397, State Question No. 767, Take Shelter Okla. & Kristi Conatzer v. State (In re Number)

Decision Date21 April 2014
Docket NumberNo. 112264.,112264.
Citation326 P.3d 496
PartiesIn re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 397, STATE QUESTION NO. 767, Take Shelter Oklahoma and Kristi Conatzer, Petitioners, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Attorney General, E. Scott Pruitt, Respondent.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal of Attorney General's Ballot Title.

¶ 0 Proponents of an initiative petition brought an appeal in this Court challenging the ballot title prepared by the Oklahoma Attorney General for the proposed initiative. We hold that: 1. A proponent of an initiative petition must file or submit a copy of the initiative petition and a copy of the ballot title to the Attorney General when the proponent files the initiative petition and ballot title with the Secretary of State, 34 O.S. § 9(A) & (B); 2. The Attorney General must file a response to a ballot title within five business days from the date the ballot title is filed with the Secretary of State, 34 O.S. § 9(D); 3. The Attorney General's § 9(D) response to a ballot title is statutorily effective although the Attorney General's response was filed two days late; 4. A proponent of an initiative who challenges a ballot title prepared by the Attorney General has the burden to show that the Attorney General's ballot title is legally incorrect, or is not impartial, or fails to accurately reflect the effects of the proposed initiative; 5. The Attorney General's ballot title challenged in this proceeding is legally correct, impartial, and accurately reflects the effects of the proposed initiative; 6. When a ballot title appeal has been made, a proponent's ninety-day period of time to collect signatures commences when the ballot title appeal is final.

BALLOT TITLE PREPARED BY THE OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLARED TO BE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE.

David R. Slane and Richard Morrissette, Oklahoma City, for CoPetitioners/Proponents, Take Shelter Oklahoma, Kristi Conatzer.

Neal Leader, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Charles S. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for Respondent State of Oklahoma, ex rel Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt.

EDMONDSON, J.

¶ 1 On Sept. 18, 2013, Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question 767 was filed with Secretary of State. The Initiative Petition proposes amendments to the State Constitution with an ultimate primary purpose of constructing storm shelters for schools. Proponents also filed with the Secretary of State a proposed ballot title for their proposed Initiative.

¶ 2 The Oklahoma Attorney General disagreed with Proponents' ballot title and then prepared and filed with the Secretary of State a new ballot title for the Initiative. Proponents disagreed with the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General and sought relief from this Court by filing an appeal from the new ballot title. Proponents' application for an order to disqualify the Attorney General from participation in this proceeding was withdrawn by counsel for Proponents during oral argument before the Court en banc and need not be addressed.

I. Attorney General's Jurisdiction to File a New Ballot Title

Proponents claim that the Attorney General lost jurisdiction to file a new ballot title because the Attorney General's objection to Proponents' ballot title was untimely filed with the Secretary of State.

¶ 3 On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question 767, was filed with Secretary of State by Proponents. On Thursday, September 19, 2013, the Secretary of State sent a notice by Interagency Mail to the Attorney General that an initiative petition had been filed and submitted a copy of the ballot title to the Attorney General. The Attorney General states that the notice from the Secretary of State was received on Friday, September 20, 2013. On Friday September 27, 2013, the Attorney General filed with the Secretary of State a notice that the ballot title did not comply with applicable laws, and that pursuant to 34 O.S.2011 § 9(D) he would prepare and supply to the Secretary of State a ballot title within ten days. On October 11, 2013, the Attorney General filed a ballot title with the Secretary of State.

¶ 4 Proponents argue that the Attorney General has five business days from the date the ballot title is filed with the Secretary of State to file an objection to a ballot title. They submit that they filed the ballot title on Wednesday September, 18, 2013, and that the Attorney General's objection filed on Friday, September 27, 2013, was beyond the five-day limit. They contend that the Attorney General lost jurisdiction to file an objection when the five-day period expired.

¶ 5 The Attorney General argues that the five-day period for him to file an objection to a ballot title commences when a ballot title is filed with the Attorney General by a proponent. The Attorney General submits that the Proponent failed to file the ballot title with the Attorney General and that this five-day period never commenced. Proponents argue that they are not required to file copies of a proposed initiative and ballot title with the Attorney General. The Attorney General also argues that his objection to the ballot title was filed with the Secretary of State within five business days from the date he received copies of the initiative petition and ballot title from the Secretary of State via interagency mail.

¶ 6 The parties have different views on the meaning of language in 34 O.S.2011 § 9(A), (B), & (D). The relevant language states that:

A. When a referendum is ordered by petition of the people against any measure passed by the Legislature or when any measure is proposed by initiative petition, whether as an amendment to the Constitution or as a statute, it shall be the duty of the parties submitting the measure to prepare and file one copy of the measure with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General.

34 O.S.2011 § 9(A) (emphasis added).

B. The parties submitting the measure shall also submit a suggested ballot title which shall be filed on a separate sheet of paper and shall not be deemed part of the petition....

34 O.S.2011 § 9(B) (emphasis added).

D. The following procedures shall apply to ballot titles of referendums ordered by a petition of the people or any measure proposed by an initiative petition:

1. After the filing of the petition and prior to the gathering of signatures thereon,the Secretary of State shall submit the proposed ballot title to the Attorney General for review as to legal correctness. Within five (5) business days after the filing of the measure and ballot title, the Attorney General shall, in writing, notify the Secretary of State whether or not the proposed ballot title complies with applicable laws....

34 O.S.2001 § 9(D)(1) (emphasis added).

¶ 7 Section 9(A) states that the parties submitting the measure” must prepare and file one copy of the “measure” with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General In § 9(A) “submitting the measure” identifies who is required to file a copy of the measure with both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State.

¶ 8 Section 9(B) states that the parties “submitting the measure” “shall also submit a suggested ballot title....” Section 9(B) does not expressly identify the Secretary of State, Attorney General or both are to receive the submitted ballot title. However, a party's duty to submit the ballot title is expressly stated to be performed with the act of submitting the proposed measure to the Attorney General and Secretary of State.Section 9(B) plainly states that the parties “submitting the measure” shall also submit a suggested ballot title.

¶ 9 The primary goal in reviewing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent, if possible, from a reading of the statutory language in its plain and ordinary meaning.1 This is so because the plain words of a statute are deemed to express legislative authorial intent in the absence of any ambiguity or conflict in language. 2 The test for ambiguity in a statute is whether the statutory language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.3 Generally, and consistent with a court's construction of alleged ambiguity in a contract,4 a judicial determination of the presence of more than one reasonable construction of the statutory language, i.e., ambiguity, presents a question of law 5 because the determination that a statutory construction is reasonable is based initially on a plain meaning of the words in the statute where no fact is disputed.6 The plain language of § 9(A) & (B) states that the ballot title is submitted with the measure, and the measure is submitted to both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. We hold that Proponents were required to file or submit a copy of initiative petition and a copy of the ballot title to the Attorney General when they filed the initiative petition and ballot title with the Secretary of State.

¶ 10 The next argument made by the parties is whether the five business days for the Attorney General to object to a ballot title commence on (1) the day a proponent files the initiative petition and ballot title with the Secretary of State, or (2) the date the initiative petition and ballot title are filed with the Attorney General, or (3) the date the Attorney General receives notice from the Secretary of State that an initiative petition and ballot title have been filed.

¶ 11 The Attorney General's argument is that 34 O.S. § 9 should be construed to mean that the filed copy of the ballot title which it reviews for legal correctness is the one filed with the Attorney General, and that the filing of this copy with the Attorney General is also the event which commences the Attorney's General's five-day period to file an objection to the ballot title. We reject that construction of 34 O.S. § 9, as contrary to the plain language of that statute.

¶ 12 The statutory language providing the Attorney General five business days...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • I. T. K. v. Mounds Pub. Sch.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 24, 2019
    ... ... , date of loss, and insurance claim number. The adjuster's letter requested information ... , but the Journal Entry of Judgment does not state such; 2. Trial court erred in applying 51 O.S ... application here is simply this: (1) A question of law is presented, and reviewed de novo , ... 8 1924 OK 393, 102 Okla. 12, 226 P. 45. 9 Chandler , 747 P.2d at 942, ... 32 Conway , 1983 OK 83, 669 P.2d at 767. 33 Conway , 1983 OK 83, 669 P.2d at 767. 34 ... 77 In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767 , 2014 OK 23, 18, 326 ... ...
  • State v. Pigg (In re M.K.T.)
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2016
    ... ... it was in hopes that, uh, it would take the matter out ofout of the Tribe's hands." He ... 32 She testified about the number of people in her life and that of the child, and ... She responded affirmatively to counsel's question that she was asking the district court "to find ... Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Okla., 1996 OK 41, 913 P.2d 1339, 1345. 34 ... 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23, 39, 326 ... ...
  • Shepard v. Okla. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2015
    ... ... to make a statute retroactive is a question of law examined de novo and independently of ... that the People have created sources of our state law that are constitutionally arranged in a ... 17 Tyler v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 OK 9, 1, 184 P.3d 496. See ... ). 20 In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23, 37, 326 ... ...
  • Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 23, 2019
    ... ... General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the State of Oklahoma. Amy Sherry Fischer, Foliart Huff ... Dollars ($350,000.00), regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or ... See Okla. Const. art. 23, 7 ("The right of action to ... 2011 61.2(B)(F) is unconstitutional, we take care to emphasize that "[t]his Court does not ... application does not address the question presented concerning the cap and a Legislature's ... In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767 , 2014 OK 23, 39, 326 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT