Latest news with #OklahomaConstitution
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawsuits filed after drastic changes to initiative petition process
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Two lawsuits were filed after drastic changes were made by lawmakers to the initiative petition process in Oklahoma. 'I think they took the idea of direct democracy away from everyday rural Oklahomans, and it offended me,' said Craig McVay, a rural Oklahoma voter. McVay is listed as a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits. He is one of many who joined in on the lawsuit. Senate Bill 1027 went into effect at the end of the legislative session. It was authored by State Sen. David Bullard (R-Durant) and prevents more than 10% of required signatures from coming from Oklahoma or Tulsa counties. Stitt signs bill limiting Oklahomans' access to support ballot initiative petitions Meanwhile, each of the state's 75 other counties, most of which are rural, are capped at 4% of total signatures. The lawsuit was filed as McVay et al. v. Cockroft and Drummond and challenges SB 1027's constitutionality. Supporters of SB 1027 have long argued that the reason it was needed was to give rural Oklahomans more of a voice when it came to signature gathering. 'I've checked a box in every rural part of the state and have been a part of the process the entire time. Now I feel like the legislature just took a swipe at me, and I don't like that,' said McVay. 'I can't imagine having to try to defend this law. It, quite frankly, is indefensible,' said Amber England of Strategy 77. England has led the way for many initiative petitions over the years and fought at the Capitol when SB 1027 was being discussed by lawmakers. 'We hope the court acts quickly to throw this out so that there's no longer uncertainty,' said England. According to Strategy 77, key constitutional arguments in the lawsuit include: County-Based Signature Caps: Senate Bill 1027 limits how many signatures can be collected in each county, violating Article V, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause by creating arbitrary distinctions among voters. Gist Language Approval: The law gives the Secretary of State, an unelected, politically appointed position, unchecked authority to approve or reject petition summaries, violating the separation of powers and placing unconstitutional restraints on free speech. Circulation and Funding Restrictions: Senate Bill 1027 mandates circulation and funding restrictions that courts have repeatedly struck down as violations of the First Amendment. Special Laws and Unequal Treatment: The law singles out initiative and referendum proponents for restrictions not imposed on candidates, opponents, or other political campaigns. 'It takes away power from Oklahoma voters. And I hope that the court will understand that and see that for what it is,' said England. On that lawsuit, Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Secretary of State Josh Cockroft are listed. The other lawsuit filed was brought on by supporters of State Question 836. They said that they are challenging the retroactive application of Senate Bill 1027. In their press release, they said that SQ 836 would establish an open primary system in Oklahoma, allowing all voters, regardless of party, to vote in primary elections. The measure was filed in January of 2025 and is currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. News 4 reached out to the AG's office and the Secretary of State's Office Friday and have not heard back yet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
TSET board plans to sue to stop a new Oklahoma law restructuring its membership
Members of the Oklahoma Legislature listen as Gov. Kevin Stitt gives his State of the State Address in the House chamber of the state Capitol on Feb. 3, 2025. (Photo by Kyle Phillips/For Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY – A constitutionally created board charged with overseeing billions of taxpayer dollars plans to sue to block a new law that allows state leaders to alter its makeup at any time. The Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust voted 5-0 Thursday to file a lawsuit challenging House Bill 2783. The measure, which became law Thursday without Gov. Kevin Stitt's signature, requires the board appointees to serve at the will of the appointing entity and limits that service to seven years. The board members currently serve seven-year staggered terms. The seven members are appointed by the governor, treasurer, state superintendent, attorney general, state auditor and the leaders of the House and Senate and must have experience in health care or programs benefitting children or seniors. Some Democrats believe the measure is legislative retaliation and an attempt to strip the board of its independence after TSET declined to immediately provide $50 million for a University of Oklahoma children's pediatric heart hospital in Oklahoma City. 'What we are doing here is we are using legislative power to extract retaliation,' said Rep. Meloyde Blancett, D-Tulsa, debating against the measure earlier this month. Lawmakers put $200 million toward the project. 'These changes in statute appear to conflict with the Oklahoma Constitution, and the board needs clarity on this issue in order to protect the integrity of the TSET trust and ensure that any changes are consistent with the will of the voters who created TSET,' said Thomas Larson, the agency's spokesperson. Oklahoma voters created TSET, an endowment trust, in 2000 after 46 states sued tobacco companies. The tobacco companies paid states damages for illnesses caused by smoking. TSET's Board of Investors invests the funds. The earnings, which have grown to about $2 billion, are used to support efforts to improve health. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Axios
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Deadlocked Supreme Court means Oklahoma can't establish religious school
Oklahoma can't establish the nation's first publicly-funded religious school after the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 Thursday. Why it matters: The tie means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's finding that establishing the school would violate both the state and U.S. Constitutions will stand. Justice Amy Coney-Barrett recused herself from the case. The Supreme Court's two-line opinion did not detail how the remaining eight justices voted. Catch up quick: Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board narrowly voted to approve the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School in 2023. The Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma had submitted an application for the online K-12 public charter school, which would teach the Catholic faith. The Oklahoma attorney general had sued to block the school, arguing it violated both state and federal law. The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling, "This State's establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause." The intrigue: When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in April, the conservative majority appeared open to allowing the school — except Chief Justice John Roberts, who expressed hesitancy.
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Green-Light First Publicly Funded Religious Charter School
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 seemed inclined to overturn an Oklahoma court ruling denying authorization for the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not participate in the case known as Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The respondent is Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma's attorney general. The school concerned is the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School (SISVC), a K–12 school in Oklahoma City approved by the school board. A charter school is a school that accepts funding from the government but operates independently outside of the established state school system. The school's 'A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution,' the statute reads. The charter school has to be 'nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations,' it states. Related Stories 1/24/2025 2/1/2025 The petition states that the Oklahoma Constitution provides that the state should maintain a 'system of public schools ... free from sectarian control.' In 2023, Catholic nonprofit corporation St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School Inc. was founded by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to operate the charter school, according to the petition. The school offers 'a learning opportunity for students who want and desire a quality Catholic education, but for reasons of accessibility to a brick-and-mortar location or due to cost, cannot currently make it a reality.' The board approved the school's application in June 2023. As one board member said at the time, the board had to approve the application because failing to do so would violate the U.S. Constitution's free exercise clause, which all board members had sworn to uphold, according to the petition. Drummond sued in October 2023, asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to cancel the school's contract and declare it violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause, state law, and the state constitution. Drummond argued that if the authorization were not rescinded, the state would receive 'requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups,' and this could include 'extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law.' '[This could] pave the way for proliferation of the direct public funding of religious schools whose tenets are diametrically opposed by most Oklahomans,' the petition reads. On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school, ordering the board to cancel the contract and finding that the school was a governmental entity. Because the school was deemed a state actor, denying the school charter status did not contradict the free exercise clause, the court determined. The state court also found that St. Isidore's contract with the board violated the Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition against 'using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution.' During the April 30 oral argument, the school board's attorney, James Campbell, told the justices that Oklahoma law allows private organizations to found charter schools and gives them 'broad autonomy over their mission, curriculum, and operations.' He said state law 'categorically bars religious groups and programs' from founding such schools, and this violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held three times in the past eight years. The court has found that 'when a state creates a public program and invites private actors, it can't exclude people or groups because they're religious,' said Campbell, who is also chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom. The school board 'is committed to this principle of religious neutrality,' the lawyer said. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned an argument made by Drummond's attorney, Gregory Garre. Is the test here whether the school is 'a creation and creature of the state?' Roberts asked. In previous rulings, the court held that 'under the First Amendment, you couldn't exclude people because of their religious beliefs,' he said. Garre said, 'I think the creation point goes to the government entity point.' Justice Samuel Alito asked Garre if a charter school could put books on elementary school curricula that 'have lots of LGBTQ-plus characters [and] same sex couples' and 'send the message that this is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle?' Can they 'tell the little kids' that 'your parents may say you're a boy or a girl, but that doesn't mean you really are a boy or a girl?' the justice asked. Garre said the school could not do that because Oklahoma law forbids 'the teaching of gender studies or race in public schools, traditional public schools, and charter schools.' This is a developing story and will be updated.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why this Supreme Court case could dismantle the wall between church and state in US schools
Why the Supreme Court case could reshape church-state separation in US schools The US Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case that could reshape the separation between church and state, a principle that has governed American public education for decades. On April 29, 2025, the Court will hear arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case that questions whether the state must fund a Catholic charter school , despite constitutional protections against public funds being used for religious purposes. This case centers on St. Isidore's, a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma that has received approval to operate as a virtual institution. The school, rooted in Catholic doctrine, demands public funds to cover its operation costs, arguing that it is entitled to taxpayer support. The outcome of this case could set a dangerous precedent, allowing religious institutions to access public money for religious education, undermining the long-standing principle of church-state separation . First Catholic charter school in the US St. Isidore's is the first Catholic charter school ever approved in the United States. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board narrowly green-lighted the school to operate as a virtual entity, offering a fully accredited curriculum with a Catholic foundation. Unlike other charter schools that comply with state educational standards, St. Isidore's insists on adhering to Catholic teachings and requires both students and teachers to follow Catholic doctrine. As reported by Slate, the school mandates that students attend mass and receive Catholic teachings, making it a religious institution, not just an academic one. The school has now filed a claim for state funding, arguing that, under the US Constitution's First Amendment , it has the right to public money. The school's petition rests on the claim that the denial of funding violates its religious freedoms, as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause. This issue is compounded by the Oklahoma Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the use of public funds for religious institutions. The case's broader impact on US public education As the case moves to the US Supreme Court, the consequences for the broader US education system are profound. If the Court rules in favor of St. Isidore's, it would mark a major shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment and church-state relations in public education. Historically, the US has kept public funding separate from religious schools, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to promote religious instruction. However, recent rulings have eroded that separation. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment may require public funding for religious institutions, even when the Establishment Clause would typically prohibit it. This shift in interpretation has been a growing trend over the last eight years, with the Court increasingly favoring religious freedom over the separation of church and state. As reported by Slate, conservative justices on the Court are expected to support St. Isidore's claim. 'I think it's pretty clear that at least four conservatives are ready to rule for the charter school,' said Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. The Court's decision in this case could fundamentally alter the relationship between religion and education in the US, opening the door for more religious schools to access public funds. The fight over church-state separation The case has sparked a broader debate about the role of religion in public education. Some critics argue that the US Constitution's Establishment Clause must be upheld to maintain a secular public education system, while others contend that the Free Exercise Clause grants religious institutions the right to receive state support. In addition to its potential implications for religious schools, this case comes amid other ongoing battles over educational content in US schools. The controversy over LGBTQ+ inclusion in textbooks in Maryland, for example, reflects a growing trend of challenging the boundaries of what is considered appropriate education in the public sphere. As noted by Stern, 'It's impossible to square these things,' referring to the contrasting views on indoctrination in US schools. With the Supreme Court poised to make a landmark decision, the future of public education—and the separation of church and state—hangs in the balance. For real-time updates, follow our AP SSC 10th Result 2025 Live Blog.
