Eldon Merklin and Claire Robinson Davey v. Janet Ann Largent, Andrew Moore, and Lynda Johnson

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a protest challenging the legal sufficiency of the gist of Initiative Petition No. 426, State Question No. 810. The proposed measure would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to establish a Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission. The Court held that the gist adequately described the measure and was legally sufficient.

Holdings

1. The gist was not affirmatively inaccurate. Its statement that a panel of retired judges and justices would be designated by the Chief Justice accurately described the Chief Justice's role, while the petition's random-drawing provision did not apply in every possible circumstance.
2. The gist was sufficient despite not specifying that approval required six of nine commissioners, including representatives of each of the three specified groups.
3. The gist was sufficient because it identified political fairness as one of the criteria the Commission would seek to maximize and did not need to include the petition's detailed definition of that criterion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the gist of Initiative Petition No. 426 was affirmatively inaccurate because it described the Chief Justice's role in designating the panel of retired judges and justices without stating that panel members would be selected by random drawing.
2. Whether the gist was legally insufficient because it did not state the precise supermajority and group-representation requirements for Commission approval of a redistricting plan.
3. Whether the gist was legally insufficient because it referred to political fairness without explaining that criterion in greater detail.

Disposition

approved