Court Opinion

ID: 9544536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:56:39.311407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:08.629930
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
dissenting:
The immediate cause of this action is the strongly contested and perhaps quixotic liquor by the drink issue. Of more importance to the people of this state, as it approaches the 21st Century, is the basic, fundamental and far reaching result effected by the majority opinion. The opinion acts to limit a guaranteed and reserved power in the people: the right to initiate legislation.
I agree with the majority opinion that “[cjourts do not concern themselves with the expediency or wisdom of law, but only with their (sic) legality.”1 Yet, the majority opinion would usurp the judgmental decision of that proposed constitutional amendment rather than allow that judgment to be made by the people.
The right of amendment by initiative petition must not be impaired by any provisions of Art. 24.2 Art. 5, § 1 reserves to the people the power to amend their state constitution. The ultimate power reserved cannot be diminished by application of any part of Art. 24. Art. 5, and not Art. 24, controls the subject matter of this initiative petition. Section 3, Art. 24 prohibits the impairment called for by the majority opinion and was not amended or changed directly or by implication with the amendment of § 1. I agree with the spirit and language of Atwater v. Hassett, supra.3 Section 1, Art. 24 should be construed as a limitation on the legislative referendum process of amending the constitution, and not a limitation on the initiative process of the people. Art. 5, § 1, as to the power reserved to the people, is not subservient to Art. 24. There can be no limitation on the people as to one subject matter in Art. 5, § 1. This is not required of initiated measures, including constitutional amendments.4
*619Assuming the majority opinion correct, I would likewise differ finding no violation in State Question No. 550 of more than one general subject matter.5 Control of alcoholic beverage is the general subject of this initiative petition. All the other provisions are supplemental to that general purpose. The majority opinion draws a fine distinction with such phrases and words as “reasonably germane”, “incidental”, “supplemental”, “administrative detail”, “rational relationship” and “interlocking package”. I have no trouble in applying these “handles” to the amendments provided by the initiative petition under the general subject of alcoholic beverage control. These abstract terms fill the understanding of “one subject matter” with uncertainty. Certainty is not determined by these terms, rather uncertainty is bred.
I further differ from the position of my colleagues inasmuch as Art. 24, § 1, as amended in 1952 by a vote of the people, states:
“... provided, however, that in the submission of proposals for the amendment of this Constitution by articles, which ém-brace one general subject, each proposed article shall be deemed a single proposal or proposition.”
“Logrolling” becomes a major concern of the majority opinion. I balance that with the peoples’ innate understanding as to what is involved. If there is a “bitter” with the “sweet” in this initiated amendment then the individual needs to be able to decide if the “sweet” overcomes the “bitter”, or if the “bitter” is too acid to digest.
The majority opinion determines the subject matter of this initiative petition unconstitutional for it contains more than one subject matter. There should be no court created limitation on initiative amendment process by the people. There is only one general subject matter in the present amendments, that of control of alcoholic beverage.
Although admittedly not factually identical and nor absolutely similar in statutory or constitutional directives, I find the rationale of the following cases and jurisdictions persuasive in upholding the conclusion of Rupe v. Shaw, 286 P.2d 1094, 1097 (1954), that “... such constitutional provisions are to receive a liberal, rather than a narrow or technical construction, which would overthrow proper legislation ...” (Emphasis added). See In Re Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question 408, 373 P.2d 1017 (Okl.1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 949, 83 S.Ct. 502, 9 L.Ed.2d 498; In re Referendum Petition No. 18, State Question No. 437, 417 P.2d 295 (Okl.1966); Bernzen v. City of Boulder, 186 Colo. 81, 525 P.2d 416 (1974); Boucher v. Engstrom, 528 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1974); Colorado Project—Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972); State ex rel. Morris v. Marsh, 183 Neb. 521, 162 N.W.2d 262 (1968).
The sole part of the majority opinion with which I agree is its definition of “legal voters” as that calculated from the number of votes cast in the last general election for the state office receiving the highest number of votes.

. Associated Industries, supra, 55 P.2d 79, 81.

. Art. 24 § 3 provides:
This article shall not impair the right of the people to amend this Constitution by a vote upon an initiative petition therefor.
Art. II, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:
All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform it .. .

. 111 P. p. 804:
“This amendment not having been submitted by virtue of section 1, art. 24, supra, the same has no application to this case. Said amendment was submitted on an initiative petition.”

. In re Initiative Petition Number 259, etc., Okl., 316 P.2d 139, 145 (1957). Subject matter was a proposed constitutional amendment by initiative petition relating to 3.2 beer.
“Art. V, § 57, Okl.Const., provides that every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. This is not required of initiated measures.”

. In re Initiative Petition No. 271, Okl., 373 P.2d 1017 (1962) subject matter was a proposed Constitutional Amendment by initiative petition relating to reapportionment:
“The initiative petition embraces one general subject, the reapportionment of the Legislature, as provided by the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. All the other provisions, such as setting up a committee for its enforcement, are supplemental to the general purpose.” (Italics supplied).