Wyatt v. Clark
| Decision Date | 02 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36927,36927 |
| Citation | 299 P.2d 799 |
| Parties | George WYATT, Plaintiff, v. L. C. CLARK, Mayor of the City of Tulsa; Elizabeth Anderson, City Auditor of the City of Tulsa, and Thomas A. Landrith, Jr., City Attorney for the City of Tulsa, Defendants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Initiative means the power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of legislative assembly, while referendum is the right to the people to have submitted for their approval or rejection an act passed by the legislature.
2. The power of referendum does not apply to any law which has already become effective.
3. Under the power of the initiative, the people of a municipality cannot repeal a law or charter provision except as ancillary to, and necessary for, the adoption and effective operation of an amendment or new law.
4. Where a referendum or initiative petition shows that it covers a subject not reserved under the initiative or referendum provisions of the Constitution, the municipal clerk may properly declare such a petition insufficient.
Original proceeding brought by George Wyatt, as plaintiff, against L. C. Clark, Mayor of the City of Tulsa, Elizabeth Anderson, City Auditor of the City of Tulsa, and Thomas A. Landrith, Jr., City Attorney for the City of Tulsa, defendants, in the nature of an appeal from a decision of said City Auditor refusing to certify as sufficient an initiative or referendum petition filed by plaintiff.
George Wyatt, pro se.
T. A. Landrith, Jr., City Atty., Edmund Lashley, Richard McGee, John Hager and Robert Lavender, Tulsa, for defendants.
This is an original action in this court, brought by the plaintiff, George Wyatt against the defendants, L. C. Clark, Mayor of the City of Tulsa, Elizabeth Anderson, City Auditor of the City of Tulsa, and Thomas Landrith, Jr., City Attorney for the City of Tulsa. It is in the nature of an appeal from a decision of said City Auditor refusing to certify as sufficient an alleged 'Initiative and Referendum Petition which was filed in her office on the 29th day of March, 1955.' Such decision was founded upon her determination that, although said petition bore a sufficient number of signatures, it was otherwise insufficient.
Article 12 of the Charter of the City of Tulsa, consisting of thirteen sections, was an initiated amendment to the original charter and was adopted in 1948 by a vote of the people. It created a Utility Board which allegedly operated 'separately from any other portion of the City Government and provided its own methods of operation.' The petition which plaintiff filed with the City Auditor sought a vote of the people upon the adoption of
'An Amendment To The Charter Of The City Of Tulsa, Oklahoma Entitled:
'An Act Repealing Article 12, Sections 1 to 13 Inclusive Of The Charter Of The City Of Tulsa As Amended
'Be it amended by repealing the following provisions of said Charter, towit:
'All Of Article 12, Sections 1 to 13 Inclusive.'
The City Auditor gave, as her reasons for not approving and certifying said petition, the following criticisms of its legality:
'(a) It does not set forth, in full, the Charter provisions sought to be amended or repealed.
'(b) It does not epitomize or summarize the Charter provisions sought to be amended or repealed.
'(c) The question sought to be submitted by said Initiative Petition refers only to certain numbered articles and numbered sections of the Charter of the City of Tulsa, without stating the subject-matter of said Charter provisions sought to be amended or repealed.
'(d) The Initiative Petition circulated was incorrectly numbered and bore a printed number identical with that of a previous Initiative Petition which was submitted to the electorate and submitted to a vote of the people during the year 1954.
'(e) The Initiative Petition purports to submit the question of adopting a 'repeal' of a portion of the City Charter rather than seeking an amendment to the City Charter which repeals a portion thereof.
'(f) No proposed ballot title or copy of the proposed Initiative Petition was filed with the City Attorney in the manner or at the time prescribed by law.'
The arguments of the parties, as contained in their briefs, are directed to whether or not the petition was sufficiently comprehensive and explicit to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements. The referee of this court, who heard the matter and has submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluded that said petition was insufficient and that the criticisms of the City Auditor were well founded. However, there is here involved a question much more fundamental and decisive as to plaintiff's right to the relief sought. It is whether or not the people have reserved to themselves any legislative power to repeal and nothing more, a law or charter amendment.
By virtue of the provisions of Art. XVIII, § 4(a), Const., there was reserved to the people of the municipalities, the same powers of legislation by initiative and referendum as was reserved to the people of the State by Const. art. V, § 2. Therefore, the extent of that power must be determined by an interpretation of the latter section and other interrelated sections as well as the statutory provisions vitalizing them. 34 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq. By section 1 of Art. 5 of the Constitution, the legislative power was vested in the Legislature except that the people reserved to themselves '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 * * * at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature.'
Section 2 of the same Article provides that,
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Convention, Etc. v. Dist. of Columbia, Etc.
...P.2d 470, 472 (Okl.1970); Hughes v. Bryan (In re Initiative Petition Filed April 18, 1966), 425 P.2d 952, 954 (Okl.1967); Wyatt v. Clark, 299 P.2d 799, 802 (Okl.1956); Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wash.2d 820, 824, 505 P.2d 447, 450 (1973) (en banc); Heider, supra 37 Wis.2d at 478, 155 N.W.2d at 2......
-
Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, In re
...constitution to propose bills and laws and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of legislative assembly." Wyatt v. Clark, 299 P.2d 799, 801-01 (Okla.1956).2 In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d 595, 608 (Okla.1981) we opined:Courts do not concern themselves with the exped......
-
Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639, In re, 76109
...a mandate that any specific level of expense must be maintained. repeal provisions contained therein. In the case of Wyatt v. Clark, 299 P.2d 799, at p. 802 (Okl.1956), this Court was faced with the validity of a petition seeking only the repeal of Art. 12, §§ 1-13 of the charter of the cit......
-
State ex rel. Boyer v. Grady, 41557
...law or an amendment to a law. See, In re Initiative Petition No. 1 of Midwest City v. Melton, 465 P.2d 470 (Okl., 1970); Wyatt v. Clark, 299 P.2d 799 (Okl., 1956). In essence, respondent argues that the initiative power may not be utilized to repeal an ordinance, and that the referendum is ......