Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432, was legally sufficient for submission to Oklahoma voters. The Court rejected challenges based on federal preemption, the validity of signatures and elections in Indian country, and the sufficiency of the measure’s gist. Separate opinions dissented in whole or in part, principally on federal-preemption grounds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether State Question No. 818 is facially unconstitutional because it is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act, RICO, federal restrictions on unlicensed money-transmitting businesses, or the Major Crimes Act as discussed in connection with McGirt v. Oklahoma.
- Whether Oklahoma citizens residing in Indian country may sign the initiative petition and participate in elections on the measure.
- Whether the initiative's gist is legally insufficient or misleading because it does not warn voters of federal criminal consequences associated with marijuana possession and use.
Holdings
- State Question No. 818 is not facially preempted by the Controlled Substances Act or RICO. Federal law does not preempt Oklahoma's authority to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana where the state measure does not require individuals or the state to violate federal law.
- Section 1960 does not preempt State Question No. 818 because the measure does not concern a money-transmitting business within the meaning of the applicable federal statutes.
- McGirt v. Oklahoma and the Major Crimes Act do not preempt State Question No. 818 because the Major Crimes Act does not identify marijuana possession or use by Indians among the offenses subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
- Oklahoma has not waived its political or police power over activities occurring in Indian country within the state's boundaries, and McGirt does not disenfranchise Oklahoma citizens residing in Indian country from participating in state elections or signing initiative petitions.
- The gist of State Question No. 818 satisfies 34 O.S. § 3 and is legally sufficient because it is brief, descriptive, informative, nondeceptive, and accurately explains the substantive effects of the proposed constitutional amendment.
Key quotations
“STATE QUESTION NO. 818, INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 432 IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.” (¶ 12)
Factual background
State Question No. 818 proposed a new Article 31 to the Oklahoma Constitution concerning medical marijuana. The measure would phase out the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, create the Oklahoma State Cannabis Commission, regulate and tax medical marijuana, establish licensing and enforcement provisions, and provide specified rights and protections. Tay challenged the measure as federally preempted, argued that signatures gathered and elections held in Indian country would be invalid, and contended that the initiative's gist was misleading because it omitted federal criminal consequences.
Procedural history
Respondents filed State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432, with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. Tay timely protested the petition and later filed multiple motions for summary or declaratory judgment, a notice of intention to appeal, and a request to stay signature gathering. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, denied the challenge and stay request, and held the measure legally sufficient for submission to Oklahoma voters.