Okla. Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 19 March 2018
• Docket Number: Case Number: 116682
• Parties: OKLAHOMA OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION and David S. Sikes, Petitioners, v. Michael O. THOMPSON, Mary Lynn Peacher, and Ray H. Potts, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

414 P.3d 345

OKLAHOMA OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION and David S. Sikes, Petitioners,

v.Michael O. THOMPSON, Mary Lynn Peacher, and Ray H. Potts, Respondents.

Case Number: 116682

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Decided: March 19, 2018

V. Glenn Coffee and Denise Lawson, Glenn Coffee & Associates, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners.

Joel L. Wohlgemuth, Ryan A. Ray, Alix R. Newman, Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter Barnett & Ray, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondents.

COMBS, C.J.

¶1 On December 20, 2017, Respondents Michael O. Thompson, Mary Lynn Peacher, and Ray H. Potts (collectively, Proponents) filed Initiative Petition No. 416, State Question No. 795 (IP 416) with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. IP 416 would create a new Article XIII-C in the Oklahoma Constitution. IP 416 contains 8 sections, which Proponents assert will levy a new 5% gross production tax on oil and gas production from certain wells, and provide for the deposit of the proceeds primarily in a new fund entitled the "Oklahoma Quality Instruction Fund" (the Fund). Monies from the Fund will be distributed: 1) 90% to common school districts of the State of Oklahoma to increase compensation and benefits for certified personnel, and the hiring, recruitment and retention thereof; and 2) 10% to the State Department of Education to promote school readiness, and to support compensation for instructors and other instructional expenses in "high-quality early learning centers" for at-risk children prior to entry into the common education system.

¶2 Section 1 of IP 416 creates the Fund. Section 2 creates the Oklahoma Quality Instruction Reserve Fund to ensure the Fund always has sufficient resources, and provides mechanisms for the transfer of monies. Section 3 levies a 5% tax on the gross value of the production of oil, gas, or oil and gas from all oil and gas wells spudded after July 1, 2015, during the first thirty-six months of production, commencing with the month of first production, from and after the effective date of the article. Section 4 provides for a $4,000 increase in compensation for certified personnel, including teachers, but excluding superintendents and assistant superintendents. Section 5 provides for the distribution of funds according to the percentage scheme noted in the previous paragraph above. Section 6 attempts to ensure that the new funds will be used to supplement existing funding rather than supplant it, and grants the Board of Equalization the power to specify the amount that was supplanted or replaced, preventing the Legislature from making appropriations until it makes an appropriation to replace the supplanted amount. Sections 7 and 8 provide an effective date and severability provision, respectively.

¶3 On January 10, 2018, Petitioners Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association and David A. Sikes (collectively, Protestants), timely filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction in this Court protesting the sufficiency of IP 416 and the basis that it fails to pass constitutional muster.

I.STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 "The first power reserved by the people is the initiative...." Okla. Const. art. 5, § 2 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 409, State Question No. 785 , 2016 OK 51, ¶ 2, 376 P.3d 250 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 403, State Question No. 779 , 2016 OK 1, ¶ 3, 367 P.3d 472. With that reservation comes "the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature." Okla. Const. art. 5, § 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 409 , 2016 OK 51 at ¶ 2, 376 P.3d 250 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 3, 367 P.3d 472. "The right of the initiative is precious, and it is one which this Court is zealous to preserve to the fullest measure of the spirit and the letter of the law." In re Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729 , 2006 OK 45, ¶ 3, 142 P.3d 400. See In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642 , 1992 OK 122, ¶ 35, 838 P.2d 1.

¶5 However, while the fundamental and precious right of initiative petition is zealously protected by this Court, it is not absolute. Any citizen can protest the sufficiency and legality of an initiative petition. In re Initiative Petition No. 409 , 2016 OK 51 at ¶ 2, 376 P.3d 250 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 384, State Question No. 731 , 2007 OK 48, ¶ 2, 164 P.3d 125. "Upon such protest, this Court must review the petition to ensure that it complies with the ‘parameters of the rights and restrictions [as] established by the Oklahoma Constitution, legislative enactments and this Court's jurisprudence.’ " In re Initiative Petition No. 384 , 2007 OK 48 at ¶ 2, 164 P.3d 125 (quoting In re Initiative Petition No. 379, State Question No. 726 , 2006 OK 89, ¶ 16, 155 P.3d 32 ).

¶6 This Court has generally refused to declare a ballot initiative invalid in advance of a vote of the people except where there is a clear or manifest showing of unconstitutionality. In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 3, 367 P.3d 472 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658 , 1994 OK 27, ¶ 7, 870 P.2d 782. We have repeatedly emphasized both how vital the right of initiative is to the people of Oklahoma, as well as the degree to which we must protect it:

"Because the right of the initiative is so precious, all doubt as to the construction of pertinent provisions is resolved in favor of the initiative. The initiative power should not be crippled, avoided, or denied by technical construction by the courts. "

In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 3, 367 P.3d 472 (quoting In re Initiative Petition No. 382 , 2006 OK 45 at ¶ 3, 142 P.3d 400 ).

Accordingly, Opponents in this matter bear the burden of demonstrating the proposed initiative petition is clearly and manifestly unconstitutional. In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 3, 367 P.3d 472 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question No. 669 , 1995 OK 77, ¶ 12, 899 P.2d 1145.

II.ANALYSIS

¶7 Opponents in this matter allege IP 416 is insufficient and must not be submitted to the voters as it stands because it is unconstitutional. Opponents challenge the constitutionality of IP 416 on the grounds that it violates the single-subject requirements of Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1. Opponents raise two general arguments concerning the application of Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1 in this cause. First, Opponents argue this Court should overrule In re Initiative Petition No. 403, State Question No. 779 , 2016 OK 1, 367 P.3d 472, and instead of the "germaneness" standard applied in that cause adopt a "one general subject" standard in keeping with what Opponents argue is the plain language of Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1. Second, Opponents assert IP 416 violates Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1 because it combines multiple distinct subjects, including granting expansive powers to the Board of Equalization in Section 6.

A. In re Initiative Petition No. 403, State Question No. 779, 2016 OK 1, 367 P.3d 472 remains good law.

¶8 Opponents concede that in the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 403, State Question No. 779 , 2016 OK 1, 367 P.3d 472, this Court determined an almost identical initiative petition to the one at issue in this cause did not violate the single-subject rule of Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1. In that cause, this Court applied a "germaneness test" to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment by new article violated the single subject-requirements of Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1. In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 10, 367 P.3d 472. We summed up the test in the following manner:

"when the proposed constitutional amendment is by a new article the test for gauging multiplicity of subjects is whether the changes proposed are all germane to a singular common subject and purpose or are essentially unrelated to one another."

In re Initiative Petition No. 403 , 2016 OK 1 at ¶ 10, 367 P.3d 472 (quoting In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672 , 1996 OK 122, ¶ 15, 927 P.2d 558 ).

¶9 Opponents argue against the continued application of this test, and for this Court to overrule In re Initiative Petition No. 403 . To do so would be a departure from the rule of stare decisis . Simply stated, stare decisis means to abide by decided cases. Fent v. State ex rel. Okla. Capitol Imp. Auth. , 2009 OK 15, n.12, 214 P.3d 799 ; Rodgers v. Higgins , 1993 OK 45, ¶ 28, 871 P.2d 398. This doctrine serves to remove any capricious element from the law and grant it stability over time. Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. , 2003 OK 69, n.24, 81 P.3d 55 ; Fent , 2009 OK 15 at n.12, 214 P.3d 799 ; Rodgers , 1993 OK 45 at ¶ 28, 871 P.2d 398. Only those precedents that are patently bad should be altered by judicial correction. Sisk , 2003 OK 69 at ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 55 ; Rodgers , 1993 OK 45 at ¶ 28, 871 P.2d 398. In Rodgers , this Court discussed the factors we should be mindful of when called upon to reassess our commitment to prior holdings as binding precedent:

(1) whether the rule has proved to be intolerable by defying practical workability,

(2) whether the rule is subject to the sort of reliance that would add special hardship to the consequences of overruling and inequity to the cost of repudiation,

(3) whether related principles of law have developed so far that the old rule remains no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine and (4) whether facts have so changed or come to be viewed so differently that the old rule has been robbed of significant application or justification.

1993 OK 45 at ¶ 29, 871 P.2d 398 (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833, 854-55, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2808-09, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) ).

¶10 Opponents do not address any of these factors directly, but they do make several arguments addressing why the germaneness test is improper. First, they assert it conflicts with the plain...