Court Opinion

ID: 5178158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 01:21:38.55269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:27.668311
License: Public Domain

COMBS, V.C.J.,
with whom KAUGER, J., joins, concurring specially;
1 I agree with the majority's conclusion that addressing the substantive constitutional issues raised by the parties is inappropriate at this time, and with the decision to affirm the order of the trial court. I write separately, however, to emphasme the need for timeliness in any pre-election constitutional challenge in causes similar to this one.
T2 As the majority notes, this Court originally declined to inject itself into pre-election controversies concerning the constitutionality of initiative petitions, Threadgill v. Cross, 1910 OK 165, 26 Okla, 408, 109 P. 558. Over the years, the Court has departed from Threadgill and has become more willing to consider pre-election challenges to the constitutionality of initiative petitions if doing so could prevent a costly and unnecessary election due to facial unconstitutionality. See In re: Initiative Petition No. 366, State Question No. 689, 2002 OK 21, ¶ 4, 46 P.3d 123; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122, ¶¶ 1-2, 838 P.2d 1; In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Okla. Numbered 74-1 and 74-2, 1975 OK 836, ¶19, 534 P.2d 3.
18 The majority declines to firmly adopt this Court's post-Threadgill jurisprudence concerning initiative petitions and apply it to the legislative referendum process. Even were the Court to do so, however, I believe we should not intervene because of the time frame in which this cause was presented to the Court.
f 4 The process for this referendum began when the Oklahoma Legislature adopted House Joint Resolution 1012 on April 30, 2015, Pursuant to 84 0.8. Supp. 2015 $ 9(C), the Secretary of State submitted the proposed ballot title to the Attorney General for review on May 4, 2015, After declaring the ballot title deficient and rewriting it more than once, the Attorney General submitted the final ballot title on June 10, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Governor issued an executive proclamation declaring SQ 777 be placed on the November 8, 2016, ballot. Many months passed before the lawsuit which is the subject of this appeal was filed in the district court on March 1, 2016. While Plaintiffs/Appellants bided their time, the date of the election drew ever closer.
T5 The Legislature has not provided any statutory timeframe for a pre-election constitutional challenge to legislative referendums, as it has done with initiative petitions in the form of 84 0.8. Supp. 2015 § 8(B)1 In fact, *1224Title 34 makes no mention of constitutional challenges to legislative referendums at all. The same is not true of challenges to the ballot titles of legislative referendums, where 34 0.8. Supp. 2015 $ 10 specifically prohibits appeals concerning the ballot titles of constitutional and legislative enactments proposed by the legislature.
T6 Regardless, this Court has previously stressed the importance of timeliness in election and ballot related matters. In In re: Legislative Referendum No. 384, State Question 711, 2004 OK 75, 107 P.3d 556 (as corrected Sept. 28, 2004), this Court declined to assume original jurisdiction over a challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative referendum to add a provision to the Oklahoma Constitution. Writing separately, Justice Kauger stressed the importance of timeliness in a challenge such as this one, stating:
4 The law fixes election dates and the petitioners are well aware that the question is scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, general election ballot. They should also be aware of the necessary work required, the time consumed and the cost of causing the ballots to be printed. It is the duty of the petitioners to proceed with the utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum their claimed rights.
"T5 Laches may bar the right to challenge the balloting process. Although the time 'has long passed since this Court, when presented with a timely constitutional challenge, will refuse to address a blatantly unconstitutional measure to prevent the costly expenditure of public revenues on needless elections, the challenge must be timely made.
In re: Legislative Referendum No. 334, State Question 711, 2004 OK 75, ¶¶ 4-5, 107 P.3d 556 (Kauger, J., concurring specially) (footnotes omitted).
T7 Additionally, this Court has long acknowledged the right to challenge the balloting process in other election matters may be lost by unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Evans v. State Election Bd., 1990 OK 132, ¶¶ 12-16, 804 P.2d 1125 (holding challenge to Election Board's. ruling 115 days later and post-election challenge to a deceased individual's inclusion on the ballot barred by laches); Wickersham v. State Election Bd., 1960 OK 245, [ 15, 357 P.2d 421 (holding the matter of the eligibility of a candidate for an office must be adjudicated at an early date and before an election is held); Harding v. State Election Bd., 1946 OK 171, ¶ 2, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208 (holding concerning election matters that "time is of the essence and that it was the duty of the petitioner to proceed with utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum his claimed rights.").
T8 The lengthy delay between the Governor's proclamation and the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants prejudices the courts. Any pre-election constitutional challenge to a legislative referendum would require the same careful review as that devoted to initiative petitions, As this Court explained:
In essence, our cases set out our discretionary authority to reach clear and manifest facial constitutional challenges at the preelection stage if, in our opinion, to do so will prevent the holding of a costly and unnecessary election. Although we have used this discretionary authority on numerous occasions we must not forget it is of a discretionary character and, in our view, we must always keep in mind, before exercising such authority, the fundamental basis of the people's right to institute change and express their will through the initiative process, Only in the clearest cases do we believe it is essential to use the discretionary authority, and only in the clearest cases do we believe it is warranted to interfere with the people's basic right to vote on important issues by a holding of constitutional infirmity.
In re Initiative Petition No. 360, State Question No. 662, 1994 OK 97, ¶ 11, 879 P.2d 810.
This Court cannot permit potential challengers to bide their time until the ballot printing and election deadlines loom, in an attempt to force an adjudication quickly. We cannot per*1225mit a flood of late-filed suits that must be resolved before ballot printing lest the State be forced to reprint the ballots at significant expense. If a pre-election challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative referendum is to be made and considered by the courts, it must be made in a timely fashion.

. 34 0.S. Supp. 2015 § 8(B) provides:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to cause to be published, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the state, a notice of such filing and the apparent sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition, and shall include *1224notice that any citizen or citizens of the state may file a protest as to the constitutionality of the petition, by a written notice to the Supreme Court and to the proponent or proponents filing the petition. Any such protest must be filed within ten (10) business days after publication. A copy of the protest shall be filed with the Secretary of State.