Marian P. Opala on Property Rights
From Judgepedia
2006
Justice Opala, along with Justices Lavender and Hargrave dissented from the majority opinion of Justice Yvonne Kauger and five others, which invalidated a property-rights based voter initiative what would have protected private property from economic-development and regulatory takings.
ISSUES:
In this case, the court considered whether an initiative that (1) prevents government from taking private property to transfer it to a private party; and (2) requires government to pay compensation to owners of private property whose property values are adversely affected by newly-enacted government regulations violated Oklahoma's broadly-construed requirement that all ballot initiatives contain a single subject.
HOLDING:
The majority of the Court, led by Justice Kauger, held that that the Initiative consisted of two unrelated provisions.
REASONING:
In arriving at that decision, the court reasoned as follows:
- (1) The Initiative runs afoul of Oklahoma's "single-subject rule," the purpose of which is "to prevent the practice of assuring the passage of a law by creating a proverbial 'Hobson's choice,' [("take it or leave it")] in which a legislator or voter is forced to assent to an unfavorable provision provision to secure passage of a favorable one, or conversely, forced to vote against a favorable provision to ensure that an unfavorable provision is not enacted."
- (2) "Zoning laws and takings are mutually exclusive."
- (3) The initiative seeks to erase the delineation between zoning laws and takings, instead of addressing two separate types of takings.
- (4) "Whether we explicitly stated it or not, the issue is not how similar or related any two provisions in a proposal are, or whether one can articulate some rational connection between the provisions of a proposed law, but whether it appears that either the proposal is misleading or provisions in the proposal are so unrelated that many of those voting on the law would be faced with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice."
- (5) "Because [the concern over eminent domain] continues, voters might approve of limitations on the power of eminent domain contained in [the initiative]. However, those who might approve of the first subject would by no means necessarily approve of the unrelated second subject, which would seem to make most zoning laws, with a few exceptions, unworkable. To present the voters with such an all-or-nothing choice is clearly an attempt at logrolling, which violates the basic purpose of the single subject rule."
POTENTIAL FLAWS IN THE COURT'S REASONING:
For a discussion of potential flaws in the court's reasoning, see this link to the discussion page, or click on the discussion tab at the top of this page.
