## Facts

- Initiative Petition No. 384 (State Question No. 731) proposed the “First Class Education for Oklahoma Act,” adding a provision to Oklahoma’s education statutes.
- The measure required each school district to spend at least 65% of its “operational expenditures” on “classroom instructional expenditures,” as defined by the proposal.
- The proposal included an enforcement structure allowing districts to seek waivers and authorizing sanctions for noncompliance, including possible withholding of state funds.
- The petition was filed with the Secretary of State, signature pamphlets were submitted, and the Secretary certified that the number of signatures exceeded the statutory threshold.
- Oklahoma law required each signature sheet to contain a short “gist” statement in simple language summarizing the proposition.
- The gist described the 65% requirement and detailed what expenditures would qualify as classroom instructional expenditures, but did not mention waivers, sanctions, or related practical consequences for noncompliant districts.
- After the Secretary’s certification, protestants timely challenged the petition, arguing the gist was misleading because it omitted the waiver and sanction framework and failed to inform signers of material consequences.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition’s gist, which described the 65% spending requirement but omitted waivers and sanctions for noncompliance, fairly and accurately described the measure as required by Oklahoma law.
2. Whether a legally insufficient gist required invalidation of the initiative and removal from the ballot despite sufficient signatures.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the gist was legally insufficient because it did not fairly describe the proposed legislation.
- The Court declared Initiative Petition No. 384 (State Question No. 731) invalid and ordered it stricken from the ballot.

## Legal Principles

- The gist on an initiative petition must be a short, plain statement that truthfully and fairly describes the proposition’s fundamental legal and practical effect, sufficient to prevent deception in the initiative process.
- Although the initiative power is construed broadly and doubts are generally resolved in favor of that power, the Court will invalidate a petition when the gist substantially misrepresents or conceals essential features.
- Material enforcement mechanisms—such as waiver provisions and sanctions that significantly affect regulated entities—must be disclosed in the gist when they are central to understanding the measure’s operation and consequences.
- A gist may be misleading by omission when it presents extensive detail on selected features while failing to alert signers to other essential provisions that materially change obligations or risk adverse consequences.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the initiative because the required gist, while detailed about the 65% classroom-spending formula, omitted the proposal’s waiver and sanction structure and thereby failed to fairly inform potential signers of the measure’s operation and material consequences.


In re Initiative Petition No. 384, 164 P.3d 125 (Okla. 2007)