petition No. 105, State Question No. 359 as to Senate Bill No. 454 and Referendum Petition No. 106, State Question No. 360 as to.H.B.No. 933, and on .September 10, 1953, these parties filed with the Secretary of State petitions signed by sufficient number -of citizens who were legal voters to entitle them to have the above action referred to the voters of the State for approval or rejection. After due notice and no protest, the' Secretary of State declared these petitions sufficient to order the two acts' mentioned referred! to the- people for a vote on whether they should become the law. ■ • ■
Since no appeal was -taken from the order of the Secretary of State holding the *458petitions sufficient for a referendum of the two acts mentioned within ten days from the date the petitions were filed, as provided by Sec. 9, 34 O.S. 1951, the approval order of the Secretary of State became final.
The proponents of the petitions failed to submit a ballot title for either question as required by Sec. 9, 34 O.S. 1951. The State brought an action to compel the proponents to file ballot titles immediately. On December 7, 1953, this Court handed down an opinion, State ex rel. Murray v. Beard, 264 P.2d 305, ordering respondents in that action to submit ballot titles within five days, and upon their failure to do so, ordered that the Attorney General should submit ballot titles. The respondents submitted ballot titles within the time provided in the order of the Court.
Pursuant to Title 34 O.S. 1951 § 9, the Attorney General prepared and submitted two ballot titles and filed them with the Secretary of State. They are as follows:
“Ballot Title
“State Question No. 359
Referendum Petition No. 105
“The Gist of the Proposition is as Follows:
“Shall Senate Bill Number 454, Twenty-fourth Oklahoma Legislature
“ ‘Relating to Toll Turnpike and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority; amending Chapter 6, Title 69, Oklahoma Statutes 1951, as amended by House Bill Number 933, Twenty-fourth Oklahoma Legislature; relating to construction, operation and maintenance of Oklahoma portions of toll turnpikes from Tulsa to Joplin, Missouri, Oklahoma City to Wichita, Kansas, and Oklahoma City to Wichita Falls, Texas; correcting typographical errors; relating to turnpike routes, wages and contracts; requiring repayment to State Highway Commission from turnpike bonds for cost of engineering services furnished not exceeding $1,500.00 per turnpike mile,’
“be approved by the people?
□ Yes
“Shall Senate Bill Number 454 be Approved:
□ No.”
“Ballot Title
“State Question No. 360
Referendum Petition No. 106
“The Gist of the Proposition is as Follows:
“Shall House Bill Number 933, Twenty-fourth Oklahoma Legislature
“ ‘Concerning Toll Turnpikes; Amending Chapter 6, Title 69, Oklahoma Statutes 1951, and reenacting part thereof; relating to construction, operation and maintenance of Oklahoma portions of toll turnpikes from Tulsa to Joplin, Missouri, Oklahoma City to Wichita, Kansas, and Oklahoma City to Wichita Falls, Texas; providing for creation, legal succession, powers and duties of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and removal of members by Governor; relating to turnpike finances, concessions, routes, revenues, bonds payable solely from revenues, property, facilities, condemnation procedure, and rights of affected common -carriers and public utilities,
“be approved by the people ?
□ Yes
“Shall House Bill Number 933 be Approved?
□ No.”
On December 17, 1953, J. W. Covey, as a resident citizen and taxpayer of this State for himself and others similarly situated gave notice and filed an appeal from the action of the Attorney General in filing the two ballot titles as above set out with the Secretary of State, and submitted two ballot titles prepared by the appealing party and prayed that they be substituted in lieu of those prepared and filed by the Attorney General. At a hearing on December 21, 1953, J. W. Covey appeared and submitted for filing two additional ballot titles and prayed that they be approved and substituted for those submitted by the Attorney General and those first submitted by J. W. Covey on December 17, 1953.
The questions before the Court are (1) Do the ballot titles submitted contain the gist or substance of the Legislative Acts to be referred to the people for a vote, and thus sufficiently apprise the people of the principal aims and purposes of the meas*459ures they are to approve or disapprove? (2)Are the ballot titles submitted sufficient to meet the above requirements? and (3) Are the ballot titles submitted by the Attorney General sufficient to advise the voters of the measures to be voted upon?
In the case of In re State Question No. 171, Initiative Petition No. 116 (Taylor v. King), 157 Okla. 119, 120, 11 P.2d 160, it was held that this Court would generally accept a title submitted by the Attorney General where the same is found to be legal and sufficient. The syllabus is as follows :
“This court, on appeal from a ballot title prepared and filed by the Attorney General to an initiative measure, will, as a general rule, accept and adopt the title prepared and filed by him where it complies with the law and is sufficient to fairly submit to the people the measure to be voted upon, even though the ballot title prepared and filed by the proponent may also in all respects comply with the law.”
It will be noted that in the case above cited, it was an initiative measure that was involved, but the same rule is applicable to a referendum matter, as appears from the ruling of this Court in In re State Question No. 236, Referendum Petition No. 73 (Patterson v. Williamson), 183 Okl. 467, 83 P.2d 572, 573, where it was said in the body of the opinion:
“(2) In such circumstances it has been held by this court that the title prepared by the Attorney General will, as a general rule, be approved on appeal, even though the title prepared and filed by proponent may also comply with the law in all respects. Taylor v. King, supra; In re State Question' No. 171, Initiative Petition 116, 157 Okl. 119, 11 P.2d 160.”
In the case of In re State Question No. 349, Initiative Petition No. 249 (Ashton v. Williamson), 203 Okl. 520, 223 P.2d 756, it was said in the body of the opinion:
“(1) Where the Attorney General disapproves the ballot title submitted by proponent of an initiated measure, and prepares and files a title with the Secretary of State, any person may appeal to this court from the title so prepared and submitted; this court, on appeal, may approve said title, or may approve a substitute title offered by appellant, or may prepare one.”
Under the foregoing decisions it is clear that the court may approve the ballot titles submitted by the Attorney General if they are found to contain the gist of the respective questions referred to the people.
If the ballot titles submitted by the Attorney General are found sufficient, they are generally approved regardless of the sufficiency of those submitted by others.
After careful examination of all the ballot titles submitted, we find that those submitted by the Attorney General fairly express the gist or substance of the questions referred to the people for their approval or rejection and are hereby approved and adopted as legal and sufficient to submit to the voters the questions proposed in H.B.No. 933, and Senate Bill No. 454 enacted by the Twenty-fourth Legislature, and the Secretary of State is directed to proceed in accordance with this decision.
HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
ARNOLD and WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.