Initiative Petition No. 342, State Question No. 628, In re, 74410

• Decision Date: 19 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 74410,74410
• Parties: In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 342, STATE QUESTION NO. 628.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 331

797 P.2d 331

1990 OK 76

In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 342, STATE QUESTION NO. 628.

No. 74410.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 19, 1990.

As Corrected June 22, 1990.

As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 17, 1990.

Frasier & Frasier by Thomas Dee Frasier, Tulsa, for protestants.

Andrews Davis Legg Bixler Milsten & Price by John C. Andrews, John F. Fischer, Douglas C. McBee, Robert H. Henry, Atty Gen. and Neal Leader, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for proponents.

HODGES, Justice.

This is an original action challenging the validity of Initiative Petition No. 342, State Question No. 628 (Petition). Initiative Petition No. 342 repeals article IX, the article that created the Corporation Commission. The Petition contains three sections; article IX contains over 40 sections. Section 1 of the Petition provides that the members would be elected for a term of six years and sets out the jurisdiction and power of the Commission. Section 2 sets out the qualification for Commission members. Section 3 provides that sections 17 through 25 of the current article shall have the effect of statutes.

The protestants argue that the Petition violates the one general subject rule of article XXIV, section 1. Article XXIV, section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution states:

No proposal for the amendment or alteration of this Constitution which is submitted to the voters shall embrace more than one general subject and the voters shall vote separately for or against each proposal submitted; provided, however, that in the submission of proposals for the amendment of the Constitution by articles, which embrace one general subject, each proposed article shall be deemed a single proposal or proposition.

Under this provision, an article which deals with a single scheme may be amended by submission of a single proposal. Article IX does not deal with a single scheme, only with subjects which are loosely related. The subjects which are contained in article IX include the following: (1) railroad and public service corporations, (2) the Corporation Commission, (3) the fellow-servant doctrine, (4) passenger fare, and (5) private corporations. Because article IX does not deal with a single scheme, we must examine the Petition to determine whether it complies with the one subject criteria.

The purpose of the one general subject criteria is to prevent deceit or the presentation of a misleading proposal and to prevent logrolling, the combining of unrelated proposals. In re Initiative Petition No. 314, State Question No. 550, 625 P.2d 595, 603 (Okla.1980). In In re Initiative Petition No. 314, this court adopted the following test:

If the different changes contained in the proposed amendment all cover matters necessary to be dealt with in some manner, in order that the Constitution, as amended, shall constitute a consistent and workable whole on the general topic embraced in that part which is amended, and if, logically speaking, they should stand or fall as a whole, then there is but one amendment submitted. But, if any one of the propositions, although not directly contradicting the others, does not refer to such matters, or if it is not such that the voter supporting it would reasonably be expected to support the principle of the others, then there are in reality two or more amendments to be submitted, and the proposed amendment falls with in the constitutional prohibition.

Id. at 603 (quoting Kerby v. Luhrs, 44 Ariz. 208, 36 P.2d 549 (1934)).

Some of the amendments incorporated into the Petition are as follows:

(1) removes the right of certain corporations to construct and operate lines between any points in the state;

(2) removes the requirement that railroad companies and oil pipe companies transport each other's cargo and tonnage or oil and that communication companies transmit each other's messages;

(3) removes the prohibition against foreign corporations consolidating with domestic corporations;

(4) removes the prohibition against transportation companies giving free passes;

(5) removes the restriction allowing only domestic corporations to use the power of eminent domain;

(6) removes the provision abrogating the fellow-servant doctrine rule;

(7) removes the prohibition against corporations issuing stock except for consideration (8) removes the prohibition against corporations influencing elections or official duty by making contributions;

(9) removes the requirement that mining and public service corporations arbitrate labor disputes;

(10) removes the prohibition against bank or trust companies holding or controlling stock in another bank or trust company; and

(11) removes several provisions from the Constitution and makes them statutes.

In addition, the Petition replaces the provisions of article IX which establish the Corporation Commission, sets the terms and qualification for members of the Commission, and define the jurisdiction and power of the Commission.

There are numerous subjects covered by the Petition ranging from financial institutions holding stock in another financial institution to the power of eminent domain of foreign corporations to the fellow-servant doctrine rule. The only connection that these topics have to each other is that they all tangentially relate to the general subject of corporations. Otherwise, they are unrelated. For example, it is clear that the power of eminent domain of foreign corporations is inconsequential to the fellow-servant doctrine rule. And the prohibition against a bank holding stock in another bank is extraneous to both the power of eminent domain and the fellow-servant doctrine rule. There is no doubt that these topics do not meet the one general subject test.

In In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d at 595, the petition addressed three subjects--advertising of liquor, franchising the sale of liquor, and liquor by the drink. This Court found that the submission of the three subjects violated the one subject rule of article XXIV. Id. at 607. The proposals contained in Initiative Petition No. 314 had a closer nexus than the proposals contained in the present Petition.

Voters should not have to adopt measures of which they really disapprove in order to embrace propositions that they favor. The changes proposed by the Petition are not so related that a voter supporting one of the proposed measures can reasonably be expected to support all of the changes. The Petition simply does not allow voters a choice. The Petition embraces more than one general subject in violation of article XXIV, section 1. See, In re Initiative Petition No. 319, Okl., 682 P.2d 222 (1984).

The protestants also argue that the Petition is invalid because the statement on the Petition and the ballot title do not comply with the statutes. Title 34, section 3 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires that the Petition contain "[a] simple statement of the gist of the...