Rupe v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 20 July 1955
• Docket Number: No. 36947,36947
• Citation: 286 P.2d 1094,1955 OK 223
• Parties: Leona E. RUPE, Petitioner, v. A. S. J. SHAW, State Auditor, and John D. Conner, State Treasurer, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1094

286 P.2d 1094

1955 OK 223

Leona E. RUPE, Petitioner, v. A. S. J. SHAW, State Auditor, and John D. Conner, State Treasurer, Respondents.

No. 36947.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 20, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Joint resolutions of the Legislature proposing amendments to the State Constitution are not 'laws' or 'acts' in the strict sense, and the provisions of Article 5, Section 57, prohibiting acts of the Legislature from embracing more than one subject, do not apply thereto.

2. In the present case, where pursuant to such joint resolution, the voters of this State approved, by ballot title, an amendment to the Constitution proposed as above indicated by both Houses of the Legislature, and a petition was filed in this Court which, in its second alleged cause of action, challenged, as misleading and in violation of Article 24, Section 1 of the Constitution, the proposal and ballot title whereby such amendment was submitted at the election thereon; Held: In view of the presumption attending the acts of the lawmaking officials involved, the allegations set forth in said second cause of action were insufficient to support said challenge and to warrant granting the relief prayed for.

3. Where, in the first of her alleged causes of action, petitioner maintained that House Bill No. 786 of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature making appropriations '* * * For The Support Of The Oklahoma Planning And Resource Board * * *' violates Art. 5, Secs. 56 and 57 because Secs. 8 and 9 thereof provide for the building of a dam by the Oklahoma Game and Fish Commission, but petitioner did not demonstrate that the building of such dam was unrelated to the general subject or purpose of said appropriation bill; Held: In accord with the presumptions of constitutionality accompanyin such acts of the Legislature, the allegations set forth as said cause of action constitute no sufficient basis for declaring said Act unconstitutional and granting the injunction prayed for.

Original action by Petitioner seeking the invalidation of House Bills No. 786 and No. 941 of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature, and an injunction against the issuance and payment by Respondents of warrants under certain provisions thereof. Petition Denied.

Sid White, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, F. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

This is an original action instituted in this Court by petitioner, as a resident taxpayer of this State, to enjoin, on her behalf and others similarly situated, the respondent State Auditor from issuing, and the respondent State Treasurer from paying, any State warrants out of two separate funds appropriated by the Regular Session of the last, or Twenty-Fifth Oklahoma Legislature. The fund dealt with in petitioner's first cause of action is the sum of $125,000 appropriated by Sec. 9 of said Legislature's House Bill No. 786, from the State's general fund to be used by the Oklahoma Game and Fish Commission to build a dam on Gates Creek in Choctaw County. The fund dealt with in petitioner's second cause of action is the sum of $1,250,000, which said Legislature's House Bill No. 941, purports to appropriate out of monies derived from the sale of 'State of Oklahoma Building Bonds of 1955' for various State institutions named therein, and certain described additions and improvements to the Will Rogers Memorial at Claremore, and the construction of a museum at Pioneer Woman State Park, at Ponca City.

For convenience we will deal with petitioner's second alleged cause of action first. In it, she alleges facts showing that House Bill No. 941 was enacted pursuant to a recent election at which the people of the State voted certain amendments and additions to Art. 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Such submission to the people of the question of whether said article should be so changed was proposed by said Legislature's Joint Resolution No. 504, passed in March of this year, pursuant to authority contained in Art. 24, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which reads in part as follows:

'Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the Legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall, with the years and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their approval or rejection, at the next regular general election * * *. If a majority of all the electors voting at such election shall vote in favor of any amendment thereto, it shall thereby become a part of this Constitution.'

At the primary election held July 1, 1952, the following amendment of the above-quoted section was submitted to the people as State Question No. 353, and adopted:

'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 this Constitution by articles, which embrace one general subject, each proposed article shall be deemed a single proposal or proposition.' (Emphasis ours.) O.S.Supp.Const. art. 24, § 1.

The 'proposal' made in Joint Resolution No. 504 for 'amendment or alteration' of the Constitution's Art. 10, later effected by House Bill No. 941, was by ballot title set forth in the Joint Resolution's Sec. 2 as follows:

'The Gist of the Proposition is as Follows:

'Shall a Constitutional Amendment Amending Article X, Oklahoma Constitution, Sections 9, 10, and 26, by providing for ad valorem taxes for public schools and placing restrictions thereon and limiting consideration thereof in State guaranteed school program, authorizing additional uses of levy heretofore made for erecting public buildings, increasing debt limit of school districts for certain purposes, removing limitations on certain contracts beyond current year, and by adding Sections 32 and 33 to said Article X to provide additional funds for buildings for school districts, and for buildings and capital improvements at State institutions, be approved by the people?'

Petitioner charges that the above-quoted ballot title violates Art. 24, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, amended as above shown, in that it embraced 'more than one general subject'; and that the people were thereby misled into approving, by their votes at said election, the participation by the above-named 'State Park' and Will Rogers Memorial in an appropriation 'for building and capital improvements at State institutions * * *'. Respondents, on the other hand, urge that the proposal does not embrace more than one general subject, and that said park and memorial are 'State institutions'.

This Court has not previously had occasion to consider the above-quoted 1952 amendment to Article 24, Section 1, supra, and neither of the parties cite instances in which such a provision in any other State's Constitution has been construed by the Courts. However, independent research reveals that similar provisions have been construed and applied by the courts of many other states. See State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 43 La.Ann. 590, 9 So. 776, and other cases cited in the Annotations beginning at 94 A.L.R. 1510. From the better reasoned of the opinions cited and others which recognize that such constitutional provisions are to receive a liberal, rather than a narrow or technical construction, which would overthrow proper legislation, especially where, as here, it has, previous to its enactment, been submitted to the people with the opportunity to discuss it and inform themselves concerning it, we find that generally provisions governing projects so related as to constitute a single scheme may be properly included within the same amendment; and that matters germane to the same general subject indicated in the amendment's title, or within the field of legislation suggested thereby, may be included therein. In this connection, see Perry v. Jordan, 34 Cal.2d 87, 207 P.2d 47. As to the distinction between ordinary legislation and proposed constitutional amendments, where there is a period of publicity in which those interested may acquaint themselves with the purpose thereof, see Ramsey v. Persinger, 43 Okl. 41, 141 p. 13, and Hillman v. Stockett, 183 Md. 641, 39 A.2d 803; State v. Lyons, 1 Terry 77, 5 A.2d 495, and other authorities cited in 11 Am.Jur., 'Constitutional Law', sec. 31, under Note 19, and 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 215a, Note 26.

We have carefully examined all of the provisions of Joint Resolution No. 504, and have concluded that, when considered as a whole, they show that the general subject and purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment was to enable the State, as well as its school districts, to surmount previous limitations and inadequacies in their constitutional authority for raising funds. We think this general purpose was sufficiently declared in the resolution and, this being true, the details provided for its accomplishment in the law thereafter enacted may be regarded as incidents, Perry v. Jordan, supra, "necessary or convenient or tend(ing) to the accomplishment of one general design notwithstanding other purposes than the main design may be thereby subserved." State v. Moore, 76 Ark. 197, 88 S.W. 881, 884, 70 L.R.A. 671. State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, supra [43 La.Ann. 590, 9 So. 777], involved a proposal to incorporate into the Constitution "'An article on levies, schools, charities, pensions, drainage, lotteries * * *"'. Despite the seeming incongruity and apparent lack of logical relationship between the subjects quoted, the Court, in that case, upon a careful analysis of the matter and application of the above-cited principles, determined that the proposed addition to the Constitution had but one general...