Is the Oklahoma Legislative Process Unconstitutional?

I like to read legal stuff. It's a great hobby. It makes me an informed citizen that knows my rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, I tend to review both the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution on a regular basis.

That said, something stands out to me about the legislative process. It appears to me that the state legislature, particularly the state House of Representatives, may be passing legislation in an unconstitutional manner. And it's not a recent phenomenon, either; it seems that this has been going on for decades.

Let's start with the basics. The process for a bill becoming law in Oklahoma is fairly straight-forward. First, a bill is introduced at the beginning of the session. It is then "read" twice on the floor of the chamber of origin before being assigned to a committee. That committee can then recommend that the legislative body pass it, or it can kill the bill right there. On the Third Reading, the bill can be voted on, and it must be voted on if it makes it to a Fourth Reading. The bill is then sent to the opposite chamber to go through a similar process, and if it passes it is sent to the Governor. Yes, this is an over-simplified summary, but it's enough to give you an idea of what actually happens at the State Capitol.

There's just one problem: the Oklahoma Constitution requires that all bills be read three times on the floor of each chamber, but most bills that are killed are only read twice. Furthermore, all bills must be read in their entirety on the chamber floor prior to passage, and all bills must be voted on. At least, that's how the process should work according to Article V § 34 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

The Oklahoma Senate is granted the ability in the Oklahoma Constitution to establish standing committees for legislative purposes, but a direct reading of Article V § 28 of the Oklahoma Constitution shows no authority for those committees to be used to circumvent the requirements of Article V § 34.

But the Oklahoma House of Representatives has no constitutional authority granted to establish standing committees.

However, one could argue that the standing committees are indirectly authorized through Article V § 30. Clause 2 of this section allows each chamber to establish their own rules. But we still have a problem with the process established by those rules: there is still no provision in the Oklahoma Constitution to allow your legislators to circumvent Article V § 34.

Assuming that the rationale behind standing committees in the House of Representatives in based upon Article V § 30, then the House may establish standing committees for the purpose of drafting legislation to be brought to the House floor, just as the Senate is constitutionally authorized to do via Article V § 28. But in both chambers, no committee is authorized to kill legislation, and the main function of these committees has been to kill legislation without a floor vote.

The act of killing legislation in committee without a floor vote is clearly unconstitutional. Rather than following the Oklahoma Constitution and bringing all bills to the floor for a vote by a quorum in each chamber, the legislature chooses to allow bills to be killed without input from the majority of the citizens' elected officials and insulates those officials who may want to act against the will of their constituents from going on official record as having done so.

The People of Oklahoma should be furious, especially with all the talk from both sides of the aisle about the importance of following the Constitution (whether at the federal or state level).

What can be done to correct this wrong?

The most efficient means of correction is to hold your elected officials accountable. If a Representative or Senator supports this process, vote them out at the next opportunity. Only vote for candidates who are willing to follow the Oklahoma Constitution in the legislative process. Supporting candidates who support the status quo is the same as supporting legislation without representation.

Arguably, there are legal alternatives, too. One could bring a lawsuit against the legislature for killing bills in committee, but that would require that a citizen (or group of citizen) prove that they were directly and negatively affected by the inactivity of the legislative body. It would be extremely difficult to establish standing, and by the time the case made it anywhere such a lawsuit could be rendered moot by the legislature changing their ways. The undesirable consequence of this approach would be a lot of money wasted by private citizens and taxpayer money that could have served a greater benefit elsewhere wasted by the state.

Another option would be a call for impeachment of Representatives and Senators who vote for such unconstitutional rules as neglect of duty under Article VIII § 1, but can one really expect justice to be served when the majority of the jury are also alleged to have committed the same offense?

I encourage every voter in Oklahoma to consider this when it comes time to vote in the 2012 primaries and general election. Hold your elected officials accountable, and replace them with candidates who will support the legislative process required by the Oklahoma Constitution.

"Every bill shall be read on three different days in each House, and no bill shall become a law unless, on its final passage, it be read at length, and no law shall be passed unless upon a vote of a majority of all the members elected to each House in favor of such law; and the question, upon final passage, shall be taken upon its last reading, and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal." - Article V § 34