Opinion No. (2010)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports·Decided December 8, 2010·Published

Opinion

¶ 0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:

1. Do the new qualifications for non-lawyer members of the Judicial Nominating Commission, found in Okla. Const. art. 7B, § 3, adopted by State Question No. 752, apply to current Commission members who were appointed prior to the adoption of State Question No. 752?

2. What does the term "immediate family" in Okla. Const. art. 7B, § 3, adopted by State Question No. 752, mean?

¶ 1 On November 2, 2010, the people of Oklahoma held an election and adopted State Question No. 752, Legislative Referendum No. 352.1 The referendum amends Section 3 of Article 7B of the Oklahoma Constitution, which relates to the Judicial Nominating Commission ("Commission").2 In addition to increasing the number of non-lawyer ("lay") members on the Commission, 3 the constitutional amendment adds language prohibiting the lay Commission members from having "any immediate family member who has been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state[.]" See id. The amended language pertinent to your question is:

Section 3. (a) There is established as a part of the Judicial Department a Judicial Nominating Commission of thirteen (13) fifteen (15) members, to consist of:

(1) six (6) members to be appointed by the Governor, which shall include at least one (1) from each congressional district established by the Statutes of Oklahoma and existing at the date of the adoption of this Article, none of whom shall be admitted to practice law in the State of Oklahoma or have any immediate family member who has been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state;

(2) six (6) members, which shall include at least one (1) from each congressional district established by the Statutes of Oklahoma and existing at the date of the adoption of this Article who are, however, members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and who have been elected by the other active members of their district under procedures adopted by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, until changed by statute; and

(3) one (1) member three members at large who shall not have been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state, or have any immediate family member who has been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state but who shall be a resident of the State of Oklahoma, one to be selected by not less than eight (8) members of the Nominating Commission. In the event eight (8) members of the Commission cannot agree upon the member at large within thirty (30) days of the initial organization of the Commission or within thirty (30) days of a vacancy in the member at large position, the Governor shall make the appointment of the member at large; one to be selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; and one to be selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. No more than two members at large shall belong to any one political party.

State Question No. 752, § 1, at https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/752.pdf (amending Okla. Const. art. 7B, § 3).

I.
Current Commission Members Appointed Prior to the Amendment of Okla. Const. art. 7B § 3, Are Not Subject to the New Qualifications.
¶ 2 You first ask if the amendment to Section 3 of Article 7B of the Oklahoma Constitution, adopted by State Question No. 752, that prohibits lay Commission members from having an immediate family member admitted to the practice of law, applies to current lay Commission members who were appointed prior to the adoption of State Question No. 752. The current lay Commission members appointed prior to the adoption of the amendment to Okla. Const. art. 7B, § 3, are not prohibited from having an immediate family member who is admitted to the practice of law.

¶ 3 "In construing a provision of a Constitution, the primary inquiry is to ascertain the intention of the framers, and of the people who adopted the same." In re Initiative Petition No. 2, 10 P.2d 271, 276 (Okla. 1932) (citation omitted). "[T]he provisions of a Constitution are construed using the usual rules of statutory construction." Cowart v.Piper Aircraft Corp., 665 P.2d 315, 317 (Okla. 1983). Absent a plain legislative intent to the contrary, legislative enactments are generally presumed to operate prospectively only. In re McNeely, 734 P.2d 1294, 1296 n. 7 (Okla. 1987). Any doubt about legislative intent should be resolved against retroactive application. Id. at 1297.

¶ 4 To ascertain the intent of the Legislature and the people adopting State Question No. 752, the constitutional measure and the ballot title must be construed together. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Okla. State Bd. ofEqualization, 231 P.3d 638, 642 (Okla. 2009). There is no language in the constitutional amendment or the ballot title indicating the Legislature and the people wished to make the new qualification for lay Commission members retroactively apply to current lay Commission members who were appointed prior to the adoption of State Question No. 752.4 The Oklahoma Legislature has demonstrated it knows how to construct an enactment to apply to current board members. For example, in 2005 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 168, § 2, the Legislature revised the qualifications for current board members of the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators. The Legislature also deemed vacant the appointed positions of the then-existing board members in order for the Governor to appoint new board members who met the revised qualifications. See 2005 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 168, § 2(C).

¶ 5 Generally, new requirements for holding a constitutionally created office shall not be enforced "against an incumbent during a term of office that began before the effective date of the new requirements."Jackson v. State, 966 P.2d 1046, 1052 (Colo. 1998).5 We and the majority of Attorneys General have previously found applying new statutory qualifications to existing members of governmental boards violates the general rule against retroactive application of newly enacted statutes. See, e.g. A.G.Opin.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion No. (2010), (Okla. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion No. (2010) (Opinion No. (2010)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Carlisle
209 S.W.3d 93 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Cannon v. Gardner
611 P.2d 1207 (Utah Supreme Court, 1980)
In the Matter of McNeely
1987 OK 19 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1987)
Cowart v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
1983 OK 66 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1983)
Jackson v. State
966 P.2d 1046 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1998)
Gilbert v. Breithaupt
104 P.2d 183 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1940)
Latting v. Cordell
1946 OK 217 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)
In Re Initiative Petition No. 2 of Cushing
1932 OK 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co.
1936 OK 589 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
State v. Jacobson
558 P.2d 292 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)
McGuffin v. State
2005 OK 15 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2005)
Carter v. Commission on Qualifications of Judicial Appointments
93 P.2d 140 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Scharn v. Ecker
218 N.W.2d 478 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1974)