Further clarity needed with single-subject rule

THE Oklahoma Constitution’s “single subject” rule was adopted for valid reasons. But its inconsistent application may have turned it into more of a roadblock for progress than anything.

The constitution requires that bills deal with only a single subject (aside from the general appropriations bill). This was done to keep politicians from combining unrelated subjects in a single bill, forcing legislators to pass unpopular measures as the price of approving measures they do support.

The idea behind the provision is sound. Yet in recent years, court rulings have muddied the waters. Bills that — to the layman — deal only with a single topic have been declared otherwise, while measures combining what appear to be wholly unrelated measures have been upheld.

This has encouraged litigation and hindered progress. The latest example comes from a lawsuit filed by the Oklahoma Association of Optometric Physicians. The OAOP is challenging an initiative petition that would allow optometrists and eyeglass retailers to do business in retail stores, such as Wal-Mart. (Oklahoma is one of only three states where that practice is illegal.)

The OAOP alleges the petition violates the single-subject rule because it deals with “optometric physicians” and “opticians.” To most people, the petition deals with a single subject — eye-care services — and the OAOP’s objections sound like hair-splitting.

The OAOP would doubtless oppose the petition no matter what, but the single-subject rule provides a ready justification to sue because court rulings have made it difficult to predict how judges will act.

In 2009, the state Supreme Court declared a law authorizing bonds for three separate projects to be a violation of the single-subject rule. In 2013, the court declined to hear a legal challenge to a bill authorizing a statewide virtual charter school that also authorized a completely separate $30 million appropriation to public schools. The same year, the court struck down a lawsuit reform measure for violating the single-subject rule, but later upheld a workers’ compensation reform bill containing many wide-ranging provisions.

In 2016, the court rejected a single-subject challenge to a petition that included a sales tax increase, mandated changes in teacher pay, and a constitutional restructuring of the state appropriations process. Meanwhile, the court has repeatedly ruled that bills dealing exclusively with abortion violate the single-subject rule.

In 2013, an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling compared laws to peanut butter cookies. Whether a cookie has crunchy peanut butter or creamy, it’s still a “one flavor cookie.” But add chocolate chips or M&Ms, and it becomes a “jumble.” This was supposed to provide single-subject guidance to lawmakers. But few can tell what the court considers peanut butter and what it considers M&Ms.

In its 2014 agenda, The State Chamber endorsed amending the single-subject provision “to provide clearer direction to the legislature.” This year, legislation has advanced to allow voters to amend the Oklahoma Constitution so bills can address a “general” or “comprehensive” subject.

Without doubt, legal clarity is needed. Otherwise, Oklahomans may soon question whether the many negatives associated with the current single-subject rule outweigh its benefits.