In re: Initiative Petition No. 426, State Question No. 810

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a protest challenging the constitutional validity of Initiative Petition No. 426, State Question No. 810, which proposed creating a Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission. The petitioners argued that reallocating incarcerated persons to their pre-incarceration home addresses and restricting commissioner eligibility violated federal constitutional provisions. The court held that the petitioners failed to establish clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities and ruled that the initiative was legally sufficient for submission to Oklahoma voters.

Holdings

1. A challenger to an initiative petition must demonstrate clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities before the court will prevent submission of the measure to the voters.
2. A state may adjust census data to count incarcerated persons at their pre-incarceration residences, provided the adjustment is systematic and nonarbitrary; Initiative Petition No. 426's reallocation provision did not clearly or manifestly violate Article I, § 2 or the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. The temporary restrictions on commission membership, including restrictions concerning recent party affiliation changes, spouses or family members of elected officials, and legislative or congressional employment or paid consulting, were not clearly or manifestly unconstitutional.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reallocating incarcerated persons to their pre-incarceration residences for redistricting purposes clearly or manifestly violates Article I, § 2 of the United States Constitution.
2. Whether reallocating incarcerated persons while treating other group-quarters populations differently clearly or manifestly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether restrictions on political affiliation changes, family relationships to elected officials, and legislative or congressional employment or paid consulting clearly or manifestly violate equal-protection or First Amendment rights.
4. Whether the court's limited pre-election review should be abandoned in favor of resolving all constitutional challenges at the initiative-petition stage.

Disposition

approved