Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408, In re

• Decision Date: 16 July 1962
• Docket Number: No. 40043,40043
• Citation: 373 P.2d 1017
• Parties: In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 271, STATE QUESTION NO. 408. M. A. PRICE, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes, Appellants, v. William N. CHRISTIAN, Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1017

373 P.2d 1017

1962 OK 178

In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 271, STATE QUESTION NO. 408 M. A. PRICE, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes, Appellants, v. William N. CHRISTIAN, Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. 40043.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 16, 1962.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The submission of Initiative Petition No. 266, State Question No. 397, amending the Constitution as to the reapportionment of the legislature did not prevent the validity of Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408, on the ground that it must contain 25 per cent of the legal voters as provided by Art. 5, Sec. 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution as the two initiative petitions involve measures that are substantially different.

2. Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408 does not violate Art. 24, Sec. 1, of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides that more than one subject cannot be submitted as an amendment to the Constitution.

3. Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408, reviewed and examined and held sufficient.

Original action brought by M. A. Price, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes as protestants and appellants to review the order of the Secretary of State declaring valid Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408. Petition declared sufficient.

Allen & Williams, Chickasha, James A. Rinehart, El Reno, Hirsh & Harkins, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Norman E. Reynolds, Jr., V. P. Crowe, John C. Moran, Oklahoma City, Dale J. Briggs, Tulsa, for appellee.

DAVISON, Justice.

This proceeding was commenced by M. C. Price, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes as protestants and appellants under the provisions of 34 O.S.1961 § 8, to review the order of the Secretary of State declaring valid and sufficient Initiative Petition No. 271, State Question No. 408, which has for its purpose the amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma relating to reapportionment of the State Legislature. The completed petition was filed with the Secretary of State December 27, 1961. The Secretary of State counted as valid 219,686 signatures. Only 135,472 legal signatures were necessary to validate the petition.

On March 20, 1962, the Secretary of State entered an order finding the petition sufficient. The petition was filed in this Court March 27, 1962, and was referred to a Referee of the Court March 28, 1962. The cause was set by the Referee for hearing on April 2, 1962, and at the request of the protestants was continued for 30 days, being set for May 2, 1962.

Protestants introduced evidence of certain irregularities affecting approximately 7,000 purported signers. The protestants then asked for a continuance and further continuance was denied by the Referee, whereupon protestants filed a motion for continuance with the Court which motion was set for oral argument on May 28, 1962. The Court denied any further continuances and directed that briefs be filed.

The Court finds that the protestants have failed to make any substantial showing that there could be any probable defect in sufficient signatures to invalidate the petition in so far as the required number of signers is concerned and finds that the petition contains in excess of 135,472 valid signatures, the required number for its sufficiency.

In its order to brief the Court authorized and directed submission of questions pointing out any defects in the petition other than the number of signers required.

Protestants have filed a brief and first argue that Initiative Petition No. 266, State Question 397, which was submitted in 1960 and defeated at a special election prevents the consideration and validity of the present petition because of the provisions of Art. 5, Section 6, of the Constitution of Oklahoma. That provision is as follows:

'Any measure rejected by the people, through the powers of the initiative and referendum, cannot be again proposed by the initiative within three years thereafter by less than twenty-five per centum of the legal voters.'

If it is determined that the two measures are substantially the same there would then be insufficient signatures to validate the present petition because of the above constitutional limitation.

Protestants rely on Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti, Atty. Gen. v. Lawrence, 326 Pa. 526, 193 A. 46. In Armstrong v. King, 281 Pa. 207, 126 A. 263, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in discussing the right to amend the constitution of that state held that no amendment of any nature could be presented within five years. In Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti v. Lawrence, supra, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated that since the amendment involved in Armstrong v. King, supra, and the former amendment involved increased the debt limit of the State of Pennsylvania the opinion was correct in its conclusion; but the Supreme Court modified the rule and announced in Armstrong v. King and held that the five year limitation applied only to articles of the constitution similar in nature. Therein the court stated:

'* * * Thus understood it means that after a particular amendment, or amendments, has been once submitted another like amendment, or one similar in substance, to the same article cannot be proposed or submitted within five years. * * *'

The prohibition in the Pennsylvania Constitution and Art. 5, Sect. 6, supra, are different at least in the respect that our constitutional provision is against the resubmission of any measure and is not limited to constitutional provision alone. We think that 'measure' under our Constitution is to be viewed in a different light to ...