Court Opinion

ID: 9544537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:56:39.315212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:08.630725
License: Public Domain

HARGRAVE, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the views expressed in the majority opinion. The single subject .limitation of § 1, Article 24 has indeed been the subject of much litigation. The majority cites Rupe v. Shaw, 286 P.2d 1094, recognizing in that action that the single subject limitation must receive a liberal, rather than a narrow or technical construction. Our review of the single subject limitation there resolved that provisions governing projects so related as to constitute a single scheme, and matters germane to the same general subject, or within the field of legislation suggested thereby, may be included. We additionally noted in *620Rupe, supra, details provided for the accomplishment of this general purpose may be regarded as incidents of the general design although they subserve other purposes than the main purpose.
Rupe is directly on point here, and its strictures require me to conclude the single subject limitation is satisfied in the initiative petition before us now. The general purpose of the regulation of trade in alcoholic beverages is accomplished through various details which all subserve the general purpose. I would therefore submit the proposal to the voters, upon determination of a proper number of valid signators.