Controversy is a last resort for the TALENTLESS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

GRANDSTANDING!

by Steve Fair

 

Fourteen states, including Oklahoma have constitutions that require a vote regarding a constitutional convention.  The intervals of frequency and the provision on who calls for the vote vary state by state. 

Article XXIV, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates the question of whether to call a state constitutional convention must be submitted to the voters at least once every 20 years.  The last time Oklahoma voters voted on Article XXIV, Section 2 was in 1970- 56 years have passed since the issue has been on the ballot.

On Wednesday, Governor Kevin Stitt issued an executive order to place proposed State Question 848 (SQ#848) on the ballot for a special election to be held April 6, 2027. 

Stitt's order also instructs the Secretary of State to create the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention Commission (OCCC).  The Commission is tasked with studying the Oklahoma Constitution and make recommendations about the procedures and rules that would govern a state constitutional convention, if voters approve SQ#848.   The OCCC are to submit their recommendations by 12/31/26. 

Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond and several Oklahoma state legislators don't believe Stitt has the authority to unilaterally place a State Question on the ballot.  It is likely the courts will decide the fate of Stitt's order.  Three observations:

First, it is past time to vote on a constitutional convention.  Past elected officials have simply ignored the constitutional provision for a vote for the past 1/2 century.   They feared a runaway constitutional convention could spiral out of control and result in chaos. 

Whether Article XXIV, Section 2 should be in the constitution is subject to debate, but so long as it remains in the document, it should be adhered to.  This past legislative session, the legislature debated the issue.  The Senate and House couldn't agree on how many delegates to a proposed convention would be appointed by each chamber, so the Joint Resolution failed.

Second, most Oklahoma voters could care less about a constitutional convention.  Most Okies have no idea Oklahoma's state constitution is one of the longest and most detailed state constitutions in America.  Drafted in 1907, primarily by tribal leaders, progressive Democrats, and future governor Charles Haskell, using the rejected 1905 Cherokee/Sequoyah Constitution as a framework, the document has a clear populist bent.  

Rural Oklahoma was surprising a hotbed for socialism in 1907.  The Sooner state had a higher percentage of registered Socialist Party members than any other state. 

That explains why Oklahoma was the first state to include a provision for an initiative petition process, empowering private citizens to amend the constitution without the legislature. 

The document fragments power in government.  Oklahoma directly elects more statewide officers vs. other states.  The state constitution also limits the power of the Oklahoma governor.  But most Oklahoma citizens don't care about a constitutional convention.  That is why no pressure has been put on elected officials about Article XXIV, Section 2. 

Third, the issue is being used to grandstand.  Stitt apparently failed to communicate with legislative leaders or the Attorney General before he issued his decree.  Why?  Because the guv knew his action would raise their blood pressure and get headlines.  Stitt could have addressed a vote on Article XXIV, Section 2 early in his eight-year tenure, but chose to wait until now and his edict isn't executed until he is out of office.  Stitt's timing is suspect.  Political games by elected officials waste taxpayer dollars and are exhausting.  Controversy is a last resort for the talentless.   

The legislature should work next session to get the state question on the ballot next year.  Oklahoma citizens should recognize the risks involved in holding a constitutional convention.  It could result in a bigger mess of a state government than already have.