Burns v. Cline

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WATT, J.
• Citation: Burns v. Cline, 2016 OK 99, 382 P.3d 1048 (Okla. 2016)
• Decision Date: 04 October 2016
• Docket Number: Case Number: 114679
• Parties: Larry A. Burns, D.O., on behalf of himself and his patients, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Terry L. Cline, in his official capacity as Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, and Greg Mashburn, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Cleveland, Garvin and McClain Counties, Defendants/Appellees.

382 P.3d 1048

2016 OK 99

Larry A. Burns, D.O., on behalf of himself and his patients, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.Terry L. Cline, in his official capacity as Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, and Greg Mashburn, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Cleveland, Garvin and McClain Counties, Defendants/Appellees.

Case Number: 114679

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Decided: October 4, 2016

J. Blake Patton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant

Zoe Levine, New York, New York, for Appellant

Sarah A. Greenwalt, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees

WATT, J.:

¶ 1 The issue before this Court concerns the constitutionality of SB 642, passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor on June 4, 2015. The effective date of the legislation was November 1, 2015. This legislation includes one section modifying an existing statute relating to abortions, and enacts three unrelated new sections in this same title. We reverse the district court's findings and hold the statute unconstitutional as it violates the single subject rule set forth in Okla. Const. art. 5, 57.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Prior to filing the declaratory action giving rise to this appeal, Burns filed an application with this court to assume original jurisdiction, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, Terry L. Cline, in his official capacity as Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, and Greg Mashburn, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Cleveland, Garvin, and McClain Counties (defendants/State). In the petition for original jurisdiction, Burns asked this Court to find SB 642 unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement.¹ On October 26, 2015, this Court assumed original jurisdiction and ordered a stay of the enforcement of the legislation for 30 days.² After Burns filed his petition for declaratory relief in district court, this Court ordered the stay to remain in effect.³ This appeal arises from Burns' petition for injunction filed in district court and its grant of summary judgment finding SB 642 constitutional and denying injunctive relief. This Court issued an order retaining this appeal on March 2, 2016.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 3 We determine we have authority to address the constitutionality of SB 642. Under Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.3d 789, we acknowledge the heavy burden placed on those who raise constitutional challenges to legislation. This Court favors a statutory construction that upholds the constitutionality of a statute. Oliver v. Hofmeister, 2016 OK 15, 5, 368 P.3d 1270, 1272. This Court does not consider the “propriety, desirability or wisdom” in a statute. Douglas, 2013 OK 37, 302 P.3d at 792. The function of this Court is limited to a determination of whether legislative provision is valid and nothing further. Douglas, supra.

ANALYSIS

¶ 4 Art. 5, 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: “Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title....”⁴ This clause is commonly referred to as the “single subject rule”. The purpose of this constitutional provision is not to impede legislation. Rather it is to insure transparency in the legislative process.⁵ The single subject rule is to prevent the Legislature from making a bill “veto proof” by appending unpopular legislation within popular bills.⁶

¶ 5 We have stated the purposes of this rule are:

1) to ensure that the legislators or voters of Oklahoma are adequately notified of the potential effect of the legislation; and

2) to prevent ‘logrolling’, the practice of assuring the passage of a law by creating one choice in which a legislator or voter is forced to assent to an unfavorable provision to secure passage of a favorable one, or conversely, forced to vote against a favorable provision to ensure that an unfavorable provision is not enacted.⁷

¶ 6 The recognition of this doctrine extends back to statehood.⁸ This constitutional provision acts as a safeguard against enacting legislation which, if introduced as a single bill, could never command the approval of a majority of the legislature.⁹

¶ 7 Defendants advance two theories in support of their argument that SB 642 is constitutional. First, defendants attempt to argue that this legislation does not violate the single subject rule because it is germane, relative and cognate to one subject, the protection of women's reproductive health. Defendants next contend that SB 642 is simply comprehensive legislation, and that this Court has found that comprehensive legislation does not necessarily violate Okla. Const. art. 5, 57. Upon careful review of Oklahoma jurisprudence, we find defendants' arguments are not in accord with our prior decisions on the single subject rule.

Legislation Must be Germane, Relative and Cognate to Satisfy art. 5 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution

¶ 8 Defendants posit that SB 642 is constitutional under the single subject rule, because all sections in this legislation relate to protecting the reproductive health of women. To reinforce this point, the State argues that all four sections in SB 642 simply create enforcement mechanisms and put “teeth into existing laws designed to protect women's reproductive health.”¹⁰

¶ 9 Burns asserts this law fails to satisfy the constitutional mandate of art. 5, 57. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the different provisions of SB 642 impose directives to different state entities for different purposes,¹¹ similar to the law struck down in Oklahoma Capitol. Plaintiff urges that the provisions of this law are so unrelated that legislators voting on the bill were presented with an “all or nothing choice” suggestive of logrolling, the very thing this constitutional provision is designed to prevent. Oklahoma Capitol, supra.; In re Initiative Petition No. 382, 2006 OK 45, 14, 142 P.3d 400, 407–408 ; Nova Health Systems v. Edmondson, 2010 OK 21, 1, 233 P.3d 380, 381–382, (hereinafter Nova Health ).

¶ 10 The sections of SB 642 contain the following provisions:

(a) Section 1, amends 63 O.S. 2011 1–740.4b, adding powers to the Attorney General (A.G.) or the District Attorney (D.A.) to enjoin certain conduct relating to requisite consents for minors seeking abortions;

(b) Section 2, adds a new section of law, authorizing the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigations (OSBI) to create a new forensic protocol for statutory rape investigations;

(c) Section 3, adds a new section of law creating a new licensing and inspection scheme for abortion facilities, directing the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to develop requisite regulatory protocols;

(d) Section 4, adds a new broad-sweeping section, imposing felony penalties as well as civil penalties up to One Hundred Thousand Dollars for a violation of any existing regulation relating to abortion statutes contained in 63 O.S. 2011 1–737.7 to 1–737.16.

¶ 11 We have consistently found legislation is related to one subject when the provisions are “germane, relative, and cognate to a readily apparent common theme and purpose.”¹² However, it is not enough for defendants to simply articulate some rational connection between similar or related provisions.¹³ Instead, our focus is “whether it appears that either the proposal is misleading or provisions in the proposal are so unrelated that many of those voting on the law would be faced with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice.”¹⁴

¶ 12 Section 1 amends 63 O.S. 2011 1–740.4b, dealing with the consent required for an abortion to be performed on a minor and delineating civil and criminal penalties for any violation. The amendment creates a new class of people subject to this prohibition and adds new authority to both the A.G. and D.A. Sections 2 and 3 both place new duties and directives on OSBI and OSDH respectively. Section 4 is a very broad sweeping provision that provides for substantial civil as well as criminal penalties for any violation of any statute contained in 63 O.S. 2011 1–737.7 to 1–737.16.

¶ 13 We reject defendants' arguments and find this legislation violates the single subject rule as each of these sections is so unrelated and misleading that a legislator voting on this matter could have been left with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice.¹⁵ The heart of the single subject rule is to insure constitutional protection that each piece of legislation enacted is worthy of the approval of the voter and to prevent the enactment of unpopular provisions by logrolling or attaching it to a favorable bill. We also find this legislation violates the single subject rule under Oklahoma Capitol, supra., as it delegates authority to three different state agencies.

‘Comprehensive’ Legislation Is Not Determinative of Whether a Bill is Constitutional Under Okla. Const. art. 5, 57.

¶ 14 Although we have already concluded that this legislation fails for violating the single subject rule, we will briefly address defendants' second contention. Defendants assert that SB 642 is simply comprehensive legislation, and that this Court has found that comprehensive legislation does not necessarily violate Okla. Const. art. 5, 57. In this loosely reasoned argument, the State relies on Coates v. Fallin, 2013 OK 108, 316 P.3d 924, (hereinafter “Coates ”) and Thomas v. Henry , 2011 OK 53, 260 P.3d 1251, (hereinafter “Thomas ”). Defendants' position is not supported by these cases.

¶ 15 Defendants' interpretation of Coates is misleading and not in accord with this Court's findings and narrow pronouncement in this published order. The central constitutional challenge in Coates was whether Senate Bill 1062, 2013 Okla. Sess. Laws, Ch. 208, (SB 1062), as a multiple subject bill, violated Okla. Const. art. 5, 57. SB 1062 repealed the Workers' Compensation Code,¹⁶ replacing it with three separate acts.¹⁷ The petitioner in Coates urged enacting legislation with three separate acts was unconstitutional logrolling under art. 5, 57. We examined SB 1062 under the guidance...