Court Opinion

ID: 9554037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:40:31.663824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:52.633293
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would view the matter more liberally and would allow the voters of Oklahoma to pass on whether a majority of them wishes to repeal entirely the present Article 9 in favor of the new proposed Article 9. Because of the provision in Section 3 of Article XXIV that:
“This article shall not impair the right of the people to amend this Constitution by a vote upon an initiative petition therefor.”
and because Section 1 appears to treat a proposed amendment of the Constitution by article as “a single proposal or proposition,” I would declare the petition valid.
In the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 314, State Question No. 550, 625 P.2d 595, Okla.1981 on page 608 appears the following:
The changes sought by the multifarious proposal could have been effected either by submission of three separate proposals or a submission amending, under Art. 24, § 1, the entirety of Art. 27, as an amendment by article, as was done in 1959 when prohibition was repealed and (a new) Art. 27 was submitted and adopted by a vote of the people.
The majority opinion seems to take the position that because the present Article 9 contains many varied and different matters, the people are limited to repealing that article subject by subject. In my view this is inconsistent with the power of the initiative petition contained in the Oklahoma Constitution.
I am authorized to state that OPALA, V.C.J., concurs in the views expressed herein.