IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION No. 426 STATE QUESTION No. 810


IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION No. 426 STATE QUESTION No. 810 Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us e-payments Careers Home Courts Decisions Programs News Legal Research Court Records Quick Links OSCN Found Document:IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION No. 426 STATE QUESTION No. 810 Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION No. 426 STATE QUESTION No. 8102020 OK 43Case Number: 118685Decided: 05/27/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2020 OK 43, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION No. 426, STATE QUESTION No. 810 MARC MCCORMICK, LAURA NEWBERRY, ROGER GADDIS, and, CLAIRE ROBINSON DAVEY, Protestants/Petitioners, v. ANDREW MOORE, JANET ANN LARGENT and LYNDA JOHNSON, Respondents/Proponents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 426, STATE QUESTION NO. 810 ¶0 This is an original proceeding to determine the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No. 426, State Question No. 810. The petition seeks to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article V-A, for the purpose of establishing the Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission. The Petitioners filed this protest alleging the petition is unconstitutional because it violates Article 1, §2, the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Upon our review, we hold the Petitioners have not met their burden to show Initiative Petition No. 426 contains clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities. On the grounds alleged, the petition is legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma. INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 426, STATE QUESTION NO. 810 IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA Robert G. McCampbell and Travis V. Jett, GableGotwals, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners. D. Kent Meyers, and Melanie Wilson Rughani, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondents. COMBS, J.: I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶1 On October 28, 2019, the Respondents/Proponents, Andrew Moore, Janet Ann Largent, and Lynda Johnson (Respondents), filed Initiative Petition No. 420, State Question No. 804 (IP 420), with the Secretary of State of Oklahoma. The initiative measure proposed for submission to the voters the creation of a new constitutional article, Article V-A, which would create the Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission (Commission). IP 420 would vest the power to redistrict the State's House of Representatives and Senatorial districts, as well as Federal Congressional Districts, in this newly created Commission. IP 420 was challenged in two separate cases; In re Initiative Petition No. 420, State Question No. 804, 2020 OK 9, 458 P.3d 1088 and In re Initiative Petition No. 420, State Question No. 804, 2020 OK 10, 458 P.3d 1080. On February 4, 2020, this Court handed down its decisions in both matters. We held in 2020 OK 9 that IP 420 did not violate the single subject rule and we would not address the First Amendment issues due to uncertainty in federal jurisprudence, i.e., IP 420 did not clearly or ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals