Failure of ouster effort is good news

THIS year a teachers’ union tacitly tried to take out an Oklahoma Supreme Court justice. Although unsuccessful, this episode should not be ignored.

In its 2018 election guide, the Oklahoma Education Association included information on state Supreme Court justices facing retention votes. The OEA said Justice Patrick Wyrick had “ruled against the OEA” in a case in which “an anti-tax group tried to strip away pay raises.”

Yet the idea that Wyrick is some anti-teacher zealot is undermined by his record and the facts of the case referenced.

In 2017, after the Legislature tried to label a tobacco tax increase as a tobacco “fee” and pass it without the three-fourths majority mandated for tax increases, Wyrick was among the court majority striking down the measure. But that same year, he joined a majority ruling that the Legislature could raise the tax on automobiles without a three-fourths majority because the change was technically the repeal of an exemption, albeit one in place for more than 80 years. In his dissent, Chief Justice Douglas Combs warned that ruling “eviscerated” the “purpose and intent” of the state constitution’s restrictions on tax increases.

Thus, Wyrick has upheld the legality of some sketchy tax-hike efforts and struck down others.

In the case that irked the OEA, citizen group Oklahoma Taxpayers Unite! sought to gather petition signatures to force a “veto referendum” requiring a statewide vote to repeal several tax increases approved by the Legislature in March. This year’s tax increases went in part to education.

The OEA challenged the effort, saying the petition’s summary was misleading because it didn’t mention a hotel tax approved in the tax legislation and then almost immediately repealed in a separate bill, and because it didn’t mention taxes were increased on little cigars.

In written arguments, the office of the attorney general conceded there were some problems in the petition’s wording but argued it was clear enough for people to understand what tax increases would be repealed.

Nonetheless, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with the OEA and tossed the petition. In his dissent, Wyrick said, “At worst, this is a close case,” and noted the secretary of state and the attorney general had “examined this petition and concluded that it is sufficient and can go to the people.” He argued that when a petition is not “clearly deficient” the court should “err on the side of letting the people have their say — even if we might quibble with some of the drafting choices made by the proponents.” That’s hardly unreasonable.

This case was almost the mirror opposite of one in Arizona, where an initiative effort to increase taxes, supported by teachers’ unions, was tossed because justices found its language was misleading. Because of that ruling, teachers’ union officials sought to oust two justices facing retention elections.

That Wyrick and both Arizona justices were retained with strong majority support is welcome news. Judges’ rulings should be guided by the language of the Constitution and applicable laws, not the identity of those involved in a case — even if teachers’ union officials wish it were otherwise.