Opinion

In Re Initiative Petition No. 314

  • 625 P.2d 595
  • 1980 OK 174
  • 1980 Okla. LEXIS 390
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Nov 25, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Hargrave
On the bench
Simms, Irwin, Williams, Hodges, Barnes, Opala, Lavender, Doolin, Hargrave
Cited by
39 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.2%

explaining that unconstitutional changes proposed by amending an existing article could have been effected through amendment by new article without violating the single-subject requirement

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that unconstitutional changes proposed by amending an existing article could have been effected through amendment by new article without violating the single-subject requirement
  • construing the single subject and separate-vote provisions of Okla. Const., art. XXIV, § 1 [2d par.] together and interchangeably
  • constitutional restrictions on advertising, franchising and retailing alcoholic beverages combined in one amendment constituted "logrolling"
  • all invalidated initiative petitions as violative of the one subject rule under State law

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HARGRAVE, Justice,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the views expressed in the majority opinion. The single subject .limitation of § 1, Article 24 has indeed been the subject of much litigation. The majority cites Rupe v. Shaw, 286 P.2d 1094 , recognizing in that action that the single subject limitation must receive a liberal, rather than a narrow or technical construction. Our review of the single subject limitation there resolved that provisions governing projects so related as to constitute a single scheme, and matters germane to the same general subject, or within the field of legislation suggested thereby, may be included. We additionally noted in *620 Rupe, supra, details provided for the accomplishment of this general purpose may be regarded as incidents of the general design although they subserve other purposes than the main purpose.

Rupe is directly on point here, and its strictures require me to conclude the single subject limitation is satisfied in the initiative petition before us now. The general purpose of the regulation of trade in alcoholic beverages is accomplished through various details which all subserve the general purpose. I would therefore submit the proposal to the voters, upon determination of a proper number of valid signators.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.