IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 403 STATE QUESTION NO. 779

2016 OK 1, 367 P.3d 472, 2016 WL 147145

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Decided: January 12, 2016
• Docket: 114,425
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Facts & Procedural History

{1 On October 21, 2015, Respondents Shawn Sheehan, Linda Reid, and Melvin Moran (Proponents) filed Initiative Petition No. 408 with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. The petition seeks to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new Article 18-C,. The proposed article creates the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund, designed to provide for the improvement of public education in Oklahoma through an additional one-cent sales and use tax.¹ Funds generated by the one-cent tax would be distributed to public school districts, higher education institutions, career and technology centers, and early childhood education providers for certain educational purposes outlined in the proposed article. Additionally, a percentage of the funds would be used to provide a $5,000.00 pay raise to all public school teachers. The proposed article delegates oversight and auditing responsibilities to the State Board of Equalization and requires monies allocated from the Fund to be used by the Legislature to enhance and not supplant current public education appropriations.

12 On November 12, 2015, Petitioners OCPA, Inc. and David Bond (Opponents) filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction in this Court,. Opponents raised a single constitutional challenge to the initiative measure, arguing the petition is unconstitutional because it violates the one general subject rule of Art. 24, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. After hearing arguments from the parties and upon consideration, we assume original jurisdiction and hold that Initiative Petition No. 408 embraces one general subject and does not violate Art. 24, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Initiative Petition No. 408 is legally sufficient to submit to the voters of this state, and the proponents of the petition may proceed with the remaining statutory requirements.²

Standard of Review

18 "The first power reserved by the people is the initiative. . . ." Okla, Const. Art. 5, § 2. Wlth that, comes “the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact of reject the same at the polls mdependent 'of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature " Ola. Const. Art. 5, § 1. This Court is vested with orlgmal jurisdiction 'to evaluate and determine the sufficiency of proposed initiative petitions pursuant to 84 0.8. Supp. 2015 § 8.³ However, we have generally refused to declare a ballot initiative invalid in advance of a vote of the people except where there is a "clear or manifest" showing of unconstitutionality. In re Initiative Petition No. 358, 1994 OK 27, ¶ 7, 870 P.2d 782, 785 (emphasis added). The power of the people "to institute change through the initiative process is a' fundamental characteristic of Oklahoma government." In re Initiative Petition No. 360, 1994 OK 97, ¶ 9, 879 P.2d 810, 814. We have emphasized how vital the right of initiative is to the people of Okla homa and how diligently we must protect this entitlement:

The right of the initiative is precious, and it is one which this Court is zealous to preserve to the fullest measure of the spirit and the letter of the law. Because the right of the initiative is so precious, all'. doubt as to the construction of pertinent provisions is resolved in favor of the initiative. The initiative power should not be crippled, avoided, or denied by technical construction by the courts.

In re Initiative Petition No. 382, 2006 OK 45, ¶ 3, 142 P.3d 400, 403 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Opponents bear the burden of demonstrating the proposed initiative petition presented in this case clearly and manifestly violates the Oklahoma Constitution. In re Initiative Petition No. 362, 1995 OK 77, ¶ 12, 899 P.2d 1145, 1151.

One General Subject

T4 The sole challenge to the petition in this case is under Art. 24, § 1, which provides:

No proposal for the amendment or alteration of this Constitution which is submitted to the voters shall embrace more than one general subject and the voters' shall vote separately for or against each proposal submitted; provided, however, that in the submission of proposals for the amendment of this Constitution by articles, which embrace one general subject, each proposed article shall be deemed a single proposal or proposition.

Okla. Const. Art. 24, § 1 (emphasis added). The above-emphasized language was added to Art. 24, § 1 in 1952, In In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, ¶ 38, 625 P.2d 595, 600, this Court held that the one general subject rule of Art, 24, § 1 applies to an initiative petition.

Germameness Test

T5 In the case before us, proponents of the petition seek to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new article-Article 18-C-to create the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. In In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, 625 P.2d 595, proponents of an initiative petition sought to change the alcohol laws of this state by amending the existing Article 27 of the Oklahoma Constitution to allow for unrestricted franchising arrangements for brewers, on-premises consumption, unlimited advertising, and the sale of liquor by the drink by privately owned licensed on-premises outlets. In finding the petition violated the one general 'subject rule of Art. 24, § 1, this Court advised that "[tlhe changes sought by the multifarious proposal could have been effected either by submission of three separate proposals or a submission amending, under Art. 24, [§ ] 1, the entirety of Art. 27, as an amendment by article, as was done in 1959. when prohibition was repealed and Art. 27 was submitted and adopted by a vote of the people." - In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, ¶ 81, 625 P.2d at 608 (emphasis added).

T6 Taking the Court's advice, proponents, in their second attempt at changing the liquor laws of this state, again tendered an initiative petition seeking to amend the Oklahoma Constitution. This time, however, the proponents submitted the proposal as 'an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution by article. Notably, the initiative petition proposed many of the same substantive changes as the previously stricken petition, including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and the sale of liquor by the drink by privately owned licensed on-premises, outlets. In addition, the proposal abolished the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and replaced it with a new Alcoholic Beverage Laws Emforcement Commission to enforce the alcoholic beverage laws of the state. Opponents of the petition again argued the portion of the petition authorizing the Legislature to permit the sale of liquor by the drink embraced a different and additional subject matter. In re Initiative Petition No. 319, 1984 OK 23, ¶ 8, 682 P.2d 222, 223-224.

T7 The Court rejected the argument and stated: "In Re Initiative Petition No. 314, recognized that our constitution may be amended by article under Article 24, Section 1, and that such an amendment may cover changes which would violate the single subject rule if not proposed in that format. Proponents have complied with that procedure. While the amendment is still required to relate to a single general subject, our previous ruling indicates clearly that the various changes need not meet the test which was applied in Initiative Petition No. 314, and which resulted in the invalidity of that proposal." Id. ¶ 9, 682 P.2d at 224 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

18 The Court then applied the following test:

'[Glenerally provisions governing projects so related as to constitute a single scheme may be properly included within the same amendment; and that matters germane to the same general subject indicated in the amendment's title, or within the field of legislation suggested thereby, may be included therein. ...⁴

The Court held the provisions of the petition contributed to the overall scheme of control of the sale of alcoholic beverages embodied in the proposed article. The petition. was found legally sufficient to submit to a vote of the people.

T 9 This Court affirmed the amendment by article approach in 1996 in an opinion authored by Justice Opala. In In re Initiative Petition No. 363, 1996 OK 122, 927 P.2d 558, proponents of an initiative petition sought to amend the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new article which provided for the ereation of four locations immediately eligible for authorized gaming, prohibited casino gaming in counties not specifically authorized for a period of five years, created a seven-member state gaming commission with authority to provide regulation and enforcement of casino gambling, provided criminal penalties for violation of gaming laws, legalized obligations incurred in the course of authorized gaming, authorized the commission to collect gaming fees from each licensed gaming facility operator, retaining the legislatively approved amount of its budget and initial operations cost, earmarked the remaining receipts for specific computer-related educational purposes, local governments, and correctional institutions. Opponents challenged the petition for, among other things, a violation of the one general subject rule in Art. 24, § 1.

T10 Rejecting the constitutional attack, the Court reiterated that "when the proposed constitutional amendment is by a new article the test for gauging multiplicity of subjects is whether the changes proposed are oll germame to a singular common subject and purpose or are essentially unrelated to one another." Id. ¶ 15, 927 P.2d at 566. The Court continued:

In In re Init, Pet. 819, the court also observed that Rupe included within the single-subject standard components which were incidents, 'mecessary or convenient or tending to the accomplishment of one general design notwithstanding other purposes that the main design may be thereby subserved. Rupe accorded a liberal rather than a narrow or technical construction to the single-subject requirement.⁵

Applying this test, the Court upheld the measure finding that "the elements of taxa-bility, distribution of gaming revenue and of civil liability for debts incurred in gaming to be authorized are germane to the general subject of legalization and regulation of an-thorized casino gambling.⁶

T11 In the case before us, the proposed Article 13-C consists of seven see-tions. Section 1 creates the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. Section 2 levies an additional 1% sales and use tax with "[all revenue from the sales tax and the use tax levied" being used to fund the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund created by Section 1. Section 8 directs the percentage distribution of the monies in the Fund for certain educational purposes including, common education (69.5%), higher education (19.25%), career and technology education (8.25%), and early childhood education (8%). Section 4 provides for a $5,000 increase in teacher salaries to be funded with 86.38% of the common education distribution under Section 8.⁷ Section 5 directs that funds "expended or distributed from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund shall supplement, and shall not be used to supplant or replace, other state funds" supporting education. Section 5 also directs the State Board of Equalization to "examine and investigate appropriations from the Fund each year," and if it finds that education funding was supplanted by monies from the Fund, the State Board of Equalization must "specify the amount by which education funding was supplanted." If education funding was supplanted by monies from the Fund, Section 5 directs that "the Legislature shall not make any appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year until an appropriation in that amount is made to replenish the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund." Section 6 provides the effective date of the proposed amendment, and Section 7 provides a sever-ability clause.⁸

T12 The subject of the proposed amendment is the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. Each section of the proposed amendment is " 'reasonably interrelated and interdependent, forming an interlocking "package" '" deemed necessary by the initiatives' drafters to assure effective public education improvement funding.⁹ Proponents drafted the petition with each component being necessary to the accomplishment of one general design.¹⁰ The proposal stands or falls as a whole.¹¹ For example, if a voter agrees that the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund should be created but does not agree that an additional one cent sales tax is the appropriate funding mechanism to do so, then the voter must choose whether to approve the proposal based on such considerations. If, on the other hand, a voter agrees that an additional one cent sales tax is the appropriate funding mechanism to fund the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund, but does not agree with the percentage distribution of the monies as set forth in Section 3, then again, the voter must choose whether to approve the proposal based on such considerations. Such choices are the consequence of the voting process rather than any constitutional defect in the proposal.¹² The proposed initiative petition clearly constitutes a single scheme to be presented to voters, and each section is germane to creating and implementing the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund,

Purpose of the One General Subject Rule

$13 The purpose of the one general subject rule, as this Court has repeatedly held, is " 'to prevent imposition upon or deceit of the public by the presentation of a proposal which is misleading or the effect of which is concealed or not readily understandable," and to " 'afford the voters freedom of choice and prevent "logrolling", or the combining of unrelated proposals in order to secure approval by appealing to different groups which will support the entire proposal in order to secure some part of it although perhaps disapproving of other parts." In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, ¶ 59, 625 P.2d 595, 603 (quoting Fugina v. Donovan, 259 Minn. 35, 104 N.W.2d 911, 914 (1960)) (emphasis added).

14 In the case before us, opponents argue the proposal is misleading because voters will "think they are voting for teacher pay raises, when in fact, they are voting to significantly change our state's fiscal structure to give the Board of Equalization control over their local Representative and Senators deciding on education appropriations." ¹³ This argument ignores the powers already conferred to the State Board of Equalization in the Oklahoma Constitution. Article 10, § 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that the duty. of the State Board of Equalization "shall be to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property of the several counties in the state, and it shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law ...." Okla. Const. Art. 10, § 21(A) (emphasis added). In Art. 10, § 283, entitled "Balanced Budget," Section 28(1) states that "prior to the convening of each regular session of the Legislature, the State Board of Equalization shall certify the total amount of revenue which accrued during the last preceding fiscal year to the General Revenue Fund and to each Special Revenue Fund appropriated directly by the Legislature, and shall further certify amounts available for appropriation ... of the revenues to be received by the state under the laws in effect at the time such determination is made, for the next ensuing fiscal year...." Article 10, § 28(2) goes on to provide that "[tlhe Legislature shall not pass or enact any bill, act or measure making an appropriation of money for any purpose until such certification is made and filed...." All appropriations made in excess of such certification shall be "null and void" unless the Legislature follows certain specific procedures to adjust the certification amount.

¶15 In Art 10, § 41, entitled the Oklahoma Education Lottery. Trust Fund, the State Board of Equalization acts "to ensure that the funds from the trust fund are used to enhance and not supplant funding for education," and "examine[s] and investigate[s] appropriations from the trust fund each year." Art. 10, § 41(D). The State Board of Equalization "shall issue a finding and report which shall state whether appropriations from the trust fund were used to enhance or supplant education funding. If the State Board of Equalization finds that education funding was supplanted by funds from the trust fund, the Board shall specify the amount by which education funding was supplanted. In this event, the Legislature shall not make any appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year until an appropriation in that amount is made to replenish the trust fund." Id. ~~ r

T16 In Section 1521 of Title 69, which creates the Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety Fund, the State Board of Equalization also acts to "ensure that the funds from the ROADS Fund are used to enhance and not supplant state funding for the Department of Transportation," and "the State Board of Equalization shall examine and investigate expenditures from the fund each year." . 69 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 1521(E). If the State Board of Equalization finds that funds were used to supplant state funding for the. Department of Transportation, the Board "shall specify the amount by which such funding was supplanted," and in this event, "the Legislature shall not make any. appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year until an appropriation in that amount is made to replenish state funding for the Department of Transportation.¹⁴

17 The State Board of Equalmatmn already examines the General Revenue Fund and each Special Revenue Fund and certifies to the Legislature the amounts available for appropriation in the upcoming fiscal year. The State Board of Equalization audits the Lottery Education Fund in the same way it would audit- the Education Improvement Fund,. The Lottery Education Fund was proposed and passed by the people in 2004. For more than ten years now, since the implementation of the Fund and the yearly auditing process by the State Board of Equalization, there has been no legal challenge. Thus, any suggestion by Petitioners at oral argument that the implementation of the Education Improvement Fund would negatively affect the legislative appropriations process or usurp legislative fiscal policy-making is entirely speculative at this point.¹⁵ We decline, at the pre-election stage, to declare the proposal unconstitutional on nothing more than speculation.¹⁶

¶ 18 Opponents also argue that including funding for higher education and common education in the same proposal constitutes logrolling because each is "established in separate articles of the constitution." ¹⁷ We first note that Art, 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution, entitled "Education," creates not just a common public school system, :but also the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. Title 70 of the Oklahoma statutes includes acts governing common education, career and technology education, and higher education."¹⁸ Additionally, the Lottery Education Trust Fund delineates specific educational purposes and programs for which the funds can be used and does. not treat common and higher education as separate and distinct,. The Lottery Education Trust Fund includes appropriations for, among others: 1) K-12 public education "including but not limited to compensation and benefits for public school teachers and support employees"; 2) early childhood development programs; 3) tuition grants, loans and scholarships for higher education; . 4) construction of educational facilities for "elementary school districts, independent school districts, the Oklahoma State System. of Higher Education, and career and technology education"; and 5) "[elndowed chairs for professors at institutions of higher education operated by the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education." ¹⁹

19 In In re Initiative Petition No. 363, the Court defined logrolling in the context of initiative petitions as "the combining of unrelated proposals." ²⁰ In In re Initiative Petition No. 344, 1990 OK 75, 797 P.2d 326, proponents, filed an initiative petition, seeking to repeal Article VI. of the Oklahoma Constitution and replace it with a new Article VI. Article VI defines the executive branch of government. The proposed changes were numerous and unrelated and ranged from changing the method of selecting the Lieutenant Governor to adding the requirement that the State Auditor examine the books of school districts and provide uniform accounting systems for school districts and municipalities to repealing the constitutional authorization for the Department of Mines. Proponents challenged the constitutionality of the petition, alleging it violated the one general subject rule of Art. 24, § 1. The Court found the topics were tenuously connected at best, and "not so intertwined as to require that they "be Adopted at the same time in order to preserve the integrity of each section." Id. ¶ 9, 797 P.2d at 329. The Court held that "[ellearly the placing of sole authority with the Governor to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons is not dependent on the method of electing the Lt. Governor or a cabinet form of governmen " Id. ¶ 9, 797 P.2d at 329.

120 In In re Initiative Petition No. 342, 1990 OK 76, 797 P.2d 331, proponents presented an initiative petition, which sought to repeal and re-enact Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution. 'That. Article dealt with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, The petition covered multiple loosely related subjects "including removal 'of 'the prohibition against foreign corporations consolidating with domestic corporations, removal 'of the provision abrogating the fellow-servant doe-trine rule, removal of the requirement that mining and public service corporations arbitrate labor disputes, and removal of the prohibition against bank or trust companies holding or controlling stock in another bank or trust company. The Court found the petition violated the one general subject rule of Okla. Const. Art, 24, § 1 and held: "There are numerous subjects covered by the Petition ranging from financial institutions holding stock in another financial institution to the power of eminent domain of foreign corpora‘aons to the fellow-servant doctrine rule. The only connection that these topics have to each other is that they all tangentially relate to the general subject of corporations. Otherwise, they are unrelated." Id. ¶ 8, 797 P.2d at 333.

€ 21 The proposal in the case before us is markedly different from the proposals struck down in Initiative Petition No. 344 and Initiative Petition No. 342 which included completely unrelated proposals. The proposal in this case does not amount to logrolling and constitutes a single scheme to be presented to voters.

Conclusion

[ 22 Our inquiry today is limited to whether or not Initiative Petition No. 408 violates the one general subject rule of Art. 24, § 1. We hold that it does not and find it is legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma.

1 23 REIF, C.J., COMBS, V.C.J., EDMONDSON, GURICH, JJ., MITCHELL, THORNBRUGH, SJ., concur. 1 24 KAUGER, WINCHESTER, TAYLOR (by separate writing with whom KAUGER, WINCHESTER, JJ., join), JJ., dissent. 125 WATT, COLBERT, JJ., disqualified,

1 . The proposed ballot title reads:

This measure adds a new Article to the Oklahoma Constitution. The new article creates a limited purpose fund to improve public education. It levies a one cent sales and use tax to provide revenue for the fund. It allocates funds for specific institutions and purposes related to the improvement of public education, such as increasing teacher salaries, addressing teacher shortages, programs to improve reading in early grades, to increase high school graduation rates, college and career readiness, and college affordability, improving higher education and career technology education, and increasing access to voluntary early learning opportunities for low-income and at-risk children. It requires an annual audit of school districts' use of monies from the fund. It prohibits school districts' use of these funds for administrative salaries. It provides for an increase in teacher salaries. It requires that monies from the fund not supplant or replace other education funding. The Article takes effects [sic] on the July 1 after its passage.

Initiative Petition No. 403, Proposed Ballot Title,

2 . Sections 8 and 9 of Title 34 were amended by the Legislature effective April 28, 2015. Notably, the ballot title is now to be filed separately from the petition and is not "part of or printed on the petition." 34 0.S. Supp. 2015 § 8(A). Additionally, the notice published pursuant to § 8(B) no longer includes the text of the ballot title. According to § 8(H), after the signed copies of a petition are timely filed with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State "shall file a copy of the proponent's ballot title with the Attorney General," which then triggers the ballot title review process in §§ 9 and 10.

Section 8(I) now requires that the Secretary of State publish a "notice of the filing of the signed petitions and the apparent sufficiency or insufficiency thereof, and shall also publish the text of the ballot title as reviewed and approved, or if applicable, as rewritten by the Attorney General pursuant to the provisions of subsection D of Section 9 of this title" and notice that any citizen may file an objection to the count or the ballot title within 10 business days after publication.

The record before this Court and the Secretary of State's website indicate the only notice published regarding this petition was the notice of the filing of the petition alerting citizens of this state of their right to challenge the constitutionality of the petition within ten business days of the notice pursuant to § 8(B). Petitioners' App. B. The ballot title has presumably not yet been reviewed by the Attorney Gengral or published as per §§ 8(I) and 9(D), and no challenge to the ballot title is before the Court at this time. Additionally, the Petitioners have not raised a challenge to, the gist of the proposition in this proceeding.

3 , The procedures for presenting an initiative petition are outlined in 34 Q.S. Supp. 2015 §§ 1-27.

4 . Id. ¶ 10, 682 P.2d at 224 (citing Rupe v. Shaw, 1955 OK 223, 286 P.2d 1094, and In Re Initiative Petition No. 271, 1962 OK 178, 373 P.2d 1017).

5 . Id. n. 34, 927 P.2d at 566 n. 34 (citing Rupe, 1955 OK 223, 286 P.2d 1094, and In Re Initiative Petition No. 271, 1962 OK 178, 373 P.2d 1017) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The germaneness test under the one general subject rule of Art. 24, § 1 is "more liberal" than the germaneness test applied to' legislative acts under the single-subject rule of Art. 5, § 57. See id.

6 . Id. ¶ 16, 927 P.2d at 566.

7 . We again note the only challenge brought by the opponents of the petition was under the one general subject rule of Art. 24, § 1. Opponents did not challenge the teacher pay raise portion of the proposdl as a special law. Regardless, this Court has held that the special law provision of Art. 5, § 59 "applies to the Legislative Department'" and not to a constitutional amendment approved by the people. Eastern Okla. Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. Pitts, 2003 OK 113, ¶ 13, 82 P.3d 1008, 1013.

8 . See Petitioners' App. A.

9 . In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, ¶ 67, 625 P.2d at 605 (citing Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (1978)).

10 . In re Initiative Petition No. 363, 1996 OK 122 n. 33, 927 P.2d at 566 n. 33.

11 . In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, ¶ 75, 625 P.2d at 603.

12 . In re Initiative Petition No. 348, 1991 OK 110, ¶ 13, 820 P.2d 772, 777.

13 . Brief in Support of ApphCaflon to Assume Original Jurisdiction at 12. °

14 . Id. See also 70 O.S. 2601-2605; 62 O.S. 34.87.

15 . In In re Initiative Petition No. 348, 1991 OK 110, 820 P.2d 772, opponents challenged the legality of a petition that sought to amend Art. V, § 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution to require all revenue raising bills to be approved by a majority of the people at the next general election unless such revenue bill was approved by a three-fourths vote of both houses. Opponents argued that the proposal would severely limit the Legislature's ability to raise new revenue. Opponents challenged the proposal under the one general subject rule and argued that the proposal violated the rule because it would affect more than one'subject.

'The Court found the proposal did not violate the one general subject rule and that although the amendment, if adopted, could. affect other articles of the constitution, such was insufficient reason for the Court to deny the people of Oklahoma 'the right to vote on the petition, "though indeed, the [pletition's effect may. result in subsequent challenges." Id. ¶ 12, 820 P.2d at 776. Notably, in that case, the opponents also argued that the proposal would destroy the entire design for financing state governments as organized in the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court again rejected the argument, finding that "the people have the sovereign right under the reserved power to institute constitutional tax reform by way of the initiative process," and that "specific legislative grants of power will always be subject to the reserved power of the people under Article V, § 1." Id. ¶ 16, 820 P.2d at 778. The Court also noted it was "mere conjecture" as to whether the petition would destroy the state financing scheme, and declined to invalidate the petition on such speculation. Id. ¶ 18, 820 P.2d at 778.

16 . In In re Initiative Petition No. 358, 1994 OK 27, 870 P.2d 782, opponents challenged an initiative petition that proposed enactment of the Oklahoma Lottery Act. In that case, the opponents argued. the proposal would unconstitutionally delegate the Legislature's fiscal policy-making power because the Lottery Authority had the authority to create the formula for determining gross revenues and net revenues. The Court rejected the opponents' argument and found that the proposal specified the percentage of gross lottery revenues to be paid into the state treasury and the purposes for which the revenues could be appropriated by the Legislature. Thus, the language of the proposed measure authorizing the Lottery Authority to determine "net revenues" did not clearly contravene Art. IV, § 1 or Art. V, § 55 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court specifically held it would "not interpret the contents of an initiative proposal, nor speculate. implementation, at thle] pre-election stage." Id. ¶ 12, 870 P.2d at 787.

17 . Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction at 9.

18 . See, eg., School Code of 1971 in 70 0.8. §§ 1-101-27-103; Career and Technology Education in 70 O.S. §§ 14-101-14-112; «Junior Colleges-Construction and Maintenance in 70 O.. §§ 2201-2212; Higher Education Code in 70 O.S. §§ 3101-8005.

19 . Oka. Const. Art. 10; § 41(B).

20 . 1996 OK 122, ¶ 15, 927 P.2d at 566.