No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sufficiency Certification of Initiative Signatures in Oklahoma
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
The establishment of equitable rules whereby the constitutional rights of affected interests may be protected against arbitrary invasion from laws adopted by the electorate under the reserved legislative powers of the initiative and referendum remains the most important procedural question in the whole field of direct legislation. In reserving the authority to initiate constitutional and statutory measures without the approval or consent of the popular assembly, and to enact such measures through the medium of a popular referendum, the popular sovereign has created a mechanic of legislation coördinate in authority with the legislature. But in erecting barriers against fraudulent and corrupt practices upon the part of those engaged in the initiation of proposed measures, the state constitutions and laws present the possibility of obstructionist tactics by opponents of the proposals and undue delay in the presentation of the measures to the electorates for decision. The recent political imbroglio in Oklahoma over the adoption of an old-age-pensions amendment to the state constitution emphasizes the difficulties of reconciling these conflicting interests.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937
References
1 The same issue arises in the operation of the recall. See Bird, F. L. and Ryan, Frances, The Recall of Public Officers (1930), pp. 313–341Google Scholar.
2 This number was practically double that necessary for fulfilling the requirements of the statutes.
3 The complete text of the proposed measure is to be found in Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 77 Okla. App. Ct. Rep. 383 (Feb. 21,1936, No. 7); Daily Oklahoman, September 20, 1935, and February 19, 1936.
4 See Barnett, J. D., The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon (1915), pp. 227–240Google Scholar; Eaton, A. H., The Oregon System (1912), pp. 13–15Google Scholar; Beard, Charles A. and Shultz, Birl E., Documents on the State-Wide Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (1912), pp. 79–94Google Scholar. The Oklahoma statutory provisions are found in Oklahoma Statutes, 1931, Vol. 1, ch. 30.
5 Among the irregularities charged in the protest were (a) fictitious names, (b) duplication of signatures, (c) existence of many pamphlets not bearing a true copy of original petition, (d) cases in which the circulators were also the notaries public who attested the legality of the signatures, (e) a large number of forgeries, and (f) omission of post-office addresses for many signatures. In all, Ashton charged that a sufficient number of the 180,000 signatures were spurious to fail to satisfy the requirements for 96,000 bona fide signatures.
6 His first professional observation was that the measure would necessitate annual revenue to the amount of $36,000,000. This obviously erroneous figure was based upon the assumption that, in effect, one-half of the persons of the age categories in Oklahoma were without money income in any degree. A truly brilliant statistical conclusion, that, but it certainly was far from experimental accuracy.
7 Daily Oklahoman, September 5, 1935.
8 State ex rel. Bryant v. Carter, Secretary of State, 49 Pac. (2d), 217. In denying Bryant's plea, the court said: “It is the duty of the secretary of state to hear and determine said protest within a reasonable time and without unnecessary delay, having due regard for circumstances, and unless said official unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously postpones said hearing and determination, this court will not issue a writ of mandamus to require a hearing and determination prior to date fixed by said official for such hearing.”
9 State ex rel. Bass v. Pulliam, City Clerk, et al., 25 Pac. (2d), 64. In holding the petitions sufficient after the expiration of the statutory period of ten days, the court said: “The initiative, referendum, and recall provisions of law are features of a progressive government. These features are intended to safeguard to the principal, the people, an effective check and control over office-holders, mere agents and representatives of the people. … To permit such delay as here involved, … would be to defeat the object and purpose of a recall provision of the basic law, which basic law all of the officials of the city are sworn to uphold and defend.”
10 Five other measures—three initiative and two statutory—were already qualified for the referenda election.
11 A digest of this detailed opinion appeared in the Daily Oklahoman, September 10. It was, as follows:
“One. Payment of a fee to circulators does not invalidate a petition or any part of it.
Two. Where the question is printed upon the petition, erroneous statements by the circulator do not invalidate a signature.
Three. Signers do not have to specify the county in which they live.
Four. Where a circulator fails to have his signature verified, all signatures upon the pamphlet are invalid.
Five. It is not necessary for the circulator to give his exact address.
Six. A signer may print his own name and it will constitute his signature.
Seven. Street addresses of signers are not necessary.
Eight. Name of town of signer must be given.
Nine. An illegible signature is not invalid.
Ten. A signature made by a mark is not valid unless properly witnessed.
Eleven. This section dealt with authority of the secretary to throw out entire pamphlets. In addition, it provided for names to be counted where it appeared the same person had signed more than one pamphlet or had signed the same pamphlet with the same name.
Twelve. The fact that the summary copy of the names was not readable did not effect legality of the signed names.
Thirteen. The presumption was that the signer was a qualified elector, and he does not have to be a registered voter to sign a petition.”
12 Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 77 Okla. App. Ct. Rep. 383 (Feb. 21, 1936, No. 7). The governor even went so far as to question the appropriateness of the whole statutory procedure in regard to certification. “The opponents have hired high-priced lawyers and handwriting experts with a flock of microscopes to pass on the validity of signatures to invalidate the petition. It is humanly impossible to determine the validity of 100,000 signatures in that length of time. In my judgment, a sufficient number signed to warrant my putting the petition on the ballot.” Daily Oklahoman, September 18, 1935.
13 See Daily Oklahoman, August 30, 1935; Directory of the State of Oklahoma, 1935, pp. 131, 132.
14 However, Finley stated that he sent 150,000 copies of Labor's Voice, the official V. I. A. publication, to the members of the organization, urging them to vote for the amendment. The governor also made one speech in favor of the measure. The opposition relied upon radio appeals.
15 Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 77 Okla. App. Ct. Rep. 383 (Feb. 21, 1935. No. 7).
16 Atwater v. Hassett, 27 Okla. 292; ex parte Wagner, 21 Okla. 33; Norris v. Cross, 25 Okla. 287; Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403; in re Initiative State Question No. 10, 26 Okla. 554; Oklahoma City v. Shields, 22 Okla. 265; in re Menefee, 22 Okla. 365; Rakowski v. Wagoner, 24 Okla. 282; State v. Brown, 24 Okla. 433.
17 Daily Oklahoman, September 18, 1935.
18 Town of Grove v. Haskell, 24 Okla. 707; City of Ardmore v. State, 24 Okla. 862; Lamb v. Palmer, 79 Okla. 68.
19 See my “The Impeachment of Col. W. H. McGaughey, 1893,” Southwestern Soc. Sci. Quar., Vol. 15, pp. 52–63 (June, 1934)Google Scholar.
20 The same question was involved in the adoption of an initiated measure to permit the state legislature to convene itself in special session without awaiting the official call of the governor. The amendment was held unconstitutional in Simpson v. Hill, 128 Okla. 90.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.