Doug Loudenback
11-30-2009, 12:43 PM
Since the issue regarding “spelling out” the ballot items has been so ardently debated, I am going to post this reasoning on multiple threads as it has been explained to me.
The “single-subject rule” means that you can’t list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1.
The State Legislature is bound to the single-subject rule by Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57 (“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes….;”)
The single-subject rule is also generally applicable to municipal ordinances under 11 O.S. § 14-104 (“An ordinance may contain only one subject and the subject shall be expressed in its title.”) and specifically applicable to OKC ordinances under OKC Charter Art. II, § 25 (“No ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”)
But you’re thinking, “Okay, but these laws existed in 1993, so what has changed?” What has changed, or at least been clarified, is the Oklahoma Supreme Court interpretation of what “single-subject” means.
Since 1991, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued five legal opinions dealing the single-subject rule. A recent case containing maybe the clearest explanation of the objectives behind the single-subject rule, as declared and applied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15.
In Fent, a single State act authorized issuance of revenues bonds to finance projects for the (1) Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, (2) the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and (3) the River Parks Authority. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 2. The bonds for the NACEA had already been issued, so Plaintiff Fent was not challenging those bonds; however, he was challenging and seeking to stop issuance of the bonds for the OCC and the RPA on the basis that the act authorizing such bonds was unconstitutional under Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57, the single-subject rule. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶ 2, 11.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Fent, striking down the State act as violative of the single-subject rule. I’ll let you look up the case if you want more details on the test for a finding of a single-subject violation, but suffice it to say, it’s pretty obvious MAPS 1 would have been struck down, if it had been challenged.
Now why would this interpretation of the single-subject rule would apply to municipalities? I think the most obvious response is “Why wouldn’t it?” As explained above, different “single-subject” provisions of Oklahoma law apply to the legislature and to cities, but they use the exact same language, have the exact same policy goals, and address the exact same issue. It is an immaterial fact that the Supreme Court was speaking in Fent v. State about a legislative act, and not a municipal act. There is no reason to believe the ruling is so narrow that it’s interpretation of “single-subject” applies only to one use of the phrase in Oklahoma law, but not to an identical usage elsewhere in Oklahoma statutes. To simply hope that the ruling was so inexplicably narrow would be folly, and there is no lawyer at City Hall that is willing to recommend a course of action so clearly reckless.
There is not really anything that I can add to this. Its seems to be the city counselor's interpretation.
Seems like I've read those words somewhere before! Ha ha. You didn't reply to my e-mail about the message, about permission to quote. Let me know.
The “single-subject rule” means that you can’t list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1.
The State Legislature is bound to the single-subject rule by Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57 (“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes….;”)
The single-subject rule is also generally applicable to municipal ordinances under 11 O.S. § 14-104 (“An ordinance may contain only one subject and the subject shall be expressed in its title.”) and specifically applicable to OKC ordinances under OKC Charter Art. II, § 25 (“No ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”)
But you’re thinking, “Okay, but these laws existed in 1993, so what has changed?” What has changed, or at least been clarified, is the Oklahoma Supreme Court interpretation of what “single-subject” means.
Since 1991, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued five legal opinions dealing the single-subject rule. A recent case containing maybe the clearest explanation of the objectives behind the single-subject rule, as declared and applied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15.
In Fent, a single State act authorized issuance of revenues bonds to finance projects for the (1) Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, (2) the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and (3) the River Parks Authority. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 2. The bonds for the NACEA had already been issued, so Plaintiff Fent was not challenging those bonds; however, he was challenging and seeking to stop issuance of the bonds for the OCC and the RPA on the basis that the act authorizing such bonds was unconstitutional under Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57, the single-subject rule. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶ 2, 11.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Fent, striking down the State act as violative of the single-subject rule. I’ll let you look up the case if you want more details on the test for a finding of a single-subject violation, but suffice it to say, it’s pretty obvious MAPS 1 would have been struck down, if it had been challenged.
Now why would this interpretation of the single-subject rule would apply to municipalities? I think the most obvious response is “Why wouldn’t it?” As explained above, different “single-subject” provisions of Oklahoma law apply to the legislature and to cities, but they use the exact same language, have the exact same policy goals, and address the exact same issue. It is an immaterial fact that the Supreme Court was speaking in Fent v. State about a legislative act, and not a municipal act. There is no reason to believe the ruling is so narrow that it’s interpretation of “single-subject” applies only to one use of the phrase in Oklahoma law, but not to an identical usage elsewhere in Oklahoma statutes. To simply hope that the ruling was so inexplicably narrow would be folly, and there is no lawyer at City Hall that is willing to recommend a course of action so clearly reckless.
There is not really anything that I can add to this. Its seems to be the city counselor's interpretation.
Seems like I've read those words somewhere before! Ha ha. You didn't reply to my e-mail about the message, about permission to quote. Let me know.