A First Step on Constitutional Reform

January 08, 2008

By Robert Butkin and Andrew Spiropoulos

As we celebrate our state’s centennial, we Oklahomans have much to be proud of. Our talent, hard work, and character have enabled us to achieve in the face of our youth, hard times and disaster, both natural and man-made. Our accomplishments, however, have too often come in spite of, rather than because of, our charter of government.

From the very birth of our state, when President Theodore Roosevelt pronounced it “not fit for publication,” it has been evident that our state’s constitution is an insuperable barrier to the excellent government Oklahomans deserve.

Six times in our history, blue-ribbon commissions, staffed by nonpartisan experts and Oklahomans of diverse political views, have studied our constitution and found it severely wanting. The principal flaws discovered are always the same—a government crippled by a weak and poorly organized executive branch, the inclusion of language that belongs in the statute books rather than the constitution, and petty and obsolete provisions unworthy of a constitution.

In 1990, reform efforts nearly succeeded. A bipartisan commission recommended three major reforms—reorganization of the executive branch, transfer of the bulk of detailed regulatory provisions to the statute books, and creation of a new Ethics Commission—and organized an initiative campaign to enact them.

Unfortunately, the first two (and most important) reforms were derailed by decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court holding that a proposed amendment to the constitution, even to eliminate or replace a complete article of the document, could not contain more than one reform provision. These decisions, requiring a separate ballot question for each reform provision, made comprehensive constitutional reform practically impossible.

The last study of constitutional reform, conducted by The Oklahoma Academy, a nonpartisan public policy organization, reached largely the same substantive conclusions as previous efforts. Their first recommendation, however, dealt with the barrier to reform raised by the court’s decisions. The Academy recommended that the constitution be amended to make it clear that an amendment eliminating an entire article may be voted on by the people in one initiative even if that article contains multiple subjects. This change in turn could facilitate subsequent reform either through constitutional amendment or legislative enactment.

Further, the Academy believed that the elimination of an entire article in a single vote would not present the opportunities for voter manipulation that may exist when two arguably unrelated additions to the constitution are included in a single vote. This amendment does not directly address the substantive problems of the constitution, but it may make the other reforms possible.

As citizens and lawyers of diverse political views who are united in our desire that our state have the best possible constitution, we urge the Legislature, in the 2008 session, to take up the question of constitutional reform and consider placing this amendment on the ballot.

The arduous, but necessary, effort to reform our constitution must begin sooner rather than later. We Oklahomans have waited long enough for a constitution—and a government—that is as good as our people.

Robert Butkin, a former state treasurer of Oklahoma, is a professor of law at the University of Tulsa. OCPA adjunct scholar Andrew Spiropoulos is a professor of law at Oklahoma City University.

Send This Article to a Friend

< Go Back