Oklahoma Save Our State Amendment Can Hurt the State

Passing the House last week by a 91-2 vote, House Joint Resolution 1056 is now being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If it makes it out of committee and the Senate concurs, the Save Our State Amendment will be on the public ballot later this year.

On the surface, most people will think that the Save Our State Amendment is a good thing.  What the proposal will do if the voters agree is prohibit all Oklahoma courts from considering any "international law or Sharia Law."  Sounds good, right?  Let's dig a little deeper into the effects of HJR 1056, shall we?

First, let's look at what effects it will have on contracts.  As the law in Oklahoma currently stands, if a contract is made calling for the application of the law of another country then the Oklahoma courts honor the contract with very few exceptions.  With the Save Our State Amendment, international parties entering into a contract will have had their choice of law rendered practically void.  If a contract is silent on choice of law it would no longer be bound by the laws of the place which it is made, as current Oklahoma law provides.  If a judgement is to be made on a foreign contract (which is common in business nowadays) the courts currently reference the underlying international law (see Panama Processes v. Cities Services Co., Oklahoma 1990), and the passage of this amendment by the people would no longer allow that.

In tort cases Oklahoma currently uses the "most significant relationship" test to determine if international law should be considered in deciding whether or not a case is tortious.  The Save Our State Amendment will no longer allow this.

In cases where the courts must determine if a marriage is valid, they would no longer be able to consider the laws of another country.  The major effect here is that the Oklahoma courts would no longer be able to determine if a couple's marriage at a foreign resort such as Jamaica or Rome was a legal marriage, nor would they be able to verify the marriage of foreigners who come to Oklahoma as a married couple.  It wouldn't matter where you were married, you would have had to follow Oklahoma marriage laws perfectly for it to be considered valid.

Currently, the courts often refer to English law in cases which require the interpretation of Oklahoma constitutional provisions or common-law.  Often, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England is what is referenced.  However, because that falls under "legal precepts of other nations" the Oklahoma courts would no longer be able to use such references.

I believe that all 91 of those Representatives who voted in favor of this measure made a big mistake.  The two that dissented likely understand the ramifications if this amendment were to be accepted by the People.  If the Senate passes this and it ends up on the ballot, then it will most likely pass by the People for two reasons:  a good title and uninformed sheep.

This is another State constitutional amendment that was not well thought out.