Ed Shadid is suing the city in the OK Supreme Court over possible violation of the single-subject law regarding MAPS4.

Here is a summary of that rule from OKPolicy.org:


The single-subject rule is a part of the Oklahoma Constitution that requires individual ballot initiatives and legislation may deal with only one main issue. The single-subject rule is found in over 40 state constitutions as a way to prevent “log-rolling”, the legislative practice of combining several distinct matters in one bill, even when some of them may have passed the legislature by themselves.

The Oklahoma Constitution states, “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….;” (Article V, Section 57).

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has invalidated numerous laws as violations of the single-subject rule, including appropriations bills that provide funding for more than one agency, abortion legislation, and most recently (2013) tort reform legislation and a bill that combined funding for State Capitol repairs and an income tax cut. Since 2017, several measures have been introduced proposing to allow voters to amend the Oklahoma Constitution so bills can address a “general” or “comprehensive” subject, but none has been passed.

And here is the lawsuit:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/singlesubject.pdf

It’s the same way we elected Shadid to do everything he ever promised while campaigning, even though we only voted for one body to sit on a city council. It’s how city budgets work, and it’s how MAPS has always worked. Vote for X and we will try to spend it on Y, if more or less money is collected we will change Y. Vote for [politician] and vote for [streets, sidewalks, streetcar, public safety, whatever].

Politicians can promise whatever they want, the council can promise to spend whatever they want, but in the end that legally binds any of the MAPS 4 money to any of the projects. The city could legally take all of MAPS 4 and build a giant NFL stadium and put gold toilets in city hall, because it’s money they can spend on whatever. It has always been that way, Shadid campaigned on that fact and I would think that they would introduce all his statements as a candidate and while sitting on the council where he repeated the fact that “all it is is a tax, nothing more, and nothing binds it to the promises made”.

I supported Shadid a lot, but over the past years he has become a man tilting at windmills.

It’s the same way we elected Shadid to do everything he ever promised while campaigning, even though we only voted for one body to sit on a city council. It’s how city budgets work, and it’s how MAPS has always worked. Vote for X and we will try to spend it on Y, if more or less money is collected we will change Y. Vote for [politician] and vote for [streets, sidewalks, streetcar, public safety, whatever].

Politicians can promise whatever they want, the council can promise to spend whatever they want, but in the end that legally binds any of the MAPS 4 money to any of the projects. The city could legally take all of MAPS 4 and build a giant NFL stadium and put gold toilets in city hall, because it’s money they can spend on whatever. It has always been that way, Shadid campaigned on that fact and I would think that they would introduce all his statements as a candidate and while sitting on the council where he repeated the fact that “all it is is a tax, nothing more, and nothing binds it to the promises made”.

I supported Shadid a lot, but over the past years he has become a man tilting at windmills.

I may be wrong but I don’t think it matters what he said in past. What matters is the law and what it says regarding logrolling.

I may be wrong but I don’t think it matters what he said in past. What matters is the law and what it says regarding logrolling.

Why did he not file a lawsuit in prior MAPS events like this? I think he is moving for the sake of motion, trying to make a huge commotion when 95% of OKC, if not way more, do not care either way, and will vote yes on any MAPS.

I may be wrong but I don’t think it matters what he said in past. What matters is the law and what it says regarding logrolling.

His argument now is “a promise is the same thing as a law, so it’s logrolling even though it technically is only a vote on a tax”, so his previous years of arguing (including as a member of the city council) that “a promise isn’t a law and MAPS isn’t anything more than a vote on a single tax” are pretty relevant.

Why did he not file a lawsuit in prior MAPS events like this? I think he is moving for the sake of motion, trying to make a huge commotion when 95% of OKC, if not way more, do not care either way, and will vote yes on any MAPS.

He tried to work through the proper channels. He met with the municipal counselor, brought this up at multiple city council meetings, etc.


Regardless of the person involved or even this particular matter, there is absolutely the attitude by some in city government that as long as they can get away with it, it's okay to do. I can specifically cite lots of examples of that seem to be clear violations of open meetings and records laws. So sometimes you can only force change through litigation and then let the courts decide.

Keep in mind this isn't just about this MAPS or even OKC. This is a state-wide issue and other municipalities often follow the lead of the state's largest city and capital.

In the end, the court will rule and I'm sure it will be just and fair.

Why did he not file a lawsuit in prior MAPS events like this? I think he is moving for the sake of motion, trying to make a huge commotion when 95% of OKC, if not way more, do not care either way, and will vote yes on any MAPS.

Pretty sure no MAPS vote passed with 95% yes votes. And I believe the questions to be voted on have changed wording over the years due to things like this, so it's probably been different on each ballot and maybe some of those passed scrutiny (we were gone from 1995 - 2009, so I don't know all the particulars of each MAPS vote).

Ed is a perpetual stick in the mud. You could give him 100% exactly what he wants and he’d still be mad.

Ed is a perpetual stick in the mud. You could give him 100% exactly what he wants and he’d still be mad.

You may be correct but I think he's spot on with this Law Suite. They either need to call this a general tax increase or split these items up and let people vote for the ones they want or not. This maps feels like a bribe.

Ref:

"The Oklahoma Constitution states, “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….;” (Article V, Section 57).

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has invalidated numerous laws as violations of the single-subject rule, including appropriations bills that provide funding for more than one agency, abortion legislation, and most recently (2013) tort reform legislation and a bill that combined funding for State Capitol repairs and an income tax cut. Since 2017, several measures have been introduced proposing to allow voters to amend the Oklahoma Constitution so bills can address a “general” or “comprehensive” subject, but none has been passed."

I know the SC will decide this but as it read here, the law only talks about the STATE legislature and not individual city councils - or is there more pertinent language that is not included here?

How does this MAPS differ from the other MAPS programs or bond issues that cover multiple project subjects?

I am not a lawyer so when a law is written and limits the state, does that automatically apply to all other taxing entities in the state?

I just don't get the differences between this and MAPS 3.

Yes, it applies to all municipalities in the state.

As to how this differs from other bond issues, in the last general obligation bond issue, all the different projects were split up by category and voted on separately.

This has always been an issue with MAPS but it has never been pressed -- until now.


The September 2017 GO bond ballot was split this way and each item was a different proposition; even streets and bridges and traffic control were separated out and they do this to adhere to the state law:

Proposition 1: $490,560,000 for streets
Proposition 2: $26,795,000 for bridges
Proposition 3: $27,585,000 for traffic control
Proposition 4: $60,000,000 for economic and community development
Proposition 5: $137,720,000 for parks and recreational facilities
Proposition 6: $23,910,000 for libraries
Proposition 7: $20,185,000 for Civic Center complex
Proposition 8: $20,395,000 for transit
Proposition 9: $13,085,000 for city maintenance facilities
Proposition 10: $62,170,000 for drainage control
Proposition 11: $8,865,000 for downtown city arena
Proposition 12: $30,840,000 for police services
Proposition 13: $45,350,000 for fire services

I just don't get the differences between this and MAPS 3.

There really isn't, just no one challenged the city at that time, although this issue has come up many times.

I would have sworn someone challenged the MAPS 3 ballot, some local attorney who commonly sues about things that he believes violates the no logrolling requirement.

Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of a different court case? I searched and bit and it was probably by a Jerry Fent but it might have been about something else.

I would have sworn someone challenged the MAPS 3 ballot, some local attorney who commonly sues about things that he believes violates the no logrolling requirement.

Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of a different court case? I searched and bit and it was probably by a Jerry Fent but it might have been about something else.

I don't recall this but I'll do some research.

I would have sworn someone challenged the MAPS 3 ballot, some local attorney who commonly sues about things that he believes violates the no logrolling requirement.

Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of a different court case? I searched and bit and it was probably by a Jerry Fent but it might have been about something else.

I remember vaguely a threat to sue over MAPS3, wasn’t it David Box on behalf of Shadid? That name keeps popping up but I could (and probably am) 100% wrong - memory is a funny thing.

I think Fent’s most recent lawsuit was over the turnpike bonds.

You may be correct but I think he's spot on with this Law Suite. They either need to call this a general tax increase or split these items up and let people vote for the ones they want or not. This maps feels like a bribe.

the ballot does call it a general tax

I am curious if you all will be voting on the Thunder improvements? I am undecided, I am not a Thunder fan, I am a Magic fan so I am not sure if it needs improvement, it is nice enough as is...

I am curious if you all will be voting on the Thunder improvements? I am undecided, I am not a Thunder fan, I am a Magic fan so I am not sure if it needs improvement, it is nice enough as is...

The reason the improvements at CHK arena were included, was to get Thunder fans to vote for the whole package. Its part of throwing everyone a bone.

I was a Thunder season ticket holder for 9 years. That arena is plenty. If improvements are actually needed, the ownership group can pony up that kind of money out of their couch cushions.

Just another of many reasons to vote NO .

The reason the improvements at CHK arena were included, was to get Thunder fans to vote for the whole package. Its part of throwing everyone a bone.

I was a Thunder season ticket holder for 9 years. That arena is plenty. If improvements are actually needed, the ownership group can pony up that kind of money out of their couch cushions.

Just another of many reasons to vote NO .

You make a good point, I think I will vote NO too

I am curious if you all will be voting on the Thunder improvements? I am undecided, I am not a Thunder fan, I am a Magic fan so I am not sure if it needs improvement, it is nice enough as is...

the improvemtns for the arena will be a new video board and lots of 300 level upgrades .. it is very very needed

The reason the improvements at CHK arena were included, was to get Thunder fans to vote for the whole package. Its part of throwing everyone a bone.

I was a Thunder season ticket holder for 9 years. That arena is plenty. If improvements are actually needed, the ownership group can pony up that kind of money out of their couch cushions.

Just another of many reasons to vote NO .

You seem ignorant to the fact the City owns the arena...but I won't let facts get in the way of your good story.

You seem ignorant to the fact the City owns the arena...but I won't let facts get in the way of your good story.

No reason the owners can make a gift, they give a lot more than that away in salaries.

That arena is just fine, this is just more bait for the gullible.

the improvemtns for the arena will be a new video board and lots of 300 level upgrades .. it is very very needed

Ohhh, the 300 level, that's for the little people , right ?

gawd, this is so blatant pandering.

Ohhh, the 300 level, that's for the little people , right ?

gawd, this is so blatant pandering.

OKc built an arena on the cheap when they built the Peake. They need to add a lot more to make it a top NBA arena (and top arena in general). The Thunder generate so much money for this city, in so many ways, it isn't funny.

OKc built an arena on the cheap when they built the Peake. They need to add a lot more to make it a top NBA arena (and top arena in general). The Thunder generate so much money for this city, in so many ways, it isn't funny.

Yeah, OK ............ whatever gets your vote.

OKc built an arena on the cheap when they built the Peake. They need to add a lot more to make it a top NBA arena (and top arena in general). The Thunder generate so much money for this city, in so many ways, it isn't funny.

i like the thunder, and i'm perfectly fine investing in a BLC stadium if that's what Clay and Larry want me to do, but i question the merit of including all of the many social programs in this MAPS. this is supposed to be a temporary tax, and it is, at best, disingenuous to create long-term liabilities if the funding mechanism is scheduled to sunset in a specific number of years.

if we want to "invest" in social programs, that needs to be provisioned in connection with a permanent tax increase.

i like the thunder, and i'm perfectly fine investing in a BLC stadium if that's what Clay and Larry want me to do, but i question the merit of including all of the many social programs in this MAPS. this is supposed to be a temporary tax, and it is, at best, disingenuous to create long-term liabilities if the funding mechanism is scheduled to sunset in a specific number of years.

if we want to "invest" in social programs, that needs to be provisioned in connection with a permanent tax increase.

^^^ yep

If the single-subject lawsuit results in voting on all these items separately, it will be very interesting to see which pass and which do not, especially since it's such a wide variety.

If the single-subject lawsuit results in voting on all these items separately, it will be very interesting to see which pass and which do not, especially since it's such a wide variety.

The arena upgrades would pass pretty easily IMO. Everything else?

They need to separate these items or change maps and just have a vote for a permanent general tax increase. I would hope they would separate and let the people vote on what items they want.

Will this lawsuit delay the vote? Isn’t a vote just a few months away? I can’t imagine getting a hearing and ruling so soon.

Will this lawsuit delay the vote? Isn’t a vote just a few months away? I can’t imagine getting a hearing and ruling so soon.

I think the vote is Dec. 10, so yeah, will be interesting timing.

When would the tax take effect?

They will either push for a delay to the vote itself, or if the actual effect of the vote is far enough away they might let it ride if there is enough time to invalidate the results of found unconstitutional.

When would the tax take effect?

They will either push for a delay to the vote itself, or if the actual effect of the vote is far enough away they might let it ride if there is enough time to invalidate the results of found unconstitutional.

April 1.

Will this lawsuit delay the vote? Isn’t a vote just a few months away? I can’t imagine getting a hearing and ruling so soon.

i would think the OK supreme court would fit this in pretty quickly

Ed Shadid is suing the city in the OK Supreme Court over possible violation of the single-subject law regarding MAPS4.

Here is a summary of that rule from OKPolicy.org:



And here is the lawsuit:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/singlesubject.pdf

The wording of Article V, § 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution appears to specifically reference the state Legislature. I'm no lawyer or anything so there's a darn good chance I'm missing something, but... are municipal governments considered to be part of the state Legislature, legally? If not, unless I'm missing something big, I'm not sure that § 57 would apply to municipal governments. Have there been previous court cases that established that city governments like the City of OKC are subject to the provisions of the single-subject rule from the state constitution?

It applies to municipalities which is why the GO bond ballots are written the way they are.

And why the city keeps changing the wording on MAPS ballots to try and work around the law.

Work around the law or comply with the law?

Do you have a source of intentional violation of the law?

Work around the law or comply with the law?

Do you have a source of intentional violation of the law?

The law hasn't changed but due to threats to challenge the MAPS ballot, they have twice completely reworded it.

As for compliance or violation, that's for the courts to decide.

On that I agree.

I know you are also wearing two hats here, both as a reporter as well as a user just commenting on this site. I’m sure it can be hard to separate “posting opinions” and “reporting things”, especially in a text forum.

Just wanted to say thanks for all the reporting you do, it’s needed in this city.

^

Thanks, it's a tricky line to walk but I do separate out News from the forum because reporting should not contain opinion.

At the same time, I care deeply about this community and have access to lots of information that others might not, so I often feel the need to elaborate or even provide opinion based on what I know and what I have personally experienced.

I have very specific reasons and experiences that have led me to a healthy skepticism -- often even to the point of cynicism -- over the legality of some of the things done by city government. And I've talked about that in several other threads.

I will also say the city government has virtually no watchdog so I take that responsibility quite seriously.

I’m a mix with city governance as well.

I don’t think that MAPS by itself violates the single subject rule, I think that a city can put a vote on a single tax with a “promise” on how to spend things and I don’t think that this is different than any politician promising a budget or fiscal focus.

But I also think that the way they get to their MAPS lists is often pretty damn shady.

I had a thought about the lawsuit and splitting up the 16 MAPS 4 project into separate votes. Playing what if. What happens to the 10 year timeline and the total projected revenue. Right now MAPS 4 is $900M+ over 10 years. What happens if seven projects get approved and those projects are estimated at $400M? Can the city still collect revenue over 10 years, which would bring in tax money over $400M. If the lawsuit is successful, I am guessing the city would have to provide a timeline of when each project would bring in revenue and add up the timelines of approved projects. If the split up vote MAPS 4 language is these projects will get done over 10 years, the city is still collecting tax money like all of the projects were approved. What happens to that excessive tax money that is collected? Not sure how this would work.

I had a thought about the lawsuit and splitting up the 16 MAPS 4 project into separate votes. Playing what if. What happens to the 10 year timeline and the total projected revenue. Right now MAPS 4 is $900M+ over 10 years. What happens if seven projects get approved and those projects are estimated at $400M? Can the city still collect revenue over 10 years, which would bring in tax money over $400M. If the lawsuit is successful, I am guessing the city would have to provide a timeline of when each project would bring in revenue and add up the timelines of approved projects. If the split up vote MAPS 4 language is these projects will get done over 10 years, the city is still collecting tax money like all of the projects were approved. What happens to that excessive tax money that is collected? Not sure how this would work.

I don’t have the answers to your questions but it brings it into what I have been calling for. That is to break up the 10 year cycles and do mini cycles of 2 years each with votes every 2 years. And more focused.

I honestly feel MAPS has served its purpose with transforming the downtown and to me it seemed as if this time around they weren’t even sure what was needed and we ended up a hodge podge of ideas which drifted away from the original intent.

So for that reason I would love to see us adapt smaller more focused projects which as our city changes can be adaptable faster. For an example if so many voters liked the aquarium idea and its not in this vote then it will be at least 10 years to even have a chance to vote on it. Thats way to long as fast as we’ve grown. With 2 year cycles if its not on this one it could be in way shorter time of 2 years. And that goes for all projects. Maybe the cap is viable in 4 years? So many things might be missed (which could be transformative) by doing 10 year approvals.

What if western side of downtown becomes the new hotspot and SC could be expanded there. Not for at least 10 years could it be voted on as currently its not in MAPS 4. My take is by doing 2 year cycles we can better adapt to how our city grows and changes. This MAPS 4 seems so out there in projects and how they will be funded after built.

It wont delay the vote. Recall that the Supreme Court rushed my case through very quickly so as not to delay the council elections.

City either hasn't responded yet or the site isn't updated. If anyone is interested the case number is:

O-118271

OKC says Shadid doesn’t like ‘politics’ of MAPS


By Chris Casteel
Staff writer ccasteel@oklahoman.com

Oklahoma City’s new proposal for tax-funded projects doesn’t violate the state’s constitutional prohibition against multiple subjects in legislation and the city isn't bound by that provision in any case, the city told the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shadid asks top court to hear MAPS objections

By William Crum
Staff writer wcrum@oklahoman.com

A bid to block enactment of MAPS 4 may come down to a determination of whether assembly of the 16 projects was a case of coalition-building or voter coercion.

What's the sourcing on that? I hope it's not the full text of an article from the Oklahoman.

What's the sourcing on that? I hope it's not the full text of an article from the Oklahoman.

Both articles are full text from the Oklahoman related to MAP 4 as noted at the top; Chris Casteel & William Crum, both writers give some insight from both sides.

You know it is getting serious when you hear anything about anything like this in this disgraceful News desert.

Both articles are from the Oklahoman related to MAP 4 as noted at the top; Chris Casteel & William Crum, both gives some insight from both sides.

The Oklahoman does not appreciate the posting of full articles, but rather a paragraph or two with a link to the article on their site.

The Oklahoman does not appreciate the posting of full articles, but rather a paragraph or two with a link to the article on their site.

You're citing what Steve Lackmeyer said about his articles for which I respect & adhere to his view. I subscribe to the Oklahoman.

Patrons who don't subscribe to the Oklahoman will not be able to view these links.

When you begin the practice of a paragraph or two (Some articles are just a paragraph; some are more); then you run the risk of leaving out important facts & information. Just trying to get information out so voters will be able to make an informed decision.

Patrons who don't subscribe to the Oklahoman will not be able to view these links.

Yes, that is the point. It's their content, and as far as I am aware they have not given OKC Talk permission for any rehosted content like this.

Yes, please don't post their full articles.

Thanks.

Yes, please don't post their full articles.

Thanks.

Got it...

Just learned the OK Supreme Court ruled against Shadid's challenge.

Have not seen it yet, but looks like MAPS4 is free to go forward.

Just learned the OK Supreme Court ruled against Shadid's challenge.

Have not seen it yet, but looks like MAPS4 is free to go forward.

hopefully the People are smart enough to vote against this one. there is a lot of unfunded liability built into this particular round.

and of course Holt doesn't care. he'll be in Inhofe's seat when the bill comes due.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5644051/maps-4-ordinance-appears-clear-to-go-before-voters-dec.-10-after-high-courts-unanimous-ruling