| The Oklahoma Supreme Court just completed their oral testimony on behalf of two challenges to OTU's veto referendum. The first case centered on the proposed 'crisis' conditions involving the tax increase and the implied purpose of the higher tax rates applied to several forms of commerce & productivities. There was a solid caucus within the 9 member tribunal which showed open hostility toward the OTU efforts. Some openly stated their opinions immediately. At least 3 different justices openly gave their opinions and scolded the OTU attorney in the process. Justice Wyrick had perhaps the most constructive questions, once again. The 2nd case is perhaps the most troublesome for the OTU referendum drive. Court standards from precedent and statute state that the exact text of the bill must be included in the petition and available for all petition signers to read. But the OTU documents had the section numbers edited out. That technicality is compounded by their gist, which refers to specific sections of the bill, but the petitioners cannot find any section numbers in the text (because they were edited out. This is the strongest point of the challenge. If it prevails and the current petition is declared invalid, then little time remains to start over, because a hard 90 days from enactment leaves the group with only 30 days left. |  Attorney Barrett Bowers presents his defence of the State Question 799 petition. |
 Atty. Barrett Bowers and an asst. join Ronda Vuillemont-Smith & Brooke McGowan at the court Another challenge came regarding the summary portion of the petition, referred to as the 'gist'. It is required to accurately give a summation of the substance in 200 words or less. In this case they used just 92 words, but did not mention the tax on 'little cigars' or the lodging tax; both of which are included in the bill. Since then the lodging tax was repealed via another bill, but that bill may also be subject to litigation. Jerry Fent is one such retired attorney who has prevailed to invalidate many signed pieces of legislation on various formalities including the 'single subject rule'. | It appears that the OTU efforts are facing a serious challenge and may lose this effort. Maybe not on the first challenge (which tried to enforce Missouri laws on Oklahoma); but the second challenge may be very problematic. This may be a case where copyroom scrivener's errors can thwart constitutional rights. |
