INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfllming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the fdm inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a defmite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. Universl^ MicnSilms International 3 00 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 IB B E D F O R D ROW, LO N D O N W C IR 4 E J , ENG L AN D 7918739 MEYER, C. KENNETH A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF STATE QUESTION VOTING PATTERNS IN OKLAHOMA: 1907-1972. THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, PH.D., 1979 Universi^ Mopnlms Intemcltioncd s o o n , z e e b r o a d , a n n a r b o r , m i 4S106 PLEASE NOTE; In a11 cases th is m aterial has been filmed In the best possible way from the av a ilab le copy. Problems encountered with th is document have been Id en tif ie d here with a check mark . 1. Glossy photographs 2. Colored I l lu s tra tio n s 3. Photographs with dark background 4. I l lu s tra tio n s are poor copy ____ 5. P rin t shows through as there Is te x t on both sides of page _________ 6. In d is t in c t , broken or small p r in t on several pages throughout 7. T ightly bound copy with p r in t lo s t In spine 8, Computer p rin to u t pages with in d is tin c t p r in t 9. Page(s) lacking when m aterial received, and not availab le from school or author ________ 10. Page(s) ________ seem to be missing in numbering only as tex t follows ________ 11. Poor carbon copy ________ 12. Not o rig inal copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ________ 14. Original copy with l ig h t type ________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages ________ 16. Other Uni International 300 N, ZEEB HD.. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 (313) 761 4700 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF STATE QUESTION VOTING PATTERNS IN OKLAHOMA: 1907-1972 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY C. KENNETH MEYER Norman, Oklahoma May, 1979 A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF STATE QUESTION VOTING PATTERNS IN OKLAHOMA: 1907-1972 APPROVED BY '=T' itiiKtfauCiCAuz. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The notion of direct democracy has regained popular recognition in many sectors of the academic and political world in the past five years. For some the election mechanisms of the initiative and the referendum are to be used to maximize either general or segmental interests— interest which come in many political, economic and ideological colors and hues as reflected by the prism of society. The interest that I have in the people as conductors of their own political business was generated by an academic and philosophical perspective that placed a good deal of belief in not only the basic dignity of the individual, but also in the capacity of the individual. This perspective was embedded in my world view mainly through the teaching, attitude and behavior of Professor Oliver E. Benson, chairperson of my dissertation committee. The tremendous amount of assistance Professor Benson provided in re lation to the methodology and analysis portions of this paper— particularly those chapters concerned with bivariate and multivariate analysis--contrib uted immensely to the overall quality and substantive character of this paper. In many other ways Professor Benson has contributed to my educa tional development by providing an abundance of concern and assistance from the time I was a research assistant under his direction to the cul mination of my graduate education. He will always have my deepest respect and thanks. I also wish to thank the other members of my committee who have con tributed in their own unique ways to my personal and professional growth. Ill Professor David R. Morgan, with whom I was associated as a research associ ate in the Bureau of Government Research, helped me develop an abiding in terest in state and community politics and administration, as well as a desire to engage in research that would provide professional and technical assistance to public administrationists at this level of government. Professor Walter F. Scheffer helped me develop a keen appreciation and understanding of the many intricacies associated with politics and admin istration, as well as serving as a constant source of encouragement and support during my graduate education. Professor Hugh MacNiven provided substantial support and was always concerned about my graduate program and professional development. The comparative perspectives he provided in the area of politics and administration enlarged my understanding of and appreciation for diverse cultures and ways of doing things administra tively. Professor Rufus G. Hall enhanced my understanding of international relations and administration by encouraging me to ask the "right" set of questions in my protracted search for the "right" answers. All these gentlemen have influenced my life greatly, and to them I remain indebted for the unselfish manner in which they gave of their time, knowledge and concern. They have been a most patient and understanding committee. In a research effort of this scale, many persons inevitably make either a direct or indirect contribution. I personally thank Mr. Lee Slater, Secretary, Oklahoma State Election Board for making the primary data available during the four years over which it was assembled; Pro fessor Richard La Rue, Director, Computer Center, University of South Dakota, who helped me gain an understanding of several software packages that were extensively used in the data management and statistical analysis iv portions o f the paper; Professor John W. Wood, who discussed with, me the many philosophical and ideological factors associated with direct democracy and who also aided me in my graduate education; and Stephen E. Coury, a friend and associate, who freely assisted in the modification and refinement of the several FORTRAN programs used in the management and analysis of data. In addition, the preparation and presentation of this paper was made possible by the talents and efforts of Ms. Mary Jane Maltheson, Ms. Jane Peterson, Ms. Joan Little, Ms. Patty Buechler, and Ms. Cindy Nies. They typed and re-typed the several chapters that comprise the final document. They were also helpful in performing the many other tasks related to manuscript preparation. As in any academic enterprise I have received a large number of suggestions as to what should be treated and what could be omitted, modified, or revised, in this paper. The data and analysis presented here reflect the many suggestions and contributions of my dissertation commit tee. The data, of course, was carefully collected and analyzed. Any errors which might be present in either data reporting, analysis, or interpreta tion are obviously those of the author, but unintentionally included. Last, my family also contributed to my personal and professional development in ways too numerous to acknowledge here. My gratitude can only be shown to Marjorie, Heidi Maria, and Elizabeth by being a truly loving, gentle and understanding friend and life-long companion, for they are the central point of my life. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............. iii LIST OF TABLES .................................................. viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.......................................... xv LIST OF EXHIBITS.................................................. xvii Chapter I. THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: AN AMERICAN EXPERIMENT . . . 1 Introduction Review of the Literature Justification Literature Analytical Literature Amendment of the Constitution Through the Use of the Popular Initiative The Popular Initiative and State Legislation The Role of the State Legislature in the Amendment of the Constitution The Role of the Referendum in State Statutory Law-Making Processes II. METHODOLOGY.............................................. 89 Data Collection and Storage Statistical Measures Used in Analysis Legal Search III. A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE BASIS FOR THE INITIATIVE AND REFEREN DUM IN OKLAHOMA ........................................ 104 General Legal Requirements for the Initiative and Referendum The Legislative Referendum Process The Initiative Process: Initiative Petition and Referen dum Petition Votes Required for the Passage of the Initiative and Referendum VI Powers Retained by the Legislature IV. OKLAHOMA'S EXPERIENCE WITH DIRECT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY . . 162 Introduction and Overview Voting Summary Constitutional Amendments and Statutory Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by Periods of Time The Operation of the Silent Vote Constitutional Change Through the Powers of the Initiative and Referendum Policy Analysis and Policy Implications of Initiative and Referendum Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by All Policy Types for Selected Time Periods V. AREAL VOTING PATTERNS AMONG OKLAHOMA COUNTIES ON DIFFERENT PROPOSITION POLICY TYPES SINCE STATEHOOD .................... 250 Voting Patterns for Oklahoma Counties, 1907-1972, on all Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate Legislative, Executive and Judicial Government Structure, Organization and Reform Policy Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy Land and Natural Resource Use Policy Industrial and Labor Relations Policy Business and Corporation Policy Electoral Process, Procedure, Law, and Reform Policy Constitution Convention Policy Government Maintenance Policy Health, Welfare, and Safety Policy Education Policy Veteran Benefit Policy Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy A Bivariate Analysis of Issue Areas by Selected Demographic and Voting Pastors Region: An Important Control Variable in the Analysis of State Question Voting Behavior A Multivariate Analysis of State Question Voting Behavior VI. CONCLUSION.................... '.............................. 359 Discriminant Analysis of Region Scalogram Analysis: A Guttman Scale of Selected Policy Groups SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 371 APPENDICES.........................................................381 Vll LIST OF TABLES I Table Page 1-1. Sponsors of Referendum Questions in Oklahoma .............. 35 1-2. The Use of the Popular Initiative in Amending the Constitution .............................................. 41 1-3. State Legislation Through the Use of the Popular Initia tive Process................................................ 49 1-4. Amendment of the Constitution by the State Legislature . . . 56 1-5. State Legislation Through the Use of the Referendum P r o c e s s .................................................... 69 1-6. States that Possess the Statutory Initiative and Statu tory Referendum............................................ 73 1-7. Basis for the Referendum Among the Thirty-Nine States Possessing the Statutory Referendum ...................... 75 3-1. Legal Requirements Related to the Adoption or Rejection of Measures Submitted to Oklahoma's Electorate, 1907- 1972, by Question Number, Measure Characteristics, Election Type, and Required Percentage of Votes Cast in Election for Passage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4-1. Outcome of All State Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972 165 4-2. Initiated and Referred Measures Submitted to Oklahoma's Electorate by Date of Submission, Election Type, and Number of Issues (1907-1972) .............................. 166 4-3. Distribution of Referral Modes for All State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972 170 4-4. Final Disposition of All Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Referral Mode .......... 170 4-5. Summary of the Final Disposition of All State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate for All Types of Elections, by Referral Mode: 1907-1972 173 viii Table Page 4-6. Mode of Referral for State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Selected Time Periods . . 175 4-7. Outcome of Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972., by-Selected'Time Period............. 179 4-8. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1907-1919 Time Period by the Mode of Referral....................... 180 4-9. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1920-1929 Time Period by the Mode of Referral....................... 181 4-10. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1930-1939 Time Period by the Mode of Referral ....................... 181 4-11. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1940-1949 Time Period by the Mode Of Referral....................... 182 4-12. Outcome;of State Question Elections for the 1950-1959 Time Period by the Mode of Referral....................... 182 4-13. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1960-1969 Time Period by the Mode of Referral....................... 183 4-14. Outcome of State Question Elections for the 1970-1972 Time Period by the Mode of Referral....................... 183 4-15. Issues Adopted in General Elections, 1907-1972 ............ 185 4-16. Voter Approval and Voter Participation Levels on Propositions Submitted in General Elections, 1907-1972 186 4-17. The Silent Vote; Number of Issues Submitted in General Elections and Other Elections Before and After 1945 ............................................... 188 4-18. Measures Adopted Despite the Silent Vote and Measures Defeated by the Silent Vote, Though Obtaining More than 50 Percent of the Vote Cast on the Issue, 1907-1972 . . . . 189 4-19. Constitutional Amendments Approved by the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Article and Section Added or Amended in the Constitution, Date on Which Change was Adopted, and Election T y p e ............................. 191 IX Table Page 4-20. Frequency of Article Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution by Processes pf Initiative and Refer endum: 1907-1972 ........................................ 196 I 4-21. Propositions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, Classified by Major Policy Content type....................................................... 211 4-22. Percentage Distribution of All Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Major Policy Content T y p e ............................................. 214 4-23. Subject Matter of All Propositions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Percentage Distribution and Average Statewide Percent "Yes" for Each Specific Subject .................................... 215 4-24. Final Disposition of All Policy Content Types of Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Election Result .......................................... 221 4-25. Success and Failure Rate of Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, for Identified Public Policy Areas ............................................ 222 4-26. Distribution of the Policy Content of All Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Selected Time Periods ................................ 225 4-27. Distribution of the Policy Content of All Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the 1907-1945 Period, by Referral Mode and Issue Status (Pass/Fail)............................................... 231 4-28. Distribution of the Policy Content of All Measures Sub mitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the 1946-1972 Period, by Referral Mode and Issue Status (Pass/Fail) . . . 233 4-29. Summary of Characteristics Pertaining to All Measures Proposed and Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972 ................................................ 239 5-1. Statewide Grand Mean Percent Yes for State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, by Major Policy: 1907-1972........................................ 259 5-2. Descriptive Statistics for all State Questions (1907-1972) by County .................................... 261 X Table Page 5-3. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Policy Content Measures Submitted to the-Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County ....................i ......... ^ ..............266 5-4. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Taxation, Revenue, and Finance Policy Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County.................................................. 272 5-5. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, ^y County 276 5-6. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Land and -Natural Resource Ose Policy Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County........................... 281 5-7. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Industrial and Labor Relations Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County .......................... 287 5-8. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Business and Corporation Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County • • • • • • • • • • • • # « 291 5-9. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform Policy Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County........................................297 5-10. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Constitu tional Convention Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate during the Period 1907-1972, by County....................' ............................ 301 5-11. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Government Maintenance Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County.................................................. 305 5-12. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Health, Welfare and Safety Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County.................................................. 310 xi Table Page 5-13. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Education Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 19Q7-1972, by County .................... 315 5-14. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Veteran Benefit Policy Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by C o u n t y ................................................. 320 5-15. Summary Statistical Characteristics for all Public Morality and Individual Life Style Content Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate During the Period 1907-1972, by County ...................................... 325 5-16. Results of Crosstabulations of County Mean Support Vote for Oklahoma State Questions by Region, Democratic Vote, Population Density, and Income: Tau-b (Significance Levels in Parentheses) .................................... 332 5-17. Mean County Votes Yes on all State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972 by Median County Income...................... 334 5-18. Mean County Vote Yes on all State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Region ............ 334 5-19. Mean County Vote Yes on all State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Percent County Democratic Vote for Governor (1907-1972) 335 5-20. Mean County Vote Yes on all State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County Population Density per Square M i l e ................................... 336 5-21. Mean County Vote Yes on Public Morality and Individual Life Style Questions, by Region .......................... 337 5-22. Mean County Vote Yes on Veteran Benefit Questions, by County Percent Democratic Vote for Governor (1907-1972) 338 5-23. Mean County Vote Yes on Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Questions, by County Population per Square Mile ........... 339 5-24. Mean County Vote Yes on Veteran Benefit Questions, by Median Family Income ...................................... 340 xii Table Page 5-:25. Results of Crosstabulations of County Mean Support Vote for Oklahoma State Questions by Democratic Vote, Popu lation Density, and Income, Controlled for Regional Location in Oklahoma or Indian Territory: Tau-b Values (Significance Levels in Parentheses) ....................... 342 5-26. Mean County Vote Yes for all State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by Democratic Vote for Governor, Controlled by Region (Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties).......... 344 5-27. Mean County Votes Yes on Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform, by Democratic Vote for Governor, Controlled for Region (Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................................................. 345 5-28. Mean County Vote Yes on Land and Natural Resource Use Questions, by Population Density, Controlled for Region (Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................................................. 3 4 6 5-29. Mean County Vote Yes on Education Measures, by Democratic Vote for Governor, Controlled for Region (Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................. 3 4 8 5-30. Mean County Vote Yes on Veteran Benefit Questions, by Population Density, Controlled for Region (Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................. 3 4 9 5-31. Correlation Coefficients and Significance Levels, Showing Relation Between Thirteen Policy Issue Groups of Oklahoma State Question and Four Independent Variables (Percent Democratic Vote for Governor, 1907-1972, Population Density Per Square Mile, Median Family Income, and Region-Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................. 352 5-32. Correlation Coefficients and Significance Levels, Showing Intercorrelation Among Selected Independent Variables (Percent Democratic Vote for Governor, 1907-1962, Popu lation Denisty per Square Mile, Median Family Income and Region— Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties) .................................................. 353 5-33. Bivariate r^'s for Independent Variables .................. 3 5 3 Xlll Table Page 5-34. Regression Equations for Support of State Questions by County Means, in Relation to Region, Democratic Vote, Population Density, and Income ............................ 354 6-1. Scalogram of County Support for Selected Groups of Oklahoma State Questions .................................. 369 XIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure ( Page 2.1 Data Analysis Systems Flowchart................................92 2.2 GIPSY Online Query Process Flowchart ....................... 99 4.1 Number of Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, by Election Periods, 1907-1972 .............................. 168 4.2 Outcome of Elections on Propositions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by Time Periods .......................... 176 5.1 Distribution of Party Strength for Governor, 1907-1972 . . . . 254 5.2 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County . . 263 5.3 Percent Distribution for All Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization, and Reform Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County ........................................ 268 5.4 Percent Distribution for All Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County ........................................ 274 5.5 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County .................... 278 5.6 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Land and Natural Resource Use Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County ............................ 283 5.7 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Industrial and Labor Relation Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County .................... 289 5.8 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Business and Corporation Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County ............................ 293 5.9 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Electoral Process, Procedure, Law, and Reform.Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by county . . 299 XV Figure ^*2® 5.10 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Government Maintenance Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County............................... 307 5.11 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Health, Welfare, and Safety Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County . j .......................... 312 5.12 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Education Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County .......................................... 317 5.13 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Veteran Benefit Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County .......................................... 322 5.14 Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy Content Issues Submitted to he Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County..................... 327 5.15 Geographical Location of Former Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties ............................................ 330 xvx LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 3.1 Referendum Petition F o r m .................................... 3.2 Initiative Petition F o r m ..................................... 115 3.3 Signatures on Petitions................. ................. 3.4 Filing and Binding of Petitions............................. H 5 3.5 Filing Copy of Proposed Petition, Publication, Protest, Hearing, Determination and A p p e a l ............................H ® 3.6 Ballot Title, Filing, Duties of Attorney General, Appeal, Printing of Ballots ........................................ 121 3.7 Publication of Measure— Copies for Distribution ............. 123 3.8 Official Ballot— Samples..................................... 123 3.9 Printing of Questions on Ballot ............................ 125 3.10 Canvass of Returns........................................... 127 x v i i CHAPTER I THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: AN AMERICAN EXPERIMENT Introduction The principle of direct legislation is alleged to be the basis of the ancient Greek city states. It is also said to have been the earliest form of tribal free government. In America, it was the essential stuff out of which town government in the New England States was made and the technique by which the early colonies could and did amend their several constitutions. An old Latin proverb expresses the political philosophy that places so much belief in the democratic faith. The proverb reads: "Vox populi, vox dei." Literally translated this proverb means that "the voice of the people is the voice of God." This proverb suggests that the people ought to be, in the final analysis, the directors of their own destinies. It suggests that the people are the best judges of what constitute their own self-interests and collective interests, whether in the policy area of taxation, or in the field of education, or as it might pertain to questions of ethics and morals— segregation, gambling, horse racing, and the consumption of alcoholic-content beverages. To suggest that majority rule is next to "Godliness" is to have a fundamental trust and belief in the political attitudes, opinions, and behavior of the mass electorate. However, the action of the mass electorate may be wrong, ill-advised, 1 in poor judgment, ill-informed, and irrational. Alexander Hamilton's observations reinforce this view. He said: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally ' this maxim has been quoted and believed, i,t is not true in fact."l Several added questions concerning the "vox populi" notion are in order: (1) Should the people decide their own destinies even though their collective judgment and "will" may be wrong? If the masses are apathetic, ill-informed, and lack the specific intellectual and substantive backgrounds necessary to understand public policy issues, should they still be permitted to decide their fate? Should the few who are perhaps wiser, better educated, more informed, and more knowledgeable in selected policy areas make the final judgment on the important issues of the day? Or, is it essential that an absolute majority of those who are registered electors participate in determining the fate of propositions or policy measures that have been either initiated by the people or referred to the people, for their approval or rejection, by the legislature? If so, then what happens in those instances in which only a small percentage of the eligible citizenry participate in elections in which statutory measures or Constitutional amendments are approved or rejected? Finally, is the initiative process likely, in the final evaluation, to be fre quently dominated by the few who are intensely interested in a par ticular measure, and for whatever reason or reasons try to use the electoral laws, political strategies and techniques in an attempt to directly receive rewards that benefit the "special interests" and not necessarily the body politic? In short, does the use of the initiative petition process fall into the hands of "...powerful pressure groups in an attempt to get their pet schemes enacted into law or placed in a constitutionally protected Position?"? The answers to these several questions posed above, depends as much upon the specific brand of democratic faith that one prescribes to as it does on the essential goodness on badness, fairness or in equality, rightness or wrongness of the position taken. Nevertheless, these are some of the questions that developed during the high tide of the Progressive Movement in the United States and these questions persist today. The Progressives, states Professor Currin Shields, "demanded that the people be allowed to make public policy decisions directly, as they made decisions about the occupancy of public offices." This belief is consistent with American thinking on the concept of popular sovereignty. It was also a practical way, especially in the late 19th Century when public dissatisfaction with state legislatures and boss- ridden city councils was at an all time high, of "fighting the c r o o k s ."4 Professor Lockhard elaborates: Since elected officials could not be trusted... alternative ways to achieve legislation and to countermand undesired acts should be provided. For this major reason, as well as others that are suggested in different portions of this paper, the Progressives left a well entrenched phi losophy and mechanism by which the people could directly participate in the legislative process and directly amend the Constitution of their state. We commonly refer to this invention as the initiative and referendum process or the "direct democratic experience" in America. The direct democracy idea was introduced into the state constitutions of many western states. The chief reason for its acceptance was the need for political reform; it was a protective device by which the electorate could check the law-making authority of their elected representatives, and as the need developed, propose and then pass or reject statutory measures and changes or additions to the Constitution. It was introduced as a way by which the interests of the people might be safeguarded or protected against the powerful influences of well organized, financed, and highly active special interest groups. Indeed, the literature surrounding the initiative and referendum notion suggests that it was a movement for "more democracy to cure the ills of democracy. The idea of the initiative and referendum was popularized, if not actually formally developed, in America by Reverend Robert W. Haire, a Roman Catholic priest from Aberdeen, South Dakota. The initiative gained popular support in South Dakota, especially during the rise of the Knights of Labor Movement in 1885. Haire called the initiative and referendum the "Peoples Legislature," and it was adopted in 1898 by a vote of 23,816 to 16,843, having received strong support in the Farmer's Almanac Movement and Peoples Party, thus making South Dakota the first state in the nation to have a provision in the constitution that enabled the people to initiate and then decide on measures that have been popularly proposed.? Later, Utah adopted the initiative and referendum, and in 1902 Oregon followed. Direct legislation and direct democracy was popularized by the State of Oregon, and the satisfaction over its use provided compelling evidence for its wide spread adoption in other western states. This view, of course, was held by the Progressive reformists both before and after World War I. There is little room for speculation or doubt that the Oklahoma Con stitutional provisions that deal with the initiative and referendum were largely shaped by the Oregon experience.® Review of the Literature A review of the literature dealing with the behavior of the people as law-makers or public policy makers has been amply examined from the legal and philosophical perspectives of democratic government.® Less well examined or developed, however, is the literature dealing with the actual operation of the initiative and referendum at the state level and the attendant results associated with the use of the direct democracy processes. This review of the literature will con centrate, therefore, on two types of literature addressed to the employment of the initiative and referendum at the state level: (1) justification literature, and (2) analytical literature. Justification Literature The practice of the people acting as their own "legislators" through the process of initiating and ratifying measures is much more common in the United States than it is in most of the other political systems in the world that may be labeled democratic.1® The initiative and referendum was at the center of the Progressive Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, along with the recall. It is not surprising that these concepts developed fairly widespread support, especially during a period in America's history which was characterized by governmental corruption, bribery, patronage, deception, and deceit. The political reforms of direct legislation, direct primaries, the Australian ballot, nonpartisan local and state elections, the short ballot, popularly elected senators and civil service professionalization and reform, were all part of the same political theory which emphasized the people as decision-makers in charge of their own destinies. It was in effect . .an effort to enforce continuous political respon sibility to the v o t e r s . T h i s philosophy is well capsulated in a statement which Representative John E. Raker read into the Congressional Record over sixty-seven years ago. Raker is addressing, of course, the "trintiy" of direct democracy— the initiative, referendum, and recall : The people elect representatives; if these represent atives don't carry out the will of the people, then the people initiate legislation. If their repre sentatives transgress the will of the people, then the people, through the referendum, repeal the laws which their representatives have made. . . . If they do violence to the will of the people as ex pressed in their laws, then the people reserve the right to recall the interpreters as well as the makers or executives of law. . . . This political theory constitutes democracy in a c t i o n . 12 The above statement reflects the idea that voters could qualify initiatives and referenda and then proceed to approve the substantive content or policy content of a proposition, thus bypassing the legislature and the governor's veto. 1 T In short, the initiative . . is a device whereby a prescribed number or percent of qualified voters, through the use of a petition, may have an amendment or legislative proposal placed on the ballot for adoption or rejection by the electorate of the state. . . The referendum as a partner of the initiative". . . is a means by which decisions of legislative bodies do not become public policies until the electorate votes its concurrence with the policies and accepts them by the required affirmative vote."^^ Although Abraham Lincoln provides a popularized version of the essence of democracy [government of, by, and for the people), in general, democratic thinkers have agreed that democracy" . . . means individual participation in the decisions that affect one's life,"^^ or . . popular participation in the allocation of values in a s o c i e t y . "17 if involvement in politics is integral to individual self-development, then, "Responsibility for the governing of one's own conduct develops one's character, self-reliance, intelligence, and moral judgment— in short, one's dignity." 18 The initiative and ref erendum gave the people the opportunity to directly transform their needs, wishes, expectations, and policy demands into public policies. However, it should be noted here, that the argument advanced for citizen participation in the affairs of the state is not based on what the people will produce as policy makers, but rather a commitment to a belief that citizen involvement ". . .is essential to the full develop ment of human capacities. Although it is not necessary to review all the tenets of classical democratic theory and all of the empirical modifications of democratic theory that are representative of advances made in social science research, it is at least instructive to review the prevailing arguments, pro and con, relative to the desirability of direct democracy. The arguments that support the idea that the people who are sovereign should be their own lawmakers, generally coincide with the following list of major normative assumptions and statements: 1. Direct democracy, the initiative and referendum, constitutes the purest form of Democracy. That is, ". . . people can initiate and adopt legislation; people can "protest legislation pased by special interest; and, people can veto laws not in the public i n t e r e s t . "^0 This tenet coincides with the need for political self-expression and the current interest in political involvement and participation.21 2. Direct democracy stimulates the legislators to act respon sibly to the public and public opinion. If the legis lature fails to act, the people can invoke the i n i t i a t i v e . 22 3. Direct democracy stimulates, especially through the pro cesses of the initiative and referendum, citizen interest in public affairs and public i s s u e s . 23 By arousing the electorate, through public attention and debate, voter interest in state government is increased.24 4. Direct legislation is associated with a shorter constitution since it reduces the reliance on detailed curtailments or restrictions on legislative p o w e r . 25 5. The initiative and referendum serves as a "shotgun over the door" that people may use if the "representative processes f a i l s . "26 The "I and R" enables the people to keep a "check on the legislative assembly" and therefore keeps the legislature sensitive and considerate "to the wishes of t h e p e o p l e . " 2 2 These basic philosophical and moral tenets and maxims of direct democracy, nevertheless, have not gone unchallenged by scholars who are equally committed to the theory of democracy, but who see the effect of mass political participation in quite another light. On the opposition side, these arguments have traditionally been raised: 1. Voters do not generally have the needed information and training to make intelligent decisions on highly technical and complex propositions.^8 These technical propositions can best be decided by the legislative assembly. 2. Initiated measures are frequently poorly written, and voters can only choose to affirm the measure or reject it. IVhereas, the legislative process allows for interest re conciliation and amelioration. In other words, "sloppy legislation drawn by inexpert laymen"is often submitted to the people. 3. Direct democracy makes an already too long ballot, even longer. 4. Initiative and referendum proposals may be adopted or re jected by a minority of the electorate since many voters are unwilling to vote on a measure that they have not been able to carefully and thoroughly consider. 5. Special or sinister interests may use the principles of the initiative and referendum to maximize their private interest, in contrast to the public interest, thereby enabling special interest and pressure groups to get legislation passed that they could not secure from the legislature. 33 this sense, government becomes "a government of minorities,"34 v/ith the prosperous minority interest controlling government and having its interests satisfied. 33 10 6. Direct democracy introduces the passage of proposals that make statutory law rigid or inflexible since they are not repealable or amendable by the legislative body. 7. Government costs of printing arguments for and against proposals and the costs of conducting special elections for consideration of initiatives and référendums are increased. 37 8. The use of the initiative and referendum causes the legis lature to be bypassed in the lawmaking or public policy making processes, thereby confusing the principal of legis- lative responsibility. 38 The direct legislation device "creates timidity, evasion of responsibility, and "buck- passing" in a legislature." 39 9. By circumventing the legislature with the "I and R", the legislature is actually w e a k e n e d . In addition, the "I and R" implies a "distrust of the legislature," and a dimunition of its responsibilities.^^ 10. The initiative and referendum gives great advantage to well-organized and financially secure pressure groups, rather than providing legislative advantages "to the people. That is, owners of utilities and other businesses will take advantage of property interests. 11. Voters may act irrationally on propositions by approving a proposal and then rejecting the funds needed for implemen tation of a ratified measure. 12. Adverse publicity and scare tactics may be used to mis represent issues and/or mislead the public so that they 11 vote against measures that would be benefit producing to their own interests. 13. People as lawmakers have not demonstrated that they are capable of acting with greater 'intelligence than the legis lature. 14. Direct democracy will be used, primarily, by radical re formers who wish to have their special programs enacted at the state level, which in turn will percipitate an increase in the public expenditure budget. At first glance, these arguments that have been advanced "for" and "against" the initiative and referendum appear to be quite plausible, and perhaps even defensible. Yet, direct democracy, according to Professor Zimmerman, " . . . has neither lived up to the high expect ations of its proponents, nor has it resulted in the dire consequences projected by its opponents."4? The operation of direct legislature mechanisms has produced a variety of suggestions concerning how the initiative and referendum procedures might be revised in order to make them more desirable. The most comprehensive treatment of proposals for change of the in itiative, to date was prepared and circulated by the Research Department of the California State Chamber of Commerce. This production is of itself a theoretical paradox, because the opponents of direct legis lation frequently suggest that special interests, especially those that are well-organized and well-financed, tend to profit dispropor tionately more from the operation of the initiative. Yet, the following recommended changes would tend to militate against the use of the 12 initiative by special interests: The recommended changes include: 1. Increase the number of signatures necessary to qualify an initiative for the ballot, or require a higher percentage to qualify a constitutional amehdment than is necessary for a statute.48 2. Prohibit the general circulation of petitions, and require electors to sign petitions at the county registrar’s office.49 3. Prohibit any professional circulation of petitions.50 4. Prohibit the same subject matter from being again submitted to the voters within a prescribed period of time, or require an increased number of signatures to qualify a m e a s u r e . 5. Place general or specific limitations on the subject matter with which the initiative might deal; give the Attorney General power to refuse to certify for circulation petitions containing provisions on prohibited subject matter; and pro vide for an orderly process of appeal to the courts for final determination of border line cases. 52 6. Place some geographical restrictions on obtaining signatures, such as a provision that not more than 25 percent may come from one county, or at least half the counties must be represented. 53 7. Require that initiatives clear through the Legislature before the measure can be submitted to the voters. 54 8. Increase the number of votes required for initiative adoption to an extraoridinary majority (more than fifty percent or a majority of the votes casts). 55 13 9. Specific policy content initiatives in the area of taxation and bond issues should require a two-thirds majority of votes cast for adoption.56 10. Develop a procedure by which th'e constitutionality of a suggested initiative can be determined before it is sub mitted to the people.57 11. Require all measures to be submitted to the voters in general elections, instead of permitting the submission r Q of measures in special elections. 12. Utilize an agency of state government, such as the Legis lative Council, to approve the wording of proposed initiatives in a similar fashion to procedures used to pass upon legis lation proposed by the state legislature.59 13. Repeal the initiative procedure. An analysis or critique of these proposed changes to the initiative procedures draws either favorable or negative commentary depending on the level of attachment the proponent or opponent has to direct de mocracy and on the amount of rigidity or flexability desired in the procedures governing the actual operation of and use of initiative. Proponents and opponents of these recommended changes itemized above would be general agreement that they are either essential or non- essential for the following reasons: First, to require an increase in the number of signatures re quired to have an initiative placed on the ballot or to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment would: (1) save time and money needed to react to unsound proposals; (2) help prevent the usurpation 14 of legislative responsibility by the people who may propose measures that require mandatory limitations on taxation or require mandatory governmental expenditures; ( 3 ) insure that only initiated measures of great importance and concern statewide Will be submitted to the people for their electoral comment; and (4) reduce the amount of statutory content legislation that is placed in the constitution through the ratification of initiated constitutional amendmentsThe opponents to the recommended increase in petition signature requirement argue, however, that it would lead to an increase cost of getting initiated measures qualified, therefore, a tendency to resort to professional petition circulation would be likely. In addition, it is suggested that increased costs associated with getting initiatives qualified would benefit special interest groups which possess the financial capacity or resources required for signature p e t i t i o n . Most students of direct democracy suggest a fixed percentage, rather than an absolute number of valid signatures, to satisfy petition requirements. This recommendation is suggested because of the population fluctuations or changes that characterize state population growth patterns. If, however, a fixed percentage of the population is used, then the per centage should ". . .be high enough to prevent frivolous or capricious use without interfering with legitimate u s e . " ^ 3 Second, to prohibit the general circulations of petitions would help to prevent, suggest the proponent, the abuses of securing a large number of petition signatures in the more urban (metropolitan) areas of a state and also securing a large number of signatures by employing professional circulators. The opponents to this change argue that the 15 adoption of this proposed change is tantamount to the repeal of the initiative.G4 Third, the prohibition of professional petition circulation would help insure that popular demand be demonstrated on the part of the people in order for a proposed measure to secure the needed number of signatures and that petition "racketeering" would be reduced. Others feel differently, and state that this would be tantamount to increasing the number of signatures, or outlawing the general circulation of petitions, because it would make it very difficult to get initiated measures qualified. Fourth, to increase the amount of time that must elapse between re-submission of a defeated measure and to require an increase in the number of signatures necessary to qualify a measure would help reduce the amount of time, energy and money that would need to be expended for the public to again voice their disapproval. On the other hand, the opponents indicate that it would cause problems relative to deter mining the essential similarity that exists between two measures that have been reworded. Fifth, the requirement of imposing a limit on the subject matter that initiated measure may contain, for instance in the area of tax and revenue laws, would enable the legislature to deal more effectively with those kinds of issues, and to address the questions of resource allocation and distribution more responsibly and more fairly. To the contrary, argue the opponents of this recommendation, who normally point to the history of popularly initiated legislation, and show that the electorate has not acted unwisely on such important measures 16 as tax reform and financial appropriation.67 Professor Hugh Bone indicates that it is a difficult problem to determine the areas which the initiative or the referendum will not apply. He states: It is difficult to know where to draw the line as someone can almost always make out a case to exclude almost every item likely to be the subject of public policy.68 Bone concludes, however, that in the case of the " . . . referendum, both the people and the legislature need to be protected."69 The legislature's laws are protected by the "emergency clause"— certain types of enactments go into effect immediately. The public may be protected by requiring an unusual majority (two-thirds majority) in the state legislature to attach an emergency provision.70 Sixth, to require a geographical restriction as to the number of signatures that may be secured in any one county of the state would tend to make it more difficult to circulate petitions, but would enable a measure to receive a more statewide representation of demand for a measure. The opponents suggest, however, that the ability to construct a formula that would provide for geographical equity would be very difficult, and in addition, a formula would have to take into consideration population density, which in turn, would necessitate that most signatures be drawn fro metropolitan a r e a s i n addressing the distribution of peitition signatures on a geographic basis. Professor Bone indicates that a geographic spread "may be more costly and its purpose appears to be to give rural areas some veto."72 He concludes that since all the electorate are able to vote on the measures, and if a state uses the principal of majority rule, then ". . .this 17 does not seem particularly v a l i d . "?3 Seventh, the passing upon an initiated measure by the state legislature before it is submitted to the people would help insure, suggest the proponent, that issues that haVe substantial importance and widespread appeal would be referred to the people by the legislature. Opponents indicate that a minority of legislatures might still be defeated by a legislature that is reluctant to act on measures that may be desired by the populace. In addition, it may merely become an unnecessary hurdle for measures which will be routinely approved by the legislature, thereby defeating the concept of a legislative safe- 74 guard against irresponsible propositions. Eight, to increase the number of votes required for initiative adoption or ratification would enable, advise the proponents, a small minority or number of registered voters (special interests) to be more easily defeated. The argument proposed against the recommendation is simply that initiated measures normally receive more widespread attention and attract higher levels of voter participation than other types of measures, therefore representing a wider distribution of electorate opi. ni. on.75 Ninth, to obtain a ruling on the constitutionality of a measure prior to its submission to the electorate would help reduce the con flict between the constitution and proposed amendment, thereby pre venting improper measures from being submitted and then subsequently turned down (ruled unconstitutional) by the higher courts. In addition, it would save the taxpayers money insofar as unconstitutional measures would not be submitted to the people. The obvious argument against 18 this recommendation is that initiated constitutional amendments would normally change the constitution by amendment, and the advisory opinions would certainly not be able to withstand legal scrutiny and established procedural guarantees provided in the U. S'. Constitution. Tenth, the submission of initiated measures only in general elections only militates, argues the proponents, against a small number of the total eligible electorate making laws for the entire state. The opponent stands against this recommendation on the basis that voter participation on initiated measures in special elections is fairly compatible with the level of voter participation on measures submitted to the electorate in general elections. Responding to the notion that measures be submitted to the electorate only on a general election ballot. Bone feels that primary elections ought to be an equally valid mode for proposition referral since it would reduce the number of propositions that would need to be submitted in the general election. He agrees with the other proponents that "Special elections on only propositions permit voter concentration on issues separate from c a n d i d a t e s . " 7 7 He further observes that voter turnout for primary and special elections, especially as a measure of political participation, normally runs " . . . substantially below that for general elections so that participation may fall below a desirable level."78 Finally, to repeal the initiative procedure would most obviously cancel the above arguments for change of the initiative process, and would also cancel all the real as well as "perceived" abuses of the initiative operation. The opponents argue that the electorate has been responsible in the use of the direct democracy technique and that the judgment of the people has been basically sound. 19 Analytical Research The literature of systematic, empirical analysis of initiative and referendum is well developed at the local or community level of political behavior analysis, but a comprehensive treatment of direct democracy at the state level dealing with the political attitudes and behavior of the electorate on propositions is less well developed. As several researchers have noted, there has been a distinct inability, primarily due to the lack of consciousness by political scientists of the level of analysis problem, or perhaps insufficient empirical analysis, to combine micro and macro analysis of state voting behavior and attitudes as they pertain to direct democracy. 80 Although the discipline of political science is still in the infancy stage of development relative to the uses and contributions of micro analysis to the study and understanding of political behavior,there is a substantial body of literature that suggests its more extensive consideration and utilization. 82 Bone and Benedict reinforce this view when they suggested in 1975, that "A comprehensive, systematic study of voter attitudes and behavior on propositions combining both macro and micro analysis in a state is w a n t i n g . i n Reviewing, however, the studies which follow, caution must be exercised in generalizing from research specific or unique to orie state to other states due to the peculiarities and differences in political circumstances and institutional design. One of the most comprehensive treatments of the initiative at the macro level of analysis was conducted by Charles M. Price and presented in an article titled: "The Initiative: A Comparative 20 State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon." This empirical examination of direct democracy presents a variety of findings that perhaps raise more questions than it answers relative to many thorny questions surrounding the ilse and implications of the initiative. Price uses a somewhat novel methodological approach in that he examines the relationship that exists among the states that use the constitutional or statute initiative and such character istics of the state political system as: (1) strength of the state pressure group system; (2) strength of legislative parties; (3) strength of two-party system; (4) quality of the state legislature (functional quality, accountability quality, and overall quality); (5) quality of life ranking; and (6) level of state innovation. The findings are instructive as they pertain to the use of the initiative using data aggregated on a statewide b a s i s . 8 4 First, Price found, as displayed in Footnote 85, that using Belle Zeller's threefold categorization of state pressure group systems ("strong," "moderate," and "weak") that a fairly strong positive association exists (Q=+.23) between high initiative use states and the presence of a strong state pressure group system. State pressure group system strength and presence of initiative processes are associated with one a n o t h e r . 85 Second, using the State Legislative Parties' Cohesion Rankings, developed by Malcolm E. Jewell and Samuel C. Patterson, Price found no statistically significant association between legislative party cohesion and extensiveness of initiative utilization. A positive relation did occur relative to the amount of party competition and the 21 availability of the initiative. For instance, weak legislative party systems are mildly associated with states that have the initiative and, in addition, initiative holding states "had far less cohesive, disciplined political parties than non-initiative states. Third, employing Ranney's Inter-Party Competition Classification— a classification that places states into one of four different categories based on the strength of the two major parties (one party Democratic, modified one party Democartic, two party, and modified one party Republican), Price found that initiative possessing states tended to be characterized by two party-classifactions, and that^no relationship existed between high and low initiative use states and the tendency to be characterized by a two party system. Fourth, using the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL) ranking of state legislatures on functional quality, accountability quality, and overall quality, it was found that no association exists between overall legislative quality, the quality of legislative accountability, and states which possess the initiative. Functional quality was, however, associated with high initiative use states, thereby enabling the conclusion to be drawn that ". . .high-use initiative states had more functional (effective) legislatures than low-use states." Fifth, the hypothesis was examined that higher use initiative states would have a citizenry that would tend to possess higher levels of life-style dissatisfaction and frustration than in states that had low-initiative behavior. That is, high-use initiative states tend to have legislatures that impede the satisfaction of voter demands. 22 thus necessitating the people to turn to the initiative process to overcome legislative inaction or action. Price uses the "Quality of Life" index established by the Midwest Research Institute. In re viewing the statistical association that fesulted, conventional wisdom is rejected. That is, a positive association was found to exist between high-use initiative states (theta = .51) and Quality of Life, as well as a weak positive association between states that possess the initiative and high "Quality of Life" ranking. Sixth, Price tested the relationship between intensity of initiative use and level of state innovation as measured by two researchers: (1) Jack L. Walker and his Composite Innovation Rank (a ranking that is based on state adoption patterns for 88 programs over a one-hundred year time-span); and (2) Virginia Gray and her Overall Average Innovation Rank (a ranking of the states based on adoption of policy or issue areas of education, welfare, and civil rights). A commonly stated view is that high-initiative use states contribute adversely to legis lative initiative. Thus, the use of the initiative causes a sharing of the law-making powers held by the state legislature, and there fore will result in lower levels of state innovation. The findings of Price demonstrate, however, that no association exists between level of innovation (using Walker’s and Gray's rankings) and level of initiative use among the states studied. In addition, very little association was demonstrated to be present between the number of initiatives that met the states qualifying procedures and the degree of difficulty necessary to satisfy the initiative requirements. Instead, Price found that "...the tougher a state's qualifying procedures. 23 the more initiatives that tend to get qualified." Correlational analysis was employed by Allan hammers and David Kenney in their study of a referendum submitted to the Illinois electorate in 1968 which called for a Constitutional Convention. Using the county as the basis unit of analysis, these researchers attempted to assess the association or extent of relatedness that exists between selected socio-economic variables and political measure ments (independent variables) and the referendum vote on the pro position to call a constitutional convention (dependent variable). Employing such measures as percent population change between 1960 and 1970, estimated population size-1967, median income-1960, percent Negro-1960, interparty competitiveness in gubernatorial elections- 1932-1968, percent of population living in cities of 10,000 or more persons, percent Republican vote for governor, and capacity to receive television signals as independent variables, these researchers found a number of relationships with the percent affirmative vote in the 1968 referendum.87 hammers and Kenney observed a strong positive correlation between the level of urbanness and affirmative vote on the referendum, and they suggest that "the degree of urbanness in general appears to be the major explanatory variable." Other strong positive associations were observed between measures of Income (+.73), Percent Negro Population (+.70), ability to receive television signals (+.70), and populations change (+.65) and affirmative vote. The only negative association present between the independent and dependent variables, and it was a weak association, was in the area of inter-party 24 competitiveness and the affirmative vote (-.25). Population size (+.25) and Republican vote for governor (+.27) were weakly associated with the affirmative referendum vote. After analyzing the various socioeconomic and political measurement cdrrelations with the affirm ative vote, and discerning the high number of independent variables that possessed strong positive inter-relationships, the authors conclude: "These correlations suggest that the affirmative vote in 1968 on the question of calling a constitutional conven tion was principally found in the larger cities and their suburbs, in areas of higher education and income where much television programming was available, and in areas of relatively high population change, black population and foreign stock. Least support of the convention call was found in more rural areas with little industry, few blacks, low income, and education, and limited access to television programs originating with the state." In his and this of four referenda held statewide in Michigan during the 1958 through 1963, Norman C. Thomas deals with the effect of such political factors as party, social-economic characteristics, and urbanization (independent variables) on percentage yes vote on référendums (dependent variable). Employing a stratified random sample of 100 precincts drawn from a total of 5,200 precincts state wide (precincts as unit of analysis rather than the county which was used by hammers and Kenney and Morgan and Kirkpatrick, et.al.), Thomas’ analysis reveals the following statewide referenda voting patterns: (1) urbanization, chosen because of the traditional split between urban and rural interests over "institutional and structural reform with urban interests supporting it and rural interest o p p o s e d , " 8 8 correlated positively with affirmative referendum voting, especially 25 in the pre-convention constitutional revision contest of 1961 (r=+.88), 1960 (r=+.73), and 1958 (r=+.28); (2) multiple correlation analysis revealed that for two referenda, urbanization explained from nearly twenty-five percent to over fifty percent'of the variation in the dependent variable (yes vote on the referenda); (3) party vote, measured by the Democratic Vote Index— " the average of the Democratic vote percentage in each precinct in the four elections.”)®^ showed a mixed result: no relationship on one referendum, a weak positive relationship for two referenda, and, a strong negative (reversal of direction) association on the actual referendum ratification; (4) a high percentage of the explained variation in the dependent variable is accounted for by the socio-economic measures of education (over 70 percent); (5) median years of education possessed stronger explanation value than percent skilled workers in the work force and median family income, in relation to yes vote on the referenda; (6) socio-economic and political factors that tend to remain constant in partisan elections, fluctuate in their relative impact in referendum plebisites, primarily due to issue saliency; (7) voting patterns can be substantially in fluenced by the organizations (interest groups and pressure groups) that give issue increased importance and consideration; (8) the party has over-arching implications on referenda voting, "especially if parties choose to structure the alternatives or the electorate" and (9) initial support for constitutional revision is strongest among voter populations characterized by higher levels of socio-economic status and higher levels of education. Professor Hugh Bone analyzes the initiative in Washington for 26 the 1914-1974 time period and suggests that the aggregate voting results show: (1) There are substantially larger number of initiatives and référendums filed than actually placed on the ballot (between 1914-1973, 397 petitions were filed and oiily 139 were eventually placed on the ballot). (2) As the petition signature requirement became more difficult in Washington (signatures needed was raised from 50,000 to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor), no decline in the number of initiatives occured.®^ (3) The people use demanded référendums to counteract legislative inaction caused by special interests. Bone also found that voter interest in proposition, measured by the number of registered voters who vote on measures, has increased in Washington since 1960; voter fall-off (percent difference between those who vote in election and those who vote on each proposition) is the highest for constitutional amendments (in 1972, 19.2 percent average) and least for direct initiatives (in 1972, an average of 8.6 percent fall-off); voters who cast a straight Democratic or Republican ticket tend to have higher voter turnout percentages for the candidates than for the propositions on the ballot; split-ticket voters show a higher voter turnout for propositions than for candidates. In addition. Bone addressed the agenda setting ü dimension and discovered that only 16 percent of the initiatives placed before the people during the 1914-1973 period, were sponsored by identifiable business and labor groups, with the vast majority proposed by different associations, consumer groups, leagues, and committees. Finally, Bone notes that the Washington electorate uses the initiative to a greater extent than the referendum, which suggests 27 "that voters have used the popular devices to accomplish what the legislature did not do, rather than to veto what it did do." The most sophisticated study conducted to date on statewide referenda, using the county as the basic linit of analysis, was per formed by David R. Morgan, Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, and Associates. Utilizing multivariate analysis techniques, they were able to study 261 initiatives and referenda in Oklahoma between 1907 and 1974. The major focus of their research was directed to the post World War II period. The dependent variable consisted of the percent yes vote on each state question, by county, and the independent variables were composed of partisan voting patterns and a selection of socio economic measurements (percent urban, percent rural farm, percent manufacturing, percent non-white, median school years, median age, percent population increase, and percent owner occupied dwellings) In this study several modes of analysis were used: (1) descriptive analysis; (2) principal component (Varimax Rotation) factor analysis; and, (3) multiple correlation and regression analysis. Although it is not feasible to summarize the entire sixty-two page study here, several noteworthy conclusions will be presented relative to each mode of analysis. The descriptive analysis revealed, in part, that: (1) during the 1907-1974 period, thirty-eight percent of all questions submitted to the Oklahoma electorate were passed; (2) the mode of referral was found to be related to the passage of propositions, with legislative referenda having a higher adoption rate than either initiative petitions or referendum petitions; (3) the election type is related to successful outcome of measures insofar as issues submitted 28 at special and primary elections have a higher level of passage (49 percent) than those issues presented to the electorate in general elections (18 percent passage level); (4) the greatest level of sucess in issue adoption of proposed constitutional amendments during the post World War II period is associated with legislative référendums submitted in primary or special elections. The principal component factor analysis was used to test the relationship that exists between yea saying tendency on propositions and socioeconomic and political characteristics of the counties, for three time periods: (1) 1950; (2) 1960; and (3) 1970. For all of the socioeconomic and political characteristics studies three similar dimensions were found to exist for each ten year period observed— urban/industrial, affluence, and population stability dimensions. In two time periods, the Urban/Industrial dimension accounted for the largest percent of total explained variance (32.5 percent of variance for 1950, 32.2 percent of variance for 1960). However, in the 1970 period, affluence factors accounts for the highest percent of explained variance (25.4 percent). Factor analyz ing all the state questions that appeared on the ballot during the 1946-1974 period, these Oklahoma researchers discovered that the factor solutions "lack clear-cut, distinctive patterns of a substantive nature— the factor analysis did not produce as many substantive or issue dimensions..." as they had expected in order to account for the various attitudes held by the Oklahoma voting populace toward state questions. They conclude, nevertheless, that during the 1946-1955 period, that the factor patterns were primarily "election 29 specific," in that education content propositions produced the highest factor loadings, and these propositions all appeared in the 1946 election; also. Government Reorganization, Education, Term of Office and Revenue factors were identified. In t'he 1956-1965 period, four factors out of five appear to be election related in that the issues that had high loadings appeared on the same ballot. Although the factors are not that clean, they nevertheless identify some common alty. The five factors that emerged are: (1) 1956 factor; (2) Govern ment Reorganization factor; (3) 1964 Education Reorganization factor; (4) 1963 Term of Office factor, and (5) the 1965 Revenue factor. Overall, the factors are election year associated. The third time period is for the years 1966-1974. Five rather different factors emerge: (1) Miscellaneous Change 1968-69 (which has very little clear-cut loadings); (2) Government/General Reform; (3) Revenue; (4) Moral/Government Reform; and (5) 1971, which makes "little sense substantively;" and, (6) Local Control of Government dimension. Being clearly disappointed by the lack of highly useful factors that could be used in explaining referenda voting behavior in Oklahoma over-time, the authors suggest that: "...the agenda-setting process for state questions is primarily an elite phenomena— whether by legislators or periodically salient "attentive publics." Direct democracy is more likely to reflect the flavor of Democratic centralism, with little issue spontaneity to reflect mass public initiative." In turn, however, they conclude that at least some non-random, patterned referenda political behavior exists, and that some cluster of "inter related identifiable propositons" were uncovered. 30 Finally, the regression analysis produced a number of interesting results. Using three sets of socioeconomic characteristics that were identified by the factor analysis solution (Urban/Industrial, Cultural Deprivation, and Population Growth or Stability) in addition to the average Republican vote for governor as an independent variable, and the yes vote during three periods of time (1946-1955; 1956-1965, and 1966-1974) as the dependent variable, these findings are reported by Morgan, et. £l.: (1) Urban/Industrial and Percent Republican Vote for Governor were closely associated with a substantial variation in most of the factos identified for the 1946-1955 period. (2) Support for education-related measures increased as the present urban and percent industrial characteristics of the counties increased. (3) Per cent Republican vote for governor was negatively associated with support for education among the counties examined. (4) Cultural deprivation of counties was positively related to revenue factors— as affluence decreased, support for revenue issues increased and vice versa for the more affluent counties. (5) Counties is in Oklahoma possessing higher levels of urbanness and industrialism tend to vote similarly on factors. Employing the same regression technique, and same independent and dependent variables during the 1956-65 time frame reveals the following: (1) The ”1956" factor (propositions submitted in the 1956 election, which do not share any substantive characteristics) was largely explained by the four socioeconomic and political character istics of each county (the independent variables explained 79 percent of the total explained variation); (2) A high positive correlation 31 exists (+.67) between the Urban/Industrial dimension and the Govern ment Reorganization factor (more urban areas, as well as counties with a tendency to vote Republican, generally supported measures that promoted change in government); and (3) Pafrtisan orientation and Urban/Industrial characteristics of counties influenced county voting behavior on initiated and referred measures. In the last time period studied, 1966-1974, the regression equations demonstrated a fairly low level of explained variation in terms of the four socioeconomic and political dimensions of counties and factor loadings. The equation illustrate that: (1) Only 54 percent of the variation in one out of six factors could be explained by the independent measurements; (2) Affluence was positively related to support of revenue factor; and (3) Counties with a higher percent Republican vote for governor were negatively associated (-.51) with support of revenue measures. The researchers conclude that the regression analysis yields "mixed results" in explaining voting behavior on propositions during the 1946-1974 period. Only four factors (from a total of 15 factors) had clearly detectable issue characteristics and explained approxi mately 50 percent or more of the variance. Two of these factors were revenue related, one was educated related, and one related to govern ment reorganization. The percent Republican vote for governor was "...the most consistently potent independent variable" of the four political and socioeconomic measurements utilized. Last, referenda voting was found to be "...somewhat regularly related to partisan voting trends among counties within the state." That is. Northern 32 and Western counties possess higher percent Republican vote for governor and higher affluence levels, compared to "Little Dixie" which is characterized by a higher percent Democratic vote and lower affluence levels. Nevertheless, these highly developed statistical operations that were performed on referenda and initiative voting behaviors at the county level of analysis, point to the need for more systematic research and for alternative methodological inquiry in the continuing search to be more productive in yielding meaningful statewide referendum voting patterns and relationships. In a review of the history of popular lawmaking in the state of Washington during the 1914-1973 period, Hugh A. Bone and Robert C. Benedict, examine four factors: (1) the theory of direct democracy; (2) agenda setting and mode of election used for propositions; (3) utilization of referenda and initiative modes; and (4) statewide voting results. Their succinct review of the apologetics for direct democracy reveal these four principal characteristics: (1) initiative and referendum emphasizes people legislative decision-making to correct what the legislature has done (acts of commission] or to do what they would not do (acts of omission). 92 Within this argument rests the notion that the initiative and referendum might be used by groups left out of politics to develop their own policy, implement their own programs, and seek a satisfaction of their needed "benefits," and the notion that the process would reduce the amount of "special interest" manipulation that generally characterized public policy making in the formal legislative arena. (2) The policy content of issues is more important than candidate promises. (3) The initiative 33 and referendum makes "...every man his own legislature." 93 This focuses attention to the individual, rather than the group in process of policy determination and deliberation. And (4) individual involvement in public policy making is a learning proc'ess that will tend to "...increased levels of citizen education and political efficacy. In studying the effects of agenda setting through an examination of proposition sponsors and the extent to which the propositions reflect the interests of the public. Bone and Benedict found: (1) twenty- five percent of the 184 initiated measures and petition referenda that were submitted to the Washington electorate between 1913 and 1973, caused short-term (anomic) groups to develop; (2) short-term interest groups were formed to sponsor propositions in the issue areas of revenue and taxation, government reform, and public m o r a l s ; (3) law and medicine organizations, although well-organized, did not use the initiative process to further their associational interests in Washington®^ (4) long established and well-financed labor, business, and agricultural groups have individually and jointly used the initiative and referendum processes (between 1914 and 1940, labor and agriculture had twenty- seven propositions placed before the Washington voters); (5) public employee organizations. League of Women Voters, sportspeople, pensioners, consumers, employer associations, property owners, recreation groups, liquor interest have either backdoor initiatied measures to satisfy special interests; (6) a majority of proposals during the 1914 to 1973 period possessed public service policy content (education, recreation and parks, health and welfare, and network maintenance services); (7) utilizing Louis Froman's classification of areal policies (policies 34 that affect the total population simultaneously) and segmental policies (policies that affect a small portion of the population and usually culminated with an on-going program). Bone and Benedict found that three segmental oriented measures were submitted to the Washington 97 electorate for every two areal measures submitted. In Oklahoma, however, the question of referenda origniating from the general citizenry vis. a vis. special interests has been fairly clearly answered, although no empirical analysis has been conducted to determine if the policy outputs of initiated measures, especially those that have been initiated by special interests, serve the interest of the minority or are of segmehtal policy content, or whether they satisfy the areal or more general interest of the Oklahoma citizenry. In an analysis of 201 state questions for the period 1907-1965, Bertil L. Hanson observed that eighty-four measures were initiated as popular 98 measures through the mechanisms of the initiative and the referendum. He further notes, as shown in Table i_i, that nearly all of the popular initiated and petitioned measures spawned from special interests. Hanson concludes, that it is "...ironic, in view of the reformers’ mistrust of business influence, that people with distinctively pecuniary motives have been responsible for 25 percent of all initiative and referendum proposals. 99 A brief analysis of Table 1-1 shows that the largest percentage of "popular" measures were generated by commercial interests (25 percent); interests such as: liquor dealors, highway contractors, distillers, oil companies, retailers, tobacco companies, and packing-house interests. 35 TABLE 1-1 Sponsors of Referendum Questions Type of Sponsor Number Percent Percent At Commercial interests 21 25.0 23.8 Governors 17 , 20.2 17.7 Other Public Officials 15 17.8 26.7 Teacher's Organizations 10 11.9 50.0 Farm Organizations 6 7.1 33.3 Civic Reform Groups 4 4.8 25.0 Labor Organizations 3 3.6 33.3 Political Parties 3 3.6 33.3 Church Groups 2 2.4 50.0 Other 3 3.6 66.7 Total 84 100.0 29.8 Source: Bertil-1.. Hanson, "Oklahoma's Experience with Direct Legislator, South Western Social Science Quarterly, 47 (December, 1966), p. 266. The second major group of questions originated from Governors of Oklahoma. Hanson writes: "The explanation is to be found in the occassional dis agreements which a constitutional system of separation of powers invites. Some governors, at odds with their legislatures, have indignantly appealed "to the people" for vindication. The pioneer of this form of gamesmanship was William "Alfalfa Bill" Murray, who became governor in 1931. He was a headstrong, color ful man who thought that such things as the shape of his skull, the roar in his voice, and the acclaim of his own newspaper were signs of his exceptional talent. He had plans for Oklahoma: he meant to revise the state income tax, provide free schoolbooks, impose crop controls, and increase the governor's power over the budget, among other things. IVhen the legislature balked. Governor Murray circulated initiative petitions. He set a special election, conducted a vigorous "firebells" campaign to arouse the people, declared a special holiday for state employees, and then suffered the disappointment of seeing his program rejected in an election in which only 33 percent of the electorate voted. Other governors tried the same thing. Governor E. W. Marland, in a campaign to "bring the New Deal to Oklahoma," offered the people a series of welfare measures which had been rejected by the 1935 legislature. Three of six were passed. Much more recently. Governor J. Howard Edmondson attempted to make use of initative petitions in 1960. In this case, a thirty-four year old, relatively inexperienced but highly popular executive advocated reforms, such as a personnel merit system, legislative reapportionment. 36 and revisions in county government, which were unpalatable to veteran politicians in the legislature and the county courthouses. Expressing his scorn for the "old guard" in the legislature, the governor optimistically went with his petitions to the people, who shortly before had elected him with an unprecedented 74.1 percent of the vote. But his petitions, with only 45.6 percent of the electorate turning out to vote", were defeated by a two to one margin."101 This analysis surely substantiates conventional political wisdom that a governor's personal popularity may not be transferable to public support of gubernatorial backed or initiated measures. Third, public officials have also sponsored fifteen measures (17.8 percent). Present and former officials, such as county com missioners, attorney general, state senator, mayors, bureaucrats, and so on, proposed propositions that range in policy content from taxation to reinstatement of state gasoline inspectors. Hanson observes that the motive behind measures supported by public officials fall into two general categories: "...(S)ome may have wanted renown as reformers in anticipation of running for office, and others may have merely wanted to get money and p a t r o n a g e . " 1 0 2 Fourth, the generation and use of the initative and referendum processes by well financed and well-organized, and large membership associations, accounted for 22.6 percent of the questions that Oklahomans voted on during the 1907-1965 period. That is, teacher organizations (Oklahoma Education Association) sponsored ten measures, receiving a generous passage level of 50.0 percent; the A. F. of L., Farmers Union, and Chiropractors sponsored other measures, although they received far less support than that accorded the school t e a c h e r s . 1^3 A comparative analysis of statewide voting results on initiatives 37 and referenda point to differences relative to mode of. referral, type of election in which questions are proposed, policy content of the issues and their respective passage levels, and voter turnout and participation levels of propositions. ' For instance, 328 initiated measures (direct initiative to voters and indirect initiatives to the legislature) have been voted upon in Washington during the 1914-1973 period, in contrast to the use of thirty-three legislative référendums and thirty-six referendum petitions for the same period, for a near comparable period of history 1907-1972, 252 issues were used, with 70 initiative petitions, 20 referendum petitions, and 162 legislative référendums constituting the mode of referral. In South Dakota, however, 262 initiated measures and constitutional amendments were voted on during the 1898 to 1976 period, and only two times, out of nineteen attempts, has an initiated measure been successfully approved by the p e o p l e . A n indepth analysis of passage levels by referral mode is discussed in a later portion of this chapter. Voter turnout and voter participation levels, as empirical studies have documented, are clearly lower on "people" proposed measures than for political candidates seeking elective positions. This has led many observers of the direct democracy process to conclude, as so amply stated by one researcher, that people are "...much more prone to vote on candidates than on q u e s t i o n s . B o n e and Benedict also find that participation for major executive offices at the national and state levels is ten to thirty percent higher than for propositions that appear in the same election.^1 0 7' They also found that in comparison to voter participation levels for the state elective posts of auditor. 38 attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction, and insurance commissioner, that "...participation on initiative measures in many cases approximates or exceeds that for major state offices." In a similar analysis of initiatives submitted in off-presidential years. Bone and Benedict learned that "...aproximately 30 percent of the cases initiatives have outpolled the total vote for all the state’s congressmen, and in another 15 percent of the cases the turn- out was within 3 percent." 109 In Oklahoma, for comparison purposes, approximately eighty-five percent of the people who vote in presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections, also cast ballots on the state q u e s t i o n s . I n elections called specially by the governor for measure referral and consideration (special elections], about 40 percent of the eligible electorate turnout to cast a ballot on proposed measures, and in some elections the actual participation rate has been less than ten percent of the eligible voting electorate.Hanson observes that: "The electorate’s lethargy has inspired many newspaper editors to wag reproachful fingers, just as it has in spired many social scientists to measure the phenomenon of civic apathy." Nonetheless, this statement is not always true for certain issues have attracted high levels of citizen involvement and election parti cipation, particularly questions related to racial issues ("Grandfather Clause," school desegregation) woman suffrage, and prohibition. An operationalization of policy content of measures and voter turnout was employed for statewide voting data in Washington. Categorizing the policy content of 249 initiated measures into nine 39 policy areas (Education, Recreation and Parks, Health and Welfare, Network Maintenance Services, Public Morality, Individual Lifestyles, Taxation and Revenue, Business and Labor, and State and Local Government) Bone and Benedict discovered: (1) turnout* on moral issues tended to be greater than on any of the other policy areas; (2) turnout for public services, such as welfare and education measures received about an average level of participation among the policy areas; and (3) turn out on measures dealing with government structure and reform have the lowest levels of voter participation.113 Participation levels on measures submitted to the Washington electorate, indicated by voter turnout levels, was identified as highest for initiated measures, next best for referenda, and lowest turnout for constitutional amendments. Bone and Benedict conclude that "...participation rates on all types of ballot propositions have increased continuously since 1 9 3 0 , gnd this increase pertained to both highly controversial and less controversial measures. Perhaps, they observe, that "those who do participate in electoral politics display increasing psychological involvement with issues, and less of a feeling that they are too complex or too remote from their major i n t e r e s t s . T o the Oklahoma voter, however, direct legislation "... has seemingly demonstrated that most ordinary people do not think much about them (issues) at all.^^^ 40 Amendment of the Constitution Through the Use of the Popular Initiative The constitutions of seventeen states have provisions that enable the organic law to be amended by the popular initiative process. The I popular initiative is provided for in the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. The majority of the Western states provide for the constitutional initiative. For instance, there are twenty-four states situated west of the Mississippi River, and thirteen (54.2 percent) provide for the change of their constitutions by the initiative option. In contrast, there are twenty-six states geo graphically located east of the Mississippi River, and only four of them (15.4 percent) provide for the constitutional initiative. This Western phenomenon, as explained by Charles M. Price, is related to the Progressive Movement— the initiative being one of it's many creative reforms. Paradoxically, the home state of the great Progressive re former, Robert M. La Follette, ^Fighting Bob", is distinctively absent from the list of states that provide for the constitutional initiative, for Wisconsin "allows for neither the initiative or the referendum."^^^ In analyzing the requirements surrounding the operation of the 11 Q popular constitutional initiative. Table 1-2 is particularly helpful. Table 1-2 presents the states accompanied by four characteristics of the initiative and constitutional amendment process. The first area of comparison pertains to the signature requirement that must be obtained or satisfied in order to have an initiated amendment submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection. A common basis TABLE 1-2 THE USE OF THE POPULAR INITIATIVE IN AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION Signature Requirement Distribution Referendum State Initiative Petition of Signatures Vote Arizona 15% of total votes cast for None specified Majority vote all candidates for governor on amendment at last election Arkansas 10% of voters for governor Must include 5% of Majority vote at last election voters for governor on amendment in each of 15 counties California 8% of total voters for all None specified Majority vote candidates for governor on amendment at last election Colorado 8% of legal voters for None specified Majority vote secretary of state at on amendment last election Florida 8% of total votes cast in the 8% of total votes Majority vote state in the last election cast in each of on amendment for presidential electors 1/2 of the con gressional districts Illinois 8% of total votes cast for None specified Majority voting candidates for governor at in election or last election. Only Article 3/5 voting on IV. The legislature, may amendment be amended by initiative. Signature Requirement Distribution Referendum State Initiative Petition of Signatures Vote ' Massachusetts 8% of total vote for governor No more than 1/4 Majority vote at preceding biennial state from any one on amendment election. Before being sub county which must be mitted to the electorate for 30% of total ratification initiative measures ballots cast at must be approved by two sessions election of the legislature by not less than 1/4 of all members elected sitting in joint session. Michigan 10% of total voters for governor None specified Majority vote at last election on amendment Missouri 8% of legal voters for all The 8% must be Majority vote 45- candidates for governor at in each of 2/3 on amendment NJ last election of the congres sional districts in the state Montana 10% of qualified electors, the The 10% to include Majority vote number of qualified electors at least 10% of on amendment to be determined by number of qualified electors votes cast for governor in in each of 2/5 preceding general election of the legislative districts Nebraska 10% of total votes for governor Tlie 10% must include Majority vote at last election 5% in each of 2/5 of on amendment of counties which must be at least 35% of total vote at the election Signature Requirement Distribution Referendum State Initiative Petition of Signatures Vote ' Nevada 10% of voters who voted in 10% of total voters Majority vote entire state in last general who voted in each of on amendment election 75% of the counties in two con secutive general elections North Dakota 20,000 electors None specified Majority vote on amendment Ohio 10% of total number of electors At least 5% of Majority vote who voted for governor in last qualified electors on amendment election in each of 1/2 of counties in the state Oklahoma 15% of legal voters for state None specified Majority vote office receiving highest num on amendment ber of votes at last general election Oregon 8% of total votes for all None specified Majority vote candidates for governor on amendment elected for 4-year term at last election South Dakota 10% of total votes for governor None specified Majority vote in last election on amendment Source: The Book of the States 1978-79 (Lexington, Kentucky; The Council of State Governments, 1978), p. 210. 44 for the petition signature requirement is found among the seventeen states, particularly insofar as eleven states, 64.7 percent out of the seventeen states that possess the constitutional initiative require a specific percentage signature requirement based on the total votes cast for the gubernatorial position at the last election. The states that use this requirement and their particular requirements relative to the percentage of votes cast for governor that a petition must meet, are: Arizona (15 percent), Massachusetts (8 percent), Michigan (10 percent), Missouri (8 percent), Nebraska (10 percent), Ohio (10 percent), Oregon (8 percent), and South Dakota (10 percent). Several states base the number of signatures that a petition must satisfy on the basis of the electoral vote for different statewide or national offices. For example, Colorado requires 8 percent of the legal voters who cast ballots for the secretary of state in the last election, and Oklahoma requires fifteen percent of the legal voters for the state office (also includes presidential electors) that receives the highest number of votes at the last general election. Florida requires eight percent of the total vote cast in the last election for presidential electors. Nevada uses a rule of ten percent of the voters who voted in the entire state in the last general election, and North Dakota simply states that the signature of 20,000 electors are required in order to initiate a constitutional amendment for submission to the people. The distribution of signature requirements among the several states providing for the amendment of the constitution by the initiative are somewhat more varied than is the basis on which the signature requirement is computed. Nine states (52.9 percent) do not specifically 45 indicate a distribution of signature requirement. These states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. The remaining eight states possess the following commonality relative' to the distribution of signatures that a petition must satisfy. Missouri requires that the eight percent of the voters who voted for all candidates for governor at the last election be drawn from each of two-thirds of the congres sional districts throughout the state, and Florida requires that the eight percent signature requirement, based on votes cast for presiden tial electors, be secured in each of one-half of its congressional districts. The other common political jurisdiction that is employed for ensuring a fairly widespread representation of the signatures secured on a petition, takes into consideration the county as a political and geographical unit. Arkansas requires a ten percent signature re quirement, based on the total votes cast for governor in the last election, to be minimally distributed so as to include five percent of the votes cast for governor in each of fifteen counties. The Arkansas law does not spell out which counties. Massachusetts is very direct in its signature distribution requirement. It flatly requires that no more than one-fourth of the total signature requirement be obtained from any single county. Nevada requires its petition signature to be representative of at least ten percent of the total voters who voted in each of seventy-five percent of the counties. This kind of law complicates the circulation of petitions and militates toward an attempt to get a better distribution of signatures on a petition. The problems of petition coordination are obviously quite 46 complex. Ohio requires the distribution to reflect at least five percent of the qualified electors in each of one-half of all the counties in the state. In Montana, the legislative districts are the essential political jurisdictions utilized as the basis for ensuring the wide spread distribution of signatures. Montana law requires the ten per cent of qualified electors, based on the number of votes cast for governor in the preceding general election, to include at least ten percent of the qualified electors in each of two-fifths of the state legislative districts. Basically, the distribution of signatures is ensured in eight states by requiring the signatures to be secured from different political jurisdictions, and different geographical sectors of the state. The reliance on these restrictive features that attempt to provide a wider petition signature distribution have not been empirically tested relative to county, legislative district, or con gressional district homogeneity, or for geographical clustering. Never theless, it does present an interesting notion in an attempt to have dispersed and greater general support shown for a constitutional amendment that is petitioned through the initiative mechanisms. Table 1-2 provides data on the several states requirement for passage of a popularly initiated constitutional amendment. This passage requirement, in the final analysis, is,indicative of the states sharing a democratic attitude toward people's democracy, and toward the view that people can be entrusted to act rationally as lawmakers. The states overwhelmingly require only a simple majority vote on the amendment for passage of an initiated amendment, and no further legal stipulations are generally made. These states (N=13) that account for 76.5 percent 47 of the total number of states that possess the constitutional initiative (N=17), and use the simple majority vote cast on the amendment for ratification by the people, are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. The variation represented among the states for referendum vote approval differ mainly over the requirement to secure a majority vote on the amendment, in addition to a fixed percentage of the total ballots cast at the election. Massachusetts requires, therefore, a majority vote on the amendment, which in turn must also equal thirty percent of the total vote cast at the election in which the amendment was referred to the people. Nebraska has the same requirement, except that the majority vote cast on the referendum must be at least thirty-five percent of the total vote cast at the election. In a very clear way, these requirements may have a profound impact on the outcome of initiated propositions. For example, assume that the "yes” vote for an amendment was 328,000, and the "no" vote equaled 322,000, totaling 650,000 votes cast on the amendment. Yet, the total vote cast in the election is 940,000 votes. To satisfy the thirty-five percent rule of the total vote cast at the election in which the amendment was proposed, would require a 329,000 "yes" vote for passage. In the rule requiring an amendment to secure only a simple majority of the votes cast on the amendment, 328,000 would be sufficient to ensure passage, even though it represents only 50.5 percent of the vote actually cast on the proposition. Under the rule requiring thirty-five percent of the total votes cast in the election, the amendment would be defeated because it did not secure an additional 48 1,000 "yes" votes. The state of Illinois requires a majority of the vote cast in the election, or three-fifths approval on the amendment. The most stringent regulation governing the passage of initiated constitutional amendments exists in Nevada*. In addition to requiring a majority vote be obtained on an amendment for ratification, Nevada law states that this simple majority vote on the amendment must be secured in two consecutive general elections. This kind of requirement necessitates that interest in the amendment be sustained over a rather protracted period of time. Although Nevada's referendum vote require ment is not the subject of extensive study here, it does raise many questions that would be of interest to empirical political behavior research. For example, what is the rate of passage for all initiated amendments that are subsequently referred to the voters at the first election? What is the passage rate after the second election? What is the percentage of amendments that fail to secure majority vote on the second referral? The Popular Initiative and State Legislation Seventeen states provide for the amendment of their constitutions through the popular initiative procedure. Thirteen states, of the seventeen, also enable their electorate to legislate in the area of statutory matters by proposing measures through the popular initiative. The twenty states that have provisions for the use of the initiative for state legislation are displayed in Table 1-3. All but three of these states are geographically positioned west of the Mississippi River. The states that prove to be exceptions to this largely Mid- TABLE 1-3 STATE LEGISLATION THROUGH THE USE OF THE POPULAR INITIATIVE PROCESS Direct Established by Indirect Constitutional Petition Requirement State Initiative Provision Requirement for passage Alaska Direct Yes 10% of those voting in the last general Majority of popular vote election and resident in at least 2/3 of election districts Arizona Direct Yes 10% of qualified electors Majority of popular vote Arkansas Direct Yes 8% of those voting in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor California Direct Yes 5% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote 4̂to election for secretary of state Colorado Direct Yes 8% of vote cast in the last general Majority x)f popular vote election for secretary of state Idaho Direct Yes 10% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor and a majority of vote equal to the majority of the aggreate vote cast for governor at such general election Maine Indirect Yes 10% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor Massachusetts Indirect Yes 3% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor and at least 30% of the ballots cast in election Direct Indirect Constitutional Petition Requirement State Initiative Provision Requirement for passage Michigan Indirect Yes 8% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor Missouri Direct Yes 5% of voters in each of 2/3 of con Majority of popular vote gressional districts Montana Direct Yes 5% of qualified electors in each of Majority of popular vote at least 1/3 of legislature repre-i sentative districts; total must equal 5% of total qualified electors Nebraska Direct Yes 7% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote election for governor tOn North Dakota Direct Yes 10,000 electors Majority of popular vote Ohio Direct 5 Yes 3% of electors Majority ef popular vote Indirect Oklahoma Direct Yes 8% of total vote for the state office Majority of popular vote receiving largest number of votes in last general election Oregon Direct Yes 6% of total votes cast in last election Majority of popular vote for governor South Dakota Indirect Yes 5% of votes cast in last general Majority of popular vote election for governor Utah Direct G Yes 10% of total votes cast in the last Majority of popular vote Indirect election for governor with same per centage required from a majority of the counties (direct); 5% indirect Direct Indirect Constitutional Petition Requirement State Initiative Provision Requirement for passage Washington Direct G Yes 8% of votes cast in the last general Majority of popular vote Indirect election for governor Wyoming Direct Yes 15% of votes in last general election Majority of popular vote and resident in at 2/3 of counties in state Source: The Book of the States, 1978-79 (Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Government?, 1978), p. 243. 52 western and Western phenomenon are Maine, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Table 1-3 displays the several states by type of initiative (direct, indirect, or both), whether the initiative process is established constitutionally, the petition requirement* that an initiated measure must receive in terms of either percent of signatures or actual number of signatures, and the vote requirement that an initiated measure must obtain to qualify for successful passage or ratification. An analysis of Table 1-3 provides the following summary conclusions. First, the states that provide for the statute initiative use a mixture of pro cedures. For the twenty states that have the statute initiative, thirteen states provide for the direct statute initiative, four states use the indirect statutory initiative, and three states have con stitutional provisions that enable either the direct or indirect statutory initiative procedure to be employed. The states that only provide for the use of the direct initiative are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Wyoming. In all these instances, the direct type of initiative is used in states positioned west of the Mississippi. The ability to place an initiated measure on the ballot for subsequent referral to the electorate, without first receiving legislative action and authorization, is distinctively a western phenomenon. Second, the states that provide for the indirect statute initiative are: Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and South Dakota. The indirect device requires a measure submitted to the electorate and approved by the people to be resubmitted to the state legislature for final approval or rejection. Third, only the states of Ohio, Utah, and 53 Washington constitutionally provide for both the direct and indirect statutory initiative. All twenty states possessing the direct or indirect statutory initiative, have established these procedures in their constitutions. However, some differences exist between the states on the number of signatures essential to the satisfaction of the petition requirement. Normally, the number of signatures required for a direct or indirect statutory initiative is fixed on the basis of a given percentage of the vote cast for a state office in the last general election. For instance, those states requiring a specified percentage of signatures received on an initiative petition relative to the vote cast in the last general election for the office of governor are: Arkansas (8 percent), Idaho (10 percent), Maine (10 percent), Massachusetts (3 percent), Michigan (8 percent), Nebraska (7 percent), Oregon (6 percent), South Dakota (5 percent), Utah (10 percent), and Washington (8 percent). The percentage of signatures required for the petition of the vote cast for governor ranges from a low of three percent in Massachusetts, to a high of ten percent in the states of Idaho, Maine, and Utah. In several states the petition requirement is fixed as a percentage of the vote cast for state offices other than that of the gubernatorial position. Thus, in California and Colorado, the petition must receive five percent and eight percent of the votes cast in the last general election for the office of secretary of state, respectively. In the other states, the signature requirement is satisfied by securing a fixed percentage of the total number of legal electors in the state on the petition. Therefore, in North Dakota a petition must obtain the 54 signatures of 10,000 electors; in Ohio, three percent of the legal electors; Arizona, ten percent of the qualified electors. Oklahoma requires signatures amounting to eight percent of the total vote re ceived for the state office receiving the largest number of votes in the last general election. Several other states, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, use a signature requirement that takes into consideration the number of votes cast in the last general election, in addition to a requirement surrounding the percentage of signatures that need to be generated from the political subdivisions, such as counties, congressional districts, or election districts. There is little doubt that Alaska, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming have incorporated these unique petition requirements into their organic law in order to avert a small interest faction or specific geographical region of their respective states from proposing and having submitted to the electorate statutory measures that do not possess substantive policy of statewide concern, interest, applicability, and impact. The methods used for ratification of direct and indirect statutory initiated measures are fairly similar among the twenty states. Eighteen of the states enable the majority of the popular vote that is received on a bill to satisfy the passage requirement. Generally, the ratification requirements reflect a democratic attitude toward the use of the statutory initiative. The two states that possess variant requirements for the passage of statutory initiatives are Idaho and Massachusetts. Idaho, in addition to requiring a majority of the popular vote for passage, also requires that a majority of the vote equal to the majority of the aggregate vote cast for governor at the general election in 55 which the bill was submitted to the electorate. Massachusetts requires a majority of the popular vote and at least thirty percent of the vote cast in the election. The Role of the State Legislature in the Amendment of the Constitution The proposal of constitutional amendments by the state legislature is authorized in all fifty states. The legalisms surrounding legislative development of constitutional amendments vary substantially among the several states. Table 1-4 displays the states and a few of the " . characteristics that accompany the operation of legislative initiated amendments, such as: 1) The legislative vote required for approval of proposed constitutional amendments; 2) consideration of proposed amendment by two sessions; 3) popular vote required for ratification of referred amendment ; and 4) the limitations, if any, on the total number of amendments that may be submitted to the electorate in any single election. In 70 percent of the states [N=35j, a minimum of at least 60 percent of all elected members in each house is required in order TABLE 1-4 AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by two sessions for of Amendments Submitted State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election_____ Alabama 3/5 No Majority vote None on Amendment Alaska 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Arizona Maj ority No Majority vote None on Amendment Arkansas Majority No Majority vote ton\ on Amendment California 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Colorado 2/3 No Majority vote None. Legislature may not propose Amendments at the same session to more than six articles Connecticuit 1 Three Three fourths Majority vote None fourths vote vote in each on Amendment in each house house at one at one session session, or or majority or majority vote in each vote in each house in two house in two sessions sessions Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted ' State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election_____ Delaware 2/3 Yes Not required No referendum Florida 3/5 No Majority vote None on Amendment Georgia 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Hawaii Two-thirds Two-thirds Majority vote None vote in each vote in each on Amendment. house at one house at one Majority on session, or session, or Amendment must majority vote majority vote equal 35% of in in each house in each house total vote at in two sessions in two sessions election Idaho 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Illinois 3/5 No Majority voting in election or 3/5 voting on Amendment Indiana Maj ority Yes Majority vote None on Amendment Iowa Maj ority Yes Majority vote None on Amendment Kansas 2/3 No Majority vote on Amendment Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted ' State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election Kentucky 3/5 ■ No Majority vote on Amendment Louisiana 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment. If five or fewer political subdivision of state affected, majority in state as a whole and also in affected subdivision(s) is 01 required. 00 Maine 2/3 of both No Majority vote None houses on Amendment Maryland 3/5 No Majority vote None on Amendment Massachusetts Majority of Yes Majority vote None members on Amendment elected sit ting in joint session Michigan 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Minnesota Maj ority No Majority vote None in election Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted State for Proposai Required Ratification at One Election_____ Mississippi 2/3 and this No Majority vote None must include on Amendment not less than a majority elected to each house Missouri Majority No Majority vote None on Amendment Montana 2/3 of both No Majority vote None houses on Amendment Nebraska tn3/5 No Majority vote None to on Amendment The majority must be at least 35% of total vote at election Nevada Maj ority Yes Majority vote None on Amendment New Hampshire 3/5 No 2/3 vote on None Amendment New Jersey 3/5 of all 3/5 of all Majority vote None. If a prepared members of members of on Amendment Amendment is not ap each house each house proved at the election at one session at one session. when submitted, neither Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election New Jersey (continued) or majority or majority the same amendment of all members of all members nor one which would of each house of each house make substantially for two suc for two suc the same change to cessive sessions cessive sessions the constitution may be again submitted to the people before the third general election thereafter. New Mexico Majority. No Majority vote None Amendments on Amendment o\ concering (Same as Legis o certain elective lature vote re franchise and quired for pro education matters posal) require 3/4 vote of members elected and approval by 3/4 of electors voting in state and 2/3 of those voting in each county. New York Majority Yes Majority vote None on Amendment North Carolina 3/5 No Majority vote None on Amendment Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on tlie Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted ' State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election_____ North Dakota Maj ority No Majority vote None on Amendment Ohio 3/5 No Majority vote None on Amendment Oklahoma Majority No Majority vote None on Amendment Oregon Majority to No Majority vote None amend con on Amendment stitution, 2/3 to re o\ ceive all or part of con stitution Pennsylvania Majority. Yes (same Majority vote None Emergency as legis on Amendment amendments lature re may be passed quired for by 2/3 vote of proposal) each house, followed by ratification by majority of electors in election held at least one month after legislative approval. Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted ‘ State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election_____ Rhode Island Majority No Majority vote None on Amendment South Carolina 2/3 of members Yes (same Majority vote None of each house, as legis on Amendment first passage; lative vote majority of required members of for proposal), each house after popular ratification South Dakota Majority No Majority vote None on Amendment Tennessee Majority of Yes (same Majority vote None members elected as legis in election. to both houses, lative vote Majority of all first passage; required for citizens voting 2/3 of members passage). for governor. elected to both houses, second passage. Texas 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Utah 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment Legislative Consideration Vote Required Limitation on the Number Vote Required by Two Sessions for of Amendments Submitted ' State for Proposal Required Ratification at One Election_____ Vermont 2/3 vote Yes Majority vote None senate, majority on Amendment vote house, first passage; majority both houses, second passage. Amendments may be submitted only every four years. Washington 2/3 No Majority vote None on Amendment 0o4\ West Virginia 2/3. No Majority vote None on Amendment Wisconsin Majority Yes Majority vote None on Amendment Wyoming 2/3 No Majority vote None in election Source: The Book of the States 1978-79 (Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments, 1978), p. 209. 64 to approve a proposed amendment. The states which require an unusally large majority, and the majority required is shown in Table 1-4. The following ten states, Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey— at one session. North Carolina, and Ohio, require three-fifths percentage of elected members in each house to secure legislative approval of a proposed amendment. A two- thirds percentage passage is required in twenty-one states, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon— to revise all or part of the constitution, Pennsylvania— for emergency amendments. South Carolina— first passage, Texas, Utah, Vermont— only in the senate, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In addition, several states require three-fourths percentage passage in both legislative houses: Connecticut requires three-fourths in each house for passage at one session, and New Mexico requires a similar percentage approval on selected amendments dealing with the elective franchise and education policy areas. A fairly high percentage of the states, 44 percent, require a majority of legislative approval in both houses: These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee— first passage, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Jersey require a majority if the proposed amendment is submitted during two sessions of the state legislature. Second, thirty-five states do not require legislative approval of a proposed amendment in more than one legislative session, as shown 65 in Table 1-4. Several states, nonetheless, require amendments proposed and approved by the legislature in one session to go through the second acid-test of being referred to the succeeding or next legislature, which parenthetically, may be comprised of,a different membership, and attaining approval for the second time before the amendment may be submitted to the electorate for their consideration. Obviously, this type of procedural circumstance causes not only delay in the passage of amendments to the constitution, but also makes it more difficult to secure overall passage of proposed amendments to the state's organic law. States requiring consideration by two sessions before a legis lative proposed amendment can be referred to the people are: Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Connecticut requires a majority vote in each house in two sessions or a three- fourths vote in each house at one session for legislative approval. Hawaii requires either two-thirds vote for passage in each house in one-session, or majority vote for the proposed amendment in two-sessions. New Jersey's provisions call for passage by three-fifths of all members in each house in one-session, or majority vote of each house for proposal in two-sessions. South Carolina not only requires a two-thirds passage of proposed amendments by members of each house for the first passage, but also requires that the second vote consist of a majority of the popular vote on the proposal that is submitted to the electorate, followed by a third vote on the proposal (subsequent to the popular referendum) by the state legislature, in which a simple majority of the members of each house must once again approve the proposal before 66 it is incorporated into the constitution. Third, forty-nine states require popular ratification of amendments initiated and referred by the legislature. The most common vote re quirement that must be minimally obtained to meet ratification author- zation is obtained when the constitutional question receives a majority of the popular vote cast on the amendment. For instance, the following states have the majority vote on the amendment provisions: These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Con necticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii— majority must also equal thirty- five percent of the total vote cast at the election, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska— majority must be at least 35 percent of the total vote cast in the election, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico— with special voting requirements for elective franchise and education content amendments. New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Only five states deviate from this majority vote on the amendment rule, they are: Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Delaware does not require popular ratification of referred amendments by the legislature, and Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wyoming require a majority vote on con stitutional référendums in relation to the total vote cast in the election. New Hampshire's provisions call for a two-thirds popular vote to meet passage requirements. Fourth, the set of characteristics shown in Table 1-4 pertains 67 to the presence of any limitations on the number of amendments that may be submitted at one election. An analysis of the data arrayed in Table 1-5 shows that most states, 90 percent (N=45), do not place restrictions on the number of amendments that may be proposed and submitted to the electorate at a single election. The four states that possess limitations are: Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, and Kentucky. In Arkansas and Illinois, only three amendments to the constitution may be submitted at one election; in Kansas, five amendments may be submitted at one election; and, in Kentucky, only two constitutional amendments may be present on the ballot at any single election. The State of Delaware does not possess a referendum, and therefore this characteristic is not applicable. The Role of the Referendum in State Statutory Law-Making Processes The referendum is a procedure by which the people may have an act of the state legislature referred to a popular vote for final approval by the people. Fundamentally, there are three principal forms that the referendum takes, as identified by The Book of the States 1978-1979. These three referendum forms consist of: (1) petition by the people; (2) submitted by the legislature; and (3) a constitutional requirement1.1 9 The referendum petition, or petition by the people, is in effect the opposite form of the initiative petition. It differs mainly from the initiative in that the people may petition the state legislature to have a legislative act submitted to the voters for their approval. The voters, therefore, are placed in the capacity of affirming and nullifying what the legislature has done. 68 Normally, as pointed out later in this chapter, the referendum is generally found in those states that also possess the initiative. The legislature may also refer laws or bills to the electorate for their popular consideration and ratification. This procedure is usually called the legislative referendum of statutory measures to the people. In some states, highly contested legislative issues are submitted to the people for their approval or rejection. Some com mentators on this phenomenon suggest that the use of the legislative referendum denigrates the role and the function of an elected, re sponsive, and responsible legislative-making body, primarily since the legislature "passes-the-buck" to the people. Last, some states require certain types of questions to be referred to the people for their deliberation, especially questions dealing with such policy considerations as authorization of an increase in the public debt. An analysis of the availability of the referendum among the states shows that eleven states do not have provisions for the em ployment of the referendum. The states that do not possess the statutory referendum are: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. The other thirty-nine states have procedures enabling one or more of the referendum forms to be used, as shown in Table 1-5. The states which provide for the statutory initiative, also have provisions for the statutory referendum. Table 1-6 displays the twenty states that possess both the statutory initiative and the statutory referendum. TABLE 1-5 STATE LEGISLATION THROUGH THE USE OF THE REFERENDUM PROCESS Established by Constitutional Basis for Use Petition Requirement State Provision of Referendum for Referendum Alaska Yes Petition of people 10% of votes cast in last general election for governor and resident in at least 2/3 of election districts Arizona Yes Petition of people 5% of qualified votes Submitted by legislature Arkansas Yes Petition of people 6% of votes cast in last general election for governor oto\ California Ŷ s Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general Constitution Requirement election for governor Colorado Yes Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general Submitted by legislature election for secretary of state Florida Yes Constitutional requirement none Georgia Yes Submitted by legislature none Constitutional requirement Idaho Yes Petition of people 10% of votes cast in last general election for governor Illinois Yes Submitted by legislature none Iowa Yes Constitutional requirement none Kansas Yes Constitutional requirement none Established by Constitutional Basis for Use Petition Requirement State Provision of Referendum for Referendum Kentucky Yes Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general Constitutional requirement election for governor Maine Yes Petition of people 10% of votes cast in last general Submitted by legislature election for governor Maryland Yes Petition of people 3% of votes cast in last general Submitted by legislature election for governor Massachusetts Yes Petition of people 2% of votes cast in last general election for governor Michigan Yes Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general Submitted by legislature election for governor o Missouri Yes Petition of people 5% of legal votes in each of 2/3 Submitted by legislature of congressional districts Montana Yes Petition of people 5% of total qualified electors and Submitted by legislature 5% in at least 1/3 of legislative districts Nebraska Yes Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general election for governor Nevada Yes Petition of people 10% of votes in last general election New Hampshire Yes Submitted by legislature none New Jersey Yes Submitted by legislature none Constitutional requirement Established by Constitutional Basis for Use Petition Requirement State Provision of Referendum for Referendum New Mexico Yes Petition of people 10% of votes in last general election Constitutional requirement and 10% of electors in 3/4 of the counties New York Yes Constitutional requirement none North Carolina Yes Submitted by legislature none Constitutional requirement North Dakota Yes Petition of people 7,000 signatures Ohio Yes Petition of people 6% of electors Constitutional requirement 0klahoma Yçs Petition of people 5% of votes cast for state offices Submitted by legislature receiving largest number of votes Constitutional requirement in last general election Oregon Yes Petition by people 4% of votes cast in last election Submitted by legislature for governor Pennsylvania Yes Constitutional requirement none Rhode Island Yes Constitutional requirement none South Carolina Yes Submitted by legislature none Constitutional requirement South Dakota Yes Petition of people 5% of votes cast in last general election for governor Established by Constitutional Basis for Use Petition Requirement State Provision of Referendum for Referendum Utah Yes Petition of people 10% of votes cast in last general election for governor and same percentage required from a majority of the counties Vermont No Submitted by legislatures none Virginia Yes Submitted by legislatures none Constitutional requirement Washington Yes Petition of people 4% of votes cast in last general Submitted by legislature election for governor Constitutional requirement N) Wisconsin Yqs Submitted by legislature none Constitutional requirement Wyoming Yes Petition of people 15% of those voting in last general Constitutional requirement election and resident in at least 2/3 of counties of state Source: The Book of the States 1978-79, (Lexington, Kentucky: Tlie Council of State Governments, 1978), pp. 244-245. 73 TABLE 1-6 STATES THAT POSSESS THE STATUTORY INITIATIVE AND STATUTORY REFERENDUM State Initiative Re fere: Alaska Yes Yes Arizona Yes Yes Arkansas Yes Yes California Yes Yes Colorado Yes Yes Idaho Yes Yes Maine Yes Yes Massachusetts Yes Yes Michigan Yes Yes Missouri Yes Yes Montana Yes Yes Nebraska Yes Yes North Dakota Yes Yes Ohio Yes Yes Oklahoma Yes Yes Oregon Yes Yes South Dakota Yes Yes Utah Yes Yes Washington Yes Yes Wyoming Yes Yes Table 1-6 points to the obvious relationship that exists between geographical region of the United States and the possession of both the statutory initiative and referendum. Only four states positioned east of the Mississippi River, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio— possess the statutory initiative and referendum, the remaining states, lay west of the Mississippi River. This fact again demonstrates the association of peoples democracy with the Progressive Movement, and its sizeable impact, especially on the western United States. In Table 1-5 the following characteristics of the statutory referendum are displayed: (1) states possessing the referendum; (2) the establishment of the referendum by constitutional provision; 74 (3) the bases for the use of the referendum, petition of the people; submitted by the legislature; and constitutional requirement; and (4) the petition requirement for the referendum. First, twenty-four of the fifty states, 48 percent, are located west of the Mississippi River; of these twenty-four states, nineteen states provide for the statutory referendum. Second, in contrast, 76.9 percent of the twenty-six states positioned west of the Mississippi River have the statutory referendum. Table 1-5 also presents data relevant to whether or not the referendum processes are established by constitutional provision, as well as the bases for the use of the referendum. In thirty-eight out of the thirty-nine states— Vermont is the only exception— the referendum is established by constitutional provision. The basis for the referendum, on the other hand, do not share such a high level of uniformity between the states. The basis for referendum use is rooted in one or more of the following referendum forms: the ref erendum petition (petition by the people), legislative referendum (measures submitted to the people by the legislature), and constitu tional requirement. In analyzing the bases that are used for the statutory referendum process, it becomes clear, as shown in Table 1-7, that the referendum petition basis is the most commonly avail able referendum form (61.5 percent) among the thirty-nine states that provide for the statutory referendum, followed by the constitu tional requirement (48.7 percent), and the legislative referendum as a basis in 46.2 percent of all the states. .75 TABLE 1-7 BASIS FOR THE REFERENDUM ANOMG THE THIRTY-NINE STATES POSSESSING THE STATUTORY REFERENDUM Possess Referendum Référendum Constitutional Petition Legislative Requirement Basis Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 24 61.5 18 46.2 19 48.7 No 15 38.5 21 53.8 20 51.3 Total 39 100.0 39 100.0 39 100.0 A further analysis of Table 1-5 reveals that nine states possess only the referendum petition— Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah— and six states have the referendum only by constitutional requirement— Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rliode Island. In addition, nine states have a situation in which a combination of forms are used, such as the referendum petition and the constitutional require ment appearing together— California, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming. Another combination that is present is that of the referendum petition and the legislative referendum. This combination appears in the ten states of: Arizona, Colorado, Maine, -Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington. The last combination con sists of the legislative referendum and the constitutional requirement. This combination is available for the states of Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In all instances where this combination appears, the states are positioned 76 in either the Eastern or Southern portion of the United States. No Western states are represented in this combination of referendum basis discussed above. Last, all three referendum forms are found in the States of Oklahoma and Washington. '< In addressing the final characteristic of the statutory referendum, emphasis must be placed on the referendum petition. Table 1-7 dem onstrates that twenty-four of the thirty-nine states (61.5 percent) possess the referendum petition. The petition requirement for the referendum is most commonly based on a fixed percentage of the votes that were cast in the state's last general election for governor. For example, a fixed percentage of the votes cast in the last general election for the gubernatorial position is required in: Arkansas (6 percent), California (5 percent), Idaho (10 percent), Kentucky (5 percent) Maine (10 percent), Maryland (3 percent), Massachusetts (2 percent), Michigan (5 percent), Nebraska (5 percent), Oregon (4 percent), South Dakota (5 percent), and Washington (4 percent). In Colorado, the referendum petition requirement must obtain signatures amounting to 5 percent of the votes cast in the last general election for the office of secretary of state. In Nevada, the petition signature requirement must receive 10 percent of the total votes cast in the last general election, and Arizona requires a 5.percent signature satisfaction on the petition in relation to all qualified voters. Oklahoma, however, bases its petition requirement on 5 percent of the votes cast for the state office receiving the largest number of votes in the last general election. Four states use a variety of measures to secure a widespread 77 distribution of signatures on the referendum petition, in addition to acquiring a fixed percentage of the votes cast in the last general election for a specific state office. For example, Alaskan law specifies a petition requirement consistihg of 10 percent of the votes cast in the last general election for governor, in addition to having residency in at least two-thirds of the election districts, whereas Montana uses the rule of 5 percent of the total qualified electors and a 5 percent distribution in at least one-third of the legislative districts. New Mexico’s petition signature require ment combines 10 percent of the votes cast in the last general election with a distribution of 10 percent of the electors in three- fourths of the counties, which is similar to Wyoming’s signature requirement of 15 percent of those voting in the last general election and resident in two-thirds of the state’s counties. The information presented in Table .1-5 shows the petition requirement for the statutory referendum is somewhat similar among the states^ insofar it is largely based on a fixed percentage of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last general election. Several states, however, use a political jurisdiction or election unit to ensure a more diversified or widespread distribution of signatures. 78 NOTES I Alexander Hamilton is quoted in Thomas R. Dye, Who's Running America? (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 4. Harold Las swell and Daniel Lemer observed in The Comparative Study of Elites, " . . . that in all large-scale societies the decisions at any given time are typically in the hands of a small number of people." 2Robert E. Riggs,"Vox Populi: The Battle of 103," Arizona Govern ment Studies, No. 2 (Tucson, Arizona: The Institute of Government Research, The University of Arizona, 1964), p. 6. 3 Ibid., n.p. 4 Duane Lockard, The Politics of State and Local Government (New- York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 264. ^Ibid. 6For an interesting and definitive treatment of the three principal reform movements that took place in the United States during the 1890-1939 period (the Populism Movement, Progressive Movement, and New Deal Liberal ism Movement), see Richard Hofstader, The Age of Reform (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), Although the New Deal Liberalism Movement is extremely interesting in its own right, direct democracy was most affected by the Populist Movement and Progressive Movement. ^Bob Tucker, "Three Initiated Measures Facing Challenge Of History On Tuesday," Daily Capital Journal, November 6, 1978, p. 1, Pierre, South Dakota. It is rather paradoxical that one of the major proponets of a national initiative is also a South Dakota. Senator James Abourezk (D) recommended the use of the initiative procedure as an added way to bring about constitutional change in America. There is, however, some limited involvement of the people (farmers) who particpate in the agricultural price supports referenda. For a more extensive discussion, see Ralph M, Goldman, "The Advisory Referendum in America," Public Opinion Quarterly 14 (Summer, 1950), 303-315. g Keith L. Bryant, Jr., Alfalfa Bill Murray (Norman, Oklahoma: Univer sity of Oklahoma Press, 1968), p. 61, 9 See Gilbert L. Hedges, Where the People Rule (San Franciso: Bender- Moss Company, 1914); James Duff Barnett, The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915); Charles Austin Beard and B. E. Shultz, Documents on the State-Wide Initia tive, Referendum and Recall (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1912); 79 Edwin Munxoe Baun and Morrill Wyman, Direct Elections and Law-Making by Popular Vote (New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1912); Delos Franklin Wilcox, Government by All the People; or The Initiative, The Referendum and The Recall as Instruments of Democracy (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1912); Edith May Phelps (Compiler), Selected Articles on the Initiative and Referendum (White Plains, New York: The E. W. Wil son Company, 1914); William Bennett Munro, (ed.)> The Initiative, Referen dum and Recall (New York: D. Appleton and'Company, 1913); Nathan Cree, Direct Legislation by the People (Chicago: A. C. Me Clury and Company, 1892); James Boyle, The Initiative and Referendum: Its Folly Fallacies and Failure (Columbus, Ohio: A. H. Smythe, 1912); James T. Stoddart, Against the Referendum (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910); John Z. White, Direct Legislation. The Initiative and Referendum (Conneaut, Ohio: H. H. Timby, 1910); J. W. Sullivan, Direct Legislation by the Citizenship through the Initiative and Referendum (New York: Twentieth Century, 1892) 10Lockard, p. 263. ^^Joseph F. Zimmerman, State and Local Government (New York: Bames and Noble Books, 1970), p. 87. 12John E. Raker, Congressional Record, 47 (May 20, 1911), p. 67 of Appendix. 13Charles M. Price, "The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon," Western Political'Quarterly, XXVIII (June, 1975) :244. 14George S. Blair, American Legislatures: Structures and Process (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 392. 15Ibid. ^^Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy, 3rd ed. (North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1975), p. 6. 17Ibid. 18Ibid. 19Ibid. It is important to keep in mind that classical democratic theory sees democracy as a government of the people— a people who are informed and alert and who articulate their views as they participate in the processes of government. 20Zimmerman, p. 90. 21Hugh A. Bone, The Initiative and Referendum 2nd ed. (New York: National Municipal League, 1975), p. 7. This State Constitutional Studies Project is a valuable aid to the student of the initiative and referendum who wishes to ascertain the legal basis for the operation of the "I and R" in the several states. Professor Bone provides a "state by state" analysis, as well as general commentary on the operation of direct democracy in each state. 80 22Zimmerman, p. 90; Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 7. 23Zimmerman, p. 90. 24Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 7. 25Zimmerman, p. 90. • Daniel R. Grant and H. C. Nixon, State and Local Government in America (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968), p. 297. 27Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 7. 28Zimmerman, p. 91; and, Lockhard, p. 266. 29Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 6. ^^Zimmerman, p. 91. Lockard and Bone, in separate works, also come to similar conclusions. 31Grant and Nixon, p. 297; View is also stated by Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 6, and Zimmerman, p. 90. 32Zimmerman, p. 91. ^^Ibid. 34Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 6. Claudius 0. Johnson and Associates agree with this concept. They state: "In theory direct legislation is sponsored by "the people," but usually a bill is promoted (or opposed) by farm bureau federations or granges, labor unions, manu facturers' associations, good government leagues, united taxpayers, pension groups, conservationists, sportsmen, and a variety of other special interests." 35Claudius 0. Johnson, H. Paul Castleberry, Thor Swanson, and Daniel M. Ogden, Jr.. American State and Local Government 4th ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965), p. 120. These scholars state: " . . . there may be cases in which an interest group with an "ax to grind" and plenty of money to spend may plague the electorate with repeated submissions of a proposal, in crease its indifference, or perhaps wear it down, and push it the proposal that an alert majority would never approve." Zimmerman, p. 91. ^^Ibid. 38Grant and Nixon, p. 297. 39Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 6. 81 ^^Grant and Nixon, p. 297. ^^Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p.6. Similar arguments against direct legislation, particularly as direct legislation impacts on the responsibilities of the state assembly are presented in most basic state and local government text books. As Jhhnson and Associates note: "It has ...been said that legislatures may feel less responsibility, leaving the people to act on their own if they care to do so. It is not possible to draw very satisfactory conclusions on these points. Yet it appears safe to say that, even where the people resort most frequently to direct legislation, the legislatures function about as they do in other states. Nor is there any appreciable difference between the calibre of the legislators in states with popular law-making and those without it." ^^Grant and Nixon, p. 297. ^^ockiasdj p. 264. 44John S. Radabqugh, "Tendencies of California Direct Legislation," South western Social Science Quarterly, 42 (September, 1961), 66. 45Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 6. 46Ibid. An excellent discussion on this point, in addition to a treatment of the uses and the history of the initiative, see "Initiative Legislation in California," (California State Chamber of Commerce, n.d.) (Mimeographed), p.l. 47Zimmerman, p. 90. 48Research Department, "Initiative Legislation in California," p. 4. 49_I.b.id.. , p. 5- 50, 51, p. 6 S^ibid., p. 9. 55, 56, p, 10. 58, 59, 6 0 ^ ^ p. 11. 61 Ibid., pp. 4-5. Ĝ ibid. Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 15. 64Research Department, "Initiative Legislation in California," p. 5. 82 p. 6. ^^Ihid., p. 7. 6 RBone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 15. G^ibid. ^°Ibid. 71Research Department, "Initiative Legislation in California," p. 9. 72Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 16. ^^Ibid. ^^Research Department, "Initiative Legislation in California," pp. 9-10. ^^Ibid., p. 10. ^^Ibid. 77Bone, The Initiative and Referendum, p. 18. ^^Ibid. 79See Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, David R. Morgan, and Thomas G. Kielhom, The Oklahoma Voter (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977), p. 210. Also see Hugh A. Bone and Robert C. Benedict, "Perspectives on Direct Legislation: Washington State's Experience 1914-1973," Western Political Quarterly, XXVIII (June, 1975), 330. General discussion of statewide initiative and referendum voting behavior, in addition to the several citations mentioned above, is found is the following works : James K. Pollock, The Initiative and Referendum in Michigan (Ann- Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1940); Winston W. Crouch and V. 0. Key, Jr., The Initiative and Referendum in California (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1939); Eugene C. Lee (ed.). The California Govern mental Process (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966), especially Chapter V; John S. Radabaugh, "Tendencies of California Direct Legislation,"; Joseph La Palombara and Charles Hagan,"Direct Legislation: An Appraisal and a Suggestion," American Political Science Review, 45 (June, 1951), 400-421, 80See John H. Kessel, George F. Cole, and Robert G. Seddig, Micropolitics : Individual and Group Level Concepts (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), p. 1. This book presents a "thumb-nail" definition of micro politics and macropolitics as constituting: "Micropolitics is an approach to political analysis using individual and group level concepts to study political phenomena. Macropolitics, in contrast, focuses on the aggregate characteristics of political systems." In the study of direct democracy, micropolitical analysis would investigate individual voting behavior with perhaps a focus on individual role theory, cognitions, political orientations, decision behavior, small group behavior. On the other hand, macropolitical analysis would be concerned with the voting. 83 election characteristics, or attitudinal characteristics of the total system or total citizenry. 81Kessel, et. al., p. 8. 82For a discussion of referenda voting from the micro-analytical level see: James A. Norton, "Referenda Voting in a Metropolitan Area," Western Political Quarterly, VII (March, 1963), 195-212; James Q. Wilson and Edward C. Banfield, "Public Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior," American Political Science Review, 58 (December, 1964), 876-887. This widely attributed study treats voting in referenda in Detroit, Kansas City, Cleveland, Miami, and Chicago. Raymond E. Wolfinger and Fred J. Greenstein, "The Repeal of Fair Housing in California: An Analysis of Referendum Voting," American Political Science Review, 62 (September, 1968), 753-769; Harlan Hahn, "Voting in Canadian Communities : A Taxonomy of Referendum Issues," Canadian Journal of Political Science, (December, 1968), 462-469; Clarence Stone, "Local Référendums; An Alternative to the Alienated Voter Model," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Summer, 1965), 213-222; Robert L. Crain and Donald B. Rosenthal, "Structures and Values in Local Political Systems: The Case of Fluoridation Decisions," Journal of Politics, 28 (February, 1966), 169-195; David Harry Van Scoy, "Ohio School District Characteristics and Bond Referendum Voter Behavior," (unpublished Ed,D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1972); Bruce Shepard, "Political Preferences, Participation and Local Policy Making: A Study of Referendum Voting Behavior in American Cities," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Riverside, 1972); William B. Shepard, "Participation in Local Policy Making: The Case of Referenda," Social Science Quarterly, 56 (June, 1975), 55-70; Henry J. Schmandt, Paul G. Steinbicker, and George D. Wendel, Metro politan Reform in St. Louis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961); William A. Gamson, "The Fluoridation Dialogue: Is It An Ideological Conflict?, Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Winter, 1961), 526-537; John E. Morton and Wayne E. Thompson, "Powerlessness and Political Negativism: A Study of Defeated Local Référendums," American Journal of Sociology, 67 (March, 1962), 485-493; Robert Dykstra and Harlan Hahn, "Northern Voters and Negro Suffrage: The Case of Iowa, 1868," Public Opinion Quarterly, 32 (Summer, 1968), 202-215; Richard A. Watson and John H. Romani, "Metropolitan Government for Metropolitan Cleveland: An Analysis of the Voting Record," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 5 (November, 1961), 365-390; Robert H. Salisbury and Gordon Black, "Class and Party in Partisan and Non-Partisan Elections: The Case of Des Moines," American Political Science Review, 57 (June, 1963), 584-592; M, Kent Jennings and Harmon Zeigler, "Class, Party, and Race in Four Types of Elections: The Case of Atlanta," Journal of Politics, 28 (May, 1966), 391-407; J.H. Kuklinski and R.C. Elling, "Representational Role of Constituency Opinion, and Legislative Roll- Call Behavior," American Journal of Political Science, 21 (February, 1977), 135-147, 84 R.S. Erikson, N.R. Luttbeg, and W,V. Holloway, "Knowing Ones District How Legislators Predict Referendum Voting," American Journal of Political Science, 19 [May, 1975), 231-246; Thomas A. F. Plant, "Analysis of Voting Behavior in a Fluoridation Referendum, " Public Opinion Quarterly, 23 (Summer, 1959), 213-222; Howard D. Hamilton, "Direct Legislation: Some Implications Of Open Housing Referenda," American Political Science Review, 64 (March, 1970), 124-137; John Eo Mueller, "The Politics Fluoridation in Seven California Cities," Western Political Quarterly, 19 (March, 1966), 54-67; M.W. Giles, D.S. Gatlin, and E.F. Cataldo,"Parental Support for School Referenda," Journal of Politics, 38 (May, 1976), 442-451; C.A. Evans, Jr. and T. Pickles, "Statewide Anti-fluoridation initiatives : A New Challenge to Health Workers," American Journal of Public Health, 68 (January, 1978), 59-62; M.J. Weiner, "Nonreactive Predictor of a Liquor by Drink Referendum," Journal of Social Psychology, 97 (October, 1975), 103-106; R. Durand, "Ethnicity, Public-Regardingness, and Referenda Voting," Midwest Journal of Political Science," 16 (May, 1972), 259- 268; J. Neufeld, "Taxrate Referenda and Property Taxpayers Revolt," National Tax Journal, 30 (December, 1977), 441-456; D,J. Harmatuck, "Referendum Voting as a Guide to Public Support for Mass Transit," Traffic Quarterly, 30 (July, 1976), 347-369; R. Deacon and P. Shapiro, "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, 65 (September, 1975), 943-955; V.L. Marando, "Voting in City-County Consolidation Referenda," Western Political Quarterly, 26 (March, 1973), 90-96; N. Blume, "Open Housing Referenda," Public Opinion Quarterly, 35 (Winter, 1971-72), 563-570; and, Alvin Boskoff and Harmon Zeigler, Voting Patterns in a Local Election (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1964). 83Hugh A. Bone and Robert C. Benedict, "Perspectives on Direct Legislation: Washington State's Experience 1914-1973," Western Political Quarterly, XXVIII (June, 1975), p. 330. ^“̂Price, pp. 243-261. ^%’he following table reports the general findings reported in Price, p. 262 Selected Political System Characteristics and Initiative Use Initiative Use Pattern Associated with Factor Selected Political Factors High-Low Initiative Yes-No Initiative Use States Use States Strong Pressure System Positive None Weak Legislative Parties None Positive Two-Party System None Positive CCSL Overall None None Functional Positive None Accountable None None 85 85 (Continued) High-Low Initiative Yes-No Initiative Use States Use States Quality of Life Positive None Innovation Ranking None None Walker None None Gray None None BGprice, pp. 249 ff. Allan H. Lammers and David Kenney, "Correlates of Constitutional Change in Illinois," Public Affairs Bulletin, No. 4 (Carbondale, Illinois: Public Affairs Research Bureau, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1970), p. 2. Norman C. Thomas, "The Electorate and State Constitution Revision: An Analysis of Four Michigan Referenda," in State and Urban Politics » ed. by Richard I. Hofferbert and Ira Sharkansky (Boston: Little, Brown and CoDçany, 1971), p. 154. 89Ibid., pp. 154fft Q A Hugh A. Bone, "The Initiative in Washington: 1914-1974," Washington Public Policy Notes, No. 4 (Seattle: Institute of Government Research, University of Washington, 1974), pp. 2ff.' Bone found that voter falloff varies substantially as the proposition issues change (Individual Life Styles with a 11.1 percent falloff and State and Local Government Project with a 26.8 percent falloff). Another finding in the Washington study that is of some importance pertains to the higher initiative passage level in presidential elections, and the lower passage of initiatives in mid-term elections. 91David R. Morgan, Samuel A. Kirpatrick, et. al., "Patterns of Referenda Voting in Oklahoma: A Multivariate Analysis Over Time" (paper presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, San Antonio, Texas, March 27-29, 1975), pp. Bff. 92Johnson, p. 112, notes that the initiative is also considered, in folkish language, to constitute "...a'spur in the flank of the legislature;" the referendum constitutes for the legislature "...a bit in its mouth." 93Bone and Benedict, p. 332. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid., p. 333. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid., p. 335. 86 98Bertil L. Hanson, "Oklahoma's Experience with Direct Legislation," Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 47 (December, 1966), 265. 9*Ibid. ^“°Ibid., p. 266. IW^ibid., p. 267. 102Ibid., pp. 267-268. 103Ibid., p. 268. Direct democracy was clearly supported more strongly by the liberal and radical refoirmers around the turn of the 20th Century. Prior to the New Deal period, the initiative and referendum were basically the tools of liberal reformers. However, during the Post New Deal period, the "I and R" has been liberally used by conservatives to ". . . promote tax limitation, to curb labor unions, and to defeat proposals for public power, social welfare, and open housing." Johnson, pp. 114f. 1U4 Bone and Benedict, p. 337. 105See: C. Kenneth Meyer, Mitchell Beville, Terrence Berendes, and Julianne Smendzuik, Direct Democracy in South Dakota: The People Conduct ing Their Own Business (Vermillion, South Dakota: The Governmental Research Bureau, University of South Dakota, forthcoming). This publication provides a compilation of voting data on all propositions submitted to the South Dakota electorate since 1890, and also includes the explanatory statements pertaining to all initiatives and référendums. The data set is available from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. ^^^Hanson, p. 269 ^^^Bone and Benedict, p. 339. ^^\bid., p. 340. 109Ibid. ^^^Hanson, p. 267. ^^^Ibid., p. 269. 112Ibid., p. 270. 113Bone and Benedict, p. 340. ^^\bid. ^^^Ibid. ^^^Hanson, p. 273. 87 ^^^Price, p, 247. 118 The data for the states that possess the popular initiative was gathered by Albert L. Sturm. Of course, the author is indebted to his compilation of the legal requirements surrounding the operation of the initiative and referendum. Another compilation of the major provisions for the "I and R" in each state was completed by Hugh Bone, in his"The Initiative and Referendum," pp. 19-53. in addition, please see Albert L. Sturm's yearly review of constitutional changes in the National Civic Review, and his most widely cited research: Albert L. Sturm, Thirty Years of State Constitution-Making: 1958-1968. (New York: National Municipal League, 1970); also, Albert L. Sturm, Methods of State Constitutional Reform (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1954); and, W. Brooke Graves (ed.) Major Problems in State Constitutional Revision (Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1960). A substantial amount of literature has appeared over the last sixty years relevant to state constitutional amendment procedures and political considerations. A small sampling of this literature includes: he Oklahoma Constitutional Survey and Citizen Advisory Committees, Oklahoma Constitutional Studies (Oklahoma City: The Oklahoma State Legislative Council, 1950), especially Chapter Three, "Amendment and Revision of the Constitution of Oklahoma," pp. 17-40, and Chapter Seven, "Direct Legislation," pp. 116-124. Thomas Kitsos, "Constitutional Amend ments and the Voter, 1952-1966," (Urbana, Illinois: Institute of Govern ment and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1967). Jack D. Timmons, "1966 Proposed Constitutional Amendments," (Lincoln, Nebraska: Extension Service, University of Nebraska, n.d.); Albert L. Sturm, Major Constitu- tional Issues in West Virginia (Morgantown, West Virginia: Bureau for Govern ment Research, West Virginia University, 1961); Jack E. Holmes, "Constitu tional Amendments Proposed by the Twenty-Second Legislature," (Sante Fe, New- Mexico: New Mexico Legislative Council Service, 1955); Albert L. Sturm, "Recent Trends in State Constitutional Revision," Public Affairs Series, No. 11 (Tenpe, Arizona: Bureau of Government Research, Arizona State University, 1965); Illinois Legislative Council, "Problems of Constitu tional Revision in Illinois," (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Legisla tive Council, 1941); Walter F. Dodd, The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1910); National Municipal League, State Constitutions and Constitutional Revision: A Selected Bibliography '(New York: National Municipal League, 1962); Louisiana Legislative Council, "Legislative Submission of Questions to a Vote of the People," (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Legislative Council, 1961); John L. Sanders, "Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History," (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, 1959); The Nebraska Legislative Council, "A Summary of Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Nebraska Legislature During the Regular Session in 1953 and During the Special Session in 1954," (Lincoln, Nebraska: The Nebraska Legislative Council, 1954); Alvin H. Proctor, "Power Factors in Kansas Constitutional Revision," (Pittsburg, Kansas: Kansas State College, n.d.); Chester A. Newland, "Kansas Constitutional Amendments: 1958," (Lawrence, Kansas : Governmental Research Center, 1958); J. E. Dovell, David G. Temple, Manning J. Dauer, "Florida's Proposed Constitutional Amendments," Civic Information Series, No. 24 (Gainesville, Florida; Public Administration Clearing Service, University of Flordia, 1956) 88 119 See Albert L. Sturm, "State Constitutions and Constitutional Revision, 1976-1977," in The Book of the States 1978-79 (Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments, 1978), p. 193. CHAPTER II I METHODOLOGY Data collection, processing, and analysis for this project followed standard procedures for the most part.^ The account in this chapter is presented in sufficient detail to enable readers to follow tabulations in the text and appendices, and to enable other researchers to make use of the data set for further investigation or as a pattern for similar projects in other states. Attention is given here to three topics: (Ij the data collection and storage system, (2) brief description of the statistical analysis, and (3) the special search and retrieval system used for the legal discussion in Chapter III. Data Collection and Storage In researching the direct legislation experience in Oklahoma, the primary data was obtained from the Archives of the Oklahoma State Election Board. The quality of the data varied considerably during the earlier reporting period of 1907 through 1938. Voting data were either misplaced or missing in the archives. For instance, the 1908 election required that secondary references such as the Daily Oklahoman and several county based newspapers had to be consulted in an attempt to reconstruct the county tabulations for submitted questions. The data that provide the basic information on which this study and analysis depend are the county returns for direct legislative elections 89 90 of the time period 1907-1972. During this sixty-five year period two-hundred and fifty-two measures were voted on in statewide elections in Oklahoma. These voting data were compiled for each of Oklahoma’s seventy-seven counties for all two-hundred and fifty-two measures. The pre-1948 data were gathered from the official returns as recorded and held in the State Election Board Archives and on microfilm in the Oklahoma State Library. For subsequent years, most initiative and referendum data were obtained from Election Results and Statistics published by Oklahoma State Election Board. Due to the manner by which official returns are recorded, the data were not in a form that was suitable for photocopying, at least with conventional copy ing equipment. This problem required that all data entries be individu ally recorded on the basic data collection instrument (Oklahoma State Question Worksheet, Appendix A). In addition, the state question data were missing for the election of 1908 (State Questions 1 through 5), and approximately thirty-to-forty issues were recorded in election books by the wrong year. Because of this reporting problem, all the election records were individually and methodically searched for relevant data, since failure to locate county data on either an issue or an election meant that secondary references had to be extensively used and this would require a great deal of additional research and time. Frequently, the data were recorded by voting precinct and/or township only, and thus the needed county summary "yea" and "nay" vote total, as well as the total vote cast for the highest office, had to be tallied separately in order to arrive at county summary voting totals. The data were then conventionally encoded and keypunched (standard Hollerith code characters) using IBM 29 Keypunch, and then verified for 91 data keypunch accuracy. The end result was nearly 100,000 pieces of information recorded on 19,656 standard-80-coluran (5081) punch cards. 2 Upon verification the data were placed on magnetic tape for security in storage and for easy information retrieval. FORTRAN IV comprised the major programming language used in this study. Employing this language enabled the raw data to be converted into three principal working documents and one major punched card file. First, the FORTRAN (formula translation) program was used to produce a printout document that displayed all the propositions and accompanying abbreviated title, election related information, and approval/rejection status of each measure. In addition, the individual county and statewide voting character istics— total vote "yes," total vote "no," total vote cast on the measure, percent "yes" vote, and percent participation— are calculated with this program, and a photographically reduced copy is provided in Appendix D. Second, the basic FORTRAN program was utilized to prepare a county and statewide summary voting document pertaining to the operation of the "silent-vote." The "silent-vote" summary tabulations are not included in this study, but were used for the analysis of the impact of the silent vote in Chapter IV and are available for future research. Third, the FORTRAN program also produced a punched card deck recorded in the percent yes column of the document displayed in Appendix D.^ The punched card file is for each county's percent "yea" vote (calculated as a percent of the total vote cast on the measure) on all 252 issues. These data constitute the most frequently used file of information employed in the study. A summary of the discussion presented above is graphically illustrated in Figure 2-1— Data Analysis Systems Flowchart. 92 Figure 2-1.— Data Analysis Systems Flowchart Request made for Data Analysis Data stored on Magnetic Tape FORTRAN Program which performs the Data Analysis V Percent Silent Vote Report Full Report Percent Yes Vote by County and Issue County Issue Maj or Maj or Hardcopy listing of cards Hardcopy listing of cards 93 Four basic versions of the data set or information derived from it exist. Abbreviated card fonnats for these four versions follow: 1. The Raw Data Set. This consists of 19,404 data cards and 252 leader cards from which Appendix D was prepared. These were prepared directly from the worksheets (see sample in Appendix A), containing the raw yes and no votes by county, and the county vote for the office or issue attracting the highest statewide vote in the election at which the question appeared on the ballot. This third item was used to calculate the "participation percentage," for each county. Columns Items 1-13 County name, alphabetic 14-19 Yes votes 20-26 No votes 27-34 Votes for highest office or issue 35-77 Blank 78-80 State Question Number From this set a FORTRAN program simplied a total of Yes and No votes, the percent yes, and the percent participation, as well as the totals line at the end of the listing by county of each state question. This finished collection of election results for the 252 questions is presented in Appen dix D, and constitutes the fundamental data set of the project. It is currently in the archive of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. The Percentage Yes Set: Issues as Variables. From the Raw Data set, a translation into a 3-digit percentage yes set was prepared, and is currently maintained and updated by the Bureau of Government Re search, University of Oklahoma. That archive now contains about 1404 cards or equivalent in tape records, arranged in sets of 78 cards. These cards are designed as follows : 94 Card 1 State Question Numbers for 21 SQ's in 3-column fields Cards 2-78 Yes Vote Percentage in 3 digits (i.e., carried to one decimal point inserted by programming) for the 21 SQ's The 252 State Questions covered in this dissertation are represented in the Bureau of Government Research archive by 1014 cards (936 for the data and 78 more for county identifications). It also contains county data on nine additional state questions, 29 socioeconomic and political variables and 24 sets of county factor scores resulting from a series of factor analyses carried out by Samuel Kirkpatrick and David Morgan.^ For statistical analysis, this collection is arranged so that the questions are handled as variables and the counties as cases. 3. The Percentage Yes Set: Counties as Variables. For more con venient use in other statistical analysis, a 1260 card set was prepared, also giving percentage Yes in 3-digit fields, using five cards for each state question. This set was used for exploration of county voting be havior and areal comparisons, since it inputs into standard computer stat istical packages with counties as variables and questions as cases. The format : Cards Columns Items 1-3 1-3 State Question Number 4-78 Yes vote percentage in 3 digits for 25 counties in 3-column fields 4 Same format except only 2 counties remaining 5 1-31 Question x:aption, alphabetic 32-52 Type of Election (General, Special, Primary, Special Primary) 53-64 Type of State Questions Referral (Legislative Referendum, Initiative Petition, Referendum Petition, Constitutional Convention) 65-71 Outcome (Adopt, Reject) 72-80 State Question Number (actual sequence, not assigned). This version of the data was used for all of the descriptive stat- 95 istics (means, ranges, standard deviations) by county presented in Chapter IV and V. It also furnished the basis for the county areal maps and tables in Chapter V, although for this purpose the means for groiçs of issues there defined as "Policy Type" groups were, calculated.by merging the results for individual questions. 4. The Group Means Set. Finally, a "most compact" set of 77 cards was prepared, giving the merged results for policy grotçs in mean Yes percentages, including 18 items per card: County ID, Mean Yes Vote on All 252 Issues, Mean Yes vote on 12 policy groups, as well as four county indicators used as independent variables for some of the analysis in Chapter V. Format, ommitting blanks is: Columns Items 1-2 County ID 3-44 Percent Mean Yes in 3-digit fields for 13 Policy Groups, including All, and Percent Mean Democratic 1907-1962 in a 3-digit field. 45-48 Population Density per Square Mile 49-53 Median County Income 1962 55 Region (0) Oklahoma Territory (1) Indian Territory This set was especially suited to the SPSS subroutines used for the crosstabulations, correlations, and regressions in Chapter V and the ex ploratory applications of discriminant analysis and Guttman scaling in Chapter VI. Statistical Measures Used in Analysis A number of univariate descriptive statistical measures are used throughout the analysis. Extensive use is made of percentages as a basis for comparing both counties and questions, and percentage means, ranges, and standard deviations. Means are also merged into grand means for several presentations.^ 96 Since the data set is a universe, not a sample, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to make use of inferential statistics or to attach significance levels to findings. The decision was to use descrip tive statistics for the major portion of the analysis but to include a few inferential statistics as well. The debate in the social science disciplines over the use of significance levels is too complex to review here, but briefly, the case for the use of inferential statistics for a universe of data like votes on Oklahoma State Questions is that even though a universe the data may be considered also a sample, as representative of all past, present, future, and possible votes on issues, both in Okla homa and in all other actual or imaginable constituencies.® At the least, significance levels point readily to strength of influencs or relationships between and among variables. Bivariate correlation coefficients^ and their significance levels by the t-test are included to show relationships between each of 13 policy groups of state questions and each of four "explanatory" variables,"with the 77 counties as the cases. These are simple r's and r^'s, r^ showing the proportion of variation "explained" by the association. Multiple R^'s for four independent variables associated with each of the same 13 policy group mean yes vote by county are calculated, in connection with multiple regression equations for each group.Significance of the R^'s is by the F-test. Bivariate crosstabulation tables are run for 50 combinations under the control of Region. For each of these tables, Kendall's Tau-b is calculated, with significance level determined by Kendall's own formula for the standard error of Tau-b and Tau-c.^^ Tau-b was designed for measuring 97 association between two ordinal variables when arranged in a crosstab ulation by ordered categories [dichotomies like the Region variable used in Chapter V may be treated as ordinal as well). Essentially Tau-b measures the difference in the number of "'concordant" and "discordant" pairs of cases. A concordant pair is one in which the two cases have the same ordinal relationship on both variables; a discordant pair is one in which the two cases have different ordinal relationships on the two variables [e.g., A ranks above B on one variable but below B on the other variable). This difference [often expressed as P - Q, or C - D) is then divided by the total number of untied pairs [expressed as the geometric mean of pairs untied on Row and pairs united on Column). If the ranking on one variable is closely associated with the ranking on the other Tau-b will approach its maximum of +1 if the association is positive or -1 if negative. Illustrative of potential future research with the data set, two experimental runs using less familiar techniques are presented in the concluding chapter. The first derives a discriminant function for "pre dicting" Region [as Oklahoma or Indian Territory) from the county mean yes vote on the 13 policy groups. The function proves quite successful, placing 95 percent of the counties correctly. The second experimental run' produced a Guttman scalogram for classifying counties and issue groups on a single dimension of difficulty, successes and failures being defined as divided at the cutting point of 50 percent yes vote. This trial produced a six-point scale with a high [.96) index of Reproducibility and a .82 Index of Scalability.^^ 98 Legal Search In researching the legal aspects pertaining to initiative and refer endum in Oklahoma, a generalized information storage and information retrieval system was used. GIPSY, General Information Processing System, was developed by the University of Oklahoma Computing Center and has been operational since July 1968. Upon learning QUESTRAN, the language utilized in GIPSY, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Statutes— information that had been placed on the system to serve the Legislative Research Council and researchers at the University of Oklahoma Law School— could be queried and legal questions answered. GIPSY-OKLAHOMA STATUTES, the descriptive name given to the Constitutional and statutory material placed in the information system, and the questions asked of the system "by identifying the items within a record to be searched, the condition or conditions the items must meet (if any) and the logical relationship (AND, OR, N0T)"14 that are present between the items specified are displayed in Appendix C. In this appendix, the actual items requested, the logic assoc iated with the requests, and the documents produced are shown. This material will be discussed at considerably greater length and in detail in Chapter III; A Legal Analysis Of The Basis for Initiative and Referendum In Oklahoma. There is considerable utility to a macro language such as QUESTRAN in legal research, and the English-like language enables the user to direct inquiries to a data base in a clear, highly specified and logical manner. The usefulness of GIPSY as an information storage and retrieval system is already recognized by researchers in medicine, law, pyschiatry, regional planning, ethnology and linguistics, as well as for bibliographic data researching in the fields of education, geology, and the social sciences. 99 Figure 2-2.— GIPSY Online Query Process Flowchart QUESTION IDENTIFY ; DATA (FORM) FORMULATE NEW QUESTION SPECIFY - - VARIABLES § LOGIC SEARCH DATA DEPOSITORY NO (SELECT) 4EPHRAS& YES QUESTION CITERATE) SUBSET DATA CSRF) NO -^RESULTS ^EQUATE YES PRINT, LIST, COPY YES NO ETC. PROCESS STOP 100 The query processes used in these areas, as well as in researching the Oklahoma Statutes, is outlined in the GIPSY online query process flow chart shown in Figure 2-2. In addition to using the GIPSY information retrieval system for legal research, several of the more conventional and traditional modes of legal search were employed, such as the Oklahoma Statutes, The Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, The Pacific Reporter (a resource that includes opin ions of the state appellate and trial courts), legal journals, and other professional and academic treatments of the initiative and referendum in Oklahoma. In many instances, these resources helped provide for a further discussion of the legal implications of problems surrounding a state question or court decision, and since GIPSY-OKLAHOMA STATUTES was not keyed to historical notes, interpretations, or court decisions, the use of standard legal search methodology was essential for the legal discussion in Chapter III. To satisfactorily search the legal authority and locate the primary sources of law requires a fundamental knowledge of the legal system as it is organized at the several levels of government, and also requires a familiarity with the many lawbooks, digests, and reporting systems that organize and publish state and federal statutes and index court decisions. For the several decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court on substantive or procedural matters pertaining to the initiative and referendum in Oklahoma, the Supreme Court Reporter was referenced. 101 NOTES 1 ' For a treatment of these basic operations, see Oliver Benson, Pol itical Science Laboratory (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 110-147. An additional comprehensive treatment is provided by Kenneth Janda, Data Processing: Applications to Political Research (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1965); or, Delbert C. Miller, Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement 3d ed. (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977). Also, Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publish ing Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 195-317. 2por a general discussion of research requirements that must be met relative to data gathering, coding, and keypunching, see; Nan Lin, Ronald S. Burt, and John C. Vaughn, Conducting Social Research (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1976), pp. 1-49; and. Nan Lin, Foundations of Social Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976), p.10. In addition, reference William R. Klecka, Norman H. Nie, and C. Hadlai Hull, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Primer (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975), pp. 12-17. In addition, for an excellent, although general discussion of descrip tive statistics and basic research concepts, see Vernon Ellingstad and Norman W. Heimstra, Methods in the Study of Human Behavior(Monterey, Calif ornia: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1974); David Nachmias and Chava Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1976); Bernard S. Phillips, Social Research 3d ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 197^71 and Dennis J. Palumbo, Stat istics in Political and Behavioral Science (New York: Meridith Corporation, 1969): John H. Mueller, Karl R. Schuessler, Herbert L. Costner, Statistical Reasoning in Sociology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970); and R. J. Senter, Analysis of Data (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969). ^See OSIRIS II, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Inter-University Consortium for Political Research, 1971), for a discussion of the data storage and management programs used in this study. ^The FORTRAN program used to produce the hard copy reports and mean percent yes data files used in this study, is presented in Appendix B. ^See Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, David R. Morgan, and Thomas G. Kielhom, The Oklahoma Voter (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977), pp. 22- 28 and pp. 209-242. ^OSIRIS II; and Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975); Ronald Buhler, P-STAT- 102 A Computing System for File Manipulation and Statistical Analysis of Social Science Data (Princeton: Princeton University Computer Center, 1971) . ^For a detailed treatment of some of the constraints that impact upon the use of different statistical measurements, see: Virginia A. Clark and Michael E. Tarter, Preparation for Basic Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill,Inc., 1968), pp. 1-7; Earl Bogandoff, Introduction to Descrip tive Statistics: A Sequential Approach (Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc. 1970), pp.1-86; Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, Quant itative Analysis of Political Data (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 15-80; Benson, pp. 148-159; Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960), pp. 3-21; N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970); and. Freeman R. Elzey, A Programmed Introduction to Statistics (Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole, 1971). ®A countervailing argument for the use of inferential statistics might go something like this: Since the data has been gathered for each county and each state question since statehood, the data base constitutes the "population," and therefore no sampling error is present. Consequent ly, the liability of making a Type I or Type II error is zero. That is, the population and the sample are the same, and the use of descriptive statistics rather than inferential statistics would therefore be mandated. A further elaboration, however, on the basic nature of inferential stat istics may lead one to the conclusion that inferential statistics are used to enable the researcher to posit probabilistic inference about a defined population on the basis of information generated by a sample that has been randomly drawn from the identified population, ^John R. Stockton and Charles T. Clark, Introduction to Business, and Economic Statistics 5th ed. (Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co., 1975), and, Richard P Runyon and Audrey Haber, Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967); also. Dean J. Champion, Basic Statistics for Social Research (Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing Company, 1970); Kenneth R. Hammon, James E. Householder, N. John Castellan, Jr., Introduction to the Statistical Method 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1970). 1®A comprehensive treatment of multiple regression analysis is present ed in Taro Y. Amane, Statistics An Introductory Analysis 3rd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), pp.942-1030; an elementary analysis of regression and correlation theory is provided in Henry L. Alder and Edward B. Roessler, Introduction to Probability and Statistics 5th ed. (San Fran cisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1972), pp. 195-220; and, an explanation of multiple regression concepts utilizing political science examples, consult Palumbo, pp. 210-222. llBenson, p. 29. Also consult William Buchanan, Understanding Polit ical Variables (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974), pp. 31-33; and, Herbert Jacob and Robert Weissberg, Elementary Political Analysis 2d 103 ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975), pp. 6-10. For one of the best descriptions ever rendered on the use of descriptive statistics in social science research, see Wayne McMillen, Statistical Methods for Social Workers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952). l^M. G. Kendall, Rank Correlation Methods. 3rd ed. (London, 1962), Chapter 5 on "Tied Ranks" and p. 55 for the standard error of Tau-b. Also see Kirkpatrick, pp. 45-47. l^The author acknowledges with appreciation the theoretical and technical assistance provided by Professor Oliver E. Benson, who perform ed all the computer operations necessary for the SSPS routines and designed the tables reporting the results of the crosstabulations, multiple regressions (Chapter V), as well as the discriminant function and Guttman scalogram present in Chapter VI. For a general discussion of Guttman scaling techniques and the Index of Reproducibility and the Index of Scalability, see Benson, Chapter 7, Indexes and Scaling: Light from the Political Spectrum, pp. 235-249. ^^Charles H. Addison, M. Duane Coney, Margaret A. Jones, Robert W. Shields, and James W. Sweeney, General Information Processing System Application Description, Information Sciences Series, Number 4 (Norman: University of Oklahoma, November, 1969), p.2. ISlbid. IGj. Myron Jacobstein and Roy M. Mersky, Legal Research Illustrated Mineola, New York: The Fondation Press, Inc., 1977); Also, Carl Kalvelage, Morley Segal, and Peter J. Anderson, Research Guide for Undergraduates in Political Science (Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Corporation, 1972), pp. 107-114. CHAPTER III A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE BASIS FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN OKLAHOMA A colorful character in Oklahoma's political history had a tremen dous impact on the incorporation of the initiative and referendum into the Constitution. William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray was this political leader and "statesman," and he served as the President of the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention. William Murray in addressing the Convention suggested that the initiative and referendum be closely patterned after the law in the State of Oregon and also after the law operating in the Republic of Switzerland.^ An analysis of the provisions providing for direct democracy in the Constitutions of Oregon and Oklahoma show a remarkable similarity in several areas. One of the best ways to demonstrate this similarity is to review the deficiencies and abuses perceived to exist in the actual operation of the initiative and referendum in Oregon. First, the Okla homa Constitution requires a higher percentage of signatures on petitions for constitutional amendments. This provision makes it more difficult to have measures introduced and passed which will become part of the Constitution through the amendment process. Second, if a measure is submitted to the people and it fails, then that measure cannot be resubmitted to the people by the initiative until three years have elapsed and it is again petitioned by 25 104 105 percent of the legal voters. The intent behind this provision speaks directly to the phenomenon of defeated measures being re-submitted. Obviously, for the people to have voiced their opposition to a measure should mean that they should not have to,repeat this response on an immediate basis. To solicit signatures of 25 percent of the total number of voters out of the total number of voters that voted in the last general election presents a formidable task— a task that is not undertaken lightly. Both of'these measures were incorporated into the Oklahoma Constitution as direct safeguards to eliminate potential abuses of the system of direct democracy as it had been used and experienced in Oregon. j » ' ‘ The Oklahoma Constitution provides for the initiative and refer endum in Article V, Sections one through eight. This Article reserves to the people of Oklahoma the power of direct legislation and democracy. That is, Oklahomans may propose and enact or reject measures that have constitutional content or statutory content through elections, indepen- dently of the Legislature. 2 The Constitution is also equally precise in reserving to the people of Oklahoma the power to . . a t their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature."^ Legislative powers in Oklahoma are clearly shared by the State Legisla ture and the people. In the final analysis, the people are sovereign in the sovereign state of Oklahoma. The Constitution further reads that "The legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives." 4 In general, the people retained the power in themselves to propose laws or amend ments and to reject laws passed by their elected representatives. .106 General Legal Requirements for the Initiative and Referendum Article V, section 2, of the Oklahoma Constitution sets out the legal basis that governs the actual operation of the initiative and the referendum. First, Article V, Section 2 , discusses the initiative and the percentage of the legal voters necessary to initiate a legislative measure or constitutional amendment. The percentage of legal voters is based on ". . . the total number of votes cast at the last general elec tion for the State office receiving the highest number of v o t e s , c a s t at that election. To initiate a measure, the petition requires 8 percent of the legal voters in relation to the total number of votes cast for the State office receiving the highest number of votes for a legislative measure, and 15 percent of the voters are required for the initiation of a constitutional amendment. In off-presidential years the state office that receives the highest number of votes is usually the office of Governor, and for presidential years, presidential electors usually receive the highest number of votes cast in the elec tion. Presidential electors are considered a State office for purposes of determining the ratio and percentage of voters needed to implement the power of the initiative.^ Article V, Section 2 also states that the circulated petition must be accompanied by ". . . the full text of the measure . . . " proposed. This safeguard is to help protect against the possibility of obtaining signatures fraudulently or falsely. Second, the same section of the Constitution sets forth the pro visions that prevail related to the power of the referendum. The Con stitution is again quite precise at this point; The second power is the referendum, and it may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the 107 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety), either by petition signed by five per centum of the legal voters or by the Legislature as other bills are enacted.^ On the basis of this reserved power it is certain that two types of I référendums are provided for in Oklahoma. First, it provides for refer endum by petition, a process whereby the people petition the legislature to submit to them an Act that has been passed by the legislature— a referendum petition. This is an important power since it gives the voters an opportunity to in effect veto an Act that has received legis lative approval. Second, it provides for legislative référendums. Legislative referendum enables the State legislature to submit statu tory measures to the voters for their electoral comment (approval measured in the form of "yea" and disapproval;measured in the form of "nay" votes), and it may propose constitutional amendments that have been prepared by the Legislature for the people's acceptance or rejec tion. There are a variety of rather specific legal criteria that sur round the procedures that must be followed for the referendum. Like that of the initiative, referendum petitions require 5 percent of the total number of votes cast at the last general election for the State office that received the highest number of votes in that election. Article V, Section 3 sets forth the rules that govern the use of the referendum. These are fairly straightforward and are presented in the eight points outlined below; (1) The Filing of Referendum Petitions. "Referendum petition must be filed with the Secretary of State not more than ninety days after final adjournment of the session of the legislature which passed g the bill on which the referendum is demanded." 108 (2) The Veto Power of the Governor. "The veto power of the Governors hall not extend to measures voted on by the people." 9 (3) The Time for Holding Elections. "All elections on measures referred to the people . . . shall be had at the next election held throughout the state except when the Legislature or the Governor shall order a special election for the express purpose of making such refer ence. (4) The Number of Votes Required for Passage of Referendum. "Any measure referred to the people by the referendum shall take effect and be in force when it shall have been approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and not otherwise. (5) The Number of Votes Required for the Passage of an Initiated Measure. "Any measure referred to the people by the initiative shall I take effect and be in force when it shall have been approved by a majority of the votes cast in such election." 12 This provision applied until it was changed by State Question Number 495 in the Regular Primary Election, August 27, 1974. This proposition is discussed later in this paper. (6) The Style of All Bills. "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Oklahoma. (7) Submission of Measure to the People. "Petitions and orders for the initiative and the referendum shall be filed with the Secretary of State and addressed to the Governor of the State, who shall submit the same to the people." 14 (8) Implementation of Direct Democracy Powers. "The Legislature 109 shall make suitable provisions for carrying into effect the provisions of this article. One of the most controversial aspects surrounding Article V, sec tion 3, is the effect of the "silent vote" as it pertains to measures initiated by the people- Essentially, the "silent vote" is caused by more people voting for the highest State office than actually vote on the measure. Therefore, to not vote on an initiated measure is counted as a "nay" vote. In the Regular Primary Election held on August 27, 1974, State Question Number 495, Legislative Referendum Number 198, was presented to and approved by the people of Oklahoma. The adoption of State Question 495 removed the "silent vote" effect and a great deal of the criticism that had been levelled against the Third Section of Article V. It provided in gist form: I . . that an election matter initiated directly by the people take effect and be in force after approval by a majority of the votes cast on that particular matter, as distinguished from votes cast in that election, thus eliminating the so-called "silent vote" and also thus providing the same voting requirements for measures initiated directly by the people as now exists for those referendum measures that are first considered by the Legislature. . . In this same election, the people of Oklahoma also approved State Question 496, Legislative Referendum 199. This proposi tion removed the "silent vote" as it,pertains to the Legislature pro posing amendments to the Constitution as covered under Section 1, Article XXIV. Question 496 provides for the: . . . approval of an amendment to the Constitution by a majority of the votes cast on that particular matter as distinguished from votes cast in that election, thus eliminating the so-called "silent vote" by the people who may vote in the election but not vote on that par ticular amendment. . . .1? 110 The Legislative Referendum Process- Dr. Royden Dangerfield wrote about direct legislation in Oklahoma in the late 1930-to-early-1940 period. In an unpublished manuscript he carefully outlines the procedure that muist be followed by the State Legislature in referring a measure to the people for their considéra- tion. 18 In quoting from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma decision of Ramsey v. Persinger, a ruling in which the Court interpreted the statutes pertaining to the operation of the legislative referendum, he gives us the following: First, the amendment was proposed in one branch of the legislature by resolution. Second. It was agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses. Third. The proposed amendment, with the yeas and nays thereon was entered upon the journals of each house. Fourth. The resolution received the approval of the governor, though we do not pass upon the necessity of such approval. Fifth. It was referred by the secretary of state to the people for their approval. Sixth. It was submitted to a vote of the people at a special election which was ordered by a two-thirds vote of each house. Seventh. A majority of the electors voting at such an election voted in favor of the amendment. Eighth. More than one Constitutional amendment being voted on at that election, they were so submitted that the electors voting at such an election could vote upon each separately. During the history of Oklahoma's experience with direct legislation, the power of the legislative referendum has been extensively employed, pri marily for the submission of constitutional amendments. In addition to Ill the actual submission of constitutional amendments, Oklahoma law provides for the possibility of the Legislature suggesting constitutional amend ments, and asking the people for their sentiment. It is provided in the law that: If the legislature should desire to ascertain the senti ment of the people upon any proposed amendment to the Constitution, it may, by concurrent resolution, suggest to the citizens of the State such proposition as an amendment to the Constitution. Such resolution shall set forth the proposed amendment in full and should the citizens of the State proceed to initiate such proposi tion within one year thereafter, then it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, when the required peti tions have been filed in his office, to cause an attested copy thereof to be filed with the chairman of the State Election Board, together with a certificate of the fact that the proposition was originated by concurrent reso- lution of the Legislature setting forth such resolution. In 1914, the Supreme Court ruled (Ramsey v. Persinger) that it is a perfectly appropriate use of the referendum powers for the Legislature to suggest amendments to the Constitution in an attempt to identify the sentiments of the people, and that any time within one year after the "suggested amendment" has been proposed, initiative petitions may be filed with the Secretary of State with the purpose of carrying out the suggestion. 21 Oklahoma Statutes, Title 34, Sections 62, 63 and 64 set forth the conditions which surround the suggested proposition's ballot printing, unlawful printing or possession of ballots, and the method of voting on propositions suggested by the Legislature, respectively. The manner of voting on the propositions is slightly different from the regular meas ures that are initiated. Title 34, Section 64 provides: Electors shall vote upon all propositions submitted under the provisions of this chapter, and which were first suggested by concurrent resolution of the 112 Legislature, in the following manner. Should the elector desire to vote for the proposed amendment he shall leave the words, "For the Amendment," intact without erasing same. But should he desire to vote against such proposition, he shall strike out the words, "For the Amendment," with a pencil mark. When such words are so erased after any proposition, the ballot shall be recorded as having been cast against the same, and whenever they are not so erased, such ballot shall be recorded as having been voted for such proposition.22 Dangerfield indicates that the suggestion of amendments by the Legis lature was " . . . obviously a meauis of circumventing that provision of the (c)onstitution providing that a majority of the voters voting at the election must vote in favor of a bill to secure its passage." 23 To substantiate this perspective he quotes extensively from the Oklahoma State Supreme Court decision of Atwater V. Hassett, 1910, in which the Court decided that this method of voting was not unconstitutional. The defendants' position was to the contrary, and the council argued: (a) Under the provisions of the statute, the amendment might be declared adopted, although a majority of the qualified voters of those who voted for state and county officers, had no intention to vote upon the proposed amendment, or did not manifest any intention to vote for the amendment, or desire to refrain from voting on the proposition. (b) The provisions of the statute render it impossible to ascertain with certainty whether a majority of all the electors of the State who voted at the election actually and affirmatively voted for the amendment within the spirit and meaning of the Consti tution. (c) The Constitution requires positive, affirma tive action on the part of'the elector to manifest an intention to vote in favor of the amendment, and no action to manifest an intention to vote against it. This statute requires positive affirmative action on the part of the elector to vote in favor of it. (d) The Constitution presumes that every elector who votes for any state or county office at the election, but fails to vote or for any reason refrains from voting on the proposition to amend, is against the amendment, and, in effect, requires his ballot for state and county offices to be counted against the amendment. This 113 statute assumes that every elector who does not wish to vote directly against the amendment by striking out the words "For the Amendment," will vote in favor of it, and requires his ballot to be counted in favor of the amend ment although he may have had no intention to vote in favor of it or any knowledge that any such proposition was pending to be voted o n . ^ 4 ' The judge reasoned differently in the following words : The whole argument for appellant on this part of the case, it seems to us, is at fault in assuming that the casting of a ballot upon which are printed the words "for the amendment" is not an affirmative action on the part of the voter in favor of the amendment. That assumption being eliminated, the argument falls to the ground, and the conclusion we are asked, in this con nection, to draw against the law has nothing to rest upon.25 In summation, Dangerfield notes that the judge's opinion as to the legality of this form of voting, that is to ". . . count everyone who did not vote on the measure as having voted for it," is just as legal as to count those who did not vote on the measure as ". . . having voted against it— as the Constitution provides. The Initiative Process: Initiative Petition and Referendum Petition The path a petition takes from being circulated to that of becoming a law of the State is a rather involved and complex one. First, the petition is drawn up and then addressed to the Governor using the Refer endum Petition Form as shown in Exhibit 3-1, or if it is an initiative petition (Exhibit 3-2), the Initiative Petition Form is utilized, Okla homa Statutes Document Number 08577 and Oklahoma Statutes Document Number 08578 refer to the statutory data that was retrived through the use of the GIPSY (General Information Processing System) OKLAHOMA STATUTES program, discussed in the Methodology Chapter. 114 Exhibit 3-1 REFERENDUM PETITION FORM Document Number: 08577 Title No.; 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 1 Section No. 1 Referendum Petition - Form - Time for Filing. Statute Text: The referendum petition shall be substantially as follows: Petition for Referendum To the Honorable------------------- , Governor of Oklahoma (or to the Honorable------------------- , Mayor, Chairman of County Commissioners, or other Chief Executive Officer, as the case may be, of the city, county or other municipal corporation o f ------------------ ) : We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the state of Oklahoma (or district of county of ——————————————— -------------- - or city o f , as the case may be), respectfully order that Senate (or House) Bill No. --------- (or Ordinance No. --------- ), entitled (Title of Act, and if the petition is against less than the whole act, then set forth here the part of parts on which the referendum is sought), passed by the -------------- legislature of the State of Oklahoma, at the regular (or special) session of said legislature, shall be referred to the people of the state (district o f ------------------- , county o f -------------------- , or city o f ------------------- , as the case may be) for their approval or rejection at the regular (or special) election to be held on the ----------day o f --------------- , 19-----, and each for himself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a legal voter of the state of Oklahoma (and District of county of --------------------, or city o f , as the case may be); my residence and post office are correctly written after my name. Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the legislature which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded. (For county, city or other municipality the length of time shall be thirty days.) C The question we herewith submit to our fellow voters is: Shall the following bill of the legislature (or ordinance or resolution - local legislation) be approved? (Insert here an exact copy of the title and text of the measure.) C Name ------------------ Rcsidcnc© ——————————————————————————————————— Post Office ----------------------------- If in city, street and number. C (Here follow forty numbered lines for signatures.) Keywords : Initiative and Referendum 115 Exhibit 3-2 INITIATIVE PETITION FORM Document Number: 08578 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 2 Section No. 2 Initiative Petition - Form. Statute Text : The form of initiative petition shall be substantially as follows: Initiative Petition To the honorable , Governor of Oklahoma (or to the honorable , Mayor, Cliairraan of County Commissioners, or other chief executive officers, as the case may be, for the city, county or other ̂ municipality): We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the state of Oklahoma (and of the District o f ---------------, county o f -------------------- , or city o f , as the case may be), respectfully order that the following proposed law (or amendment to the constitution, ordinance, or amendment to the city charter, as the case may be), shall be submitted to the legal voters of the state of Oklahoma (or of the District o f --------------------, county o f -------------------- , or city o f , as the case may be) for their approval or rejection at the regular general election (or regular or special city election), to be held on the —————————— day of 19—————, and each for himself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a legal voter of the state of Oklahoma (and of the district o f ------------------- , county of -------------------- ̂ city o f , as the case may be); My residence and post office are correctly written after my name. The time for filing this petition ejçires ninety days from (insert date when petition is to be opened for signatures). (This for state initia tive, for county, city, or other municipality the length of time shall be ninety days.) The question we herewith submit to our fellow voters is: shall the following bill (or proposed amendment to the constitution or resolution) be approved? (Insert-here an exact copy of the title and text of the measure.) Name------------------------ Residence------------------------- Post Office ------------------------- if in the city, street and number. C (Here follow forty numbered lines for signatures.) Keywords : Initiative and Referendum 116 Second, a copy of the petition is subsequently filed with the Secretary of State to serve notice that the petition will be circulated for the purposes of obtaining the needed number of valid signatures in order to cause the petitioned measure to be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection. A consecutive number is given to each state question filed, regardless if it is of the referendum or initiative variety, by the Secretary of State. Third, the petition is duplicated and a sheet is attached to it that provides space for the signatures of 20 persons. The dupli cated petition and the 20 signatures are termed a pamphlet. On the cover page of each pamphlet the number of the state question is printed, as well as the number of the initiative or referendum petition. Title 34, Section 3, Oklahoma Statutes, provides a further warning that to sign the " . . . initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his own, or knowingly to sign his name more than once for the measure, or to sign such petition when he is not a legal voter," con- stitutes a felonious offense in Oklahoma. 28 Exhibit 3-3 shows the text of Document Number 08574 that deals with Signatures of Petitions. Title 34, Section 23 states that "Every person who is a qualified elector of the State of Oklahoma may sign a petition for the referendum or for the initiative for any measure upon which he is legally entitled to vote." One rather interesting and nearly mercenary practice that surrounds the obtaining of signatures is that of paying a fixed amount for each name that is secured by the circulator of the petition. 29 Upon the attainment of a pamphlet of signatures, the pamphlets are submitted to the Secretary of State for filing. In each pamphlet there is an affidavit that must be 117 signed by the circulator of the petition attesting to the validity of the signatures and the fact that the names were signed in the presence of the petition circulator. This affidavit is sworn to be accurate before a notary public. ' Exhibit 3-3 SIGNATURES OF PETITIONS Document Number: 08579 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date : 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 3 Section No. 3 Petitions and Signatures. Statute Text: Each initiative petition and each referendum petition shall be dupli cated for the securing of signatures, and each sheet for signatures shall be attached to a copy of the petition. Each copy of the petition and sheets for signatures is hereinafter termed a pamphlet. On the outer page of each pamphlet shall be printed the word "warning," and underneath this in ten point type the words "It is a felony'for anyone to sign an initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his own, or knowingly to sign his name more than once for the measure, or to sign such petition when he is not a legal voter." Not more than forty signatures on one sheet shall be counted. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum Fourth, once the Secretary of State receives the pamphlets, the signature sheets are removed and attached to a copy of the measure pro posed. After all petitions have been submitted to the Secretary of State, the Secretary has the petitions bound (Exhibit 3-4). After the filing task is completed, the stage is further set for the release of an official publication that announces the date of the petition filing. These procedures are specified in Title 34, Section 4, Oklahoma Statutes. 118 Exhibit 3-4 FILING AND BINDING OF PETITIONS Document Number: 08580 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 4 Section No. 4 Filing and Binding. Statute Text: When any sucl} initiative or referendum petition shall be offered for filing, the secretary of state, in the presence of the person offering the same for filing, shall detach the sheets containing the signatures and affidavits and cause them all to be attached to one or more printed copies of the measure so proposed by initiative or referendum petition. All petitions for the initiative and referendum and sheets for signa tures shall be printed on pages eight and one-half inches in width by fourteen inches in length, with a margin of one and three-fourths inches at the top for binding; if the aforesaid sheets shall be too bulky for convenient binding in one volume, they may be bound in two or more volumes, those in each volume to ba attached to a single printed copy of such measure; the detached copies of such measures shall be delivered to the person offering the same for filing. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum Fifth, once the petition filing date is made public, any citizen of the State has ten days within which to challenge the sufficiency of the petitions. To lodge a protest, a written notice must be transmitted to the persons who filed the p e t i t i o n , a n d a notice must also be sent to the Secretary of State. It is, however, the responsibility of the Secretary of State to determine the sufficiency of the petition. Oklahoma Statutes, Title 34, Section 8 states; " . . . the Secretary of State shall decide whether such petition be in form as required by the statutes, and his decision shall be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, and such court shall give such cause precedence over 119 all others." Exhibit 3-5 presents the complete text of the statute dealing with the filing copy of the proposed petition, publication, protest, hearing, determination and appeal. The burden of the petition challenge rests with the protestant. That is, it is the responsibility of the protestant to show or demonstrate insufficiency. If insufficiency cannot be shown within a reasonable amount of time, the proceeding will be dismissed. 32 Exhibit 3-5 FILING COPY OF PROPOSED PETITION, PUBLICATION, PROTEST, HEARING, DETERMINATION AND APPEAL Document Number: 08584 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 8 Section No. 8 Filing Copy of Proposed Petition - Publication - Protest - Hearing, Determination and Appeal. Statute Text: IVhen a citizen or citizens desire to circulate a petition initiating a proposition of any nature, whether to become a statute law or an amendment to the constitution, .or for the purpose of invoking a referendum iq>on legislative enactments, such citizen or citizens shall, when such petition is prepared, and before the same is circulated or signed by electors, file a true and exact copy of same in the office of the Secretary of State and, within ninety days after such filing of an initiative petition, the signed copies thereof shall be filed with the Secretary of State, but the signed copies of a referendum petition shall be filed with the Secretary of State within ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature enacting the measure on which the referendum is invoked. Any petition not filed in accordance with this provision shall not be considered. When such original petition is filed in said office it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to forthwith cause to be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the state a notice setting forth the date of such filing. Any citizen of the state may, within ten days, by written notice to the Secretary of State and to the party or parties who filed such petition, protest against the same. The Secretary of State shall then fix a day, not less than ten days thereafter, at which time he will hear testimony and arguments for and against the sufficiency of 120 Exhibit 3-5 (Continued) such petition. A protest filed by anyone hereunder may, if abandoned by the party filing same, be revived within five days by any other citizen. After such hearing the Secretary of State shall decide whether such petition be in form as rec^uired by the statutes, and his decision shall be subject to appeal to the supreme court of the state, and such court shall give such cause precedence over all others. Provided, such appeal must be taken within ten days after the decision of the Secretary of State has been made. If the court be at the time adjourned, the chief justice shall immediately convene the same for such hearing. It shall be the duty of the appellants to serve notice upon the Secretary of State, in writing, of such an appeal. Whereupon, said Secretary of State shall immediately transmit all papers and documents on file in his office relating to such petition to such court. If the court shall adjudge such petition insufficient, the parties responsible for same shall have the right to correct or amend their petition to conform to the opinion of the court, provided said amendment or change is made within five days. No objection to the sufficiency shall be considered unless the same shall have been made and filed as herein provided. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum The sixth step on the petition path comes immediately after the petition has been determined to be sufficient and involves the trans mission of a copy of the proposed measure to the Attorney General. Section 9, Title 34, states that it shall be the responsibility of the Attorney General to "Within three days . • . after receiving a copy of the petition and ballot title, . . . notify the Secretary of State on the legality of the proposition." It is important to note that the legal form and content of the measure is determined by the Attorney General and not the Secretary of State. Section 9 further states that if in the opinion of the Attorney General, it is determined that the petition is not adequate, ". . . it shall be his duty," within three days, to prepare a title 33 that does conform with the law; this title 1 2 1 must not exceed one hundred words. If a citizen, however, disapproves of the ballot title that has been prepared and submitted by the Attorney General, then he/she may appeal the decision and the Secretary of State gives the State Election Board tht title*that the Supreme Court of the State determines to be legal and in harmony with the law. 34 Title 34, Section 9 is presented in Exhibit 3-6. Exhibit 3-6 BALLOT TITLE, FILING, DUTIES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEAL, PRINTING OF BALLOTS Document Number: 08585 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date : 1961 Amendment Date: 1965 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 9 Section No. 9 Ballot Title - Filing - Duties of Attorney General - Appeal - Printing of Ballots. Statute Text; When a measure is proposed as a constitutional amendment or legislative enactment by the legislature, when the referendum is ordered against any measure passed by the legislature, or when any measure is proposed by initiative petition, whether as an amendment to the constitution or as a statute, it shall be the duty of the parties submitting such proposition to prepare and file one copy of same with the Secretary of State and one copy with the A,ttomey General, such copies to contain a ballot title of not exceeding one hundred words, which shall contain the gist of the proposition without any argument or statement either for or against such measure. Within three days after the filing of such copy and ballot title with the Attorney General, he shall, in writing, notify the Secretary of State whether or not such proposed title is in legal form and in harmony with the law. Should such title not be in proper form, in the opinion of the Attorney General, it shall be his duty, within said three days, to prepare and file a title which does conform to the law. Within ten days after the receipt of the notice of approval by the Attorney General, or of a revised or amended title from him, the Secretary of State shall, if no appeal is filed, transmit to the Secretary of the State election board an attested copy of the pending proposition, including such approved title: provided, however, that should an appeal be prosecuted from such ballot title within the time specified by the following section, then the Secretary 122 Exhibit 3-6 (Continued) of State shall certify to said Secretary of the State election board the title which is finally approved by the supreme court. Provided further, that no appeal shall be allowed as to ballot titles of constitutional or legislative enactments proposed by the legislature which ballot titles have been approved or revised by the Attorney General. If the measure is such as to require its being printed upon the ballots of a district or of the entire state, the state election board shall have supervision of such printing. If the measure is such as must appear içon ballots printed in the several counties of the state, or any portion of samej it shall be the duty of the state elec tion board to transmit, within ten days, true copies of such ballot title to the chairman or secretary of all the county election boards of the counties in which such measure is to be voted upon, and such county boards shall supervise such printing. Provided, further, that persons proposing to circulate the initiative petition may file with the Attorney General, within ten days after filing a true and exact copy of said petition in the office of the Secretary of State, a copy of a proposed ballot title prior to the circulation of the initiative petition and which ballot title shall be processed as otherwise pro vided in this act prior to the circulation of the initiative petition and in which event it need not be submitted for any further approval thereafter. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum Seventh, the Secretary of State next arranges for the printing of the title and text of the measure which are then housed in the document rooms. These titles may be provided to individual applicants for the purpose of public distribution, provided that " . . . reasonable assur ance is given that they will be placed singly in the hands of people," as stated in Title 34, Section 13, and displayed in Exhibit 3-7. 123 Exhibit 3-7 PUBLICATION OF MEASURE— COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION Document Number: 08589 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 13 Section No. 13 Publication of Measure - Copies for Distribution. Statute Text: The Secretary of State shall submit to the state or public printer a copy of the title and text of each measure presented by initiative petition, referendum petition, or by the legislature. Printed copies shall be supplied the document rooms, from time to time, and the chief of each shall supply copies to applicants and in such quantities as demanded, provided reasonable assurance is given that ^ e y will be placed singly in the hands of the people. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum Eighth, the Secretary of State next causes the public printer to have sample ballots prepared on colored paper and printed according to the specifications of the State Election Board. The style and form that the sample ballot must take is determined by the Secretary of State and further described in Title 34, Section 14, and displayed in Exhibit 3-8. Exhibit 3-8 OFFICIAL BALLOT— SAMPLES Document Number: 08590 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 14 Section'No. 14 Official Ballot - Samples. Statute Text: At as early a day as practicable the Secretary of State shall transmit to the state or publip printer, copy for the official referendum 124 Exhibit 3-8 (Continued) ballot, indicating the styles of type: The sample ballot shall be of colored paper, and there shall be placed at the head in bold type the words, "State Question" (or questions) and the following: "Official referendum ballot to be used (date), issued by order of the legisla ture." The questions shall be printed in the order they were filed with the Secretary of State except that each competing measure which the legislature may desire to submit shall immediately follow the one it aims to supplant. Measures proposed by initiative petition shall be designated, "Proposed by Initiative Petition Number..... t̂ Ieasures proposed by referendum petition shall be designated "Proposed by Referendum Petition Number ;" and each competing measure proposed by the legislature in place of an initiative petition shall be headed, "Proposed by the Legislature in Place of Initiative Peti tion Number ;" where the legislature submits a competing question a brief catch-line shall be placed over both and below both shall be placed the words: "I Vote for Initiative Petition Number ...........;" "I Vote for the Measure Proposed by the Legislature in Place of Initiative Petition Number ;" "I Vote Against B o t h .......... " second choice as to measures may be made. Where a question is submitted without a competing one there shall be placed over it a brief catch-line and at the close of the question there shall be added; "Shall it be Adopted?" ( ("YES") / / ( ("NO") / / or "Shall it be Repealed?" ( ("YES") / / ( ("NO") / / Hie voters shall be directed to express their will by placing a cross (X) in the square and to the right of the word expressing their choice. There shall be a provision for second choice. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum The ninth step is for the Secretary of State, as provided in Title 34, Section 17, to provide to . . two newspapers in each county, of opposite political faith of the two dominant political parties of the State . • . " i f possible, a copy of the ballot(s) and an explanation of what constitutes a vote in favor of or against the propositions. The Secretary of State must submit the sample ballot to the newspapers that 125 are designated, 35 and subsequently pay the costs associated with informing the public of the content of all measures that will appear in the election. The tenth step involves the county blerks. The clerks receive from the Secretary of State pamphlets that relate to propositions sub mitted by the initiative and referendum petition provisions, or legis lative référendums, including constitutional amendments, and the clerks have the ballot title and numbers printed upon the official ballot in the order required by law, as indicated in Title 34, Section 20- This title is displayed in Exhibit 3-9.^^ • Exhibit 3-9 PRINTING OF QUESTIONS ON BALLOT Document Number: 08594 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 20 Section No. 20 Printing of Questions on Ballot. Statute Text: The Secretary of State at the time he furnishes to the county clerks of the several.counties certified copies of the names of the candidates for state and district officers, shall furnish to each of said county clerks a certified copy of the referendum ballot. It shall be the duty of the several county clerks to print said ballot titles and numbers upon the official ballot in the order presented to them by the Secretary of State and in the relative position required by law. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum The eleventh step involves the people voting on the measure(s) at the election and election date determined for the initiated or referred question by the proclamation of the Governor. The Governor 37 is required 126 by law to submit any measure initiated by the people at the " . . . next regular election," or to call a special election for the purpose of voting on a measure, or ". . . to designate the mandatory primary elec- tion as a special election for such purpose." 38 Oklahoma Statutes, Title 34, Section 14, provides the language pertaining to the actual manner in which the voter casts either an affirmative or negative vote. The process of voting enables the voter to merely place a cross (X) to the right of the yes or no on the line marked "Shall it be Adopted?" or "Shall it be Repealed?" For bills submitted by the Legislature, the voter scratches out the words "For the Amendment" in order to cast a negative ballot, or does not scratch them out in order to vote yes. Step number twelve involves the routine task of canvassing election returns. In Exhibit 3-10, displayed below. Title 34, Section 22 outlines the procedures by which the election returns are transmitted from the precincts to the county election board, accompanied with a certificate indicating the total number of electors voting in the election. It is the responsibility of the county election board to certify the election results to the State Election Board " . . . in the same manner as it certifies the result of election for public officers," and also to certify the number of people casting ballots in the election. 39 The final step of this process pertains to the Governor issuing a proclamation of the election results. The Secretary of State then causes the petitions to be permanently recorded and measures passed to be printed. This completes the walk through the well treaded path of the people of Oklahoma conducting their own business through the pro cesses of direct democracy and legislation. 127 Exhibit 5-10 CANVASS OF RETURNS Document Number: 08596 Title No.: 0034.0000 Enactment Date: 1961 Title 34 Initiative and Referendum Initiative and Referendum: Sec. 22 Section No. 22 Canvass of Returns. Statute Text: Whenever any measure or proposition is submitted to a vote by the initiative or referendum, it shall be the duty of the official counters of the precinct to make and transmit to the county election board the returns thereof in the same manner that they make their returns in the case of an election of public officers, transmitting to such county election board a certificate of the total number of electors voting in such elections; and the county election board shall keep a record showing such total number of votes cast in each of such precincts as shown by such returns. Should the proposition be one covering the state at large, or any district therein, or be of such other nature as to require it the county election board shall certify the result of such election to the state election board in the same manner as it certifies the result of election for public officers, and such county election board shall transmit to the state election board a certificate showing the total number of votes cast at any such election. It shall be the duty of the state election board to keep a record of all such election returns made to it under the provisions of this section. Keywords : Initiative and Referendum Votes Required for the Passage of the Initiative and Referendum The Legislature is empowered to submit two types of measures to the people for their consideration; (1) constitutional amendments, and (2) statutory measures. The legislative referendum has been the most fre quently used instrument of direct democracy, particularly as it relates to the submission of state questions, which if approved, would cause the amendment of the State Constitution. 128 The legal criteria that must be satisfied for the passage of amend ments and statutes referred to the people by the legislature are; (1) Until 1974 amendments to the Constitution were required to receive a majority of all votes cast in the general election in order to be adopted [the amendment of 1974 changed this to a majority of those voting on the question) (2) statutorily referred measures require only a simple majority of the vote cast on a proposition for passage. 41 The Legislature is further empowered by Article XXIV, Section 2, to submit a measure to the people, at least once every twenty years, asking the electorate if they wish to have a convention called in which the Constitution will be either revised, amended, or even a new consti tution proposed. The Constitution very clearly states that the people call a convention, not the Legislature. The vote required for the call is the same whether the measure is submitted at a general or special election. That is, the referred measure must receive a majority of the vote cast thereon. 42 Until 1974 the initiative required a majority of all votes cast in the election^^ for statutory and constitutional amendments. This was also changed in 1974 to a majority of votes on the question. An initiated measure submitted at a special election, however, has always required only a majority of the votes cast on the proposition for passage. The initiative was severly burdened with the operation of the "silent vote" during the historical period under treatment in this study. 44 Thus, since an initiated measure required a majority of all votes cast in the election, for a voter to go to the polls and vote for an office seeker, but not to cast a ballot either for or against the measure, by law that voter had voted against the measure through inaction. Of course, it was equally as strong an argument to reason that an 129 abstention is in reality an affirmative vote, in contradistinction to a negative one. Nevertheless, a fairly large number of initiated measures have received a favorable majority of the votes cast on them, yet have failed because they did not secure an affirmative majority of the total votes cast in the election. To obtain a favorable majority of all votes cast on a measure, and still fail, is to have suffered defeat through the operation of the silent vote. The silent vote also operated in the cases of legislative referral of constitutional amendments to the people, until its repeal in 1974. 45 The legal implications and ramifications that accompany the imple mentation of the direct democracy provisions of the Constitution appear fairly straightforward, and perhaps even elementary. However, a large number of variations and changes have accompanied these legal criteria, depending on the mode of referral, election type, and statutory or con stitutional status of the proposition, and the required number of votes necessary for passage of a measure. To summarize, as well as to simplify this legal discussion, Table 3-1 is presented at the end of this chapter. Table 3-1 is of substantial importance since it outlines the legal requirements related to the adoption or rejection of all measures submitted to the Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period. In Table 3-1, each state question is presented by its unique iden tification number, several characteristic's of each question (type of question, whether it is an act, bill, or amendment), type of election in which the question was proposed to the people, and finally, a symbol (X) marking the specific legal qualifications required for passage. For heuristic purposes. State Question No. 1 is a Legislative Referendum, 130 an amendment to the Constitution, and submitted in a general election. Question No. 1 requires an affirmative majority of the total votes cast in the election to meet adoption criteria. The initials (CM) is indica tive that a majority of the total votes cast on the measure must be received to insure passage. State Question 478 is an Initiative Petition, an Act, submitted in a special election, requiring a simple majority of the votes cast thereon for passage. Another important attribute of Table 3-1 is found in the rather extensive research notes, references, and observations that are pre sented in the "footnotes to the table section" that immediately follows the table. There are specific references not only to legal qualifica tions for passage, but also to State Supreme Court decisions related to the several state questions, and some commentary on the special politi cal characteristics or environment that impacted on the submitted propo sition. Thus, the "New Jerusalem Plan," "The Grandfather Clause," direct election of United States Senators, and "Right to Work" legis lation are briefly discussed. Powers Retained by the Legislature The statement: "Power to the people!" is a modestly accurate description of the sentiment expressed at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The people of Oklahoma reserved the right to initiate legis lation and constitutional amendments for their collective decision making, and although they could further invoke the initiative against legislative acts (referendum petitions), the State Legislature retained some very important law-making powers. Article V, Section 7 enables the Legislature to ". . . repeal any law, propose or pass any measure. 131 which may be consistent with the Constitution of the State and the Constitution of the U.S." 46 This section of the Constitution of Oklahoma is very essential to the enhancement of the law-making powers,of the Legislature because it enables the Legislature to repeal any law passed through the initiative and referendum process. The Legislature possessing the right to repeal laws brought about by direct democracy, operates in the same manner as it is entitled to function in regard to its own statutory enactments. Indeed, the Legislature is not " . . . deprived of subsequently passing measures which conflict with measures which are approved by the people, or of approving measures which were rejected by the people." 47 One compiler of data on Oklahoma's initiative and referendum expe rience notes that Article V, Section 7 ". . . is an example of the con servative reaction that was beginning to manifest itself at this time to the progressive and somewhat revolutionary 'Oregon Plan.'" 48 Quoting a socialist writer of the time, P. S. Naegal, who is reacting to the words "right to repeal any law," he sees the inclusion of Section 7 into the Constitution as an attempt by certain elements attending the Convention to ". . . render the people subject to the will of the (L)egislature, which is a violation of the spirit of initiative and referendum. This 'sleeper' gives the legislature power to repeal any law passed by the people through the initiative. If the governor or legislature are dissatisfied with a law passed by the people through the initiative, the legislature can in regular session repeal it, and if necessary, the governor can call a special session to repeal it." 49 . 132 Statements such as this one are fairly representative of the socialist and the more radical portion of the Oklahoma electorate who were quite upset, primarily because of the conservatism of this provi sion and the fact that delegates to the Constitutional Convention were pledged to upholding the Oregon terminology on the initiative and refer endum. The delegates who favored the right of the legislature to repeal laws enacted by the people were viewed to have violated the trust which had been placed in them. Certainly, Section 7 must have helped to temper the perspective and reaction held in many quarters of the United States relative to the Constitution of Oklahoma as illustrative of "radi calism run wild." Perhaps one residual response towards the "right to repeal" clause is contemporarily manifested in the inordinately high percentage of initiated measures which carry provisions that amend the Constitution, rather than being composed of statutory content material. The reason might best be explained like this: to initiate a constitu tional amendment requires only 15 percent of the voters in contrast to an initiated statute which requires 8 percent of the voters based on the total number of votes cast for the state office receiving the highest number of votes in the last general election. This 7 per cent differential is still well within the range of the needed number of signatures necessary to obtain on'a petition, and most importantly, the State Legislature cannot repeal, revise, or effect in any manner (excluding vitalizing legislation) a constitutional amendment. Thus, a large amount of statutory material has been introduced and passed (perhaps unnecessarily), and has found its way into the Constitution. 133 In addition, the legislature retains the important powers of determining whether it wishes to provide the vitalizing legislation for an amendment initiated by the people. 49 The legislature may further delineate or restrict the total number of acts which are subject to referendum petitions by declaring an act an " e m e r g e n c y . O n e researcher on direct democracy notes that an act of the legislature receives emergency status, " . . . when two-thirds of the elected mem bers of both houses of the legislature deem it so. The people are therefore denied the use of the referendum on an act if the legislature declares the measure is necessary 'for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety,'" as provided for in Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution. Commenting on the effect of the "emergency clause," Gillespie remarks that the referendum petition has been rendered nearly useless. He notes that a statute that has gone into effect is not subject to the petition powers held by the people, and that the legislature has wide latitude or discretionary powers in determining which enacted statutes possess emergency implications, and accordingly, emergency status. He gives ample illustration to this point by noting a variety of legisla tive enactments which set up a lounge for women in the Capitol, the change of name for the "State Industrial School for White Girls" to "Girls Town," as being necessary for the "preservation of the public peace, health and safety." Although these are certainly extreme exam ples of the legislature invoking the "emergency" designation, they cer tainly reinforce the perspective that the right to use the referendum petition can be seriously curtailed. 52 134 Empirically, there are several studies that demonstrate the excessive use of the "emergency clause" to an extremely large number of enacted statutes. For instance: '» The Twentieth Oklahoma Legislature (1945 enacted 356 statutes, only sixty-six of which did not carry the emergency clause. Three hun dred ninety-four measures of the Twenty-First Legislature (1947) became law and only forty- three were passed without the emergency clause. Of all measures passed by the Twentieth Legis lature, 81.5 per cent were declared emergencies; and of all the laws enacted by the Twenty-first Legislature, 89.1 per cent were not subject to a referendum. 53 The frequency in which the emergency clause is applied to legislative acts, reduced the significance of the powers associated with the referendum petition. It is clear that the Oklahoma Legislature has used and continues to apply the emergency designation on rather insignificant acts. Whether or not the emergency device has inçeded the popular referendum process in Oklahoma has not been completely determined. It is fair to conclude on a more speculative note, however, that an extensive misuse or abuse of this power will in time reduce the status of the referendum petition to a meaningless tool of direct legislation. In a more positive vain one might conclude that the legislature reflects popular interests, sentiments, and popular representation more satisfactorily and accurately than the voters casting their own ballots on issues, especially if issues are highly segmental. This view tends to justify the use of the emergency clause on legis lative acts, especially in view of the "one man, one vote" ruling, and in particular as it relates to controversial issues. TABLE 3-1 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OR REJECTION OF MEASURES SUBMITTED TO OKLAHOMA'S ELECTORATE (1907-1972) BY QUESTION NUMBER, MEASURE QIARACTERISTICS, ELECTION TYPE AND REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF VOTES CAST IN ELECTION FOR PASSAGE Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State § Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. 8 Special Const. Cons t. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Type Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 1 L.R. Amend. General X 2 L.R. Amend. General X 3 L.R. Amend. General X 4 L.R. Amend. General x: 5 I.P. Act General X 15 I.P. Act Sp. El. x‘ _ 16 I.P. Amend. Sp. El. 17 I.P. Amend. Primary^ X 6 I.P. Act General X 8 I.P. Amend. General X 21 R.P. Act General X4 22 I.P. Amend. General X^ 23 L.R. Amend. General X^ 24 L.R. Amend. General X7 25 L.R. Amend. Sp. El. CM 41 I.P. Act Primary® X 38 I.P. Amend. General 40 I.P. Amend. General x9 45 L.R. Amend. General xio 46 L.R. Amend. Special CM 47 R.P. Act Special xii 57 L.R. Amend. Special CM 58 L.R. Amend. Special CM Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State 5 Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. § Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 60 L.R. Amend. Special CM 59 L.R. Amend. Primary X 61 R.P. Act Primary 3 X 62 R.P. Act Primary X 68 l.P. Act PrimarylS X 73 I.P. Amend. PrimarylG X 71 l.P. Amend. General X 74 l.P. Amend. General^ 8 X 75 l.P. Amend. General X 1/4 77 l.P. Amend. General X o\ 81 L.R. Amend. Sp. CPri.)21 TVC 82 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)22 TVC 83 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)23 TVC 84 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)24 TVC 85 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)25 TVC 86 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)26 TVC 87 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)27 TVC 88 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)28 TVC 89 L.R, Amend. Sp. (Pri.)29 TVC 78 l.P. Amend. General X30 80 l.P. Amend. General X^l 97 L.R. Amend. General X 100 L.R. Amend. Special^2 TVC 94 R.P. Act General X 99 l.P. Amend. General X 109 l.P. Amend. General X 111 L.R. Amend. General X 112 L.R. Amend. General X 114 L.R. Amend. Primary CM Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State & Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. S Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Type Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 116 l.P. Amend. General X 119 l.P. Amend. Special X^4 121 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 122 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 123 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 124 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 125 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 141 l.P. Act Primary^® TVC 135 R.P. Act General X 137 R.P. Act General^O w X 138 l.P. Act General X 139 l.P. Act General X 144 L.R. Amend. General X 145 L.R. Amend. General X 146 L.R. Act General X 152 l.P. Act Primary X 122 L.R. Amend. General X42 158 L.R. Amend. General X 159 L.R. Amend. General X 167 l.P. Act Special X 169 l.P. Amend. Special X 172 l.P. Act Special X 173 l.P. Amend. Special X 168 l.P. Amend. Primary^J X 170 l.P. Act Primary 44 X 171 l.P. Act Primary X 164 R.P. Act46 General X 175 l.P. Act General X 183 L.R. Act Special X Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State S Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. § Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. . Type Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 179 R.P. Act Special X47 184 R.P. Act Special X48 185 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 186 L.R. Amend. General X 187 L.R. Amend. General X 201 l.P. Amend. Special X 208 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 209 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 211 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 212 L.R. Amend. Special TVC 00 214 l.P. Amend. Special X 220 l.P. Act Special X 225 l.P, Amend. Primary49 X 226 l.P. Amend. Primary X 230 l.P. Act Primary X 207 L.R. Amend. General X 210 L.R. Amend. General X 222 l.P. Amend. General X 205 l.P. Amend. General X 216 R.P. Act General^O X 236 R.P. Act General X 238 R.P. Act General X 242 L.R. Amend. General X 243 L.R. Amend. General X 215 l.P. Amend. General X 241 l.P. Act General X 253 l.P. Act General X 281 L.R. Amend. General X 282 L.R. Amend. General X Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State S Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. 8 Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat , Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Type Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 289 l.P. Amend. General X 298 L.R. Amend. Special CM 299 L.R. Amend. Special CM 300 L.R. Amend. Special CM 306 l.P. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)>3 X 302 L.R. Amend. General X 303 L.R. Amend. General X 304 L.R. Amend. General X 309 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)54 CM 310 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)55 CM 311 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)56 CM 312 L.R. Amend. Pri.' (Sp.)57 CM 313 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)58 CM.. 319 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)59 CM 314 l.P. Amend. General X 315 l.P. Amend. General X 316 l.P. Amend. General X 318 l.P. Amend. General X 327 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)GO CM 328 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)61 CM 329 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)62 CM 343 l.P. Amend. Special X 348 L.R. Amend. Special CM 345 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)G3 CM 325 l.P. Amend. General X 326 l.P. Amend. General X 344 L.R. Senate Joint Res. General X Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State § Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. § Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Amend. . Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 346 L.R. Amend. General X 347 L.R. Act General X 353 L.R. Amend. Primary X 354 L.R. Amend. Primary 355 L.R. XAmend. General 356 XL.R. Amend. General 349 Xl.P. Act General v' X 359 R.P. Act Special X 360 R.P. Act Special X 358 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)65 o 362 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)66 CM CM 361 L.R. Amend. General 368 XL.R. Amend. Special 369 CML.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)67 CM" 370 L.R. Amend. Pri. CSp.)68 CM 371 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)o9 372 L. R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)70 CM 373 CML.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)71 374 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)72 CM 375 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)73 CM 357 CMl.P. Act General X 377 l.P. Amend. General X 376 l.P. Amend. Special X 379 L.R. Amend. Special 380 CML.R. Amend. Special 386 CML.R. Amend. Special CM 387 L.R. Amend. Special 388 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)74 CM 389 CML.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.) CM Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State 8 Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Cons t. Const. Gen. 8 Special Const. Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Tzpe Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 390 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)75 CM 393 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)76 CM 391 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)77 CM 392 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)'B CM 396 l.P. Amend. Special X 397 l.P. Amend. Special X 398 l.P. Act Special X 394 L.R. Amend. General X 395 R.P. Bill General X 401 L.R. Amend. Special CM 407 L.R. Amend. Special CM 404 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)79 c m ' 405 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)GU CM 400 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.) CM 406 L.R. Amend. General x81 408 l.P. Amend. Gen. (Sp.)K^ X 411 L.R. Amend. Special CM 417 L.R. Act Special X 418 L.R. Amend. Special CM 419 L.R. Amend. Special CM 409 l.P. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)°3 X 412 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)84 CM 413 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)85 CM 416 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)86 CM Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State S Const. Sp. Election Gen, Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. § Special Const Const. State Bill Election Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend. Stat. Amend. CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 414 L.R. Amend. General X 415 L.R. Amend. General X 420 R.P. Bill General X 421 l.P. Amend. General X 422 l.P. Bill General X 423 l.P. Bill General X 424 l.P. Bill General X 425 L.R. Act Special X 426 L.R. Amend. Special CM 427 L.R. Joint N) Resol. Special X 430 L.R. Amend. Special CM 433 L.R. Amend. Special CM.. 428 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)°7 CM 429 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)88 CM 431 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)89 CM 432 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)90 CM 436 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)91 CM 434 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)92 CM 435 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)93 CM 437 R.P. Bill Gen. (Sp.)94 X 447 L.R. Amend. Special CM 448 L.R. Amend. Special CM 453 L.R. Amend. Special CM 442 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)95 CM 444 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)96 CM 446 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)97 CM 456 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)98 CM Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum State § Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. 8 Special Cons t. Const. State Bill, Election Stat Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat Amend. Stat. Amend. Ques. Type Amend. Type _ _ CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 457 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)99 CM 460 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)199 CM 461 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)lOl CM 462 L.R. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)102 CM 441 l.P. Amend. Pri. (Sp.)103 X 443 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)194 CM 454 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)105 CM CM 455 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri; (Sp.)196 CM 458 L.R. Amend. Run-off Pri. (Sp.)197 c m " 459 L.R. Amend. Run-off 208 Pri. (Sp. ) CM 445 L.R. Amend. General X 463 L.R. Amend. Special CM 466 L.R. Amend. Special CM 468 L.R. Amend. Special CM 472 L.R. Const. Conv. Special CM 473 L.R. Amend. Special CM 474 L.R. Amend. Special CM 477 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Pri.)109 CM 475 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Run-off Primary) 110 CM 476 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Run-off Primary) 111 CM 464 R.P. Bill General X 469 R.P. Bill General X Initiative Petition Ref. Petition Legislative Referendum , State 8 Const. Sp. Election Gen. Election Measures Sp. Election Gen. Election Act, Const. Const. Gen. 8 Special Const Const. State Bill, Election Stat . Amend. Stat. Amend. Elections Stat. Amend Stat. Amend. Ques. TyiJe Amend. Type CM CM TC TC CM CM CM CM TC 478 l.P. Act Special X 479 L.R. Amend. Special CM 481 L.R. Amend. Special CM 482 L.R. Amend. Special CM 483 L.R. Amend. Special CM 484 L.R. Amend. Special CM 485 L.R. Amend. Special CM 488 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Reg. Primary) CM 489 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Reg. Primary) CM 490 L.R. Amend. Sp. (Reg. Primary) CM_ 480 l.P. Amend. General X 486 . L.R. Amend. General X 487 L.R. Amend. General X 145 NUTES: Table 3-1 ^Question Number 15 dealt with the permanent location o f the state capitol. As a measure initiated by popular petition, it proposed to move the capitol site and locate it in one of three places: 1) Guthrie, 2) Oklahoma City, or 3) Shawnee, The propo sition was passed but in a subsequent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision, of Smith V . State, 28 Okla, 235, 113 par. 932, (1910) it was declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also ruled that the measure was not validly submitted. That is, it asked three questions (two directly and one by implication). It directly asked shall the capitol be located and where (Guthrie, Oklahoma City, Shawnee). It indirectly asked shall the proposition be adopted. 2In the General Election of November 8, 1910, State Question 6 was placed on the ballot by the initiative petition process. This issue was popularly talked about as the "New Jerusalem Plan" and is in many ways the predecessor to "New Brazilian" plans in the other states and the Willow Creek siting near Anchorage, Alaska, which is currently under intensive study. Although the plan received over sixty percent affirmative vote, it failed since it did not receive a majority of the total votes cast in the election. The "New Jerusalem Plan" was heatedly debated between Guthrie and Oklahoma City with little contest pertaining to Shawnee. In addition this amendment was submitted for "advisory purposes only" although only 78 percent of the people voting in the election vote on this amendment. For added discussion see Frederick F. Blackly and Miriam E. Oatman, Government of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City: Harlow Publishing Co., 1929), p, 299-230, 3 State question number 17, "The Grandfather Clause" was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Guinn V. U.S., 238 U.S. 347. The Grandfather Clause provided that a person could not be a qualified elector in Oklahoma or vote in any election (state, local or national) unless "he be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was.../on or prior to January 1, 186^,..entitled to vote, shall be denied the right to register and vote because of his ability to so read and write sections of the Constitution. This amendment provided for the "grandfathering in" of persons who were lineal descen dants of persons permitted to vote prior to January 1, 1866. Therefore, due to the de jure and de facto segregation measures related to electoral law in Oklahoma, this amendment would have effectively barred a high percentage of blacks and American Indians from voting since their "grandfathers" were not entitled to vote. On the other hand, it permitted "illiterate" whites to qualify as electors because they were descendants of "qualified" voters. The Court ruled that this measure was in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Also, Blackly and Oatman observe that the amendment carried a good 146 majority due to the way in which it was voted upon. At the bottom of the ballot and in small type were printed the words "for the Amendment." To vote against the amendment the voter had to scratch out those words with a lead pencil, and should he leave his ballot unmarked, he was counted as favoring the amendment. In a number of precincts no pencils were furnished and the process was likely to mislead the simple and inattentive voter." 4 This proposition is referred to as the Bryan Election Law. It was an act submitted to the electorate against a legislative measure. ^To provide for local option as it pertains to the licensing and sale of intoxicating liquors in "incorporated cities, towns and villages" after the local political jurisdiction voted approval in an election, ^Although state question number 23 received a 27,994 majority vote in the General Election of November 8, 1910, it failed due to its inability to get a majority of the total votes cast in the election. This is an example of the power of the "silent vote". ^Ibid. g Established the direct election of U.S. Senators. The act pro vided for the election of U.S. senators at the same time that state legislators are elected. The legislator act required that the indivi dual legislator state whether he would be "bound" by the popular wish. However, the Congress of the United States passed the 17th Amendment on May 16, 1912 in which the direct, rather indirect, election of members to the Senate of the United States was provided for. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on May 31, 1913. This series of events rendered the operation of proposition 41 unnecessary. g Once again the people of Guthrie, Oklahoma were determined to have the state capitol located in their city. It failed to receive a majority of total votes cast in the General Election of 1912. ^*^Measure number 45 provided for the State Legislature to levy taxes that "will maintain all public schools for at least five months in the year." It received a 34,606 vote majority but failed due to receiving less than a majority of the total vote cast in the election. 11A referendum petition to veto an act of the Oklahoma Legislature referred to as the "Mining Bill." This was the first time in the history of Oklahoma in which a referendum was offered that succeeded in vetoing the law. 12The "School Aid Bill" was referred to the people by the Legis lature and received a 32,737 vote majority on the issue, but failed to receive a majority of the total votes cast in the election. For purposes of passage, this primary election was considered to constitute a general election. 147 13A referendum petition against a legislative act to prevent gambling, bookmaking, and horse racing, the legislative law was sustained. 14A referendum petition requiring only a majority of the votes cast on the measure for passage. In state question number 62 as in 61 the legislature was sustained. This measure outlawed "gambling and the running of slot machines and building in which they are operated." ^^This measure received a 43,762 majority "year" vote, but failed to receive a majority of the total vote cast in the election, ^^As a constitutional amendment it provided for the removal from office by impeachment for "drunkenness and the excessive use of intoxicating liquors." Of the 84 percent of the people voting in the primary, they cast a decided majority vote (83,174) in favor of this measure, 17State question number 71 provided for the reduction of Appellate Courts in Oklahoma. It received a majority of the total votes cast on the issue but failed to receive a majority of all votes cast in the general election. Also, this measure was ruled as being illegally submitted to the people. It is considered, for historical discussion, as one of the four constitutional amendments initiated by the people and referred in the 1914 General Election. These amendments were popularly called the "West Amendments" in relation to the efforts made by Charles West, a candidate for governor, who worked so hard for their passage. Likewise, State Questions 74, 75 and 77 received a majority of total votes cast in these specific constitutional amend ments, but failed to receive a total of all votes cast in the election. Another good example of the "silent vote" on constitutional revision in Oklahoma. 18Failed by fact that it did not receive a majority of all votes cast in the general election. ^^Ibid. ^°Ibid. 21In the primary election of August 1, 1916, nine amendments to the constitution were submitted to the electorate. State question number 81 dealt with the creation of a State Tax Commission and the abolition of the State Board of Equalization. Seventy percent of the voters casting ballots in the Primary voted on this measure and although it was thought to be an attempt to introduce greater economy in governmental administration, it, nevertheless, was resoundingly defeated by 95,474 votes. Notice also, that measures 81, 82, 83, 84, 148 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 are incorrectly listed in the several successive Directory of the State of Oklahoma up to and including 1947, as well as incorrectly listed in the Official Records of the Oklahoma Secretary of State. 22This measure, if passed, would have imposed the literary (literacy) test for establishing elector qualification and replaced the test of propoerty. An interesting exception to the use of the literacy test criteria was provided for those '.’who served in the army or navy of the United States in the war with Mexico, or on either side in wars with certain Indian tribes." It represented a fundamental change in elector qualification and was decisively defeated. 23A constitutional amendment which would have distributed taxes to common schools derived from public service corporations operating in Oklahoma. The measure failed to receive a majority of votes cast on the proposition. ^^An attempt to reduce the salary of the Oklahoma Clerk of Supreme Court, this measure failed by a majority of 76,030 votes against the measure. 25State question number 85 deals with the amount of indebtedness permitted to incorporated cities and towns. Again, it too was decisively defeated like all the other amendments submitted in the primary election of 1916. An attempt to authorize the Oklahoma Legislature to provide for "the compulsory or elective compensation by the employer to the employee in case of death, permanent or partial disability." It, too, was defeated by a 88,134 vote majority. Please note that question 81 through 89 required a majority of total votes cast in election for approval. For purposes of passage, a primary election was considered the same as a general election. 27A proposition that was proposed to reduce the cost of operating the judicial system in Oklahoma by providing for the "supreme Court (to) be consolidated with the Criminal Court of Appeals." It represented a fundamental change in the operation of the judicial system— a change that the Oklahoma Electorate was not prepared to make. The proposed amendment was defeated by a 149,272 no and 42,896 yes. 28A proposal amendment that would change the size of juries in "court of record, . . . to consist of eight men," except 12 men in capital cases. This measure was defeated by 92,379 majority no vote. 29An attempt for judicial reorganization in which the county courts would be abolished and their jurisdiction vested in District Court was proposed in State Question 89. It was defeated by 110,180 majority no vote. 149 30This proposed amendment to the election law received a majority of the total votes cast on the measure, but failed due to the "silent vote." It was an ingenious attempt by the Socialist party of Oklahoma to gain membership on the state election board. The measure proposed that a "State Election Board of three electors elected one each by the State Chairman of each of the three political parties costing greatest number of votes for Governor at last general election," be established. In the November 3, 1914 General Election, the Democratic candidate for Governor received 100,597 votes; the Republican candidate 95,904; the Socialists candidate 52,703; the Progressive candidate 4,189; and the Prohibition not offering a candidate for the gubernatorial race. This would clearly place the Socialist party in third place relative to the "greatest number of votes for Governor at the last general election," and guarantee them a position on the State Election Board. Also, the total votes cast in the General Election of 1916 are not held in the State Election Board Archives on a county by county basis. 31Rejected by failing to receive a total of all votes cast in the general election. It would have, if adopted, forbid the legislature to pass any election registration laws. 32Referred to as the "Good Roads Amendment." 33This Constitutional Amendment provided for an increase in the total taxes levied on an ad valorem basis for school districts. This proposition required a majority vote cast on measure for adoption. ^^In re Initiative Petition 79, State Question 119, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Simpson v. Hill et al., 263 p. 635; 128 Okl. 269, that it was not a constitutional amendment. Although the measure was passed whereby the state legislature could convene itself "for investi gating the conduct of State officials, subject to impeachment . . ., " it was declared inoperative. The Court also ruled that neither the Governor nor the legislature had designated or ordered the amendment to be voted upon at a special election. 35Required a majority of all votes cast in election for adoption, in this case 144,551, See Directory of Oklahoma, 1973, p. 426 for verification. •Zfi ' # In re State Question 122, submitted to the electorate on October 2, 1923, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Looney v. Deeper, Secretary of State, et al., 145 Okl. 202, 292 Pac. 365 [1930], that the election was invalid. In this decision the court held that the amendment was not legally submitted to the people. This amendment attempted to make women eligible for high executive state offices such as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Examiner and Inspector. The court ruled, however, that since the resolution was 150 properly adopted by the state legislature, approved by, received and filed by the Secretary of State, that since the Secretary of State did not fulfill the constitutional mandate of submitting the measure to the people at the next regular scheduled election (general election, November, 1924,3 the resolution to be submitted to the people for their rejection or approval at the "next general election to be held November 4, 1930." In the 1930 election the measure once again received an affirmative majority, a decisive one, of the total votesc ast on the proposition. It failed to receive a majority of all votes cast in the election, thereby being rejected by the "silent vote." 37The Supreme Court ruled that the legislative act submitting this measure to the people for their adoption or rejection was unconsti tutional. In State ex rel. Short, Attorney General, v. State Board of Equalization, et al., 107 Okl. 118, 230 p. 743, 744, the court held that the Constitution of Oklahoma (Art. 24, Section 1) required that before a constitution amendment could be submitted to the people by the legis lature that the resolution be adopted by a two-thirds vote of each house, and the two-thirds vote meant "a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to and constituting each house." Therefore, a two-thirds of those present and voting or of the quorum is not sufficient. 38In re State Question 141, a procedure was adopted by an over whelming majority of the Oklahoma electorate (182,012 for; 68,975 against) that provided for the testing of any tax levy. Once again, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the power of the judiciary function had been usurped and thus the measure was unconstitutional. For more detailed discussion, see Atchison, T. § S. L. Ry Co. v. Long, 251 p. 486, 122 Okl. 86. 39A measure proposed to veto a legislative act pertaining to free textbooks. The act was rejected and the law sustained. ^^Ibid. ^^In re Initiative Petition 100, State Question 152, a great deal of controversy developed over whether this measure required a majority of the votes cast in the primary election or only a majority of the votes cast on the measure in order to be effective. In a letter from V.P. Crowe, then Assistant Attorney General, on August 31, 1928, to W.C. McAlister, Secretary, State Election Board, he opined that "the election on Initiative Petition Number 100, held on the date of the primary election constituted in itself a special election and that said measure to be approved must receive a majority of the votes cast in such election." He further stated that " . . . only electors registered with a recognized political party can vote in a mandatory primary election; whereas, any elector of the State is eligible to vote on an initiative petition. . ." In summary. Initiative Petition 100 was considered submitted at a special election and, therefore, required a majority of the votes cast on the measure to become effective. 151 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Special Election of October 2, 1923 was invalid. See Looney v. keeper. This amendment pertained to setting office qualifications received a majority of the votes actually cast on the measure but failed due to the "silent vote." 43Since election was declared a special election for purposes of the Initiative, it requires a majority of the total votes cast in the election for adoption. ^^Ibid. ^^ibid. 46Legislative act not vetoed 4?Ibid. ^®Ibid. 49For purposes of passage, the same criteria that pertains to Initiative Petitions submitted in an election that has a special designation apply. A majority of the total votes cast on the proposition is needed for passage. ^^In re State Question Number 216 relating to a legislative act that would effect slot machine operation in Oklahoma, the people rejected House Bill 410, thereby sustaining the law. ^^The "oleomargarine" bill was rejected by 31,180 votes. 52In re Referendum Petition Number 75, establishing a State Oil Inspector, the act was rejected and the law sustained. 53The primary election of July 14, 1942 was designated a special election in regards to the legal requirements that needed to be met in approving Initiative Petition 221, State Question 306. ^^Designated a special election for proposition 309, Legislative Referendum 86. ^^Designated a special election for State Question 310, Legislative Referendum 87. ^^Designated a special election for State Question 311, Legislative Referendum 88, which created a Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma. ^^In re State Question 312, Legislative Referendum 89, designated the primary election of July 11, 1944 as constituting a special election 152 for purposes of this measure. This Act, submitted by the Senate of Oklahoma to the electorate, dealt with the establishment of a run-off primary election system in Oklahoma. 58The primary election was designated a special election for State Question 313, Legislative Referendum 90, 59Designated a special election for State Question 319, Legislative Referendum 91. ^^Designated a special election for State Question 327, Legislative Referendum 92. ^^In re State Question 328, Legislative Referendum 93 which created a Board of Regents for Central State College, East Central State, South western Institute of Technology, Northwestern State College, and North eastern State College, the election was designated special status. 62State Question 329 set the salaries of Oklahoma Lawmakers. It was designated a special election for purposes of this amendment to the Constitution. 63A very important piece of legislation (Workmen's Compensation Law) and was decisively passed by a 333,963 margin in the July 4, 1950, primary election, designated special status for State Question 345. 64 ^^The primary election of July, 1954 was designated a special election for propositions. ^^Ibid. The primary election of July 3, 1956 was designated a special election for this proposed amendment. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid, ^4bid. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 153 State Questions 388, 389, 390, submitted by the Legislature to the electorate in the primary election of July 5, 1960, were given a special election designation. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid, 77The run-off primary election of July 26, 1960, was designated a special election, ^^Ibid. 79The primary election of May 1, 1962 was designated a special election for state questions. ®°Ibid. 81In re State Question 406, Legislative Referendum 135 dealt with the sale of alcoholic beverages by manufacturers, distillers, etc., on a non-discriminatory basis to every licensed wholesale liquor distributor. For an attendant discussion of some of the controversy surrounding the measure that received a majority of the votes cast on the proposition, although failed due to the operation of the "silent vote," see Ford v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. 82Although this proposition dealt with apportionment of the Oklahoma Senate and House of Representatives, a proposition that was heatedly discussed throughout the state, the measure was submitted at the General Election, November 6, 1962, designated a special election for purposes of passage, it received a majority of votes cast on measure, only to fail by the "silent vote". See M.A. Price, John M. Rasberry, J.R. Hutchins and Roy Grimes v. William N. Christian, Secretary of State, State of Oklahoma, 373 p. (2dj 1017 (1962). 83The primary election of May 5, 1964 was designated a special election for State Question 409, Initiative Petition 272. This proposi tion pertains to a constitutional amendment that would have amended Article 23, Section 12, and established "Right to Work" legislation in Oklahoma, thereby banning the closed shop and prohibiting union membership as a necessary condition for employment in Oklahoma. The amendment was rejected by a 24,288 majority and greatly disappointed a very well organized group named Oklahomas for Right to Work, Inc., and pleased organized labor interests and unions, especially the Oklahoma AFL-CIO, This proposition was held up due to litigation and the name challenge of 104,835 persons who signed the petition that placed State Question 409 before the people for approval or rejection. Of the 104,835 names challenged, 47,577 names were invalidated. For greater discussion see George J. Mauer, "Oklahoma State Questions of 1964," Oklahoma Government Bulletin (Norman, Oklahoma), Bureau of Government Research, University of Oklahoma, April, 1964, p. 1 154 84Designated a special election for State Question 413, Legislative Referendum 139. This measure wished to reduce the residence period necessary to become a qualified elector in Oklahoma from one year to six months in the State, from six months to two months in the county, and from thirty days in the precinct to twenty days. The elector qualification proposition was adopted by'a 161,699 majority. 85Designated a special election. ^^The Run-Off Primary Election of May 26, 1964 was designated a Special Election in re State Question 416, Legislative Referendum 142. And, therefore, the result fo the election, the approval of the Amendment by 55,772, was not affected by the "silent vote." Some controversy surrounded this proposition and has been clearly summarized by George L. Mauer. He states, relative to the amendment, that the language provides for "...apportioning the Senate, consideration will be given to population, compactness, area, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests, contiguous territory, and other major factors to the extent feasible." This, he goes on to state, becomes complicated in dealing with criteria for creating two-county senatorial districts. He developed a scenario in which the 19 most populous counties would elect one senator and combined this would represent 1,527,601 or 65.6 percent of the people, whereas 29 senators would represent 800,683 persons in 58 counties, or 34.4 percent of the total population. This could cause in operation, an overrepresentation of rural counties, and the contrary, of course, as it pertains to urban Oklahoma counties. 87The Regular Primary Election of May 3, 1966 was designated a special election, thereby eliminating the adverse effects of the "silent vote" on the adoption of the measure. For an excellent commen tary that presents both support and opposition for this issue, see "The Seven Proposed Constitutional Amendments," Oklahoma Government Bulletin, Vo. 3, No. 4, Winter, 1966, pp. 1-4. This Bulletin was based on a comprehensive study conducted by the League of Women Voters organization in Oklahoma. SGlbid. G^Ibid. ^°Ibid. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 93lbid. ^^ibid. 155 State Question 442, Legislative Referendum 158, submitted in the Regular Primary Election of August 27, 1968, was given a special designation. ®^Ibid. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. ^®Ibid. lOOlbid. lOllbid. ^°^Ibid. 1 A? In the Run-Off Primary Election of September 17, 1968, the election received special election designation as it pertained to the propositions. IWlbid. °̂̂Ibld. l»®Ibid. 109The Regular Primary Election of August 25, 1970 was declared a special election for State Question 477, Legislative Referendum 185. ^̂ *̂ The Run-Off Primary Election of September 15, 1970 was designated a special election for State Question 475, Legislative Referendum 183. ^^^Designated a special election for State Question 476, Legislative Referendum 184. 156 NOTES r ' For a general discussion of the influence that William H. Murray had on the initiative and referendum at Oklahoma's Constitutional Convention, see Keith L. Bryant, Jr., Alfalfa Bill Murray (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968), pp. 45-72. Also: Charles A Beard, "The Constitution of Oklahoma," Political Science Quarterly XXIV (March, 1909), 99-100. Beard provides an interesting commentary on how Oklahoma received its direct legislation provisions. 2Oklahoma,Constitution. art. V, sec. 1. ^Ibid. ^Ibid. ^Ibid., art. V, sec. 2. ^In re State Question Number 137, Referendum Petition Number 49, 114 Okl. 132, 244 Pac. 806 (1926). 7Oklahoma, Constitution, art. V, sec. 2. g Ibid., art. V, sec. 3. ^Ibid. l°Ibid. lllbid. l^ibid. l^ibid. l^ibid. Ibid. l^Oklahoma, Oklahoma State Election Board, Directory of Oklahoma 1977 (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 1977), p. 679. l^Ibid., p. 680. 18Royden Dangerfield, "Direct Legislation in Oklahoma," (unpublished manuscript. University of Oklahoma, n.d.). 19See: Ramsey v. Persinger, 43 Okl. 41, 141 Pac. 13 (1914), for a 157 discussion surrounding the operation of the legislative referendum. 7nOklahoma Statutes, 1961, Title 34, sec. 61. 21 Ramsey v. Persinger, op. cit. ^^Oklahoma Statutes, 1961., Title 34, sec. 64. ^^Dangerfield, p. 15. 24Atwater v. Hassett, 27 Okl. 292, 111 Pac, 802 (1910). ^^Ibid. ^^Dangerfield, p. 17. 27 A copy of the actual printout received from the OKLAHOMA— STATUTES Program is provided in the text to partially demonstrate the utility of the computer in researching some of the legal aspects of the initiative and referendum. A detailed discussion of GIPSY and the usefulness of electronic information systems is presented in the chapter on research methods. The programs used to secure the documents displayed in Exhibits 3-1 through 3-10 are provided in Appendix C. 28In re State Question Number 273, Initiative Petition Number 196, 187 Okl. 120, 102 Pac, 2d 153 (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that only the names that have been fraudulently signed or were known to be fraudulently signed by the circulator of the petition, would be rejected. On the other hand, in re State Question Number 215, Initiative Petition Number 145, 187 Okl. 284, 102 Pac. 2nd %89 (1940), it was determined that if the circulator of an initiative petition knew that a signature that was obtained on the petition was not genuine, or knew that a signature was not signed in the presence of the circulator, or knew that the signer was not a qualified voter or elector, then none of the signatures on that petition would be counted, unless proven to be genuine. The presumption is that all signatures on an initiative petition are valid and legal. 29Payment of a fee to the circulators of petitions was adjudged to be an acceptable practice, therefore payment did not invalidate the signatures secured by a paid circulator (2 1/2 cents per signature, provided the necessary number of signatures necessary to satisfy the legal requirement for the petition to be placed on the ballot was obtained) in re State Question Number 205, Initiative Petition Number 142, 176 Okl. 155, 55 Pac.2d 455 (1936). The court, however, did not establish any qualifications that the circulator of initiative petitions must meet. Indeed, the State Constitution and Statutes do not establish the circulator criteria, and in re to State Question Number 138, Initiative Petition Number 89, 114 Okl. 285, 244 Pac. 801 (1926) the court ruled the names obtained by a person who had not reached a mature age as eligible to be counted. Further, in re State Question Number 205, Initiative Petition Number 142, 176 Okl. 155, 55 Pac.2d 455 (1936) the court held 158 signatures received on a petition to be valid, although the circulators had been instructed to actually misrepresent what was contained in the petition. The court reasoned that it was not its responsibility to in terfere or intervene in collateral matters, because the elector was free to read the content of the petition printed on each pamphlet. 30There are several interesting cases that surround the filing and binding of petitions. See: Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commisssion, 176 Okl. 120, 55 Pac.2d 79 (1936); Lowther v. Nissley, 38 Okl. 797, 135 Pac. 3 (1913); and, Norris v. Cross. 25 Okl. 287, 105 Pac. 100 (1910). In Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, it was determined that a measure cannot be submitted to the people prior to the Secretary of State completing a hearing on the petition and validating the signatures of the petition. In Norris v. Cross, the provision that the "...Secretary of State, in the presence of the Governor and person offering the same for filing, shall detach the sheets containing the signatures and affidavits..." was further interpreted. The court opined that when a referendum petition is given to the Secretary of State for filing, and the Secretary keeps it in custody, it is considered filed. Not to detach the signatures and affidavits in the presence of the Governor and person presenting the peition does not invalidate the petition. 31In re Initiative Petition Number 260, State Question Number 377, Okl. 298, Pac,2d 753 (1956) it was resolved that serving notice of protestation to the Secretary of State was sufficient notice to all interested parties, and that the protest need not be served on the proponent. In this case the protest was against a petition that pro vided for four year terms of county officers. It was further determined that if the Secretary of State does not grant a hearing to the protestant, that the appropriate remedy is not for the protestant to seek a trial de novo, but to rather seek mandamus. Even with a hearing, however, the court ruled that the validity or constitutionality of a measure can not be determined before the Secretary of State. See: In re. State Question Number 10, an initiative petition, 260 Okl. 554, 110 Pac. 647 (1910). , ^^In re State Question Number 241, Initiative Petition Number 166, 187 Okl, 271, 102 Pac.2d 861 (1940). In the event that the original protestant abandons the protest, it can be revitalized within five-days by any citizen of the State. In re to State Question Number 236, Referen dum Petition Number 73, 183 Okl. 355, '82 Pac.2d 1017 (1938), it was assum assumed that all signatures affixed to a petition are those of registered voters. The protestant, therefore, must bring evidence that successfully challenges this affirmative position. 33For a discussion pertaining to sufficiency of ballot title, see: Covey V. Williamson, Okl. 265 Pac.2d 457 (1954), and in re Initiative Petition Number 248, 201 Okl. 562, 207 Pac.2d 924 (1949). The form of the ballot title and the number of the measure printed on the ballot was addressed in Smith v. State, 28 Okl. 235, 113 Pac, 932 (1911). In 1954, the court held that the idea behind'the ballot title was to give a fair gist of the content involved in the measure that was to be voted upon. See: State ex rel, Murray v. Beard, Okl., 264 Pac.2d 305 (1954). 159 the Supreme Court elects, it may either approve the title submitted by the proponent of an initiated measure, use an alternative title prepared by the appellant, or prepare a title of its own selection and construction, as determined in re State Question Number 349, Initiative Petition Number 249, 203 Okl. 520, 223 Pac.2d. 756 (1950). In this instance the Supreme Court approved a ballot title that all parties agreed was sufficient. If an appeal, however, is without merit and is determined ito be primarily a device used to cause delay in the submission of the measure to the people, the court need not and will not consider the appeal. See; State Question Number 236, Referendum Petition Number 73, 183 Okl. 467, 83 Pac.2d 572 (1938). 35In State ex rel. Murray v. Beard, op. cit., the court declared that the ballot be distributed to the electorate for their review prior to the actual election day in which the measure is voted on. In addition, the newspapers selected for publication of sample ballotj(s) must be of the general news disseminating kind. Trade, professional, lodge, or associa tion specific and distribution limited newspapers do not satisfy the requirement for publication. Further, not to publish the argument for a proposition does not invalidate the election. Title 34, section 19 states: "The failure to prepare and have published the argument and other matter as provided by law shall not invalidate the election held on any initiative or referendum or Constitutional am«idment proposed by the Legislature, and no election on any such measure shall be declared or held invalid on the grounds that such publication was not so prepared or published." It is interesting to note the initial law governing the publication of arguments pro and con for a measure. Prior to 1917, the Secretary of State was required to have delivered to each registered voter in Oklahoma, a pamphlet giving the arguments for and against each proposed measure. The reason for this extensive effort at political communication was consistent with the tenets of classical democratic theory. That is, before a voter can act intelligently and rationally in a deliberative situation, the voter needs to have information. An informed voter, the argument goes, could thus be counted on to act intelligently. See: Ex parte Smith, 49 Okl. 716, 154 Pac. 521 (1916). Imagine, however, the great difficulty such a provision caused, especially as.the population in Oklahoma under went substantial change, both in terms of increased population and therefore one would expect increased number of registered voters, and in terms of migration patterns. It could be expected that many "Return to Sender" messages were stamped on letters that were returned to the Secretary of State. After 1917, this requirement was amended, and the publication of the measure in two general purpose newspapers, of opposite political faith, was deemed adequate for the purpose of information dissemination. ^^See: Trapp v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 22 Okl. 377, 97 Pac. 1003 (1908). 160 ?7Title 34, sec, 25 provides the language governing the time for submitting initiated and referred measures to the people: "Whenever any measure shall be initiated by the people in the manner provided by law, or whenever the referendum shall be demanded against any measure passed by the Legislature, same shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular election; provided, the Governor shall have power, in his discretion, to call a special election to vote upon such questions, or to designate the mandatory primary election as a special election for such purpose." In Updegraff v. Gary, Okl. 298 Pac.2d 404 (1956), the court ruled that the Governor may use discretion as to whether to call a special election for the submission of a measure for the consideration of the electorate, or whether to designate a mandatory primary election as a special election. In State ex rel. Williamson v. Carter, 177 Okl. 382, 59 Pac.2d 948 (1936), the "...next regular..." election was not determined to be a runoff-primary election, unless the Governor authorized such an action. 70 In Atwater V. Hassett, 27 Okl. 292, 111 Pac. 802 (1910), the validity of submitting a measure in a primary election satisfied the language of Title 34, sec. 25. 39In State ex rel. Williamson V. State Elections Board, 192 Okl. 275, 135 Pac.2d 982 (1943), the sum of certificates filed by the county election boards indicating the total number of votes cast in the election held in each county, constitutes the official returns. ^^oklahoma. Constitution, art. XXIV, sec. 2. 41 Ibid., art. V, sec. 3. 42lbid., art XXIV, sec. 2. ^^Ibid., art. V, sec. 3. ^^The "silent vote" was operative during the period under study— 1907- 1972. With the adoption of State Question Number 495, Legislative Referen dum 198, on August 27, 1974, the silent vote was eliminated. ^^The Constitution specifically states in Article XXIV, Section 1: "If a majority of all the electors voting at such election shall vote in favor of any amendment thereto, it shall thereby become a part of this Constitution." 4Goklahoma, Constitution, art. V, sec. 7. ^^John Gillespie, "Direct Legislation in Oklahoma" (unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Oklahoma, 1949), pp. 26-27. 161 48Dangerfield, pp. 8-9, AQ Gillespie, p. 26. ^^Oklahoma, Constitution, art V, sec. 8. ^4bid., art. V, sec. 3. ^^Gillespie, p. 30. ^^Ibid., p. 31. CHAPTER IV OKLAHOMA'S EXPERIENCE WITH DIRECT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY Introduction and Overview i Oklahoma has a rich history of utilizing the initiative and refer endum. There are three types of initiated and referred procedures jointly available to the people and the State Legislature. These direct democracy powers are operationlized through the following referral modes : (1) Initiative Petition; (2) Referendum Petition; and (3) Legislative Referendum. Although each of these referral modes is extensively discussed in Chapter Three, a brief overview is presented at this point. The initiative petition is reserved to the people in Article V, Sec. 1, Constitution of Oklahoma. The people are granted under the power of the initiative the right not only to petition their repre- sentatives--a right held by the citizens in a few nation-states of antiquity and in many nations in the modern era— but the actual power to propose and ratify or reject legislative and constitutional measures that change the basic law of the political jurisdiction in which they hold membership. The power to go beyond the right to request or petition consideration from a legislative body in the area of a public policy suggestion or demand, and to actually draft measures that possess policy content is a relatively recent phenomenon his torically, having had its origin in the Progressive Era. The legislative referendum involves the state legislature referring measures (statutory measures or constitutional amendments) to the 162 163 people for either their opinion or their approval, ratification, or rejection. The Oklahoma Legislature is also given the power in Article XXIV, Section 2, to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of making "alterations, revisions,'or amendments" to the Constitution, or to "propose a new constitution." Indeed, the Con stitution states that the question of convening a constitutional convention must be submitted to the people at least once every twenty years, thereby enabling the people to determine if a convention should be called for the purpose of considering the desirability and neces sity of constitutional change. Article XXIV, Section 2, also obliges the state legislature to submit the question of calling a constitutional convention. The practice of the legislature, however, has been largely to ignore the obligation. Since 1907, the legislature has submitted questions on three occasions that called for a convention: (1) State Question Number 146, Legislative Referendum Number 52, (2) State Question Number 347, Legislative Referendum Number 98, and (3) State Question Number4 72, Legislative Referendum Number 180. Each of these measures was defeated rather soundly, with State Question Number 146 receiving only 16.5 percent approval. State Question 347 receiving 31.5 percent yes vote, and State Question 472 receiving a 23.7 percent approval on the question of calling a convention to consider changing the constitution. These measures for initiating or proposing change to the con stitution and laws of the state may be summarized in the following three categories: (1) proposal by popular initiative; (2j proposal by state legislature, and (3) proposal by constitutional convention. 164 The adoption or ratification of propositions is provided for by the direct popular vote of the electorate. A summary table of the major characteristics of all constitutional and statutory content proposals submitted to the Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period is presented in Table 4-29. This table arrays each issue by the following characteristics: (1) state question number, (2) initiative or ref erendum status, (3) submission by legislature or people, (4) an abbreviated proposition gist, (5) total number of yes and no votes cast on the proposition, (6) the statewide percent yes vote, [7] the statewide percent participation on the proposition, (8) the election result Cpass/fail), and (9) the year the issue was presented to the electorate. Since Table 4-29 is nine pages in length and too massive to facilitate the casual observance of various facts about the operation of the initiative and referendum in Oklahoma it is appended at the end of this chapter and is summarized in the bivariate analysis which follows. Voting Summary During the sixty-five year period, 1907-1972, the Oklahoma electorate voted on 252 questions. The summary statistics, shown in table 4-1, indicate that 101 measures, 40.1 percent of the total, passed, and that 151 measures, 59.9 percent of all the pro positions submitted were rejected at the polls. The 252 proposals were set before the people in the ninety elections that took place from the first general election of 1908, in which five measures appeared, to the general election of 1972. Table 165 TABLE 4-1 OUTCOME OF ALL STATE MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972 Outcome Number ' Percent Pass 101 40.1 Fail 151 59.9 Total 252 100.0 4-2 displays the number of initiated and referred measures that have been submitted to the Oklahoma electorate from statehood to 1972, by date of submission, election type, and mode of referral. In total, ninety two measures were placed on the ballot for popular acceptance or rejection in twenty-eight general elections; seventy-three measures were submitted in twenty-six special elections held for propositions; twenty-one measures were submitted in eleven primary elections that did not have a special designation for issues; fifty-one measures were submitted in nineteen primary elections that carried a special des ignation status for measures; and, fifteen issues appeared in six run-off primary elections. Qn an average, the voters have been asked to vote upon approximately three (2.8) measures for each election in which measures have been submitted. In- most elections only one issue (N = 24) or two issues (N = 20) were placed on the ballot out of ninety elections, although there were five measures placed on the ballot in eight elections; seven ballots in five elections, and one election had nine measures placed on the ballot for popular considera tion. The average number of issues submitted to the electorate in 166 TABLE 4-2 INITIATED AND REFERRED MEASURES SUBMITTED TO OKLAHOMA'S ELECTORATE BY DATE OF SUBMISSION, ELECTION TYPE, AND NUMBER OF ISSUES (1907-1972) Election Proposed Through Proposed Through Tot: Year ..Type Power of Initiative Power of Referendum N 1908 General 1 4 5 1910 General 3 3 6 Primary 1 1 Special 2 2 1911 Special 1 1 1912 General 2 1 3 Primary 1 1 1913 Special 5 5 1914 General 4 4 Primary 2 3 5 1916 General 2 2 Primary (sp) 9 9 1918 General 1 1 1919 Special 1 1 1920 General 2 3 5 1922 General 1 1 Primary 1 1 1923 Special 1 5 6 1926 General 2 5 ■ 7 Primary 1 1 1928 Primary 1 1 1930 General 3 3 1931 Special 4 4 1932 General 1 1 2 Primary 3 3 1933 Special 4 4 1934 General 2 2 1935 Special 3 4 7 1936 General 1 2 3 Primary 3 3 1938 General 1 5 6 1940 General 4 2 6 1941 Special 3 3 1942 General 3 3 Primary 1 1 1944 Primary (sp) 5 5 1946 General 4 4 Primary 1 1 1948 Primary (sp) 3 3 1949 Special 1 1 2 1950 General 2 3 5 Primary (sp) 1 1 1952 General 1 2 3 Primary 2 2 1954 General 1 1 Primary (sp) 2 2 167 Election Proposed Through Proposed Through Total Year Type . Power of Initiative Power of Referendum N 1954 Special 2 2 1955 Special 1 1 1956 General 2 2 Primary [sp) 7 7 1957 Special 1 1 1958 Special 2 2 1959 Special 2 2 1960 General 2 2 Primary (sp) 4 4 Run off Primary (sp) 2 2 Special 3 3 1961 Special 2 2 General 1 1 1962 Primary (sp) 1 1 Run off Primary (sp) 2 2 Special 1 1 1963 Special 4 4 1964 General 4 3 7 Primary (sp) 1 2 3 Run off Primary (sp) 1 1 1965 Special 5 5 1966 General 1 1 Primary (sp) 5 5 Run off Primary (sp) 2 2 1967 Special 2 2 1968 General 1 1 Primary (sp) 8 8 Run off Primary (sp) 1 6 7 Special * 2 2 1969 Special 2 2 1970 Special 3 3 Primary (sp) 1 1 Run off Primary (sp) 2 2 General 1 1 1971 Special 5 5 1972 Special 1 1 Primary (sp) 3 3 General 1 2 1 Total 70 182 252 *One Special Election held April 16, 1968 and another Special Election was called for December 10, 1968. i’j'jurc; 4.1--Number of Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma lilectorate, by lilectiou Periods 1907-1972 10 o\ 00 3.9 Yearly Average C O O V - * N 3 0 l ^ O ' O O V O O K > 0 ^ a ' 0 0 0 » - ‘ t O t r > 4 ï * U i a ' 0 0 0 » - » l o 4 : ^ a ' O O V D O N 3 - l ^ l n a v ' - * J O O \ O O H ^ K ) U l 4 5 k t n O N ' ^ O Q O O > - ‘ l O 169 general elections was three; for special elections 2.8; and 2.9 for primary elections— averages which vary slightly for each election type considered here. The total number of measures presented to the Oklahoma voters varied each year with no issues being considered, as illustrated in Figure 4-1, for fifteen years (seven years during the twenty-two year span of 1908 through 1930, and eight years for the period 1936 through 1954). Since 1954 at least one measure has been referred to the people each calendar year. The high tide of referendum use was experienced in the 1960-1969 period in which sixty-seven measures, a yearly average of 6.7 issues, were placed on the ballot. The 1909-1920 and 1930- 1939 periods had a yearly submission average of 3.7 propositions, and the 1920-1929 period showed the lowest submission period possessing an average of 2.2 issues per year. Nevertheless, a review of the data arranged in Figure 4-1, depicts the average yearly submission rate at 3.9 during the 1907-1972 period, and only a few years varied sharply with the historical average: 1910, 1914, and 1956 (nine issues each); 1916, 1960, 1964 (eleven issues each); and, 1968 had the largest number of issues presented on the ballot with eighteen issues. The mode of referral most frequently employed, see Table 4-3, during the period under consideration,,is the legislative referendum. Table 4-4, shows that 162 measures were proposed through this power and that 78 of these 162 issues, 48.1 percent, passed and that 84 failed (51.9 percent). The second most frequently utilized referral procedures was the initiative petition. Popular intiation of measures accounts for 27.8 percent of all propositions submitted to the elec- 170 TABLE 4-3 DISTRIBUTION OF REFERRAL MODES FOR ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED Referral Mode Number' Percent Legislative Referendum 162 64.3 Initiative Petition 70 27.8 Referendum Petition 20 7.9 Total 252 100.0 torate. The seventy measures submitted by the initiative petition process resulted in 24.3 percent passing, (N = 17) and 75.7 percent, (N = 53) failing. The success to failure ratio between legislative referendum and initiative petition referral modes points to the relatively more successful experience shown with the use of the legislative referral mechanisms. The third referral type is the referendum petition. It is the most infrequently used referral mode employed in Oklahoma and accounts for a small 7.9 percent of all measures submitted to the people. (See Table 4-3). Table 4-4 TABLE 4-4 FINAL DISPOSITION OF ALL MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE Legislative Initiative Referendum Referendum Petition Petition Result Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 78 48.1 17 24.3 6 30.0 Fail 84 51.9 53 75.7 14 70.0 Total 162 100.0 70 100.0 20 100.0 171 further depicts that a total of twenty measures were submitted to the electorate using the referendum petition process, of which 30.0 percent passed (N = 6) and 70.0 percent failed (N = 140). The referendum petition is so infrequently used in Oklahoma that it no longer seems to offer a viable means of protesting against acts of the legislature. Indeed, the referendum petition has been used only seven times during the period 1940-1972. The instances in which the "protest referendum" was invoked dealt with the establishment of a turnpike authority and the financing of turnpikes by tolls, withholding income tax, repeal of the governors appointment privilege, fixing of congressional boundaries, voting machines, and deposit of state fundé. Only those measures pertaining to the establishment of a turnpike authority and the financing of turnpikes were approved by the people. A comparison of differences between election type and referral mode for all issues presented during the first seven decades of Oklahoma's direct democracy experience is summarized in Table 4-5. A brief analysis reveals that substantial variations are present among the different election types and referral modes, with the highest proportion of initiated measures adopted in primary elections, ten out of seventeen (or 58.8 percent), followed by primary elections that did not carry special election designation status on measures, eight out of fifteen submitted (or 53.3 percent), closely paralleled by all elections, whether general or primary, which were designated as special elections for the purposes of the initiative and referendum, with a 50.0 percent passage or adoption level. The lowest adoption level or 172 rate was found in those primary and run-off primary elections which were designated special elections. Only three initiative petitions were voted on and they were all rejected. This is not particularly significant, however, due to the small number of measures which satisfied this election type and referral mode characteristic. How ever, the most significant category is that of the general election type in which fifty-two initiative petitions were placed on the ballot; only six were adopted for a passage level of 11.5 percent. Table 4-5 also depicts the number of legislative référendums and referendum petitions that were voted on during the 1907-1972 period by election type and passage level. Legislative référendums show a somewhat similar pattern of passage in relation to that displayed by initiated petitions when controlled for election type. For instance, a passage level of 78.6 percent was obtained for the fourteen legis lative référendums submitted in runoff primary election designated special election disposition for proposition, followed by a 66.7 percent adoption rate for the six référendums that did not carry a special election status but were presented in primary elections. Fifty-two issues of the referendum variety were submitted in the special elections and twenty-nine passed (55.8 percent). The lowest adoption level for référendums occurred in general elections in which only 17.5 percent of the total number of issues submitted (N = 40) were approved. 173 TABLE 4-5 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE FOR ALL TYPES OF ELECTIONS, BY REFERRAL MODE: 1907-1972 REFERRAL P40DE Initiative Referendum Election Type Number Percent Number Percent General Adopted 6 11.5 7 17.5 Rej ected 46 88.5 33 83.5 Total 52 100.0 40 100.0 Special Election Adopted 9 42.9 29 55.8 Rejected 12 57.1 23 44.2 Total 21 100.0 52 100.0 Primary Elections Adopted 10 58.8 42 60.0 Rej ected 41.2 28 40.0 Total 17 100 .0 70 100.0 Special Designation for Measures Adopted 11 50.0 68 58.1 Rejected n 50.0 49 41.9 Total 22 100.0 117 100.0 Primary Elections (Non-Special Designation) Adopted 8 53.3 4 66.7 Rej ected 7 46.7 _2 33.3 Total 15 100.0 6 100.0 Primary Elections (Special Designation) Adopted 0.0 27 55.1 Rejected 100.0 22 44.9 Total 100 .0 49 100.0 Primary and Run-Off Primaries (Special Election Designation) Adopted 0 0.0 38 60.3 Rejected _3 100 .0 25 39.7 Total 3 100 .0 63 100.0 174 Table 4-5 continued Initiative Referendum Number Percent Number Percent Run-off Primaries (Special Election Designation) Adopted 0 0.0 11 78.6 Rejected , 1 100.0 3 21.4 Total 1 1 100.0 14 100.0 All Election Types Adopted 23 25.5 78 48.1 Rejected 67 74.4 84 51.9 Total 90 100.0 162 100.0 ^Numbers for the nine groups of elections do add to 252 because the categories are not all mutually exclusive. except for the first three groups of elections which do not overlap. Constitutional Amendments and Statutory Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by Periods of Time The sixty-five year span of direct democracy operation in Oklahoma is differentiated by seven periods of time: (1) 1907-1919; (2) 1920- 1929; (3) 1930-1939; (4) 1940-1949; (5) 1950-1959; (6) 1960-1969; and (7) 1970-1972. These periods consist of ten year intervals, except for 1907-1919, a period which encompasses a thirteen year span, and 1970-1972, a period of only three years. The propositions are arrayed by referral mode and period in Table 4-6. An analysis of Table 4-6 indicates that the largest number of issues were submitted during the years 1960-1969 (N = 67) followed by 46 propositions voted on from 1907-1919. The fate of thirty-seven proposals was decided in the years 1930 to 1939. The number of pro positions proposed, number passed, and the number of propositions rejected is graphically presented in Figure 4-2. In the previous discussion it was indicated that 64.3 percent of all proposals submitted to the Oklahoma electorate (N = 252) were of the legislative referendum type. Table 4-6 displays the distribution of all questions by referral type and period. The periods suggest TABLE 4r-6 MODO OF REFERRAL FOR STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY SELECTED TIME PERIODS 1907 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 to to to to to to to Issue Type I9I9 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1972 N N N______% N N N______% N Legislative Referendum 24 52.2 II 50.0 15 40.5 18 64.3 23 74.2 54 80.6 17 81.0 Initiative Petition 18 39.1 8 36.4 16 43.2 10 35.7 6 19.4 10 14.9 2 9.5 Referendum Petition 4 8.7 3 13.6 6 16.2 2 6.5 3 4.5 2 9.5 Total 46 100.0 22 100.0 37 100.0 28 100.0 31 100.0 67 100.0 21 100.0 tn Figure 4.2--Outcome o£ Elections on Propositions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by Time Number 100 90 80 70 60 50 On 40 30 20 10 0 N ° H 6 h ( j . % l I 1 2 3 6 1 1 6 1 I P 7 | i q 2 7 l I 1 2 9 1 9 1 9 1 I | 3 1 |1 3 |1 3 | I 16713^311 I I 2 l l 7 l l / l l H 'O H *0 'TJ H *Tl H H 'd ^ H •d *Ti •d Total rot (wU Hp} O p p O P o O P3 (/) *--■ rt w prt tw/i rt K rt pc/i pH" Pin PH" rt R P in Passed (-‘ (DO t p-* cC/D1 CD 1-* (D Ch-D* p (n !-• p c/i 1-* P (n I-* PpL PL I-* CD CD I-" CD CD CD CD CD CDO - P L PL PL CL CL CL CL CL PL CL CL Failed 1907 19t2o0 1930 19 19 to to to 40 19to50 t6o0 19to70 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1972 177 that the legislative referendum is increasingly becoming the most commonly employed means of people voting directly on legislative and constitutional issues. For example, the legislative referendum was used in 52.2 percent of all referral tj^es between 1907 and 1919, fifty percent of all issues during the 1920 to 1929 period, diminishing slightly during the 1930-1939 period, and then steadily increasing in importance in the 1940 to 1949 period (64.3 percent). The legislative referendum began to approximate 80.0 percent of all issues directed to the voters for the two time periods of 1960-1969 and 1970 to 1972. Although this time period is not under consideration here, the post- 1972 period has seen the near exclusive use of the legislative ref erendum as the referral mode. Between the years 1920 and 1929 the state legislature submitted the smallest number of propositions (N = 11). The Depression Era, on the other hand, represented the high tide for the use of the popular initiative. The initiative petition, as revealed in Table 4-6 was the most frequently used mode of referral during the 1930 to 1939 period. During this period 43.2 percent (N = 16) of the total proposed measures were of the initiative petition variety, in contrast to 16.2 percent of the referendum petition and 40.5 percent of the legislative ref erendum referral types. The "teens" of the twentieth century, al though not specifically displayed or differentiated in Table 4-6, had seventeen propositions (41.5 percent) submitted by the initiative petition process out of a total of forty-one issues. For the periods 1950 through 1972, the initiative petition was used considerably less frequently than it was used prior to 1950. For instance, out of a 178 total number of 119 propositions proposed and submitted to the electorate since 1950, only eighteen or 15.1 percent were of the initiative petition referral mode, in contrast to ninety-four issues (74.0 percent) referred by the state legislature, and only seven proposals, 5.9 percent, submitted by the referendum petition procedure. In the pre-1950 period, however, the initiative petition was employed fifty- two times out of 133 proposed changes— a use level of 39.1 percent or nearly double the percentage utilization of the post-1950 period. Table 4-7 depicts the distribution of all constitutional amend ments and statutory proposals voted on by the people of Oklahoma for the seven time periods discussed above. Although only 40.1 percent of the 252 issues voted upon were passed, see Table 4-1, the passage percentage varies substantially by period of time. The lowest passage level, 21.7 percent, occurred during the earliest years (1907-1919) of the operation of the initiative and referendum. The highest percentage of issues submitted for approval or rejection and passed by the people for the years 1907-1972 was experienced in the 1940 to 1949 period. Although only twenty-eight measures were presented during this period, nearly 68 percent passed. The second highest passage period occurred between 1960-1969— a period in which sixty- seven measures were proposed and thirty-six passed. This represents a passage level of 53.7 percent. It is interesting to note that less than three out of every ten propositions that were submitted to the people passed during the two time periods 1907-1919 and 1920-1929. During the Progressive Era some scholars and politicians raised some serious questions concerning the political behavior of the mass TABLE 4-7 OUTCOME OF MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY SELECTED TIME PERIODS 1907 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 to to to to to to to Outcome 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1972 N __% N __% N __% N % N % N______% N Pass 10 21.7 6 27.3 10 27.0 19 67.9 13 41.9 36 53.7 7 33.3 Fail ^ 78.5 16 72.7 27 73.0 _9 32.1 1^ 58.1 31 46.3 14 66.7 Total 46 100.0 22 100.0 37 100.0 28 100.0 31 100.0 67 100.0 to 180 electorate, especially the behavior pertaining to the use of the popular initiative. A major argument suggested that the use of the popular initiative would result in circumventing the acts of the legislative branch of government and that the people wçuld be likely to act non- judiciously, perhaps even irrationally, in either proposing or approving propositions. This line of reasoning suggests that the utilization of the initiative principle would facilitate and enhance the introduction and pas sage of a large amount 'crackpot' legislation. An analysis, however, of the passage level by period of uime and referral mode (Tables 4-8 through 4-14) does not seem to support this assertion that popular initiated proposals will receive widespread popular support and passage. In reviewing the justification for the expressed fear, or at least apprehension, about the use of the initiative. Table 4-8 shows the outcome of state question elections for the 1907-1919 period by referral mode. Focusing only on the initiated petition, it might be observed that eight- teen proposals were submitted during this period utilizing the initiative TABLE 4-8 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1907-1919 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum ,Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 5 20.8 4 22.2 1 25.0 Fail 19 __7_9_._2 U __7_7_.8_ _3 75.0 Total 24 100.0 18 100.0 4 100.0 181 petition, but only 22.2 percent (N=4) were actually approved. Thus, over 75 percent of the initiated proposals were defeated. During the years 1920-1929, see Table 4-9 eight propositions were referred by the initiative petition. Only 37.5 percent passed. A rather high rate of TABLE 4-9 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1920-1929 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 2 18.2 3 37.5 1 33.3 Fail 9 81.8 5 62.5 2 66.7 Total 11 100.0 8 100.0 3 100.0 failure was also sustained during the 1930-1939 period in which 68.8 percent of the sixteen propositions failed (Table 4-10), and 50.0 percent TABLE 4-10 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1930-1939 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Référendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 3 20.0 5 31.3 2 33.3 Fail 12 80.0 11 68.8 4 66.7 Total 15 100.0 16 100.0 6 100.0 failure level is recorded for the 1940-1949 period, as shown in Table 4-11, 182 TABLE 4-11 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1940-1949 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 14 77.8 5 50.0 — — Fail 4 22.2 5 50.0 Total 18 100.0 10 100.0 - However, the failure rate makes a rather dramatic increase in the years 1950-1959 (Table 4-12) with all six initiative petitions submitted during this period failing. The total rejection of all ten initiated measures TABLE 4-12 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1950-1959 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 11 47.8 - - 2 100.0 Fail 12 52.2 6 100.0 Total 23 100.0 6 100.0 2 100.0 during the 1960-1969 period (Table 4-13), and the 100 percent rejection for the 1970-1972 period (Table 4-14) tends to further minimize the need 183 to be fearful of the people when they act as lawmakers. TABLE 4-13 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1960-1969 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFER&AL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 36 66.7 - — - Fail 18 33.3 10 100.0 3 100.0 Total 54 100.0 10 100.0 3 100.0 TABLE 4-14 OUTCOME OF STATE QUESTION ELECTIONS FOR THE 1970-1972 TIME PERIOD BY THE MODE OF REFERRAL Legislative Initiative Referendum Outcome Referendum Petition Petition Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pass 7 41.2 - — - - Fail 10 58.8 2 100.0 2 100.0 Total 17 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 Additional analysis reveals that the popular initiative as it oper ates in Oklahoma does not receive a high level of passage when the refer endum petition is joined to the initiative petition. For example, in the 1907-1972 period, 37.5 percent (N=90) of all issues submitted to the 184 electorate (N=252) were of the popular initiative variety. However, only twenty-three initiated propositions passed (25.6 percent), in contrast to the overall high failure level of 74.4 percent (see Table 4-4). The Operation of the Silent Vote ' The 1907-1972 period saw initiated and referred measures placed before the electorate on the ballots of twenty-eight general elections. Approximately three measures per general election, on the average, were voted upon. However, only 14.1 percent of the initiatives and referenda (N=92) were approved at the general elections— a rate of adoption that is far below that characterized by other election types. This is somewhat misleading, due to the operation of the "silent vote"— a phenomenon that defeated thirty measures presented at general elections. These defeats resulted from a voter falloff in participation in which a vote would be cast for an electoral office, but the voter would not ballot either all the measures or would selectively vote on some propositions and not on others. The total number of votes needed to insure passage was calculated as a majority of votes cast for the office receiving the highest number of votes, and therefore a measure may receive a majority of the total votes cast on the measure, but fail due to a lack of a majority of the total votes cast in the election. In 1974, the "silent vote" clause of Article V, Section 3 was removed, as previously discussed in Chapter III. 2 Table 4-15 outlines the fifteen issues that were approved by the voters in general elections and reveals the proposition approval level as well as the level of voter participation on the issues. It is fascinating to note that in all but one instance, the level of voter participation on the issue exceeded 80 percent of the electorate who voted in the general election. Equally interesting is the fact that the propositions approved 185 were adopted by a majority vote in excess of 55 percent of those who actually voted on the measure(s), and the vast majority received proposition approval rates that exceeded 60 percent of those who rendered judgement in the several issues. The "excessive approval" percentage, of course, is needed to offset the operation of the "silent vote." TABLE 4-15 ISSUES ADOPTED IN GENERAL ELECTION, 1907-1972 State Proposition Level of Question Approval Voter Participation Proposition List Date Number Level on Issue Board of Agriculture 1912 38 72.0 91.2 Drunkenness 1914 73 78.3 81.3 Woman Suffrage 1918 97 57.3 95.8 Convening Legislature 1923 119 74.8 96.5 Office Qualification 1923 122 66.7 89.5 Tax Rate Limitation 1923 124 55.0 90.1 Testing Tax Levy 1926 141 72.3 81.9 Police Pensions 1936 207 62.7 81.1 Office Qualification 1942 302 67.3 74.8 Tax for Schools 1946 314 60.8 88.4 School Aid 1946 315 - 60.2 86.8 » Tax, Separate Schools 1946 316 61.2 86.6 Free Textbooks 1946 318 61.0 85.0 Real Estate Tax 1954 361 70.0 86.0 AdValorem Taxation 1972 486 58.1 87.4 186 Table 4-16 reveals the percentage distribution of voter approval TABLE 4-16 VOTER APPROVAL AND VOTER PARTICIPATION LEVELS ON PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED IN GENERAL ELECTIONS, 1907-1972_______________ Voter Participation on Proposition (in percent) Proposition 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 total Approval - - - - - - Level (in percent) 59.9 69.9 79.9 89.9 99.9 N -Ô N % N % N % N % N % N & 10.0-14.9 - — — - — — 1 3.3 — - 1 1.1 15.0-19.9 - - - - 2 5.7 - - - - 2 2.2 20.0-24.9 - - - - 1 2.9 2 6.7 - - 3 3.3 25.0-29.9 - - 3 18.7 3 8.6 - - 1 14.3 7 7.6 30.0-34.9 - - - - 4 11.4 2 6.7 - - 6 6.5 35.0-39.9 - - - - 3 8.6 1 3.3 - - 4 4.3 40.0-44.9 - - 1 6.3 5 14.3 6 20.0 - - 12 13.0 45.0-49.9 - - 1 6.3 7 20.0 3 10.0 3 42.9 14 15.2 50.0-54.9 1 25.0 2 12.5 - - 6 20.0 1 14.3 10 10.9 55.0-59.9 1 25.0 3 18.7 2 5.7 3 10.0 1 14.3 10 10.9 60.0-64.9 1 25.0 5 31.3 4 11.4 5 16.7 - - 15 16.3 65.0-69.9 - - 1 6.3 4 11.4 - - - - 5 5.4 70.0-74.9 1 25.0 - - - - 1 3.3 1 14.3 3 3.3 75.0-79.9 - - - - 80.0-89.9 - - - 85.0-89.9 2. 2 2 2 2 2 2. 2 2. 2 2.____ 2 Total 41 00.0 16 100.1 35 100.0 30 100.1 7 100.1 92 100.0 *Percent does not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. 187 levels on propositions in comparison with the level of voter participa tion on the ninety-two propositions submitted to the electorate at general elections during the 1907-1972 period. Table 4-18 provides a comprehensive array of statistics pertaining to initiatives and référendums that were legally affected by the "silent vote." The legal requirements pertaining to each of these measures is provided in Table 3-1, and should be consulted for clarification, or what may appear, at least on the surface, to be inconsistencies. Nevertheless, Table 4-18 arrays each proposition in relation to eight pieces of inform ation that may be used in analysis: Proposition Gist, total vote cast on the specific measure (sum of yes and no vote), percent silent vote (derived by subtracting total vote cast on the measure from total vote cast in election and dividing the difference by the latter), percent yes vote of total vote cast, status or proposition outcome, percent participation on the issue (total vote cast on measure, divided by the vote cast equals the desired product), and percent yes vote of vote cast on the issue. First, an analysis of the operation of the silent vote reveals an average of 20.94 percent silent vote on all issues submitted since statehood on issues that were legally affected by its presence. The "silent vote," since it is considered the same as a negative vote against a measure, and because it must be counteracted by an affirmative vote, has been the decisive factor in the defeat of thirty-five propositions that would have otherwise passed and been incorporated into the statutes or constitution of Oklahoma during the pre-1973 period. Prior to 1945, twenty-eight issues were rejected by the silent vote, and the post-1945 era shows seven issues were rejected. This was in part due to an awareness of the impact of the silent vote and a decrease in the use of general elections in the latter period, as shown in Table 4-17. 188 TABLE 4-17 THE SILENT VOTE; NUMBER OF ISSUES SUBMITTED IN GENERAL ELECTIONS AND OTHER ELECTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER 1945 Primary and Special General 1 Number Percent Number Percent Total Before 1945 64 40 59 66 123 After 1945 98 60 31 34 129 Total 162 100 90 100 252 = 15.71, p <.001 The pre-1945 period accounted for 80.0 percent of all issue failure associated with the "silent vote" and the post-1945 era represents 20.0 percent, or the remainder of the failures. It is instructive to note that the average percent participation on the issues which failed due to the silent vote, as a percent of the total vote cast in elections, was 73.4 percent, in contrast to the measures which passed that had an average percent participation on the issues of 93.2 percent, or approximately, on the average 20 percent greater voter involvement. It is clear from this analysis, as well as that presented earlier, that higher participa tion levels helped to counteract the adverse effect of the "silent vote" — which for thirty-five measures amounted to a deadly negative vote. Some of the issue areas that received popular approval but were dealt a defeat pertained to: Torrens land regulation, the securing of a site for the New Capitol, the use of a corporate tax for common schools, as well as a number of other issues dealing with taxation for schools, mine production tax, unicameral legislature, soldier bonus, workman's compensation, police pension, establishment of a Board of Regents for 189 TABLE 4-18 MEASURES ADOPTED DESPITE THE SILENT VOTE AND MEASURES DEFEATED BY THE SILENT VOTE, THOUGH OBTAINING MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE VOTE CAST ON THE ISSUE, 1907-1972 Note: State Question Abbreviated Percent Yes Percent Percent Yes Number Proposition of Total Vote Silent of Vote on Title in Election Vote the Issue 2 Torrens Land Registration , 46.0 20.3 57.7 3 Secure Capitol Site 48.4 22.7 62.6 4 Secure Capitol Site 47.2 22.3 60.8 23 Corporation Tax, Schools 41.0 41.5 70.2 24 Corporation Relations 33.6 44.1 60.1 38 Board of Agriculture 66.4 7.9 72.1 * 45 Taxation for Schools 40.4 33,1 60.5 59 Taxation for Schools 49.3 19.4 61.2 68 Direct Taxation 48.9 26.2 66.3 73 Drunkenness 63.1 19.5 78.4 * 71 Court Consolidation 42.4 31.6 62.0 74 Reduce Tax Levy 47.3 29.8 67.3 75 Mine Production Tax 43.1 31.8 63.3 77 Unicameral Legislature 38.0 33.1 56.9 78 Election Law 48.4 12.3 55.1 80 Repeal Registration Law 46.2 16.1 55.0 97 Woman Suffrage 55.0 3.2 56.7 * 116 Soldier Bonus 49.2 5.7 52.1 119 Convening Legislature 72.5 3.1 74.8 * 121 Workman's Compensation 47.5 10.7 53.2 122 Office Qualifications 59.9 10.2 66.7 * 124 Tax Rate Limitation 50.1 9.6 55.4 * 141 Testing Tax Levy 60.9 16.0 72.5 * 122 Office Qualifications 47.5 29.2 67.0 158 A S M Board of Regents 35.2 32.0 51.8 159 0. U. Board of Regents 33.6 34.1 51.1 186 Corporation Control 39.8 35.9 62.1 187 Police Pension 47.3 24.0 62.2 207 Police Pensions 50.8 18.9 62.7 * 210 A S M Board of Regents 49.4 21.9 63.3 215 Property Tax for Aged Aid 48.2 28.6 67.5 241 Medical Examiners Board 34.7 40.2 58.1 253 Gas Tax Distribution 41.9 34.7 64.2 281 Office Qualifications 41.8 38.1 67.6 282 Corporation Control 30.3 44.9 54.9 302 Office Qualifications 50.3 25.2 67.3 * 304 Recovery of Damages 36.1 36.8 57.2 314 Tax for Schools 53.7 11.6 60.8 * 315 School Aid 52.3 13.2 60.2 * 316 Tax, Separate School 53.0 13.4 61.1 * 318 Free Textbooks 51.8 15.0 61.0 * 361 Real Estate Tax 60.2 14.0 70.0 * 357 Congressional Redistricting 45.5 19.8 56.8 406 Distribution of Liquor 44.1 13.4 51.0 408 Legislative Apportionment 46.2 16.1 55.1 415 Create Judiciary Court 41.9 19.1 51.8 421 School Support Levy 44.0 13.3 50.7 445 Repeal Oath of Office 37.1 33.3 55.7 486 Ad Valorem Taxation 50.8 12.6 58.1 * 487 Emergency Taxation Levy 46.4 14.5 54.3 190 Agricultural and Mechanical College and the University of Oklahoma, tax for the aged, gas tax distribution, control of corporations, and emergency taxation levy. Most of the issues, as a perusual of Table 4-18 reveals, are clearly in the taxation,'administration, or government al structure, organization, and reform policy areas— policy areas which are systematically analyzed in the next portion of this paper. Constitutional Change Through the Powers of the Initiative and Referendum Direct democracy has been the vehicle used to change the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma by modification, addition or deletion of the several articles. Table 4-19 presents descriptive information on the eighty-seven times that the people either initiated amendments or the legislature referred amendments for popular approval or rejection. In Table 4-19, each state question is arranged by the following character istics; subject matter, section and article of the Constitution amended, date amendment was submitted to the electorate, and the type of election in which the measure was placed on the ballot. A perusual of Table 4-19 reveals a myriad of subjects that have been changed or added in the organic law of the state. The issues deal with such topics as; the "Grandfather Clause," corporations, schools, quali fications for office and of electors, reprieves, ad valorem tax, police pensions, legislator's pay and legislature sessions, state and city indebt edness, impeachment of public officials, racial integration and the control of alcoholic beverages. Specifically, the Constitution was amended twenty-five times prior to 1945 and fifty-two times or 59.7 percent of the total changes occured in the 1946-1972 time frame. The largest number of constitutional amend- TABLE 4-19 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, I907-I972, BY ARTICLE AND SECTION ADDED OR AMENDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, ________ DATE ON WHICH CHANGE WAS ADOPTED. AND ELECTION TYPE_________ State Constitution of Question Oklahoma Date Submitted Number Subject Matter Article Section to Electorate Election Type 17 Grandfather Clause III 4a August 2, I9I0 Primary 38 State Board of Agriculture VI 31 November 5, 1912 General 46 Corporations IX 9 August 5, 1913 Special 57 Common School Fund X I2a August 5, I9I3 Special 58 Township Government V 5 August 5, I9I3 Special 60 State Board of Agriculture VI 31 August 5, I9I3 Special 73 Impeachment or Removal from Office II 2 August 4, I9I4 Primary 97 Qualification of Electors III I November 5, I9I8 General 119 Legislature VIII I3 October 2, 1923 Special VO 122 Qualification for Office VI 3̂^ October 2, 1923 Special 124 Ad Valorem Taxes X 9^ October 2, 1923 Special 185 Ad Valorem Tax Levies X 9 August 15, 1933 Special 201 Homestead Exemption from Taxation XII-A 1,2 September 24, 1935 Special 214 Old Age Pensions XIII I.I^ September 24, 1935 Special 225 Social Security Amendment XXV 1,5 July 7, 1936 Primary 207 Policy Officer's Pensions V 61 November 3, 1936 General 298 Revenue X 23 March II, 194I Special 299 Taxation Relief XXV I March II, I94I Special 300 Higher Education XIII-A I,2,3,4 March II, I94I Special 306 Teachers' Retirement V 62 July 14, 1942 Primary (Sp.) 302 Eligibility-State Offices VI 3 November 3, 1942 General 309 Reprieves VI 10 July II, 1944 Primary (Sp.) 310 Board of Regents for A. 8 M. Schools VI 3Ia July II, 1944 Primary (Sp.) 311 University Board of Regents XIII 8 July II, 1944 Primary (Sp.) 313 General Revenue Fund X 23a July II, 1944 Primary (Sp.) 319 Ad Valorem Tax X 9 July 2, 1946 Primary (Sp.) 314 Ad Valorem Tax X 9 November 5, 1946 General 315 Support of Common Schools XIII la November 5, 1946 General State Constitution of Question Oklahoma Date Submitted Number Subject Matter Article Section to Electorate Election Type 316 Ad Valorem Tax X 9 November 5, 1946 General 318 Common Schools-Textbooks XIII 6 November 5, 1946 General 327 School Tax Levy X 9 July 6, 1948 Primary (Sp.) 328 State College Regents XIII-B 1-4 July 6, 1948 Primary (Sp.) 329 Legislator Pay Raise V 21 July 6, 1948 Primary (Sp.) 348 Capital Improvement X 31 September 27, 1949 Special 345 Wrongful Death XXIII 7 July 4, 1950 Primary (Sp.) 353 Constitutional Amendments XXIV 1 July 1, 1952 Primary 354 Grand Jury-Trial by Jury II 18 July 1, 1952 Primary 358 Corporations-Real Estate XXII 2 July 6, 1954 Primary (Sp.) 362 School Funds- Investment XI 6 July 6, 1954 Primary (Sp.) 361 Debts, etc., to State, County, etc. V 53 November 2, 1954 General 368 Revenue and Taxation X 9,10, April 5, 1955 Special to 26,32, N 33 374 Wildlife Conservation XXVI 1-4 July 3, 1956 Primary (Sp.) 379 Taxation-Valuation of Property X 8 July 1, 1958 Special 380 Municipal Water Facilities X 27a July 1, 1958 Special 386 Alcoholic Beverage Control I, 7,Prohi April 7, 1959 Special XXVII bition Sec. 388 Suffrage-Mandatory Primary System--Nonpartisan Candidate III 5 July 5, 1960 Primary (Sp.) 390 Ad Valorem Tax Levy for Depart ment of Health X 9a July 5, 1960 Primary (Sp.) 393 Indebtedness-Capital Improve- ments-Institution of Higher Education X 34 July 5, 1960 Primary (Sp.) 391 State Industrial Finance Authority X 34 July 26, 1960 Run-off 392 Tax Levy-Cooperative County Li Primary (Sp. braries and Joint City-County Libraries X 10a July 26, 1960 Run-off Primary (Sp.) State Constitution o£ Question Oklahoma Date Submitted Number Subject Matter Article Section to Electorate Election Type 401 Criminal Cases II 20 September 12, 1961 Special 404 Industrial Development X 35 May 1, 1962 400 Emergency Government V 63 May 22, 1962 mary ISp.J 411 Medical Center X 35 December 3, 1963 Special 412 Electors III I May 5, 1964 Primary (Sp.) 416 Apportionment VI 9-16 May 26, 1964 Run-off Primary (Sp.) 430 School Levy X 9 September 14, 1965 Special 433 Capital Improvements X 37 December 14, 1965 Special 428 Integrated Schools XIII 3 May 3, 1966 Primary (Sp.) 429 Impeachment VIII 1 May 3, 1966 Primary (Sp.) 431 Court on Judiciary VII-A May 3, 1966 Primary (Sp.) 432 Elections III la May 3, 1966 Primary (Sp.) to 436 Succession VI 4 May 3, 1966 Primary (Sp.) ^ 434 Area School Districts X 9b May 24, 1966 Run-off Primary (Sp.) 435 Annual Sessions V 26,27 May 24, 1966 Run-off Primary (Sp.) 447 Selection and Tenure of Judges VII-B July 11, 1967 Special 448 Judicial Department VII July 11, 1967 Special 453 Estimates of Revenues X 23 April 16, 1968 Special 442 Investment of School Funds XI 6 August 27, 1968 Primary (Sp.) 444 Taxation X 12 August 27, 1968 Primary (Sp.) 457 Grand Jury II 18 August 27, 1968 Primary (Sp.) 460 Intangible Personal X 6a August 27, 1968 Primary (Sp.) 462 Legislative Compensation V 21 August 27, 1968 Primary (Sp.) 443 Taxation of Personal Property X 6a September 17, 1968 Run-off Primary (Sp.) 454 Tenders-Interest XIV 2 September 17, 1968 Run-off Primary (Sp.) 455 Foreign Corporations IX 43 September 17, 1968 Run-off Primary (Sp.) State Constitution of Question Oklahoma Date Submitted I Number Subject Matter Article Section to Electorate Election Type 458 Corporations IX 39,41,43 September 17, 1968 Run-off Primary (Sp. 459 Trial By Jury II 19 September 17, 1968 Run-off Primary (Sp. 463 Capital Improvement Bonds X 38 December 10, 1968 Special 466 Gath of Office XV 1 September 9, 1969 Special 481 Investment of Educational Funds XI 6 December 7, 1971 Special 482 Self Incriminating Testimony II 27 December 7, 1971 Special 483 Grand Jury Reorganization 11 18 December 7, 1971 Special 484 Elector-18 year olds III 1 December 7, 1971 Special 489 Indebtedness-City and Town X 26 August 22, 1972 Primary (Sp.) 486 Ad Valorem Taxation X 8 November 7, 1972 General to The subject matter classifications for the largest percentage of these approved amendments were taken from Title 34— Appendix, Oklhlioma Annotated Statutes. Others were provided by the author. The U. S. Supreme Court held the "Grandfather Clause" unconstitutional in Guinn V. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S. Ct. 929, 59 L. 3d. 1340. Held not as a constitutional amendment, and considered invalid as a statutory amendment in Simpson v. Hill, 128 Gkl. 269, 263 p. 635. Held improperly submitted in Looney v. keeper, 145 Gkl. 202, 292 p. 365. Submission at special election held invalid in State ex rel. Short v. State Board of Equalization, 107 Gkl. 118, 230 p. 743. In Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 55 p.2d 79, the Supreme Court held that the amendment was not properly ratified and the election in which it was submitted was declared invalid. 195 meats were passed in the 1960*s with this decade accounting for thirty- five successful amendment adoptions (40.2 percent of the total). The "teens" (1910 to 1919) produced only eight successful amendments; the "twenties" produced three amendments in 1923; and the "depression thirties? produced four amendments— two in 1935 and two in 1936. The "forties" and particularly the "war years" accounted for the second largest number of all amendments to the Constitution with eighteen successful adoptions (20.7 percent) and the "fifties" contributed eleven amendments to the organic law (12.6 percent). The articles and sections of the Constitution that have been amended or changed are displayed in Table 4-20. The article of the Constitution that clearly stands out among the others as a target of change is Article X. This article encompasses the area of revenue and taxation. Thus, the frequency of amendment pertaining to Section 9 (amount of ad valorem tax), Section 23 (public indebtedness), and Section 6 (tax exempt property) have been fairly common. Overall, the various Sections of Article X have been amended twenty-nine times over sixty-five years and therefore this article accounts for one-third of all constitutional change. The other articles of the Constitution that have been the focus of substantial change through the amendment process are: Article V (9.2 percent of the total). Article VI (9.2 percent of the total). Article III (8.0 percent), and Article XIII (6.9 percent). Combined, these four articles represent 33.3 percent of the total number of amendments approved by the Oklahoma voters. Amendments to Article V pertain to the legislative function of govern ment. Prior to 1945 three amendments were added to the legislative arti- cal and affected, by the adoption of State Question 58, the number of 196 TABLE 4-20 FREQUENCY OF ARTICLE MENDMENT OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION BY PROCESSES OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: 1907-1972 Article Caption of Article Frequency Percent I Federal Relations 1 1.1 II Bill of Rights 6 6.9 III Suffrage 7 8.0 IV Distribution of Powers V Legislative Department 8 9.2 VI Executive Department 8 9.2 VII Judicial Department 3 3.4 VIII Impeachment and Removal from Office 2 2.3 IX Corporations 3 3.4 X Revenue and Taxation 29 33.3 XI State and School Lands 3 3.4 XII Homestead and Exemptions 1 1.1 XIII Education 6 6.9 XIV Banks and Banking 1 1.1 XV Oath of Office 1 1.1 XVI Public Roads, Highways, and Internal Improvements XVII Counties XVIII Municipal Corporations XIX Insurance XX Manufacture and Commerce XXI Public Institutions XXII Alien and Corporate Ownership of Lands 1 1.1 XXIII Miscellaneous 2 2.3 XXIV Constitutional Amendments 1 1.1 XXV Social Security 2 2.3 XXVI Department of Wildlife 1 1.1 XXVII Conservation 1 1.1 Total 87 99.4 petitioners that were required to either establish or abolish a township unit of government; State Question 207 authorized city governments to provide pensions to police officers because of disability or meritorious service; and. State Question 306 (1942) authorized the state legislature to develop, if it willed to do so, a teacher's retirement program. After World War II, six measures were approved, further changing the legislative 197 article. State Question Numbers 329 (1948) and 462 (1966) pertained to legislator pay and compensation, and State Question 435 (1966) provided for an annual legislative session of ninety days. Seven of the measures which changed Article V were both generate^ and referred to the electorate for their approval by the state legislature. The average percent "yes" vote on these measures was 58.7 percent. The teacher's retirement Issue Number 306 was popularly initiated, and was approved by a 63.0 percent majority. The suffrage article of the Constitution (Article III) was amended seven times. Some of the more politically salient amendments dealt with: the "Grandfather Clause," State Question 17, 1910, which was a literacy amendment excluding those persons who were unable to read and write any section of the Oklahoma Constitution. However, it "grandfathered" into the franchised population those who were entitled to vote on January 1, 1866 and their lineal descendants. It was clearly a suffrage measure designed.to exclude the descendants of slaves from electoral participation. Although it was initiated by the people and received a majority approval of 56.1 percent, the United States Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in Guinn vs. United States. Of major political significance was the universal or "women" suffrage issues, State Question 97, referred to the people by the legislature in 1918. This measure received a yes vote of 57.3 percent of the vote cast in the general election, and because of an extraordinarily large public interest in this measure, 96.8 percent of those who voted for the highest state office also cast a ballot on the right of women to vote in Oklahoma. In 1960, State Question 388 was approved by a 56.2 percent majority, there 198 by amending Section 5 of Article III. It's approval culminated in re quiring all candidates for public office to be nominated in a primary election, although it retained the previous policy of selecting presi dential electors for the several parties ap conventions. State Question 412 set the residency requirement for voter eligibility by establishing a qualified elector as one who had resided in Oklahoma for six months; the county for two months; and the election precinct for twenty days; it was approved by a 62.6 percent majority. Previously, Article III Section I, established a qualified elector as one who had resided in Okla homa for one year, the county six months, and in the election precinct thirty days. The high level of voter participation on this measure (89.4 percent) certainly demonstrated that Oklahomans in 1964 were aware of the discriminatory and otherwise dysfunctional attributes of a stren uous residency requirement for electors, especially as the population became far more mobile. The last amendment to the suffrage article prior to 1972 took place at a special election held on December 7, 1971. At this election. State Question 484 was approved, thereby reducing the age requirement for a qualified elector in the State of Oklahoma from twenty-one years of age to eighteen. The "eighteen-year old elector" issue was approved by 57.8 percent of those who participated in the special election. Again, it is significant to note that these measures discussed above were all referred to the people by the legislative branch of government— that they did not originate in the body politic is an important commentary on the operation of direct democracy in Oklahoma. The average level of approval and the percent participation on proposition numbers 17, 97, 388 and 412 was 58.1 199 percent and 95.9 percent respectively. The Executive Department, Article VI, was amended eight times with the adoption of State Questions 38 and 60 (State Board of Agriculture); 122 (qualification for state elected offiçe-Govemor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc.); 302 (age qualification and residency require ments for state elected office), 309 (reprieves), 310 (creation of Board or Regents for Agricultural and Mechanical schools and colleges), 416 (legislative appointment), and 436 (state office succession). The legis lative referendum referral mode was used for seven of the mesures (87.5 percent) that amended Article VI, and received an average approval level of 68.8 percent, accompanied by an average participation rate of 86.5 percent. Six of the eight changes that modified the executive article took place prior to 1945. Since then, only two articles have been approved. A brief summary of the substantive impact of these eight amendments outlined above, shows; (1) State Question 38 amended Section 31 of Article VI of the Constitution as to the qualification and duties of the members of the Board of Agriculture. It is noteworthy that the Board must be comprised entirely of farmers, who have, among other duties and responsi bilities, jurisdiction of animal quarantine and matters affecting the "animal industry." (2) State Question 60 reduced the number of Board members from eleven to five members, and rejected everything associated with the operation of the Board of Agriculture, except for the five members and their qualifications. (3) State Question 122 (1923) amended Section 3 of Article VI relative to the qualifications that an aspirant needs to satisfy for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Superintendent of 200 Public Instruction, State Examiner and Inspector. Tlie qualifications are: citizen of United States, at least thirty years of age, and qual ified as an elector in Oklahoma for three years. However, in 1942, Section 3.was again amended by State Question 302.i The qualifications for the offices which were affected by State Question 122 remained the same, but the age level was increased to thirty-one or above, and increased the number of years that a public office seeker had to have been a qualified elector in Oklahoma.from three years to ten years. (4) The question of reprieves was addressed in State Question 309 (1944). This measure created a Pardon and Parole Board and defined its duties, qualifications for members, how they would be appointed and removed, and authorized the Governor to grant commutations, pardons, paroles, and also reprieves, upon favorable recommendation by the Board. Probably the most significant of all amendments to Article VI was that of Legislative Reapportionment, State Question 416, May, 1964. This measure apportioned Oklahoma into nineteen one-county, and twenty-nine county Senatorial Districts with one Senator elected from each. It further apportioned the seventy-seven counties relative to legislative represen tation, on the basis of population. A Reapportionment Commission, however, actually apportioned the legislature, and the measure was eventually made active by Moss V. Burkhart, 1964. Finally, State Question 436, passed in 1966, established that the Governor could be elected only "two times in succession" and those persons who held the state elective offices of Secretary of State, State Auditor, and State Treasurer, were able to succeed themselves. Article XIII, or the Education Article, was amended on six occasions 201 with the adoption of State Questions 300, 311, 315, 318, 328, and 428. The average percent approval for amendments of the Education Article is 62.1 percent with an accompanied 85.8 percent voter participation level. Three of the six amendments specifically addressed Article XIII-A per taining to the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, and Article XII-B relating to the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges. Generally, State Question 300, a legislative referendum, created a new constitutional Article (XIII-A) and also created a new Board of Regents to coordinate all state supported institutions of higher education under "The Oklahoma System of Higher Education," and authorized the Board to coordinate private and denominational, as well as other institutions of higher education in Oklahoma. Issue Number 311, a legislative referendum, was submitted to the people in 1944 and created a Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma, comprised of seven members, who were to be appointed by the Governor with the State Senate's advice and consent. Two years later, 1946, saw the passage of State Question 328 which created a Board of Regents for Central State College, East Central State College, Southwestern Institute of Technology, Southwestern State College, North eastern State College, and Northwestern State College. In addition to the three amendments to the Constitution that were related to governmental organization, structure, and reform, there were three other measures that aroused substantial public interest and popular participation. First, the "School Aid Amendment", a popularly initiated proposition in 1946, authorized the state legislature to raise money for the common public schools to a level of $42.00 per capita; based on student enrollment of the preceding year. The same year, another initiated 202 petition enabled State Question 318 to be submitted for popular consider ation and approval. The passage of Question 318 by a 61.0 percent major ity, thereby directed the State Legislature to develop a system by which free textbooks could be made available for'the common schools of the state. It also provided that the Governor would appoint a Committee who would subsequently prepare a list of textbooks that would be purchased by the state. From this list of multiple textbooks, the local school district textbook selection committees would choose appropriate "learning resources." The last amendment to Article XIII was actually anti-climactic in view of the benchmark United States Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954. The Brown decision established that segregation of the races in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby overruling the "Separate but equal" doctrine that was enunciated in the notorious United States Supreme Court decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson, 1896. Without commenting further on either of these landmark cases, suffice it to say that Oklahoma had followed practices permitting segregation at the turn of the century, and after the 1954 decision, the State Legislature was interested in bringing the State of Oklahoma into compliance with national policy. Thus, State Question 428, a legislative referendum, was submitted to the electorate and its passage by 66.3 percent enabled' the repeal of Section 3, Article XIII which had required the legislature to "...provide separate schools with like accomodations for white and colored children." The Constitution specified that the terra "colored children" meant children of African descent and the term "white" children included all other children. It is instruc tive to learn that in 1966, although the media had amply presented the 203 rationale for the Brown vs. Board decision, 33.7 percent of the 82.0 percent of Oklahoma voters who voted in the primary election, still disagreed with the policy to desegregate the public schools. Several other Articles in Oklahoma's Constitution were amended through the initiative and referendum processes, although the number of amendments that directly pertained to Article II (Bill of Rights, N=6), Article IX, (Corporations, N=3), Article VII (Judicial Department, N=3), or Article XXVI, (Social Security, N=2), are not substantial in number. Several articles were not amended, changed, repealed, or modified in the period 1907-1972. Those articles not directly affected by the constitution al amendment procedures are: (1) Article IV, Distribution of Powers; (2) Article XVI, Public Roads, Highways, and Internal Improvements; (3) Article XVII, Counties; (4) Article XVIII, Municipal Corporations; (5) Article XIX, Insurance; (6) Article XX, Manufacture and Commerce; and (7) Article XXI, Public Institutions. Therefore, even with the occurance of eighty-seven amendments to twenty of the twenty-seven aritcles, 25.9 percent of the articles in Oklahoma's Constitution remain untouched. Further analysis of Table 4-19 indicates an increase in the frequency of constitutional amendment, especially since 1940. One student of initiative and referendum provided a rationale for the increase in constitutional amendment. He states: » "As the constitution increases with age the number of amend ments adopted increases at a constantly growing rate...This would seem to indicate that as the Oklahoma Constitution ages the people realize that changes must be made if the fundament al law is to reflect their will."3 Table 4-19 clearly indicates that since 1965 the voters have been interested in amending the organic law in the areas of education, taxation 204 revenue and finance matters, corporations (domestic and foreign), and matters pertaining to the Bill of Rights. This is certainly needed if the Constitution is to remain a viable instrument of state policy and a living and dynamic document for directing and guiding state and human political behavior in the near Twenty-First Century.^ Policy Analysis and Policy Implications of Initiatives and Référendums These 252 issues submitted to the electorate for their approval or rejection can be grouped into the following policy categories: (1) Legislative, Executive, ^ d Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform; (2) Taxation, Revenue and Finance; (3) Judicial and Legal Procedure; (4) Land and Natural Resource Use; (5) Industrial and Labor Relations; (6) Business and Corporations; (7) Electoral Process, Pro cedure, Law and Reform; (8) Constitutional Convention; (9) Government Maintenance; (10) Health, Welfare, and Safety; (11) Education; (12) Veteran Benefits; (13) Public Morality and Individual Life Style; and (14) Unclassified.^ For purposes of analysis, each proposition is placed into one of the fourteen major policy areas outlined above. The mixture of substantive characteristics of each proposition does not provide for most issues to be placed exlusively under any single, completely autonomous and discrete policy heading. Therefore, the separate measures are classified as "essentially" or "predominantly" one policy type in preference to another. For instance, a referendum might call for an increase in the tax levy on ad valorem taxes that could be applied toward funding the common schools and funding a set of capital improvements. In this case, the issue is not a "pure" one. The example measure cited could be placed under tax 205 ation, revenue and finance or education. Based on the primary or "essential" attributes of the measure, it would be placed in the taxation, revenue and finance policy category for analytical and policy related evaluation. The subjectivity surrounding the placement of the propositions into one of the fourteen policy areas was further reduced by having three persons (judges) read each proposition gist and assign it to the most substantively relevant policy area. The gist or explanatory state ment of each proposition submitted to the Oklahoma electorate for the study period is presented in Appendix F. In most cases general agreement between the several judges existed as the the major policy content of the proposition, although some disagreement developed concerning the shared policy content types. The criteria used for classifying and placing the propositions into major policy area types are: 1. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform. The governmental structure, reorganization and administrative reform policy type is a very important policy area since a large number of the measures proposed or referred fall into this category. It includes reorganization of government agencies and their structure and administrative reform at the state and local levels in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. It includes the follow ing types of proposed changes : a. The enactment, change, addition, or modification of the powers, duties, and salaries of governmental agencies and appointed or elected governmental employees. b. The creation of new boards, departments, bureaus, committees. 206 offices, agencies, commissions, courts, or government positions. c. The establishment of provisions that provide for the creation, alteration, abolishment, or otherwise modification of governmental organization, agencies or jurisdictions. d. The reform or reorganization of government agencies, court systems, bureaus, departments and commissions. e. The change of qualification for,, manner of election or appointment to public office, the length of office and causeCs) for removal from office. f. Selection and location of State Capitol. 2. Taxation, Revenue, and Finance. Included in the taxation, revenue and finance policy category are propositions that deal with the creation, modification, or repeal of taxes in general and specific taxes (income, oil production, cigarette, minimum production, mine production, sales, land, ad valorem, gasoline, gross production, license, motor vehicle excise, emergency, oleomargerine, luxury, and property), methods of taxation, methods of tax assessment levy and appeal, taxes designed for specific areas, such as highway construction, schools, pensions, welfare, old age assistance, and capital improvement. In addition, this policy category includes issues that deal with the financing of state and local government functions and services, such as taxes for pensions and taxes for assistance to needy persons, banking arangements, indebtedness limitations, and tax review and administration procedures. In general, issues that deal with the investment policy of state revenues are included in this policy type. 207 3. Judicial and Legal Procedure. The racial and sexual composition of grand jury, petition requirements for calling a grand jury, setting forth rules of substantive and procedural due process, fixing terms and methods of selection for judges, setting fqrth of judicial qualification, and defining the duties of personnel working in the judicial branch of government, are among the several propositions that comprise the judicial and legal procedures category. 4. Land and Natural Resource Use. The registration of land, the prevention of land exhaustion or depletion, the holding of land by corp orations, and the sale or purchase of school or public land by state government, or the transfer of title or realty are included in this policy type. 5. Industrial and Labor Relations. The industrial and labor relations policy category pertains basically to labor relations, "right to work" legislation,, workmen's compensation, health benfits and disability compensation, and other guarantees, safeguards, and protection accorded by Oklahoma law to employees. 6. Business and Corporations. Issues pertaining to the organization and operation of business and corporations under state law, the ownership of corporations, interest rates that corporations must pay, the areas in which corporations are permitted to buy, sell, and otherwise hold or transact property, including charters, franchises, filing of corporation reports, reporting of names and addresses of stockholders are included in this policy content area. 7. Electoral process, procedure, laws and reform. Included in the electoral process, prodedure, laws and election law reform category are 208 measures surrounding constitution amendment procedures and voter qualifi cations (woman suffrage, race, age, literacy tests, and poll tax); re- districting of state legislature, apportionment and reapportionment of congressional districts, and changing congressional boundaries; and can didate qualifying factors such as residency requirements and age are placed in this policy type. Also, qualification for, manner of election to, and term of office, as well as cause(s) for removal from office comprise this issue type. 8. Constitutional Convention. The constitutional convention policy classification is the most pure type of policy category studied. As such, it includes the several attempts to reform or change the Oklahoma consti tution by calling for a statewide constitution convention. 9. Government Maintenance. The government maintenance classification includes all issues that pertain to state and local levels of government in Oklahoma and emphasize such functional areas of government as: sewer projects, transportation methods, (secondary and primary roads and turnpikes), public utilities, municipal water supply capabilities, turnpike authority and other general transportation related activities of government. 10. Health, Welfare and Safety. The health, welfare, and safety classification encompasses the propositions that are primarily oriented toward promoting, enhancing, and contributing to the health, welfare and safety of individuals in Oklahoma and groups of individuals in Oklahoma, such as indigents, needy persons, widows, veterans, elderly persons, disabled police officers, and social security legislation. 11. Education. In the education category, measures dealing with general educational policy and services are placed. For instance, propo- 209 sitions that treat the consolidation of public school districts, free textbooks, separate schools for white and black children, the funding of vocational-educational schools, teacher retirement benefits, library construction and raaintenace programs, administration of school districts, and the reponsibilities of county school superintendants are all of general education-related policy content, although they may frequently overlap or share an additional policy content. 12. Veteran Benefits. Included in the veteran benefits policy type are propositions that deal directly with the State of Oklahoma provision of benefits in the form of bonuses, pensions and preferential loan guamatees to persons with previous military service and status. 13. Public Morality and Individual Life Style. The public morality and individual life style classification includes propositions that have an underlying emphasis on the adoption, repeal or change of governmental policies that possess or may potentially have a "good, bad, right or wrong" impact on society in general. Therefore, issues that are essentially related to individual morals and. life styles, such as gambling activities (bookmaking, dog racing, horse racing), gambling buildings, gambling mechanisms [slot machines), consumption and use of alcoholic or intoxicating substances (3.2 beer, liquors, liquors by the drink, county-option pro hibition, statewide prohibition, or repeal thereof), civil rights, de segregation issues and "Blue Laws"— laws that would forbid specified kinds of employment and types of commercial activities on Sunday— are placed in this policy area. These issues may also fall into a general area that has 6 a "sin" overture as a major issue discriminating characteristic. 14. Unclassified. Issues that could not clearly be placed into one 210 of the foregoing thirteen policy types, are classified as possessing unclassified characteristics, such as the provision for an endorsement of support of a World Federation. All propositions that have been referred to the people for their consideration are listed by policy group in Table 4-21. This table provides State Question Numbers for convenient reference to Table 4-29 at the end of this chapter, which gives all basic data. One may also cross-reference the official gists in Appendix D. An analysis of Table 4-22 reveals that the fourteen major policy types occurred with greatly different frequencies. Group 1 (Government Structure) and Group 2 (Taxation, Revenue and Finance) each have seventy- two questions (each is 28.6 percent of the total). Approximately 13 percent of all measures dealt with the electoral process, and 5.9 percent with business and corporation policy. Public morality accounted for only 5.1 percent (N=13) of all issues Within these general policy groups, (see Table 4-23) subordinate subjects that occur most frequently are school financing (N=19 or 7.5 per cent) and the legislature (N=19, also 7.5 percent). Other types include ad valorem taxation (N=12, 4.8 percent), bond issues (N=ll, 4.4 percent), and courts (N=10, 4.0 percent). Many subjects are represented by only one or two state questions. For example, oply one question dealt with agriculture, though four measures on the Board of Agriculture (1.6 percent) were submitted. Forty-six other propositions have unique subjects, represented only once, accounting for 18.4 percent of the total. It is instructive to note the differences in the percent yes vote which the various propositions received individually, as displayed in Table 211 TABLE 4-21 PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972 CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR POLICY CONTENT TYPE 1. Governmental Structure SQ Year Proposition Title 391 1960 Industrial Finance Authority SQ Year Proposition Title 396 1960 State Highway Commission 1 1908 Creation of Liquor Agency 398 1960 Control of County Roads 3 1908 Secure Capitol Site 394 1960 Legislative Special Session 4 1908 Secure Capitol Site 405 1962 Legislative Session and Pay 15 1910 Capitol Site Selection 400 1962 Local Emergency Jurisdiction 6 1910 New Jerusalem Plan 418 1963 County Judge Term of Office 21 1910 Create Election Board 413 1964 Legislator Compensation 38 1912 Board of Agriculture 414 1964 Legislator Pay Raise 40 1912 Capitol Site Selection 415 1964 Create Judiciary Court 58 1913 Township Government 420 1964 Repeal Gov. Appoint. Priv. 60 1913 Create Agricultural Board 431 1966 Court of Judiciary 73 1914 Drunkeness 435 1966 Limit Legislative Sessions 71 1914 Court Consolidation 447 1967 Judicial Nominating 77 1914 Unicameral Legislation 448 1967 Judicial Department . 81 1916 Create Tax Commission 446 1968 Pardon and Parole Board 84 1916 Supreme Court Clerk 456 1968 Salaries for Elected Officials 87 1916 Court Consolidation 461 1968 Change in Estimate of Revenues 88 1916 Size of Jury 462 1968 Conflict of Interest 89 1916 Abolish County Court 441 1968 Judicial Reform 112 1920 Legislator Pay Raise 445 1968 Repeal Oath of Office 119 1923 Convening Legislature 466 1969 Oath for Public Offices 144 1926 Legislator Pay Raise 476 1970 Creation of Hospital Districts 158 1930 A. 8 M. Board of Regents 159 1930 0. U. Board of Regents 2. Taxation, Revenue, and Finance 172 1931 Board of Education 173 1931 Create Budget Office SQ Year Proposition Title 171 1932 County Road Commissioner 23 1910 Corporation Tax, Schools 184 1933 Tax Commission 45 1912 Taxation for Schools 212 1935 Land Office Commission 57 1913 Taxation for Schools 210 1936 A. 8 M. Board of Regents 59 1914 Taxation for Schools 238 1938 Tax Commissioner 68 1914 Taxation 243 1938 Legislator Pay Raise 74 1914 Reduce Tax Levy 241 1940 Medical Examiners Board 75 1914 Mine Production Tax 298 1941 Budget Balancing 83 1916 Taxation for Schools 300 1941 State Board of Regents 85 1916 City Debt Limit 309 1944 Create Parole Board 100 1919 Road Bond 310 1944 A. 8 M. Board of Regents 99 1920 Taxation for Schools 311 1944 0. U. Board of Regents 109 1920 Taxation for Schools 328 1948 State College Regents 114 1922 Increase Tax Levy 329 1948 Legislator Pay Raise 124 1923 Tax Rate Limitation 325 1950 Creation of Highway Commission 125 1923 Depositors' Guarantee 346 1950 Oklahoma Military Academy 141 1926 Testing Tax Levy 354 1952 Desegregation of Jury Service 138 1926 Ad Valorem Tax 361 1954 Real Estate Tax 139 1926 Annuity Bonds 371 1956 Create New Board of Regents 145 1926 Increase Tax Levy 372 1956 O.M.A. Board of Regents 152 1928 Court of Tax Review 374 1956 Create Wildlife Conserv. Dept. 167 1931 New Income Tax 377 1956 Creation of County Offices 168 1932 Limiting Tax Rate 389 1960 Legislator Pay Raise 164 1932 Oleomargarine Tax 390 1960 Department of Health 175 1932 Tax Reduction 212 PROPOSITIONS BY MAJOR POLICY TYPE, continued SQ Year Proposition Title______ 3. Judicial and Legal Procedure 179 1933 Cigarette Tax SQ Year Proposition Title___________ 185 1933 Ad Valorem Taxes 401 1961 Criminal Prosecution 201 1935 Homestead Exemption 457 1968 Petition for Grand Juries 208 1935 Homestead Exemption 459 1968 Jury Trials 209 1935 Old Age Assistance 482 1971 Self-Incriminating Testimony 220 1935 County Welfare 483 1971 Grand Jury Reorganization 225 1936 Old Age Assistance 226 1936 Sales Tax for Aged Aid 4. Land and Natural Resource Use 236 1938 Oleomargarine Tax SQ Year Proposition Title___________ 215 1940 Property Tax for Aged Aid 2 1908 Torrens Land Registration 253 1940 Gas Tax Distribution 5 1908 Sale of School Land 313 1944 Sinking Fund 169 1931 Corporation Property 319 1946 Tax, Separate Schools 170 1932 Crop Control 314 1946 Tax for Schools 230 1936 Soil Conservation__________ 316 1946 Tax, Separate Schools 327 1948 School Tax Levy 5. Industrial and Labor Relations 348 1949 Capital Improvement SQ Year Proposition Title___________ 326 1950 Highway Users Tax 86 1916 Employee Compensation 349 1952 Sales Tax 121 1923 Workers' Compensation 368 1955 Public School Buildings 304 1942 Recovery of Damages 379 1958 Real-Personal Ad Valorem Tax 345 1950 Workmens’ Compensation Law 393 1960 Capital Improvements 409 1964 Right to Work_______________ 392 1960 Multi-County Libraries 395 1960 Withholding Income Tax 6. Business and Corporations 411 1963 Capital Improvements SQ Year Proposition Title___________ 421 1964 School Support Levy 16 1910 Corporation Privileges 425 1965 Sales Tax Increase 24 1910 Corporation Relations 426 1965 Capital Improvements 25 1911 Corporation Privileges 427 1965 Capital Improvements-Highway 46 1913 Corporation Privileges 430 1965 Levy for School Benefits 111 1920 Non-Profit Insurance Co. 433 1965 Capital Improvements-Highway 135 1926 Repeal of Convict Label 434 1966 Vocational Education Program 186 1936 Corporation Control 453 1968 Change in Estimate of Revenue 282 1940 Corporation Control 442 1968 Investment of School Funds 358 1954 Corporation Real Estate 444 1968 Legislative Regulation of Tax 375 1956 Corporation Stock Ownership 460 1968 Intangible Property Tax 404 1962 Industrial Bonds 443 1968 Taxation of Transient Property 406 1962 Distribution of Liquor 463 1968 State Indebtedness 455 1968 Corporation Reports 468 1969 State Industrial Finance Bonds 454 1968 Maximum Interest Rates 474 1970 State Industrial Finance Bonds 458 1968 Issue of Corporation Stock 469 1970 Deposit of State Funds 479 1971 General Obligation Tax Bonds 7. Electoral Process, Law, and Reform 481 1971 Investment of Educational Funds SQ Year Proposition Title___________ 485 1972 State Indebtedness-Highways 17 1910 Grandfather Clause 489 1972 City-Town Indebtedness 8 1910 Woman Suffrage 490 1972 Farm'Land W a n Valuation 41 1912 Election of Senators 486 1972 Ad Valorem Taxation 82 1916 Voting Qualifications (Literacy] 487 1972 Emergency Taxation Levy 78 1916 Election Law 465 1969 State Industrial Finance Bonds 80 1916 Repeal Registration Law 213 PROPOSITIONS BY MAJOR POLICY TYPE, continued sq Year Proposition Title 11. Education 97 1916 Woman Suffrage 122 1923 Office Qualifications SQ Year Proposition Title 122 1930 Office Qualifications 211 1935 Office Qualifications 137 1926 Free Textbooks 281 1940 Office Qualifications 242 1938 Teacher Retirement 302 1942 Office Qualifications 3 9 6 1942 Teacher Retirement 312 1944 Run-Off Primary 303 1942 Teacher Benefits 353 1952 Amending State Constitution 315 1946 School Aid 356 1952 Age of Electors 318 1946 Free Textbooks 357 1956 Congressional Redistricting 422 1964 State Aid to Schools 388 1960 Nomination of Candidates 423 1964 School Consolidation 397 1960 Legislative Apportionment 424 1964 County School Superintendent •407 1961 House Apportionment for Census 428 1966 Separate Schools 408 1962 Legislative Apportionment 475 1970 Public School Desegregation 417 1963 Increase County Office Terms 419 1963 Increase State Office Terms 12. Veteran Benefits 412 1964 Elector Residence 416 1964 Legislative Reapportionment SQ Year Proposition Title 429 1966 Impeachment of state officials 116 1922 Soldier Bonus 432 1966 Presidential Electors 123 1923 Veterans Benefits 436 1966 Re-election of Governor 355 1952 Militaty Compensation 437 1966 Fix Congressional Boundaries 362 1954 State Veteran Benefits 473 1970 Constitutional Article Revision 369 1956 Oklahoma Veteran Loan Auth. 477 1970 Legislative Reapportionment 370 1956 Veteran Benefits 464 1970 Voting Machines 484 1971 Eighteen-Year Old Vote 13. Public Morality 488 1972 Electors— Public Utility Bonds sq Year Proposition Title 8. Constitutional Convention 22 1910 Repeal Prohibition 61 1914 Gambling SQ Year Proposition Title 62 1914 Slot Machines 146 1926 Constitutional Convention 183 1933 3.2 Beer 347 1950 Constitutional Convention 222 1936 Repeal Prohibition 472 1970 Constitutional Convention 216 1938 Pinball Machines 289 1940 Repeal Prohibition 9. Government Maintenance 343 1949 Repeal Prohibition 376 1957 County Option, Prohibition SQ Year Proposition Title 386 1959 Repeal Prohibition 205 1938 Municipal Utilities 387 1959 County Option, Prohibition 359 1954 Oklahoma Turnpike Authority 478 1971 "Blue Laws" Saturday and Sun 360 1954 Toll Turnpike Financing 480 1972 Liquor by the Drink 373 1956 Water Supply Indebtedness 380 1958 City-Provided Water Facilities 14. Unclassified 10. Health, Welfare, Safety SQ Year Proposition Title 344 1950 Endorse World Federation SQ Year Proposition Title 47 1913 Mine Safety 94 1920 Medical Practice Control 187 1934 Police Pensions 214 1935 Old Age Assistance 207 1936 Police Pensions 299 1941 Old Age Assistance 214 TABLE 4-22 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY MAJOR POLICY CONTENT TYPE Code Major Policy Content Type Number Percent 1 (1) Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Govern mental Structure, Organization, and Reform 72 28.6 (2) Taxation, Revenue and Finance 72 28.6 (3) Judicial and Legal Procedure 5 2.0 (4) Land and Natural Resource Use 5 2.0 (5) Industrial and Labor Relations 5 2.0 (6) Business and Corporation 15 5.9 (7) Electoral Process, Procedure, Law, and Reform 33 13.1 (8) Constitutional Convention 3 1.2 (9) Government Maintenance 5 2.0 (10) Health, Welfare, and Safety 6 2.4 (11) Education 11 4.4 (12) Veteran Benefits 6 2.4 (13) Public Morality and Individual Life Style 13 5.1 (14) Unclassified 1 .4 Total 252 100.1* *Percentage total does not total 100.0% due to rounding. TABLE 4 -2 3 SUBJECT MATTER OF ALL PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AND AVERAGE STATEWIDE PERCENT "YES" FOR EACH SPECIFIC SUBJECT ___________________________ (Propositions are listed in Alphabetical Order)________________ Statewide Percent X Percent Proposition Subject Matter^ Number of Total Yes Number(s) Ad Valorem Taxation 12 4.8 60.4 68,74,114,124,138,168,184,185,379, 443,460,486 Agriculture 1 .4 31.0 170 Agriculture, Board of 4 1.6 65.0 38,60,158,210 Alcoholic Beverages 9 3.6 45.4 1,22,222,289,343,386,387,406,480 Banks 1 .4 35.7 125 Beer 2 .8 53.5 183,376 IK>t-n* Bond Issues 11 4.4 54.5 100,139,313,348,393,411,426,427,433, 463,485 Budget Balancing Amendment 1 .4 65.6 298 Budget Officer 1 .4 44.1 173 Chiropractors 1 .4 56.2 94 Cigarette Tax 1 .4 59.6 179 Cities and Towns 4 1.6 47.5 85,373,380,489 Coal Mines 1 .4 77.3 47 Colleges and Universities 5 2.0 51.4 159,310,311,328,371 Congressional Districts 2 .8 43.2 357,437 Conservation Commission 1 .4 43.5 230 Constitution, State 2 .8 48.5 353,473 Constitutional Convention 3 1.2 23.9 146,347,472 Convict Label Law 1 .4 34.8 135 Corporations 5 2.0 49.3 169,358,375,455,458 County Officers 3 1.2 34.8 377,417,418 County Superintendent of Schools 1 .4 38.2 424 Courts 10 3.4 49.3 71,84,87,89,152,415,431,441,447,448 Criminal Prosecutions 1 .4 79.5 401 Statewide Percent X Percent Proposition Subject Matter^ Number of Total Yes Number(s) Education, State Board 1 .4 44.4 172 Education, State System 1 .4 61.4 300 Educational Loans 1 .4 57.2 481 Election Board, State 2 .8 49.3 21,78 Elections 1 .4 58.2 312 Emergency in Government 1 .4 62.4 400 Equalization Board, State 2 .8 63.5 453,461 Gambling 3 1.2 40.2 61,62,216 Governor 1 .4 40.4 420 Health Departments 1 .4 51.0 390 Highway Commission 2 .8 31.8 325,396 Highway Users Revenues 1 .4 32.3 326 N Homestead Exemptions 2 .8 58.3 201,208 O' Hospital Districts 1 .4 25.1 476 Impeachment 2 .8 79.9 73,429 Income Tax 3 1.2 43.9 167,175,395 Industrial Development 6 2.4 47.2 391,404,465,468,474,479 Insurance 1 .4 49.4 111 Juries 4 1.6 51.3 88,354,449,459 Juries, Grand 2 .8 59.7 483,457 Land Office, Commissioners of the 1 .4 44.4 212 Lands, School and Public 1 .4 46.5 5 Land Titles 1 .4 57.8 2 Legislature 19 7.5 41.2 77,112,119,144,243,329,389,394,397, 405,407,408,413,414,416,419,435,462,477 Libraries 1 .4 50.1 392 Loans and Lenders 1 .4 77.0 454 Medical Examiners, Board 1 .4 58.1 241 New Jerusalem District 1 .4 41.5 6 Oath of Office 2 .8 58.6 445,466 Oil Inspections 1 .4 27.8 238 Oklahoma Military Academy 2 .8 37.3 346,372 statewide Percent X Percent Proposition ' Subject Matter^ Number of Total Yes Number(s) Old Age Assistance 6 2.4 64.1 209,214,215,220,225,299 Oleomargarine 2 .8 44.9 164,236 Pardon and Parole Board 2 .8 55.5 309,446 Police Officers 2 .8 62.5 187,207 Presidential Electors 1 .4 56.2 388 Public Service Corporations 3 1.2 59.0 24,186,282 Railroad, Transportation and Transmission Companies 3 1.2 47.8 16,25,46 Right to Work 1 .4 48.3 409 Roads and Highways 1 .4 34.1 398 Sales Tax 3 1.2 36.7 226,349,425 School Annexation 1 .4 49.1 423 N School Financing 19 7.5 58.7 23,45,57,59,83,99,109,145,314,315,316, 319,327,368,421,422,430,442,487 School Bond 1 .4 47.8 490 Segregation 2 .8 56.3 428,475 Senators, United States 1 .4 84.8 41 State Capitol 4 1.6 57.1 3,4,15,40 State Offices 5 2.0 62.7 122 Sunday Closing 1 .4 46.1 478 Tax Commission 1 .4 25.7 81 Taxation 5 2.0 64.3 75,141,253,361,444 Teacher Retirement 3 1.2 50.3 242,303,306 Textbooks 2 .8 50.1 137,318 Township Government 1 .4 56.0 58 Treasurer, State 1 .4 39.2 469 Turnpikes 2 .8 56.5 359,360 Unemployment Relief 1 .4 37.3 171 United Nations 1 .4 22.8 344 Utilities, Public 1 .4 26.9 205 Veterans 6 2.4 42.8 116,123,355,362,369,370 Vocational-Technical Education 1 .4 51.0 434 Statewide Percent X Percent Proposition Subject Matter Number of Total Yes Number(s)___ Voting 8 3.2 52.0 17,80,82,356,412,432,484,488 Voting Machines 1 .4 45.8 464 Wildlife Conservation Commission 1 .4 52.3 374 Witnesses 1 .4 55.3 482 Women 3 1.2 46.9 8,97,211 Workmen's Compensation _a_ IÆ 54.8 86,121,304,345 Total (N) 252 100 ^This table uses the subject matter classification of propositions presented in the Directory of Oklahoma, 1977, State Elections Board, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1977, pp. 612-627. tt-o* 00 219 4-24. The highest mean percent yes on any issue was for State Question 41, in the primary election August 6, 1912, providing for direct election of United States Senators, and receiving a vote of 84.8 percent yes. The next two highest percent yes votes that are recorded, pertain to the im peachment of public officials.. State Question 73 received a yes vote of 78.4 percent among all counties in Oklahoma, and by its adoption made "drunkenness and excessive use of intoxicating liquors" a cause for removal from public office or impeachment. On the other hand. State Question 429, which was adopted by a margin of over 300,000 votes out of a total of 485,548 votes cast on the proposition, provided for the impeachment and removal from office, upon the incumbent being found guilty of a felonious offense. Several other propositions grouped together by subject matter (Table 4-23) received a high statewide percent yes vote. They include the subject of criminal prosecution (X=79.5 percent yes), loans and lenders (X=77.0 percent yes), coal mines (X=77.3 percent yes), and taxation (X=64.3 percent yes). At the lower end of the "yes" voting scale were measures that poss essed subject matter content in the following areas: (1) World Federation (X=22.8 percent yes). Tax Commission (X=25.7 percent yes), and hospital districts (X=25.1 percent yes). The lowest statewide average percent yes vote was cast for State Question 344. .This measure, in brief, was referred to the people by the Oklahoma Senate for the popular consideration of a resolution that would have, if adopted, instructed the Governor of Oklahoma to instruct Oklahoma’s United States Senators and Representatives, in addition to the Speaker of the United States House of Representativesrand the President of the United States, of Oklahoma's support for making the 220 the United Nations a "...world federal government able to prevent war." Needless to say, the Oklahoma voters were not quite ready to accept the role of the United Nations as an international organization with a pri mary function and role to play in the arenq of international peace keep ing. The measures that have been referred to the people or initiated by the people have not only been of the fourteen major policy types, as outlined in Table 4-22, but have met with varying levels of success. Table 4-24 depicts the final disposition of all measures submitted to Oklahoman voters for the period 1907-1972 by the number and percentage of measures that passed and failed. The policy areas which received the greatest level of passage success, relative to the total number of issues presented during the 1907-1972 period, are also the policy areas which have the highest proportionate submission rates. That is, seventy-two measures that are classified in the taxation group account for an overall 33.7 percent passage level; and seventy-two measures that fall into the Government Structure area obtained an overall passage level of 25.7 percent. Veteran benefits, industrial and labor relations, constitutional convention, public morality, and land policies account for a very small percentage of the total number of measures submitted to the people that received their approval. In Table 4-25, the outcome of all measures submitted to the Oklahoma electorate in relation to the passage and failure rate for each policy content area is displayed. The highest percentage of passage was obtained for propositions that satisfied the classification requirements necessary to be placed in the judicial policy category. In this category all five 221 TABLE 4-24 FINAL DISPOSITION OF ALL POLICY CONTENT TYPE OF ALL ISSUES Pass Fail Policy Content Type Number Percent Number Percent Legislative, Executive and 1 Judicial Governmental Sturcture , Organization and Reform 26 25.7 46 30.5 Taxation, Revenue and Finance 34 33.7 38 25.2 Judicial and Legal Procedure 5 5.0 - - Land and Natural Resource Use - - 5 3.3 Industrial and Labor Relations 1 1.0 4 2.6 Business and Corporations 6 5.9 9 6. 0 Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform 14 13.9 19 12.6 Constitutional Convention - - 3 2.0 Government Maintenance 3 3.0 2 1.3 Health, Welfare, and Safety 5 5.0 1 0.7 Education 4 4.0 7 4.6 Veteran Benefits 1 1.0 5 3.3 Public Morality and Individual Life Style 2 2.0 11 7.3 Unclassified _0 _ 0.7 Total 101 100.0 151 120.0 222 TABLE 4-25 SUCCESS AND FAILURE RATE OF MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, FOR IDENTIFIED PUBLIC POLICY AREAS Total Pass Fail Number Total Policy Content Type Number Percent Numbbr Percent Submitted Percent Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Govern mental Structure, Organization, and Reform 26 36.1 46 63.9 72 100.0 Taxation, Revenue and Finance 34 47.2 38 52.8 72 100.0 Judicial and Legal Procedure 5 100.0 - - 5 100.0 Land and Natural Resource Use - - 5 100.0 5 100.0 Industrial and Labor Relations 1 20.0 4 80.0 5 100.0 Business and Corporations 6 40.0 9 60.0 15 100.0 Electoral Process; Procedure, Law and Reform 14 42.4 19 57.6 33 100.0 Constitutional Convention - - 3 100.0 3 100.0 Government Maintenance 3 60.0 2 40.0 5 100.0 Health, Welfare, and Safety 5 83.3 ' 1 16.7 6 100.0 Education 4 36.4 7 63.6 11 100.0 Veteran Benefits 1 16.7 5 83.3 6 100.0 Public Morality and Individual Life Style 2 15.4 11 84.6 13 100.0 Unclassified - - 1 100.0 1 , 100.0 223 measures submitted to the electorate were approved. These measures dealt with criminal prosecution, petition for grand juries, jury trials, self-incriminating testimony, and reorganization of the grand juries. Perhaps the most significant of these measures related to self-incrimi nating testimony [State Question 482). This measure was passed by a 55.3 percent yes vote and provided that "... that persons may be required to provide evidence tending to establish the guilt of others although in criminating as to themselves...." It, of course, also provided immunity for the defendant in the form of forfeiture, prosecution or penalty. The second highest percentage for a policy group was for the health, welfare, and safety issues, five out of six being adopted (83.3 percent). These measures were mine safety (77.3 percent yes), medical practice control (56.2 percent), police pensions (62.2 and 62.7 percent), and old age assistance (72.2 and 76.3 percent). Despite these high percentages not all were adopted. The silent vote defeated State Question 187 in 1934— a police pension measure. State Question 47 on mine safety, received the highest percentage yes vote in the group providing for mine inspectors' qualifications, and other features of health and safety of coal mines. The Social Security Amendment of 1941 amended the Constitution to provide for cooperation with the federal government in the social security program, including "relief and care of aged or peedy persons." With descending per centages for the policy groups. Government Maintenance ranked in fourth place with 60.0 percent. Taxation next with 47.2 percent, and at the bottom, Land use and Constitutional Convention categories. All five of the former failed, as did all three of the latter. Somewhat surprisingly, five of the six issues dealing with veteran 22.4 benfits were defeated. Only State Question 362 was adopted (1954), providing low interest (3 percent), farm loans for veterans. Most of the thirteen measures in the public morality group were also defeated, in cluding four of the five attempts to repeal the prohibition amendment which was adopted with statehood (45.4, 45.3, 43.7, 40.6 percent, and then finally the successful 57.4 percent!). Oklahoma's puritan majority also defeated gambling (46.9 percent), pinball machines (26.0 percent), and slot machines (47.6,percent), but also Sunday or Saturday closing "Blue Laws" (46.1 percent), and county option for prohibition (32.0 percent), as well as approving 3.2 beer by a strong.63.4 percent. Measures Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate by all Policy Types for Selected Time Periods The relative frequency in which measures of varying policy content were submitted to the Oklahoma electorate varied greatly by period of time. In this analysis of state question voting behavior, the 65 year span between 1907 and 1972 is collapsed into seven time periods: (1) 1907-1919; (2) 1920-1929; (3) 1930-1939; (4) 1940-1949; (5) 1950- 1959; (6) 1960-1969; and (7) 1970-1972. Table 4-26 shows that substan tial differences exist among the frequencies for which measures of varying policy content have been placed before the people by different historical periods. First, during the 1907-1919 period, 46 propositions met their fate, of which ten passed and thirty-six failed. The largest number of measures proposed for this early period were of the legislative, executive and judicial governmental structure, organization, and reform type (N=18 or 39.1 percent of the total number of measures voted on by the Oklahomans) TABLE 4-26 DESTRIBUTION OF THE POLICY CONTENT OF ALL MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, ' BY SELECTED TIME PERIODS 1907 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 to to to to to to to Policy Content Type 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1972 N N N N N N % N Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization, and Reform 18 39.1 3 13.6 10 27.0 8 28.6 8 25.8 24 35.8 1 4.8 Taxation, Revenue and Finance 10 21.7 10 45.5 13 35.1 8 28.6 4 12.9 18 26.9 9 42.9 Judicial and Legal Procedure Nt3n Land and Natural Resource Use 2 4.3 8.1 Industrial and Labor Relations 1 2. 2 1 4.5 1 3.6 1 3.2 1 '1.5 Business and Corporation 4 8.7 2 9.1 2.7 1 3.6 2 6.5 5 7.5 - Electoral Process, Procedure, Law, and Reform 7 15.2 1 4.5 5.4 3 10.7 3 9.7 12 17.9 5 23.8 Constitutional Convention 1 4.5 1 3.2 Government Maintenance 1 2.7 - 4 12.9 Health, Welfare, and Safety 2 . 2 1 4.5 3 8.1 1 3.6 Education 1 4.5 1 2.7 4 14.3 4 6.0 4.8 Veteran Benefits 2 9.1 4 12.9 Table continued Public Morality and Individual Life Style 3 6.5 - - 3 8.1 2 7.1 3 9.7 - - 2 9.5 Unclassified _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 3 . 2 - Total 46 100.0 22 100.0 37 100.0 28 100.0 31 100.0 67 100.0 21 100.0 too\ 227 Also, during this same period ten taxation, revenue and finance measures (21.7 percent of the total), and seven issues dealing with electoral process, procedure, law and reform were decided. A further analysis reveals that during the 1907-1919 period, of the ten propositions that passed, five were of the legislative referendum mode, four measures were by inititative petition and only one by refer endum petition. However, of the eighteen measures in the government structure group, four passed; only one out of the ten taxation, revenue and finance measures, a legislative referendum, passed; and one out of four measures passed in the policy area dealing with business and corp orations; 50 percent, or three out of six measures passed in the area of electoral process. The three measures pertaining to public morality all failed, as did those submitted in the areas of land and natural resource use (N=2) and industrial and labor relations (N=l). For the 1920-1929 period, taxation, revenue and finance policy con tent measures accounted for 45.5 percent of all measures (N=22) brought before the people. Only three measures were in the governmental structure area; two measures were in business and corporation policy, and two measures on benefits to veterans. Given the stringency of the Constitution of Oklahoma in dealing with corporations, it is somewhat surprising that a larger number of bills have not been submitted on this topic. Perhaps the answer to this puzzle rests, at least in the view of R.J. Dangerfield, in corporations deciding "...that the legislature is a body better equipped to deal with problems involving their regulation or perhaps easier brought to their point of view than the whole voting population." Overall, how ever, 72.7 percent of all measures submitted during this period were killed 228 by the voters. Decisive defeats resulted for seven of the ten measures dealing with taxation, revenue and finance. The historical period which encompassed the Depression Era, 1930- 1939, saw a slight increase over the 1920's, in the number of propositions placed on the ballot. Of thirty-seven measures presented for approval or rejection, only 27.0 percent (N=10) were approved. Of those which were proposed, 35.1 percent (N=13) dealt with taxation, revenue and finance matters and 27.0 percent were on government structure. Even though this period is characterized as one in which the people of Oklahoma suffered great economic hardship only a small number of propositions (N=3) pertain ed to the policy area of health, welfare, and safety, two of the three being referred by the Legislature. The 1940-1949 period experienced a decrease in the total number of propositions referred. This historical period also maintained the pattern that was characteristic of the 1907-1919, 1920-1929, and 1930-1939 periods. The largest percentage of all measures submitted (N=28) were on government structure and taxation, (28.6 percent for each group]. For this period 67.9 percent of all measure's proposed received popular approval (N=19), with six of the eight measures in each of the government structure and tax policy areas receiving approval. All measures submitted in the area of public morality (N=2), industrial and labor relations (N=l), business and corporations (N=l], were dealt defeat. The now "nostalgic fifties" period experienced a slight increase in the total number of propositions peresented to the Oklahoma electorate over the years 1940-1949. The 1950-1959 period had thirty-one measures considered, of which 41.9 percent passed (N=13). The largest number (N=6) 229 of measures were in the government structure group (25.8 percent of the total submitted); 36 percent of the measures were evenly divided among the policy classifications of taxation, veteran benefits, and government maintenance, (12.9 percent each). Three measures in the area of public morality related to prohibition. About 7 percent of all measures brought to the people during this era dealt with workmen's compensation and corporate real estate and stock ownerships. A measure calling for a state constitutional convention was submitted and received only 31.5 per cent "yes" vote on a statewide basis. The "turbulent 60's" was also tumultuous for the operation of direct democracy in Oklahoma. A dramatic increase in the number of measures placed on the ballot occurred, rising from thirty-one propositions in the 1950-1959 period to sixty-seven issues in the period 1960-1969, or a 116.0 percent increase. Of these sixty-seven measures, the highest percentage of measures, 35.8 percent, were of the governmental structure variety, followed by eighteen measures or 26.9 percent, which focused on taxation, revenue and finance matters. Electoral process received substantial attention in so far as 17.9 percent (N=12) of all measures submitted were of this policy category. Although twenty-four measures focused on the re form of governmental structure, less than one-half passed (41.6) percent). In contradistinction, however, the eighteen measures on taxation, revenue and finance had. a passage-to-failure ratio of twelve to six,, or a 66.6 percent approval level. During this period five measures pertained to business and corporations were voted on; industrial bonds, distribution of intoxicating beverages, interest rate maximum, corporation reports and issuance of corporate stock. 230 Twenty-one state questions were referred in the 1970-1972 period. Nine (42.9 percent) related to taxation, and five (23.8 percent) to the electoral process. Only 31.8 percent of the issues were adopted in this three-year period, all of them submitted by legislative referendum. Only four (19 percent) were initiative and referendum petitions, referral modes previously discussed as having decreasing use in Oklahoma. Table 4-26 shows distribution by decades of the number and type of measures that have appeared on the ballot during the entire period under review, 1907-1972. However, if the historical period is divided into two-time frames— pre-1945 and post-1945, using World War II as a line of separation, several important distinctions occur, as displayed in Tables 4-27 and 4-28. First pre-1945 data shows (Table 4-27) that 123 measures were either sponsored by the people or the legislature, in contrast to 129 measures in the post-1945 era. Although the period 1907-1945 encompasses a thirty- eight year span and the 1945-1972 period represents a span of only twenty- ’ seven years (eleven years less than the pre-1945 period), the number of propositions is approximately equal in number. The passage rates for the dichotomized time periods, however, as shown in Tables 4-27 and 4-28, are substantially different with only 29.3 percent of the measures accepted during the first time period, and over half of the propositions accepted (50.4 percent) in the post-1945 period. The rejection rates are striking ly different between the two time periods. Second, in addition one discovers a difference in the referral mode that is most frequently used for the two periods. It is shown in Table 4-27, that sixty-three measures were referred by the state legislature TABLE 4-27 DISTRIBUTION OF THE POLICY CONTENT OF ALL MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE 1907-1945 PERIOD. BY REFERRAL MODE AND ISSUE STATUS (PASS/FAIL)_____________ PASS FAIL Legislative Initiative Referendum Legislative Initiative Referendum Referendum Petition Petition Referendum Petition Petition Policy Type N N ^ N ^ N Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Policy 36.8 3 23.1 1 25.0 15 34.1 9 26.5 2 22.2 Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy 21.1 6 46.2 1 25.0 11 25.0 12 35.3 2 22.2 Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy two Land and Natural Resource Use Policy 2.3 4 11.8 - Industrial and Labor Relations Policy 6.8 - Business and Corporation Policy 5.3 - 11.4 1 2.9 1 11.1 Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform Policy 21.1 2 15.4 - 9.1 3 8.8 - Constitutional Convention Policy 2.3 Government Maintenance Policy 2.9 - Table 4-27 continued Health, Welfare and Safety Policy 2 10.5 1 7.7 2 50.0 1 2.3 - Education Policy - 1 7.7 - 2 4.5 - - 1 11.1' Veteran Benefit Policy — — — — — — 1 2.3 3 8.8 3 33.3 Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy 1 5.3 - - - 3 8 . 8 3 33.3 Unclassified — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total 19 100.0*13 100.0* 4 100.0 44 100.0 34 99.9* 9 99.9* ^Percentage does not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. ro ro TABLE 4-28 DISTRIBUTION OF TUE POLICY CONTENT OF ALL MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE 1946-1972 PERIOD, BY REFERRAL MODE AND ISSUE STATUS (PASS/FAIL)_________________ PASS FAIL Legislative Initiative Referendum Legislative Initiative Referndum Referendum Petition Petition Referendum Petition Petition Policy Type N % N % N N % N % N Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Policy 15 25.4 14 35.0 5 26.3 1 20.0 Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy 21 35.6 2 50.0 8 20.0 3 15.8 2 40.0 Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy 8.5 N) ww Land and Natural Resource Use Policy Industrial and Labor Relations Policy 1 1.7 1 5.3 Business and Corporation Policy 8.5 5.0 Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform Policy 8 13.6 17.5 3 15.8 2 40.0 Constitutional Convention Policy 5.0 Government Maintenance Policy 1.7 2 60.0 2.5 Table 4-28 Health, Welfare and Safety Policy Education Policy 1 1.7 2 50.0 2.5 3 15.8 Veteran Benefit Policy 1 1.7 7.5 - Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy 1 1.7 2.5 4 21.1 Unclassified 2.5 Total 59 100.1 4 100.0 2 100.0 4 0 1 0 0 . 0 19 100.1 5 100.0 Percentage does not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. to ot 235 and only 30.1 percent passed; forty-seven measures were initiated directly by the people with a low passage level of 27.6 percent; and thirteen pro positions were of the referendum petition variety, with a corresponding passage percentage of 30.8. The post-1945,period saw (Table 4-28) ninety- nine measures of the legislative referendum mode with a remarkably high passage rate of 59.6 percent. There was a decrease in the use of the initi ative petition, with only twenty-three measures sponsored by the electorate, of which 17.4 percent were adopted; finally the people petitioned the legislature to refer measures and on seven occasions, the level of success was 28.5 percent. In sum, the use of the referendum petition, as well as its success, drastically declined after World War II. Third, in terms of public policy content a number of major differences are quite evident. For example. Table 4-27 (1907-1945) shows thirty-seven measures referred to people, with 29.7 percent of them being passed, which are on government structure. This category accounted for 30.1 percent of all measures making their way to the ballot in the pre-1945 era. In the post- 1945 period a comparable number of measures (N=35) dealt with government structure, but a higher percentage passed (42.9 percent). The policy area of taxation is equally important for both periods. Indeed, Table 4-27 and Table 4-28 reveal an identical number of tax and revenue related measures (N=36j respectively) for each period. major difference here is the mark ed success in passage of taxation, revenue and finance measures in the post- 1945 period (63.9 percent passage) as constrasted with a low level of 30.5 percent in the 1907-1945 period. It is also observed that taxation and finance related measures accounted for 35.4 percent of all measures during the last three decades, in comparison with 30.5 percent during the first 236 four decades of Oklahoma's experiment with direct democracy. It is noteworthy that no judicial measures were submitted in the 1907-1945 era, and that all o f the five measures proposed in.the..post-1945 period were all adopted. On the other hand, no measures dealing with lapd and natural resource use have appeared during the post-1945 period, although when placed on the ballot in the first period they met the universal fate of rejection. Electoral process, procedure, law and reform policy encompassed thirteen measures for the first historical period and twenty measures for the second period, but represent only 16.7 and 12.3 percent of the total number of state questions that were passed in each historical time frame respectively. This passage level enables electoral reform policy to be ranked as the policy type which possessed the third highest passage level of the fourteen policy categories studied. Also, a total of only four measures dealing with education policy were submitted to the electorate during the 1907-1945 period, in contrast to seven education policy content measures in the post-1945 to 1972 period. The passage level was 25 percent for the first period and 75 percent for the latest historical time frame. Further, only a few measures have been voted on by the electorate in the general policy area of health, welfare, and safety, with all six state questions submitted during the 1907-1945 period. Interestingly, five out of the six measures (83.3 percent) proposed in this policy area were accepted by the voters. Last, public morality and individual life style measures have been submitted a total of thirteen times for voter consideration; seven times during the 1907-1945 period, and six times in the post-1945 time frame. The rate of passage however has been very low in each hist orical era, with 14.2 percent for.the first period and 16.6 percent for 237 the second period. Overall, only two measures dealing with public morality were accepted by the voters of Oklahoma, one in each period. To show more clearly the contrast in rate of sucess in the two periods. Tables 4-27 and 4-28 are condensed in the following breakdown: 1907--1945 1945--1972 PASS FAIL PASS FAIL Legislative Referendum 19 44 59 40 Initiative Petition 13 34 4 19 Referendum Petition 4 9 2 5 Totals 36 87 • 65 64 During the 1907-1945 period a general passage level of 30.1 percent (N=19) was obtained for all measures referred to the people through the legislative referendum mode out of a total of sixty-three questions proposed, and 28.3 percent of all (N=17) measures initiated or petitioned by the people passed, out of sixty submitted to popular decision. In comparison with the voting results associated with referral mode and final disposition of measures for the 1946-1972 period, a remarkable distinction becomes apparent for the two periods, with 59.6 percent (N=59) of all measures referred by the legislature during the post-1945 period (N=99) meeting citizen acceptance, and 20.4 percent (N=6) passage of the measures that were popularly initiated or petitioned by the people. A comparison of the passage percentages between the two time-periods by referral mode shows that generally the people have been more inclined to accept and approve measures that have emanated from the legislature, than measures which have been popularly proposed. In a study of Michigan voting be- 238 havior on initiatives and référendums, James K. Pollack found a similar pattern to exist. He concluded that the higher acceptance.level for measures proposed by the legislature than by the people was understandable "...for it is to be expected that the legislature will be more cautious about proposals than will interested groups of the electorate and that it necessarily submits more proposals of routine importance in order to keep 8 the constitution more or less up to date." The record speaks strongly against the early opponents of direct democracy who maintained that the initiative and referendum would be "dangerous," "reckless", "incendiary", and "socialistic." ̂ TABLE 4-29 SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS PERTAINING TO ALL MEASURES PROPOSED AND SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972 Note: State Question (S. Q.) Numbers in Column 1, are not consecutive nor are all included, due to delays in obtaining certification of sufficiency of signatures on petitions and other legal delays on both initiated and referred measures. Numbers not included were assigned numbers which never came to a vote. In Column 2, the abbreviations I.P. and R.P. stand for Initiative Petition and Referendum Petition, originating with the people, and L.R. stands for Legislative Referendum, originating with the State Legislature, In Column 8, the entry FAIL* means that the measure failed of adoption because of the silent vote, though receiving over 50% of the vote. S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 1 L.R. 1 Creation of Liquor Agency 105,392% 121,573 46.5 89.6 FAIL 1908 2 L.R. 2 Torrens Land Registration System 114,394% 83,888 57.8 78.2 FAIL* 1908 3 L.R. 3 Secure Capitol Site 120,352% 71,933 62.5 76.1 FAIL* 1908 ro 4 L.R. 4 Secure Capitol Site 117,441% 75,792 60.3 75.3 FAIL* 1908 5 I.P. 1 Sale of School Land 96,745% 110,840 46.5 82.3 FAIL 1908 15 I.P. 7 Capitol Site Selection 96,448% 64,522 59.9 100.0 PASS 1910 16 I.P. 8 Corporation Privleges 53,784 108,205° 33.2 100.0 FAIL 1910 17 I.P. 10 Grandfather Clause 135,443 106,222° 56.1 109.3% - PASS 1910 6 I. P. 2 "New Jerusalem Plan" 84,366 118,899 41.5 81.9 FAIL 1910 8 I.P. 3 Woman Suffrage 88,808 128,928 40.8 87.7 FAIL 1910 21 R.P. 12 Create Election Board 80,146^ 106,459 43.7 79.2 FAIL 1910 22 I.P. 11 Repeal Prohibition 105,041 126,118% 45.4 93.1 FAIL 1910 23 L.R. 13 Corporation Tax, Schools 101,636 43,133 70.2 58.3 FAIL* 1910 24 L.R. 14 Corporation Relations 83,169° 55,175 60.1 55.7 FAIL* 1910 25 L.R. 15 Corporation Privleges 41,768^ 46,662 47.3 100.0 FAIL 1911 41. I.P. 26 Election of Senators 139,844® 23,400 84.8 98.4 PASS 1912 38 I.P. 23 Board of Agriculture 164,530“ 63,586 72.0 91.2 PASS 1912 40 I.P. 25 Location of State Capitol 8 6 , 5 4 9 1 103,106 45.8 74.7 FAIL 1912 45 L.R. 17 Taxation for Schools 100,042C 65,436 60.9 6 6 . 2 FAIL* 1912 46 L.R. 18 Corporation Privleges 5 9 ,4 3 7 c 35,115 62.8 100.0 PASS 1913 47 R.P. 19 Mine Safety 7 3 ,3 4 5 c 21,559 77.3 100.0 PASS 1913 57 L.R. 20 Taxation for Schools 63,330C 30,295 67.4 100.0 PASS 1913 58 L.R. 21 Township Government 50,634c 39,690 56.0 100.0 PASS 1913 60 L.R. 23 Create Agricultural Board 67,367 25,087 73.0 100.0 PASS 1913 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 59 L.R. 22 Taxation for Schools 89,6533 56,916 60.9 81.3 FAIL* 1914 61 R.P. 24 Gambling 68,8783 76,495 46.9 81.2 FAIL 1914 62 R.P. 25 Slot Machines 67,5603 73,770 47.6 79.0 FAIL 1914 68 I.P. 41 Direct Taxation 88,9943 45,232 66.1 74.4 FAIL* 1914 73 I.P. 46 Drunkenness 114,833] 31,659 78.3 81.3 PASS 1914 71 I,P. 44 Court Consolidations 105,529* 64,782 61.9 69.6 FAIL* 1914 74 I.P. 47 Reduce Tax Levy 117,675 57,120 67.3 71.4 FAIL* 1914 75 I.P. 48 Mine Production Tax 107,342 62,380 63*2 69.4 FAIL* 1914 77 I.P. 50 Unicameral Legislature 94,686 71,742 56.9 68.0 FAIL* 1914 81 L.R. 54 Create Tax Commission 50,656® 146,130 25.7 98.3 FAIL 1916 82 L.R. 55 Voting Qualification Lit eracy Test for Electors 90,605® 133,140 40.7 1 1 2 .3d FAIL 1916 83 L.R. 56 Taxation for Schools 76,093® 127,525 37.1 101.2® FAIL 1916 84 L.R. 57 Supreme Court Clerk 58,933® 134,963 30.6 97.1 FAIL 1916 85 L.R. 58 City Debt Limit 44,687® 147,933 23.2 96.3 FAIL 1916 86 L.R. 59 Employee Compensation 50,998® 139,132 26.8 95.1 FAIL 1916 87 L.R. 60 Court Consolidation 42,896® 149,272 22.3 96.0 FAIL 1916 N> 88 L.R. 61 Size of Jury 49,954 142,333° 26.0 96.1 FAIL 1916 ê 89 L.R. 62 Abolish County Court 47,194® 157,284 23.1 102.1® FAIL 1916 78 I.P. 51 Election Law 147,0671 119,602 54.8 89.1 FAIL* 1916 80 I.P. 53 Repeal Registration Law 140,3661 114,824 54.1 85.3 FAIL* 1916 97 L.R. 33 Woman Suffrage 106,909 81,481 57.3 95.8 'PASS 1918 100 L.R. 34 Road Bond 69,917® 171,327 29.4 100.0 FAIL 1919 94 R.P. 30 Medical Practice Control 211,252® 164,788 56.2 76.6 PASS 1920 99 I.P. 67 Taxation for Schools 162,749 179,271 47.7 70.0 FAIL 1920 109 I.P. 72 Taxation for Schools 169,639® 188,574 47.6 72.9 FAIL 1920 111 L.R. 38 Non-Profit Insurance Co., 157,064® 159,919 49.4 64.4 FAIL 1920 112 L.R. 39 Legislative Pay Raise 125,463® 173,274 41.5 60.8 FAIL 1920 114 L.R. 40 Inverse Tax Levy 136,647 191,180° 41.9 91.0 FAIL 1922 116 I.P. 76 Soldier Bonus 255,887 234,909 52.1 94.3 FAIL* 1922 119 I.P. 79 Convening Legislature 209,452 70,638 74.8 96.5 PASS 1923 121 L.R. 41 Workman’s Compensation 137,358^ 120,761 52.8 88.1 PAIL* 1923 122 L.R. 42 Office Qualifications 173,262"' 86,445 66.7 89.5 PASS 1923 123 L.R. 43 Veterans Benefits 120,219® 142,082 45.7 90.6 FAIL 1923 124 L.R. 44 Tax Rate Limitation 144,758™ 116,711 55.0 90.1 PASS 1923 125 L.R. 45 Depositor's Guarantee 111,081™ 160,668 35.7 86.1 FAIL 1923 141 I.P. 92 Testing Tax Levy 182,012® 68,975 72.3 81.9 PASS 1926 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 135 R.P. 47 Repeal of Convict Label 102,660 192,484^ 34.8 74.7 FAIL 1926 137 R.P. 49 Free Textbooks 120,210^ 187,369 39.1 77.8 FAIL 1926 138 I.P. 89 Ad valorem Rate 72,652C 220,382 24.4 75.4 FAIL 1926 139 I.P. 90 Annuity Bonds 1 1 4 ,4 7 9 c 165,288 41.0 70.8 FAIL 1926 144 L.R. 50 Legislator Pay Raise 5 4 ,0 0 7 c 251,332 17.6 77.4 FAIL 1926 145 L.R. 51 Increase Tax Levy 105,558C 223,625 32.2 82.2 FAIL 1926 146 L.R. 52 Constitutional Convention 47,510^ 241,040 16.5 71.3 FAIL 1926 152 I.P. 100 Court of Tax Review 2 9 1 ,9 9 5 c 56,099 83.9 100.0 PASS 1928 122 L.R. 42 Office Qualifications 242,656C 119,338 67.0 70.8 FAIL# 1930 158 L.R. 53 A § M Board of Regents 180,014^ 167,763 51.8 68.0 FAIL* 1930 159 L.R. 54 O.U. Board of Regents 171,906 164,813 51.1 65.9 FAIL* 1930 167 I.P. 112 New Income Tax 208,144 235,918 46.9 99.3 FAIL 1931 169 I.P. 114 Corporation Property 202,353 240,028 45.7 99.0 FAIL 1931 172 I.P. 117 Board of Education 196,579 245,743 44.4 99.0 FAIL 1931 173 I.P. 118 Create Budget Officer 194,274 245,794 44.1 98.4 FAIL 1931 168 I.P. 113 Limiting Tax Rate 195,042 229,270 46.0 101.6 FAIL 1932 170 I.P. 115 Crop Control 130,327 290,416, 31.0 100.7^ FAIL 1932 171 I.P. 116 County Road Commission 155,110 260,265" 37.3 99.5 FAIL 1932 164 R.P. 55 Oleomargerine Tax 265,890 342,998 43.7 85.9 FAIL 1932 175 I.P. 120 Tax Reduction 321,254 327,620 49.5 91.6 FAIL 1932 183 L.R. 59 3.2 Beer 224,5985 129,582 63.4 100.0 PASS 1933 179 R.P. 56 Cigarette Tax 120,863" 81,981 59.6 98.6 PASS 1933 184 R.P. 60 Tax Commission 134,882 67,779 66.6 98.5 PASS 1933 185 L.R. 61 Ad valorem Taxes 183,623 2 0 ,7 3 9 " 89.9 99.3 PASS 1933 186 L.R. 62 Corporation Control 254,631 155,330 62.1 64.1 FAIL* 1934 187 L.R. 63 Police Pension 302,618 183,855 62.2 76.0 FAIL* 1934 201 I.P. 138 Homestead Exemption 185,058 91,189 67.0 92.0 PASS 1935 208 L.R. 66 Homestead Exemption 129,314 132,037 49.5 87.1 FAIL 1935 209 L.R. 67 Old Age Assistance 119,612 146,229 45.0 88.5 FAIL 1935 211 L.R. 69 Office Qualifications 114,968 154,669 42.6 89.8 FAIL 1935 212 L.R. 70 Land Office Commission 113,737 142,664 44.4 85.4 FAIL 1935 214 I.P. 144 Old Age Assistance 204,626 78,783 72.2 94.4 PASS 1935 220 I.P. 149 County Welfare 82,462 45,079 64.7 100.0 PASS 1935 225 I.P. 154 Old Age Assistance 346,950 210,888 62.2 96.1 PASS 1936 226 I.P. 155 Sales Tax for Aged Aid 340,438 229,542 59.7 98.1 PASS 1936 230 I.P. 159 Soil Conservation 223,836 290,241 43.5 88.5 FAIL 1936 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 207 L.R. 65 Police Pensions 390,142 232,310 62.7 81.1 PASS 1936 210 L.R. 68 A 8 M Board of Regents 379,405 219,996 63.3 78.1 FAIL# 1936 222 I.P. 151 Repeal Prohibition 267,285 391,083 40.6 85.8 FAIL 1936 205 I.P. 142 Municipal Utilities 98,216 266,893 26.9 67.9 FAIL 1938 216 R.P. 71 Pin Ball Machines 98,360 280,284 26.0 70.4 FAIL 1938 236 R.P. 73 Oleomargarine Tax 184,619 215,799 46.1 74.5 FAIL 1938 238 R.P. 75 Tax Commissioner 99,613 259,240 27.8 66.7 FAIL 1938 242 L.R. 76 Teacher Retirement 183,997 218,945 45.7 74.9 FAIL 1938 243 L.R. 77 Legislator Pay Raise 92,264 256,745 26.4 64.9 FAIL 1938 215 I.P. 145 Property Tax for Aged Aid 408,559 196,711 67.5 71.4 FAIL# 1940 241 I.P. 166 Medical Examiners Board 294,346 212,701 58.1 59.8 FAIL# 1940 253 I.P. 176 Gas Tax Distribution 355,431 198,109 64.2 65.3 FAIL# 1940 281 L.R. 78 Office Qualifications 354,433 169,926 67.6 61.9 FAIL# 1940 282 L.R. 79 Corporation Control 256,466 210,890 54.9 55.1 FAIL# 1940 289 I.P. 210 Repeal Prohibition 290,752 374,911 43.7 78.5 FAIL 1940 298 L.R. 80 Budget Balancing 163,886 85,752 65.6 97.5 PASS 1941 299 L.R. 81 Old Age Assistance 193,170 59,838 76.3 98.9 PASS 1941 w 300 L.R. 82 State Board of Regents 152,173 95,617 61.4 96.8 PASS 1941 N ) 306 I.P. 221 Teacher Retirement 257,740 151,451 63.0 95.1 PASS 1942 302 L.R. 83 Office Qualifications 201,763 98,013 67.3 74.8 PASS 1942 303 L.R. 84 Teacher Benfits 125,229 171,433 42.2 74.0 FAIL 1942 304 L.R. 85 Recovery of Damages 144,846 108,452 57.2 63.2 ■ FAIL# 1942 309 L.R. 86 Create Parole Board 140,496 82,911 62.9 79.9 PASS 1944 310 L.R. 87 A § M Board of Regents 117,194 108,047 52.0 80.6 PASS 1944 311 L.R. 88 O.U. Board of Regents 109,886 100,049 52.3 75.1 PASS 1944 312 L.R. 89 Run-off Primary 131,071 94,060 58.2 80.6 PASS 1944 313 L.R. 90 Sinking Fund 145,039 63,816 69.4 74.7 PASS 1944 319 L.R. 91 Tax Separate Schools 277,497 97,900 73.9 87.9 PASS 1946 314 I.P. 224 Tax for Schools 271,331 175,257 60.8 88.4 PASS 1946 315 I.P. 225 School Aid 264,058 174,374 60.2 86.8 PASS 1946 316 I.P. 226 Tax, Separate Schools 267,549 169,971 61.2 86.6 PASS 1946 318 I.P. 228 Free Textbooks 261,807 167,563 61.0 85.0 PASS 1946 327 L.R. 92 School Tax Levy 253,815 106,486 70.4 88.6 PASS 1948 328 L.R. 93 State College Regents 200,848 125,585 61.5 80.3 PASS 1948 329 L.R. 94 Legislator Pay Raise 165,953 159,225 51.0 80.0 PASS 1948 343 I.P. 248 Repeal Prohibition 267,870 323,270 45.3 100.0 FAIL 1949 348 L.R. 99 Capital Improvement 343,900 239,190 59.0 100.0 PASS 1949 345 L.R. 96 Workmen's Compensation Law 423,518 89,555 82.5 91.1 PASS 1950 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 325 I.P. 234 Creation of Highway Com-. mission 144,267 353,532 29.0 76.1 FAIL 1950 326 I.P. 235 Highway User's Tax 165,776 348,044° 32.2 78.6 FAIL 1950 344 L.R. 95 Endorse United Nations 124,189 421,472 22.8 83.5 FAIL 1950 346 L.R. 97 Oklalioma Military Academy 170,258 330,738 34.0 76.6 FAIL 1950 347 L.R. 98 State Constitutional Con vention 159,908 347,143 31.5 77.5 FAIL 1950 353 L.R. 100 Amending State Constitution 245,826 109,218 69.2 100.0 PASS 1952 354 L.R. 101 Desegregation of Jury Service 236,546 131,743 64.2 100.0 PASS 1952 355 L.R. 102 Military Compensation 233,094 639,226 26.7 90.8 FAIL 1952 356 L.R. 103 Age of Electors 268,223 593,076 31.1 89.7 FAIL 1952 349 I.P. 249 Sales Tax 115,592 727,540 13.7 87.8 FAIL 1952 359 R.P. 105 Oklahoma Turnpike Author ity 174,236 133,668 56.6 100.0 PASS 1954 360 R.P. 106 Toll Turnpike Financing 171,151 132,121 56.4 100.0 PASS 1954 358 L.R. 104 Corporation Real Estate 227,055 215,371 53.5 72.9 PASS 1954 M 362 L.R. 108 State Veteran Benefits 259,301 189,819 57.7 77.7 PASS 1954 W 361 L.R. 107 Real Estate Tax 372,968 159,670 70.0 86.0 PASS 1954 368 L.R. 109 Public School Buildings 231,097 73,021 76.0 100.0 PASS 1954 369 L.R. 110 Okla. Veterans Loan Authority 133,248^ 236,021 36.1 94.8 ' FAIL 1956 370 L.R. 111 Veterans Benefits 127,241° 202,682 38.6 84.7 FAIL 1956 371 L.R. 112 Create New Board of Re gents 129,495 193,114° 40.1 82.9 FAIL 1956 372 L.R. 113 O.M.A. Board of Regents 129,064b 188,302 40.7 81.5 FAIL 1956 373 L.R. 114 Water Suppy Indebtedness 1 5 1 ,8 7 5 b 174,822 46.5 83.9 FAIL 1856 374 L.R. 115 Create Wildlife Conserva tion Department 172,164^ 157,097 52.3 84.5 PASS 1956 375 L.R. 116 Corporate Stock Ownership 106,155 198,355 34.9 78.2 FAIL 1956 357 I.P. 253 Congressional Redistricting 391,453 297,628 56.8 80.2 FAIL* 1956 377 I.P. 260 Creation of County Offices 273,481 407,091 40.2 79.2 FAIL 1956 376 I.P. 259 County Option Prohibition 214,012 275,528 43.7 100.0 FAIL 1957 379 L.R. 117 Real-Personal Ad Valorem Tax 251,317 132,972 65.4 66.8 PASS 1958 380 L.R. 118 City-Provide Water Facili ties 261,832 117,614 69.0 66.0 PASS 1958 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 386 L.R. 121 Repeal of Prohibition 396,845 314,380 57.4 100.0 PASS 1959 387 L.R. 122 County Option Prohibition 221,404 469,503° 32.0 100.0 FAIL 1959 388 L.R. 123 Nomination of Candidates 220,575 172,219 56.2 89.3 PASS 1960 389 L.R. 124 Legislator Pay Raise 156,723b 236,438 39.9 89.4 FAIL 1960 390 L.R. 125 Department of Health 201,218 193,497 51.0 89.7 PASS 1960 393 L.R. 128 Capital Improvements 244,609 164,167 59.8 92.9 PASS 1960 391 L.R. 126 Industrial Finance Authorityl28,850 101,875 55.8 97.5 PASS 1960 392 L.R. 127 Multi-County Libraries 114,294 113,671 50.1 96.3 PASS 1960 396 I.P. 265 State Highway Commission 186,176 351,774 34.6 100.0 FAIL 1960 397 I.P. 266 Legislative Apportionment 189,348 347,180 35.3 100.0 FAIL 1960 398 I.P. 267 Control of County Roads 183,173 353,446 34.1 100.0 FAIL 1960 394 L.R. 129 Legislative Special Session 320,915 382,952 45.6 77.9 FAIL 1960 395 R.P. 130 Withholding Income Tax 246,157 450,015% 35.4 77.1 FAIL 1960 401 L.R. 132 Criminal Prosecution 91,909 23,750 79.5 100.0 PASS 1961 407 L.R. 136 House Apportionment for Census 26,407 88,779 22.9 100.0 FAIL 1961 404 L.R. 133 Industrial Bonds 263,850° 195,020 57.1 76.3 PASS 1962 N) 405 L.R. 134 Legislative Session 8 Pay 154,413% 235,965 39.6 84.4 FAIL 1962 400 L.R. 131 Local Emercency Jurisdiction247,332° 149,086 62.4 85.7 PASS 1962 406 L.R. 135 Distribution of Liquor 319,809 307,861 51.0 86.6 FAIL# 1962 408 I.P. 271 Legislative Appointment 335,045 273,287 55.1 83.9 FAIL* 1962 411 L.R. 137 Capital Improvements 152,940° 56,137 73.1 100.0 PASS 1963 417 L.R. 143 Increase County Office Terms 64,042 142,057 31.1 100.0 FAIL 1963 418 L.R. 144 County Judge Term of Office 67,703° 137,412 33.0 100.0 FAIL 1963 419 L.R. 145 Increase State Office Terms 43,907 160,649° 21.5 100.0 FAIL 1963 409 I.P. 272 Right to Work 352,267 376,555 48.3 101.5° FAIL 1964 412 L.R. 138 Elector Residence 401,998 240,299 62.6 89.4 PASS 1964 413 L.R. 139 Legislator Compensation 183,382 443,971 29.2 87.3. FAIL 1964 416 L.R. 142 Legislative reapportionment 277,097 221,325 55.6 109.4° PASS 1964 414 L.R. 140 Legislator Pay Raise 188,753 583,480 24.4 81.3 FAIL 1964 415 L.R. 141 Create Judiciary Court 397,823 370,694 51.8 81.0 FAIL* 1964 420 R.P. 17 Repeal Gov. Appoint. Privlege 310,358 458,037 40.4 80.9 FAIL 1964 421 I.P. 274 School Support Levy 417,638 405,612 50.7 86.7 FAIL* 1964 422 I.P. 275 State Aid to Schools 362,468 461,717 44.0 86.8 FAIL 1964 423 I.P. 276 School Consolidation 403,865 418,070 49.1 86.6 FAIL 1964 424 I.P. 277 County School Superinten dent 307,173 497,198 38.2 84.7 FAIL 1964 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 425 L.R. 146 Sales Tax Increase 171,123 293,278 36.8 100.0 FAIL 1965 426 L.R. 147 Capital Improvements 199,512 261,229 43.3 100.0 FAIL 1965 427 L.R. 148 Capital Improvements-High ways 213,953 247,256 46.4 100.0 FAIL 1965 430 L.R. 151 Levy for School Benefits 125,779 59,535 67.9 100.0 PASS 1965 433 L.R. 154 Capital Improvements-High- ways 101,340 31,116 76.5 100.0 PASS 1965 428 L.R. 149 Separate Schools 327,927 166,941 66.3 82.0 PASS 1966 429 L.R. 150 Impeachment of State Officials 395,295 90,253 81.4 80.5 PASS 1966 431 L.R. 152 Court on Judiciary 328,012 128,207 71.9 75.6 PASS 1966 432 L.R. 153 Presidential Electors 347,440 120,455 74.3 77.5 PASS 1966 436 L.R. 157 Re-election of Governor 300,954 183,850 62.1 80.3 PASS 1966 434 L.R. 155 Vocational Education Program214,698 206,458 51.0 83.0 PASS 1966 435 L.R. 156 Limit Legislative Sessions 208,894 199,240 51.2 80.4 PASS 1966 437 R.P. 18 Fix Congressional Boundaries162,446 386,269 29.6 78.9 FAIL 1966 447 L.R. 163 Judicial Nominating 86,183 79,280 52.1 100.0 PASS 1967 w 448 L.R. 164 Judicial Department 90,167 73,919 55.0 100.0 PASS 1967 tn 435 L.R. 166 Change in Estimate of Revenues 91,094 19,513 82.4 100.0 PASS 1968 442 L.R. 158 Investment of School Funds 290,651 114,333 71.8 93.2 _ PASS 1968 444 L.R. 160 Legislative Regulation of Tax 197,421 185,125 51.6 88.0 PASS 1968 446 L.R. 162 Pardon and Parole Board 182,742 197,219 48.1 87.4 FAIL 1968 456 L.R. 169 Salaries for Elected Officials 174,301 207,894 45.6 88.0 FAIL 1968 457 L.R. 170 Petition for Grand Juries 199,406 171,412 53.8 85.3 PASS 1968 460 L.R. 173 Intangible Property Tax 329,848 92,710 78.1 97.2 PASS 1968 461 L.R. 174 Change in Estimate of Revenues 166,723 206,788 44.6 86.0 FAIL 1968 462 L.R. 175 Conflict of Interest 201,107 177,672% 53.1 87.2 PASS 1968 441 I.P. 281 Judicial Reform 115,771 172,711 40.1 96.5 FAIL 1968 443 L.R. 159 Taxation of Transient Property 182,326 92,601 66.3 91.9 PASS 1968 454 L.R. 167 Fixing Maximum Interest Rates 220,415 65,761 77.0 95.7 PASS 1968 455 L.R. 168 Corporation Reports 150,840 117,421 56.2 89.7 PASS 1968 458 L.R. 171 Issuance of Corporate Stock 155,692 109,977 58.6 88.8 PASS 1968 S.Q. I or R Proposition Short Title Number of Votes Percent Percent Result Year Number Yes No Yes Participation 459 L.R. 172 Jury Trials 170,854 97,736 63.6 89.8 PASS 1968 445 L.R. 161 Repeal Oath of Office 357,840 284,656 55.7 66.7 PASS 1968 463 L.R. 176 State Indebtedness 133,313 39,251 77.3 100.0 PASS 1968 466 L.R. 178 Oath for Public Officer 80,376 56,876 58.6 100.0 PASS 1969 468 L.R. 179 State Industrial Financial Bonds 65,975 69,904 48.6 100.0 FAIL 1969 472 L.R. 180 Constitutional Convention 58,223 187,934 23.7 100.0 FAIL 1970 473 L.R. 181 Article by Article Con stitutional Revision 67,358 176,237 27.7 100.0 FAIL 1970 474 L.R. 182 State Industrial Financial Bonds 82,761 162,333 33.8 100.0 FAIL 1970 477 L.R. 185 Legislative Reapportionment 155,553 218,952 41.5 100.0 FAIL 1970 475 L.R. 183 Public School Desegregation 138,887 160,694 46.4 100.0 FAIL 1970 476 L.R. 184 Creation of Hospital Dis tricts 73,653 219,952 25.1 100.0 FAIL 1970 464 R.P. 19 Election Law-Voting Machines252,918 299,654 45.8 77.6 FAIL 1970 469 R.P. 20 Deposit of State Funds 215,869 334,217 39.2 77.2 FAIL 1970 478 I.P. 287 "Blue Laws"-Saturday G a\ Sunday 110,819 129,478 46.1 100.0 FAIL 1971 479 L.R. 186 General Obligation Tax Bonds 92,402 134,670 40.7 100.0 FAIL 1971 481 L.R. 187 Investment of Educational Funds 127,843 95,801 57.2 100.0 * PASS 1971 482 L.R. 188 Self Incriminating TestimonyI22,47I 98,903 55.3 100.0 PASS 1971 483 L.R. 189 Grand Jury Reorganization 144,626 76,097 65,5 100.0 PASS 1971 484 L.R. 190 Elector-Eighteen Year Olds 132,525 96,910 57.8 100.0 PASS 1971 485 L.R. 191 State Indebtedness-Highways 114,493 360,399 24.1 100.0 FAIL 1972 488 L.R. 194 Electors-Public Utility Bonds 189,945 298,670 38.9 89.6 FAIL 1972 489 L.R. 195 City-Town Indebtedness 242,369 230,433 51.3 86.7 PASS 1972 490 L.R. 196 Farm Land Loan Valuation 223,794 244,077 47.8 85.8 FAIL 1972 480 I.P. 288 Liquor by the Drink 463,405 525,148 46.9 93.5 FAIL 1972 486 L.R. 192 Ad Valorem Taxation 537,310 387,272 58.1 87.4 PASS 1972 487 L.R. 193 Emergency Taxation Levy 490,966 413,023 54.3 85.5 PASS 1972 ^ Total yes and no vote for State Questions 1-5 do not total the officially reported vote due to missing data for Cotton and Harmon Counties and errors in official tally. Tallies for Qeustions 1-5 were unearthed in "pesthouse" of Oklalioma State Archives. This data is no held in official State Election Archives. Data for Cotton County are also missing for State Question 15. Yes or no vote shown here differs from official tally due to calculating or transcription errors in the latter. ^ Both yes and no vote shown here differs from official tally due to calculating or transcription errors in the latter or to incomplete reporting of county returns. ^ Percent participation exceeds 100 percent due to more voters voting on the measure than for the highest office in the primary election. ^ e Minor difference between official tally and the vote shown here is unexplained. The difference is two votes for S.Q. 22 and one vote for S.Q. 82. Missing data for Delaware, Me Curtain, and Seminole counties in the official returns account for discrepancy in total yes and no vote counts. S Missing data for Cotton, Le Flore, and Mayes counties account for discrepancy in total yes and no counts. Missing data for Cimmaron and Harper counties and other unexplained discrepancies create major differences in yes and no vote shown here and the official tally, i Discrepancies due to missing data for Love county and transcription error in official tally, j Missing data for Atoka and Carter counties account for discrepancy with official tally. ^ Missing data for Beaver, Comanche, Dewey, Ellis, Garvin, Grant, Haskell, Le Flore, Okfuskee, Oklahoma, Pushmataha, Washington, and Woods counties account for major discrepancy in official tally. I" Missing data for Beaver, Ciramarron, and Harper counties account for discrepancy with official tally. 4̂N J 248 NOTES One of the most concise discussions of the practice and theory of référendums in the United States and Eufope is provided in David Butler and Austin Ranney, eds.. Référendums A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory (Washington, B.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978), pp. 3-37. 2The explanatory statement provided by the Attorney General, State of Oklahoma on State Question 495— the measure which removed the effect of the "silent-vote" is provided in Oklahoma State Election Board, Directory of Oklahoma 1977, p. 679. ^Gillespie, p. 39. tsee Thomas R. Dye, Politics in States and Communities (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 26-29 for an excellent discussion of the relative merits of the constitutional amendment processes. Reviewing Professor Lewis A. Froman's work on the influence of interest groups in state politics. Dye ntoes that "The stronger the interest group in the state,...the greater the number of proposed amendments, and the greater number of amendments adopted." There seems to be little doubt that powerful interest groups have a political interest in state constitutional amendment activities. Indeed, a constitutional amendment may only be changed by a state question which refers the subject matter to the people for their consideration, whereas a statewide initiated and approved proposition may be subsequently changed, repealed, altered, or further amended by the state legislature. The addi tional effort required to have a constitutional amendment referred to the people for their collective judgment may be worth the additional effort, especially if the measure provides specific benefits to a special interest. ^The policy categories developed in this paper closely parallels those used by Austin Ranney and Laura Tallian in their independent studies of direct legislation (Governmental and political processes; Public morality. Revenue, taxation, bonds,'Regulation of.business and labor. Health, welfare, and public housing. Civil liberties and civil rights. Environmental protection and land use, and Education). For a description of the initiative and referendum measures that fall into these policy categories, see Butler and Ranney, pp. 78, 95. ^Some of the measures that belong in this policy category were recently analyzed by David R. Morgan and Kenneth J. Meier, "Politics and Morality: The Effect of Religion on Referenda Voting," paper presented at the 1979 annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Fort Worth, Texas, 29 March, 1979. They conclude that "...Protestant fundamentalists and nonfundamentalists tend to oppose legalizing certain activities they consider sinful— liquor by the drink and pari-mutuel betting, for example." 249 7Dangerfield, p. 24. g James K. Pollock, The Initiative and Referendum in Michigan (Ann Arbor: Bureau of Government, University of Michigan, 1940), p. 20. g Ibid. During the 1907-1908 Michigan constitutional convention the initiative and referendum was similarly characterized by some delegates. Pollock concludes: "...it has proved so difficult and unsuccessful a practice to use the initiative and referendum when the legislature is inactive, that anyone should think twice before inaugurating such pro posals." ■ CHAPTER V AREAL VOTING PATTERNS AMONG OKLAHOMA COUNTIES ON DIFFERENT PROPOSITION POLICY TYPES' SINCE STATEHOOD In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th sta'te admitted to the Union. It is a state of rich diversity in physical geography, history, and popula tion. Some of this diversity is discussed in the following analysis in an attempt to identify areal (geographic) patterns of voting behavior on state questions that have been placed into several public policy categories. A review of the "y®3̂ ~saying'* tendency of seventy-seven counties, based on computed mean yes vote for all measures that belong to each of the thirteen major policy types discussed in Chapter IV (see Table 4-21). The analysis identifies the five highest yea-saying counties, the five counties that demonstrate the lowest yea-saying tendency, and those counties that either vote to approve or vote to reject measures that meet the various policy classifications by a slight margin (percent yes vote in the interval 49.0 to 50.9). Before proceeding with the analysis, a brief review of some of the political-geographical features of Oklahoma is needed. Oklahoma is populated, according to the 1970 Bureau of the Census Population Report, by 2,559,229 inhabitants, of which approximately 48 percent of the people reside in three standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's): Oklahoma City SMSA (640,889 inhabitants), Tulsa SMSA (476,954 inhabitants), and Lawton SMSA (108,144). The Oklahoma City SMSA is made up of Canadian, Cleveland, and Oklahoma counties and includes four cities with populations of 25,000 or more— Oklahoma City (370,800), Midwest City (56,500), Del City (29,501), and Norman (63,600). Lawton's SMSA resides completely within Comanche County and the city of Lawton has 250 251 a population of 81,000 persons. The Tulsa SMSA is made up of Osage, Creek and Tulsa Counties, and has only one city with a population of 25,000 or more inhabitants— Tulsa (348,800). Thus, Oklahoma has established herself as an increasingly metropolitan state, having moved from 25.9 percent of the population residing in SMSA's in 1950 to 48 percent in 1970. This is particularly important in the analysis of voting characteristics of the counties, since nearly one-half of Oklahoma's populations reside in less than 10 percent (N=7) of the seventy-seven counties. In addition, Oklahoma presently has over 66 percent of its inhabitants residing in over 559 incorporated places of 1,000 population or more, of which the twelve largest cities in Oklahoma are: (1) Oklahoma City, 366,481; (2) Tulsa, 331,638; (3) Lawton, 74,740; (4) Norman, 52,117; (5) Midwest City, 48,114; (6) Enid, 44,008; (7) Muskogee, 37,331; (8) Stillwater, 31,126; (9) Bartlesville, 29,683; (10) Del City, 27,133; (11) Ponca City, 25,940; (12) Shawnee, 25,075. Combined, these twelve urban areas include 1,093,116 people or 42.7 percent of Oklahoma's total population. Special attention will be given to the counties that include these major urban concentrations in the areal analysis which follows. The county population distributions are also significantly skewed, with over fifty percent of the population residing in the fifteen largest counties: (1) Carter, 37,349; (2) Cleveland, 81,839; (3) Comanche, 108,144; (4) Creek, 45,532; (5) Garfield, 55,365; (6) Kay, 48,791; (7) Muskogee, 59,542; (8) Oklahoma, 526,805; (9) Okmulgee, 35,358; (10) Payne, 50,654; (11) Pittsburg, 37,521; (12) Pottawatomie, 43,134; (13) Stephens, 35,902; (14) Tulsa, 401,663; and (15) Washington, 42,277. The total populations held by these fifteen counties comprises 1,609,876 252 people or 62.9 percent of Oklahoma's 1970 population. The three largest counties (Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Comanche), account for 1,036,612 people or 40.5 percent of the total population. The counties with population totals below 10,000 persons, are: (1) Alfalfa, 7,224; (2) Beaver, 6,282; (3) Cimarron, 4,195; (4) Coal, 5,525; (5) Cotton, 6,832; (6) Dewey, 5,656; (7) Ellis, 5,129; (8) Grant, 7,117; (9) Greer, 7,979; (10) Harmon, 5,136; (11) Harper, 5,151; (12) Haskell, 9,578; (13) Jefferson, 7,125; (14) Johnston, 7,871; (15) Latimer, 8,601; (16) Love, 5,637; (17) Major 7,529; (18) Marshall, 7,682; (19) Nowata, 9,773; (20) Pushmataha, 9,385; and, (21) Roger Mills, 4,452. The cumulative population total for these twenty-one counties in Oklahoma account for only 5.6 percent of Oklahoma's population. Further it is interesting to note that twelve out of the twenty-one sparsely populated counties are counties which border either Texas (N=8) or Kansas (N=4) or are located in the Panhandle region of the state (N=2). The vast majority (N=6) of the other, low populated counties are geographically postioned in the southern portion of the state. In contrast, the urban counties are primarily located within the central portion of Oklahoma, although two counties (Pittsburg and Carter) are located in the south and southeastern part. Two counties (Kay and Washington) are located in the north and northeastern part of Oklahoma. The population distribution among Oklahoma's seventy-seven counties is important in relation to the total vote cast for elective offices and on initiated and referred measures. Proportionately, the fifteen largest counties have a larger impact on the outcome of the initiated and referred measures than the impact possessed by the remaining sixty-two counties. 253 In addition to the urban and rural distribution, it is illustrative to identify the distribution of political party strength by geographical location. Although the data have not been collected and analyzed relative to the percent Democratic or Republican vote for Governor, Senator, and President for the entire 1907-1972 period, the Oklahoma Votes; 1907-1962 study presents a distribution of party strength for Governor, Senator, and President from statehood to 1962. ̂Generally, the southern portion of the state is strongly Democratic, with forty-six of the seventy-seven counties [59.7 percent) demonstrating, as shown in Figure 5-1, a strong Democratic tendency in their vote for Governor.^ An additional ten counties located in the Panhandle and central and northeastern Oklahoma [Cimarron, Texas, Custer, Caddo, Canadian, Oklahoma, Creek, Osage, Wagoner, and Adair) tended to vote Democratic for Governor. The remaining twenty- one counties [Beaver, Harper, Ellis, Woods, Woodward, Major, Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Noble, Kay, ftawnee, Lincoln, Payne, Blaine, Kingfisher, Dewey, Tulsa, Nowata, Washington, and Lincoln) tended to vote Republican during the 1907-1962 period. Eleven of these counties voted strongly Republican for Governor [55 percent Republican and above) ten of the twenty-one counties listed above are classified as leaning Republican [50 to 54.9 percent Republican) in their voting behavior for the office of Governor. Kirkpatrick and associates conclude that political party strength, since statehood, has been characterized by "Republican strength..centered in a northern tier of counties, as many as four deep, that occupies the west ern two-thirds of the border with Kansas. Strong Dem ocratic support, up to five counties deep, is centered in almost all of the southern half of the state from the Texas to Arkansas borders. Between these two larger expanses of strong party affiliation lies an elongated Figure 5.1— Distribution of Party Strength for Governor, 1907-1962 CIMARRON j TEXAS 'BEAVER HARPER WOODS ALFALFA ' GRANT I KAY OSAGE ] /NOWATA/CRAIG jolTAWAl * * #! * 11 rI - \ * I1 — *r' C E T m | 1 ELLIS WOODWARD I GARFIELD lN08LË"X̂ y», •2 T (LRO—GERSl -,r-"-"- I1 • 1 * I •‘| -«■I•-'-MA-J-OR- „ IPAWNEE-.. It . ^ ̂ luAVCC I ' A # # _______ LI _ # J i I DEWEY "Ij blaine [J I T " k ingfisher LOGAN I PAYNEj L "̂ CREEKtTlikS*?!̂ IuiagonEH^HEROKEe!I ^ I. --^---- ROGER mills ĵ USTER I I (CANADIAN OKLAHOMAS J- —• — 4 E C ^ j W A S I ^ J 4 M " I I J k I GRADY ro •tA*n* * -I— ' I Strongly Democratic i^|^55% and Over *̂*”̂ ^â|£^0H2JST0N •^^{iwARSHAl^ ̂BRYAN IcHOCTAV Leaning Democratic 50-54.9% I LOVH L Leaning Republican #■ 50-54.9% Strongly Republican * 55% and Over 255 sweep of "leaning" counties, occassionally three deep, beginning in the northeastern corner of the state and extending southwest to the center of the state. This group of counties may be categorized as "leaning" or "swing" since the majority vote in these areas has alternated more often between Republican and Democratic than in those counties in the north or south."^ In addition, the Panhandle counties, (Cimarron, Texas and Beaver) are also characterized as "swing" counties in Oklahoma's voting history. The political-geographical tendencies discussed above are best described in reference to the "North-South and East-West Split." Ben son and associates note that the North-South differentiation is related to Republican Party (North) and Democratic Party (South) indentification and voting tendencies, whereas the East-West split— a split that is less pronounced, is related to the division in the state between land area that was previously Indian Territory and that which formed the Oklahoma Territory.^ These same researchers observe: "...the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes had come from Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Missis sippi. Many were slave-holders, and their active support of the Confederacy during the Civil War resulted in the loss of much of their original land holdings as a repri sal by the Union after Lee's surrender. White settlers in the Indian Nations were mostly from Arkansas and Texas, adding to the assumptions, which proved correct, that the region would probably vote Democratic upon achieve ment of statehood." The Oklahoma Territory was largely made up of settlers possessing a Republican Party affiliation. Those settling in western Oklahoma migrated largely from states located north of the territory. Benson notes that "...among the politically doubtful homesteaders, a Republican bias developed out of gratitude to the national Republican administration which had been instrumental in enacting the law opening the territory to white settlement."^ This pattern of Republican domination reigned 256 supreme from 1890 to 1905, temporarily interrupted in the 1896 election with the succesful candidacy of the Democratic-Populist over the Republican candidate. By 1906, it was clear, based on the number of delegates selected to attend the state confititutional convention, that the Democratic Party had assumed a stance of dominance. Out of 112 delegates to the Convention, 98 were Democrats (87.5 percent of the total) and thirteen were affiliated with the Republican Party (11.6 percent of 7 the total), and an independent was also elected. Kirkpatrick and Assoc iates also note that the "Democrats polled 53.1 percent of the total O vote in Oklahoma Territory and 54.5 percent in Indian Territory." Several other elections in Oklahoma's early political history are important in exemplifying the "East-West split," although part of this division has been historically attributed to economic factors. That is, western and central Oklahoma has generally had a higher standard of liv ing in comparison with the lower economic status possessed by eastern Oklahomans. Unfortunately, the socioeconomic data have not yet been assembled and analyzed over the past seven decades of Oklahoma's history, but have been analyzed, based on data reported in the 1970 census. Although no attempt will be made here to recapitulate the entire g factor analytic study of the 1970 data, one major socioeconomic cluster was identified: The highest industrialization-urbanization, factor loadings, representative of the level of manufacturing, percent non white population, and percent non-rural/farm population, are present for the counties of Tulsa, Washington, Okmulgee, Sequoyah, McCurtain, Ottawa, Kay and Stephens Counties. The lowest industrialization-urban ization factor loadings are represented in the western counties (Cimarron 257 Beaver, Ellis, Roger Mills, Custer, Comanche, Alfalfa, and Grant). Therefore, the "East-West" political differentiation which political analysts suggested to exist in Oklahoma is at least partially documented by more recent empirical political analysis, as shown in the bivariate and multivariate analysis later in this chapter. The affluence level of Oklahoma counties may be assessed by ranking the counties by median family income. The ten lowest median family income is found for these counties: Adair, Pushmataha, McIntosh, Atoka, Choctaw, Haskell, Coal, Delaware, Okfuskee and Johnston. The opposite end of the median family income continuum is occupied by Washington, Tulsa, Cimarron, Oklahoma, Kay, Texas, Harper, Cleveland, Stephens, and Osage counties. Without exception the lowest income counties are located in the southern, southeastern, northeastern and eastern portion of the state. The counties with the highest income levels are primarily located in the northern, central and far northwestern sectors of the state. Last, in relation to political party strength and region, it should be noted that the Tulsa metropolitan area is strongly pro-Republican, and that the largest county, Oklahoma, has tended to be a swing county, with a proclivity, at least in recent years, "...to lean Republican in major elections."ÜThe tendency to vote Republican is an important partisan orientation to develop in the last twepty-years of Oklahoma County's voting record. With the discussion of these several socioeconomic, demo graphic, and political party spatial characteristics and patterns pro viding background information, this chapter will focus more specifically on areal patterns of Oklahoma counties by selected policy categories into which the 252 state questions submitted to the Oklahoma electorate have 258 been placed. Voting Patterns for Oklahoma Counties, 1907-1972 on all Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate The county average "yes" vote on all «issues submitted to the Oklahoma electorate were computed for all counties. An average of the seventy- seven counties mean vote yes were subsequently computed and is displayed in Table 5-1 and represents the grand mean (X) percent yes or mean of means. As revealed in Table 5-1, the six issues that comprise the health, welfare, and safety policy category possess the highest grand mean percent yes (66.2 percent), followed by the five propositions that make up the judicial policy classification. Tied for third and fourth ranked policy categories, in order of grand mean percent yes vote, are the seventy-two state ques tions included in the taxation, revenue and finance category (53.1 X percent yes), and the five industrial and labor relations issues (53.1 X percent yes). These four policy areas are the only measures out of the fourteen issue classifications studied in which the counties demonstrated a tendency to cast an average yes vote that exceeded the 50-percent level. The lowest grand mean level was displayed for the three issues calling for a constitutional convention (16.9 X percent), followed by a grand mean of 41.8 percent for the thirteen issues that comprise the public morality group, and a grand mean of 44.3 for the veteran benefit policy propositions. These data confirm the actual passage/failure rates pre sented in Table 4-25, in which 83.3 percent of all health, welfare, and safety measures actually passed, 100.0 percent of all judicial issues passed followed by the government issues (60.0 percent passage level) 259 TABLE 5-1 STATEWIDE GRAND MEAN PERCENT YES FOR STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE Policy Type ' Grand Mean Number of Percent yes Issues Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Policy 45.1 72 Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy 53.1 72 Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy 56.4 5 Land and Natural Resource Use Policy 47.1 5 Industrial and Labor Relations Policy 53.1 5 Business and Corporation Policy 49.6 15 Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform Policy 49.9 33 Constitutional Convention Policy 16.9 3 Government Maintenance Policy 45.6 5 Health, Welfare and Safety Policy 66.2 6 Education Policy 47.3 11 Veteran Benefit Policy 44.3 6 Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy 41.8 13 Unclassified 21.1 ___1 Total (N) 252 260 and the 47.2 percent passage level for taxation issues. The government maintenance grand mean percent y e s , as shown in Table 5-1, does not rank within the top four policy areas largely due to the low mean percent yes vote for the seventy-seven counties on Stape Question 205 (26.6 percent yes) that dealt with municipal utilities and the variation in counties mean percent yes (extreme variations among the counties) on State Questions 359 and 360 (46.3 X percent yes and 46.1 X percent yes, respectively) per taining to Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and financing. The areal distribution of mean yes percent value for all measures voted on by the Oklahoma populace between 1907-1972 are presented in Table 5-2 and geographically illustrated in Figure 5.2. The counties which show the highest average percent yes vote for all questions voted upon since 1907, reveal the dominance of those counties, except for Osage, which are presently among the fifteen largest counties in Oklahoma. The high est oveiallmean percent yes vote tendency was obtained for the counties of Tulsa (X=56.0 percent yes), followed by Okmulgee (X=55.6), Muskogee (X=54.9), Oklahoma (X=54.0), and Osage with an average percent yes vote of 53.8. Of the seventy-seven counties, only two counties demonstrated a mean percent yes tendency that fell within the interval 55.0 to 59.9 (Tulsa and Okmulgee), and twenty-six counties, as shown in Figure 5-2, fell within a mean yes range of 50.0 to 54.9 percent. Only one out of the fifteen most highly populated counties in Oklahoma, Garfield (X=47.5), does not fall in the mean percentage yes category of 50.0 or above. In addition, the counties that showed a proclivity to vote yes included six out of the seven counties (Canadian had an overall X percent yes value of 48.0) that constitute the SMSA areas in 1970. Also, the counties in 261 TABLE 5-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ALL STATE QUESTIONS [1907-1972) BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 49.6 18.7 91.9 Alfalfa 43.,9 18.9 87.8 Atoka 48.2 19.2 88.0 Beaver 43.8 19.8 97.5 Beckham 47.6 19.0 84.8 Blaine 44.8 17.9 86.0 Bryan 51.3 18.5 85.8 Caddo 47.6 17.1 78.7 Canadian 48.0 16.7 85.4 Carter 52.3 17.5 79.4 Cherokee 49.7 18.3 79.1 Choctaw 52.2 17.9 89.2 Cimarron 42.2 20.4 94.7 Cleveland 53.0 17.9 84.4 Coal 48.6 19.2 89.2 Comanche 52.9 15.9 83.7 Cotton 48.0 18.6 85.5 Craig 44.4 17.5 84.3 Creek 52.7 16.7 76.6 Custer 47.8 17.8 82.3 Delaware 46.7 17.9 85.7 Dewey 42.8 19.1 87.3 Ellis 42.5 19.6 93.2 Garfield 47.5 17.7 78.4 Garvin 49.1 18.4 81.4 Grady 49.7 17.2 74.9 Grant 41.2 18.4 87.3 Greer 49.2 19.3 86.2 Harmon 45.0 19.9 92.9 Harper 43.6 19.4 89.3 Haskell 51.4 19.9 90.2 Hughes 49.2 18.4 82.3 Jackson 51.3 18.0 86.3 Jefferson 47.7 17.8 89.8 Johnston 48.7 20.2 87.5 Kay '50.1 18.1 80.9 Kingfisher 41.8 18.4 81.5 Kiowa 48.0 18.6 84.4 Latimer 49.6 18.3 86.3 LeFlore 51.1 18.4 89.4 Lincoln 44.2 17.2 76.7 Logan 46.6 18.2 89.0 Love 47.1 19.9 90.0 McClain 49.4 17.9 81.5 McCurtain 50.9 19.1 89.3 McIntosh 51.4 16.1 86.4 Major 40.3 19.0 88.3 262 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Marshall 49.9 20.9 91.5 Mayes 48.1 17.1 82.0 î'iurray 51.3 17.5 84.3 Muskogee 54.9 16.7 78.2 Noble 4 3.,8 17.8 85.1 Nowata 49.3 16.4 75.9 Okfuskee 51.0 16.7 78.3 Oklahoma 54.0 19.2 90.5 Okmulgee 55.6 15.9 72.7 Osage 53.8 16.8 75.0 Ottawa 51.2 15.6 82.1 Pawnee 47.5 16.9 81.9 Payne 52.4 18.1 78.7 Pittsburg 52.6 15.8 71.4 Pontotoc 49.9 18.4 79.9 Pottawatomie 50.1 17.2 76.7 Pushmataha 49.3 19.8 87.0 Roger Mills 43.8 19.7 89.3 Rogers 48.4 16.5 80.6 Seminole 51.9 18.1 75.2 Sequoyah 51.5 19.6 89.1 Stephens 51.6 18.0 80.8 Texas 48.8 19.4 93.7 Tillman 50.2 19.5 84.7 Tulsa 56.0 19.4 87.0 Wagoner 49.3 16.3 78.1 Washington 52.7 20.1 87.1 Washita 45.4 18.4 85.1 Woods 44.1 17.6 81.3 Woodward 45.7 18.8 86.6 N=252 Grand T 48.7 Figure 5.2— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for All State Questions Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON j TEXAS ' BEAVER 1 HARPER \ WOODS {alfalfa } GRANT 1 KAY OSAGE 'NOWATA/CRAIG IÔTTAWA e 1 0 ! e j © !-v^ © # 1 1 © 1 ^ 1 * r— e I e 1 ELLIS 1 WOODWARD | 1 I 1 1 GARFIELD 1 NOBLE WR O—G■ E“R S" 1 “II___ e I — , I MA©J —OR — A IPAWNÊ -.. Ï MAYES I I e i I ©I , d ® \ ------I- -D--E--W---E--Y----L L° A j BLAINE I I—*- — T “““1 © K̂INGFISHER LOGANI PAYNE j. ■^™CrRFE7E?KTüLU Uj3IHd k I{ WAGONER «^ÿ-CH1E ROKEE,I \I © " - I LIN*COLN ROGER MILLS I CUSTER ] f_ - r ^ - 4 - 7 ^ . ^ - , 0 I * \e ! e II {CANADIAN OOKK-IL- &A-HH-OOMM-AA- !:I A^ Ij ----- <{ owWLMS^ MU_SK_OG E*E I .ADAIR \S- -------- Ïk|-C A—D D—O|-I \ * I______ jOKFUSKEE"; :K:,JmcTnT0Sh1 \ * ' BECKHAM I WASHITA | |-----0e I 0 I 0 ■k.----11| r~' '“I'V'*'Î I g ra d y" N) ..pJ cRE ER JI-, -K-IO-W-A- - - - - 1 I _ '•’•latimê OwN ;-iI © © X Percent Yes \ L **“ !> I COMANCHE I I GARVIN jPONTOTOĈ . _ _ J j I 0 [JACKSON % I ^ T l p H ^ h 0 - - - 1 - , ^ r ' % Ü Â - - 60.00 and above 55.00-59.99 4# \^^^{t.llma'n--._.--'•̂ •1 * s'Qf' 0 pccu-Rf ;- 50.00-54.99 * \ ^ • ^ L('jE_ F_F_ER_S_ONJJ ICc aArRtTIAir—R "-«‘-He 45.00-49.99 Q >OHN 0ST On| ^ ,' ^ • ML _____ MARSHAUf-'amYAN ' CHOCT^ 40.00-44.99 0 I' LOVE 0 ^ 0 4 * L ♦ 39.99 and belowO 264 which eleven of the twelve largest cities in Oklahoma are located are represented in the 50.0 mean percent yes or above group. The exception is that of Enid which is located in Garfield County. Further, the yea saying counties were generally distributed geographically throughout the central, eastern and far southern portion of the state— regions that have generally voted the Democratic ticket for Governor during the 1907- 1962 period. A fair representation of yea saying counties are included within those counties that possessed high median family incomes. The five counties showing the lowest mean yes voting tendency on propositions are: Major (X=40.3), Grant (X=41.2), Kingfisher (X=41.8j, Cimarron (X=42.2j and Ellis (%=42.5j. All five of these counties are located in western Oklahoma. All of these "nay-saying" counties, except for Cimarron, demonstrated a Republican voting pattern for Governor during the 1907-1962 period, although Grant and Ellis counties have showed a Democratic pattern of gubernatorial voting during the 1966-1974 period. Certainly the North-South partisan split is prevalent between the high and low yea-saying counties. Among the seventy-seven counties there are seventeen counties that may be considered swing counties relative to the successful passage or defeat of state questions. These counties have a mean yes vote of 49.0 to 49.9 and 50.0 to 50.9 percent. First the counties included in the narrow mean percent passage category (50.0 to 50.9) are Kay (X=50.1), McCurtain (X=50.9), Pottawatamie (X=50.1, and Tillamn (X=50.2). The last three counties mentioned are clearly within the group of counties that have voted the Democratic ticket for Governor during the twentieth century, and Kay County has had a tendency to lean toward the Republican party in gubernatorial choice. Second, among the counties comprising 265 the narrow defeat category (X yes vote of 49.0 to 49-9 percent) are: Garvin (X=49.1), Greer (X=49.2), Hughes (X=49.2), Nowata (X=49.3), Pushmataha (7=49.3), Wagoner (7=49.3), McClain (7=49.4), Adair (7=49.6), Latimer (7=49.6), Cherokee (7=49.7), Grady, (7=49.7), Marshall (7=49.9), and Pontotoc (7=49.9). Seven of these swing counties are located in the eastern portion of the state; four are positioned in the southern section; and only one county is centrally located. In addition, all but one of the counties (Nowata) identified above have tended to vote Democratic for the office of Governor since statehood. With these general yes voting patterns established, the areal voting pattern by specific policy category is examined next. Legislative, Executive and Judicial Government Structure, Organization and Reform Policy Included in the category of government structure are seventy-two statutory and constitutional measures that have been referred to the Oklahoma electorate. The large number of issues submitted in this policy area contributes to its significance in the history of Oklahoma's ex perience with the initiative and referendum. During the 1907-1972 period, 28.6 percent of all the measures voted upon were of the government structure type, and twenty-six of the seventy-two attempts at change received popular voter approval. Therefore, this category accounts for 25.7 percent of the total number of propositions that were adopted. For a complete list of these measures, the reader may refer to Table 4-21. The mean yes percentage for all counties on all measures of the governmental structure type are displayed in Table 5-3 and geographically represented in Figure 5-3. Among the high mean yes voting counties on 266 TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION AND REFORM POLICY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes 1 Deviation Range Adair 44.2 17.9 ,73.4 Alfalfa 40.8 17.7 70.1 Atoka 42.4 17.5 80.7 Beaver 40.1 17.5 78.0 Beckham 43.8 17.9 77.7 Blaine 40.5 17.8 72.8 Bryan 46.1 18.1 75.8 Caddo 44.5 17.2 71.9 Canadian 45.9 16.2 66.0 Carter 48.9 16.1 67.8 Cherokee 45.9 17.5 69.3 Choctaw 48.4 17.2 74.7 Cimarron 37.5 18.4 76.5 Cleveland 49.9 16.8 73.5 Coal 42.0 19.0 70.9 Comanche 50.3 14.1 60.7 Cotton 44.1 18.5 79.3 Craig 41.8 17.5 78.5 Creek 49.7 16.0 66.8 Custer 45.1 16.3 74.6 Delaware 42.3 17.3 66.9 Dewey 37.3 17.0 75.2 Ellis 37.5 17.9 79.6 Garfield 45.1 16.1 65.0 Garvin 45.2 17.7 72.8 Grady 47.6 17.1 65.8 Grant 38.6 17.5 72.5 Greer 45.2 18.9 76.4 Harmon 40.7 18.5 77.3 Harper 39.1 16.7 79.2 Haskell 46.6 19.2 77.6 Hughes 45.0 18.6 75.6 Jackson 48.2 18.0 85.8 Jefferson '44.1 18.7 73.8 Johnston 43.6 20.6 83.5 Kay 48.3 17.4 67.3 Kingfisher 38.9 17.6 70.9 Kiowa 44.7 19.2 75.8 Latimer 44.5 17.2 64.4 LeFlore 46.3 17.7 74.1 Lincoln 41.3 16.7 70.6 Logan 42.8 19.2 89.0 Love 42.9 21.1 84.5 McClain 45.5 18.0 72.1 McCurtain 44.8 18.9 82.1 McIntosh 47.2 14.8 60.0 267 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 35.9 17.2 71.6 Marshall 45.8 19.8 73.6 Mayes 45.9 17.1 65.8 Murray 46.3: 17.3 69.5 Muskogee 54.5 17.0 74.2 Noble 40.6 16.6 63.5 Nowata 46.4 16.8 69.8 Okfuskee 47.5 16.3 59:1 Oklahoma 52.2 19.4 40.5 Okmulgee 53.0 14.9 62.5 Osage 50.8 15.5 63.2 Ottawa 49.2 15.2 75.7 Pawnee 43.9 16.4 67.9 Payne 49.8 17.3 66.4 Pittsburg 49.6 15.7 57.0 Pontotoc 45.1 19.0 76.6 Pottawatomie 46.3 17.2 64.0 Pushmataha 43.3 19.3 77.1 Roger Mills 38.5 17.9 75.9 Rogers 46.7 15.6 68.7 Seminole 46.9 16.8 64.8 Sequoyah 47.1 18.6 80.2 Stephens 49.9 18.1 68.3 Texas 45.6 18.3 82.7 Tillman 47.0 19.8 82.3 Tulsa 54.7 18.6 74.4 Wagoner 46.7 16.1 70.7 Washington 51.9 18.8 70.7 Washita 41.7 17.1 75.5 Woods 40.8 16.7 70.6 Woodward 41.8 17.5 71.2 N=72 Grand H 45.1 Figure 5.3— Percent Distribution for ail Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organiza tion, and Reform Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON [ TEXAS OTTAWA o 1 BEAVER 11 HAR;PER alfalfa GRANT 1 OSAGE 1! e !1 e I OELLIS WOODWARD GARFIELD jS ,ROGERS _l--- I DEWEY jI blaine”,[!K"INGFISHER LOGANI 's. >• ^ I LINCOLN ROGER MILLS# CUSTE©R OKLAHOMA A I I V S1 MUSKOGLELE I |A0A1R\' j CANADIAN I l o K M U L GÛ^ _ ** npSE'SiToYliH" 1JOKFUSKEE I .IJmciInNtTOoSsHh! \ BECKHAM LE FLORE No\ 00 iCOMANCHE I I GARVIN I PONTOTOC [_ _ _ j X Percent Yes “ t? 'JACKSON 'V I ',JS-T_E_P_HE_ L , A I A r ' C O A L », Ii _ _,_JIP------------------ — -I ^ 1 o NS I I A • USHMATAHAI 60.00 and above T̂ILLMAN t I P' JI. 0-̂4 ,II- I- - O P*’ “ ~ H F* .ATOKA J . [_M|------yJMURRAY , ^ J I ccurtain55.00-59.99 * ( 0 COT^N j------- 1 CARTER 0 1 © I50.00-54.99 * IJEFFERSON I ■JOHNSTON* I! I— I 45.00-49.99© ŷlARSHALV-* BRYAN ] CHOCTAW , e 40.00-44.990 39.99 and belowo 269 this issue are; Tulsa (Y=54.7), Muskogee (X=54.5), Okmulgee (X=53.0), Oklahoma (X=52.2), and Washington C'X=51.9). All five of these counties are presently ranked within the twelve highest populated counties in Oklahoma; also, all these counties except,Okmulgee and Muskogee comprise two of the states largest SMSA's. However, Okmulgee and Muskogee are adjacent to Tulsa County and the Tulsa SMSA. The pattern of high yea- saying is clearly urban and metropolitan centered with the states largest populated counties demonstrating a tendencey to vote yes on governmental organization and reform measures. Indeed, as clearly illustrated in Table 5-3, the only counties that possessed a yea-saying tendency were Osage, Comanche, Oklahoma, Washington, Okmulgee, Tulsa, and Muskogee. These are also the locations for the state's largest cities: Oklahoma City, Midwest City, Del City, Tulsa, Lawton, Muskogee, and Bartlesville. The map. Figure 5-3, shows the intervals associated with an average percent yes of 50.0 and above for this policy area, to clearly consist of eastern and metropolitian counties. In addition, the highest yea-saying counties show a pattern, except for Tulsa and Washington Counties, of voting Democratic for Governor over the 1907-1962 period, with Tulsa and Washing ton leaning toward the Republican ticket. The counties that fall in the lowest average percent yes category are: Major (X=35.9), Dewey (X=37.3), Cimarron (X=37.5), Ellis (X=37.5), and Roger Mills (X=38.5). Without exception these lowest yea-saying counties are located in western Oklahoma. Surely, the Oklahoma Territory-Indian Territory county distribution seems to prevail among the highest and low est average yes vote cast on governmental structure measures. Potential swing counties that either tended to approve or reject 270 all governmental structure measures by less than one percentage point are: (1) Comanche and Osage, mean of 50.3 and 50.8 percent yes each; (2) Cleveland (X=49.9), Creek (X=49.7), Ottawa (X=49.2), Payne (X=49.8), Pittsburg (X=49.6), and Stephens (X=49.9)., Comanche and Osage are south ern and northeastern in location, although their electorates tend to vote the Democratic ticket for Governor; the counties tending on the average, to reject governmental structure measures are generally geographically positioned in the eastern and northeastern parts of Oklahoma with Pitts burg and Stephens located in the southern portion of the state. Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy A large number of propositions have been proposed and directed to the voters in the policy area of taxation, revenue and finance. This policy category encompasses seventy-two measures that are of a statutory or constitutional nature, and that were voted upon from 1907-1972. Like the governmental structure group, this category also includes 28.6 percent of the total number of measures that have been voted on by Oklahomans, the two groups constituting a majority (57 percent) of the total. The taxation proposals possess a higher passage level than that attained for the governmental structure issues with 47.2 percent (N=34) of all measures proposed meeting voter approval, and a grand mean for the group of 51.3 percent yes. This contrasts with the low 45.1 percent support for the government structure group and is well above the grand mean (48.7 percent) for all 252 state questions, whereas the 45.1 percent support for govern ment structure is markedly below. Taxation is an important and, one might add, persistant policy interest area with implications that tran scend regional, racial, or partisan identifications. 271 The average percent yes vote data for all of Oklahoma’s counties for the taxation, revenue, and finance issues is tabulated and graphically displayed in Table 5-4 and Figure 5-4. A review of Table 5-4 indicates that a fairly large percentage of Oklahoma’s counties have shown a tendency to yea-say on propositions submitted in this policy area. In fact, only seventeen counties— counties basically located in the northwestern quad rant of the state— have a mean percent yes value that falls below the 50.0 and above percent category. The top yea-saying counties, listed in order of magnitude are: Okmulgee (X=60.3), Sequoyah (X=59 Haskell (X=59.2), Cleveland (’X=58.5), and Bryan [X=58.0). As shown in Figure 5-4, four of these top five yea-saying counties are geographically located in the eastern section of the state, with Cleveland County being centrally located. In addition to the eastern orientation of these highest ranked counties, there are a large number of additional counties that tended to cast yes votes (on the average, 50 percent or more of the time). These yea-saying counties are clearly located in the general southern as well as eastern portion of Oklahoma, nearly reflecting the Democratic alignment of these counties in their electoral behavior during the 1907-1962 period. The areal pattern is markedly different, however, for the seventeen counties who have a mean vote yes percent that is below 50 percent. That is, the lowest mean percentage ye§ counties (Major, "X=43.5; Grant, X=43.6; Kingfisher, "X=44.3; Noble, X=;45.6; and Cimarron, "X=45.7) are located in the northcentral to northwestern region of the state. Except for Cimarron, these five lowest mean percent yes counties have voted Republican for Governor over the 1907-1962 period. To some extent the ’’East-West” split is represented among the highest and lowest mean percent 272 TABLE 5-4 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL TAXATION, REVENUE AND FINANCE POLICY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 56.3 19.0 75.7 Alfalfa 46.8 19.6 80.9 Atoka 54.3 19.4 78.6 Beaver 48.4 20.5 86.6 Beckham 52.9 19.3 79.2 Blaine 49.2 18.2 83.4 Bryan 58.0 18.4 72.5 Caddo 51.7 17.7 78.5 Canadian 51.0 18.4 85.4 Carter 56.8 18.9 78.1 Cherokee 56.2 20.0 74.4 Choctaw 57.2 18.4 76.4 Cimarron 45.7 22.2 89.7 Cleveland 58.5 17.9 80.6 Coal 53.3 18.2 77.4 Comanche 56.1 17.3 80.6 Cotton 52.2 18.6 76.4 Craig 48.5 18.2 78.1 Creek 56.2 17.4 76.6 Custer 51.9 18.4 82.2 Delaware 52.4 19.2 76.8 Dewey 48.3 19.7 83.5 Ellis 46.4 20.1 82.5 Garfield 49.5 19.0 78.4 Garvin 55.2 19.0 76.6 Grady 54.3 17.1 73.1 Grant 43.6 19.2 80.8 Greer 55.0 19.1 83.3 Harmon 51.1 19.5 82.4 Harper 47.1 20.0 83.2 Haskell 59.2 20.8 76.6 Hughes 55.3 17.9 75.5 Jackson 56.6 16.9 72.7 Jefferson 51.3 17.9 77.0 Johnston .55.0 20.2 73.8 Kay 51.9 19.3 80.9 Kingfisher 44.3 20.0 81.5 Kiowa 52.4 18.3 82.9 Latimer 55.8 18.8 76.9 LeFlore 57.6 18.2 74.0 Lincoln 47.0 18.5 76.7 Logan 48.9 18.8 78.4 Love 52.4 19.8 81.2 McClain 55.2 18.3 75.4 McCurtain 56.8 19.1 79.5 McIntosh 57.8 16.7 75.1 273 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Maj or 43.5 19.3 86.4 Marshall 55.1 22.9 81.0 Mayes 52.1 18.3 81.1 Murray 57.4 17.4 72.5 Muskogee 57.6 17.3 75.2 Noble 45.6 18.3 73.3 Nowata 51.4 16.3 75.7 Okfuskee 55.7 17.7 68.8 Oklahoma 56.1 19.5 81.7 Okmulgee 60.3 16.6 71.3 Osage 56.1 17.4 75.0 Ottawa 55.7 16.5 71.9 Pawnee 50.4 17.2 77.6 Payne 55.7 19.1 78.7 Pittsburg 57.2 15.8 67.1 Pontotoc 55.7 17.8 72.6 Pottawatomie 55.0 17.5 76.7 Pushmataha 55.2 20.4 82.8 Roger Mills 48.8 20.8 84.4 Rogers 51.6 17.4 79.5 Seminole 57.1 20.0 73.2 Sequoyah 59.8 20.2 77.0 Stephens 56.1 18.1 79.3 Texas 52.3 20.6 84.7 Tillman 54.8 18.1 77.8 Tulsa 56.4 20.1 83.8 Wagoner 53.2 17.6 78.1 Washington 52.8 21.4 84.1 Washita 50.8 18.3 83.6 Woods 48.1 18.3 75.7 Woodward 50.5 19.6 86.6 N=72 Grand X 53.1 Figure 5*4— Percent Distribution for ail Taxation, Revenue and Finance Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON BEAVER HARPER \ WOODS [alfalfa GRANT KAY I */NOWATA/CRAIG ifi * i e WOODWARD •*N“O BLE 1I £3 t|*R" ~ T ELLIS GARFIELD OGERS _,------1 ^ w i I-M-A-JOR ■— V «J I — ̂ — ,1. — J ̂̂ i— C — •» — -1 I DEWEY I: blainê .ÎjK !AN|^ P AVNE 7jJFe, Ij CR£EKLlü*-ĴI 4▼ltjlW AGONER•̂ C—HE'H OKEEi( I\ 5 " T - n c o l n " !I * ' <1# J } 4 # } ^ \ © •_____I V M̂USKOGEE lI ___,! ^^RlI I jOKMULGEJ,_______ jSEQUOYAH H fBm E—C KHA—M I K) X Percent Yes 60.00 and above 55.00-59.99 4# 50.00-54.99 * 45.00-49.99 © 40.00-44.99 © 39.99 and belowo 275 yes counties. Unfortunately, other demographic factors such as per capita income, percent owner occupied housing, level of industrialization, median level of education, have not been analyzed over time in Oklahoma in relation to state question voting behavior, and therefore the conclusions that may be drawn from the regional differentiation are of necessity limited in nature. Potential swing yea-saying counties are principally located in the northwestern and western parts of Oklahoma. Only three counties have a voting profile on taxation issues that would place them in the mean percent yes interval of 50.0 to 50.9. The "marginal" approval granting counties consist of Pawnee (T=50.4), Woodward (T=50.5) and Washita (T= 50.8). Several counties failed to approve all measures incorporated into this taxation and revenue oriented category by narrow percentages— Blaine, (X=49.2), and Garfield (X=49.5). These two counties are located in the western section of Oklahoma. Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy During the 1907-1972 period, only five initiated and referred measures related to the judicial and legal procedure policy category were submitted to the general electorate and voted upon. This category constitutes a very small percentage (2.0 percent) of the total number of issues voted upon during the study period. Although this category is small in number, its passage level of 100 percent is the highest of the groups into which the entire list of measures (Table 4-21) have been classified. The mean percent yes vote distribution for all counties is provided in Table 5-5 and Figure 5-5. The stiking relationship that one can discern from an analysis of the data displayed in Table 5-5, rests with the rather 276 TABLE 5-5 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL JUDICIAL AND LEGAL PROCEDURE POLICY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 52.3 14.9 37.6 Alfalfa 55.4 15.0 38.3 Atoka 50.1 17.1 41.6 Beaver 49.6 9.7 25.2 Beckham 59.4 7.9 20.5 Blaine 50.4 12.3 31.9 Bryan 55.2 15.3 37.6 Caddo 57.9 12.1 29.8 Canadian 56.1 10.7 28.8 Carter 60.0 13.2 36.6 Cherokee 56.4 5.5 12.8 Choctaw 56.3 9.9 24.9 Cimarron 41.2 16.7 41.1 Cleveland 68.5 11.2 28.3 Coal 53.1 24.1 58.4 Comanche 62.1 9.7 24.9 Cotton 54.1 16.9 43.5 Craig 55.5 11.1 28.4 Creek 63.3 6.3 14.9 Custer 60.1 12.3 33.4 Delaware 53.1 8.4 21.5 Dewey 48.7 18.8 44.2 Ellis 52.2 20.8 50.5 Garfield 62.8 14.2 34.8 Garvin 56.1 13.3 31.9 Grady 60.7 12.0 30.2 Grant 53.7 15.9 40.6 Greer 54.9 10.9 28.9 Harmon 54.1 10.1 27.0 Harper 52.4 20.2 50.8 Haskell 48.2 9.1 20.8 Hughes 53.6 14.5 36. 3 Jackson 60.8 11.0 28.5 Jefferson 50.5 14.8 35.0 Johnston '45.6 20.4 55.4 Kay 64.2 7.9 20.7 Kingfisher 51.8 14.9 35.7 Kiowa 54.3 11.9 29.7 Latimer 48.8 7.7 20.8 LeFlore 51.3 11.4 30.2 Lincoln 54.0 13.0 32.4 Logan 57.0 13.4 30.3 Love 46.5 9.1 22.0 McClain 53.9 9.9 25.3 McCurtain 57.6 15.7 37.3 McIntosh 57.6 11.4 29.2 Ill Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 51.3 14.2 35.7 Marshall 55.6 22.2 53.2 Mayes 56.5 8.9 22.5 Murray 56.6 14.6 37.6 Muskogee 64.5 9.7 24.4 Noble 56.8 15.4 37.0 Nowata 55.9 11.9 30.6 Okfuskee 55.1 10.2 26.2 Oklahoma 70.1 9.5 19.8 Okmulgee 62.6 12.4 30.0 Osage 65.7 10.4 25.3 Ottawa 54.5 6.5 17.7 Pawnee 60.8 13.5 34.1 Payne 70.5 10.8 25.2 Pittsburg 60.5 7.8 19.5 Pontotoc 61.3 15.4 39.7 Pottawatomie 57.6 13.3 35.4 Pushmataha 46.0 13.2 31.2 Roger Mills 47.1 13.7 35.5 Rogers 58.8 7.8 19.1 Seminole 62.1 12.0 32.0 Sequoyah 45.8 7.7 20.3 Stephens 62.8 13.3 35.6 Texas 57.3 14.6 37.9 Tillman 53.4 16.6 39.9 Tulsa 76.2 7.2 19.4 Wagoner 55.5 6.8 16.8 Washington 73.5 13.5 32.7 Washita 54.8 12.2 30.7 Woods 55.7 9.8 23.8 Woodward 57.2 12.7 33.4 N=5 Grand T 56.4 Figure 5.5--Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Judicial and Legal Procedure Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklalioma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON TEXAS 'BEAVER I HARPER WOODS ALFALFA GRANT I w J N O W A T A / C R A I G [qttawa e hI-. # ! r . * i * I Ji I -I-,J ELLIS WOODWARD I GARFIELD NOBLE I s . R O G E R S I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * fI''- tPAWNÊ -„ I DEWEY 1_ I BLAINE",J lL-O GA^NIT P--A-Y-'NE T U L S A i — I I© '1 .IkKingfisherI “ “ l ^ ^ J w A G O N E R « - ^ C H E R O K E E“ I LINCOLN ROGER MILLS fcuSTmER ”| _ _ _ _ _ _ I i *e 1 (OKLAHOMA • * I 3ÊÊ£ S M U S K O G E E I jA*DWR\ \ * ^ , S E O U O Ÿ  H “\^ J--|s- -------- I 4 jk I I ioKMULG^I_ _ _|CADDO| V I ^ jI-_ _ _ _ _ l l OO KK FF UU S K E EË " ! i !. ' m c c I1NN T 0O SS hH I ; \\ A \ iECKHAM I WASHITA j I--•--^'----^11 GRADY ‘ ................, 3 : ) ( î l H U G H E S , H A S K E L L " ' f i l e FLORE ro L^ GREER I, KIOWA | z l ' / P I T T S B U R G ‘ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1j (M Ĉ IJ'-N3 1 I 00 c 'o'-■j I '"'V Ij COMANCHE I I G A R V I N I P O N T O T O C I_ _ _ _ J # , X Percent Yes 5X W IIJACKSON '*/ , L — — — L , ^ I j M p p I C O A L I , I- - - - - - i--,^ S T E P H E N S I I * L T O K A - : - " ' " " " " " " " " : J 60.00 and above I 55.00-59.99 * ( T iL L M A ir i . r - ' " ! # l ^ - y N i G ^ R S •" Q 50.00-54.99 * V * ^ ‘>TT0N I jr_JCARTiR--«-,i © I * ! ! A V ^ I # Ï J E F F E R S D N I 4 | U J O H N S T O N V 45.00-49.99 © 40.00-44.99 © 39.99 and belowO 279 low standard deviation values that are present for nine counties. Gen erally, the empirical rule surrounding the interpretation and utilization of mean value in relation to the standard deviation is: the smaller the value of the standard deviation, the higher the predictive value assoc iated with the mean. The counties of Beckham (X=59.4, S.D.=7.9), Cherokee (X=56.4, S.D.=5.5), Creek (X=63.3, S.D.=6.3), Delaware (X=53.1, S.D.=8.4), Kay (X=64.2, S.D.=7.9), Latimer (X=48.8, S.D.+7.7), Mayes (X=56.5, S.D.=8.9), Ottawa (X=54.5, S.D.=6.5), Pittsburg (X=60.5, S.D.=7.8), Rogers (X=58.8, S.D.=7.8), Sequoyah (X=45.8, S.D.=7.7), Tulsa (X=76.2, S.D.=7.2), Wagoner (X=55.5, S.D.=6.8), and Woods (X=55.7, S.D.=9.8) have some predictive patterns associated with the judicial and legal procedure policy category. A major relationship exists among the five highest mean percent yes voting counties and urbanization. For instance, ranked in order of magnitude are the counties of Tulsa (X=76.2), Washington (X=73.5), Payne (X=70.5), Cleveland (X=68.5), and Osage (X=65.7), which comprise four out of the seven counties that make up the three Oklahoma SMSA's. In addition, five of the twelve largest cities in Oklahoma are located in these counties (Tulsa, Bartlesville, Stillwater, and Norman). On the other end of the mean yes percent voting continuum are located the counties of Cimarron (X=41.2), Johnston (X=45.6), Sequoyah (X=45.8), Pushmataha (X=46.0), and Love (X=46.S). These counties are basically located within two regions of the state: southeastern counties tending to vote Democratic for Govern or and the far west (counties which have tendency toward the Republican gubernatorial candidate). One fact that characterizes these low mean percent yes-saying counties is their essential ruralness and accompanying small populations, with an attendant samll impact on the results of elections dealing with judicial and legal procedure measures. 280 Among the counties considered to constitute potential swing counties, in relation to the overall mean percent yes vote, are: Beaver (X'=49.6), Atoka (X=50.1), Blaine (T=50.4), and Jefferson (X=50.5). These counties are evenly distributed between the southern and western regions of Okla homa. One distinguishing characteristic of the swing counties is their small population and rural character. Jefferson and Atoka counties tended to support the Democratic gubernatorial candidate during the 1907- 1962 period, basically reflecting the tradtional Democratic party orient ation of the "South," whereas Beaver and Blaine, located in the northwest ern part of the state, have traditionally had a population with a voting affinity toward the Republican party. Land and Natural Resource Use Policy Since 1907, only 2 percent of the total number of initiated and referred proposals specifically dealt with topics that would enable their placement into the land and natural resource use category. The passage level for the five measures that compose this policy area is the exact reverse from that shown for the judicial proposals. That is, 100 percent of the judicial related topics passed, but none of the land policies passed. One measure rejected by the Oklahoma people in the group would have, if approved, enabled the Oklahoma Conservation Commission to cooperate with the U. S. Government in conservation projects treated under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. Interestingly, no issue in this group has been referred to the people since 1936. The five counties that attained the highest average percent yes vote [see Table 5-6 and Figure 5-6) on the five propositions outlined above 281 TABLE 5—6 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE POLICY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 56.7 19.1 42.8 Alfalfa 37.0 18.5 38.4 Atoka 58.4 20.3 55.5 Beaver 40.1 23.1 55.9 Beckham 41.7 11.0 26.4 Blaine 38.5 13.9 33.3 Bryan 56.1 18.3 50.4 Caddo 50.3 14.4 34.1 Canadian 36.2 16.1 44.0 Carter 52.3 12.0 29.5 Cherokee 57.8 19.2 51.1 Choctaw 48.3 19.0 44.3 Cimarron 48.8 29.0 65.5 Cleveland 34.8 10.4 23.2 Coal 59.2 10.6 25.5 Comanche 51.3 16.7 38.0 Cotton 53.0 22.9 44.4 Craig 38.6 15.6 33.7 Creek 43.9 13.8 35.4 Custer 35.6 12.3 29.6 Delaware 54.4 18.0 43.9 Dewey 38.0 18.9 45.7 Ellis 40.0 17.1 38.9 Garfield 37.1 20.6 44.7 Garvin 54.0 13.3 27.2 Grady 47.2 15.7 40.2 Grant 39.4 21.6 47.7 Greer 49.0 10.9 25.5 Harmon 48.4 31.3 62.3 Harper 45.0 20.5 49.2 Haskell 61.3 15.1 37.3 Hughes 53.0 9.6 20.5 Jackson 43.1 12.3 29.1 Jefferson 55.2 12.3 27.5 Johnston 67.2 16.3 44.5 Kay 42.3 18.1 44.4 Kingfisher 32.1 14.0 37.9 Kiowa 40.6 12.6 30.7 Latimer 54.7 18.0 40.8 LePlore 67.0 10.5 29.0 Lincoln 47.5 14.1 33.2 Logan 32.2 11.1 23.9 Love 66.2 18.2 49.7 McClain 44.1 13.9 36.2 McCurtain 49.7 19.5 52.6 McIntosh 55.6 11.2 29.3 282 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 26.9 13.4 31.7 Marshal1 62.3 17.9 47.7 Mayes 49.7 15.2 32.2 Murray 59.1 11.2 27.0 Muskogee 46.3 12.1 32.7 Noble 33.3 13.2 36.8 Nowata 47.? 14.5 38.0 Okfuskee 52.6 11.7 28.5 Oklahoma 35.3 18.1 43.7 Okmulgee 48.9 8.9 22.5 Osage 43.3 18.5 45.5 Ottawa 49.3 16.7 46.8 Pawnee 47.7 21.8 50.0 Payne 39.9 14.9 36.5 Pittsburg 49.7 13.6 32.6 Pontotoc 51.9 9.3 19.9 Pottawatomie 45.7 11.8 32.2 Pushmataha 60.3 14.3 35.7 Roger Mills 42.4 17.8 42.2 Rogers 43.2 18.1 43.3 Seminole 46.8 11.8 25.9 Sequoyah 52.6 16.5 42.8 Stephens 48.7 8.0 19.8 Texas 47.1 25.1 62.4 Tillman 53.5 23.4 48.0 Tulsa 36.4 18.4 45.2 Wagoner 46.5 12.5 29.9 Washington 43.1 23.0 54.8 Washita 35.9 12.9 31.2 Woods 40.9 18.8 48.4 Woodward 40.6 19.0 41.9 N=5 Grand X 47.1 Figure 5.6— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Land and Natural Resource Use Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County TEXAS BEAVER ' HARPER WOODS ALFALFA GRANT KAY OSAGE I @/NOWATA/CRAIG loTTAWAV 0 r - N ELLIS —WOODWI ARD ^I GARFIELD NOBLE e i \ ISl [lRO®GERS ]I-/- r^- I- - - - - ^ IpAWNEE-w. , MAYES - 0 I If MAJORI I-- I ®1 G \ i * \ I DEWEY-i_ BLAINE ,J I___ IViNGFISHER Ij"PAYNE Q ”| c REEKl.TÜ‘- - S ' '0 |*A G 0N ER *^H ER 0K EE| t \ /i o r |rOGER MILLSIfcugTEp 1 '""T.nc0ln"1 © ! Ai CANADIAN I I ^ I I © S M U S K O G E E I_ _ _I S k r A H O M A ' l B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' O K Ü Ü L G E ^ . . . . . . ^ _ J [ s E O U O Y A H ^ ® I ° I_BE_C_K_HA_M I WASHITA | --fL. Im. — — — I Ti * © I o I I GRADY [HASKELL"I N) GREER Ij KIOWA | «I 0 |--̂ ATIME? 0 040 M̂ccî iN -v:;; I I .Jr'I ? _ I £ ~ ^! jI COMANCHE *I I GARVIN [PONTOTOC,__ _ J 0 II *— • X Percent Yes ©UA-IC JiA?C:KSON ''^1 ,1--- , a* % u, pjCOAL I- —-J V-— — —.)n_4J * I STEPH-E-NSL ,II * rC UV--,. ^• 1 ^ 160.00 and above r-l A-\ -T 4' « r' 55.00-59.99 * 50.00-54.99 * JEFFERSON i 45.00-49.990 L_OV_E_ _ : -jwARSHAl̂ YAN CHOCTAW 40.00-44.99 G ^ 39.99 and belowO 284 were Johnston (X=67.2), LeFlore (X=67.0), Love (X=66.2), Marshall (X=62.3), and Haskell (X=61.3). Without exception these are counties that are located in the extreme southern and southeastern portion of the state— an area that traditionally has voted heavily for Democratic candidates. I In addition, these counties formed part of the area that previously composed the Indian Territory, and their population size has been, again without exception, on a steady negative decline since the 1940 census. For instance, Haskell County contained 16,216 people in 1930, and in 1970 contained a population count of 9,578. Similarly, Johnston, a south- central county, had population of 15,960 in 1940 and according to the 1970 census data possesses 7,870 people. LeFlore dropped from 45,866 people in 1940, to 32,137 persons in 1970. The nature of these highest yea- saying counties, as well as all other counties that embraced a mean per cent yes vote equal to or exceeding 50.0 percent, is basically rural and agricultural oriented. Not one county in the northwest or beyond the west-central portion of the state had an average yes vote that exceeded 49.9 percent. This same realtionship is true for the top two tiers of counties in the northern area of the state, except for Delaware County. Overall, every county that possessed an average percent yes vote that exceeded the 50 percent passage level has tended to vote the Democratic ticket for Governor, especially during the 1907-1972 period [see Figure 5-6). Conversely, the low yes percentage counties on land and resource use topics are generally located in the northern (northwestern and north- central) , west-central and central areas of Oklahoma. These low yes- saying counties are composed of: Major (X=26.9), Kingfisher (X=32.1), 285 Logan (X=32.2), Noble (X=32.2), and Cleveland (X=34.8). In addition, all the low percentage counties were previously part of the Oklahoma Territory. An analysis of the county voting characteristics shown in Figure 5-6, clearly represents a "East-West" split for the policy category I of land. Further, only one of the counties included within Oklahoma's SMSA's possess an average yes vote that exceeded the 49.9 percent level on this policy category (Oklahoma, X=35.3; Tulsa X=36.4; Osage, X=43.3; Creek, X=43.9; Cleveland, X=34.8; Canadian, X=36.2; and, Commanche with an average yes vote of 51.3 percent). It would appear that in addition to "East-West" split, that a urban-rural differentiation can be made. Afterall, the type of proposals contained in the land classification are basically issues which would have been of primary interest and concern for rural Oklahoman's, and most appealing to the traditional Democratic voter. Included in the collection of counties that fonnthe swing category on land and natural resource use are: Greer (X=49.0), McCurtain (X=49.7), Mayes (X=44.7), Ottawa (X=49.3), Pittsburg (X=49.7), and Caddo— the only county within this marginal passage or rejection category that approved three out of the five measures submitted for popular choice, and showing an overall average yes vote of 50.3 percent. The potential swing vote counties are primarily located in the extensive southeastern and north eastern part of the state, with two counties having a western geographical setting (Greer and Caddo). Industrial and Labor Relations Policy Five proposals submitted to the Oklahoma electorate for the 1907- 1972 period are embodied in the industrial and labor relations policy 286 category. Only one out of the four measures actually passed. No prop ositions of this policy type were referred to the electorate until 1923, when a state question dealing with workman's compensation was advanced. Table 5-7 and Figure 5-7 display the pverage percent yes vote computed for all Oklahoma counties on the five industrial and labor related items discussed above. The highest mean percent yes counties were: Osage (62.0), Texas (58.9), Muskogee (58.5), Bryan, Greer and Tillman (58.1 each), and Creek and Washington with an average of 57.4 percent yes vote. The geographical configuration of these highest yea-saying counties is north ern, eastern and southwestern in orientation. The mean percent yes vote for the counties is distorted as a predictor variable, by the extreme range produced by a high percent yes vote on State Question 545, and the low percent yes vote on State Question 86, as well as the operation of the "silent-vote." Overall, only ten of the seventy-seven counties (13.0 percent), had average values that fell into the 49.9 and below percent yes category, as shown in Figure 5-7. Six of the ten low yea-saying counties had a tendency to vote Democratic for the office of Governor during the 1907-1962 period. The lowest average percent yes percentages computed for the labor issues were obtained for the counties of Craig (X=44.6), Ottawa (X=45.4), Lincoln (X=47.7), Kingfisher (X=47.9), and Mayes (X=48.0). Three of the five counties are located in a neat pocket at the northeast ern comer of Oklahoma— counties which voted strongly for Democratic candidates for Governor during 1907-1962. The two central to west-central located counties (Lincoln and Kingfisher, respectively) tend to lean to ward a Republican partisan orientation. The "North-South" split in terms of partisan identification doesn't explain the differentiation in voting ’87 TABLE 5-7 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 52.7 25.2 64.3 Alfalfa 55.2 22.2 50.5 Atoka 50.3 21.2 58.9 Beaver 56.5 25.2 57.0 Beckham 54.4 22.0 60.0 Blaine 52.8 19.1 49.0 Bryan 58.1 20.0 54.7 Caddo 50.2 22.4 62.9 Canadian 52.8 16.0 41.6 Carter 56.4 20.3 53.9 Cherokee 50.1 24.0 65.0 Choctaw 51.5 20.5 55.3 Cimarron 57.2 22.9 50.0 Cleveland 55.2 21.7 60.3 Coal 52.9 23.7 57.0 Comanche 55.6 17.5 47.9 Cotton 53.5 18.3 50.3 Craig 44.6 20.0 49.9 Creek 57.4 22.6 54.3 Custer 51.8 17.2 42.2 Delaware 48.1 23.9 65.7 Dewey 51.3 21.4 54.1 Ellis 51.2 21.3 50.6 Garfield 53.4 17.7 49.1 Garvin 50.7 21.5 60.2 Grady 53.8 19.5 54.1 Grant 48.4 21.2 48.8 Greer 58.1 21.7 55.2 Harmon 51.4 24.9 55.9 Harper 56.1 22.5 48.4 Haskell 54.6 25.7 65.1 Hughes 49.5 25.1 65.7 Jackson 55.8 19.9 55.2 Jefferson 50.3 . 21.6 61.2 Johnston ,54.5 23.4 61.8 Kay 54.0 20.9 56.9 Kingfisher 47.9 20.8 52.5 Kiowa 53.4 21.5 56.2 Latimer 52.6 23.3 55.7 LeFlore 55.5 24.5 57.9 Lincoln 47.7 21.7 60.8 Logan 52.0 21.4 60.4 Love 50.6 23.5 65.1 McClain 52.1 21.7 58.0 McCurtain 53.9 26.6 70.9 McIntosh 52.4 17.8 47.8 288 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 48.1 21.2 54.0 Marshall 51.3 24.3 67.0 Mayes 48.0 21.8 56.6 Murray 54.5 24.8 65.1 Muskogee 58.5 16.3 41.9 Noble 52.2 19.5 48.8 Nowata 57.8 16.9 45.1 Okfuskee 51.3 20.9 54.6 Oklahoma 55.8 20.1 53.9 Okmulgee 55.7 24.0 58.7 Osage 62.0 19.2 48.5 Ottawa 45.4 13.6 32.1 Pawnee 54.6 18.6 52.3 Payne 57.1 22.8 63.6 Pittsburg 54.0 23.5 56.6 Pontotoc 47.7 25.1 66.9 Pottawatomie 52.0 21.0 55.5 Pushmataha 52.7 27.1 72.2 Roger Mills 52.8 22.5 58.9 Rogers 51.2 21.1 55.5 Seminole 54.9 23.2 63.4 Sequoyah 53.4 27.8 66.1 Stephens 56.5 22.8 62.0 Texas 58.9 19.2 48.4 Tillman 58.1 19.1 50.3 Tulsa 57.3 18.8 49.8 Wagoner 50.0 22.0 55.7 Washington 57.4 19.9 56.0 Washita 50.6 21.7 50.7 Woods 50.0 18.1 44.6 Woodward 53.3 20.4 52.0 N=5 Grand Y 53.1 Figure 5.7— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Industrial and Labor Relation Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County OSAGE 14K/N0WATA / C R AIG jOTTAWA * © i?! * I © 1 ©V n* ELLIS WOODWARD 1 GARFIELD NOBLE jSi iI_R O—GERS i"""''I 1 „ IPAWNÊ -'_ * • 1f' e * i r i * 1 © i l © J1 DEWEY BLAINE ,•* mm ̂ Xb m ̂ J I mm m KINGFISHER LOGAN I PAYNE ̂ J v — mm mm.am mm JCREEK l*- TTUÜ^LSSA 1"%̂ I I ̂ !'I ywa-L— x ̂ - m.m̂ma* /! * ■I'* goner*-̂cherokee I ROGER MILLS I CUST ■ LINCOLNmm maEmR mm © i CANADIAN ÔkÏÏaÏÏoma"! © rI V 1 MUSKOGEE I *_ IadM * L * L__, * I I { o K M U L G E j j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ S E O I J O )Y YA AH I\ r"i- I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ! o k f u s k e e “ | ^ { m c i n t o s h * !BECKHAM I W-AS-H-IT-A----I ' I '1 X # - r *v ^'A # : * ; I GRADY GREER I) KIOWA | I ig r N>I II I # : * ( s 'B Ig I ; I--LAaTtIiMmeErrR*]: -,I1^m* *“)I ,' ^* I, C-O-M1'A_NC_H_E_ __IJ I GARVIN |PONT0TOC,___ J I * |I * I; X Percent Yes 60.00 and above 55.00-59.99 * ^ V * f COTTON I _____JCIA_R̂_iîzR —— "Il-_flI * , I #P I, _lI50.00-54.99 * ^ I * IjEFFERSON I ^ JOHNSTON 45.00-49.99© 'I _______ r[ A—H S—HA —V f*B- ̂RY A— 'N — — ̂ ̂C H^O C— T—AW — — —m l | 40.00-44.99 © LOVE L 39.99 and below O # 290 behavior, primarily since six of the low yea-saying counties also tended to vote Democratic for Governor. On the other hand, median family income would seem to be positively assocated with this policy group. The counties that have an average percent approval or rejection level that is very slightly above or below the passage level and therefore are considered as potential swing counties. Included in the swing vote counties are: Atoka and Jefferson CX=50.3), Caddo (T=50.2), Cherokee (%=50.1), Love and Washita QC=50.6), Garvin (T=50.7), Wagoner and Woods (T=50.0), and Hughes (X=49.5). These counties are located in the major western and southern areas of Oklahoma. Business and Corporation Policy The business and corporation policy category contains fifteen prop ositions submitted to the voters and acted upon during the sixty-five year period under consideration in this paper. This category comprises 5.9 percent of the total number of state questions submitted for popular con sideration, and has a fairly high level of passage success, with a 40 percent adoption rate. The highest county average percent yes vote, as shown in Table 5-8 and Figure 5-8, were linked with the following five counties: Oklahoma (X=61.1), Tulsa (X=60.0), Osage CX=60.0), Choctaw (Y=56.7), and Washington (X=56.0). If Choctaw County is excluded, these highly ranked counties are among the highest median family income counties in Oklahoma. They are also associated with urban concentrations since they contain several of the largest cities in the state: Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Bartlesville, Midwest City, and Del City. In addition, the three highest counties (Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Osage] form large population components of the Oklahoma City 291 TABLE 5-8 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL BUSINESS AND CORPORATION CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 46i4 16.5 56.3 Alfalfa 45.2 14.0 50.3 Atoka 50.2 12.7 35.2 Beaver 44.1 19.0 65.0 Beckham 48.5 12.9 46.1 Blaine 49.6 10.8 40.7 Bryan 47.5 16.0 59.0 Caddo 49.5 11.3 43.0 Canadian 50.5 11.7 40.1 Carter 53.8 15.7 58.1 Cherokee 45.5 15.5 51.S Choctaw 56.7 11.0 40.2 Cimarron 45.2 18.0 56.0 Cleveland 53.4 14.3 53.6 Coal 51.1 13.2 45.8 Comanche 55.0 14.7 48.9 Cotton 48.9 12.6 40.8 Craig 45.3 15.7 58.1 Creek 53.5 12.2 44.2 Custer 51.4 13.1 51.0 Delaware 44.9 13.9 52.8 Dewey 47.1 15.5 51.7 Ellis 46.2 15.4 50.6 Garfield 53.7 14.5 49.1 Garvin 48.0 14.7 54.3 Grady 52.0 12.7 45.9 Grant 43.5 14.5 51.1 Greer 50.7 14.2 47.0 Harmon 41.1 14.6 49.1 Harper 51.9 18.6 61.9 Haskell 48.9 14.1 41.9 Hughes 44.2 14.4 49.2 Jackson 47.4 15.9 60.7 Jefferson 50.4 14.4 50.6 Johnston .45.3 14.5 43.2 Kay 50.0 15.2 58.1 Kingfisher 44.9 15.3 55.2 Kiowa 49.5 12.5 41.8 Latimer 49.1 16.1 50.3 LeFlore 49.7 14.3 47.1 Lincoln 45.6 14.9 57.1 Logan 52.1 15.7 53.1 Love 43.7 14.0 40.9 McClain 53.1 13.7 45.7 McCurtain 52.1 11.9 43.8 McIntosh 51.6 12.1 41.1 292 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 45.7 14.2 52.9 Marshall 45.6 15.9 52.9 Mayes 46.5 13.5 48.1 Murray 51.6 12.6 47.8 Muskogee 55.1 16.0 50.0 Noble 45.4 14.9 55.3 Nowata 49! 2 15.1 54.5 Okfuskee 51.9 11.7 42.0 Oklahoma 61.1 15.0 51.8 Okmulgee 55.0 11.9 42.9 Osage 60.0 15.3 48.8 Ottawa 48.9 13.5 51.5 Pawnee 44.7 14.8 55.6 Payne 53.0 15.6 57.1 Pittsburg 53.9 11.9 45.5 Pontotoc 50.6 13.8 52.9 Pottawatomie 53.1 10.5 44.3 Pushmataha 46.8 11.5 35.9 Roger Mills 49.7 15.7 47.2 Rogers 44.8 16.1 59.7 Seminole 50.8 14.8 61.4 Sequoyah 44.9 16.8 58.9 Stephens 49.6 14.4 55.6 Texas 50.2 15.3 44.7 Tillman 53.2 14.7 49.9 Tulsa 60.6 14.8 59.1 Wagoner 45.6 16.0 52.5 Washington 56.0 18.1 62.1 Washita 47.9 15.5 54.5 Woods 48.6 14.2 50.9 Woodward 48.9 16.9 63.9 N=1S Grand X 49.6 Figure 5 .8— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Business and Corporation Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON j TEXAS B̂EAVER I HARPER \ WOODS {ALFALFA GRANT I KAY OSAGE y ^ N O W A T A / C R A I G Iq t t a w a © 111 * 1i e 1 *{ j-\ 0 1 0 I e 1 1"elL!s WOODWARD 1 1 © e * 15 I eJ X W1 GARFIELD NOBLE L»_l.. R OGERS^,_ "I M&1A-YE-S- 1 I-k/MAJOR I PAWNÊe-'» I I ® 1 e I J ® \,_L° t -A I DEWEY BLAINE L^-J f(KINGFISHER LOGAN I PAYNE * 1 CREEKtu,flGONE^*CcHEROKE V I LINCOLN ROGER MILlLSIcu.steue j |© Ai CANADIAN OKLAHOMA j I # S MUSKOGEE I____ a d w r I' * I i_____________jCADDO I OKFUSKEE I ImcINTOSh! BECKHAM I WASHITA -'fi- I J _ _ _ © GRADY I HUGHES }hASKELL|->/PITTSBURG LE FLORE Ni GREER I, KIOWA «-"̂ LATIMERj IDOi' r' 0 , _IC_OMiA NCHE jI I GARVIN I PONTOTOC,___ J © X Percent Yes 5 fy I JACKSON , PUSHMATAHA! 60.00 and above ■UIIQOAV ■ _ * ATOKA . |lJ,CU-RfAiŜ 55.00-59.99 # * Î_ Ê_ _F_Ê_R_lo_N_iI' CARTER - . 0 ' 50.00-54.99 * '""̂ ”̂ ■"rjOn'lTsTON' J 45.00-49.99 Q JMARSHALÿ'BA R Y A N ]1 CHOCTAW . |I 40.00-44.99 0 LOVE ^ / 39.99 and belowo 294 and Tulsa SMSA’s. Except for Oklahoma County and its centrally located position in the state, the other high yea-saying counties for the business group are located in the northern and northeastern portion of the state. The largest industrialized and urbanized sectors of Oklahoma are contained in the counties of Oklahoma, Tulsa and Washington. The five lowest average percent yes providing counties are spread throughout the southern, central and Panhandle regions of Oklahoma, and consist of: Harmon (X=43.7), Grant (X=43.5), Love (X=43.7), Beaver (X=44.1), and Hughes (X=44.2). Four of the low yea-saying counties are among the smallest populated counties in Oklahoma. It is clear, however, that the low percent yes saying counties do not encompass any of the state's larger cities and are not included among the states more highly populated counties. Some of the potential swing counties relative to the business cat egory are included in the following list. First, those counties which have a narrow mean percent yes passage level (50.0 to 50.9] are: Kay (X=50.0], Atoka and Texas (X=50.2), Jefferson (X=50.4], Pontotoc (X=50.6), Green (X=50.7), and Seminole (X=50.8). Second, these counties contained in the narrow mean percent yes failure level (49.0 to 49.9] include: Latimer (X=49.1], Nowata (X=49.2], Caddo and Kiowa (X=49.5], Blaine and Stephens (X=49.6], and LeFlore and Roger Mills (X=49.7]. The south-central, west-central, western, southern and northern section of the state are represented among the swing counties, although the majority of these counties are located in the west-central and southern area of Oklahoma. Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform Policy The third largest number of measures embracing a general policy type is found in the thirty-three issues that are connected with the electoral 295 process, procedure, law and reform category. As the third most frequent subject, this policy classification accounted for 13.1 percent of all initiated and referred matters submitted to the Oklahoma electorate during the pre-1972 period. The passage Ipvel is 42.4 percent for the electoral process issues, (with fourteen measures passing, and nineteen measures meeting electoral defeat). A few of the topics that make up this policy group are: ° "Grandfather Clause": An initiative petition adopted by a 56.0 percent approval level in 1910, requiring electors to be able to read and write any part of the Oklahoma Constitution, unless the person or his lineal descendent were entitled to vote prior to January 1, 1866. ° Woman Suffrage: A initiated petition submitted to the voters in the General Election of 1910, and if approved would have given women the same voting rights as those enjoyed by male electors. Measure was reject ed with an approval level of 40.8 percent yes. ° Election of U. S. Senators: In 1912, the people over whelmingly approved (84.8 percent yes) an initiative petition that called for the direct election of United States Senators. Over ninety-eight percent of those who voted in the August 6th Primary Election also voted on the eletion of Senators issue. “ Voting Qualifications-Literacy Test: A measure proposed in 1916, which if adopted would do away with the pro perty qualification for electors and introduce a lit eracy test. The proposition received an approval level of 40.7 percent and was consequently defeated. ® Woman Suffrage: A legislative referendum that singly stated: "That women be allowed universal suffrage," was submitted in the General Election of 1912 and re ceived a 95.8 percent voter participation level and an approval level of 57.3, thereby causing its passage. ° Electors Age: A legislative referendum referred to the electorate in 1952 and had it not been resoundingly defeated (31.1 percent yes), would have reduced the age to eighteen for qualified voters. 296 ° Congressional Redistricting: An initiated measure submitted in the General Election of 1956, propos ing to divide the State of Oklahoma into six new congressional districts in accordance with the 1950 decennial census. Although the measure was approved with a 56.8 percent yes vote, it failed due to the operation of the "silent vote," ° Eighteen Year Old Electors: A measure referred by the legislature in 1971, calling for a reduction in the voting age for qualified electors to eighteen years of age. It was approved by a 57.8 percent yes vote. A number of the other topics that make up the elections category cover such subject matters as: office qualification, legislative apportion ment, voting qualifications, repeal of registration law, electors age, nomination of candidates, congressional redistricting, presidential elections, re-eletion of Governor, and revision of the constitution by enabling an entire Article to be submitted to the voters as a single state question. The five counties which demcnstrated the highest average percent yes vote (see Table 5-9 and Figure 5-9) on the thirty-three issues that com pose the group are: Tulsa (X=57.1), Payne (X=55.4), Jackson (X=54.9), Comanche (X=54.2), and Kay, Muskogee, Okmulgee and Washington (X=54.1 These eight counties are located in the southwestern, central and eastern sectors of Oklahoma. The tendency is present, as shown in Figure 5-9, for the seven counties that form the state SMSA's to fall into the above 50.0 percent average yes category. In addition, the top average yea-saying counties also comprise the largest populated counties in Oklahoma. On the other had, the lowest average percent yes granting counties on the election issues are geographically located either in the eastern most section (Adair, Craig, and Delaware Counties) or in the northwestern most section (Cimarron, Beaver and Harper). The average yes voting sta- 297 TABLE 5-9 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL ELECTORAL PROCESS, PROCEDURE, LAW AND REFORM POLICY CONTENT MEASURE SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 4s !9 18.5 71.6 Alfalfa 48.8 21.8 84.5 Atoka 49.1 20.7 85.8 Beaver 45.7 24.3 96.5 Beckham 50.9 20.4 48.6 Blaine 48.6 20.2 75.2 Bryan 51.1 19.2 80.3 Caddo 49.0 17.7 74.2 Canadian 50.6 17.4 66.8 Carter 52.4 17.9 71.9 Cherokee 48.0 15.1 74.8 Choctaw 50.4 19.7 79.6 Cimarron 44.7 22.8 92.9 Cleveland 53.0 20.6 84.4 Coal 49.6 20.5 83.5 Comanche 54.2 16.3 56.7 Cotton 49.5 19.9 80.5 Craig 45.7 18.0 71.3 Creek 52.9 17.3 66.8 Custer 51.8 18.9 74.5 Delaware 45.3 18.2 71.3 Dewey 46.9 22.7 83.7 Ellis 47.7 23.8 92.5 Garfield 52.2 18.6 66. 8 Garvin 50.6 18.7 77.8 Grady 50.8 19.1 73.1 Grant 46.4 21.1 79.2 Greer 48.9 22.2 83.8 Harmon 46.5 22.8 92.8 Harper 45.6 22.9 89.3 Haskell 48.5 20.5 85.5 Hughes 48.5 18.5 76.9 Jackson 54.9 19.2 85.2 Jefferson 49.8 17.2 79.8 Johnston ' 47.3 20.4 83.0 Kay 54.1 18.5 66.0 Kingfisher 46.8 20.5 72.1 Kiowa 50.9 20.9 82.9 Latimer 48.0 17.5 76.1 LeFlore 48.4 19.5 80.9 Lincoln 46.1 16.9 70.6 Logan 50.0 18.3 65.1 Love 46.9 21.1 87.3 McClain 49.3 18.9 74.8 McCurtain 50.8 20.1 83.9 McIntosh 49.3 15.8 76.9 298 Mean Percent Standard 'County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 46.8 22.3 80,7 Marshall 51.0 21.7 83.6 Mayes 46.2 16.5 60.8 Murray 51.1 18.5 78.5 Muskogee 54.1 15.9 73.3 Noble 48.3 18.8 77.9 Nowata 49,4 17.6 67.8 Okfuskee 50.2 17.1 74.4 Oklahoma 53.8 22.1 76.1 Okmulgee 54.1 17.2 67,4 Osage 53.6 18.5 70,3 Ottawa 50.3 17.3 70,4 Pawnee 50.5 18.8 77.6 Payne 55.4 17.9 67,4 Pittsburg 51.2 16.9 63,3 Pontotoc 50.9 18.4 78,1 Pottawatomie 51.8 17.7 71.1 Pushmataha 47.1 19.9 76.3 Roger Mills 47.5 21.7 87.9 Rogers 49.7 17.1 61.7 Seminole 52.7 16.1 65,9 Sequoyah 48.8 18.1 81.0 Stephens 51.7 18.0 72.5 Texas 51.5 22.2 93.7 Tillman 52.3 21.9 78.5 Tulsa 57.1 22.1 81.7 Wagoner 49.7 15.3 59.5 Washington 54.1 23.0 83.7 Washita 49.3 20.5 84.6 Woods 48.1 20.3 81.3 Woodward 48.9 20.8 78,5 N=33 Grand X 49.9 Figure 5.9— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Electoral Process, Procedure, Law, and Reform Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON TEXAS ' BEAVER I HARPER WOODS ALFALFA ' GRANT I KAY OSAGE 0/NOWATA/CRAIG © 0 0 ei © I IR- O—G —E R-1S -.I ELLIS WOODWARD I ___ -.-I----- ■1GARFIELD NOBLE■'MAJOR lpAWNÊ ~„ I MAYES © 0 I © 1 80 - a ! \ I DEWEY : BLAINE / LOG.L,.KINGFISHERl AN I P —AY»NE ̂ ]CREEK-LlTUJLSA | - , ! • I \ I' 1 ̂ ! WAGONER *%CHEROKEE| \I ^ I LINCOLN e i©\ ROGGER . MI/LLIS |lJiT©7„-- -1, © I II * II *I -C*A N—A D—I'A 'N IOKLAHOMA• © * S MUSKOGEE 1 __{oKMULGEjj * |sËÔÜbŸÂH \ II- -- ^ I- - - 4 I OKFUSKEE , F~! ^u^iMTnskil \ Y**N BEC-K-H-A-M1 I WASHIT-A ----jICADDO I * *u . II 0 I I— rGRADY ,̂ jI 6—R K) E—E R— I, K-I-OW-A- - — I 0 tUoD '1 G L ( * (COM-4A■ N—C —HE — — 4 I IL G. ARVIN « _ —(I PON"ToO TO—C ,I_ ___#J Ij \Z7 , X Percent Yes I JACKSON 'V — II * I ,S4-TE-P-H-ENLS, I ^* (- - yI _, _* 1pjC^OAL1| '--î P(U-S-H-M-AT-AHJ.., 60.00 and above ’ r-J a. 1--T-M-U-fR-4R--AY- -,---- •1 V - , ATOKA AI I (Mc-C-UR-T-AI-N 55.00-59.99 * rcOTTON I_ _ _ _ _ _ 1 CARTER 50.00-54.99 * I f— 4 «JEFFERSON I ^ I * gjL J ̂O HNSTON^B R—Y —AN — — 1 CHiO C—T —AW — — — -445.00-49.99 O -̂I MARSHAL!, 40.00-44.99 G LOVE 39.99 and belowO 300 tistics for these six counties are: Cimarron (X=44.7), Delaware (X=45.3), Harper (X=45.6), Beaver and Craig (X=45.7), and Adair (X=45.9). In terms of partisan voting preference, the categories are distributed accordingly: Harper and Beaver tend to vote Republican, ,and Craig, Delaware, Cimarron and Adair tend to either lean toward or strongly support the Democratic candidate for Governor during the 1906-1972 period. In terms of potential swing counties— counties having a narrow average passage level (50.0 to 50.9)— the following counties are included: Beckham, Kiowa, and Pontotoc (X=50.9), Grady and McCurtain (X=50.8), Canadian and Garvin (X=50.6), Pawnee (X=50.5), Choctaw (X=50.4), Ottawa (X=50.3), Okfuskee (X=50.2), and Logan (X=50.0). The swing counties are located in the south and south-central and southwestern sections, as well as the cent ral and north-central and northeastern regions of Oklahoma. Constitutional Convention Policy Only three measures proposing a call for a convention to treat the question of constitutional revision have been submitted to the Oklahoma people during the 1907-1972 period. State Question 146, 347, and 472 are all legislative référendums submitted for popular approval or rejection in 1926, 1950, and 1970, respectively. The call for a constitutional convention has always met defeat at the polls. The average percent yes voting statistics for all counties on the constitutional convention policy are displayed in Table 5-10. Not one county has tended to vote approval of a state constitutional convention over time, and only a few counties have even come close to expressing agreement on the need to call a constitutional convention. The highest ranked yes-saying counties on the constitutional convention issue are: 301 TABLE 5-10 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 18.1 12.6 24.3 Alfalfa 9.3 3.9 7.2 Atoka 11.5 7.3 14.2 Beaver 8.5 7.2 14.4 Beckham 11.6 3.3 6.1 Blaine 12.2 3.3 6.5 Bryan 14.3 9.3 17.7 Caddo 16.5 2.8 5.5 Canadian 18.9 6.1 12.0 Carter 20.4 8.0 14.9 Cherokee 14.4 2.7 4.8 Choctaw 13.4 8.9 17.2 Cimarron 7.1 5.6 10.8 Cleveland 38.0 19.3 36.3 Coal 13.3 7.1 13.8 Comanche 24.3 4.5 8.9 Cotton 10.0 6.2 11.1 Craig 11.7 8.0 15.2 Creek 22.4 10.0 18.1 Custer 34.0 26.6 46.6 Delaware 12.7 7.6 13.5 Dewey 9.2 5.0 9.3 Ellis 8.3 5.0 9.7 Garfield 20.3 10.1 18.4 Garvin 14.1 3.3 5.7 Grady 19.2 .42 .8 Grant 7.4 4.1 8.1 Greer 10.5 7.3 14.3 Harmon 15.5 21.0 37.4 Harper 8.2 4.6 8.4 Haskell 14.0 8.4 14.6 Hughes 15.7 8.8 17.0 Jackson 16.3 3.9 7.7 Jefferson 9.0 6.5 12.2 Johnston '13.3 8.4 15.1 Kay 26.0 11.5 22.1 Kingfisher 12.5 4.1 8.1 Kiowa 11.8 5.4 9.9 Latimer 13.3 5.7 11.5 LePlore 18.9 13.9 27.7 Lincoln 13.4 2.8 5.0 Logan 16.1 8.6 16.7 Love 9.2 7.1 13.2 McClain 17.1 7.9 15.0 McCurtain 14.7 4.0 7.9 McIntosh 17.6 11.8 23.0 302 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Maj or 8.7 4.1 7.5 Marshall 11.8 8.7 17.4 Mayes 16.4 9.3 17.8 Murray 17.7 12.3 24.5 Muskogee 27.6 7.6 15.2 Noble 11.1 4.7 9.5 Nowata 19.5 12.1 22.4 Okfuskee 17.0 7.7 15.3 Oklahoma 34.9 13.3 23.6 Okmulgee 24.9 10.8 20.2 Osage 25.4 7.4 13.6 Ottawa 27.1 4.3 8.6 Pawnee 22.2 9.9 19.7 Payne 28.2 13.8 26.8 Pittsburg 26.2 8.9 16.8 Pontotoc 18.2 1.9 3.8 Pottawatomie 20.9 5.2 9.5 Pushmataha 14.4 8.1 15.4 Roger Mills 6.5 5.1 10.2 Rogers 18.9 8.3 16.1 Seminole 20.1 5.2 10.4 Sequoyah 13.0 7.9 13.8 Stephens 19.7 6.9 13.3 Texas 14.0 9.1 18.1 Tillman 8.6 2.9 5.7 Tulsa 45.6 25.7 48.0 Wagoner 19.6 9.9 18.7 Washington 36.1 19.7 38.3 Washita 9.6 4.3 8.5 Woods 11.0 3.9 7.7 Woodward 11.3 4.3 8.5 N=3 Grand X 16.9 303 Tulsa (X=45.6), Cleveland (X=38.0), Washington (X=36.1), and Oklahoma (X=34.9). Three of these four highest constitution convention approving counties are included within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa SMSA’s, although Washington County is heavily industrialized, especially as it relates to the oil industry, and is the home county of Bartlesville. These four counties of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Cleveland, and Washington tend to have high affluence levels as measured by median family income. The low average yea-saying counties on the issues pertaining to the constitutional convention policy category are: Roger Mills (X=6.5), Cimarron (X=7.1), Grant (X=7.4), Harper (X=8.2), Beaver (X=8.5), and Major (X=8.7). These counties are all situated in the northwestern section of Oklahoma. In addition to their western geographical position, the low average yea-saying counties are among the most sparsely populated counties in the state. In the history of the three constitutional amendments only a few counties have ever granted an approval level exceeding a majority of the people who actually cast ballots on the specific measure. For instance. State Question 146, submitted in 1926, was approved by Delaware County with a 64.7 percentage yes vote, although the statewide percentage yes average was 16.5 percent. State Question 347, voted on in 1950, received a passage level in Cleveland (52.3 percent yes) and Tulsa (64.3 percent yes) counties. The statewide percentage yes vote cast for the 1950 consti tutional convention call was 31.5 percent. Last, in 1970, State Question 472 was voted on and recieved a statewide percentage yes vote of 23.7. Again, only two counties gave a majority of yes votes to the call for a convention; Tulsa (56.1 percent yes) and Washington (52.5 percent yes). 304 Thus, on three separate occassions all seventy-seven counties were given the opportunity to approve or reject a call for a constitutional con vention. However, in only .02 percent of all trials was a constitutional convention granted approval by a county (5̂ sucesses out of 231 possibil ities) . The chance that the people will demand a constitutional conven tion in the future remain dim indeed. Government Maintenance Policy The government maintenance group embraces five propositions that have been voted on by the Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period. This category accounts for only 2.0 percent of all state propositions voted on during the first sixty-five years after Oklahoma was admitted to the union. Tlie passage level for government maintenance issues has been fairly high with 60.0 percent receiving popular approval. This category is an important one, for the issues treated here enable the state to pro vide for construction, raaintenace and operation of network functions and facilities. This entire group of measures dealt with either water associated issues or measures pertaining to the construction, operation, maintenance and financing of Oklahoma turnpikes. Not one government maintenance measure was submitted for the first thirty-one years of Oklahoma's history, and none were submitted in the intervening fourteen years between 1958- 1972. Eighty percent of the measures fitting the government maintenance definition were submitted during the 1950's. The top average yes voting counties (see Table 5-11 and Figure 5-10) for the government maintenance policy area are: Washington (X=67.0), Tulsa (X=65.9), Pontotoc (X=64.0), Choctaw (X=63.1), and Kay(X=61.7). 305 TABLE 5-11 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MAINTENANCE CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 48.9 10.4 28.9 Alfalfa 39.1 14.4 39.5 Atoka 34.2 25.3 54.7 Beaver 36.2 14.6 34.2 Beckham 26.3 23.5 56.8 Blaine 36.4 12.1 33.3 Bryan 42.1 20.4 44.2 Caddo 37.4 16.9 44.8 Canadian 42.2 13.0 35.3 Carter 51.1 13.3 37.6 Cherokee 49.2 12.3 30.3 Choctaw 63.1 15.9 38.5 Cimarron 33.8 11.4 28.3 Cleveland 56.4 20.1 49.0 Coal 51.0 13.6 34.7 Comanche 52.8 17.4 40.5 Cotton 43.8 14.4 39.9 Craig 34.7 9.3 22.5 Creek 53.5 14.1 38.4 Custer 30.7 24.7 55.1 Delaware 48.1 13.6 29.0 Dewey 27.7 12.7 30.9 Ellis 31.1 12.4 33.7 Garfield 37.0 18.3 49.6 Garvin 40.2 16.6 45.9 Grady 36.4 19.4 46.4 Grant 39.8 18.4 44.2 Greer 42:8 16.2 45.7 Harmon 41.6 16.6 45.9 Harper 39.9 17.7 40.3 Haskell 49.4 12.9 32.7 Hughes 54.4 18.2 46.8 Jackson 48.9 19.3 53.6 Jefferson 51.1 17.9 48.4 Johnston ,40.2 17.0 36.9 Kay 61.7 25.3 60.7 Kingfisher 34.4 17.0 45.4 Kiowa 42.5 16.4 45.6 Latimer 53.2 13.7 38.4 LeFlore 51.3 9.9 24.2 Lincoln 47.3 18.4 40.1 Logan 51.9 16.1 36.5 Love 36.9 14.8 32.9 McClain 39.3 18.1 45.0 McCurtain 60.4 19.5 43.9 McIntosh 36.5 23.5 55.9 306 Mean Percent Standard Ceunty Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 25.4 13.7 35.3 Marshall 38.8 23.2 48.3 Mayes 45.5 13.0 36.2 Murray 50.9 14.0 39.5 Muskogee 40.7 23.4 53.9 Noble 52.2 24.7 50.0 Nowata 55. ̂ 17.4 37.2 Okfuskee 58.0 14.9 38.2 Oklahoma 60.5 26.4 60.5 Okmulgee 59.3 10.5 25.6 Osage 59.3 16.7 42.2 Ottawa 38.9 15.0 36.4 Pawnee 48.8 15.3 37.6 Payne 60.8 19.4 52.2 Pittsburg 50.2 13.8 38.2 Pontotoc 64.0 22.9 55.2 Pottawatomie 40.1 21.6 48.2 Pushmataha 59.3 20.3 45.8 Roger Mills 25.3 16.2 37.8 Rogers 36.5 19.1 46.2 Seminole 61.0 17.5 37.3 Sequoyah 43.4 20.3 47.6 Stephens 52.7 20.5 53.4 Texas 38.8 7.5 21.2 Tillman 51.2 20.8 53.2 Tulsa 65.9 23.6 54.5 Wagoner 49.8 15.8 42.8 Washington 67.0 22.1 49.7 Washita 30.8 19.8 46.9 Woods 33.0 15.1 35.4 Woodward 37.8 14.0 34.7 N=5 Grand X 45.6 Figure 5.10— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Government Maintenance Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON IÎ 'NOWATA/CRAIG joTTAW?j TEXAS * BEAVER 1HARPER \ W O O D S [ GRANT K A Y I O S A G E1 a l f a l f a1 1 1 oo 1 o Î O 1 o1 1 ) - \ ■V . * I J l_ lS :,ROG*ERSi I ., w- II - 1 1 E L L I S { N O B L Ew o o d w a r d G A R F I E L D I'- l-v.I-'M-A-J-OR- I P A W N E B - . .I O I r i o rz ii©\ I I i — • j } { g \ I ,uD E W E Y ! B L A I N E |KINGFISHER jaOGER'MaLsj^--^---- -j 1 i © \- - - O I Î ^ S MUSKOGEE I ! a D A ) r \ i C A N A D I A N j O K L A H O M A i, O I ( O K M U L G E e ! f s Ë Ô Û Ô Ÿ  H ” \ — » • tt/AcLitr^A — J C A D D O e * _ _ _ J O K F U S K E e“ ; > c 7 N r O ? H l ^ ' \ e \I I j B E C K H A M I W A S H I T A o ! o , G R A D Y g I I /PITTSBURG j j _ ^ j 6 R E E R I, K I O W A I o T a / QI k G I ' -, . ' 1 * 1 I COMANCHE 1 I GARVIN I P O N T O T O C ,1__ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ J , X Percent Yes I J A C K S O N ' V I * ,' * [«SLT EPHENLS ,I C V I * 1 p f C OJAkL I , —• sTEPlÎElis I• ^ IA ________ I *V I|AaTtUoKkA' a " ; - I ---------------------- 60.00 and above ̂ 1 I . - 4 f- I«.t-i l-l-m-a n " " » I— * ^ 1i * I I 55.00-59.99 * ^ © ' - ,, — •" O- , I * I— .-I 50.00-54.99 * W “ e" ^ nI -ÔvE*" r• J O H N S T O(MA RSHAL̂\ N - -J'*’B —RY —AN — C’-C-H1O-CT-A-W- - - - ̂ » i >45.00-49.990 40.00-44.99 © 39.99 and belowo 308 The high yea-saying counties are generally positioned in the north, north eastern and southeastern section o f the state. A review of Figure 5-10 reveals the yea-saying levels of all counties included in the mean percentage yes group of 50.0 and above, and show these counties to be located in the north-central and central and south-southeastern portions of the state. Six of the counties that comprise the three SMSA areas are represented in the over 50.0 percent yes category, and a sizeable number of the states largest populated counties fall into these same yea-voting groups. Only 17 percent (N=5) of the twenty counties that tended to vote yes on government maintenance measures also show a tendency to vote Republican for the office of Governor (1906-1972). Three of the high average yes voting counties have high median family income levels based on the analysis of the 1960 census data for all of Oklahoma counties (Tulsa, Washington, and Kay). In contradistinction, Choctaw County has one of the lowest median income levels in the state. The very lowest average yes percent counties on the government main tenance group are located in the west-central and western portion of Oklahoma. This lowest average group includes the counties or Roger Mills (X=25.3), Major (X=25.4), Beckham (X=26.3), Dewey (X=27.7), and Custer (X=30.7). An anlaysis of the distribution of the low and high yes grant ing counties tends to reinforce an "East-West" split relative to this policy area. In addition, counties such as Dewey, Roger Mills, and Major are among the lowest populated in Oklahoma. Several counties fall into the swing category: Cherokee (X=49.2), Haskell (Y=49.4), Wagoner (X=49.8), Murray (X=50.9), and Pittsburg (X=50,2) The three counties included in the average yes narrow defeat category are all located in the eastern part of the state, and Murray and Pittsburg 309 (included in the narrow passage category) are positioned in the south- central and southeastern sectors. All of these swing counties have tended to vote the Democratic ticket for Governor during the 1906-1962 period. « Health, Welfare and Safety Policy Health, welfare, and safety content issues have been placed on the ballot only six times in the span between 1907-1972. A high rate of pass age is present for measures that fit this policy subject matter, for over 80 percent (83.3) of the health, welfare and safety measures have met the approval of the Oklahoma citizenry. The last health, welfare and safety measure to be referred to the Oklahoma electorate took place in 1941 with the submission, of a measure related to old age assistance that was adopted by a 76.3 percent yes vote. The average yes vote for all counties on the six health, education and safety measures is presented in Table 5-12 and geographically illus trated in Figure 5-11. The highest yea-saying tendency is found for the following counties: Latimer (X=76.7), Creek (X=74.4), Carter (X=73.5), Okmulgee (X=73.2), and Johnston (X=72.8). The high average yes-ranking counties are located in the east and south-central regions and southeast ern section of Oklahoma. Generally a high percentage yes vote was attained for the counties on the health, welfare, and safety category (all the counties have a mean percent yes vote that exceeded 55.0 percent). Even the lowest average yes voting counties (Grant, X=55.5; Woods, X=56.4; Kingfisher, X=57.5; Noble, X=59.9; and Beaver X=60.5) demonstrated a tendency to vote yes in degrees that exceeded the 55.0 percent level. There were no swing counties since none of the seventy-seven counties have 310 TABLE 5-12 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 67.4 10.6 29.1 Alfalfa 60.9 11.0 28.6 Atoka 67.2 16.5 40.3 Beaver 60.5 14.3 37.9 Beckham 67.9 12.4 30.8 Blaine 64.2 8.4 22.4 Bryan 65.2 10.6 27.9 Caddo 66.6 10.8 30.1 Canadian 63.0 8.8 22.2 Carter 73.5 9.9 22.7 Cherokee 67.4 14.3 36.7 Choctaw 66.0 15.2 39.1 Cimarron 63.1 9.9 29.0 Cleveland 64.5 12.7 32.5 Coal 72.2 14.3 39.2 Comanche 65.0 9.7 22.6 Cotton 66.6 14.9 37.4 Craig 62.7 14.5 38.6 Creek 74.4 8.4 24.4 Custer 66.3 13.6 32.9 Delaware 65.3 13.9 36.4 Dewey 63.3 11.9 27.4 Ellis 63.5 11.3 28.7 Garfield 63.0 9.2 19.7 Garvin 64.7 12.8 31.0 Grady 65.4 11.3 27.2 Grant 55.5 12.1 33.5 Greer 70.6 10.1 27.5 Harmon 61.6 13.2 35.6 Harper 65.3 12.3 32.7 Haskell 70.9 17.1 46.5 Hughes 68.7 19.0 49.3 Jackson 63.4 11.8 29.0 Jefferson 63.4 14.0 28.5 Johnston 72.8 17.2 45.4 Kay 64.1 10.4 29.2 Kingfisher 57.5 10.3 24.8 Kiowa 67.6 10.0 25.4 Latimer 76.7 12.6 30.9 LeFlore 68.6 12.5 33.7 Lincoln 65.5 12.0 29.0 Logan 65.9 7.3 18.7 Love 63.3 16.0 40.7 McClain 67.3 12.0 26.1 McCurtain 70.7 13.7 39.4 McIntosh 65.3 11.9 34.2 311 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 61.5 12.5 47.6 Marshall 71.3 13.2 30.4 Mayes 67.2 12.4 32.7 Murray 68.4 10.0 26.3 Muskogee 64.1 11.4 29.3 Noble 59.9 9.5 26.2 Nowata 65.q 10.7 28.8 Okfuskee 70.0 13.9 35.2 Oklahoma 68.6 6.7 19.3 Okmulgee 73.2 12.4 34.0 Osage 68.4 7.9 23.7 Ottawa 64.8 10.9 30.6 Pawnee 66.2 8.2 21.2 Payne 67.9 6.2 17.0 Pittsburg 71.1 14.2 34.7 Pontotoc 61.7 13.1 37.0 Pottawatomie 67.3 14.6 37.2 Pushmataha 72.4 15.6 33.6 Roger Mills 65.7 12.4 32.1 Rogers 66.1 10.5 27.4 Seminole 69.3 13.4 33.9 Sequoyah 70.6 18.5 49.5 Stephens 70.2 14.1 31.7 Texas 63.6 12.1 32.2 Tillman 65.7 8.5 21.0 Tulsa 70.8 13.6 35.6 Wagoner 66.8 10.5 27.2 Washington 64.4 15.8 45.3 Washita 63.0 11.1 25.5 Woods 56.4 8.6 21.9 Woodward 61.5 12.4 35.9 N=6 Grand X 66.2 Figure 5.11--Percent Distribution o£ Mean Vote Yes for ail Health, Welfare, and Safety Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON 1 TEXAS [ BEAVER H A RPER \ W O O D S ALFALFA GRANT I KAY OSAGE taK/NO W A T A f CRAIG | S , * I 0T«TJAUWA * i * i ** r - N * * ! * ,# 1 * I * 1 1 ELLIS •WamO mOmD mWi A R D ^ ' J— * HRO GERS ̂1 iI 1 w .. I .-I- GARFIELD iNoilTE XL I"-'- '*M-AJ-OR- I1 * lpAWNÊ -'_ I MAYES* * I « I ,- 1- I * I * 1 5 * \^ J , I \ Jl O E W E Y^ Î! BLAINE KINGFISHER ! LOGAN),, PAYNE a ” C R E E K ( J - ^ ^ ^ ^ L A G O N E ^ H E R O K E E ^ \ II LINCOLN ROGER MILLS I C U STER ”■ yN) X Percent Yes I JACKSON 'V _ _ , « J PIU—S “H M A T A H A I1 60.00 and above iMcCURTAIN 55.00-59.99 * 50.00-54.99 * ; JOHNSTON : - : 45.00-49.99© LOVE MARÇHAlÇ ■* BRYAN 1 CHOCTAW.. I40.00-44.99 © 39.99 and belowo 313 an average percentage yes vote that falls into the mean percent yes range of 49.0 to 50.9. Education Policy f Education oriented policies were not submitted to the electorate until 1926. The overall level of passage for issues associated with this category is 36.4 percent, or four out of the eleven measures sub mitted to the electorate were adopted. Many of the issues, as the proposal samplesp rovided below shoif, were oriented toward teacher benefits and various types of eductional aid and assistance to common schools. For example: ® Free Textbooks: In 1926 the people petitioned to have Senate Bill Number 54 referred for popular con sideration. The legislative act was rejected with only 34.1 percent of the voters giving their approval to a new Free Textbook Law.. Seventy-eight percent of the voters who voted for the highest candidate in the General Election of 1926, also voted on this measure. Later, State Question 318, was approved by a 61.0 percent majority, in the General Election of 1946. The adoption of Question Number 318 provided for a free textbook system to be established for Oklahoma. ® Teacher Retirement and Death and Disability Benefits: A question identical to State Question 242 that was submitted in 1938, was re-submitted in 1942, and again, rejected with a 42.2 percent yes vote. ° School Aid: An initiative petition submitted to voters in the General Election, 1946, and approved by a 60.2 percent majority. It provided for annual support of common schools up to a 42 per capita rate. ° School Consolidation: A bill submitted to the people through their powers of the initiative petition that provided for the disorganization of school districts and provided for the consolidation and annexation of others. It was rejected in 1964 when it received a 42.3 percent yes vote, although it had a voter partic ipation level of 86.6 percent. ° Separate Schools; A significant amendment which pro posed the repeal of the "separate but equal" schools provision of Article XII. The voters agreed with its 314 repeal by a 66.3 percent yes margin, and State Question 428 was adopted in 1966. ® Public School Desegregation; In 1970, State Question Number 475, Legislative Referendum Number 183 was given to the voters for their approval or rejection. Had it been approved by the .electorat,e it would have prohibit ed the segregation of children in public schools on the basis of race, creed, color or natural origin. It re ceived a 46.4 percent agreement level and therefore fail ed to pass. Several other measures dealing with teacher retirement and the provision of superintendents for public schools are also included in the education group. The counties tending to vote yes on all eleven issues, as reflected by the average percent yes vote compiled and displayed in Table 5-13 and Figure 5-12, are generally located throughout the central, far southern, and eastern regions of Oklahoma. The north-central and north western portions are distinctively absent relative to an average yea-say ing tendency exceeding 50.0 percent. The top five yes voting counties on education issues are: Bryan (X=57.9), Muskogee (X=57.7), Ottawa (X=57.5), Okmulgee (X=57.4), and Cleveland (X=56.6). These counties are located in the eastern and central regions of Oklahoma, and they all tended to vote strongly Democratic for Governor during the 1906-1972 period (see Figure 4-3). In general, the highest average yea-saying counties tend to comprise the largest populated counties in Oklahoma. Only Cleveland County is associated with a SMSA. The lowest average yes vote received on the eleven issues consti tuting the education policy category are northern, west-central, and west ern in location. This group of counties also comprises a low number of people residing within their political jurisdictions and tended, with 315 TABLE 5-13 ' SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL EDUCATION CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 4 4 . 3 12.0 34.1 Alfalfa 40.6 10.8 35.9 Atoka 43.9 11.4 30.2 Beaver 41.5 7.1 29.4 Beckham 49.5 12.3 33.4 Blaine 39.8 12.3 38.8 Bryan 57.9 11.5 35.5 Caddo 45.3 11.1 33.0 Canadian 47.1 10.4 32.0 Carter 52.4 12.7 43.9 Cherokee 47.1 12.7 35.4 Choctaw 55.9 9.5 23.4 Cimarron 41.3 6.4 21.8 Cleveland 56.6 12.7 35.4 Coal 44.3 15.9 43.9 Comanche 56.1 10.2 28.9 Cotton 50.9 11.7 34.5 Craig 41.0 14.9 40.0 Creek 54.5 15.0 39.4 Custer 47.7 9.0 30.8 Delaware 43.6 9.3 28.1 Dewey 39.1 11.0 33.3 Ellis 40.0 8.5 32.3 Garfield 47.2 12.6 39.2 Garvin 44.7 15.8 38.2 Grady 45.3 9.2 30.3 Grant 34.5 12.8 42.3 Greer 50.0 12.1 30.6 Harmon 46.3 9.6 35.4 Harper 39.4 9.4 32.8 Haskell 48.6 13.3 31.6 Hughes 49.6 13.3 32.9 Jackson 55.9 12.1 32.3 Jefferson 46.3 9.1 28.8 Johnston 44.4 9.0 25.3 Kay 46.2 17.5 44.3 Kingfisher 34.6 11.4 38.6 Kiowa 49.3 11.3 30.7 Latimer 47.8 7.6 22.2 LeFlore 46.0 14.0 38.3 Lincoln 40.5 10.5 36.0 Logan 44.3 10.9 33.0 Love 49.5 11.6 28.6 McClain 45.5 12.9 32.6 McCurtain 49.2 11.6 34.4 McIntosh 50.7 8.1 22.8 316 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 36.2 11.5 40.4 Marshall 47.3 10.6 30.4 Mayes 43.8 13.4 36.6 Murray 48.6 12.5 33.3 Muskogee 57.7 11.6 40.0 Noble 41.9 15.6 41.4 Nowata 48.1 14.4 43.2 Okfuskee 50.2 11.8 33.9 Oklahoma 54.1 11.4 35.9 Okmulgee 57.4 12.1 36.2 Osage 52.7 13.5 36.0 Ottawa 57.5 7.9 26.2 Pawnee 45.5 13.8 37.4 Payne 54.8 11.8 30.9 Pittsburg 52.8 7.2 21.3 Pontotoc 47.4 13.9 37.9 Pottawatomie 50.5 13.5 32.9 Pushmataha 49.1 15.3 40.2 Roger Mills 38.9 10.0 31.7 Rogers 45.9 10.3 37.6 Seminole 51.7 15.8 43.0 Sequoyah 50.6 15.2 38.7 Stephens 46.4 14.3 34.7 Texas 48.5 8.3 32.0 Tillman 49.2 11.1 32.7 Tulsa 57.9 11.1 29.7 Wagoner 47.5 11.6 42.0 Washington 51.0 14.1 46.3 Washita 42.6 10.6 35.8 Woods 40.6 11.0 35.9 Woodward 43.9 11.0 38.1 N=ll Grand X 47.3 Figure 5.12— Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Education Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON j TEXAS 'beaver HARPER s.WOODS ALFALFA GRANT IKAY OSAGE : #/NOWATA/CRAIG OTTAWA © I 0 1! © r - \ e e - 1 1 ELLIS WOODWI ARD ' -I — — I•GARFIELD I NOBL —E— ^ _ Ilr*s _ l( ROGERS Î M1A-Y-- !bJV MAJOR e I PAWNEE-.. L ESI ! e ! I DEWEY.L BLAINE ,KJ1INGFISHER’LOGAN1 PAYNE V 4 k ! W A G O N E R S C H E R O K E E i I ~ {LINCOLN "“ “ “ ‘■Sprârâ' I j]cA NADI°AÏr OKLAHOMA I © I S MUSKOGEE I ___(̂ ÛL**4------------- joKMULG^______ ^ { lË Ô u o Ÿ  H — — ° '--I ® ^ G O K F U S K E E ” ! . J m c I N T O S h I ^ N * \BEC KHAM I- W•••A AS f.H. I1.T. ^A* "j C IA D O O II -VI 0 ! © Î I GRADY I ....hughes .IU. I* HASKELL I.I —LEI FLORE,— 04GREER JI-, -KI-O-WA- ----J| 0 V © e \ ; I /PITTSBURG•5 I-LATIMER] / e LMçÇL_AINlt-',''-k‘o - I II _ r' 0 {COMAJNCHE I I GARVIN (PONTOTOC 0 X Percent Yes ----L, A ! A r'COAL T© ,̂ATOK«._, 60.00 and above 55.00-59.99 * X ^ /V. I TILLMAN L-l *■ • © L1 - ^ A 0 7 ~ - ;XCOTTON I _ _ _ _ _ _ ', II '.MURRAY I I---- 1CARTtzErRz"-,l_J ^© © 1 ©50.00-54.99 * e I "JEFFERSON I ^ JOHNST ON*» © I I 45.00-49.99 Q 0 •___% _ JMARSH -̂̂ RYAN ) CHOCTAW {40.00-44.99 e 39.99 and belowO G l s © ^ ^ 318 the exception of Roger Mills County, to vote Republican in the guber natorial elections held between 1906-1972. The counties forming the low average yea-saying group are; Grant (1=34.5), Kingfisher (X=34.6), Major (X=36.2), Roger Mills (X=38.9), and Dewey (T=39.1). An. analysis of Figure 5-12 further reveals that all but one county (Canadian), that are used to establish the three Oklahoma SMSA's have an average yea-saying tendency exceeding 50.0 percent. The potential swing counties on education propositions are likely to consist of Beckham (X=49.5), Hughes (X=49.6), Kiowa (X=49.3), Love (X=49.5), McCurtain (X=49.2), Tillman (X=49.2), and Pushmataha (X=49.1) in the narrow percent age rejection category of 49.0 to 49.9 percent yes. These counties have a heavy southwestern and southeastern orientation, as well as a history of Democratic voting for state offices. The swing counties composing the percentage interval 50.0 to 50.9 percent yes were: Cotton (X=50.9), McIntosh (X=50.7), Sequoyah (X=50.6), Pottawatomie (X=50‘.S) Okfuskee (X=50.2), and Greer (X= 50.0). This group of counties is located in the southwestern, east-central and eastern section of the state and also tend to vote Democratic. Veteran Benefit Policy Six state questions have been submitted to and voted upon by the Oklahoma electorate in the area of veteran benefits. However, only one proposition of the six dealing with the veterans' benefits was passed by the electorate. The first veteran related proposition was submitted and rejected in 1922, and the last measure of this policy type was submitted and turned down by the voters in 1956. Veterans' benefits have always received a high level of voter participation, although they have normally 319 been, met with defeat. The average percent yes vote for Oklahoma's counties on all veteran oriented policy type issues is presented in Table 5-14 and Figure 5-13. The top average yes voting counties are: Sequoyah (T=59.6), Adair (T=59.3), LeFlore (T=59.2), Haskell (T=57.8), and Love (T=53.3). A review of Figure 5-13 illustrates the eastern location of these top ranked counties, and the general eastern, east-central, and southern•location of yea-saying counties on veteran policy propositions, therefore reflecting to a limited degree an "East-West" division, as well as a "North-South" distinction. Also, a comparison of Figure 5-13 with Figure 4-3 reveals that all counties with an average percent yes vote of 50.0 or above on the veteran benefit issues have a tendency to vote strongly Democratic for Governor during the 1907-1962 period. The lowest average percent yes votes on the veteran policy category are found in these counties: Noble (T=32.2), Kingfisher (X=34.5), Grant CX=34.9), Washington (T=35.0), and Harper (T=35.7). This group of counties are positioned in the northern and west-central sections of Oklahoma, and have a tendency to vote Republican for the office of Governor over the period of 1906-1972. There is clearly a "North-South" differentiation relative to support of veteran related propositions and partisan choice for Governor. Potential swing counties on veteran benefit issues are: Coal (X=49.4 percent yes), and McClain (%=49.3 percent yes) in the 49.0 to 49.9 average percentage yes category; in the 50.0 to 50.9 average percentage yes cate gory are the counties of Bryan (X=50.5), Marshall (3=50.3), Murray (3=50.1), and Okfuskee (3=50.9). The overwhelming proportion of these marginal support 320 TABLE 5-14 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL VETERAN BENEFIT POLICY CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 59.3 10.9 28.0 Alfalfa 37.5 16.7 40.0 Atoka 52.2 10.2 26.1 Beaver 35.8 15.3 36.7 Beckham 38.9 13.7 36.0 Blaine 39.4 14.5 35.3 Bryan 50.5 10.5 26.6 Caddo 42.6 10.7 28.7 Canadian 40.1 10.7 31.1 Carter 44.8 10.9 28.8 Cherokee 48.3 8.2 20.0 Choctaw 48.2 9.1 25.6 Cimarron 38.0 14.5 40.9 Cleveland 40.2 13.5 35.8 Coal 49.4 10.7 25.1 Comanche 44.6 11.7 29.9 Cotton 48.7 11.1 30.3 Craig 36.3 9.1 22.4 Creek 47.7 13.3 32.7 Custer 38.0 12.6 36.3 Delaware 46.3 9.7 25.6 Dewey 37.0 13.9 34.6 Ellis 38.9 17.1 43.0 Garfield 37.2 13.9 34.7 Garvin 45.5 14.6 32.2 Grady 43.4 12.8 36.3 Grant 34.9 13.5 35.2 Greer 47.0 12.0 31.6 Harmon 40.0 13.2 36.5 Harper 35.7 17.1 40.3 Haskell 57.8 5.2 13.9 Hughes 47.1 14.7 35.6 Jackson 47.0 11.4 33.1 Jefferson 47.9 8.2 21.4 Johnston ;51.4 10.1 28.8 Kay 39.8 13.7 33.6 Kingfisher 34.5 14.0 38.3 Kiowa 40.0 13.5 36.7 Latimer 52.2 9.7 23.0 LeFlore 59.2 9.4 21.8 Lincoln 38.2 10.2 27.1 Logan 37.7 12.0 31.5 Love 53.3 10.5 26.4 McClain 49.3 11.0 30.5 McCurtain 51.0 7,2 19.8 McIntosh 51.1 7.6 19.1 321 Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Maj or 38.1 20.9 56.1 Marshall 50.3 11.6 27.9 Mayes 43.0 8.9 24.0 Murray 50.1 13.3 32.8 Muskogee 43.9 12.4 31.1 Noble 32.2 10.7 30.6 Nowata 48.$ 15.5 38.4 Okfuskee 50.9 13.4 33.8 Oklahoma 37.1 12.8 31.9 Okmulgee 45.8 8.8 26.6 Osage 48.4 15.3 38.2 Ottawa 45.4 9.0 25.9 Pawnee 41.1 11.9 28.6 Payne 38.2 12.6 33.6 Pittsburg 46.4 9.6 20.4 Pontotoc 43.1 12.7 29.7 Pottawatomie 41.5 11.4 27.5 Pushmataha 52.6 6.8 18.2 Roger Mills 43.2 13.7 37.7 Rogers 44.8 10.3 32.3 Seminole 48.5 14.5 37.0 Sequoyah 59.6 6.6 15.4 Stephens 45.8 13.0 30.6 Texas 47.8 22.4 65.8 Tillman 47.8 12.8 39.5 Tulsa 37.5 12.7 35.1 Wagoner 46.5 10.7 30.1 Washington 35.0 12.1 34.4 Washita 39.0 12.8 38.5 Woods 37.2 16.1 35.1 Woodward 36.0 17.3 39.3 N=6 Grand T 44.3 Figure s. 1 3 — Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Veteran Benefit Policy Content Issues Sub mitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON j TEXAS * BEAVER 11HARPERo 11 G ! 0 1\ 1 1 ©1 1ELLIS -, I- - - I GARFIELD I NOBLE 11MAJOR- 1 -, ,JI:PiA WNEeE-* .. fj SAnTmYNE 0 '''IjccRrEeEeKkLLTTüUI-IJ^aA^^ jwAGONiR'-^SEROKEEj 1 I o'"'i:,jrc0LN“l © 1*\ I R O G E R M I L L S C - - ^ - - - - - -J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Î - , , I A *1 M U S K O G E E I ( A D A I R \ B i o I O K L A H O M A j O j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - } o k ^ L G E e | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q ^ M j y f ^ l T - \ ^I I— w jCADOO ^I O I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ! O k f u s k e e " ; ^ I m c T -n -t o-s -h " 1] \.-̂ v. V \ ""“ o” !I O I @ gl# © I •» 0 I^ Qj^IU* Gl.i ^S A / 'h ASKELL ■— • F^E I I 15 /PITTSBURG '----- 1 KNJ - l i f l Y”"; ■] ! e © i‘ 7 “' * # icOMANCHE lOARV^^ 1 ‘----- ^ X Percent Yes 60.00 and above l“© "r"-! ® -»■ 55.00-59.99 * 50.00-54.99 * 45.00-49.99 0 A ‘ _ _ J maRSHAlV-*8«̂ '‘N fcHOCTAW , 40.00-44.99 ©■ f̂l-OVE ak.lJk.4 * h r V 39.99 and below o 323 counties are located in south-central Oklahoma, and have been traditonally Democratic in partisan orientation. Public Morality and Individual Life Style Policy I Thirteen issues, or 5.1 percent of the total number of measures voted on between 1907-1972, have been referred for voter consideration in the policy area associated with public morality and individual life style. It is a popular view that issues possessing a "morality" factor or "sin" over tone would tend not to be adopted in a state that clearly possesses a major ity of its citizens that are identified with fundamentalist religious beliefs, basically the Baptist religious tradition. 12 The data support the belief that Oklahoman’s are inclined to reject measures pertaining to public morality and individual life style, for only two measures falling into this policy category (15.4 percent) were adopted by popular vote over the sixty-five year period which is considered in this study. Some typical examples of propositions that fit this general policy category are: ° Repeal of Prohibition: An initiative petition providing for the sale of intoxicating beverages was rejected in 1910, by a yes vote of 45.4 percent. Ninety-three per cent of those who cast a ballot at the General Election of 1910, also voted for or against the prohibition of liquor repeal measure. ° Slot Machines: A referendum petition that had it been adopted, would have repealed the penalties associated with gambling and running slot machines. The measure was rejected when it failed to secure more than 47.6 percent of the electoral yes vote in the Primary Elec tion of August 4, 1916. ° Gambling: A referendum petition designed to repeal a legislative act preventing gambling and bookmaking, and other gambling activities in the State of Oklahoma. This measure was rejected in 1914, when it received an affirmative vote of 46.9 percent. 324 ° 5.2 Percent Beer as a Non-Intoxicating Beverage: A legislative referendum submitted to the voters in 1932 and adopted by a 63.4 percent yes majority. It defined beverages as non-intoxicating if they contain ed less than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight. ® County-Option Prohibition: A«legislative referendum that was submitted to the electorate in 1959 which would have left it up to the people of each county to decide whether they wanted alcoholic beverages to be manufactured and sold in their own county. The measure was rejected with a 32.0 percent yes vote favoring the county-option plan. “ "Blue-Laws"— Saturday and Sunday: In 1971, the people voted on a "Blue Law" proposal that would have made it illegal to sell certain merchandise on Saturday and on Sunday. The act was rejected when only 46.1 percent of the people agreed with the idea of prohibiting the sale of specific goods on the weekend. On a number of separate occassions, measures designed to repeal prohibition were placed before the people for their popular approval, and they were all rejected. The counties that demonstrated the highest average yea-saying vote on the total set of public morality measures are: Tulsa (Y=53.1), Muskogee [X=52.4), Osage (X=51.S), and Adair (X=51.2). The fifth highest mean percentage yes vote was cast for Oklahoma County [X=49.7 percent). It is clear from a review of the statistics provided for the counties of Oklahoma in Table 5-15, and displayed in Figure 5-14, that three of the counties that tended to vote yes were largely urban and metropolitan in their make-up. Indeed, Osage and Tulsa partially compose the Tulsa SMSA, and the city of Muskogee is presently among the top ten largest cities in the state. Three of the four yea-saying counties have generally voted Democratic for Governor (Tulsa is the exception). In addition, the yea- tending counties are all located in the northern quadrant of the state. The counties with the lowest average percent yes vote on public 325 TABLE 5-15 SUMMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL PUBLIC MORALITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIFE STYLE CONTENT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE DURING THE PERIOD 1907-1972, BY COUNTY Mean Percent Standard County Identification Yes Deviation Range Adair 51.3 18.8 71.2 Alfalfa 34.4 15.9 50.2 Atoka 46.1 15.7 51.8 Beaver 39.3 17.0 58.1 Beckham 37.7 12.3 44.4 Blaine 37.6 10.8 39.2 Bryan 44.3 12.1 41.7 Caddo 38.1 9.7 35.5 Canadian 40.9 13.7 52.0 Carter 42.9 14.0 52.8 Cherokee 43.5 17.1 67.4 Choctaw 45.0 14.3 49.7 Cimarron 38.7 18.5 68.9 Cleveland 39.5 10.5 34.5 Coal 47.7 16.3 57.2 Comanche 44.2 15.8 56.7 Cotton 35.6 13.3 45.1 Craig 41.8 9.6 37.2 Creek 46.8 12.3 48.9 Custer 33.6 9.3 31.4 Delaware 43.7 11.6 34.6 Dewey 35.9 10.4 33.9 Ellis 34.8 13.0 42.6 Garfield 37.5 10.5 39.7 Garvin 40.7 12.3 41.6 Grady 39.4 10.1 35.8 Grant 32.2 7.2 27.3 Greer 36.9 12.9 44.8 Harmon 32.1 20.0 62.3 Harper 35.9 11.9 41.9 Haskell 42.5 14.1 46.9 Hughes 41.3 13.1 38.6 Jackson 35.7 13.3 52.2 Jefferson 39.4 13.2 41.6 Johnston 46.0 15.2 52.7 Kay 42.4 9.7 33.5 Kingfisher 38.8 11.1 41.8 Kiowa 37.5 9.1 32.6 Latimer 42.3 16.0 51.5 LeFlore 43.6 17.4 50.9 Lincoln 35.9 9.5 34.9 Logan 43.2 10.2 34.5 Love 39.1 10.5 29.8 McClain 41.8 10.7 38.7 McCurtain 46.6 13.8 48.3 McIntosh 49.2 14.1 54.6 326 Mean Percent Standard Ceunty Identification Yes Deviation Range Major 32.3 11.8 44.1 Marshall 44.6 • 15.4 46.6 Mayes 47.6 12.7 41.9 Murray 43.2 11.7 30.0 Muskogee 52.4 13.5 45.8 Noble 39.4 13.8 47.0 Nowata 47.3 11.5 35.2 Okfuskee 42.7 9.1 34.3 Oklahoma 49.7 13.5 46.3 Okmulgee 49.6 11.9 45.7 Osage 51.5 13.3 43.0 Ottawa 47.6 12.2 49.3 Pawnee 41.6 8.3 31.7 Payne 38.3 9.1 33.0 Pittsburg 47.3 12.6 48.9 Pontotoc 40.5 12.8 44.5 Pottawatomie 42.8 8.9 30.8 Pushmataha 47.5 16.4 59.0 Roger Mills 37.5 12.3 43.4 Rogers 47.3 11.0 45.7 Seminole 46.4 12.7 44.4 Sequoyah 47.5 14.5 43.1 Stephens 41.5 12.8 48.6 Texas 39.4 14.0 46.0 Tillman 34.9 15.3 50.8 Tulsa 53.1 17.1 59.6 Wagoner 47.4 13.4 50.9 Washington 49.0 13.0 46.2 Washita 34.0 11.9 46.6 Woods 34.7 9.0 30.4 Woodward 36.2 10.3 33.8 N=13 Grand T 41.8 Figure 5.14--Percent Distribution of Mean Vote Yes for all Public Morality and Invidual Life Style Policy Content Issues Submitted to the Oklahoma Electorate, 1907-1972, by County CIMARRON j TEXAS OTTAWA ' BEAVER 11 HARPER WOODS ALFALFA GRANT î NOWATa / CRAIG o 1 I'®*'I i 1 1 o1 o1 1 ! o iiXsl l(-R®-OG--]1- , ® IWOODWARD NOBLE ERS « 1 w II-MA-J-O-R- GARFIELD - IPAWNÊ-*«. r'1 © r« il®\ I DEWEY J' BLAINE {,•k»ingfisher ROGER MILLS'f_Ic _u_ST_E_R ____ II I I ,(C_AlN-A-DI-A-N s_________|CADDO| « BE— C K—H A—M' .IU WIAA SC MHIITTAA I I o 1 O .GRADY O ijfe © 1 ^ 0 »Hü Gh‘Ës"}_^^.,''' ,HASKELL S3 GREER I, KIOWA I I I I t'î .IIw ;l' (* W J X 1 o,1 1^ O J”’L ( o (COMA-NC-H-E- - -1II i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- P O N T O T O C I . -( G A R V I N 5 O I JACKSON ̂^''>yVn _HI( © |SiT-—EPHENS I ^ r *1I» ----- --C-OA-L -^ —«y 1— — — — j._ X Percent Yes , ̂ I JV-,-UPUSHMATAHaI * J o ® Mccurtain60.00 and above 55.00-59.99 * * Ct-.—? . " ! U I JEFFECRKSOuNn |I gg.. !J JOHNSTON* ! •r ' e j "50.00-54.99 * O I! ----~-- - r( MA~RS —HALf\.f *̂r% B—LR-Y-—--* -—c— ̂ II — ---------- I1•-' 45.00-49.99 0 40.00-44.99 © e AN '!C.H OCT-AW © i C7 39.99 and belowO 328 morality matters include: Harmon (X=32.1), Grant (X=32.2), Major CX=32.3], Custer (X=33.6j, and Washita [X=34.0). Harmon, Washita and Custer tend to vote the Democratic ticket, at least for gubernatorial candidates, and Major and Grant tend to support the Republican candidates for Governor. These low yes-saying counties are located in the northern and western parts of Oklahoma. Several swing counties can also be identified. Counties such as McIntosh (X=49.2 percent yes) compose the narrow mean percent passage category. With the exception of Washington County being located in the northeastern area of Oklahoma, the rest of the swing counties are located in the central and east-central portions of the state. During the 1907- 1962 period, among the counties listed above, only Washington leaned toward the Republican gubernatorial candidates, with the rest of the swing counties tending to vote for Democratic candidates. 329 A Bivariate Analysis of Issue Areas by Selected Demographic and Voting Factors With the utilization of the SPSS software package 13crosstabulations were computed and subsequently arrayed for the mean yes vote of all counties for each of the thirteen policy categorizations discussed previously, by four independent variables (region of the State— Indian Territory or Oklahoma Territory; percent Democratic vote, 1907-1962, population density per square mile, and median family income). Combined, these crosstabulations formed fifty-two tables which are summarized in Table 5-16. For comparison purposes, Kendall's Tau-b1 4is the statistical test that has been chosen in an attempt to assess the relative impact of the four independent variables. Kendall's Tau-b, as discussed in Chapter II, is ideally suited for this comparison since it was designed expressly for variables that meet the ordinal level of measurement and are displayed in a crosstabulation. The dependent variables are composed of the thirteen public policy groups into which the 252 state questions submitted to the Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period have been classified. The dependent variables were categorized in six levels of increasing magnitude of mean percentage yes vote, and six similar levels were assigned to the independent variables of Democratic vote, population density, and median income. Region is treated as a dummy variable with counties located in the former Oklahoma Territory scored as zero and those in the former Indian Nations assigned a score of one (Figure 5-15). Al though this independent variable has only two categories, the Tau-b statistic Figure 5-. 15— Geographical Location of Former Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory Counties CIMARRON TEXAS ' BEAVER I HARPER WOOOS ALFALFA GRANT II " ;■ ROGERS ^I ELLIS ! WOODWARD GARFIELD NOBLE tpAWNÊ -„ {M IA_Y_ES_ MAJOR I L^_ JDEWEY SA _ I » I IL O G A N J P A Y N E CREEK iJükS*I a,lt! WAGONER •ÿHEROKEE, I LINCOLN ! # § r ê ^I I s MUSKOGXEE %1 \ *I ADA\IR OKLAHOMA I (BECKHAM I WASHITA Igrady I ’ ̂ 1* , /PITTSBURG I----- , (X .^JGREER I, KIOWA I I i - - ' l a t i m e r | g j - i " L A I C O M A N C H E I (I G A R V I N I( P O N i u i u u , _ _ _ _ _ j *G A R V I N pi COAL - Ii * » . #< I JACKSON ''A 4II, g # L , I II ^ p i CWO A L II ,• - I- - - - - - - J - TI i S T E P H E N S I _ , ^ J P U S H M A T A H A ( . - I •I TILLMAIINN. » I I ; M U R R A 7 I 4 ^ 1 I i M c C U R T A I N( C , T 0 » I ----- f-J » j # 1 * 1 ' « J E F F E R S O N I ' j O H N S T O n ! ' | - * ^ L - * _ -^SHAUy " ^ H Y A N ^jCc»ÜfmoCCTTAAWW^^“ "j ^ =Indian Territory * Counties 331 was retained for it in order to maintain a uniform basis for comparison between the independent and dependent variables and their attendant effects. For tables that are not square in their configuration, Kendall designed Tau-c, since Tau-b can only attain its maximum sta tistical value of 1 for square tables. It is to be noted, however, that except for region, the differences found between Tau-b and Tau-c are only slight for the tables analyzed, and that the level of significance are identical. Table 5-16 displays the association between the county mean support vote for the thirteen policy categories by region. Democratic vote, population density, and median income, using Tau-b values. In this display of the Tau-b values obtained for fifty-two crosstabulations, it is found that all but fifteen of the tables demonstrated statistical relationships at the .05 level of significance (one tail). A closer analysis of Table 5-16 further reveals the following fifteen associations between the dependent and independent variables that fell below the .05 level of significance: Region possesses four associations above the .05 level— Judicial and Legal Procedure, Industrial and Labor Relations, Business and Corporations, and Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform; Income also has four relationships above the .05 level— All State Questions Category, Government Maintenance, Health-Welfare- Safety, and Education; population density is represented by having three relationships above the .05 level— Land and Natural Resource Use, Industrial and Labor Relations, and Veteran Benefits; and Democratic vote possesses five relationships above the .05 level— Judicial and Legal Procedure, Industrial and Labor Relations, Business and Corporations, 332 TABLE 5-16 RESULTS OF CROSSTABULATIONS OF COUNTY MEAN SUPPORT VOTE FOR OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS BY REGION, DEMOCRATIC VOTE, POPULATION DENSITY, AND INCOME: TAU-b VALUES (SIGNIFICANCE LEl'ELS IN PARENTHESES) Issue Tau-b Values with Independent Variables Group Region Democratic Vote Population Density Income All .37 .35 .60 -.006 (.0003) (.0001) (<.0001) (.47) Government .34 .19 .68 .19 Structure (.0009) (.025) (<.0001) (.024) Taxation .52 .50 .47 -.17 (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (.04) Judicial .03 —. 08 .61 .41 (.38) (.197) (<.0001) (<.0001) Land .53 .55 -.05 — .48 (<.0001) (<.0001 (.3) (<.0001) Labor -.12 .05 .14 .37 (.14) (.31) (.08) (.0001) Business .06 .09 .37 .21 (.28) (.16) (<.0001) (.0112) Elections .03 .09 .58 .31 (.40) (.18) (<.0001) (.0009) Maintenance .28 .16 .36 .04 (.0032) (.04) (<.0001) (.34) Health,Wel .24 .29 .24 -.12 fare, Safety (.012) (.0019) (<.0001) (.111) Education .25 .31 .54 .05 (.0093) (.0004) (<.0001) (.2965) Veterans .61 .58 .006 -.55 (<.0001) (<.0001) (.474) (<.0001) Morality .65 .15 .04 -.21 (<.0001) (.059) (.0001) (.0129) Note: The computer program used for these crosstabulations does not give signifi- cance levels below .0001. For the 19 tau-b's with greater significance, the entry is therefore <.0001. 333 Electoral Process, and Public Morality and Individual Life Style. For the policy groups, Industrial and Labor Relations has three non-significant associations when compared to the four independent variables with one significant relationship existing for median income level. The Judicial and Legal Procedure, Business and Corporation, and Electoral Process, Procedure, Law and Reform groups each show two non-significant pairs of association with the inde pendent variable. For the rest of the policy groupings, significant pairs exist for either three or all four of the independent variables. Generally, the high number of significant pairs that are found between the two sets of variables supports the usefulness of the independent variables selected in helping to account for the level of support found for the proposition policy categories. The weak results for Industrial and Labor policy are due to the inclusion of both pro labor issues like workmen's compensation and anti-labor issues like "right to work." Four tables (5-17 - 5-20) representing crosstabulations between mean county vote yes and selected independent variables are of special interest. For example. Table 5-17 shows the results for the mean county yes vote on the All State Question category and median family income. When crosstabulated by income level, the All State Question category has a near zero correlation (-.0064) and is of practically no significance (.4732), However, the three other independent variables (region. Democratic vote, and population density) show strong correlations- .37, .35, and .60, respectively, A examination of Table 5-18 indicates 334 TABLE 5-17 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY MEDIAN COUNTY INCOME Yes Vote Below 2500- 3300- ' 3800- 4200- 4800 $2500 3299 5799 4199 4799 Above 40-44% 0% 8% 33% 23% 25% 23% 45-49 50 67 54 38 33 23 50-54 50 25 13 31 42 46 55-59 0 0 0 8 0 8 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) (12) (12) (15) (13) (12) (13) Tau-b =■".0064, Significance = .4732 TABLE 5-18 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY REGION Yes Vote Oklahoma Indian Territory Territory 40-44% 38% 3% 45-49 38 50 50-54 24 42 55-59 0 5 Total 100% 100% CN) (37) (40) Tau-b = .37, Significance = .0003 that nearly 50 percent (47.5) of the counties which historically comprised the Indian Nations, possessed a mean voting support level of 50.0 or above, in contrast to only 24 percent (N=9) of the thirty-seven counties that made up the Oklahoma Territory, which show a similar level of support. In contrast, 3 percent of the forty counties which compose the Indian Territory and 38 percent of the counties making up the Oklahoma Territory showed mean vote yes levels equal to or less than 44 percent. It is also instructive to note the association that 335 was found between percent Democratic vote for Governor, 1906-1972, and mean county vote on All State Questions. Table 5-19 reveals 70.1 percent (N = 54) of Oklahoma's 77 counties have.tended to vote for I TABLE 5-19 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY PERCENT COUNTY DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR (1907-1962) Yes Vote 45 Percent 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and or less above 40-44% 66% 25% 8% 18% 0% 0% 45-49 27 25 67 27 59 50 50-54 7 38 25 46 41 50 55-59 0 12 0 9 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (15) (8) (12) (11) (17) (14) Tau-b = .3467, Significance = .0001 Democratic candidates for gubernatorial elections by a majority of 51 percent or above for the 1907-1962 period. It further shows that 36 percent (N = 28) of the counties possessed a mean county support vote level on all State Questions submitted to the electorate that equalled or exceeded the 50.0 passage mark. Most interesting, however, is the category of 45 percent or less vote for Democratic Governor candidates and the below mean 50.0 percent support level on all propositions. In this instance only fifteen counties possessed the lowest Democratic vote level, although 93 percent (N = 14) demonstrated an overall level of support below the 50.0 passage level. When the average county vote for all state propositions are crosstabulated by county population density— a measurement that approximates the degree of urbanization that exists in a county— it is shown that the less 336 densely inhabited counties on a per person per square mile basis, showed a tendency to give lower levels of support to the state question treated as a whole than did the nine densely inhabited counties of Oklahoma. For example. Table 5-20 indicates that 100 percent of the counties with a population density of ten per square mile or less possessed a mean support score for all issues of 49 or below. In TABLE 5-20 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-623 40-44% 83% 18% 8% 6% 0% 0% 45-49 17 64 ■ 54 69 38 0 50-54 0 18 38 25 62 82 55-59 0 0 0 0 0 18 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) C12) C17) CIS) C16) C8) Cll) Tau-b = .60, Significance <.0001 comparison, the highest population density category (51-623 persons per square mile) shows 100 percent of the eleven counties that fall into this category having a mean support level of 50.0 or above. Of course the high positive value for the Tau-b indicates the strong tendency for mean county vote yes on all issues to increase as the population density per square mile goes up. These relationships were also demonstrated from an analysis of the areal distribution of mean percent yes vote on the 252 issues and the geographical location, percent Democratic vote for Governor, 1906-1972, and affluence factors as indicated earlier. Tables 5-21 through 5-24 portray the highest tau values attained 337 between the thirteen substantive policy categories and the four independent measurements. The pairs of variables that demonstrate the highest levels of association are: Public Morality and Individual Life Style by Region (Tau = .652), Veteran Benefits by percent Democratic vote for Governor (Tau = .5774), Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform by population density (Tau = ,678), and Veteran Benefits by County median family income (Tau = .5467). As shown in Tables 5-21 to 5-24, all four of these Tau values have significance greater than SPSS's limit— levels below .0001. A more indepth analysis of the bivariate relationship between Public Morality and Individual Life Style and Region is portrayed in Table 5-21. Proportionate to the number of counties contained TABLE 5-21 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON PUBLIC MORALITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIFE STYLE QUESTIONS, BY REGION Yes Vote Oklahoma Indian Territory Territory Below 40% 78% 7% 40-44 16 40 45-49 3 45 50-54 3 8 Total 100% ' 100% (N) (37) (40) Tau-b = .652, Significance <'.0001 within the former Oklahoma Territory and Indian Nations areas, nearly 95 percent of the counties belonging to the Oklahoma Territory gave mean levels of support of 44 percent or less, in contrast to 47 percent of the counties within the Indian Territory that gave a 338 similar average level of support to the Public Morality content measures. For both regions, an average passage level (50.0 and above) was given in only a few counties— one county in the Oklahoma Territory and three counties in the Indian Territory--over time. Table 5-22 displays the highest association found between Democratic TABLE 5-22 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON VETERAN BENEFIT QUESTIONS, BY COUNTY PERCENT DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR (1907-1962) Yes Vote 45 percent 56-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and or less above Below 40% 93% 63% 25% 18% 6% 0% 40-44 7 12 25 46 18 14 45-49 0 25 42 27 35 43 50-54 0 0 8 9 23 43 55-59 0 0 0 0 18 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (15) (8) (12) (11) (17) (14) Tau-b = .5774, Significance (.0001 vote for Governor and any of the policy groupings. In this table a strong association is shown to exist between Veteran Benefit issues and Democratic vote. Generally, as percent Democratic vote for Governor increased, it was accompanied by an increase in the average yes vote on Veteran issues. This relationship is particularly pro nounced in the below 40 percent mean vote yes and 45 percent or less Democratic vote for Governor crosstabulation. In this specific instance, 93 percent of the counties that possess these two attributes are located. Conversely, 43 percent of those counties that possess an average support level for Veteran Benefits of 50.0 or above are located in the Democratic vote category that is equal to or exceeding 339 71 percent. Overall, only fifteen counties (19.5 percent of the total) are included in the property space of 50 percent or above on Veteran related measures and over 50 percent Democratic Vote for Governor. Notice should be taken of the absence of any counties in the variable intervals of mean 50 or above support for Veteran Measures and below 50 percent Democratic vote for Governor. Population density per square mile correlated highly (Tau = .678) with questions incorporated within the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform Category. Table 5-23 reveals the distribution of support for measures of this TABLE 5-23 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION AND REFORM QUESTIONS, BY COUNTY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-623 Below 40% 59% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 41-44 33 76 39 25 0 0 45-49 8 12 61 75 100 45 50-54 0 6 0 0 0 54 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (12) (17) (13) (16) (8) (11) Tau-b = ,678, Significance <(.0001 type and population density. Although only seven counties are rep resented in the support interval of 50 percent or above, 85.7 percent are located in the highest density interval. On the other hand, the Governmental Structure measures received a low level of support (below 40 percent) for 58 percent of the counties that were arrayed at the lowest end of the population density continuum. Table 5-24 displays the crosstabulations obtained for Veteran 340 TABLE 5-24 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON VETERAN BENEFIT QUESTIONS, BY MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME Yes Vote Below 2500 3300 ' 3800 4200 4800 2500 - - - - and 3299 3799 4199 4799 above Below 40% 0% 0% 40% 38% 42% 69% 40-44 0 8 33 31 33 8 45-49 25 50 20 31 25 23 50-54 50 34 7 0 0 0 55-59 25 8 0 0 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) (12) (12) (15) (13) (12) (13) Tau-b = -.5467, Significance <.0001 Benefits and median family income. Of the four highest associations observed between the selected independent variables and all dependent variables, this table shows the strongest negative association (Tau = .5467). As illustrated in table 5-24, 75 percent of the counties that possessed the lowest median family income, showed the highest median level of support (50 percent and above) for Veteran content propositions. On the highest level of the median income scale, 17 percent of Oklahoma’s counties (N = 13) are positioned. However, none of these counties demonstrated an average Veteran support level equal to or exceeding 50 percent. This phenomenon also holds true for the next two highest median income groups of counties, which comprise an additional tweny-five counties. Region: An Important Control Variable in the Analysis of State Question Voting Behavior The preceeding analysis identified the former Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory counties as possessing the strongest correlation 341 of the four independent variables with the county mean percent yes vote cost on all state questions during the period under study. Since geographic location of counties is strongly associated with the over all average support level for measures (r *= .495), compared with percent Democratic vote for Governor, (r = .449), it is reasonable to create a set of the same crosstabulations utilizing the two regional categories as a control factor. The crosstabulations that resulted from controlling the effect of region (for the two sets of counties) on Democratic vote for Governor, population density, and median family income in relation to the thirteen policy groupings, resulted in seventy-eight tables. The Tau-b values, in addition to significance levels, are summarized and displayed in Table 5-25. One important and interesting result is the change that occurs relative to the Tau-b values obtained for the whole state between the four independent variables and the dependent variables as presented in Table 5-16, and the correlations which become significant for one group of counties under the influence of region as a control variable. That is, cor relations which were not significant for the whole state become sign ificant for one or the other group of counties. For instance. Industrial and Labor Relation measures by Democratic vote for Governor becomes significant for Oklahoma Territory counties; Judicial and Legal Procedure issues by Democratic vote for Governor for Indian Territory; Land and Natural Resource Use and Industrial and Labor Relation measures by population density are significant for the counties that make up the Indian Territory. In addition, the effect of geographic location is made manifest when Business and Corporation Measures and 342 TABLE 5-25 RESULTS OF CROSSTABULATIONS OF COUNTY MEAN SUPPORT VOTE FOR OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE, POPULATION DENSITY, AND INCOME, CONTROLLED FOR REGIONAL LOCATION IN OKLAHOMA OR INDIAN TERRITORY: TAU-b VALUES (SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS IN PARENTHESES) Issue Oklahoma Territory Counties Indian Territory Counties Group Dem. Vote Pop. Density Income Dem. Vote Pop. Density Income All .49 .73 .18 -.04 .37 .15 (.0002) (<.0001) (.1014) (.39) (.0039) (.1351) Government .36 .65 .31 -.34 .67 .53 Structure (.0051) (<.0001) (.0138) (.0081) (<.0001) (.0001) Taxation .58 .57 .14 .15 .21 -.01 (<.0001) (<.0001) (.159) (.1371) (.0677) (.4533) Judicial .03 .62 .38 -.23 .65 .58 (.4157) (<.0001) (.0029) (.0388) (<.0001) (<.0001) Land .39 -.02 -.14 .49 -.52 — .48 (.0026) (.4325) (.1625) (.0001) (<.0001) (.0001) Labor .29 .10 .39 -.04 .24 .32 (.0213) (.2404) (.0034) (.3964) (.0421) (.0102) Business .22 .44 .34 .02 .28 .20 (.0558) (.0008) (.0078) (.449) (.0186) (.0634) Elections .23 .64 .21 .008 .55 .46 (.0569) (<.0001) (.0771) (.478) (<.0001) (.0006) Maintenance .26 .56 .02 — .08 .06 .10 (.0283) (<.0001) (.4303) (.2688) (.3041) (.2099) Health,Wel .35 .24 -.03 — a — a -la fare, Safety (.01) (.0543) (.42) _a _a _a Education .54 .59 .14 -.09 .40 .23 (<.0001) (<.0001) (.1445) (.2482) (.0012) (.0395) Veterans .60 .14 -.21 .34 -.49 -.58 (<.0001) (.1707) (.0691) (.0056) (.0001) (<.0001) Morality .02 .43 .21 -.39 .21 -.02 (.4393) (.0017) (.0808) (.0024) (.065) (.4325) Note: The computer program used for these crosstabulations does not give signifi cance levels below .0001. For the 16 tau-b’s with greater significance, the entry is therefore <.0001. ^All counties in the former Indian Territory voted for these questions by a mean margin of more than 60 percent, the highest bracket designated for the crosstabulation. The result was ônly one-row tables, so that Tau-b could not be computed. 343 Electoral Process, Procedure Law and Reform measures by Democratic vote for Governor, although not significant for the whole state, J rise to Tau's of .22 and .23 for Oklahoma Territory and are significant at the .06 level. The total number of non-significant associations increase slightly under the control (from 17 to 22 for significant levels under .10) but the proportion is slightly less (from 33 percent to 29 percent). The effects of region as an influencing force relative to the level of support for the thirteen policy categories is illustrated in the crosstabulation presented in Table 5-26 through 5-30. Table 5-26 depicts the relationship obtained between the mean county yes vote cast for All State Questions during the 1907- 1972 period, controlled by Democratic vote for Governor and region. Although the variables of All State Questions by Democratic vote for Governor obtained a substantial Tau of .35 for the entire state (see Table 5-19), this relationship is further enhanced under the control for counties that belong to the Oklahoma Territory (Tau-b = .49) The relationship between All State Questions by Democratic vote (Table 5-26) all but disappears when controlled for Indian Territory counties (Tau-b = -.04). A further analysis reveals that 24 percent of the counties located in the Oklahoma Territory possessed an average yes 344 TABLE 5-26 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES FOR ALL STATE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR, CONTROLLED BY REGION (OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Oklahoma Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above 40-44% 71% 40% 17% 20% 0% 0% 45-49 29 20 50 40 67 50 50-54 0 40 33 40 33 50 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) C14) C5) C6) C5) C3) C4) Tau-b = .49, Significance = .0002 Indian Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above 40-44% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 45-49 0 34 83 17 57 50 50-54 100 33 17 50 43 50 55-59 0 33 0 16 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) CD C3) C6) C6) C14) CIO) Tau-b = -.038, Significance = .3932 vote on All State Questions that equalled or exceeded the 50.0 level, whereas nearly 43 percent of the Indian Territory counties demonstrated a similar passage level. The Tau-b of .49 indicates a moderately strong relationship between the overall level of support for state questions and an increase in the percent Democratic vote cast for Governor during the 1907-1962 period, when controlled by Oklahoma 345 Territory. Another important change takes place for the substantive policy area of Legislature, Executive and Judicial Governmental Structure, Organization and Reform measures when controlled by region (see Table 5-27). The Governmental Structure category showed a Tau of .19 with Democratic vote for Governor for the state as a whole, thereby having TABLE 5-27 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION AND REFORM, BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR, CONTROLLED FOR REGION (OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Oklahoma Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above Below 40% 36% 20% 17% 20% 0% 0% 40-44 57 20 17 40 67 25 45-49 7 60 33 40 0 75 50-54 0 0 33 0 33 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (14) (5) (6) (5) (3) (4) Tau-b = .35642 , Significance1 = .0051 Indian Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above 40-44% 0% 0% 33% 17% 21% 50% 45-49 0 67 67 50 79 50 50-54 100 33 0 33 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (1) (3) (6) (6) (14) (10) Tau-b = -.33599, Significance ■ .0081 346 a low significance of .025. When the regional control factor is introduced, the significance level is increased but for opposite reasons— Oklahoma Territory has a positive Tau of .36, while the Indian Territory has a negative Tau of -.34! Several additional relationships between policy categories and regional control appear for Land and Natural Resource Use and Education measures, as shown in Tables 5-28 and 5-29. Without the use of region TABLE 5-28 MEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON HAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE QUESTIONS, BY POPULATION DENSITY, CONTROLLED FOR REGION (OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Oklahoma Territory Counties Population Density Per Square Mile Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-623 Below 40% 37% 33% 20% 75% 50% 50% 40-44 36 34 20 0 50 17 45-49 27 22 40 0 0 17 50-54 0 11 20 25 0 16 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) Cll) C9) (5) C4) (2) (6) Tau-b = -.02346, Significance = .4325 Indian Territory Counties Population Density Per Square Mile Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16^20 21-30 31-50 51-623 Below 40% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 20% 40-44 0 0 0 17 17 20 45-49 0 13 25 33 33 60 50-54 0 13 38 9 50 0 55-59 0 37 12 33 0 0 60 and 100 37 25 0 0 0 above Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CN) CD C8) C8) (12) (6) (5) Tau-b = -.51694, Significance = <.0001 347 as a control, the associations were near zero for the entire state, but with the use of region as a control became highly significant for either the Indian Territory or Oklahoma Territory counties. This change is observed for the following issue*dimensions: Land and Natural Resourse Use by population density attains a Tau of -.52 (significant at .0001 level) for Indian Territory (Table 5-28), although the relationship for Oklahoma Territory counties depicts only a -.02346 association and a significance level of .4325. The strong Tau for Indian Territory counties (Table 5-28) indicates that as the population density goes up— a surrogate measurement of the level of urbanization for each county— the tendency to support Land and Natural Resource questions tends to decrease. One might observe that not one county in the highest population density per square mile category supported Land and Natural Resource Use policy issues at the 50 percent level or above, in contradistinction to the high mean levels of support in the same region form the more "rural," or less densely populated counties. One other issue dimension clearly portrays the effect of region as a control variable in relation to the dependent variable. Although the asso ciation was near zero between Education and Democratic vote for the whole state, a high association and level of significance is reached when Indian and Oklahoma Territory counties location is used as a controlling factor. For example, the mean level of support for Education measures and Democratic vote for Governor, controlled by Oklahoma Territory possess a Tau of .54, thereby showing a strong positive relationship between heightened support for Education policy questions and an 348 increase in percent vote for Democratic gubernatorial candidates. This relationship is very discernable by reviewing the data arrayed in Table 5-29. In the Education policy instance, using the same control factors (Democratic vote for Governor and region), a near zero correlation (-.0904) shows up for Indian Territory counties. In both of the preceeding examples (Land and Natural Resource Use TABLE 5-29 NEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON EDUCATION MEASURES, BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR, CONTROLLED FOR REGION (OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Oklahoma Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above Below 40% 36% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 40-44 50 20 17 20 0 0 45-49 14 40 50 20 33 50 50-54 0 20 33 20 33 25 55-59 0 0 0 20 34 25 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (14) C5J (6) (5) (3) (4) Tau-b = +.53687, Significance «<.0001 Indian Territory Counties Democratic Vote for Governor Yes Vote 45% or 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-70 71 and less above 40-44 0% 0% 50% 17% 14% 20% 45-49 0 34 33 17 64 50 50-54 100 33 0 33 22 10 55-59 0 33 17 33 0 20 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (1) (3) (6) (6) (14) (10) Tau-b = -.09093, Significance = .2482 349 measures by population density and Education questions by Democratic Vote for Governor) the correlation result for one region has been fairly high and significant while at the same time, for the other region the correlation coefficient has tended to be near zero (Tau-b values of .02346 and -.09093, respectively). Finally, region is significant relative to Veterans' Benefit policy for Indian Territory, as shown in Table 5-30. When controlled by TABLE 5-30 NEAN COUNTY VOTE YES ON VETERAN BENEFIT QUESTIONS, BY POPULATION DENSITY, CONTROLLED FOR REGION (OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Oklahoma Territory Counties Population Density Per Square Mile Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 51-50 51-623 Below 40% 82% 44% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40-44 9 22 20 50 0 50 45-49 9 34 20 0 50 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (11) (9) (5) (4) (2) (6) Tau-b » +.13578, Significance = .1707 Indian Territory Counties Population Density Per Square Mile Yes Vote 0-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-623 Below 40% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 40% 40-44 0 0 0 25 33 20 45-49 0 25 50 33 67 40 50-54 100 62 38 17 0 0 55-59 0 13 12 17 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (N) (8) (8) (12) (6) (5) Tau-b + -._4_9_1_3_9_, (.S1i1g.nificance = .0001 350 population density, the Veteran Benefit measures correlated at the .006 level statewide. However, under the influence of region as an added controlling factor, the association increases to a positive Tau of .14 (not significant at .05 level) for Oklahoma Territory, and a negative -.49, significant at .0001, for the Indian Territory. Clearly, the disaggregation of counties on the basis of regional geographical configuration casts considerable light on the analysis. This would be expected since the cultural and political backgrounds of these two sections of the state are substantially different in their development, composition and heritage. A Multivariate Analysis of State Question Voting Behavior Based on the preceeding research and partly on the study of the areal maps depicting the differentiations among Oklahoma's counties on the basis of the thirteen policy categories into which all state questions submitted to Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period have been classified, four independent variables were identified for inclusion in a multivariate analysis mode. The four variables c^sen were region (scored as a dummy variable, designating counties of the former Oklahoma Territory and the former Indian Territory), Democratic vote for Governor (average vote cast for elections from 1907-1962), population density per square mile (1960 census), and median family income (1962). One potential problem exists relative to the independent variables since they represent a single "snapshot" in time. This problem of demographic change over time is ameliorated by the fact that relatively little change has occurred in terms of the rank order 351 of Oklahoma counties for the period under consideration. A correlation matrix of all variables used in the multivariate analysis was developed, and Table 5-31 shows the correlations between the thirteen dependent variables (mean perfcent yes vote on separate policy areas) and the four independent variables. For the fifty-two correlations displayed in Table 5-31, only seventeen are not significant the .05 level, of which twenty-eight are strongly significant at less than the .001 level. A review of the correlation matrix will also indicate that forty-one of the associations between the dependent and independent variables are significant at the .10 level. Four of the eleven negative associations were discussed in the correlation analysis presented earlier in the study. In preparation for the introduction and use of the four selected independent variables into a multiple regression equation, a correlation matrix was developed (Table 5-32) to assess the amount of multicolline arity among the explanatory factors.-^A review of Table 5-32 indicates that the intercorrelations among the independent variables is not so excessive as to create or introduce difficulties in the analysis. Additionally, as shown in Table 5-33, none of the bivariate r^'s explains more than 24 percent of the v&riation. The six intercorrelations shown in Table 5-33 are accorapained with the r^’s in parenthesis. 352 TABLE 5-31 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, SHOWING RELATION BETWEEN THIRTEEN POLICY ISSUE GROUPS OF OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTION AND FOUR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES (PERCENT DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR, 1907- 1972, POPULATION DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE, MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, AND REGION-OKLAHOMA TERRITORY OR INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Policy Democratic Population Median Geographical Types Vote for Density Family Region Governor Income All State .4489 .4265 -.0007 .4950 Questions (.001) (.001) (.498) (.001) Government .2988 .4730 .1747 .4050 Structure (.004) (.001) (.064) (.001) Taxation .6390 .2180 -.2819 .5913 (.001) (.028 (.006) (.001) Judicial -.1667 .5663 .5605 -.0285 (.074) (.001) (.001) (.403) Land .7029 -.2255 -.6058 .6232 (.001) C.024) (.001) (.001) Labor .0651 .1986 .3656 -.1288 (.287) (.042) (.001) (.132) Business .0415 .5315 .3497 .0396 (.360) (.001) (.001) (.366) Election .1159 .4651 .3918 .0513 (.158) (.001) (.001) (.329) Government .1811 .3514 .0515 .3552 Maintenance (.057) (.001) (.328) (.001) Health, Wei - .4490 .1516 -.3291 .5153 fare, Safety (.001) (.094) (.002) (.002) Education .4387 .37.6 .0551 .3225 (.001) (.001) (.317) (.002) Veteran .66.2 -.1904 -.6902 .6451 Benefit (.001) (.049) (.001) (.001) Morality .1809 .3629 -.1433 .6749 Individual (.058) (.001) ' (.107) (.001) 353 TABLE 5-32 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, SHOWING INTERCORRELATION AMONG SELECTED INDEPENDENT VARIABLES (PERCENT DEMOCRATIC VOTE FOR GOVERNOR, 1907-1962, POPULATION DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE, MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND REGION— OKLAHOMA TERRITORY AND INDIAN TERRITORY COUNTIES) Democratic Vote Population Median Region for Governor Density Family Income Democratic Vote 1.00 -.1193 -.4938 .4946 for Governor (.001) (.151) (.001) (.001) Population -.1193 1.00 .4140 .0214 Density (.151) (.001) (.001) (.427) Median Family -.4938 .4140 1.00 -.4549 Income (.001) (.001) (.001) (.001) Region ,.4946 .0214 -.4549 1.00 (.001) (.427) (.001) (.001) TABLE 5-33 BIVARIATE rZ's AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Democratic Vote Population Median for Governor Density Family Income Region .49(.24) .02(.0004) -.45(.20) Democratic Vote for Governor -.12(.04) -.49(.24) Population ' Density .4K.17) The use of SPSS's multiple correlation and regression program produced the regression equations presented in Table 5-34 for each of the thirteen policy issue categories in association with the four independent variables. The explanatory power of the equations is most succinctly expressed in the multiple R^'s (see column 8), which give the proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained 354 TABLE 5-34 REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR SUPPORT OF STATE QUESTIONS BY COUNTY MEANS, IN RELATION TO REGION, DEMOCRATIC VOTE, POPULATION DENSITY, AND INCOME Group of Percent Yes Constant + Region +>Dein*crats + Population + Income Sl|i Issues All Y 35.5 + 2.73X, + .14X- + .014%, + .00078X, .54 2x10"^^ Betas .38 ^ .41 ^ .38 ^ .22" ^ Govt Structure Y 29.6 + 3.32X, + .12%, + .015%, + .0015X. .49 5x10"^° Betas .41 ^ .32 ^ .35 ^ .38 Taxation Y 39.7 + 2.75X, + .19%, + .OllX- + .000059X, .58 5x10”^^ Betas .34 ^ .51 ^ .27 .01* ^ Judicial Y 40.1 + 2.26X. + .025X- + .024%, + .0033X, .48 IxlO"® Betas .183^ .043 ^ .35 ^ .52 * Land Y 31.2 + 5.53X, + .35%, - .0086X, .0018X, .64 Ixlo'lS Betas .32 ‘■ .43 .093 j .21b Labor Y 40.7 - .55X + .11%, + .0015X3 + .0016X, .22 .0012 Betas -.083^ .35 .043 .48 Business Y 38.7 + .54X, + .081X, + .019X, + .0013X, .35 3x10"* Betas .07*1 .213 ^ .43 .31b ^ Elections Y 38.9 + .5X, + .086X, + .0088X, + .0013X, .37 7x10"? Betas .093 .34 .31 ^ .48 * Maintenance Y 28 + 7.54X, + .11%, + .032X, + .0015X, .25 .0002 Betas .36 .11*' .30b 3 .153 Health.Welfare, Y 61.5 + 2.53X. + .083X- + .01%, - .00067X, .36 IxlO-b Betas .32 '■ .24b 2 .243J .17" 4 Education Y 24.7 + 1.96X. + .26%, + .019X, + .0014X, .42 6x10-8 Betas .18* ^ .52 .32 .26b ^ Veterans Y 40.8 + 3.94X, + .18%, + .0003X, - .0025X. .68 4x10"^^ Betas .31 ^ .31 .0045® .4 Morality Y 41.4 + 7.75X, - + .019X- - .00015X, .59 2x10-13 Betas .73 .34 .03* ^ Notes: Betas are standardized regression coefficients (slopes), which for a given equation measure the relative importance of the independent variables. ® The individual regression coefficient corresponding to the Beta is not significant . at the .05 level. The coefficient is significant at the .05 level but not at the .01 level. All2 coefficients.not noted as ® or ^ are significant at the .01 level.R is the portion of variation in Y "explained" by the four independent variables. For example, 54 percent of the variation in county mean yes vote on all state questions is explained by the four independent variables of the equation. Significance of R*- is by the F test with 4 and 72 degrees of freedom. Significance of the individual slopes is by the F test with 1 and 72 degrees of freedom. 355 by the four independent variables. The regression equations provide satisfactory results. Although the error factors are omitted in order to leave space for the R^'s and significance levels, these vary approximately in inverse order to the R^’s*. It should be noted that five of the equations "explain” or "account" for more than half the variation in the dependent variable, three equations explain more than 40 percent, three other equations explain more than 30 percent, and only two of the equations explain between 20 and 30 percent. Veteran Benefits issues are most completely "explained" [68 percent), and Industrial Labor Relations measures are least explained (22 percent) by the four independent variables. As mentioned in the bivariate analysis which proceeded this section, the poor explanation for labor is due to the inclusion of both pro-labor and anti-labor issues in that group, thereby causing voter support groups to cancel out. This point is simply illustrated by the percentage yes vote for three counties on two countervailing referenda: a 1916 proposal to make workman compensation for death resulting from job-related accidents optional; another, submitted in 1923 to make it compulsory. State Question Number 86 State Question Number 121 _________m 6 ___________ 1923____________ County Ratio of County Ratio of Percent Yes State Mean Percent Yes State Mean State Mean 26.1 51.9 County Pushmataha 11.9 .45 65.1 1.25 Muskogee 58.3 2.23 47.6 .92 Oklahoma 31.9 1.22 49.2 .95 The relative importance of the four independent variables is shown by the beta coefficients (standardized slopes), and the general 356 importance of the four explanatory variables can be read most easily from line 2 of Table 5-34, showing beta for the policy group "All." This policy category contains all 252 state questions submitted to the Oklahoma electorate between 1907-1972. Thèse are thus a sort of weighted average of the betas for the other twelve policy issue groups. In rank order of importance. Democratic vote for Governor is first, followed by region and population density (tied for second and third place), with median family income in last position. Ranking the four independent variables for importance in each policy issue group, it is found that Democratic vote for Governor and have the highest betas for four equations and the second highest for four additional equations. The two variables are tied for rank order on all thirteen equations, each having a mean rank of 2.38. The third-ranking variable, however, is income, ranking first in four equations (Judicial and Legal Procedure, Labor and Industrial Relations, Elections, and Veteran Benefits), and second in two equations (Govern ment Structure and Business and Corporations), for an overall mean rank of 2.54. Population Density ranks first on only one equation (Business), but ranks second in seven others, compiling an overall mean rank which is the lowest of the four independent variables at 2.69. Considering that were all four variables exactly tied in all thirteen equations, each would have a rank order of exactly 2.5; the closeness of the mean ranks is remarkable. A word of caution is noted regarding the significance levels reported in the last column of Table 5-34. The least significant 357 is the .22 for Industrial and Labor Relation issues, but its significance level is given as .0012, which seems to be quite strong. In contradistinction, the other significant levels seem to reach levels so strong as to be hardly worthy of reporting. Consider, for instance, the 4 x 10"^^ level (.000000000000000004) reached for the Veteran Benefit issues with it accompanied R^ of .68. It should be understood what these levels of statistical significance actually mean: they express the probability of so high an R^ occurring at random for a universe of uncorrelated variables. In other words, if the true R^ is zero, only a remote chance exists of obtaining an R^ of .68 by random processes. Considering that five variables are involved in each equation, it is understandable that such high R^’s would indeed occur only rarely at random. On the other hand, and more important to the analysis of state question voting behavior, is the unexplained variation, or 1-R^, which expresses the amount of ex planation that must be sought elsewhere. That is, the four explanatory variables of Region, Democratic Vote for Governor, Population Density, and Median Family Income, although they account for a large percentage of the variation among the thirteen policy categories, must be supplemented by other independent variables, not treated in this study, which if identified, might account for portions of the unexplained variation. 358 NOTES See Oliver Benson et. al., Oklahoma Votes 1907-1962 (Norman, Oklahoma: Bureau of Government Research, University of Oklahoma, 1964), pp. 32-43. 2The data displayed in Figure 5-1 were taken from Benson et. al.. p. 37. 3 Kirkpatrick, Morgan, and Kielhom, p. 24. ^Benson et. al., p. 32. ^Ibid. ^Ibid. ^Ibid., p. 33. O Kirkpatrick, Morgan, and Kielhom, p. 24. *Ibid. 10Ibid., p. 30. ^^Ibid., p. 31. 12See Morgan and Meier, pp. 12-17, for findings related to socio economic and religious factors and referenda possessing moral content. 13Nie et. al., pp. 218-248. l^ibid., pp. 227-228. ^^For an excellent discussion of multivariate analysis, see David A. Aaker, Multivariate Analysis in Marketing: Theory and Application (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 5-49. ^^Ibid., p. 3. Aaker notes that the multicollinearity problem arises "...when the independent variables are correlated and it becomes difficult to separate the individual effects of the variables involved." CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION The concept of direct democracy, although rooted in some political I thought of antiquity, was popularized at the turn of the century (1890- 1920) by political leaders and progressive muckrakers such as Robert La Follette, Woodrow Wilson, and Lincoln Steffens. Chapter 1 reviews the many philosophical, ideological and political arguments made against these two instruments of popular participation and legitimation of public policy. It is rather paradoxical that as the twentieth century unfolds the.popularity of initiative and referendum as mechanisms for constitution al and statutory change— notions all but omitted from the lexicon of the contemporary political scientist— should re-emerge with such widespread support and enthusiasm in the late 1970's.^ As Proposition 13 had its unique impact on the public revenue generation and spending behavior of California, somewhat similar measures stalk the economic and political wilderness of other states and a myriad of communities. While many conservatives feared the principle of direct democracy in the early part of the century (polemical statements which characterized the 1 and R as "socialism run wild" and "mob rule" were quite prevalent) the ideological wheel of support and argumentation in recent years has made a nearly complete revolution. That is, many liberals and progressive leaning citizens and politicians express anxious feelings that direct democratic techniques might be used as the vehicle to not only incorporate a specific brand of economic theory into the several state constitutions, but that a statutory initiative might be instituted at the national level of government with potentially troublesome implications. The Aborezk bill, had it passed, 359 360 would have set in motion a movement to amend the U. S. Constitution, and to enable the American electorate to popularly petition selected pieces of legislation to be legitimated by popular approval. Obviously the scenario that this possibility presents is an interesting one. The political, social, and economic changes that such a movement could cause to take place would be exciting indeed (e.g. balanced budget, welfare legislation, health policy, and taxation measures). A South Dakotan helped popularize the notion of direct democracy during the early part of this century at the state level, and in 1977 another South Dakotan has spearheaded the initiative campaign at the national level.^ A principal conclusion that may be drawn from this extensive empirical analysis of the operation of direct democracy in Oklahoma during the 1907- 1972 period, is that the I and R was a mechanism used to bring about change. The type of change has not been predominantly liberal or conservative in orientation. In turn, however, the people were able to directly affect public policy in several important areas (taxation, government structure, education, health, welfare and safety and several other policy categories). Except for a few measures that were approved by the people, the political impact of direct democracy in practice has not been particularly profound. The Progressives’ theme song of curing the ills of democracy by having more democracy has been played over and over,again; the audience, for the most part, has never been terribly responsive to the sound. Chapter II provides the methodological focus for this longitudinal study of initiatives and référendums in Oklahoma. It identifies the research strategies employed and the data analyzed. The framework is established in this section for performing an objective analysis of the I and R using the county as the basic unit of analysis. 361 In Chapter III the legal requirements surrounding the operation of the I and R in Oklahoma are examined. Since 1907 many conflicts have resulted between individuals, groups and the state as to the operation and interpre tation of the organic law and statutes pertaining to direct legislation. Today, the legalisms accompanying the I an R are fairly unambiguous and easy to understand. The analyses section (Chapter IV and V) employs a number of research strategies ranging from bivariate analysis to more sophisticated multivariate analysis (multiple correlation and regression and discriminant analysis). In addition. Chapter IV makes extensive use of descriptive statistics to show what has happened when the people act directly as their own lawmakers. Several findings are of interest; (1) The mode of referral most frequently employed over the 65 year span has been the legislative referendum. (2) The referendum petition ("protest petition") is used so infrequently in Oklahoma as to be of little or no consequence in either constitutional or statutory change. (3) Election type is related to level of passage, with a negative association (-.14) between percent yes vote cast on propositions submitted in general elections and percent participation on issues, and a strong negative association (-.44) between percent yes vote cast on propositions submitted in primary elections and voter participation on the submitted measures. In addition. Chapter IV presents a longitudinal analysis of state question voting behavior during seven periods of Oklahoma history by referral types and proposition passage levels. The legislative referendum is the most common mode used to change the statutes or constitution, although 362 the referral method employed fluctuated rather widely among the time periods studied, especially in relation to the initiative petition and to the pre-1950 periods. The high rate of failure for propositions popularly initiated casts considerable doubt as the the acceptability of electoral generated measures. The operation of the "silent-vote” prior to 1974, the year it was removed by the people, was a decisive factor in the defeat of 35 propositions that otherwise would have been adopted. An analysis of the magnitude and specifics of constitutional change related to the I and R indicate that the bulk of successful amending has occured in the post-1945 period, with the 1960’s representing the high tide of amendment activity. The article of the Constitution which has been a primary target of change pertains to revenue and taxation. About 25 per cent of all articles in Oklahoma’s Constitution have not been amended. Further, it is noted that many of the politically important constitutional amendments were proposed by the Legislature and subsequently referred to the people for their consideration. One additional research method used in Chapter IV enabled all 252 issues to be placed into one of fourteen different policy classifications ranging from issues related to government structure to issues possessing public morality and individual life style content. It is observed that substantially different passage levels were found for the fourteen policy categories and specific subject matter of the 252 measures. Judicial issues, for instance, possessed the highest passage level, and public morality issues had the lowest level of passage. An analysis of proposition outcome (pass/ fail) during the seven time frames reveals major differences, as well as significant differences for the two major periods of Oklahoma history (pre- 363 1945 and post-1945) in relation to both proposition passage levels and referral mode employed. Areal voting patterns on major policy classifications are developed in Chapter V. A brief analysis of selected demographic and political features in Oklahoma provides a reference point for analysis of county yes voting inclinations on policy groups. Several inportant findings emerge: Cl) The average of all counties mean vote yes on thirteen policy types Cgrand means) was the highest for health, welfare and safety issues and the lowest for public morality and veterans' benefit policies. (2) Counties composing the SMSA's demonstrated unique voting patterns in contrast with more rural counties of many issue dimensions (business and corporations, government maintenance, and constitutional convention policies). Subsequent areal analysis helped to identify a number of voting patterns which were assoc iated with the level of proposition support for policy groups and population density, affluence factors, percent Democratic vote for Governor, and In dian Territory/Oklahoma Territory political origins. Having identified four major variables that pertained to the areal voting patterns on all policy types, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The four independent variables were found to contribute a great deal to our understanding of those factors associated with support for various proposition types. A large number of statistical relation ships were found, between region, median family income, percent Democratic vote, and population density and the identified policy categories. One principal discovery is the strong association between geographic location of counties (Indian or Oklahoma Territory) and overall average support for measures. The influence of region as a controlling factor is not only 364 statistically important, but also historically, politically, and culturally interesting. The utilization of multiple regression as an analysis mode further contributed to the overall understanding o:Ç the variation that occurred among the support levels among Oklahoma counties for policy groups. Although the entire analysis will not be summarized at this point, it is to be noted that collectively, the four independent variables accounted for a large percentage of the explained variation among the policy classifications. Jointly, these selected explanatory factors account for 54 percent of the variation among all state questions submitted to the Oklahoma electorate during the 1907-1972 period, and they explained as much as 68 percent of the support level for veterans' benefit measures and 59 percent for public morality issues. The correlations utilized in the regression analysis are drawn from the paired association that exist between the thirteen dependent variables (policy areas) and the four explanatory variables. The magnitude and direction of the relationships are useful in assessing those county charac teristics • associated with proposition support levels. Out of a total of 52 pairs of variables, 35 were statistically significant at the .001 level. Region as an independent variables possessed a high correlation with the voting orientation in a number of issue, areas, such as veterans' benefits, public morality, health, welfare and safety, and land and natural resource use. Clearly the application of bivariate and multivariate analysis tech niques to the study of direct legislation provides for a better understanding of the interrelations among the propositions examined, and enables social scientists to increase the precision by which they study and explain direct democracy in the American States. 365 In bringing this research to a conclusion, it seems appropriate to suggest some lines for further research which appear promising. Political scientists have carried the study of elections to a sophis ticated level. The same is true of legislhtive roll-call analysis and of survey research. The study of direct legislation, still in its infancy, partakes of aspects of all three fields and can profit from the methods which have benefited them. In a sense a referendum is the ultimate roll-call and the ultimate opinion survey, as well as an election. The 19,404 unit records assembled for this study could serve as the source for a wide variety of research projects. Two brief sugges tions are offered as interesting leads— using discriminant analysis and Guttman scaling. Discriminant Analysis of Region In view of the important role of region in the regression equations, another look at this variable made use of the statistical technique of discriminant analysis. In the simplest version of this method, a "discriminant function" is developed which specifies coefficients for each of a number of "discriminating variables," the coefficients being multipliers which will discriminate as much as possible between two groups of cases. The result is an equation somewhat like a regression equation but designed to maximize differences rather than to minimize them. Although the task of discrimination may involve more than one equation— indeed as many discriminant functions as variables may be developed— the process was carried out to only one 366 function for this illustration. The thirteen groups of state questions [including the "All" group) were set as the discriminating variables, so that the discriminant function sought was one which, based on the 1001 data (13 sets of 77), would "predict"' whether any given county belonged, considering its voting record, in Oklahoma Territory or in Indian Territory. The equation below is in standardized form, the coefficients being similar to the betas of the regression equations. The Z*s are the Z-scores corresponding to the individual county's percentages on the thirteen groups of state questions measured in standard deviations from the state means. The D score is the dis criminant score for the county. D = .60503Zi - .5 I6 6 Z2 - .3629Z5 - .I3 4 3 7 Z4 - .ZOSSDZg + .3233Zg + .08654Zy + .09114Zg - .07928Zg - ,12073Zio + .15123Zn - .18335Zi2 - .52633ZJ3 The subscripts for the Z's represent the thirteen variables used as discriminant variables— the policy groups of the regression equations (All State Questions, Government Structure, Taxation, Judicial, Land, Labor, Business, Elections, Government Maintenance, Health-Weifare- Safety, Education, Veterans, and Public Morality). When the equation is applied to each county, ideally it should produce "discriminant scores" with positive values for Oklahoma Territory counties and negative scores for Indian Territory counties. Actually, the predictive efficiency of the equation is 95 percent. It correctly classifies 73 of the 77 counties, failing only for Caddo, Comanche, Oklahoma, and Osage. It should be noted that Osage, though legally in Oklahoma Territory, had never been incorporated into the county government system before statehood, being still known as the Osage Nation at the 367 time of the constitutional convention in 1906. It was one of the first agencies created following the Civil War, located in the Cherokee Strip adjacent to the Cherokee Nation. In the constitutional convention, fifty-five delegates were elected from each of the Twin Territories, and two additional from the Osage Nation. Thus the discriminant equation may be considered in this case not to have made an actual error but to have called attention to an historical anomoly. In fact, Comanche County, site of Fort Sill, was formed from a part of the Kiowa- Comanche-Apache Reservation created in 1867, and Caddo, site of Fort Cobb, was the home of the Wichita-Caddo Reservation created in 1872, so that both had long associations with Indian culture though not part of the Five Nations. This brief essay in discriminant analysis is not meant to be complete, but rather to point to possible techniques for further examination of the basic data set on Oklahoma State Questions. Other groups than regions could be defined by dichotomizing Democratic vote, median county income, or population density at the state mean. Alter natively, the groups might be defined as support groups for specified policy clusters of state questions, again dichotomized at the state mean. It is also possible to use the technique for discriminant functions for more than two groups, though interpretation becomes more complex as the number increases.^ Scalogram Analysis; A Guttman Scale of Selected Policy Groups In the same spirit of suggesting other analytical methods for study of the data, a limited Guttman scale analysis was carried out. 368 witK the results shown in Table 6-1, This approach represents still another technique for classifying the seventy-seven counties and their voting behavior. In the scalogram, a county was deemed to have voted yes if its mean support percentage for the questions in one group is more than 50 percent, and to have'voted no if less than 50 percent. Only six of the policy groups were scaled (Public Morality, Education, Government Maintenance, Elections, Judicial and Health- Welfare-Safety), with the highly satisfactory Coefficient of Reproduci bility of .96 and equally satisfactory Coefficient of Scalability of .82, For the former, a coefficient of .9 is considered the minimum and for the latter a value over .6 is deemed necessary.4 Similar scaled sets of individual state questions could be created and perhaps could then serve as a measuring instrument for fitting other issues into a pattern. For that matter, a series of patterns would probably emerge, since Guttman scaling is designed to discover sets of responses which are unidimensional. The seventy-three issues represented in the six groups of the scalogram may not represent a single dimension— unless the dimension be simply "support,” but the six merged groups do fit the criteria for unidimensionality quite well. Interestingly, no county fits scale group zero, meaning that no county voted no on all six groups. Clearly the scalogram casts additional light on county votings, in-view of the fact that several counties have an overall support percentage of less than 43. Indeed, Major County, whose overall support is only 40 percent— lowest of all, is found here with the scale group supporting two of the six groups of measures. Similar refinements could be expected from more complete scaling of the data. 369 TABLE 6-1 SCALOGRAM OF COUNTY SUPPORT FOR SELECTED GROUPS OF OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS Note; If a county's mean support percentage for the questions in the group is more than 50 %, it is deemed to have voted Yes (+); otherwise No (-). Errors, in the Guttman scale meaning of inconsistencies, are enclosed by parentheses. COUNTIES MORAL EDUCN MANTNC ÉLECTN JUDICL HWSFTY I OSAGE,TULSA + + + + + + MUSKOGEE + + C-) + + CARTER,CHOCTAW,CLEVELAND,COMANCHE, + + CREEK,OKFUSKEE,OKLAHOMA,OKMULGEE,PAYNE, PITTSBURG,SEMINOLE,WASHINGTON KAY,MeCURTAIN,MURRAY,LOGAN,PONTOTOC, STEPHENS,TILLMAN BRYAN,JACKSON,OTTAWA,POTTAWATOMIE (+) u. + + BECKHAM,CANADIAN,CUSTER,GARFIELD,GARVIN, + + GRADY,KIOWA,MARSHALL,PAWNEE,TEXAS COAL,HUGHES,JEFFERSON,LEFLORE,NOBLE, (+) NOWATA COTTON,GREER,MeINTOSH (+) + + ADAIR (+) + + ALFALFA,ATOKA,BLAINE,CADDO,CHEROKEE, + + CRAIG,DELAWARE,ELLIS,GRANT,HARMON, HARPER,KINGFISHER,LINCOLN,McCURTAIN, MAJOR,MAYES,ROGERS,WAGONER,WASHITA, WOODS,WOODWARD LATIMER, PUSHMATAHA (+) + SEQUOYAH (+) + BEAVER,CIMARRON,DEWEY,HASKELL, + JOHNSTON,LOVE,ROGER MILLS Responses = 77 x 6 = 462 Errors = 1+4+6+3+1+24-1= 18 Coefficient of Reproducibility = 1 - E/R = .961 Minimum Marginal Reproducibility* = .7792 Percent Improvement = .1818 Coefficient of Scalability = .8234 *MMR = (Sum Maximum Marginal^)/ Responses. Maximum Marginals means the number of +'s or s in each column, whichever is larger, and for this scalogram their sum is 73+54+48+41+67+77=360. Percent Improvement is CR - MMR, and Coefficient of Scalability is PI/(1 - MMR). 370 NOTES 2"Rising demand for direct democracy— good or bad?" The Denver Post, 4 February 1979, p. 20. Professor Thomas Ë, Cronin observes that the "...national initiative is unlikely to be adopted in the near future, but it is likely that more states and cities will approve of the initiative in the next few years." He also considers the traditional arguments put forth on behalf of direct legislation, as well as arguments directed against the I and R. In addition, see Butler and Ranney, p. 75 for a discussion of Initiative America. This pressure group desires to have a national referendum adopted in the United States. 2Fred M. Frohock, Public Policy Scope and Logic (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979), especially Chapter 4. This chapter deals with such topics as : Referendum as a Decision-Rule and A Moral Paradox in Participation. This is one of the first public policy texts to take into consideration the role and behavior of the people as policy makers. 3See Aaker, pp. 115-153, for a comprehensive and clear discussion of discriminant analysis. Also, Franklin M. Fisher, "The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions: The Use and Abuse of Quantitative Methods," American Political Science Review, 52 (June, 1958), 321-328. 4 Benson, Political Science Laboratory, Chapter 7, pp. 235-267, for a treatment of Guttman scaling techniques. 371 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aaker, David A. Multivariate Analysis in Marketing; Theory and Applica tion. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Conçany, Inc. 1971. Addison, Charles H.; Coney, M. Duane; Jones, Margaret A.; Shields, Robert W.; and Sweeney, James W. General Information Processing System Application Description. Information Sciences Series, Number 4. Norman; Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma, November, 1969. Alder, Henry L. and Roessler, Edward B. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. 5th ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1972. Amane, Taro Y. Statistics An Introductory Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973. Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Conçany, Inc., 1973. Barnett, James Duff. The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915. Baun, Edwin Monroe and Wyman, Morrill. Direct Elections and Law-Making by Popular Vote. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1912. Beard, Charles Austin and Shultz, B. E. Documents on the State-Wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1912. Benson, Oliver; Holloway, Harry; Mauer, George; Pray, Joseph; and Young, Wayne. Oklahoma Votes 1907-1962. Norman, Oklahoma: Bureau of Government Research, 1964. Benson, Oliver. Political Science Laboratory. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969. Blackly, Frederick F., and Oatman, Miriam E. Government of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City: Harlow Publishing Co., 1929. Blair, George A. American Legislatures: Structure and Process. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 372 Inc., 1960. Bogandûff', Earl. Introduction to Descriptive Statistics; A Sequential Approach. Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc.. 1970. Bone, Hugh A. The Initiative and Referendum. 2nd ed. New York: National Municipal League, 1975. ^ Boskoff, Alvin and Zeigler, Harmon. Voting Patterns in a Local Election. Philadelphia: J, B. Lippincott Co., 1964. Boyle, James. The Initiative and Referendum: Its Folly Fallacies and Failure. Columbus, Ohio: A. H. Snyth'e, 1912.' Bryant, Keith L. Jr. Alfalfa Bill Murray. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968. Buchanan, William. Understanding Political Variables. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974. Buhler, Ronald. P-Stat— A Computing System for File Manipulation and Statistical Analysis of Social Science Data. Princeton: Princeton University Conçuter Center, 1971. Butler, David and Ranney, Austin, eds. Référendums A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978. Chançion, Dean J. Basic Statistics for Social Research. Scranton, Pennsyl vania: Chandler Publishing Company, 1970. Clark, Virginia A., and Tarter, Michael E. Preparation for Basic Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968. Council of State Governments, The. The Book of the States 1978-79. Lexington, Kentucky: Council of State Governments, 1978. ~ Cree, Nathan. Direct Legislation by the People. Chicago: A. C. McClury and Company, 1892. Crouch, Winston W., and Key, V. 0., Jr.' The Initiative and Referendum in California. Berkeley; University of California Press, 1939. Dodd, Walter F. The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions. Balti more : Johns^ Hopkins Press, 1910. Downie, N. M., and. Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970. Dye, Thomas R. Politics in States and Communities. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 373 Dye, Thomas R., and Zeigler, Harmon. The Irony of Democracy. 3rd ed. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Dvudjury Press, 1975. Dye, Thomas R. Who's Running America? Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976. Ellingstad, Vernon and Heimstra, Norman W.’ Methods in the Study of Human Behavior. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1974. Elazar, Daniel J. American Federalism; A View from the States. 2nd ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1972. Elzey, Freeman R. A Programmed Introduction to Statistics. Belmont, Califor nia: Brooks/Cole, 1971, Frohock, Fred M. Public Policy Scope and Logic. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. Grant, Daniel R., and Nixon, H. C. State and Local Government in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968. Graves, W. Brooke, ed. Major Problems in State Constitutional Revision. Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1960. Hammon, Kenneth R. ; Householder, James E. ; and Castellan, N. John, Jr. Introduction to the Statistical Method. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1970. Hedges, Gilbert L. Itfhere the People Rule. San Francisco: Bender-Moss Company, 1914. Hoffexbert, Richard I., and Sharkansky, Ira, eds. State and Urban Politics. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971. Hofstader, Richard. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage Books, 1955. Hull, C. Hadlai. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Primer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Jacob, Herbert and Weissberg, Robert. Elementary Political Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Conçany, 1975. Jacobstein, J. Myron and Mersky, Roy M. Legal Research Illustrated. Miniola, New York: The Foundation Press, Inc., 1977. Janda, Kenneth. Data Processing: Applications to Political Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1965. Kalvelage, Carl; Segal, Morley; and Anderson, Peter J. Research Guide for Undergraduates in Political Science. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Corporation, 1972. 374 Kendall, M, G. Rank Correlation Methods. New York; ^Hafner, 1962. Kessel, John H.; Cole, George F.; and Seddig, Robert G. Micropolitics: Individual and Group Level Concepts. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. Quantitative Analysis of Political Data. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E, Merrill Publishing Company, 1974. Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. ; Morgan David R. ; and Kielhom, Thomas G. The Okla homa Voter. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977. Lee, Eugene, C., ed. The California Governmental Process. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1966. Lockard, Duane. The Politics of State and Local Government. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963. McMillen, Wayne. Statistical .Methods for Social Workers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952. Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. 3rd ed. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. Mueller, John H.; Schuessler, Karl R.; and Costner, Herbert L. Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970. Munro, William Bennett, ed. The Initiative, Referendum and Recall. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1913. Nachmias, David and Nachmias, Chava. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1976. Lin, Nan; Burt, Ronald S.; and Vaughn, John C. Conducting Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Conçany, 1976. Lin, Nan. Foundations of Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976. National Municipal League, State Constitutions and Constitutional Revision : A Selected Bibliography. New York: National Municipal League, 1962. . Nie, Norman H.; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean G.; Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. OSIRIS III. Ann Arbor: The Inter-University Consortium for Political Research, 1973. Palumbo, Dennis J. Statistics in Political and Behavioral Science. New York: Meridith Corporation, 1969. Phelps, Edith May, comp. Selected Articles on the Initiative and Referendum. 375 White Plains, New York: The E. W. Wilson Company, 1914. Phillips, Bernard S. Social Research. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publish ing Co., Inc., 1976. Pollock, James K. The Initiative and Referendum in Michigan. Ann Arbor: Bureau of Government, University of Michigan, 1940. Runyon, Richard P., and Haber, Audrey. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967. Schmandt, Henry J.; Steinbicker, Paul G.; and Wendel, George D. Metro politan Reform in St. Louis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. Senter, R. J. Analysis of Data. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969, Stockton, John R., and Clark, Charles T. Introduction to Business and Economic Statistics. 5th ed. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co., 1975, Stoddart, James T. Against the Referendum. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. Sturm, Albert L. Major Constitutional Issues in West Virginia. Morgan town, West Virginia: Bureau for Government Researcn, West Virginia University, 1961. Sturm, Albert L. Methods of State Constitutional Reform. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1954. Sturm, Albert L. Thirty Years of State Constitution-Making: 1938-1968. National Municipal League, 1970. Sullivan, J. W. Direct Legislation by the Citizenship Through the Initia tive and Referendum. New York: Twentieth Century, 1892. Tallian, Laura. Direct Democracy: An Historical Analysis of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall Process. Los Angeles: People's Lobby, 1977. White, John Z. Direct Legislation, The'Initiative and Referendum. Conneaut, Ohio: H. H. Timby, 1910. Wilcox, Delos Franklin. Government by All the People; or The Initiative, The Referendum and The Recall as Instruments of Democracy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1912. Zimmerman, Joseph F. State and Local Government. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1970. 376 Articles Beard, Charles A. "The Constitution o£ Oklahoma." Political Science Quarterly XXIV (March 1909): 99-100. # Blume, N. "Open Housing Referenda." Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (Winter 1971-72): 563-570. Bone, Hugh A., and Benedict, Robert C. "Perspectives on Direct Legisla tion: Washington State’s Experience 1914-1973." Western Political Quarterly XXVIII (June 1975): 330 Bone, Hugh A. "The Initiative in Washington: 1914-1974." Washington Public Policy Notes, No. 4, Seattle: Institute of Government Research, University of Washington, 1974. California Chamber of Commerce. "Initiative Legislation in California." n.d. Crain, Robert L., and Rosenthal, Donald B. "Structures and Values in Local Political Systems; The Case of Fluoridation Decisions." Journal of Politics 28 (February 1966): 169-195. Dangerfield, Royden. "Direct Legislation in Oklahoma." University of Oklahoma, n.d. Deacon, R., and Shapiro P. "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda." American Economic Review 65 (September 1975): 943-955. Dovell, J. E.; Tenç>le, David G.; and Dauer, Manning J. "Florida’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments." Civic Information Series. No. 24, Gainesville, Florida: Public Administration Clearing Service, University of Florida, 1956. Durand, R, "Ethnicity, Public-Regardingness, and Referenda Voting." Midwest Journal of Political Science 16 (May 1972); 259-268. Dykstra, Robert, and Hahn,Harlan. "Northern Voters and Negro Suffrage: The Case of Iowa, 1868." Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Summer 1968): 202-215. Erikson, R. S.; Luttbeg, N. R.; and Holloway, W. V. "Knowing Ones District How Legislators Predict Referendum Voting." American Journal of Political Science 19 (May 1975): 231-246. Evans, C. A., Jr., and Pickles, T. "Statewide Anti-Fluoridation Initiatives: A New Challenge to Health Workers." American Journal of Public Health 68 (January 1978): 59-62. Fisher, Franklin M. "The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions: The Use and Abuse of Quantitative Methods." American Political Science Review 52.(June 1958): 321-328. 377 Gamson, William A. "The Fluoridation Dialogue: Is It An Ideological Conflict?" Public Opinion Quarterly 25 (Winter 1961); 526-537. Giles, M. W.; Gatlin, D. S.; and Cataldo, E. F. "Parental Siigaport for School Referenda." Journal of Politics 38 (May 1976): 442-451. Goldman, Ralph M. "The Advisory Referendum in America." Public Opinion Quarterly 14 (Summer 1950): 303-315. Hahn, Harlan, "Voting in Canadian.Communities : A Taxonomy-of Referendum Issues," Canadian Journal of Political Science (December 1968); 462-469. Hamilton, Howard D. "Direct Legislation; Some Implications of Open Housing Referenda." American Political Science Review 64 (March 1970): 124-137. Hanson, Bertil L. "Oklahoma's Experience with Direct Legislation." South western Social Science Quarterly 47 (December 1966): 265-273. Harmatuck, D. J. "Referendum Voting as a Guide to Public Support for Mass Transit." Traffic Quarterly 30 (July 1976): 347-369. Holmes, Jack E. "Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Twenty-Second Legislature." Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Legislative Council Service, 1955. Illinois Legislative Council. "Problems of Constitutional Revision in Illinois." Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Legislative Council, 1941. Jennings, M. Kent., and Zeigler, Harmon. "Class, Party, and Race in Four Types of Elections: The Case of Atlanta." Journal of Politics 28 (May 1966): 391-407. Kitsos, Thomas. "Constitutional Amendments and the Voter, 1952-1966." Urbana, Illinois: Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1967. Kuklinski, J. H., and Elling, R. C. "Representational Role of Constituency Opinion, and Legislative Roll-Call Behavior." American Journal of Political Science 21 (February 1977); 135-147. Lammers, Allan H., and Kenney, David, "Correlates of Constitutional Change in Illinois," Public Affairs Bulletin, No. 4, Carbondale, Illinois: Public Affairs Research Bureau, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1970. La Palombara, Joseph, and Hagan, Charles. "Direct Legislation: An Appraisal and a Suggestion," American Political Science Review 45 (June 1951): 400-421. Louisiana Legislative Council, "Legislative Submission of Questions to a Vote of the People." Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Legislative Council, 1961. 378 Marando, Vo L. "Voting in City-County Consolidation Referenda." Western Political Quarterly 26 (March. 1973) : 90-96. Morton, John E., and Thompson, Wayne E. "Powerlessness and Political Negativism: A Study of Defeated Local Référendums." American Journal of Sociology 67 (March 1962): 485-493. Mauer, George J. "Oklahoma State Questions of 1964." Oklahoma Government Bulletin. Norman, Oklahoma: Bureau of Government Research, University of Oklahoma, April, 1964. Mueller, John E. "The Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities." Western Political Quarterly 19 (March 1966) : 54-67. Mueller, John E, "Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and Historical Trends in California." American Political Science Review 63 (December 1969) : 1197-1212. Nebraska Legislative Council. "A Summary of Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Nebraska Legislature During the Regular Session in 1953 and During the Special Session in 1954." Lincoln, Nebraska: The Nebraska Legislative Council, 1954. Neufeld, J. "Taxrate Referenda and Property Taxpayers Revolt." National Tax Journal 30 (December 1977): 441-456. Newland, Chester A. "Kansas Constitutional Amendments: 1958." Lawrence, Kansas: Governmental Research Center, 1958. Norton, James A. "Referenda Voting in a Metropolitan. Area." Western Political Quarterly XVII (March 1963): 195-212. Plant, Thomas,A. F. "Analysis of Voting Behavior in Fluoridation Referendum." Public Opinion Quarterly 23 (Summer 1959); 213-222. Price, Charles M. "The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassess ment of a Western Phenomenon." Western Political Quarterly XXVIII (June 1975); 243-262. Proctor, Alvin H. "Power Factors in Kansas Constitutional Revision." Pittsburg, Kansas: Kansas State College, n.d. Radabough, John S. "Tendencies of California Direct Legislation." South western Social Science Quarterly 42 (September 1961) ; 66 Riggs, Robert E. "Vox Populi: The Battle of 103." Arizona Government Studies, No. 2, TucsçnArizona: The Institute of Government Research, The University of Arizona, 1964. Salisbury, Robert H., and Black Gordon. "Class and Party in Partisan and Non-Partisan Elections: The Case of Des Moines." American Political Science Review 57 (June 1963): 584-592. 379 Sanders, John L. "Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History." Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, 1959. Shepard, William B. "Participation in Local Policy Making; The Case of Referenda." Social Science Quarterly 56 (June 1975) : 55-70. I Stone, Clarence. "Local Référendums: An Alternative to the Alienated Voter Model." Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (Summer 1965): 213-222. Sturm, Albert L. "Recent Trends in State Constitutional Revision." Public Affairs Series, No. 11. Tempe,,Arizona: Bureau of Government Research, Arizona State University, 1965. Timmons, Jack D. "1966 Proposed Constitutional Amendments." Lincoln, Nebraska: Extension Service, University of Nebraska, n.d. Watson, Richard A., and Romani, John H. "Metropolitan Government for Cleveland: An Analysis of the Voting Record." Midwest Journal of Political Science 5 (November 1961): 365-390. Weiner, M. J. "Nonreactive Predictor of a Liquor by the Drink Referendum." Journal of Social Psychology 97 (October 1975): 103-106. Wilson, James Q., and Banfield, Edward C. Banfield. "Public Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior." American Political Science Review 58 (December 1964): 876-887. Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Greenstein, Fred J. "The Repeal of Fair Housing in California: An Analysis of Referendum Voting." American Political Science Review 62 (September 1968) : 753-769. Papers and Theses Berg, Larry L. "The Initiative Process and Public Policy-Making in the States: 1904-1976." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 31 August 1978. Gillespie, John. "Direct Legislation in Oklahoma." M.A. thesis. University of Oklahoma, 1949. Morgan, David R., Kirkpatrick, Samuel A., et. al. "Patterns of Referenda Voting in Oklahoma: A Multivariate Analysis Over Time." Paper presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, San Antonio, Texas, 27-29 March 1975. Morgan, David R., and Meier, Kenneth J. "Politics and Morality: The Effect of Religion on Referenda Voting." Paper presented at the 1979 annual 380 meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Fort Worth, Texas, 29 March 1979. Shepard, Bruce. "Political Preferences, Participation and Local Policy- Making: A Study of Referendum Voting Behavior in American Cities." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Califomia-Riverside, 1972. I Van Scoy, David Harry. "Ohio School District Characteristics and Bond Referendum Voter Behavior." Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University 1972. 381 APPENDIX A OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTION WORKSHEET 382 OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTION WORK SHEET ST. Q.#______ ELECTION DATE GIST OF ISSUE OFFICE W/ HIGHEST NO. VOTES APPROVE REJECT " REFERENCES CONST. AMEND.___ INITIATIVE REFERENDUM "OTHER: 1 COUNTY YES NO TOTAL VOTE COUNTY YES NO TOTAL VOTE 1. Adair 41. Lincoln i 2. Alfalfa 42. Logan ! 3. Atoka 43. Love i ! 4. Beaver 44. McClain j | 5. Beckham 45. McCurtain ; > 6. Blaine 46. McIntosh i : 7. Bryan 47. Major ! i 8. Caddo , 48. Marshall | ; 9. Canadian 149. Mayes | i 10. Carter '50. Murray ' • 11. Cherokee !51. Muskogee i 12. Choctaw 152. Noble I I 13. Cimarron 153. Nowata i 14. Cleveland i :54. Okfuskee ! I 15. Coal ; 55. Oklahoma j 16. Comanche ; 156. Okmulgee I 17. Cotton 1 •57. Osage ! , ‘ 18. Craig '58. Ottawa i 19. Creek i59. Pawnee 20. Custer i ;60. Payne 21. Delaware ! ii61. Pittsburg 22. Dewey i62. Pontotoc 23. Ellis j ;63. Pottawatomie; i 24. Garfield j 164. Pushmataha ' i 25. Garvin i :65. Roger Mills i ' 26. Grady | i66. Rogers i ! 27. Grant j 167. Seminole ■: | 28. Greer ! >68. Sequoyah , 29. Harmon 169. Stephens 1 30. Harper |70. Texas 1 31. Haskell 1 i71. Tillman ! ; 32. Hughes i 172. Tulsa Î i 33. Jackson i 173. Wagoner j i 34. Jefferson 1 74. Washington i 35. Johnston ! 75. Washita I 36. Kay 76. Woods ! 37. Kingfisher 77. Woodward j 38. Kiowa 39. Latimer 40. LeFlore STATE TOTAL 383 APPENDIX B FORTRAN IV COMPUTATION AND DISPLAY PROGRAM 384 INITIATIVE M D REFERENDUM PRIMARY FORTRAN PROGRAM C IC=5 FOR CARD READER C IW=6 FOR PRINTER C IPU=8 FOR OUTPUT DATASET C ITAPE=9 FOR INPUT DATASET ' C ISILNT - FLAG FOR TYPE OF P-Q C 0 = MEAN X PART C 1 = MEAN X SILENT C KOUNTS = 0 COUNTS STATE QUESTIONS PROCESSED C KMAX = 252 TOTAL NUMBER OF STATE QUESTIONS IN SURVEY C I N T E G E R C TYES - TOTAL YES C TNO - TOTAL NO C TTVC - GRAND TOTAL VOTE CAST C TITLE - STATE QUESTION TITLE C COUNTY - COUNTY NAME C YES - YES VOTE C NO - NO VOTE C TVC - TOTAL VOTE CAST C IPYES - % YES (TO BE PUNCHED) C NSQ - STATE QUESTION NUMBER TO BE STORED C KYEAR - YEAR C NOSQ - STATE QUESTION NUMBER C NOPYES - NO VOTE PLUS YES VOTE C J - LOOP INDEX C JJ - LOOP UPPER BOUND C I - LOOP INDEX C R E A L C RYES - X YES C PPART - X PART C PSLNT - X SLNT C MPYES - MEAN X YES C MPPART - MEAN X PART C MPSLNT - MEAN X SLNT C XKNTR - SUMMATION COUNTER C YESACM - ACCUM YES X C PARACM - ACCUM PART X C SILACM - ACCUM SLNT X INTEGER TYES(3),TN0(3),TTVC(3) INTEGER T I T L E (80,3).COUNTYI77,I3),YES(77,3),N O (77,3),T V C (77,3) INTEGER IPYES(77,252), NS0{252), KYEAR(2S2) REAL P YES(77,3),PPART(77,3) .PSLNT(77,3).MPYES(3),MPPART(3) REAL MPSLNT(3) REAL X K N T R (3),Y E S A C M (3),PARACM(3),SILACM(3) DATA 11,12,13,14,119 / 1. 2, 3, 4, 19 / C C KMAX IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STATE QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY KMAX = 252 C IC = s 385 IW=6 IPU = 8 ITAPE=9 ISILNT = 1 KOUNTS = 0 REAOI IC.301•ERR = 102tENO=102) (KYEAR(K). K=I,KMAX) 1 CONTINUE , 00 10 J = 1, 3 XKNTR(J) = 0. YESACW(J) = 0. PARACM(J) = 0. SILACM(J) = 0. TYES(J) = 0 TNO(J) = 0 TTVC(J) = 0 JJ = J READ(ITAPE.SOO*ERR=lOO.eND=aO) {T I T L E (I *J ).1=1.80 ).NOSQ KOUNTS = KOUNTS + 1 IF < KOUNTS .GT. KMAX) GO TO 102 NSQCKOUNTS) = NOSQ DO 10 I = 1, 77 READ!ITAPE,S02,ERR=100.END=99) {COUNTY!I,K).K=l,13),Y E S (I,J), S NO!I.J).TVC!I,J).NOSQ IFITVC!I.J).EQ.O) TVCII.J) = YES!I.J) + NO!I,J) TYESIJ) = TYES(J) + Y E S Ü . J ) TNO(J) = TNO!J) + NO!I,J) TTVCIJ) = TTVC!J) + TVCII.J) NOPYES = NO!I,J) + YES!I.J) IF ! NOPYES .NE. 0 .AND. TVCII.J) .NE. 0 ) GO TO 9 PYES! I. J ) = 0. PPART!I,J) = 0. PSLNT!I.J) = 0. GO TO 10 9 PYES!I.J) = 100. * YESII.J) / NOPYES PPART!I,J) = 100. ♦ NOPYES / TVCII.J) PSLNT!I.J) = 100. - PPARTCI.J) XKNTR!J) = XKNTR!J) + 1 . YESACM!J) = YESACM!J) + PYES!I.J) PARACM!J) = PARACM!J) + PPART!I.J) SILACM!J) = SILACM!J) + PSLNTII.J) 10 CONTINUE WRITE!I*.5 0 4 ) {TITLE!I.l).1=1.31).{TITLE!1.2).1=1,31). $!TITLE!I.3).1=1.31) WRITE!IW.505){TITLE!I.l).1=32.52).{TITLE!I.2).1=32.52). i{TITLE!I.3).1=32.52) WRITE!IW.506) ! TITLE!I.l ).1=53.80).{TITLE!1.2).1 = 53.80). *!TITLE!1.3).1=53.80) IF ! ISILNT .EQ. 1 ) GO TO 40 WRITE!IW.507) DO 30 I = 1. 77 C STORE PERCENT YES VOTES TO 1 DECIMAL PLACE IN INTEGER VARIABLES C FOR PUNCHING OUT BY COUNTY AND STATE QUESTION SEQUENCE 386 IPYEStI.KOUNTS-a) = 10.0 * PYES(I.l) + .5 IPYES(1.KOUNTS-1) = 10-0 ♦ PYES(I.2) + .5 I P Y E S d .KOUNTS ) = 10.0 ♦ PYES(I.3) + .5 30 WRITE(IM.506)(TVC(I.L)«N O (I . L )•Y E S (I.L )•(COUNTY(I,K).K=1.12). $PYES(I,L).PPART(I.L).L=1.3) GO TO 55 40 WRITE(IW,509) , DO 50 I = 1. 77 50 WRITE( IW.503) ( T V C d .L).NO( I .L).YES( I .L) . (COUNTY ( I .K) .K=l ,12). SPYESI I .L)’, PSLNT ( I.L).L=1.3) C * * * * * * D E A D C O D E * * * * * * * * * CS5 DO 60 J = 1. JJ C NOPYES = TNO(J) + TYES(J) C MPYES(J) = 100. * TYES(J) / NOPYES C MPPART(J) = 100. * NOPYES / TTVC(J) C MPSLNT(J) = 100. - MPPART(J) C60 CONTINUE C****** D E A D C O D E E N D ****** 55 DO 60 J = l.JJ MPYES(J) = YESACM(J) / XKNTR(J) MPPART(J) = PARACM(J) / XKNTR(J) MPSLNT(J) = SILACM(J) / XKNTR(J) 60 CONTINUE IF ( ISILNT .EQ. 1 ) GO TO 70 WRITE!IW.51 6 ) (TYES(J).TNO(J),TTVC(J).MPYES(J).MPPART(J).J=1.JJ) GO TO 1 70 WRITE!IW.5 1 7 ) (TYES(J).TNO(J).TTVC!J).MPYES!J).MPSLNT!J).J= 1 .JJ) GO TO 1 80 ISILNT = ISILNT + 1 REWIND ITAPE KOUNTS = 0 IF ( ISILNT .EQ. 1 ) GO TO 1 C AFTER PRINTING REPORTS. NOW PUNCH CARDS ON PERCENT YES VOTES DO 90 K = 1, KMAX NOSQ = NSQ(K) KYR = KYEAR(K) 90 WRITE!IPU.200) NO S Q . ! IPYES!I.K).1= 1.25).II. S N O S Q . !IPYES!I.K).1=26.50).12. $ NOSQ.(IPYES!I.K).1=51,75).13. S NOSQ.!IPYES!I.K).1=76.77).119.K Y R . 14 00 95 I = 1. 77 NCARD = 0 00 95 K = 1, KMAX. 25 J = K + 24 IF ( J .GT. KMAX ) J = KMAX NCARD = NCARD + 1 95 WRITE!IPU.201) NC A R D , I.! IPYES! I .L ),L=K.J ) 99 STOP C ERROR PRINTOUT 100 WRITE!IW.101) NOSEQ, (COUNTY!I.K ).K = 1 .13).!T I T L E !K .J ) .K=1.80 ) GO TO 99 101 F O R M A T !•ONOSQ=*.13. 13A1. 80A1 ) 387 102 WRITE! I vu, 103) GO TO 99 103 FORMAT!*IMISSING STATE QUESTION YEAR DATA') 200 FORMAT! 3!I3,25I3,1X,I1,/).I3,2I3.65X,2I2,1X,I1 ) 201 FORMAT!T79.12,T l , 13,2513) 301 FORMAT! 26!12,IX), 12 ) 50 0 FORMAT(80A1,T78,13) • 502 FORMAT!13Al,I6,I7,ia,43X,I3) 504 F O R M A T ! •1',31A1,T47,3IA1,T92,31A1) 505 FORMAT! 1X,21A1,T47,2IA1,T92,21A1) 506 FORMAT! 1X,28A1,T47,28A1,T92,28A1) 507 FORMAT!///' COUNTY',T17,'YES',T23,•NO',T27,'TOTAL*,T34,'XYES',T39, * 'XPART',T47,'COUNTY',T62,'YES',T68,'NO',T72,' TOTAL',T79, * 'XYES',T84,'%PART',T92,'COUNTY',T107,'YES', T113, 'N0',T117, * 'TOTAL',T124,'%YES',T129,'XPART',//) 508 FORMAT!IX,T25,17,T 1 9 , 17,T13,I7.T2,12A1,T32,2F6.1, $ T70,I7,T64,I7,T58,I7.T47,12A1,T77,2F6.1, $ T115,I7,T109,I7,T103,I7,T92.12A1,T122,2F6.1 ) 509 FORMAT!///' COUNTY',T17,'YES',T23,'N0'•T 2 7 ,'T O T A L ', T34,'XYES',T39, * 'XSLNT*,T47,'COUNTY',T62,'YES',T68,'NO',T72,' TOTAL',T79, $ •XYES',T84,«XSLNT•,T92,'COUNTY',Tl0 7 , 'YES', T113, 'N0',T117, $ 'TOTAL',T124,'XYES',T 129,'X S L N T ' ,//) 516 rFORMAT! //, 3!' TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANX MEANX '), /, $ 3!' YES NO VOTE YES PART '),//, $ 3 ! 1 8 , I9,I9,5X,F5*1 ,2X,F5.I,1X) ) 517 fFORMAT! // 3!' TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANX MEANX ' ) , /, $ 3!' YES NO VOTE YES SILNT '),//, $ 3!I8,I9,I9,5X,F5.1,2X,F5.1,1X) ) END //USECOKLl JOB /♦JOOPARM Q=T,I,F=3430,K=0 / / t r e n d e x e c P GM= 0 KL A1 //STEPLIB DO DSN=USEC.MY u SELI2,DISP=SHR //FT06F001 DD SYSOUT=A //FT09F001 DO DSN=USEC.P0LS#7e5.0KLAH0Ml ■DATA.DI3P=SHR // DO DSN=USEC.PQLS»765.0KLAHQM2 ,DATA,DISP=SHR //FT08F001 DD DSN=USEC.P0LS#765.0KLAPUN1 .DATA. // DISP=(NEW,CATLG.KEEP). // UNIT=3330.V0L=SER=HECS10, // DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=SO,OLKSIZE =2480). // SPACE=(TRK.!50.50),RLSE> //FT05F001 DD * 08 08 08 08 08 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 12 12 12 12 1 3 13 1 3 1 3 13 14 14 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1 6 16 16 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 2 23 23 23 23 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 28 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 3 33 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 38 36 38 38 38 38 40 40 4 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 44 44 44 44 44 46 46 46 46 46 48 48 48 49 49 50 5 50 30 50 50 52 52 52 52 52 54 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 57 58 5 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 6 1 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 6 3 63 64 64 6 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 6 68 68 63 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 7 71 71 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 /* 388 Figure B-1,— Data Storage Procedures Manually read card deck through card reader Punched Card Deck Card-to-Tape Utility Data stored to Magnetic Disk** Utility Report Data stored to Magnetic Tape* * Standard labeled IBM-type 9 track tape, 1600 bpi, odd parity; Aggregate data put to tape under a fixed blocksize of 3200 and a logical record size of 80 bytes for batch processing ** Stored on an IBM 2314 Disk Drive with attributes similar to that of tape, except primarily for online applications 389 Figure B-2.— Statistical Analysis Systems Flowchart (Continued from A or B in Figure 2-1) Batch Statistical Analysis Manually read card deck through card reader Punched Card Decks A or B SPSS or OSIRIS Program Desired Statistical Report Online Statistical Analysis Cathode Ray Tube Video Display Station Data stored on Magnetic Disk Interactive Statistical Program Hardcopy of Desired Statistical Report 390 APPENDIX C GIPSY ONLINE QUERY PROGRAM 391 GIPSY— UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FORM OKLA STAT SELECT A. TEXT (REFERENDUM) STATUTE TEXT: B. $ (PETITION) C. $ (INITIATIVE) D. LOGIC a or b or c SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 18547 SELECTED 813 SUBSET 1 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 32 B 781 C 44 ITERATE? YES A. TEXT (INITIATIVE) wi a (PETITION) B. STATUTE TEXT: LOGIC a SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 813 SELECTED 0 SUBSET 2 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 0 ITERATE? YES, 1 A. TEXT (INITIATIVE) STATUTE TEXT: LOGIC a SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 813 SELECTED 44 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 44 392 ITERATE? NO LIST PRINT TERMINAL OR PRINTER? PRINTER ENTER A HEADING INITIATIVE MEYER ITERATE? YES, 1 A. TEXT (REFERENDUM) STATUTE TEXT: B. LOGIC a SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 813 SELECTED 32 SUBSET 2 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 32 ITERATE? NO PRINT TERMINAL OR PRINTER? PRINTER ENTER A HEADING REFERENDUM MEYER SELECT A. TEXT (GENERAL ELECTION) STATUTE TEXT: B. $ (REFERENDUM) C. $ (INITIATIVE) b. LOGIC LOGIC a and (b or c) SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 18547 SELECTED 4 SUBSET 393 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 133 B 32 C 44 ITERATE? NO PRINT TERMINAL OR PRINTER? PRINTER ENTER A HEADING GENERAL ELECTION (REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE) MEYER SELECT A. TEXT (PRIMARY) STATUTE TEXT: B. $ (RUN-OFF) C. $ (RUN-OFF) D. $ (RUN-OFF) E. $ (CONSTITUTION) F. $ (CONVENTION) G. $ (INITIATIVE) H. $ (REFERENDUM) LOGIC A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 18547 SELECTED 781 VARIABLES SATISFII A 160 B 9 C 15 D G E 561 F 21 G 44 H 32 ITERATE? YES A. TEXT (PRIMARY) STATUTE TEXT; B. $ (INITIATIVE) C. $ (REFERENDUM) D. LOGIC a and (b or c) SEARCH 394 LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 781 SELECTED 1 SUBSET 2 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 160 ' B 44 C 32 ITERATE? NO PRINT TERMINAL OR PRINTER? PRINTER ENTER A HEADING PRIMARY ELECTION (INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM) MEYER LIST TERMINAL OR PRINTER? TERMINAL ENTER LABEL (S) TITLE SECTION 1 TITLE 34 INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM SECTION NO. 25 TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF INITIATED AND REFERRED MEASURES ITERATE? SPECIFY SUBSET NO. 1 A. TEXT (RUN-OFF) STATUTE TEXT: B. $ (RUN-OFF) C. $ (INITIATIVE) D. $ (REFERENDUM) E.- LOGIC (a or b) and (c or d) SEARCH LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 781 SELECTED 0 SUBSET VARIABLES SATISFIED A 9 B 15 C 44 D 32 395 ITERATE? YES, 1 A. TEXT (CONSTITUTIONAL) STATUTE TEXT: B. $ (CONVENTION) C. LOGIC a and b SEARCH LOGIC a or b A LOGIC a and not b B LOGIC SEARCH BEGINNING SEARCHED 781 SELECTED 0 SUBSET 2 VARIABLES SATISFIED A 205 B 21 LOGIC SATISFIED A 226 B 205 ITERATE? NO END G I P S Y - UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA MISSION COMPLETED 396 APPENDIX D ALL PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OKLAHOMA ELECTORATE, 1907-1972, BY SUMMARY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE VOTING CHARACTERISTICS AND BY GIST 397 APPENDIX D LIST OF TABLES AND GISTS DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PROPOSITIONS BY GIST, SUMMARY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE VOTING CHARACTERISTICS Table ' Page, Table Page, Gist D-1 Creation of Liquor Agency, St. Q. 001 405 531 Torrens Land Registration, St. Q. 002 405 531 D-2 Secure Capitol Site, St. Q. 003 406 531 Secure Capitol Site, St. Q. 004 406 531 D-3 Sale of School Land, St. Q. 005 407 531 Capitol Site Selection, St. Q. 015 407 532 D-4 Corporation Privileges, St. Q. 016 408 532 Grandfather Clause, St. Q. 017 408 532 D-5 New Jerusalem Plan, St. Q. 006 409 532 Woman Suffrage, St. Q. 008 409 533 D-6 Create Election Board, St. Q. 021 410 533 Repeal Prohibition, St. Q. 022 410 533 D-7 Corporation Tax, Schools, St. Q. 023 411 Corporation Relations, St. Q. 024 411 D-8 Corporation Privileges, St. Q. 025 412 534 Election of Senators, St. Q. 041 412 534 D-9 Board of Agriculture, St. Q. 038 413 534 Capitol Site Selection, St. Q. 040 413 534 D-10 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 045 414 534 Corporation Privileges, St. Q. 046 414 534 D-11 Mine Safety, St. Q. 047 415 535 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 057 415 535 D-12 Township Government, St. Q. 058 416 535 Create Agricultural Board, St. Q. 060 416 535 D-13 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 059 417 536 Gambling, St. Q. 061 417 536 D-14 Slot Machines, St. Q. 062 418 536 Taxation, St. Q. 068 418 536 D-15 Drunkenness, St. Q. 073 419 536 Court Consolidation, St. Q. 071 419 537 398 Table Page, Table Page., Gist D-16 Reduce Tax Levy, St. Q. 074 420 537 Mine Production Tax, St. Q. 075 420 537 D-17 Unicameral Legislature, St. Q. 077 421 537 Creation Tax Commission, St. Q. 081 421 537 I D-18 Voting Qualifications, St. Q. 082 422 538 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 083 422 538 D-19 Supreme Court Clerk, St. Q. 084 423 538 City Debt Limit, St. Q. 085 423 538 D-20 Employee Compensation, St. Q. 086 424 538 Court Consolidation, St. Q. 087 424 539 D-21 Size of Jury, St. Q. 088 425 539 Abolish County Court, St. Q. 089 425 539 D-22 Election Law, St. Q. 078 426 539 Repeal Registration Law, St. Q. 080 426 540 D-23 Woman Suffrage, St. Q. 097 427 540 Road Bond, St. Q. 100 427 540 D-24 Medical Practice Control, St. Q. 094 428 540 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 099 428 540 D-25 Taxation for Schools, St. Q. 109 429 541 Non-Profit Insurance Co., St. Q. Ill 429 541 D-26 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 112 430 541 Increase Tax Levy, St. Q. 114 430 541 D-27 Soldier Bonus, St. Q. 116 431 542 Convening Legislature, S t . Q . 119 431 542 D-28 Workman's Compensation, St. Q. 121 432 542 Office Qualifications, St. Q. 122 432 542 D-29 Veterans Benefits, St. Q. 123' 433 542 Tax Rate Limitation, St. Q. 124 433 543 D-30 Depositors Guarantee, St. Q. 125 434 543 Testing Tax Levy, St. Q. 141 434 543 D-31 Repeal of Convict Label, St. Q. 135 435 543 Free Textbooks, St. Q. 137 435 544 D-32 Ad Valorem Tax, St. Q. 138 436 544 Annuity Bonds, St. Q. 139 436 544 399 Table Page, Table Page, Gist D-33 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 144 437 544 Increase Tax Levy, St. Q. 145 437 546 D-34 Constitutional Convention, St. Q. 146 438 546 Court of Tax Review, St. Q. 152 438 546 D-35 Office Qualifications, St. Q. 122 439 542 A. & M. Board of Regents, St. Q. 158 439 547 D-36 0. U. Board of Regents, St. Q. 159 440 547 New Income Tax, St. Q. 167 440 547 D-37 Corporation Property, St. Q. 169 441 547 Board of Education, St. Q. 172 441 547 D-38 Create Budget Officer, St. Q. 173 442 548 Limiting Tax Rate, St. Q. 168 442 548 D-39 Crop Control, St. Q. 170 443 548 County Road Commissioner, St. Q. 171 443 548 D-40 Oleomargarine Tax, St. Q. 164 444 549 Tax Reduction, St. Q. 175 444 549 D-41 3.2 Beer, St. Q. 183 445 549 Cigarette TAx, St. Q. 179 445 549 D-42 Tax Commission, St. Q. 184 446 550 Ad Valorem Taxes, St. Q. 185 446 550 D-43 Corporation Control, St. Q. 186 447 550 Police Pension, St. Q. 187 447 550 D-44 Homestead Exemption, St. Q. 201 448 551 Homestead Exemption, St. Q. 208 448 551 D-45 Old Age Assistance, St. Q. 209 449 551 Office Qualifications, St. Q. 211 449 551 D-46 Land Office Commission, St. Q. 212 450 552 Old Age Assistance, St. Q. 225 450 552 D-47 County Welfare, St. Q. 220 451 552 Old Age Assistance, St. Q. 225 451 552 D-48 Sales Tax for Aged Aid, St. Q. 226 452 553 Soil Conservation, St. Q. 230 452 553 D-49 Police Pensions, St. Q. 207 453 553 A. & M. Board of Regents, St. Q. 210 453 553 400 Table e. Table Page, Gist D-50 Repeal Prohibition, St. Q. 222 454 553 Municipal Utilities, St. Q. 205 454 554 D-51 Pin Bail Machines, St. Q. 216 455 554 Oleomargarine Tax, St. Q. 236 455 554 t D-52 Tax Commissioner, St. Q. 238 456 554 Teacher Retirement, St. Q. 242 456 554 D-53 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 243 457 555 Property Tax for Aged Aid, St. Q. 215 457 555 D-54 Medical Examiners Board, St. Q. 241 458 555 Gas Tax Distribution, St. Q. 253 458 556 D-55 Office Qualifications, St. Q. 281 459 556 Corporation Control, St. Q. 282 459 556 D-56 Repeal Prohibition, St. Q. 289 460 556 Budget Balancing, St. Q. 298 460 557 D-57 Old Age Assistance, St. Q. 299 461 557 State Board of Regents, St. Q. 300 461 557 D-58 Teacher Retirement, St. Q. 306 462 558 Office Qualifications, St. Q. 302 462 558 D-59 Teacher Benefits, St. Q. 303 463 558 Recovery of Damages, St. Q. 304 463 558 D-60 Create Parole Board, St. Q. 309 464 559 A. and M. Board of Regents, St. Q. 310 464 559 D-61 0. U. Board of Regents, St. Q. 311 465 559 Run-Off Primary, St. Q. 312 465 559 D-62 Sinking Fund, St. Q. 313 466 560 Tax, Separate Schools, ST. Q. 319 466 560 D-63 Tax for Schools, St. Q. 314 ' 467 560 School Aid, St. Q. 315 467 560 D-64 Tax, Separate Schools, St. Q. 316 468 560 Free Textbooks, St. Q. 318 468 561 D-65 School Tax Levy, St. Q. 327 469 561 State College Regents, St. Q. 328 469 561 D-66 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 329 470 561 Repeal Prohibition, St. Q. 343 470 562 401 Table Page, Table Page, Gist D-57 Capitol Improvement, St. Q. 348 471 562 Workmen's Compensation Law, St. Q. 345 471 562 D-68 Creation of Highway Commission, St. Q. 325 472 562 Highway User's Tax, St. Q. 326 472 563 t D-69 Endorse United Nations, St. Q. 344 473 563 Oklahoma Military Acadeny, St. Q. 346 473 563 D-70 State Constitutional Convention, St. Q. 347 474 563 Amending State Constitution, St. Q. 353 474 563 D-71 Desegregation of Jury Service, St. Q. 354 475 564 Military Compensation, St. Q. 355 475 564 D-72 Age of Electors, St. Q. 356 476 564 Sales Tax, St. Q. 349 476 565 D-73 Public School Buildings, St. Q. 368 477 565 Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, St. Q. 359 477 565 D-74 Toll Turnpike Financing, St. Q. 360 478 565 Corporation Real Estate, St. Q. 358 478 565 D-75 State Veteran Benefits, St. Q. 362 479 566 Real Estate Tax, St. Q. 361 479 566 D-76 Oklahoma Vet. Loan Authority, St. Q. 369 480 566 Veterans Benefits, St. Q. 370 480 567 D-77 Create New Board of Regents, St. Q. 371 481 567 O. M. A. Board of Regents, St. Q. 372 481 567 D-78 Water Supply Indebtedness, St. Q. 373 482 567 Create Wildlife Conserv. Dept., St. Q. 374 482 568 D-79 Corporate Stock Ownership, St. Q. 375 483 568 Congressional Redistricting, St. Q. 357 483 568 D-80 Creation of County Offices, St. Q. 377 484 568 County Option-Prohibition, St. Q. 376 484 569 D-81 Real-Personal Ad Valodrem Tax, St. Q. 379 485 569 City-Provide Water Facilities, St. Q. 380 485 569 D-82 Repeal of Prohibition, St. Q. 386 486 569 County Option Prohibition, St. Q. 387 486 570 D-83 Nomination of Candidates, St. Q. 388 487 570 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 389 487 570 402 Table Page, Table Pagê ,.g.ist D-84 Department of Health, St. Q. 390 488 570 Capital Improvements, St. Q. 393 488 571 D-85 Industrial Finance Authority, St. Q. 391 489 571 Multi-County Libraries, St. Q. 392 489 571 I D-85 State Highway Commission, St. Q. 396 490 572 Legislative Apportionment, St. Q. 397 490 572 D-87 Control of County Roads, St. Q. 398 491 572 Legislative Special Session, St. Q. 394 491 572 D-88 Withholding Income Tax, St. Q. 395 492 573 Criminal Prosecution, St. Q. 401 492 573 D-89 House Apportionment for Census, St. Q. 407 493 573 Industrial Bonds, St. Q. 404 493 573 D-90 Legislative Session and Pay, St. Q. 405 494 574 Local Emergency Jurisdiction, St. Q. 400 494 574 D-91 Distribution of Liquor, St. Q. 406 495 574 Legislative Apportionment, St. Q. 408 495 574 D-92 Capital Improvements, St. Q. 411 496 575 Increase County Office Terms, St. Q. 417 496 575 D-93 County Judge Term of Office, St. Q. 418 497 575 Increase State Office Terms, St. Q. 419 497 575 D-94 Right to Work, St. Q. 409 498 576 Elector Residence, St. Q. 412 498 576 D-95 Legislator Compensation, St. Q. 413 499 576 Legislative Reapportionment, St. Q. 416 499 576 D-96 Legislator Pay Raise, St. Q. 414 500 577 Create Judiciary Court, St. Q. 415 500 577 D-97 Repeal Governor Appt. Priv. gt. Q. 420 501 577 School Support Levy, St. Q. 421 501 577 D-98 State Aid to Schools, St. Q. 422 502 578 School Consolidation, St. Q. 423 502 578 D-99 County School Superintendents, St. Q. 424 503 578 Sales Tax Increase, St. Q. 425 503 578 D-lOO Capital Improvements, St. Q. 426 504 578 Capital Improvements-Highway, St. Q. 427 504 579 403 Table Page. Table Page. Gist D-101 Levy for School Benefits, St. Q. 430 505 579 Capital Improvements-Highway, St. Q. 433 505 579 D-102 Separate Schools, St. Q. 428 506 580 Impeachment of State Officials, St. Q. 429 506 580 I D-103 Court on Judiciary, St. Q. 431 507 580 Presidential Electors, St. Q. 432 507 580 D-104 Reelection of Governor, St. Q. 436 508 581 Vocational Education Program, St. Q. 434 508 581 D-105 Limit Legislative Sessions, St. Q. 435 509 581 Fix Congressional Boundaries, St. Q. 437 509 581 D-106 Judicial Nominating, St. Q. 447 510 581 Judicial Department, St. Q. 448 510 582 D-107 Change in Estimate of Revenues, St. Q. 453 511 Investment of School Funds, St. Q. 442 511 582 D-108 Legislative REgulation of Tax, St. Q. 444 512 582 Pardon and Parole Board, St. Q. 446 512 582 D-109 Salaries for Elected Officials, St. Q. 456 513 583 Petition for Grand Juries, St. Q. 457 513 583 D-110 Intangible Property Tax, St. Q. 460 514 583 Change in Estimate of Revenues, St. Q. 461 514 . 583 D-111 Conflict of Interest, St. Q. 462 515 584 Judicial Reform, St. Q. 441 515 584 D-112 Taxation of Transient Property, St. Q. 443 516 584 Fixing Maximum Interst Rates, St. Q. 454 516 585 D-113 Corporation Reports, St. Q. 455 517 585 Insurance of Corporate Stock, St. Q. 458 517 585 D-114 Jury Trials, St. Q. 459 , 518 585 Repeal Oath of Office, St. Q. 445 518 586 D-115 State Indebtedness, St. Q. 463 519 586 Oath for Public Officers, St. Q. 466 519 586 D-116 State Industrial Finance Bonds, St. Q. 468 520 587 Constitution Convention, St. Q. 472 520 587 D-117 Constituion-Article Revision, St. Q. 473 521 587 State Industrial Finance Bonds, St. Q. 474 521 587 404 Table Page, Table Page, Gist D-118 Legislative Reapportionment, St. Q. 477 522 588 Public School Desegregation, St. Q. 475 522 588 D-119 Creation of Hospital Districts, St. Q. 476 523 588 Election Law-Voting Machines, St. Q. 464 523 588 D-120 Deposit of State Funds, St. Q. 469 524 589 "Blue Laws"-Saturday & Sunday, St. Q. 478 524 589 D-121 General Obligation Tax Bonds, St. Q. 479 525 589 Investment of Educational Funds, St. Q. 481 525 589 D-122 Self Incriminating Testimony, St. Q. 482 526 590 Grand Jury Reorganization, St. Q. 483 526 590 D-12 3 Elector-Eighteen Year Olds, St. Q. 484 527 590 State Indebtedness-Highways, St. Q. 485 527 590 D-124 Electors-Public Utility Bonds, St. Q. 488 528 591 City-Town Indebtedness, St. Q. 489 528 591 D-125 Liquor by the Drink, St. 0. 480 529 591 Farm Land Loan Valuation, St. Q. 490 529 591 D-126 Ad Valorem Taxation, St. Q. 486 530 Emergency Taxation Levy, St. Q. 487 530 405 TABLE D-1 C P P A r t O M o r L I Q U O R A G F N C Y T O R R E N S L A N D R E G I S T R A T I O N G C N F t P C T MOV 1 # 0 d G E N E L E C T N OV 3 . 0 8 L E G « F F 0 0 1 R E J E C T S T . O . 0 0 1 L E G R E F 0 0 2 R E J E C T S T . a . 0 0 2 C O W T Y Y E S NO T O T AL WY ES S P A R T C O U N T Y Y E S NO T O T A L W Y E S « P A R T AO A I R S A 6 7 8 6 l o 3 3 4 1 . 0 6 1 . 6 A D A I R 5 2 5 5 4 5 1 6 3 3 4 9 . 1 6 5 . 5 a l f a l f a I 6 A 8 1 4 8 2 3 3 7 0 5 2 . 7 9 2 . 9 A L F A L F A 1 5 1 0 1 3 0 9 3 3 7 0 5 3 . 6 8 3 . 6 AT OK A A S A 9 7 1 1 7 3 9 3 3 . 7 8 4 . 2 A T O K A 7 6 0 4 4 6 1 7 3 9 6 3 . 0 6 9 . 4 B F A V E R 1 5 3 8 1 0 6 1 2 7 7 1 5 9 . 2 9 3 . 8 E F A V E R 1 5 5 9 7 2 9 2 7 7 1 6 8 . 1 8 2 . 6 R E C K HAM 1 6 7 7 1 2 9 8 3 1 7 1 5 6 . 4 9 3 . 8 D E C K H A M 1 2 3 6 1 3 9 1 3 1 7 1 4 7 . 0 8 2 . 8 R L A t N E l A O O 1 6 5 4 3 2 5 6 4 5 * 8 9 3 . 8 B L A I N E 1 2 7 0 1 4 5 0 3 2 5 8 4 6 . 7 8 3 . 5 B R Y A N 1 3 3 2 2 0 5 9 3 7 2 1 3 9 . 3 9 1 . 1 C R Y AN 1 7 2 2 1 1 8 1 3 7 2 1 5 9 . 3 7 8 . 0 CAOOO 2 3 9 8 2 8 4 9 6 2 4 7 5 0 . 4 9 2 . 0 C A D D O 2 7 2 0 2 3 1 9 6 2 4 7 5 4 . 0 8 0 . 7 C A N A D I A N 1 6 2 9 2 4 0 7 4 2 1 2 4 0 . 4 9 5 . 8 C A N A D I A N 2 2 2 1 1 3 8 9 4 2 1 2 6 1 . 5 8 5 . 7 C A R T E R 1 3 1 2 2 3 0 1 4 0 7 3 3 6 . 3 8 8 . 7 C A R T E R 2 1 1 6 1 0 6 4 4 0 7 3 6 6 . 5 7 8 . 1 C H E R O K E E 8 7 4 1 0 6 8 2 0 0 0 4 5 . 0 9 7 . 1 C H E R O K E E 1 0 2 1 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 6 7 . 0 7 6 . 2 C H O C T A W 7 2 7 1 2 9 4 2 2 2 8 3 6 . 0 9 0 . 7 CH O CTA W 1 1 0 0 6 0 8 2 2 2 8 6 4 . 4 7 6 . 7 C I M A R R O N A 9 S 3 0 8 8 5 8 6 1 . 6 9 3 . 6 C I M A R R O N 5 0 3 1 2 4 8 5 8 8 0 . 2 7 3 . 1 C L E V E L A N D 1 2 9 4 1 5 3 8 2 9 4 3 4 5 . 7 9 6 . 2 C L E V E L A N D 1 1 2 4 1 4 3 9 2 9 4 3 4 3 . 9 8 7 . 1 C O A L 7 5 2 1 1 8 8 2 1 5 2 3 8 . 8 9 0 . 1 COiW. 1 0 6 0 6 5 2 2 1 5 2 6 1 . 9 7 9 . 6 C O M A N C H E 2 8 7 6 2 6 8 4 6 3 2 9 4 9 . 9 9 1 . 0 C O M A N C H E 3 4 8 2 1 5 9 0 6 3 2 9 6 8 . 7 8 0 . 1 C O T T O N 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 . 0 C O T T O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 C R A I G 7 7 6 1 7 8 0 2 9 3 0 3 0 . 4 8 7 . 2 C R A I G 1 1 7 8 1 0 4 5 2 9 3 0 5 3 . 0 7 5 . 9 C R E E K 1 3 8 8 1 7 6 4 3 5 1 3 4 4 . 0 8 9 . 7 C R E E K 1 7 6 0 1 0 1 7 3 5 1 3 6 3 . 4 7 9 . 0 C U S T E R 1 6 5 4 1 7 9 9 3 6 3 3 4 7 . 9 9 5 . 0 C U S T E R 9 9 9 2 1 0 4 3 6 3 3 3 2 . 2 e s . 4 D E L A W A R E 6 3 9 7 2 6 1 6 5 1 4 6 . 8 8 2 . 7 D E L A W A R E 6 3 6 3 6 1 1 6 5 1 6 9 . 8 7 2 . 5 DEWEY 9 0 6 1 6 5 0 2 7 7 1 3 5 . 4 9 2 . 2 OE M E V 5 7 5 1 7 9 6 2 7 7 1 2 4 . 3 8 5 . 6 E L L I S 1 4 2 6 1 2 9 4 2 8 6 3 5 2 . 4 9 5 . 0 E L L I S 1 2 6 4 1 0 7 0 2 8 6 3 5 4 . 2 8 1 . 5 G A R F l E L O 2 4 2 6 3 1 6 7 5 7 9 6 4 3 . 4 9 6 . 5 G A R F I E L D 2 9 4 3 2 0 7 2 5 7 9 6 5 8 . 7 8 6 . 5 G A R V I N 1 6 8 8 1 9 7 2 4 0 1 7 4 6 . 1 9 1 . 1 G A R V I N 2 1 6 4 9 0 0 4 0 1 7 7 0 . 8 7 6 . 8 G R A D Y 2 3 5 2 1 9 1 1 4 5 7 5 5 5 . 2 9 3 . 2 GR AD Y 2 5 8 5 1 0 7 3 4 5 7 5 7 0 . 7 8 0 . 0 GR A N T 1 6 6 9 1 9 9 7 3 7 6 7 4 5 . 5 9 7 . 3 G R A N T 1 9 1 4 1 3 4 7 3 7 6 7 5 8 . 7 8 6 . 6 G R E E R 1 8 8 6 1 2 2 9 3 3 2 9 6 0 . 5 9 3 . 6 G R E E R 1 4 8 4 9 6 5 3 3 2 9 6 0 . 6 7 3 . 6 HA RMON 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 HA R M O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 H A R P E R 9 4 6 7 1 3 1 8 2 3 5 7 * 0 9 1 . 0 H A R P E R 1 0 1 5 5 3 8 1 8 2 3 6 5 . 4 6 5 . 2 H A S K E L L 8 6 7 1 2 3 8 2 9 0 3 4 1 . 2 7 2 . 5 H A S K E L L 1 1 5 0 8 5 3 2 9 0 3 5 7 . 4 6 9 . 0 H U G H E S 1 3 7 9 1 6 0 2 3 4 8 8 4 6 . 3 8 5 . 5 H U G H E S 1 6 0 5 1 0 0 4 3 4 8 8 6 1 . 5 7 4 . 8 J A C K S O N 1 4 9 5 1 0 7 5 2 7 6 0 5 8 . 2 9 3 . 1 J A C K SD N 1 0 6 1 1 0 9 4 2 7 6 0 4 9 . 2 7 8 . 1 J E F F E R S O N 0 6 3 1 2 2 0 2 3 2 7 4 1 . 4 8 9 . 5 J E F F E R S O N 1 0 9 1 6 3 5 2 3 2 7 6 3 . 2 7 4 . 2 J O H N S T O N 9 4 7 1 3 5 2 2 5 6 9 4 1 . 2 8 9 . 5 J O H N S T O N 1 4 2 3 6 0 4 2 5 6 9 7 0 . 2 7 8 . 9 KAY 2 5 7 4 2 6 2 0 5 4 0 3 4 9 . 6 9 6 . 1 K A Y 2 8 6 4 1 7 7 0 5 4 0 3 6 1 . 8 8 5 . 8 K I N G F I 9 4 E R 1 5 8 7 2 0 2 9 3 3 7 3 4 3 . 9 9 3 . 4 K I N G F I S H E R 1 6 3 9 1 6 3 4 3 8 7 3 5 0 . 1 8 4 . 5 K I O W A 1 7 9 7 2 1 3 4 4 2 4 6 4 5 . 7 9 2 . 6 K| QWA 1 1 6 5 2 4 5 6 4 2 4 6 3 2 . 2 8 9 . 3 L A T I M E R 3 9 9 7 3 2 1 5 3 3 4 5 . 0 8 6 . 8 L A T I M E R 7 8 0 3 3 5 1 5 3 3 7 0 . 0 7 2 . 7 L S C L O R E 1 4 6 6 1 5 6 2 3 8 7 3 4 8 . 4 7 8 . 2 L E F L O R E 1 6 1 6 6 7 6 3 8 7 3 7 0 . 5 5 9 . 2 L I N C O L N 3 0 6 8 3 4 3 7 7 0 7 9 4 7 . 2 9 1 . 9 L I N C O L N 3 3 5 3 2 1 6 0 7 0 7 9 6 0 . 8 7 7 . 9 L O G A N 2 2 8 2 3 5 1 6 6 1 5 4 3 9 . 4 9 4 . 2 L O G A N 2 1 3 1 3 2 0 7 6 1 5 4 3 9 . 9 8 6 . 7 L O V E 5 9 2 5 6 6 1 5 0 1 5 1 . 1 7 7 . 1 L O V E 6 8 6 2 3 9 1 5 0 1 7 4 . 2 6 1 . 6 M C C L A I N 7 1 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 7 7 3 4 . 7 8 6 . 5 M C C L A I N 7 7 8 1 0 0 6 2 3 7 7 4 3 . 6 7 5 . 1 M C C U R T A I N 3 1 4 9 5 1 1 1 9 5 2 4 . 6 1 0 5 . 9 M C C U R T A I N 6 1 5 4 2 9 1 1 9 5 5 8 . 9 6 7 . 4 M C I N T O S H 1 0 3 7 1 4 0 5 2 9 8 3 4 2 . 5 8 1 . 9 MC I N T O S H 1 1 7 1 6 0 8 2 9 8 3 5 9 . 2 6 6 . 3 M A J O R 1 1 3 9 1 5 4 4 2 7 8 6 4 2 . 5 9 6 . 3 M A J O R 4 7 8 2 0 0 4 2 7 8 6 1 9 . 3 6 9 . 1 M A R S H A L L 5 7 8 . 8 4 7 1 6 5 4 4 0 . 6 8 6 . 2 M A R S H A L L 7 5 5 4 8 0 1 6 5 4 6 1 . 1 7 4 . 7 M A Y E S 9 0 1 1 0 9 2 2 2 5 1 4 5 , 2 8 8 . 5 M A Y E S 1 0 4 3 5 9 4 2 2 5 1 6 3 . 7 7 2 . 7 MUR RAY 8 8 0 9 2 3 1 9 6 5 4 8 . 8 9 1 . 8 M URRAY 9 7 5 5 5 4 1 9 6 5 6 3 . 8 7 7 . 8 M U S K O G E E 2 1 9 3 2 7 0 7 6 5 5 3 4 4 . 8 7 4 . 8 M U S K O G E E 3 0 3 6 1 5 8 9 6 5 5 3 6 5 . 6 7 0 . 6 N O B L E 1 1 6 1 1 6 5 0 2 9 6 5 4 1 . 3 9 4 . 8 N 0 6 L E 8 3 9 1 7 6 0 2 9 6 5 3 2 . 3 8 7 . 7 NOW ATA 8 4 7 6 9 7 2 0 7 0 5 4 . 9 7 4 . 6 . NO W ATA 7 2 1 5 7 0 2 0 7 0 5 5 . 8 6 2 . 4 O K F U S K E E 7 9 2 1 2 5 1 2 5 7 1 3 6 . 8 7 9 . 5 O K F U S K E E 1 0 7 9 7 4 4 2 5 7 1 5 9 . 2 7 0 . 9 OK L AH OM A 4 4 9 2 5 6 5 2 1 0 6 4 8 4 4 . 3 9 5 . 3 O K L A H O M A 5 1 8 3 3 6 2 0 1 0 6 4 8 5 8 . 9 8 2 . 7 o k m j l g e e 7 1 6 9 7 7 2 7 9 8 4 2 . 3 6 0 . 5 O K M U L G E E 9 8 0 7 2 7 2 7 9 8 5 7 . 4 6 1 . 0 O S A G E 1 4 0 2 1 4 2 9 3 2 7 1 4 9 . 5 8 6 . 5 O S A G E 1 5 6 8 8 3 4 3 2 7 1 6 5 . 3 7 3 . 4 OT TA W A 1 0 1 6 1 0 1 5 2 5 6 4 S O . 0 7 9 . 2 O T T A W A 1 1 7 3 5 0 2 2 5 6 4 7 0 . 0 6 5 . 3 P A W N E E 1 7 6 4 1 3 6 3 3 3 5 5 5 6 . 4 9 3 . 2 P A W N E E 1 9 9 2 8 0 5 3 3 5 5 7 1 . 2 8 3 . 4 P A Y N E 2 0 0 7 2 2 2 8 4 6 1 4 4 7 . 4 9 1 . 8 , P A Y N F 2 1 8 8 1 5 6 4 4 6 1 4 5 8 . 3 8 1 . 3 P I T T S R t R G 2 3 0 5 2 9 2 9 6 2 5 7 44. 0 8 3 . 7 P I T T S B U R G 2 8 5 2 1 5 2 7 6 2 5 7 6 5 . 1 7 0 . 0 P O N T O T O C 1 3 1 1 1 7 0 0 3 2 8 0 4 3 . 5 9 1 . 8 P O N T O T O C 1 5 3 5 9 7 7 3 2 8 0 6 1 . 1 7 6 . 6 P O T T A W A T O M I E 2 6 0 5 3 4 2 4 6 7 2 5 4 3 . 2 8 9 . 7 P O T T A W A T O M I E 3 5 1 8 1 9 0 1 6 7 2 5 6 4 . 9 8 0 . 6 P U S H M A T A H A 31 3 4 9 6 1 2 3 4 3 6 . 7 6 5 . 6 P U S H M A T A H A 3 7 4 2 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 9 . 6 5 0 . 9 R O G E R M I L L S 1 1 4 8 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 0 S O . 4 9 4 . 6 R O G E R M I L L S 7 3 9 1 2 9 9 2 4 1 0 3 6 . 3 8 4 . 6 R O G E R S 1 1 8 7 1 4 S 4 2 8 6 4 4 4 . 9 9 2 . 2 R O G E R S 1 5 5 7 6 8 1 2 8 6 4 6 9 . 6 7 8 . 1 s f m i n o l e 9 5 1 1 1 2 4 2 5 6 5 4 5 . 8 9 0 . 9 S E M I N O L E 1 0 2 1 5 9 5 2 5 6 5 6 3 . 2 6 3 . 0 SE G U O Y A H 1 0 0 0 1 9 1 3 3 6 1 6 3 4 . 3 7 6 . 3 S E Q U O Y A H 1 3 0 8 1 1 6 8 3 8 1 6 5 2 . 4 6 9 . 4 S T E P H E N S 1 4 7 6 1 3 5 5 2 7 7 6 5 2 . 1 1 0 2 . 0 S T E P H E N S 1 2 6 3 1 2 4 4 2 7 7 6 SO .4 9 0 . 3 T E X A S 1 6 6 6 1 1 0 7 3 0 2 4 6 0 . 1 9 1 . 7 T E X A S 1 8 5 2 5 8 4 3 0 2 4 7 6 . 0 8 0 . 6 T I L L M A N 2 0 6 0 8 6 6 2 5 0 2 7 0 , 4 1 1 6 . 9 T I L L M A N 1 5 1 0 5 2 9 2 5 0 2 7 4 . 1 8 1 . 5 T U L S A 1 9 6 6 2 2 7 9 4 6 6 8 4 6 . 3 9 C . 9 T U L S A 2 4 4 6 1 4 3 7 4 6 6 8 6 3 . 0 0 3 . 2 WAGONER 9 2 3 1 I T S 3 4 2 5 4 4 . 0 6 1 . 3 WAGONER 1 1 7 9 8 4 5 3 4 2 5 s e . 3 5 9 . 1 W A S H I N G T O N 1 3 3 1 1 1 8 7 3 0 6 1 5 2 . 9 8 2 . 3 W A S H I N G T O N 1 5 9 9 5 7 7 3 0 8 1 7 3 . 5 7 1 . 1 W A S H I T A 1 3 2 9 1 6 0 3 3 3 9 4 4 6 . 6 9 2 . 3 W A S4 1 TA 9 8 4 1 999 3 3 9 4 31 . 8 8 2 . 0 WOODS 1 6 8 9 1 4 0 5 3 2 6 6 5 4 . 6 9 4 . 7 W O O D S 1 6 8 8 1 1 2 0 3 2 8 6 6 2 . 8 9 2 . 1 WOODWARD 1 6 7 5 1 4 1 8 3 2 9 3 5 4 . 2 9 3 . 9 WG COWAPO 1 5 6 8 1 0 7 ! 3 2 9 3 5 9 . 4 8 0 . 1 T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L f M E A N S T O T A L T O T A L t o t a l M E A N X M E A N X Y E S N O VO.TE Y E S P A R r Y E S NO V O T E Y E S P A R T i n S R S I 1 2 1 8 7 1 2 5 4 7 6 0 4 6 . 5 8 9 . 6 1 1 4 8 9 7 8 4 0 1 2 2 5 4 2 6 0 5 7 . 8 7 8 . 2 406 TABLE D-2 S C C U R C C A P I T O L S I T E S e C U P E C A P I T O L S I T E G E N E L E C T NOV 3 , 0 8 C R N E L E C T NOV 3 . 0 8 L E G R E P 0 0 3 R E J E C T S T . C . 0 0 3 L F G R E F 0 0 4 R E J E C T S T . Q . 0 0 4 C O U N T Y Y E S NO T O T A L WYES « P A R T C O U N T Y Y E S N O t o t a l K V E S w p a r t A D A I R 5 4 3 4 3 5 1 6 3 3 5 5 . 5 5 9 , 9 A D A I R 5 7 4 3 9 7 1 6 3 3 5 9 . 1 5 9 . S A L F A L F A 1 9 7 9 1 1 6 3 3 3 7 0 5 7 , 6 H 1 . 4 A L F A L F A 1 6 5 6 1 1 2 9 3 3 7 0 5 9 . 5 8 2 . 6 A T O K A 6 7 5 4 5 1 1 7 3 9 5 9 . 9 6 4 . 7 A T O K A 6 8 2 4 6 4 1 7 3 9 5 9 . 5 6 5 . 9 B E A V E R 1 4 8 3 7 1 5 2 7 7 1 6 7 . 5 7 9 . 3 B R A V E R 1 5 3 4 6 6 3 2 7 7 1 6 9 . 8 7 9 . 3 B E CK H A M 1 6 9 6 8 4 6 3 1 7 1 6 6 . 7 8 0 . 2 O E C d M A M 1 7 3 6 8 4 1 3 1 7 1 6 7 . 4 8 1 . 3 B L A I N E l i s t 1 6 0 0 3 2 5 6 4 2 . 5 a s « 4 R L A T N E 1 1 7 6 1 4 5 6 3 2 5 6 4 4 . 7 8 0 . 8 B R Y A N 1 7 0 3 1 0 5 5 3 7 2 1 6 1 . 7 7 4 . 1 R P V A N 1 6 6 4 1 1 0 3 3 7 2 1 6 0 . 1 7 4 . 4 CAO OQ 3 1 6 9 1 7 6 3 6 2 4 7 6 4 . 3 7 8 . 9 C A D D O 3 1 8 0 1 7 6 2 6 2 4 7 6 4 . 3 7 9 . 1 C A N A D I A N 2 3 5 4 1 2 7 0 4 2 1 2 6 5 . 0 8 6 . 0 C A N A D I A N 1 9 8 0 1 5 8 1 4 2 1 2 5 5 . 6 8 4 . 5 C A R T E R 2 0 7 2 9 1 6 4 0 7 3 6 9 . 3 7 3 . 4 C A R T E R 2 0 4 4 9 6 6 4 0 7 3 6 7 . 9 7 3 . 9 C H E R O K E E 9 8 3 4 8 9 2 0 0 0 6 6 . 8 7 3 . 6 C H E R O K E E 1 0 0 7 4 4 5 2 0 0 0 6 9 . 4 7 2 . 6 C M O C T A * 1 0 9 1 5 4 8 2 2 2 8 6 6 . 6 7 3 . 6 C H O C T A W 1 0 7 7 5 6 4 2 2 2 8 6 5 . 6 7 3 . 7 C I M A R R O N 9 4 0 1 7 1 8 5 8 7 5 . 9 8 2 , 9 C I M A R R O N 5 5 2 1 5 7 8 5 8 7 7 . 9 8 2 . 6 C L E V E L A N D 1 3 7 4 1 1 8 1 2 9 4 3 5 3 . 8 6 6 . 8 C L E V E L A N D 1 0 3 4 1 5 0 4 2 9 4 3 4 0 . 7 8 6 . 2 C O A L 1 1 1 4 5 5 1 2 1 5 2 6 6 . 9 7 7 . 4 C O A _ 1 0 5 9 5 9 3 2 1 5 2 6 4 . 1 7 6 . 8 C O M A N C H E 3 7 4 2 1 3 2 0 6 3 2 9 7 3 . 9 6 0 . 0 C O M A N C H E 3 7 9 1 1 3 2 9 6 3 2 9 7 4 . 0 8 0 . 7 C O T T O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 C O T T O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 C R A I G 1 1 2 7 9 8 1 2 9 3 0 5 3 . 5 7 1 , 9 C R A I G 1 1 2 3 9 7 8 2 9 3 0 S 3 . 5 7 1 . 7 C R E E K 1 6 9 3 9 5 8 3 5 1 3 6 3 . 9 7 S . S G R E E K 1 6 4 8 1 0 0 9 3 5 1 3 6 2 . 0 7 5 . 6 C U S T E R 1 4 1 3 1 6 8 3 3 6 3 3 4 5 . 6 8 5 . 2 C U S T E R 1 3 7 3 1 6 2 7 3 6 3 3 4 5 . 8 8 2 . 6 D E L A W A R E 646 2 9 1 1 6 5 1 7 4 . 4 6 8 . 9 D E L A W A R E 8 5 1 2 7 6 1 6 5 1 7 5 . 5 6 8 . 3 DEWEY 8 7 7 1 3 8 4 2 7 7 1 3 8 . 8 8 1 . 6 D E W E Y 9 3 1 1 3 8 4 2 7 7 1 4 0 . 2 6 3 . 5 E L L I S 1 4 0 7 9 3 6 2 8 6 3 6 0 . 1 8 1 . 8 E L L I S 1 4 7 2 8 7 0 2 8 6 3 6 2 . 9 8 1 . 8 G A R F I E L D 2 9 4 9 2 0 8 0 5 7 9 6 5 8 . 6 8 6 . 8 G A R F I E L D 2 9 2 7 2 0 4 7 5 7 9 6 5 8 . 8 8 5 . 8 G A R V I N 2 1 8 4 7 9 5 4 0 1 7 7 3 . 3 7 4 . 2 G A R V I N 1 9 6 1 1 0 2 2 4 0 1 7 6 5 . 7 7 4 , 3 G R A D Y 2 6 3 1 8 8 1 4 5 7 5 7 4 . 9 7 6 . 8 G R A D Y 2 5 3 7 1 0 0 9 4 5 7 5 7 1 . 5 7 7 . 5 G R A N T 1 9 2 7 1 2 8 7 3 7 6 7 6 0 . 0 8 5 . 3 G R A N T 1 9 9 6 1 2 6 5 3 7 6 7 6 1 . 2 8 6 . 6 G R E E R 1 8 3 1 5 8 7 3 3 2 9 7 5 . 7 7 2 . 6 G R E E R 1 8 0 1 6 2 7 3 3 2 9 7 4 . 2 7 2 . 9 H AR M ON 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 H A R M O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 H A R P E R 1 0 0 8 5 1 1 1 8 2 3 6 6 . 4 8 3 . 3 H A R P E R 1 0 4 8 4 6 0 1 8 2 3 6 9 . 5 8 2 . 7 H A S K E L L 1 3 6 2 5 4 8 2 9 0 3 7 1 . 3 6 5 . 8 H A S K E L L 1 4 1 5 4 9 7 2 9 0 3 7 4 . 0 6 5 . 9 H U G H E S 1 6 9 7 8 2 6 3 4 8 8 6 7 . 3 7 2 . 3 H U G H E S 1 7 0 3 9 5 0 3 4 8 8 6 6 . 7 7 3 . 2 J A C K S O N 1 4 2 2 7 7 8 2 7 6 0 6 4 . 6 7 9 . 7 J A C K S O N 1 2 9 3 8 8 0 2 7 6 0 5 9 . 5 7 8 . 7 J E F F E R S O N 1 1 0 2 5 9 4 2 3 2 7 6 5 . 0 7 2 . 9 J E F F E R S O N 1 0 2 9 6 4 4 2 3 2 7 6 1 . 5 7 1 . 9 J O H N S T O N 1 2 8 3 5 7 0 2 5 6 9 6 9 . 2 7 2 . 1 J O H N S T O N 1 2 9 3 5 7 0 2 5 6 9 6 9 . 4 7 2 . 5 KAY 2 6 6 4 1 8 5 9 5 4 0 3 5 8 . 9 8 3 . 7 K A Y 2 6 1 8 1 8 6 3 5 4 0 3 5 8 . 4 8 2 . 9 K I N G F I S H E R 1 6 8 9 1 5 2 9 3 8 7 3 5 2 . 5 9 3 . 1 K I N G F I S H E R 1 7 5 5 1 4 8 3 3 8 7 3 5 4 . 2 8 3 . 6 K I O W A 2 1 3 2 1 4 2 7 4 2 4 6 5 9 . 9 8 3 . 8 K I O W A 2 1 5 9 1 3 7 3 4 2 4 6 6 1 . 1 6 3 . 2 L A T I M E R 6 7 2 3 5 1 1 5 3 3 6 5 . 7 6 6 . 7 L A T I M E R 7 1 7 4 2 4 1 5 3 3 6 2 . 8 7 4 . 4 L E F L O R E 1 5 5 6 6 0 8 3 8 7 3 7 1 . 9 5 5 . 9 L E F L O R E 1 6 1 4 6 1 3 3 8 7 3 7 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 L I N C O L N 3 2 6 6 1 8 8 7 7 0 7 9 6 3 . 4 7 2 . 8 L I N C O L N 1 3 9 1 1 7 2 4 7 0 7 9 4 4 . 7 4 4 . 0 L O G A N 1 5 2 3 3 8 2 3 6 1 5 4 2 8 . 5 8 6 . 9 L O G A N 1 5 0 2 3 7 5 3 6 1 5 4 2 8 . 6 8 5 . 4 L O V E 7 3 3 1 7 7 1 5 0 1 8 0 . 5 6 0 . 6 L O V E 7 3 6 1 8 4 1 5 0 1 8 0 . 0 6 1 . 3 M C C L A I N 1 0 5 3 7 2 9 2 3 7 7 5 9 . 1 7 5 . 0 M C C L A I N 9 4 4 7 9 5 2 3 7 7 5 4 . 3 7 3 . 2 M C C U R T A I N 5 8 3 4 5 7 1 1 9 5 5 6 . 1 8 7 . 0 M C C U R T A I N 5 6 7 4 0 9 1 1 9 5 5 8 . 1 8 1 . 7 M C I N T O S H 1 0 2 8 8 4 5 2 9 8 3 5 4 . 9 6 2 . 8 M C I N T O S H 1 0 6 9 8 4 9 2 9 8 3 5 5 . 7 6 4 . 3 M A J O R 1 0 4 8 1 3 7 2 2 7 8 6 4 3 . 3 8 6 . 9 M A J O R 9 9 6 1 3 9 1 2 7 8 6 41 . 7 8 5 . 7 M A R S H A L L 8 2 1 3 8 9 1 6 5 4 6 7 . 9 7 3 . 2 M A R S H A L L 8 2 7 3 7 8 1 6 5 4 6 8 . 6 7 2 . 9 M A Y E S 1 0 1 9 5 4 5 2 2 5 1 6 5 . 2 6 9 . 5 M A Y E S 1 0 4 7 5 2 7 2 2 5 1 6 6 . 5 6 9 . 9 M U R R A Y 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 9 6 5 7 3 . 3 7 8 . 6 M U R R A Y 9 5 8 5 3 8 1 9 6 5 6 4 . 0 7 6 . 1 M U S K O G E E 2 9 5 3 1 3 7 9 6 5 5 3 6 8 . 2 6 6 . 1 M U S K O G E E 2 9 9 2 1 3 6 0 6 5 5 3 6 8 . 8 6 6 . 4 N O B L E 1 0 8 8 1 4 2 7 2 9 6 5 4 3 . 3 8 4 . 8 N O B L E 1 1 0 7 1 3 8 9 2 9 6 5 44.4 8 4 . 2 N O W A T A 7 9 9 3 9 4 2 0 7 0 6 7 . 0 5 7 . 6 N O W A T A 8 2 9 3 7 0 2 0 7 0 6 9 . 1 5 7 . 9 O K F U S K E E 1 0 2 2 7 5 1 2 5 7 1 5 7 . 6 6 9 . 0 O K F U S K E E 9 5 9 8 0 9 2 5 7 1 5 4 . 2 6 8 . 8 O K L A H O M A 6 1 6 4 2 5 8 7 1 0 6 4 8 7 0 . 4 8 2 . 2 O K L A H O M A 4 1 3 0 4 7 7 0 1 0 6 4 8 4 6 . 4 8 3 . 6 O K M U L G E E 9 7 0 6 5 9 2 7 9 8 5 9 . S 5 8 . 2 O K M U L G E E 9 8 7 6 4 4 2 7 9 8 6 0 . 5 5 8 . 3 O S A G E 1 5 3 7 7 9 2 3 2 7 1 6 6 . 0 7 1 . 2 O S A G E 1 5 1 9 7 9 9 3 2 7 1 6 5 . 5 7 0 . 9 O T T A W A 1 1 2 3 S O S 2 5 6 4 6 9 . 0 6 3 . 5 OT TA W A 1 1 9 4 4 6 0 2 5 6 4 7 2 . 2 6 4 . 5 P A W N E E 1 8 7 5 8 5 2 3 3 5 5 6 8 . 8 9 1 . 3 P A W N E E 1 9 0 1 8 4 1 3 3 5 5 6 9 . 3 8 1 . 7 P A Y N E 2 0 3 8 1 5 6 0 4 6 1 4 5 6 . 6 7 8 . 0 , P A Y N E 2 0 4 0 1 6 9 1 4 6 1 4 5 4 . 7 8 0 . 9 P I T T S B U R G 2 6 4 1 1 5 7 3 6 2 * 7 6 2 . 7 6 7 . 3 P I T T S B U R G 2 5 9 5 1 9 1 3 6 2 5 7 5 7 . 6 7 2 . 0 P O N T O T O C 1 7 5 0 7 3 1 3 2 8 0 7 0 . 5 7 5 . 6 P O N T O T O C 1 6 9 2 7 7 7 3 2 3 0 6 8 . 5 7 5 . 3 P O T T A A A T O M I E 4 1 1 7 1 2 8 3 6 7 2 5 7 6 . 2 8 0 . 3 P O T T A W A T O M IE 3 5 7 6 1 8 9 5 6 7 2 5 6 5 . 4 8 1 .4 P U S H M A T A H A 3 9 5 1 8 2 1 2 3 4 6 8 . 5 4 6 , 8 P U S H M A T A H A 4 2 9 1 6 3 1 2 3 4 7 2 . 5 4 8 . 0 R O G E R M I L L S 1 0 3 0 8 2 9 2 4 1 0 5 5 . 4 7 7 . 1 R O G E R M I L L S 1 0 6 9 9 10 2 4 1 0 5 4 . 0 8 2 . x R O G E R S 1 3 1 9 6 5 0 2 8 6 4 6 7 . 0 6 8 . 8 R O G E R S 1 1 3 6 6 3 6 2 8 6 4 6 4 . 1 6 1 . 9 S E M I N O L E 9 8 4 5 3 0 2 5 6 5 6 5 . 0 5 9 . 0 S E M I N O L E 9 8 0 5 3 6 2 5 6 5 6 4 . 6 5 9 . 1 S E Q U O Y A H 1 2 2 8 1 1 2 3 3 8 1 6 5 2 . 2 6 1 . 6 S F Q U O Y AH 1 2 2 0 1 1 3 4 3 8 1 6 5 1 . 8 6 1 . 7 S T E P H E N S 1 7 4 4 6 7 9 2 7 7 6 7 2 . 0 8 7 . 3 S T F O H F N S 1 7 5 7 7 0 3 2 7 7 6 7 1 . 4 8 8 . 6 T E X A S 1 7 7 2 6 0 7 3 0 2 4 7 4 . S 7 8 . 7 T E X AS 1 8 4 6 5 8 9 3 0 2 4 7 5 . 8 8 0 . 5 T I L L M A N 1 5 6 2 4 6 7 2 5 0 2 7 7 . 0 8 1 . 1 T I L L M A N 1 5 3 4 4 7 7 2 5 0 2 7 6 . 3 6 0 . 4 T U L S A 2 3 9 5 1 4 0 2 4 6 6 8 A 3 , t 8 1 . 3 T U L S A 2 3 9 5 1 * 1 5 6 4 6 6 8 6 3 . a 8 0 . 4 WA GO NE R 1 0 3 7 9 1 9 3 4 2 5 5 3 . 0 5 7 . 1 W A GO NE R 1 0 7 8 8 8 4 3 4 2 5 5 4 . 9 5 7 . 3 W A S H I N G T O N 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 0 6 1 5 7 . 1 8 6 . 4 W A S H I N G T O N 1 5 1 1 5 6 9 3 0 6 1 7 2 . 6 A A . 0 W A S H I T A 1 5 7 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 9 4 5 8 . I 7 9 . 7 W A S H I T A 1 6 4 6 1 0 5 2 3 1 9 4 6 1 . 0 7 9 . 5 WOODS 1 6 1 7 1 0 3 9 3 2 6 6 6 0 . 9 0 1 . 3 WOODS 1 5 9 1 1 0 7 6 3 2 6 6 5 9 . 7 8 1 . 7 WOODWARD 1 6 7 4 9 1 6 3 2 9 3 6 4 . 6 7 8 . 7 WOODWARD 1 7 4 4 8 7 5 3 2 9 3 6 6 . 6 7 9 . 5 T O T A L TOTAL TOTA L * E A N % * E A N % T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L NEAN% MEANS T E S NO V O T E T E S P A H T Y E S N O V O T E TES PART 2 5 4 2 6 0 » 15444 7 5 9 5 1 2 5 4 2 6 0 407 TABLE Dr 3 S A L E o r S C H O U L L A h O C A P I T O L S I T K S E L E C T I O N ( l E N t L C C T N i J V 3 . Otf S P E L E C T J U N 1 0 . 1 0 I N T P E T 0 0 1 R E J E C T S T . Q . 0 0 5 I N T P U T 0 0 7 A O U P T S T . Q . 0 1 5 c o u n t y Y E S NC T O T A L WYES X P A R T C O U N T Y Y E S NO t o t a l X V E S « P A R T A D A I H 4 4 1 5 7 0 1 6 3 3 4 3 , 6 6 1 . 9 ADA I R 2 3 4 6 7 5 9 0 9 2 5 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 A L F A L F A 1 6 5 1 1 4 1 1 3 3 7 0 5 . 1 , 9 9 0 . 9 a l f a l f a B 3 7 1 0 9 3 1 9 3 0 4 3 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 A TO XA 3 7 5 6 9 8 1 7 3 9 2 9 , 5 7 3 . 2 A T O K A 7 5 3 2 2 9 9 8 2 7 6 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 f iE A V E R 1 4 1 5 9 8 0 2 7 7 1 5 9 . 1 5 6 . 4 G R A V E R 9 6 0 € 4 6 1 8 0 8 S 3 . I I C O . 0 B E CK H A M 9 0 5 1 9 9 6 3 1 7 1 3 1 . 2 91 . 5 B C C K ^ A M 1 9 4 1 3 4 4 2 2 0 5 8 4 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 CL A I N E 1 2 6 2 1 5 2 0 3 2 5 6 4 5 . 4 6 5 . 4 B L A I N E I 3 6 9 3 8 3 1 7 5 2 7 0 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 B P VAN 9 8 0 2 0 0 2 3 7 2 1 3 F . 0 8 2 A RYA N 1 7 1 5 6 6 6 2 3 6 1 7 2 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 C A o n o 3 6 7 3 1 7 3 6 6 2 4 7 6 7 . 9 8 6 . 6 C A O D O 2 9 1 4 5 4 9 3 4 6 3 8 4 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 C A N A D I A N 1 4 6 9 2 3 1 4 4 2 1 2 3 0 . 8 € 9 , 8 C A N A D I A N €4 0 9 7 3 1 8 2 1 4 6 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 C A R T E W 1 2 2 0 2 0 7 6 4 0 7 3 3 7 . 0 n o . 9 C A R T E R 1 5 6 1 5 9 4 2 1 5 5 7 2 . 4 t o o . o C H E P O K E E 7 5 1 7 8 3 2 0 0 0 4 9 . 0 7 6 . 7 C H E R O K E E 2 4 0 1 0 2 7 1 2 6 7 1 8 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 C H O CTA W 4 3 0 1 4 3 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 . 4 8 6 . 1 C H O C T A W 1 3 0 1 4 8 2 1 7 8 3 7 3 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 C I M A R R O N 5 9 4 1 6 7 * 5 8 7 8 . 1 0 8 , 7 C I M A R R O N 4 1 9 2 2 7 6 4 6 6 4 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 C L E V E L A N D 5 4 8 2 1 0 1 2 9 4 3 2 0 . 7 9 0 . 0 C L E V E L A N O 1 7 4 8 1 7 6 1 9 2 4 9 0 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 C O A L 8 4 6 8 6 0 2 1 5 2 4 9 . 4 7 9 . 6 C O A L 9 6 6 2 6 9 1 2 2 5 7 8 . 2 1 C C . 0 C OM AN CHE 4 0 3 9 1 9 3 2 6 3 2 9 6 7 , 6 9 4 . 3 C O M A N C H E 2 6 4 5 1 1 6 1 3 8 2 6 6 9 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 C O T T O N 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 c o t t o n 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 C R A I G 5 5 7 1 7 2 7 2 9 3 0 2 4 .4 7 8 . 0 C R A I G 4 4 9 1 3 6 8 1 8 1 7 2 4 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 C R E E K 1 2 3 0 1 5 5 0 3 5 1 3 4 4 . 2 7 9 . 1 C R E E K 6 4 8 9 7 3 1 8 2 1 4 6 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 C U S T E R 9 4 8 2 3 0 3 3 6 3 3 2 9 . 2 8 9 . 5 C U S T E R 2 1 G 0 3 5 0 2 4 5 0 € 5 . 7 t o o . o D E L A W A R E 5 5 3 6 1 5 1 6 5 1 4 7 . 3 7 0 . 7 D E L A W A R E 2 5 3 8 5 5 1 1 0 8 2 2 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 OEWEY 9 1 4 1 3 7 5 2 7 7 1 3 9 . 9 € 2 . 6 D E W E Y 8 9 9 7 4 7 1 6 4 6 S 4 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 E L L I S 1 3 6 5 1 1 5 8 2 0 6 3 5 4 . 1 6 0 . 1 E L L I S 3 5 4 1 0 8 4 1 4 3 8 2 4 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 G A R F I E L D 3 1 2 8 2 1 3 4 5 7 9 6 5 9 . 4 9 0 . 8 G A R F I E L D 9 2 6 2 5 0 1 3 4 2 7 2 7 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 G A R V I N 1 4 9 5 1 7 7 9 4 0 1 7 4 5 . 7 8 1 . 5 G A R V I N 2 1 3 5 4 1 1 2 5 4 6 8 3 . 9 1 0 0 , 0 G RAD Y 1 9 8 2 1 7 0 3 4 5 7 5 5 3 . 8 8 0 . 5 G R A D Y 2 2 * 4 6 0 7 2 8 9 1 7 9 . 0 I C O . 0 G R A N T 2 1 1 5 1 3 7 3 3 7 6 7 6 0 . 6 9 2 . 6 G R A N T 1 0 2 3 9 6 9 1 9 9 2 5 1 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 G R E E R 1 4 0 9 1 5 6 0 3 3 2 9 4 7 . 5 € 9 . 2 G R E E R 1 3 0 6 2 9 1 1 5 9 7 8 1 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 H AR M ON 0 0 0 0 eO 0 « 0 HA RM ON 6 5 5 3 IT 9 8 6 6 7 . 8 1 0 0 , 0 H A R P E R 1 0 1 6 6 3 6 1 8 2 3 6 1 . 5 9 0 . 6 H A R P E R 5 3 7 7 6 8 1 3 0 5 4 1 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 H A S K E L L 1 0 7 9 1 0 5 8 2 9 0 3 5 0 . 5 7 3 . 6 H A S K E L L 6 4 7 8 2 6 1 4 7 5 4 3 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 H U G H E S 1 1 7 8 1 4 6 3 3 4 8 8 4 4 . 6 7 5 . 7 H U G H E S * 1 1 9 8 6 7 3 1 8 7 1 6 4 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 J A C K S O N 8 0 0 1 5 6 3 2 7 6 0 3 3 . 9 € 5 . 6 J A C K S O N 1 9 7 2 1 6 1 2 1 3 3 9 2 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 J E F F E R S O N 8 6 4 1 0 1 9 2 3 2 7 4 5 . 9 8 0 . 9 J E F F E R S O N 1 4 3 7 4 3 5 1 8 7 2 7 6 . € 1 0 0 . 0 J O H N S T O N 9 2 4 1 1 2 7 2 5 6 9 4 5 . 1 7 9 . 8 J O H N S T O N 9 7 5 3 8 9 1 3 6 4 7 1 , 5 1 0 0 . 0 KAY 2 8 0 6 2 0 5 7 5 4 0 3 5 7 . 7 9 0 . 0 K AY 1 6 2 0 1 4 3 7 3 0 0 7 s o . s 1 0 0 . 0 K I N G F I S H E R 1 3 2 1 2 0 2 9 3 8 7 3 3 9 . 4 0 6 . 5 K I N G F 1 5 H E R 8 6 9 1 2 7 8 2 1 4 7 4 0 . S 1 C O . 0 K I O W A 1 3 8 1 2 3 9 9 4 2 4 6 3 6 . 5 8 9 . 0 K I CWA 1 7 6 5 4 0 6 2 1 7 3 8 1 , 2 1 0 0 . 0 L A T I M E R 4 2 4 7 5 0 1 5 3 3 3 6 . 1 7 6 . 6 L A T I M E R 5 2 3 1 7 0 6 9 3 7 5 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 L E F L O R E 1 5 6 3 8 2 6 3 B 7 3 6 5 . 4 6 1 . 7 L E F L C R E 1 4 2 7 4 8 0 1 9 0 7 7 4 « e 1 0 0 . 0 L I N C O L N 3 8 8 5 2 9 5 9 7 0 7 9 5 6 . 0 9 6 . 7 L I N C C L N 1 5 2 2 2 2 9 2 3 8 1 4 3 9 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 L O G A N 2 1 8 4 3 1 4 1 6 1 5 4 4 1 . 0 8 6 . 5 L O G A N 3 7 9 5 6 2 1 6 0 0 0 6 . 3 1 0 0 . 0 L O V E 6 2 6 3 6 6 1 5 0 1 6 3 . 1 6 6 . 1 L O V E 8 0 6 2 8 1 1 0 8 7 7 4 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 M C C L A I N 4 8 0 1 4 7 2 2 3 7 7 2 4 . 6 € 2 . 1 M C C L A I N 1 2 2 1 2 0 5 1 4 2 6 0 5 . 6 1 0 0 , 0 M C C U R T A I N 2 8 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 5 2 1 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 M C C U R T A I N 4 7 4 3 6 3 € 3 7 5 6 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 MC I N TO SH 8 1 3 1 1 9 0 2 9 8 3 4 0 . 6 6 7 . 1 M C I N T C S H 6 1 8 8 5 0 1 4 6 8 4 2 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 M A JO R 1 0 9 6 1 4 2 0 2 7 8 6 4 3 . 4 9 0 . 6 M A J O R 8 4 2 6 1 7 1 4 5 9 5 7 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 M A R S H A L L 4 7 4 8 5 1 1 6 5 4 3 5 . 3 8 0 . 1 M A R S H A L L 8 2 7 2 1 5 1 0 4 2 7 9 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 M A Y E S 5 9 6 1 1 0 3 2 2 5 1 3 5 . 1 7 5 . 5 M A Y E S 5 5 7 7 0 9 1 2 6 6 4 4 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 MURRAY 7 8 9 8 4 5 1 9 6 5 4 0 . 3 8 3 . 2 M U R R A Y 1 0 6 1 2 6 6 1 3 2 7 8 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 M U S K O G E E 1 8 0 4 2 5 2 2 6 5 5 3 4 1 . 7 6 6 . 0 M U S K O G E E 5 1 4 2 7 2 2 3 2 3 6 1 5 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 N O G L E 1 3 9 3 1 2 5 7 2 9 6 5 5 2 . 6 8 9 . 4 N O B L E 7 0 0 9 7 4 1 6 7 4 4 1 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 NOWATA * 2 3 4 9 7 2 0 7 0 6 2 . 3 6 3 . 8 NÜ W AT A 5 4 2 4 1 0 9 5 2 5 6 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 O K F U S K E E 7 1 9 i o n s 2 5 7 1 3 9 . 9 7 0 . 2 O K F U S K E E 4 7 8 0 3 7 1 3 1 5 3 6 . 3 1 0 0 . 0 O KL AHOMA 3 6 0 3 5 5 7 2 1 0 6 4 8 3 9 . 3 € 6 . 2 O K L A H O M A 1 7 P 2 3 2 3 6 1 7 4 5 9 9 8 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 OK M U L G E E 8 2 4 3 9 7 2 7 9 8 4 7 . 9 6 1 . 5 O K M U L G E E 5 8 6 7 6 5 1 3 4 1 4 3 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 O S A G E 1 3 3 2 1 1 0 6 3 2 7 1 5 4 . 6 7 4 . 5 O S A G E 8 4 2 3 7 1 1 2 1 3 6 9 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 OTTAWA 9 : 4 8 7 1 2 5 6 4 5 1 . 2 6 9 . 6 O T T A W A 4 4 9 8 1 7 1 2 6 6 3 5 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 P A W N E E 1 9 5 3 9 4 1 3 3 5 5 6 7 . 5 R 6 . 3 P A W N E E 1 0 5 8 7 9 5 1 C S 3 5 7 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 P A Y N E 2 0 5 0 1 8 9 1 4 6 14 5 2 . 0 € 5 . 4 f A V N E 9 0 6 1 6 9 0 2 5 9 6 3 4 .9 t o o . o P I T T S B U R G 1 9 5 5 2 9 0 5 6 2 5 7 4 0 . 2 7 7 . 7 P I T T S Q U R G 2 5 4 2 8 8 9 3 4 3 1 7 4 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 P O N T O T O C 1 1 3 3 1 5 3 7 3 2 8 0 4 2 . 4 81 , 4 P O N T O T O C 1 4 7 9 4 * 1 I 9 6 0 7 5 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 P O T T AW A T O M I C 2 5 2 9 3 1 2 1 6 7 2 5 4 4 . 8 € 4 . 0 P O T T A WA T O N I C 1 0 5 7 4 7 f l 0 5 0 4 5 1 8 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 P U S H M A T A H A 3 4 3 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 . 7 5 3 . 7 P U S H M A T A H A 4 0 8 4 2 3 8 3 1 4 9 . 1 1 C O . 0 R O G E R M I L L S 7 5 4 1 4 . 3 1 2 4 1 0 3 4 . 5 9 0 . 7 R O G E R M I L L S 7 5 6 4 4 0 1 1 9 6 6 3 . 2 1 0 0 . 0 R O C F R S 6 1 4 1 7 2 4 2 8 6 4 2 6 . 3 € 1 . 6 R O G E R S € 6 3 6 9 5 1 5 5 8 5 5 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 SE M I NOLC 7 2 9 1 0 6 1 2 5 6 5 4 0 . 7 6 9 . 0 S E M I N O L E 7 9 4 5 3 9 1 3 3 3 S 9 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 S E O U O Y AM 9 2 0 1 6 2 6 3 ^ 1 6 3 6 . 1 60 • 7 S E Q U O Y A H 8 5 9 8 6 3 1 7 2 2 4 9 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 S T E P H E N S 1 3 6 4 1 2 1 7 2 7 7 6 5 2 . * 9 1 . 0 S T E P H E N S 1 6 5 6 3 6 9 2 0 2 7 * 1 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 TE XA S 1 7 2 5 8 5 1 3 0 2 4 6 6 . 9 0 5 , 3 T E X A S 8 76 8 * 5 1 7 6 1 4 9 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 T I L L M A N 1 3 2 6 H 4 f , 2 5 0 2 6 1 . 0 € 6 . 8 T I L L M A N 1 3 2 2 1 3 9 1 4 5 7 9 0 , 7 1 0 0 . 0 T U L S A 1 6 4 8 2 1 5 4 4 6 6 8 4 J . 3 8 1 , 4 T U L S A 1 0 1 4 1 3 1 0 2 Î 2 4 4 3 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 WA GONER 8 1 7 lant 3 4 2 5 3 8 . 0 6 1 , 4 WA G O N ER 3 3 9 1 5 2 2 1 * 6 I i n . 2 1 0 0 . 0 W A S H I N G T O N 1 2 6 7 9 6 0 3 0 6 1 6 9 . 6 ( 9 , 5 WA S H I NG TON 6 6 7 3 3 5 1 0 0 2 6 6 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 W A S l l l TA M 9 7 2 1 0 4 .13 94 2 9 . 9 00 ,4 WAS H I TA 1 8 4 5 4 9 4 2 2 3 9 7 * . 9 1 0 0 . 0 WOODS 1 4 2 2 1 5 0 2 3 2 * 6 4 0 . 0 0 9 , 5 WOODS 9 1 5 7 7 5 1 6 9 0 5 4 . 1 1 0 0 « 0 WOODWARD 1 5 H 0 1 3 0 7 3 2 9 3 5 4 . 7 H 7 . 7 W O nO W A P O 8 9 1 1 2 9 3 2 1 8 4 4 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 T O T A L T O Î A L TO T A L MKANK MhAfHC T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L MKAN% « F A N X Y K S NO v r . T c V L S P A U T Y E S NO V ' Ï T C YE S P A R T 9 7 J 1 ? U T O P J 7 2 5 4 2 6 0 4 6 , 5 € 2 , S 9 6 4 4 3 6 4 5 ? S 9 . 9 1 0 0 , 0 4 o S « « * * m tv 9 N 9 9 9 9 tv 9 ĉ tv O 9 tv 9 N O 9 o p- 9 9 K 9 tv n o 9 to o 9
O -V 9 9 9 9 N tn O 9 m 9 tv 9 9 to 9 CP 9 tw 9
«1 « #m m ♦ 5 Jj O 9 to « 9 o 9 2 N N N o m 9 9 9n 9 9 O
9 m 9 01 9 9 m 9 9 9
« m 9 N 9 tv n p. 9N « * 9 9 9 n 9 r** 9 N 9 9 9 to 9 9
9 9 9 tv tv K tv tv N 9 9 « m to 9
« m <0 9 9 9 9 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ♦ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 «1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 N 9 ♦ 9 9 9 9 Z B
J « 9 <0 m « <0 P) Q2 N 9 o 9 9« o * « n (V m 9 e 9 ■» o 9< o 9 N 9 9 9 tv P) O O -« 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 OJ
o 9 to tv N CP tv 9 O 9 9 (V 9
« « m ID N o o tv O 9 (D « 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 tv 9 9 n cv 9 9 tv •1 CV
(V 9 9 9 ÿ
s CV 9 O p. tv o tv 9 tv to 9 to tv
H> «1 o fO 9 (V CP
fe n noi « m N o «
9 9 9
9 «0 * tv 9 ♦ 9 O m 9 9 tP(M o n 9 Nn n N N m o 9 N K m 9 9 tv O 9 9 9 9 N 9 9 9 to 9 9S tv n n 9 9 o to tv 9 9CP CV 9 9 9 tv o 9 * 9 tvo o CM * m tv *• tv 9 M n tv * 9 tv tv tv tv m m tv n n •* m 9 9 tv tv tv 9 tv N tv tv (V tv to 9 to •* tv CV to to tv tv tv tv tv tv
N m N Q « N 5 » n W tv 9 N o 9 tv tv 9 9 9 9 o 9 r» m N tv tv <9P 9 o K 9 o 9 9 tv 9 K 9 9 9 K 9 to K o N s tPfM in 5 n o 9 tvto tv in V tv o n CP 9 9 9 tv 9 9 9 to O 99 9 P» tv N 9 9o tO tv « 9 « 99 9 9 99 9
9 n 9 tv p> 99 9 9 9 N o O O N O
Ul
n to O OtP 9 o 9 9 tv s 9 CV o p. 9 9 9 99 to 9 < 9z m « n « to O « O m m « tv 9 m 9 9 m m 9 9 tv tv CP 9 9 9 9
m «M m m tv 9 9 9 n N 9 N 9 9 9 o 9 m tv o** tv •* tv ** •* "* •• •* •* tv CV "* •• to "* 9 *• to tv •• - — tv — — o > O
o ' " M WUl e 9n « n m eit o 9 e
tv
t9v (V m o « 9 9 9 n 9 N 99 9 o n9 w 9 tv N9 99 o « N o 9 9n m
9 m N tv 9 9 9 9 9 m9 tv to p. 9 9 N
m «9 K 9 tv9 9 9 CV 9 9 9 tv
1o0 O Oto 1̂e 9 O9 K 9CP 9 CPV 9 « O o 9 o 99 <0 m
9
< N O o 9 9 « tO to 2£ 9 O 9 o m9 n 9 tv n tp N O N 9 99 e p. to 9 9 0» tv 9 tv 9 p. 9 9 tv 9 9 tv 9M tv n 9 9 n 9 9 9 tv O h. 9 M e 9 m m 9 0> n to to 9 9 9 to to 9 to N o K O O 9 9 ou o *• U 9 f» 9 c c 9CV 5"" "" tv tv •* •• tv tv p. CV cv «M "" •• - • 9
r-c ««(vo«ooiAoneei^.ece#e«KKN'Ooeinn«9f<)Ko> Q k « « | w # K e o n K O ( M n i O o oK f w < 0 f * t M < O m i O V f 9 O O « V l « « P 1 « o o ^ | l P n « * > « ^ • v t N * ^ < ^ t P < ^ n n o M • « e f u N N o r ) • > K
> —• nX
9
r 9 J Z
« u K o X J oK 9 w X 9 P»< p. Z 9 Z z O' e
gSï 9# 9 9 c V hi 9 u z < *r »X or or z 6 X 9 z 9 z 9 K wt» w ÜI 3 J 9 c T I9 Oo o o Ul u o 9 c r >"
o a z
V V* #" c 3 o ac w Ul hi 3 9 9 Ca 9 » »
409
TABLE D-5
N EW J E R U S A L E M P L A N WOMAN S U F F R A G E
G E N E L E C T NOV 8 , t o G F N F L F C T NOV H . 1 0
I N T P E T 0 0 2 R E J E C T S T . Q . 0 0 6 I N T P F T 0 0 3 RE J F C T s r . o . 0 0 8
C O U N T Y Y E S N O T O T A L W Y E S A P A R T C O U N T Y Y E S N O T O T A L % Y E S X P A R T
A O A I R S 4 B 7 7 0 1 * 8 1 * 1 . 6 8 9 . 0 A D A I R 3 6 9 6 0 2 1 * 8 1 3 9 . 3 6 6 . 9
A L F A L F A 9 6 3 1 8 6 0 3 5 * 0 3 * . l 7 9 . 7 A L F A L F A 1 * 0 5 1 6 5 9 3 5 * 0 * 5 . 9 8 6 . 6
A T O K A 5 * 9 8 8 2 1 8 * 3 3 8 . 4 7 7 . 6 A T O K A * 8 7 1 1 2 1 1 8 * 3 3 0 . 3 8 7 . 2
B E A V E R S 7 6 1 0 1 9 2 * 3 5 * 8 . 9 8 1 . 9 B E A V E R 1 0 3 9 1 1 8 1 2 * 3 5 * 8 . 0 9 3 . 2
B E C K H A M 8 2 2 1 5 * 5 2 6 7 3 3 4 . 7 6 2 . 4 r f c k ' h a m 1 1 6 8 1 5 1 6 2 8 7 3 * 3 . 5 9 3 . *
B L A I N E I 0 * 0 1 5 6 0 3 1 2 6 * 0 . 0 8 3 . 2 8 L A I N E 1 3 0 * 1 5 0 9 3 1 2 6 * 6 . * 9 0 . 0
B R Y A N 9 9 1 2 1 0 8 3 7 5 8 3 2 . 0 8 2 . 5 8 P Y A N 9 7 0 2 * 0 * 3 7 5 8 2 6 . 7 8 9 . 8
C A O O O 1 8 7 5 2 9 * 8 5 9 8 6 3 8 . 9 6 0 . 6 C A O O O 2 3 8 2 2 9 6 7 5 9 8 6 * 4 . 5 8 9 . 4
C A N A D I A N 1 5 0 8 2 0 * 1 4 * 0 3 * 2 . 5 8 0 . 6 C A N A D I A N 1 * 7 2 2 5 6 6 4 * 0 3 3 6 . 5 9 1 . 7
C A R T E R 1 3 9 8 1 * 5 * 3 * 7 6 * 9 . 0 8 2 . 0 C A R T E R 1 2 7 9 1 9 8 * 3 * 7 6 3 9 . 2 9 3 . 9
C H E R O K E E 7 8 9 1 0 5 3 2 5 6 3 * 2 . 8 7 1 . 3 C H E R O K E E 5 5 1 6 3 0 2 5 6 3 * 6 . 7 * 5 . 7
C H O C T A W 1 1 8 3 1 1 * 5 2 5 * 5 5 0 . 8 9 1 . 5 C H O C T A W 9 * 6 9 9 9 2 5 * 5 * 8 . 6 7 6 . 4
C I M A R R O N 4 0 0 4 0 2 9 7 9 * 9 . 9 8 1 . 9 C I M A R R O N 3 * 9 5 3 8 9 7 9 3 9 . 3 9 0 . 6
C L E V E L A N D 7 0 1 1 5 1 0 2 7 1 6 3 1 . 7 8 1 . 3 C L E V E L A N D 9 9 9 1 * 7 1 2 7 1 8 * 0 . 4 9 0 . 9
C O A L 8 0 9 9 3 3 2 1 6 0 * 6 . 4 7 9 . 9 C O A L 7 8 2 1 1 5 8 2 1 8 0 * 0 . 3 8 9 . 0
C O M A N C H E 2 2 8 5 2 9 6 3 6 3 3 5 * 3 . 6 6 2 . 9 C O M A N C H E 2 2 8 2 3 3 1 0 6 3 3 5 * 0 . 8 8 6 . 3
C O T T O N 3 7 9 5 2 1 1 0 8 6 * 2 . 1 8 2 . 9 C O T T O N * 7 8 5 1 3 1 0 8 6 * 8 . 2 9 1 . 3
C R A I G 7 9 7 1 5 9 8 2 9 0 0 3 3 . 3 8 2 . 6 C P A I G 6 7 * 1 7 0 2 2 9 0 0 3 3 . 9 3 6 . 6
C R E E K 1 6 * 0 1 7 * 7 3 8 7 3 * 8 . 4 6 7 . 5 C R E E K 1 * 2 * 1 9 5 3 3 8 7 3 * 2 . 2 8 7 . 2
C U S T E R 1 0 2 7 2 * 0 3 * 0 0 9 2 9 . 9 8 5 . 6 C U S T E R 1 * 7 6 2 0 9 2 * 0 0 9 * 1 . 4 8 9 . 0
D E L A W A R E * 9 0 7 5 0 1 7 0 5 3 9 . 5 7 2 . 7 D E L A W A R E ♦ 7 7 1 0 2 3 1 7 0 5 3 1 . 6 8 6 . 0
DE W E Y 7 * 0 1 6 8 0 2 8 0 7 3 0 . 6 8 6 . 2 DE W E Y 1 3 8 6 1 2 1 7 2 8 0 7 5 3 . 2 9 2 . 7
E L L I S 1 1 5 2 1 2 6 3 3 1 6 1 * 7 . 7 7 5 . 9 E L L I S 1 3 2 2 1 2 7 6 3 1 8 1 5 0 . 9 8 1 . 7
G A R F I E L D 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 6 1 7 7 * 1 . 1 9 1 . 4 G A R F I E L D 2 2 9 3 3 5 6 9 6 1 7 7 3 9 . 1 9 4 . 9
G A R V I N 9 9 6 1 6 2 1 3 3 9 9 3 8 . 1 7 7 . 0 G A R V I N 9 7 5 1 9 2 0 3 3 9 9 3 3 . 7 8 5 . 2
G R A D Y 1 3 * 7 2 3 7 0 * 3 6 6 3 6 . 2 6 5 . 1 G R A O Y 1 3 9 1 2 6 1 1 * 3 6 6 3 * . 6 9 1 . 7
G R A N T 1 1 9 1 2 0 0 3 3 7 * 4 3 7 . 3 8 S . 3 G R A N T 1 5 * 4 1 9 0 3 3 7 * 4 * 4 . 8 9 2 . 1
G R E E R 6 * 4 1 1 0 1 2 1 9 6 3 6 . 9 7 9 . 4 G R E E R 7 9 6 1 2 3 6 2 1 9 8 3 9 . 2 9 2 . 4
HARMON 3 7 2 6 9 6 1 1 9 1 3 * . 6 8 9 . 7 HARMON 3 3 8 7 0 7 1 1 9 1 3 2 . 3 8 7 . 7
H A R P E R 6 9 8 7 5 8 1 6 8 8 * 7 . 9 8 6 . 3 H A R P E R 7 0 9 8 0 6 1 6 8 8 * 6 . 8 8 9 . 8
H A S K E L L 9 6 5 1 3 0 8 2 9 5 1 * 3 . 0 7 7 . 7 H A S K E L L 8 9 3 1 6 2 5 2 9 5 1 3 5 . 5 8 5 . 3
H U G H E S l o t s 1 7 0 0 3 3 6 1 3 7 . 4 8 0 . 8 H U G H E S 1 0 7 6 1 8 6 9 3 3 6 1 3 6 . 3 3 6 . 2
J A C K S O N 7 * 9 1 7 * 9 3 1 0 8 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 4 J A C K S O N 1 0 5 2 1 9 3 1 3 1 0 8 3 5 . 3 9 6 . 0
J E F F E R S O N 7 6 3 1 1 2 3 2 * 6 7 * 0 . 5 7 6 . * J E F F E R S O N 9 7 5 1 1 3 6 2 * 6 7 * 6 . 2 8 5 . 6
J O H N S T O N 8 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 * * 5 * 5 . 1 7 4 . 5 J O H N S T O N 8 0 7 1 3 3 6 2 * * 5 3 7 . 7 8 7 . 6
K A Y 1 5 5 6 2 9 1 * 5 2 6 3 3 4 . 8 6 * . 9 KAY 1 8 9 * 2 8 9 6 5 2 6 3 3 9 . 5 9 1 . 0
K I N G F I S H E R 1 3 1 5 1 7 0 0 3 * 9 6 * 3 . 6 8 6 . 2 K I N G F I S H E R 1 * 6 6 1 6 1 2 3 * 9 6 * * . 7 9 3 . 7
K I O W A 8 2 3 1 * 2 5 2 7 5 5 3 6 . 6 8 1 . 6 K I O W A 9 8 3 1 * 5 2 2 7 5 5 * 0 . 4 8 8 . 4
L A T I M E R 5 0 2 5 6 9 1 * 1 6 * 6 . 9 7 5 . 6 L A T I M E R * 6 2 7 8 7 1 * 1 6 3 7 . 0 8 8 . 2
L E F L O R E 1 5 6 7 1 7 7 7 3 6 0 1 * 6 . 9 9 2 . 9 L E F L O R E 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 9 3 6 0 1 * 7 . 5 7 C . 8
L I N C O L N 2 3 6 0 2 3 7 * 5 7 * 4 * 9 . 9 8 2 . 4 L I N C O L N 2 3 0 3 2 8 * 7 5 7 * 4 * 4 . 7 8 9 . 7
L O G A N 1 4 3 7 2 2 0 1 * 3 1 6 3 9 . 5 6 4 . 3 L O G A N 1 5 6 8 2 1 0 9 * 3 1 a * 2 . 6 8 5 . 2
L O V E * 9 8 7 6 9 1 3 * 7 3 9 . 3 9 4 . 1 L O V E - * 5 6 * 6 * 1 3 * 7 * 9 . 6 6 6 . 3
M C C L A I N 7 3 5 1 0 6 9 2 3 0 7 * 0 . 7 7 8 . 2 M C C L A I N 7 8 6 1 2 0 2 2 3 0 7 3 9 . 5 8 6 . 2
M C C U R T A I N * 8 9 8 7 1 1 9 6 3 3 6 . 0 6 9 . 3 M C C U R T A I N * 9 * 1 1 5 * 1 9 6 3 3 0 . 0 8 * . 0
M C I N T O S H 8 6 * 9 1 2 2 * 0 6 * 8 . 6 7 3 . 8 M C I N T O S H 7 1 7 1 2 1 * 2 * 0 8 3 7 . 1 8 0 . 2
M A J O R 8 3 * 1 * * 2 2 5 6 9 3 6 . 6 8 7 . 9 M A J O R 1 3 0 9 1 1 2 1 2 5 8 9 5 3 . 9 9 3 . 9
M A R S H A L L 5 7 7 7 2 0 1 7 6 0 * * . S 7 3 . 7 M A R S H A L L 7 0 2 8 7 3 1 7 6 0 * 4 . 6 8 9 . 5
M A Y E S 7 6 9 1 0 7 0 2 6 5 2 * 1 . 8 6 9 . 3 M A Y E S 6 6 3 1 3 8 * 2 6 5 2 3 2 * 7 7 . 2
M U R R A Y 5 3 5 9 2 9 1 9 3 0 3 6 . 5 7 5 . 9 M U R R A Y 7 5 3 9 6 7 1 9 3 0 * 3 . 8 8 9 . 1
M U S K O G E E 2 1 5 9 2 2 2 * 5 8 0 8 * 9 . 3 7 5 . 5 M U S K O G E E 1 6 6 7 3 0 3 8 5 8 0 8 3 5 . 4 8 1 . 0
N O B L E 1 0 1 0 1 * 7 9 2 9 1 3 * 0 . 6 8 5 . * N 0 9 L E 1 1 * 4 1 5 0 5 2 9 1 3 * 3 . 2 9 0 . 9
NO W A T A 9 2 * 7 3 5 2 2 5 2 5 5 . 7 7 3 . 7 N O W A T A 7 1 0 1 0 2 * 2 2 5 2 * 0 . 9 7 7 . 0
O K F U S K E E 7 1 8 9 1 * 2 0 7 7 * 4 . 0 7 6 . 6 O K F U S K E E 7 1 5 1 0 * 2 2 0 7 7 * 0 . 7 6 4 . 6
O K L A H O M A 3 8 0 5 7 0 6 3 1 2 1 0 * 3 5 . 0 8 9 . 8 OK L A H O M A * 7 2 1 6 6 2 * 1 2 1 0 * * 1 . 6 9 3 . 7
O K M U L G E E 9 9 6 1 2 6 2 2 7 6 7 * * • I 8 1 . 0 OKMUL G E E 9 3 8 1 * 6 * 2 7 8 7 3 8 . 7 8 6 . 9
O S A G E 1 8 6 * 1 2 2 0 3 7 * 6 6 0 . * 6 2 . 3 n S A G F 1 * 7 7 1 5 8 5 3 7 * 6 * 8 . 2 8 1 . 7
O T T A W A t o i l 1 1 1 1 2 8 0 7 * 7 . 6 7 5 . 6 O T T A W A 6 5 9 1 * 2 9 2 8 0 7 3 7 . 5 8 1 . 5
P A W N E E 9 9 3 1 6 7 8 3 2 6 2 3 7 . 2 6 1 . 9 P A W N E E 1 1 7 1 1 7 0 * 3 2 6 2 * 0 . 7 6 6 . 1
P A Y N E 1 2 7 8 2 1 * 5 * 1 2 3 3 7 . 3 8 3 . 0 , P A Y N E 1 6 * 6 2 1 0 7 * 1 2 3 * 3 . 9 9 1 . 1
P I T T S B U R G 1 8 0 6 2 7 3 * 5 6 1 8 3 9 . 8 8 0 . a P I T T S O U R G 1 6 9 9 3 3 * 1 5 6 1 8 3 3 . 7 8 9 . 7
P O N T O T O C 9 8 2 1 * 9 8 3 1 6 2 3 9 . 6 7 7 . 9 P O N T o r D C 1 0 * 7 1 7 5 8 3 1 8 2 3 7 . 3 5 8 . 2
P O T T A W A T O M I E 3 0 * 9 2 0 5 0 5 9 6 7 5 9 . 8 8 5 . 5 P O T T A W A T O M I E 2 3 5 1 3 3 5 2 5 9 6 7 * 1 . 2 9 5 . 6
P U S H M A T A H A 5 3 7 S O S 1 * 6 5 5 1 . 5 7 1 . 1 P U S H M A T A H A * 1 3 8 * 5 1 * 6 5 3 2 . 6 8 5 . 9
R O G E R M I L L S 7 7 9 1 0 2 5 2 1 6 5 * 3 . 2 6 3 . 3 R O G E R M I L L S 9 * 7 9 6 1 2 1 6 5 * 9 . 6 8 6 . 1
R O G E R S 8 6 3 1 * 3 * 3 0 * 3 3 7 . 6 7 5 . 5 R O G E R S 1 0 8 3 1 7 * 9 3 0 * 3 3 8 . 2 9 3 . 1
S E N I N O L E 9 2 2 9 0 0 2 * 3 7 S O . 6 7 4 . 8 S E M I N O L E 8 5 3 1 1 5 5 2 * 3 7 * 2 . 5 8 2 . 4
S E Q U O Y A H 9 1 5 1 2 1 3 2 9 2 5 * 3 . 0 7 2 . 8 S E O U O Y AH 7 6 2 1 * 0 2 2 9 2 5 3 5 . 2 7 4 . 0
S T E P H E N S 1 1 * 5 1 5 7 0 3 3 * 3 * 2 . 2 8 1 . 2 S T E P H E N S 1 3 8 5 1 6 7 2 3 3 * J * 5 . 3 9 1 . 4
T E X AS 9 7 6 1 1 3 7 2 6 0 6 * 6 . 2 8 1 . 2 T E K A S 1 0 5 5 1 3 0 8 2 6 0 6 * 4 . 6 9 0 . 7
T l L L M A N 8 3 * 1 * 0 0 2 6 8 7 J 7 . 3 8 3 . 1 T I L L M A N 8 7 1 1 6 2 8 2 6 8 7 3 4 . 9 9 3 . 0
T U L SA 2 0 5 9 2 2 2 5 5 1 * 7 * 8 . 1 8 3 . 2 T U L S A 1 7 * 9 2 7 5 3 5 1 * 7 3 6 . e 8 7 . S
W A G O N E R 7 1 8 1 0 5 6 2 1 8 1 * 0 . 5 8 1 . 3 W A G O N E R 6 3 2 1 1 5 7 2 1 8 1 3 5 . 3 8 2 . 0
W A S H I N G T O N 1 1 * 8 1 * 9 * 3 2 2 2 * 3 . 5 6 2 . 0 WA S H I NG T O N 1 1 2 6 1 6 6 6 3 2 2 2 * 0 . 3 8 6 . 7
W A S H I T A 7 6 7 1 8 8 * T 3 3 5 2 8 . 9 7 9 . 5 W A S H I T A 1 0 1 6 1 9 5 9 3 3 3 5 3 4 . 2 8 9 . 2
WOODS I 1 9 3 1 7 * 7 3 * * 9 * 0 . 6 8 S . 2 WOODS 1 4 5 0 1 5 7 5 3 * * 9 * 7 . 9 6 7 . 7
WOODWARD I C 8 9 1 5 * 6 3 1 * 4 * 1 . 3 8 3 . 8 WOODWARD 1 4 1 0 1 * 2 3 3 1 * * * 9 . 8 9 0 . 1
T O T A L TOTAL T O T A L MEA N * M E A N S TOTAL t o t a l T O T A L M E A N S M E A N S
T E S NO VO T E T E S P A R T v r s NO V O T E Y E S P A R T
8 1 . 9 *0.8
410
TABLE D-6
C R E A T E E L E C T I O r i BOA RD R E P E A L P R O M im iT I O N
OEM E L E C T N O V a . 10 G E N E L E C T NOV 8 « 1 0
R E F P E T 0 1 2 R E J E C T S T . Q . 0 2 1 I N T P E T O i l R E J E C T S T . Q . 0 2 2
C O U N T Y Y E S N O T O T A L % V E S X P A R T C O U N T Y V E S NO T O T A L W Y E S X P A R T
A O A I R 3 2 3 8 9 5 1 4 8 1 2 6 . 9 8 2 . 2 AD A I R 4 1 2 6 7 9 1 4 8 1 3 7 . 8 7 3 . 7
a l f a l f a 8 4 9 1 8 7 8 3 5 4 0 3 1 . 1 7 7 . 0 a l f a l f a 8 7 0 2 3 5 4 3 5 4 0 2 7 . 0 9 1 . 1
A T O K A 5 9 4 7 9 2 1 8 4 3 4 2 . 9 7 5 . 2 A T O K A 8 3 5 8 7 9 1 8 4 3 4 8 . 7 9 3 . 0
B E A V E R 9 4 2 9 9 8 2 4 3 5 4 8 . 6 7 9 . 7 Ü E A V E R 1 0 4 4 I 2 S 3 2 4 3 5 4 5 . 5 9 4 . 3
B E C K H A M 9 6 4 1 3 4 3 2 8 7 3 4 1 . 8 8 0 . 3 B EC K H A M 9 9 9 1 8 1 9 2 8 7 3 3 5 . 5 9 8 . 1
B L A I N E 1 1 0 3 1 4 3 3 3 1 2 6 4 3 . 5 8 1 . 1 8 L A 1 N E 1 3 0 7 1 6 8 6 3 1 2 6 4 3 . 7 9 5 . 7
B R Y A N 1 0 1 6 2 0 6 4 3 7 5 8 3 3 . 0 8 2 . 0 BRY A N 1 3 5 4 2 2 8 8 3 7 5 8 3 7 . 2 9 6 . 9
C A O O O 2 0 2 4 2 8 0 8 5 9 8 6 4 1 . 9 8 0 . 7 C A O O Q 2 5 2 7 3 2 3 4 5 9 6 6 4 3 . 9 9 6 . 2
C A N A D I A N 1 6 2 3 1 9 9 7 4 4 0 3 4 4 . 8 8 2 . 2 C A N A D I A N 2 3 5 0 1 9 3 7 4 4 0 3 5 4 . 8 9 7 . 4
C A R T E R 1 9 3 9 1 2 6 1 3 4 7 6 5 5 . 0 8 0 . 6 C A R T E R 1 8 1 7 1 5 3 7 3 4 7 6 5 4 . 2 9 6 . S
C H E R O K E E 7 6 3 1 0 8 7 2 5 8 3 4 1 . 2 7 1 . 6 C H E R O K E E 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 7 2 5 8 3 5 0 . 4 8 6 . 3
C H O C T A K 8 4 6 I J 5 4 2 5 4 5 3 8 . 5 8 6 . 4 C H O C T A W 9 6 9 1 0 4 8 2 5 4 5 4 8 . 0 7 9 . 3
C I M A R R O N 3 6 7 3 9 0 9 7 9 9 1 . 2 7 3 . 2 C I M A R R O N 3 3 8 5 6 9 9 7 9 3 7 . 3 9 2 . 6
C L E V E L A N D 8 3 8 1 3 2 2 2 7 1 8 3 8 . 8 7 9 . 5 C L E V E L A N D 1 0 0 9 1 6 0 9 2 7 1 8 3 8 . 5 9 6 . 3
C O A L 9 1 2 7 8 9 2 1 8 0 5 3 . 6 7 8 . 0 C O A L 1 5 1 5 5 8 7 2 1 8 0 7 2 . 1 9 6 . 4
C O M A N C H E 2 9 6 6 2 4 7 1 6 3 3 5 5 0 . 9 7 9 . 5 C O M A N C H E 3 0 7 5 2 9 7 5 6 3 3 5 5 0 . 8 9 5 . 5
c o t t o n 3 7 7 4 8 9 1 0 8 6 4 3 . 5 7 9 . 7 C O T T O N 4 4 0 6 1 9 1 0 8 6 4 1 . 5 9 7 . 5
C R A I G 9 3 2 1 3 9 0 2 9 0 0 4 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 C R A I G 1 1 3 3 1 5 8 3 2 9 0 0 4 1 . 7 9 3 . 7
C R E E K 1 4 9 4 1 4 5 8 3 8 7 3 5 0 . 6 7 6 . 2 C R E E K 2 1 7 4 1 3 2 9 3 8 7 3 6 2 . 1 9 0 . 4
C U S T E R 1 2 2 1 2 0 9 9 4 0 0 9 3 7 . 2 8 1 . 6 C U S T E R 1 2 0 8 2 6 3 7 4 0 0 9 3 1 .4 9 5 . 9
D E L A RA R E 5 2 3 6 0 S 1 7 0 5 4 6 . 4 6 6 . 2 D E L A W A R E 5 5 6 1 0 4 2 1 7 0 5 3 4 . 6 9 3 . 7
O E W E Y 8 9 9 1 4 8 9 2 8 0 7 3 7 . 5 6 4 . 9 D E W E Y 8 0 8 1 8 3 5 2 8 0 7 3 0 . 6 9 4 . 2
E L L I S 1 1 4 8 1 2 1 6 3 1 8 1 4 8 . 6 7 4 . 3 E L L I S 1 2 5 7 1 4 9 2 • 3 1 8 1 4 5 . 7 8 6 . 4
G A R F I E L D 2 2 8 6 3 1 9 1 6 1 7 7 4 1 . 7 8 8 . 7 G A R F I E L D 2 6 1 3 3 4 2 5 6 1 7 7 4 3 . 3 9 7 . 7
G A R V I N 1 1 6 2 1 3 4 3 3 3 9 9 4 6 . 4 7 3 . 7 G A R V I N 1 5 4 3 1 5 9 6 3 3 9 9 4 9 . 2 9 2 . 4
G R A D Y 1 6 4 7 1 8 8 3 4 3 6 6 4 6 . 7 8 0 . 9 G R A O Y 2 0 9 0 2 1 9 9 4 3 6 6 4 8 . 7 9 8 . 2
G R A N T I t 7 9 1 9 7 5 3 7 4 4 3 7 . 4 8 4 . 2 G R A N T 1 1 4 5 2 4 6 1 3 7 4 4 3 1 . 8 9 6 . 3
G R E E R 6 3 8 1 0 9 2 2 1 9 8 3 6 . 8 7 8 . 6 G R E E R 7 3 1 1 4 6 6 2 1 9 8 3 3 . 3 1 0 0 . 0
H A R M O N 2 8 0 7 2 7 1 1 9 1 2 7 . 8 8 4 . 6 HARM ON 2 6 1 8 4 4 1 1 9 1 2 3 . 6 9 2 . 8
H A R P E R 5 9 8 7 9 6 1 6 8 8 4 2 . 9 6 2 . 6 H A R P E R 6 1 0 9 7 0 1 6 8 8 3 8 . 6 9 3 . 6
H A S K E L L 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 5 2 9 5 1 4 7 . 4 7 2 . 5 H A S K E L L 1 2 9 8 1 3 7 1 2 9 5 1 4 8 . 6 9 0 . 4
H U G H E S 9 7 2 1 9 9 2 3 3 6 1 3 7 . 9 7 6 . 3 H U G H E S 1 1 5 5 1 7 0 2 3 3 6 1 4 0 . 4 8 5 . 0
J A C K S O N 8 7 9 1 4 6 5 3 1 0 6 3 7 . 5 7 5 . 4 J A C K S O N 8 7 6 2 2 1 9 3 1 0 8 2 8 . 3 9 9 . 6
J E F F E R S O N 9 4 1 9 4 7 2 4 6 7 4 9 . 8 7 6 . 5 J E F F E R S O N 1 2 8 1 9 8 5 2 4 6 7 5 6 . 5 9 1 . 9
J O H N S T O N 9 6 3 8 9 8 2 4 4 5 5 1 . 7 7 6 . 1 J O H N S T O N 1 4 0 9 8 5 2 2 4 4 5 6 2 . 3 9 2 . 5
KA Y 1 6 0 4 2 7 9 1 5 2 6 3 3 6 . 9 6 3 . 5 K A Y 2 1 9 4 2 9 1 8 5 2 6 3 4 2 . 9 9 7 . 1
K I N G F I S H E R 1 1 9 9 1 7 6 3 3 4 9 8 4 0 . 5 6 4 . 7 K I N G F I S H E R 1 4 2 3 1 9 3 9 3 4 9 8 4 2 . 3 9 6 . 1
K I O W A 8 5 2 1 3 1 9 2 7 5 5 3 9 . 2 7 8 . 8 K I O W A 9 5 0 1 6 7 5 2 7 5 5 3 6 . 2 9 5 . 3
L A T I M E R 5 2 8 9 7 2 1 4 1 6 4 8 . 0 7 7 . 7 L A T I M E R 6 4 3 5 0 5 1 4 1 6 6 2 . 5 9 5 . 2
L E F L O R E 1 0 2 1 2 0 6 9 3 6 0 1 3 3 . 0 8 5 . 8 L E F L O R E 1 2 9 0 1 3 7 2 3 6 0 1 4 8 . 5 7 3 . 9
L I N C O L N 1 8 5 7 2 6 4 3 5 7 4 4 4 1 . 3 7 8 . 3 L I N C O L N 2 0 7 6 3 3 0 3 5 7 4 4 3 8 . 6 9 3 . 6
L O G A N 1 4 3 4 2 0 6 3 4 3 1 8 4 1 . 0 a t . o L O G A N 1 6 5 0 1 9 1 9 4 3 1 8 4 9 . 1 8 7 . 3
L O V E 4 1 8 8 0 6 1 3 4 7 3 4 . 2 9 0 . 9 L O V E 3 4 0 6 2 8 1 3 4 7 3 5 . 1 7 1 . 9
M C C L A I N 8 0 0 999 2 3 0 7 4 5 . 5 7 6 . 2 M C C L A I N 9 3 6 1 2 0 5 2 3 0 7 4 3 . 6 9 2 . 9
M C C U R T A I N 5 2 4 7 8 8 1 9 6 3 3 9 . 9 6 6 . 8 M C C U R T A IN 7 1 5 1 0 6 2 1 9 6 3 4 0 . 2 9 0 . 5
MC I N TO S H 8 5 7 8 2 4 2 4 0 8 5 1 . 0 6 9 . 8 M C I N T O S H 1 3 1 5 7 5 2 2 4 0 6 6 3 . 6 8 5 . 8
M A J O R 7 6 9 1 4 2 0 2 5 8 9 3 5 . 1 6 4 . 6 M A J O R 9 4 7 1 5 8 2 2 5 8 9 3 7 . 4 9 7 . 7
M A R S H A L L 6 2 6 6 9 8 1 7 6 0 4 8 . 8 7 3 . 0 M A R S H A L L 8 6 5 7 9 4 1 7 6 0 5 2 . 1 9 4 . 3
M A Y E S 7 4 3 1 0 3 8 2 6 5 2 4 1 . 7 6 7 . 2 M A Y E S 9 1 0 1 2 8 0 2 6 5 2 4 1 . 6 8 2 . 6
MURRAY 6 9 3 8 0 8 1 9 3 0 4 6 . 2 7 7 . 8 M U R R A Y 9 6 2 8 7 7 1 9 3 0 5 2 . 3 9 S . 3
MU S K O G E E 1 9 7 6 2 2 3 7 5 8 0 8 4 6 . 9 7 2 . S M U S K O G E E 2 4 2 2 2 5 2 5 5 8 0 8 4 9 . 0 8 5 . 2
N O B L E 1 0 1 4 1 4 5 2 2 9 1 3 4 1 . 1 6 4 . 7 N O B L E 1 2 0 5 1 5 5 6 2 9 1 3 4 3 . 6 9 4 . 8
NOWATA 8 5 7 7 0 6 2 2 9 2 5 4 . 8 6 9 . 4 N O W A T A 1 1 4 3 6 7 5 2 2 5 2 6 2 . 9 8 0 . 7
O K F U S K E E 6 6 6 9 3 5 2 0 7 7 41 . 6 7 7 . 1 O K F U S K E E 8 0 6 1 1 0 9 2 0 7 7 4 2 . 1 9 2 . 2
OK L AH OM A 5 8 6 6 4 2 6 2 1 2 1 0 4 S 7 . 9 6 3 . 7 O K L A H O M A 6 6 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 2 1 0 4 5 6 . 3 9 7 . 3
O K M U L G E E 9 9 3 1 2 1 3 2 7 8 7 4 4 . 0 7 7 . 7 O K M U L G E E 1 3 0 7 1 2 8 4 2 7 8 7 5 0 . 4 9 3 . 0
O S A G E 1 6 7 9 1 2 8 5 3 7 4 6 5 6 . 6 7 9 . 0 O S A G E 2 3 9 2 1 0 4 7 3 7 4 6 6 9 . 6 9 1 . 8
O TT A W A 9 1 1 1 0 7 5 2 8 0 7 4 5 . 9 7 0 . 8 O T T A W A 1 2 7 5 1 3 0 4 2 8 0 7 4 9 . 4 9 1 . 9
P A W N E E 9 1 6 1 7 1 9 3 2 6 2 3 4 . 8 6 0 . 8 P A W N E E 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 5 3 2 6 2 3 3 . 5 9 3 . 4
P A Y N E 1 2 7 8 2 0 5 7 4 1 2 3 3 8 . 3 6 0 . 9 , P A Y N E 1 3 5 0 2 5 4 8 4 1 2 3 3 4 . 6 9 4 . 5
P I T T S 8 Ü R G 2 0 6 0 2 4 2 3 5 6 1 8 4 6 . 0 7 9 . 8 P I T T S B U R G 3 1 2 7 2 2 5 0 5 6 1 8 5 8 . 2 9 5 . 7
P O N T O T O C 1 1 0 7 1 2 9 9 3 1 8 2 4 6 . 0 7 5 . 6 P O N T O T O C 1 2 9 3 1 7 1 0 3 1 8 2 4 3 . 1 9 4 . 4
P O T T A W A T O M I E 2 4 3 0 2 4 7 3 5 9 6 7 4 9 . 6 6 2 . 2 P O T T A WA T O M I E 3 1 0 7 2 8 4 7 5 9 6 7 5 2 . 2 9 9 . 8
P U S H M A T A H A 5 0 8 8 4 0 1 4 6 5 3 7 . 7 9 2 . 0 P U S H M A T A H A 8 1 2 5 3 6 1 4 6 5 6 0 . I 9 2 . 2
R O G E R M I L L S 8 0 6 9 9 0 2 1 6 5 4 4 . 9 8 3 . 0 R O G E R W I L L S 6 6 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 6 5 4 1 . 4 9 6 . 3
R O G E R S 9 6 1 1 2 8 6 3 0 4 3 4 2 . 8 7 3 . 8 R O G E R S 1 3 4 4 1 4 7 5 3 0 4 3 4 7 . 7 9 2 . 6
S E M I N OL E 8 3 4 8 4 3 2 4 3 7 4 9 . 7 6 8 . 6 S E M I N O L E 1 0 1 5 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 7 4 7 . 5 8 7 . 7
S E Q U O Y A H 8 6 5 1 0 7 3 2 9 2 5 4 4 . 6 6 6 . 3 S E Q U O Y A H 1 0 1 8 1 5 0 9 2 9 2 5 4 0 . 3 8 6 . 4
S T E P H E N S 1 2 1 3 1 3 9 2 3 3 4 3 4 6 . 6 7 7 . 9 S T E P H E N S 1 3 2 4 1 9 0 7 3 3 4 3 4 1 . 0 9 6 . 6
T E X A S 8 8 4 1 1 6 0 2 6 0 6 4 3 . 2 7 8 . 4 T E X AS 8 2 6 1 6 4 1 2 6 0 6 3 3 . S 9 4 . 7
T I L L M A N 9 3 9 1 2 0 6 2 6 6 7 4 3 . 8 7 9 . 8 T I L L M A N 7 5 8 1 9 0 4 2 6 6 7 2 8 . 5 9 9 . 1
T U L S A 1 9 0 5 2 2 0 5 S I 4 7 4 7 . 4 6 1 .4 T U L SA 2 6 2 6 2 2 4 2 5 I A 7 5 3 . 9 9 4 . 6
WAGONE R 6 6 2 1 0 7 2 2 1 8 1 3 8 . 2 7 9 . 5 W AG ONER 6 8 4 1 2 1 9 2 1 8 1 3 5 . 9 8 7 . 3
W A S H I N G T O N 1 0 2 3 1 5 4 5 3 2 2 2 3 9 . 8 7 9 . 7 WA S H I NG TO N 1 6 3 8 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 5 5 . 2 9 2 . 1
W A S H I T A 9 6 8 1 7 0 2 3 3 3 5 3 6 . 3 8 0 . 1 W A S H I T A 999 2 0 8 5 3 3 3 5 3 2 . 4 9 2 . 5
WOODS 1 0 9 9 1 7 8 6 3 4 4 9 3 8 . 1 6 3 . 6 WOODS 1 1 9 0 2 1 0 2 3 4 4 9 3 6 . 1 9 5 .4
WOODWARD 1 2 1 6 1 3 8 4 3 1 4 4 4 6 . 8 6 2 . 7 WOODWARD 1 1 1 4 1 8 0 0 3 1 4 4 3 8 . 2 9 2 . 7
T O T M . T O T A L TO TA L M E A N « M FANX TOTAL TO TA L TO T A L WEAN% MEAN*
Y E S MO VO TE Y E S P A R T Y E S NO VOTE TES PART
0*012 43.7 7 9 . 2 248263 9 3 * 1
411
TABLE D-7
c n * p n * A r ; n N T A * , s c h o o l s C O R P O R A T I O N R E L A T I O N S
C E N F L F C T NQV A , 1 0 G E N E L E C T N O V 0 , 1 0
t e s R F F 0 1 3 R E J E C T S T « 0 « 0 2 3 L E G R E F O l A R E J E C T S T « 0 « 02A
C O U N T Y Y E S NO T O T A L * Y C S X P A R T C O U N T Y Y E S N O T O T A L X Y E S X P A R T
a o A l P 3 0 4 1 6 5 1 4 8 1 6 4 . 8 3 1 . 7 A O A I R 2 2 8 2 1 0 1 4 8 1 5 2 . 1 2 9 . 6
a l f a l f a l A o m 9 2 0 3 5 4 0 6 0 , 5 6 5 . 8 A L F A L F A 1 1 4 1 1 1 0 6 3 5 4 0 5 0 . 8 6 3 . 5
A T O K A 6 3 6 2 5 3 1 8 4 3 7 1 . 5 4 8 . 2 A T O K A 4 8 2 3 6 7 1 8 4 3 5 6 . 8 4 6 . 1
8 F A V E R 1 3 0 3 1 9 6 2 4 3 5 8 6 . 9 6 1 . 6 BE AV fE R 1 1 2 0 3 5 3 2 4 3 5 7 6 . 0 6 0 . 5
R EC K NAM 1 4 7 0 4 8 2 2 8 7 3 7 5 . 3 6 7 . 9 8 E C K H A M 9 9 5 8 5 0 2 8 7 3 5 3 . 9 6 4 . 2
B L A I N E 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 3 1 2 6 7 0 . 6 5 5 . 9 B L A I N E 1 0 7 4 7 1 0 3 1 2 6 6 0 . 2 5 7 . 1
B R Y A N 1 4 0 6 6 1 9 3 7 5 0 6 9 . 4 5 3 . 9 B R Y A N 8 3 4 9 9 2 3 7 5 8 4 5 . 7 4 8 . 6
C A O O O 2 8 2 5 9 0 5 5 9 8 6 7 5 . 7 6 2 . 3 C A O O O 2 1 2 9 1 4 8 3 5 9 8 6 5 8 . 9 6 0 . 3
C A N A D I A N 1 7 7 6 1 0 6 1 4 4 0 3 6 2 . 6 6 4 . 4 C A N A D I A N 1 7 2 4 1 0 4 2 4 4 0 3 6 2 . 3 6 2 . 8
C A R T E R 1 7 3 9 3 1 5 3 4 7 6 8 4 . 7 5 9 . 1 C A R T E R 1 4 7 2 5 2 2 3 4 7 6 7 3 . 8 5 7 . 4
C H E R O K E E 8 5 1 2 6 7 2 5 8 3 7 6 . 1 4 3 . 3 C H E R O K E E 6 2 9 3 8 0 2 5 8 3 6 2 . 3 3 9 . 1
CH O C T A * 9 1 9 2 8 0 2 5 4 5 7 6 . 6 4 7 . 1 C H O C T A W 7 5 7 3 9 6 2 5 4 5 6 5 . 7 4 5 . 3
C I M A R R O N 4 8 5 7 8 9 7 9 8 6 . 1 5 7 . 5 C I M A R R O N 3 3 3 2 1 2 9 7 9 6 1 . 1 5 5 . 7
C L E V E L A N D 1 2 8 3 3 1 9 2 7 1 8 8 0 . 1 5 8 . 9 C L E V E L A N D 8 5 5 7 0 1 2 7 1 8 5 4 . 9 5 7 . 2
C O A _ 8 2 6 2 9 7 2 1 8 0 7 3 . 6 5 1 . 5 C O A L 6 7 3 4 4 0 2 1 8 0 6 0 . 5 5 1 . 1
C O M A N C H E 3 3 0 1 7 3 2 6 3 3 5 8 1 . 8 6 3 . 7 C O M A N C H E 2 6 7 1 1 3 2 9 6 3 3 5 6 6 . 8 6 3 . 1
C O T T O N 5 4 4 1 9 5 1 0 8 6 7 3 . 6 6 8 . 0 C O T T O N 3 8 3 3 3 2 1 0 6 6 5 3 . 6 6 5 . 8
C R A I G 9 9 6 5 3 5 2 9 0 0 6 5 . 1 5 2 . 8 C R A I G 7 8 5 6 6 1 2 9 0 0 5 4 . 3 4 9 . 9
C R E E K 1 1 9 2 7 9 5 3 8 7 3 6 0 . 0 5 1 . 3 C R E E K 1 2 0 8 7 2 7 3 8 7 3 6 2 . 4 5 0 . 0
C U S T E R 1 6 9 2 8 1 1 4 0 0 9 6 7 . 6 6 2 . 4 C U S T E R 1 4 1 6 1 0 2 2 4 0 0 9 5 8 . 1 6 0 . 8
D E L A W A R E 6 5 4 1 5 4 1 7 0 5 8 0 . 9 4 7 . 4 D E L A W A R E 4 1 5 2 9 9 1 7 0 5 5 8 . 1 4 1 . 9
OEW EY 1 6 5 0 3 6 7 2 8 0 7 8 1 . 8 7 1 . 9 O E W E Y 1 4 3 1 5 6 6 2 0 0 7 7 1 . 7 7 1 . 1
E L L I S 1 5 9 9 2 6 9 3 1 8 1 8 5 . 6 5 8 . 7 E L L I S 1 2 7 1 5 3 1 3 1 8 1 7 0 . 5 5 6 . 6
G A R F I E L D 2 5 0 8 2 2 0 1 6 1 7 7 5 3 . 3 7 6 . 2 G A R F I E L D 3 0 6 8 1 4 9 0 6 1 7 7 6 7 . 3 7 3 . 8
G A R V I N 1 5 7 7 4 0 6 3 3 9 9 7 9 . 5 5 8 . 3 G A R V I N 1 1 4 6 7 2 0 3 3 9 9 6 1 . 4 5 4 . 9
S P A O Y 1 6 4 7 1 0 8 0 4 3 6 6 6 0 . 4 6 2 . 5 G R A O Y 1 5 8 1 1 0 5 9 4 3 6 6 5 9 . 9 6 0 . 5
g r a n t 1 6 9 6 8 0 2 3 7 4 4 6 7 . 9 6 6 . 7 G R A N T 1 2 9 6 1 0 7 9 3 7 4 4 5 4 . 6 6 3 . 4
G R E E R 1 0 2 2 3 6 3 2 1 9 8 7 3 . 8 6 3 . 0 G R E E R 5 5 6 6 9 5 2 1 9 8 4 4 . 4 5 6 . 9
HARMON 5 8 7 1 6 7 1 1 9 1 7 7 . 9 6 3 . 3 H A R M O N 2 5 6 4 3 0 1 1 9 1 3 7 . 3 5 7 . 6
h a r p e r 8 0 1 1 5 5 1 6 8 8 8 3 . 8 5 6 . 6 H A R P E R 7 1 9 2 4 1 1 6 8 0 7 4 . 9 5 6 . 9
H A S K E L L 1 5 0 5 2 9 5 2 9 5 1 8 3 . 6 6 1 . 0 H A S K E L L 1 0 4 6 5 5 4 2 9 5 1 6 5 . 4 5 4 . 2
H U G H E S 1 0 9 8 4 6 7 3 3 6 1 7 0 . 2 4 6 . 6 H U G H E S 7 2 2 7 2 2 3 3 6 1 5 0 . 0 4 3 . 0
J A C K S O N 1 1 6 3 7 6 2 3 1 0 8 6 0 . 4 6 1 . 9 J A C K S O N 8 4 6 9 0 8 3 1 0 8 4 8 . 2 5 6 . 4
J E F F E R S O N 1 0 1 1 6 1 8 2 4 6 7 6 2 . 1 6 6 . 0 J E F F E R S O N 9 9 4 5 6 8 2 4 6 7 6 3 . 6 6 3 . 3
J O H N S T O N 1 4 5 5 2 2 5 2 4 4 5 8 6 . 6 6 6 . 7 J O H N S T O N 6 7 7 5 7 9 2 4 4 5 5 3 . 9 5 1 . 4
KAY 1 5 3 5 1 8 5 2 5 2 6 3 4 5 . 3 6 4 . 4 K A Y 1 5 6 0 1 7 1 6 5 2 6 3 4 7 . 6 6 2 . 2
K I N G F I S H E R 1 5 3 7 6 1 3 3 4 9 8 7 1 . 5 6 1 . 5 K I N G F I S H E R 1 1 3 7 9 7 1 3 4 9 8 5 3 . 9 6 0 . 3
K I O W A 1 1 5 3 4 3 3 2 7 5 5 7 2 . 7 5 7 . 6 K I O W A 8 8 2 6 8 5 2 7 5 5 5 6 . 3 5 6 . 9
L A T I M F R 6 6 1 I S O 1 4 1 6 8 1 . 5 5 7 . 3 L A T I M E R 4 7 3 2 8 5 1 4 1 6 6 2 . 4 5 3 . 5
L E F L O R E 1 2 2 2 4 6 0 3 6 0 1 7 2 . 7 4 6 . 7 L E F L O R E 9 5 2 5 9 1 3 6 0 1 6 1 . 7 4 2 . 8
L I N C O L N 2 1 7 6 1 0 8 2 5 7 4 4 6 6 . 8 5 6 . 7 L I N C O L N 1 6 2 5 1 5 3 1 5 7 4 4 5 1 . 5 5 4 . 9
L O G A N 1 6 6 7 8 1 3 4 3 1 6 6 7 . 2 5 7 . 4 L O G A N I 5 S 4 9 0 4 4 3 1 8 6 3 . 2 5 6 . 9
L O V E 5 1 9 1 9 5 1 3 4 7 7 2 . 7 5 3 . 0 L 0 \ € 3 9 5 2 9 0 1 3 4 7 5 7 . 7 5 0 . 9
M C C L A I N 9 7 7 3 0 9 2 3 0 7 7 6 . 0 5 5 . 7 M C C L A I N 8 0 7 4 6 1 2 3 0 7 6 3 . 6 5 5 . 0
M C C U R T A I N 4 6 9 2 1 7 1 9 6 3 6 8 . 4 3 4 . 9 M C C U R T A I N 3 7 2 3 9 0 1 9 6 3 4 8 . 8 3 8 . 8
M C I N T O S H 6 9 2 1 8 4 2 4 0 8 7 9 . 0 3 6 . 4 MC I N T O S H 5 0 7 2 9 3 2 4 0 8 6 3 . 4 3 3 . 2
M A J O R 1 2 9 0 5 0 7 2 5 8 9 7 1 . 6 6 9 . 4 M A J O R 1 0 7 5 6 8 9 2 5 8 9 6 0 . 9 6 8 . 1
M A R S H A L L 1 0 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 6 0 8 5 . 0 6 8 . 0 M A R S H A L L 6 0 2 3 9 7 1 7 6 0 6 0 . 3 5 6 . 8
M A Y E S 1 0 5 3 2 7 6 2 6 5 2 7 9 . 2 5 0 . 1 M A Y E S 5 6 2 5 7 0 2 6 5 2 4 9 . 6 4 2 . 7
M U R R A Y 8 2 6 2 8 3 1 9 3 0 7 4 . 5 5 7 . 5 M URRAY 6 5 3 3 8 6 1 9 3 0 6 2 . 8 5 3 . 8
M U S K O G E E 1 9 7 0 1 2 8 0 5 8 0 8 6 0 . 6 5 6 . 0 M U S K O G E E 2 0 3 4 1 1 2 0 5 8 0 8 6 4 . 5 5 4 . 3
N O B L E 1 2 2 9 6 0 2 2 9 1 3 6 7 . 1 6 2 . 9 N O G L E 1 0 7 5 7 2 5 2 9 1 3 5 9 . 7 6 1 . 8
NO W AT A 7 9 8 2 7 7 2 2 5 2 7 4 . 2 4 7 . 7 NO W ATA 6 4 9 3 2 3 2 2 5 2 6 6 . 8 4 3 . 2
O K F U S K E E 6 7 2 2 3 8 2 0 7 7 7 3 . 8 4 3 . 8 O K F U S K E E 4 3 0 3 7 8 2 0 7 7 5 3 . 2 3 3 . 9
OK L AH OM A 5 4 3 3 1 4 7 9 1 2 1 0 4 7 8 . 6 5 7 . 1 O K L A H O M A 4 9 2 9 1 9 7 5 1 2 1 0 4 7 1 . 4 5 7 . 0
O K M U L G E E 6 6 5 5 5 1 2 7 8 7 6 1 . 1 S O . 8 O K M U L G E E 7 8 5 5 8 3 2 7 8 7 5 7 . 4 4 9 . 1
O S A G E 1 2 6 4 5 8 0 3 7 4 6 6 8 . 5 4 9 . 2 O S A G E 1 3 3 0 5 6 4 3 7 4 6 7 0 . 2 5 0 . 6
O T T A W A 1 0 4 0 3 1 8 2 8 0 7 7 6 . 6 4 8 . 4 O T T A W A 7 6 7 4 3 8 2 8 0 7 6 3 . 7 4 2 . 9
O A W N E E 1 1 4 4 7 5 9 3 2 6 2 6 0 . 1 5 6 . 3 P A W N E E 8 0 6 1 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 4 3 . 9 5 6 . 3
P A Y N E 1 7 7 0 6 8 0 4 1 2 3 7 2 . 2 5 9 . 4 ' P A Y N E 1 2 0 9 1 1 1 5 4 1 2 3 5 2 . 0 5 6 . 4
P I T T S B U R G 1 9 5 3 1 5 0 4 5 6 1 a 5 6 . 5 6 1 . 5 P I T T S B U R G 2 0 4 8 1 2 8 8 5 6 1 8 6 1 . 4 5 9 . 4
P O N T O T O C 1 5 4 9 4 0 5 3 1 8 2 7 9 . 3 6 1 . 4 P O N T O T O C 1 1 4 0 6 3 4 3 1 8 2 6 4 . 3 5 5 . 8
P O T T A W A T O M I E 2 9 1 7 8 5 2 5 9 6 7 7 7 . 4 6 3 . 2 P O T T A W A T O M I E 2 2 6 6 1 2 7 3 5 9 6 7 6 4 . 0 5 9 . 3
P U S H M A T A H A 5 8 5 8 3 1 4 6 5 0 7 . 6 4 5 . 6 P U S H M A T A H A 5 1 8 2 1 9 1 4 6 5 7 0 . 3 5 0 . 3
R O G E R M I L L S 1 2 5 3 1 6 3 2 1 6 5 8 8 . 5 6 5 . 4 R O G E R M I L L S 1 0 2 7 3 5 9 2 1 6 9 7 4 . 1 6 4 . 0
R O G E R S 7 9 8 6 6 2 3 0 4 3 5 4 . 7 4 8 . 0 R O G E R S 6 5 5 7 4 0 3 0 4 3 4 7 . 0 4 5 . 8
S E M I N O L E 9 1 3 1 9 5 2 4 3 7 8 2 . 4 4 5 . 5 S E M I H O L E 6 3 1 4 0 9 2 4 3 7 6 0 . 7 4 2 . 7
S E O U O Y A H 1 0 1 4 3 0 2 2 9 2 5 7 7 . 1 4 5 . 0 S E Q U O Y A H 6 7 3 4 9 2 2 9 2 5 5 7 . 8 3 9 . 8
S T E P H E N S 1 6 6 7 3 6 6 3 3 4 3 8 2 . 0 6 0 . 8 S T E P H E N S 1 1 8 6 7 6 4 3 3 4 3 6 0 . 8 5 8 . 3
T E X A S 1 2 3 3 2 7 4 2 6 0 6 8 1 . 8 5 7 . 8 T E X A S 9 6 6 5 1 6 2 6 0 6 6 5 . 2 5 6 . 9
T I L L M A N 1 3 1 5 448 2 6 8 7 7 4 . 6 6 5 . 6 T I L L M A N 1 0 5 2 6 5 3 2 6 0 7 6 1 . 7 6 3 . 5
T U L S A 1 1 5 3 1 9 5 1 5 1 AT 3 7 . 1 6 0 . 3 T U L S A 1 6 4 8 1 2 8 7 5 1 4 7 5 6 . 1 5 7 . 0
W A G O N E R 6 6 0 4 1 1 2 1 8 1 6 1 . 6 4 9 . 1 • WA GONER 4 7 2 5 4 5 2 1 8 1 4 6 . 4 4 6 . 6
W A S H I N G T O N 4 8 8 1 6 1 7 3 2 2 2 2 3 . 2 6 5 . 3 W A S H I N G T O N 8 4 9 1 0 1 9 3 2 2 2 4 5 . 4 5 8 . 0
W A S H I T A 1 5 5 2 6 2 9 3 3 3 5 7 1 . 2 6 5 . 4 W A S H I T A 1 0 9 8 9 4 2 3 3 3 5 5 3 . 8 6 1 « 2
WOODS 1 7 5 1 4 3 5 3 4 4 9 8 0 . 1 6 3 . 4 W O O D S 1 4 2 3 7 2 6 3 4 4 9 6 6 . 2 6 2 . 3
WOODWARD 1 6 9 4 4 5 0 3 1 4 4 7 9 . 0 6 8 . 2 WOODWARD 1 4 3 1 6 2 3 3 1 4 4 6 9 . 7 6 5 . 3
T O T A L T O T # L T O T A L M E A N * M E A N * T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L M E A N * M E A N *
Y E S N O V O T E V E S P A R T Y E S NO V O T E Y E S P A R T
1 0 1 6 3 6 4 3 1 33 2 4 8 2 6 3 7 0 . 2 5 8 . 3 8 3 1 8 6 5 5 1 7 5 2 4 6 2 6 3 6 0 . 1 5 5 . 7
« m <0 O ft O ft ft ft ft ft (w H o n ft K o fft • f
t f•t f t o p ft H 9 PI ft
M ft N ft O ft f t PI wm(V o P• p ft
H ft N CV ft H M PI # PI H H f4 ft o CV CV f t PI ft K K p
< ft ft Aft o CM NV> ft N
ft
O ft N ft
mO fftt ft PI
H p) ft H • «
P P ft ft O H PI PI ft ft pft Nft « ft ft 9 H
fU til P • PI
ft
at ** •* w ft ft
ft P ft o
• w •• p •" w ft ft o
CM fOt ft Po fct P m Ri P ft PI p fOt p P o H (V P ft CV ft CV cv p| PI o cv H p ft P» 4 ft•• ft ft P ft 4 ft N P PI P O p o P p ft ft P P N CV K ft P H o o
PI
ft
M O M H n ft O M ft ft w ft n ft N o n ft n « M Ho f«t fmt C«
in H
« fmt fftt fftt fftt fftt m f t Pft O ft Hft ft ft ft K fftt
ft p «ft ft O ft HM ft H ft ft ft fftt fftt ft fftt ft ft ftft ft ft fftt fftt P ft ffitlHm ft ft ft
H
ft f
Nt ft 4 ft 4 m ftft ft Pft ft CVP ft ft fftt ft
P H
® ft ft
4ft fftt fft
P
t ft Hft fftt fftt fpt ft Pft N ft
P ft ft
J K o M ti f t N(V ftO mft N H ft ft ft ft ft ft p ft m
f t
« fU ® ft N ft PI ft ft
ft ft ft p ft ft o o
wa a u Aoi a a a a ya o w a «y0a
u
«o y ̂— N *" ««Mp* N N w N w #»""*## p # N ̂A* w w #» ** **a fay « a IaVJ o a a a y y a a a |) Op UmCsJ oO"» "p m» Üa Iw« ÜN lwM o0 OP A# *N *pO. nwa N' f i O * * t t h l < 0 L I 0 k ' 0 a S 9 « * ü l o P l \ > * a u < 0 O » i A l J I » ü ) O O < A « 4 # U s y * Î Ha o « ua M tau a Ai «û ay yx ' y P S ( » w a ^ a # N s & * " W M O N # " " ' O a w o o a w P # w # s w m w MO a A) N a a a o y a a o a Ao o o Sf*w a %#u»waNOaui»^4)aaoo^»NUisa#ospa'0'0»aaw#p"4ONp*^waw'6^*"am^a#<^ u
M < a u
« a
my
y
r> a A) p aa u oa
u w Ai a y
a a Ai Ai y aa ay oa a a a a
a a
a a ay yo ya 4
9 S3»
« y a a a O W a« e OM rg a o y a y a a p w a a y w a s
w a #.a Gla a< a 'C a a aa o aa y
a
a a aA ya y wa a oy ay a S * U l U * * * Q * M # a ^ U U I U M » U » » U » * N U U ' 0 9 O » * l 0 U W « # M » « M p p p a » U a i 0 O M a * * * A » U
3
s a y K) 3a aa ■c a a A N * i û ' 4 m m @ a a a N s s m N M @ * p a ' 0 » # a o a » ü & i m » N w w » a P 9a m u y>U a A) a oa ay ao aa w (jya a wy uy aO ya uy u# ar^oao*p*aMo(u iu»o«rioi iMo»4s>aaoaopa*«w4i'» oOaUU
# » a » S ' 4 0 » ^ O O a » N m » W ) S » O S O » » M M A m » U ^ A O @ M m » * M O A # A 4 ) # U S O M » A w O ' A * A M N N m W u W # # o ^ ' ^ N w ' ^ W " * U I » " A A N S M
S î
"*5 »» N# #w W^ Am Wu WW As »» m* S0A»VAlOA»»AAmAA»6UWIm»wA^NOAAASAM#WAW*mj'S"m»#%NfAOSUSMANMUAMs#V»*W#S^WAWA)AM'oyA^SV^%#i»mMüAlM*AA'»"WWA#( ^n U" I4 ,# 0A 'A "A »W A« Ay AA ^A 0A 4A »A A^ SA 4" )4 ^# AA AA WA *U am
^ M A » N W W » o » M » * | \ » 0 » 4 » N a W » » S w W 4 ) o * " A A A A U U l N ^ M a U o A A W N W ^ A ^ ' * W , # ^ O o * » ' y w ^ U | w # # k ) A À # U ^ A Ü » W W u W # # » W M u #
— #* *» "* *» "* # » # * # # ## #" w m m W ^ w ** m *" •* m* ̂ 0» *»
»O AO (AAO»4A4m)O4#O"^#O#4»)O^n' < ) O ^ < < ) O 4 > O O ' O < O ^ ^ O O « a ' û 4 > M O 4 } A 4 > O O O y | O » * O A 4 ) a ^ ^ O a ^ O ^ a O « * o o O O e ^ O O 0 4 4 O O ^ O 9 * * A o O * * « *!a # # # # # # # # * # # #*#A U#»#A#M W#S#'#A ;**#'#4 A#O#i*0 #m S#(*«#O '#6*S#* "#A#M## A#»#M#O #( ##A#,#j »##»a#* -#'#Ù#O #" 4*»#A»m »#w*m*O A#W#A#m #O ##.#«#" »#»#O»4 **"#^#M«O M#^«A#^ "#"#S#A O#M#W• • * A V k A A O » > o M o » A > G | M 9 U l U ^ » « a u A N * « * O a A M u O ’O A U A ^ ^ O U # » * O X N A ^ « 4 ^ ^ U | i M M O O ^ > A A 4 ) A A < 4 a A » * 0 * V M U I * » > Û > ^ * * S * *
452
TABLE D-48
SALES TAX FOH AGED AlO SOIL CONSERVATION
SP PRI ELECT JUL 7.36 SP PRI JULY 7. 36
INT PET 155 ADOPT ST. Q. 226 INT PET 159 REJECT ST.O. 230
COUNTY YES NO TOTAL XYES XPART COUNTY YES NO TOTAL XYES XPART
AOAtR 4*82 588 *332 88.4 117.0 ADA IR 3262 1138 *332 7*. 1 101.6
ALFALFA 114* 2*97 3177 31.4 114.6 ALFALFA 672 2812 3177 19.3 109.7
ATtXA 5*6* 985 6397 84# 7 100.8 ATOKA 375* 2129 6397 63.8 92.0
8EAVER t s a i 895 2325 63.9 106.5 BEARER 618 172* 2325 26.4 100.7
BECKHAM 37*0 3001 7578 55.5 89.1 BECKHAM 2511 3630 7570 *0.9 81 .0
8LAINE 2336 2718 *911 *6.2 112.0 8LA INE 1407 33*3 *511 29.6 105.3
BRYAN 6909 1835 10675 79 .2 82.7 8RY AN *585 3291 10675 50.2 73.8
CAOOO 6297 *717 11291 57.0 97.2 CAOOO 3739 6225 11291 37.5 88.2
CANADIAN 2390 2700 5165 *7.0 98.5 CANADIAN 1467 3303 5165 30.8 92.4
CARTER 7825 37*1 12157 67.7 95.1 CARTER 562* *483 12157 S5.6 83. 1
CHEROKEE *573 1197 9591 79.3 103.2 CHEROKEE 2902 2270 5591 56.1 92 .5
CMOCTA* *315 2022 6822 68.1 92 .9 CHOCTAW 2062 2616 6022 52.2 80.3
CIMARRON 799 399 1157 68.5 100.1 CIMARRON *20 666 1157 38.7 93.9
CLEVELAND *093 3271 8039 55.6 91.6 CLEVELAND 2761 3821 8039 *1.9 81.9
COAL 3361 1132 *360 7* .8 103.1 COAL 2**2 1576 4360 60.8 92.2
COMANCHE *34* 379* 8561 53.6 94.6 COMANCHE 2907 *339 8561 *0.1 84.6
COTTON 2776 1757 *8*3 61.2 93.6 COTTON 1391 2698 *8*3 3*.0 a * . *
CRAIG 2991 2226 5053 57.3 103.2 CRAIG 1768 2976 5053 37.3 93.9
CREEK 7933 5173 12655 60.5 103.6 CREEK 5892 600* 12655 *9.5 94.0
CUSTER 3001 3*00 6511 46.9 98.3 CUSTER 1662 4323 6511 27.8 91.9
DELAWARE 3555 1202 *317 74.7 110.2 DELAWARE 2188 1773 *317 55.2 91.0
OEWEY 1579 150* 2982 81.2 103.4 OEWEY 850 1992 29 82 29.9 95.3
ELLIS 1233 1201 2085 50.7 116.7 ELL IS 665 1606 2085 29.3 108.9
GARFIELD 3509 6516 9989 35.5 101 .1 GARFIELD 2361 715* 9989 2* .8 95.3
GARVIN 512* 3161 915* 61 .8 90.5 GARVIN 3228 *182 915* *3.6 80.9
GRAOY 5659 4813 1121* 54.0 93.3 GRAOY 3*9* 5921 11214 37. 1 84.0
GRANT 1577 2*07 37*6 39.6 106.4 GRANT 808 2983 37*6 21 .3 10 1.2
GREER 2335 2223 5073 51.2 89.8 GREER 1446 2669 5073 35. 1 81.1
HARMON 2188 1516 *016 59.1 92.2 HARMON 682 2879 *016 19.2 88.7
HARPER 1117 93* 19*6 54.5 105.4 HARPER 618 1263 19*6 32.9 96.7
HASKELL 3886 1119 *962 77.6 100.9 HASKELL 2*02 2107 4962 53.3 90.9
HUGHES 9*07 237* 8370 69.5 93.0 HUGHES 3166 357* 8370 *7.0 80.5
JACKSON 3357 3238 7377 50.9 89.4 JACKSON 2331 3768 7377 30.2 82.7
JEFFERSON 35*6 1595 5563 69.0 92 .* JEFFERSON 2235 2361 5563 *8.6 82.6
JOHNSTON 4037 701 5594 87.3 99.0 JOHNSTON 33*1 1360 559* 71 .1 84.0
KAY *3*2 5675 9959 *3.3 100.6 KAY 3260 6179 9959 34.5 94.8
KINGFISHER 2019 2**0 3795 *5.3 117.5 KINGF IS HER 1197 300 7 3795 28.5 110.8
KIOWA 3736 3157 756* 54.2 91. 1 KIOWA 226* 39*1 756* 36.5 82.0
LATIMER 2709 866 3796 75.8 94.2 LAT IMER 1530 1537 3796 *9.9* a o . a
LE FLORE 93*2 176* 10960 84.1 101 .3 LE FLORE 646* 3537 10960 6*.6 91 .3
LINCOLN *730 3930 77*2 57.3 106.7 LINCOLN 282* 460 6 7742 38.0 96.0
LOGAN 3537 33*2 6*21 St.* 107.1 LOGAN 2*6* 3812 6*21 39.3 97.7
LOVE 2689 1021 3768 72.S 98.4 LOVE 1339 1936 3768 *0.9 86 .9
MCCLAIN 43*8 1735 65 92 71.S 92.3 MCCLAIN 2806 2*77 6592 53.1 80.1
MCCURTAIN 5*9* 2780 8620 66.4 96.0 MCCURTAIN 3196 *173 8620 *3.4 e s . s
MC INTOSH 5*04 1700 7090 76.1 100.2 MCINTOSH 3601 2*49 7090 59 .5 85.3
MAJOR 989 157* 2076 38.6 123.5 MAJOR 522 1906 2076 21.5 11 7.0
MARSHALL *159 516 *639 89.0 100.8 MARSHALL 2779 1023 4639 73. 1 82.0
MAYES 387* 1*35 5193 73.0 102.2 MAYES 2337 2257 5193 50.9 88.5
MURRAY 3538 1111 *864 76.1 95.6 MURRAY 237* 1644 *864 59. 1 82.6
MUSKOGEE 8*8* 99*7 1*711 58.8 98.1 MUSKOGEE 62*3 674* 1*711 48.1 86.3
NOBLE 1858 2169 3596 46.2 111.9 NOBLE 111* 2576 3596 30.2 102 .6
NOWATA 2350 1*65 3*32 61 .6 111.2 NOW AT A 1*46 1847 3432 *3.9 95.9
OKFUSKEE 3799 2906 6632 56.7 101.1 OKFUSKEE 2647 3*79 6632 *3.2 92.*
OKLAHOMA 22876 22155 *877* 50.8 92.3 OKLAHOMA 17990 23222 *877* *3.7 8*.S
OKMULGEE 7692 *0*0 11656 65.6 100.7 OKMULGEE 5892 *656 11656 55.9 90.5
OSAGE 6126 3680 9900 62.5 99. 1 OSAGE 4225 *673 9900 *7.5 89.9
OTTAWA 5525 3236 8637 63.1 101.4 OTTAWA 3968 392* 8637 50.3 91.*
PAWNEE 2994 2061 *229 55.7 11 0.1 PAWNEE 1318 285* *229 31.6 98.7
PAYNE 3424 *123 7657 *5.* 98.6 ' PAYNE 2325 4690 7657 33.1 91 .6
PITTSBURG 9132 *305 1*019 68.0 95.8 PITTSBURG 6146 6075 1*019 50.3 87.2
PONTOTOC 6711 3196 10496 67.7 9*.* PONTOTOC 388* 4821 10*96 4* .6 92.9
POTTAWATCMIE 6*51 5357 14218 61.2 97.1 POTTA WATOMIE 5158 7206 1*218 *1.7 87.0
PUSHMATAHA *028 96* 5072 80.7 98.4 PUSHMATAHA 23*0 1805 5072 56.5 81.7
ROGER MILLS 2376 1985 *026 60.0 98.4 ROGER MILLS 1170 2*9* *026 31 .9 91.0
ROGERS 38*6 210* 5986 64.6 99.4 ROGERS 2376 2942 5986 4*. 7 88.8
SEMINOLE 7995 393* 128 10 66.9 92.8 SEMINOLE 5762 4671 12810 55.2 81.*
SEOUOYAH 5306 931 5950 85. 1 104.8 SEOUOYAH 280* 237* 5950 54.2 87.0
STEPHENS 5*16 3223 9249 62 «7 93 .* STEPHENS 2994 *657 9249 39. 1 82.7
TEXAS 1812 1008 2606 64.3 105.0 TEXAS 1156 1*27 2686 **•8 96.2
TILLMAN 3150 2521 6120 55.S 92.7 TILLMAN 1433 3037 6120 27.2 86.1
TULSA 1*697 19910 343 77 42.5 100.7 TULSA 11842 19840 34377 37.* 92.2
WAGONER 25*0 1296 3797 66. 3 101.2 wag oner I 79* 1632 3797 52.* 90.2
WASHINGTON 3829 4181 7596 *7.8 105.5 WASHINGTON 2772 4574 7596 3 7. 7 96.7
WAS4I TA 2681 35*5 6998 43.1 89.0 WASHITA . 1572 4154 6998 27.5 61.8
WOOOS 1630 2219 3716 *5.2 109.0 WOOOS 11*7 26B1 3716 30.0 103.0
WOOOWARO 1689 2327 373* 42.1 107.6 WOOOWARO 900 2943 3734 23.4 102.9
TOTAL total TOTAL MEANS MEANS TOTAL TOTAL T O T A LNO MEANS MEANS V E S NO VOTE ves PART V E S VOTE YES PART
2 2 9 3 * 2 5 6 0 7 * 1 5 9 * 7 2 2 3 R J 6 0 0 « S
453
table D-49
M L ! C t ! B F N S I O N S A A N O M S O A A O O F R E C C N T S
C R N R L C C T N O V 3 . « N E L E C T N O V 3 . 3 «
t e c d C P 0 6 9 A D O P T S T , 0 « 2 0 7 L E G R E F 0 6 6 R E J E C T S T . O . 2 1 0
C O U N T Y Y E S MO T O T A L X Y E S X P A R T C O U N T Y V E S N O T O T A L X Y E S X P A R T
A O A tR 2 9 2 4 1 9 7 9 6 2 2 1 6 5 . 0 7 2 . 3 A O A tR 2 6 6 1 1 6 0 4 6 2 2 1 6 2 . 4 6 8 . 6
A L F A L F A F 9 B 0 2 2 8 0 6 1 1 4 9 6 . 7 8 6 . 0 A L F A L F A 2 8 9 3 2 3 3 1 6 1 1 4 5 9 . 4 8 9 . 4
A TO K A 1 8 4 2 1 6 5 7 4 4 2 0 5 3 . 3 8 0 . 3 A T M A 1 7 0 4 1 6 7 6 4 4 2 0 5 0 . 4 7 6 . 5
B E A V E R 1 6 9 0 1 6 2 4 4 0 1 2 5 0 . 4 8 1 . 6 B E A V E R 1 9 6 9 1 7 2 1 4 0 1 2 4 7 . 7 8 2 . 0
O F C K H A M 2 4 7 4 2 7 9 4 6 9 1 5 4 7 . 0 7 6 . 2 B ECM H A M 2 4 8 0 2 7 9 9 6 9 1 9 4 7 . 3 7 5 . 8
B L A tN E 3 3 0 8 2 7 8 1 7 4 0 8 5 4 . 3 8 2 . 2 B L A I N E 3 0 4 2 2 8 6 8 7 4 0 8 5 1 . 9 7 9 . 8
B R Y A N 4 2 7 4 3 3 0 9 9 7 5 8 5 6 . 4 7 7 . 7 B R Y A N 4 9 6 3 2 9 9 0 9 7 5 8 6 0 . 7 7 7 . 0
C A O O O 6 3 3 2 9 7 9 9 1 9 0 2 9 5 2 . 2 8 0 . 7 C A O O O 9 5 0 7 9 9 1 1 1 9 0 2 9 4 8 . 2 7 6 . 0
C A N A O tA N 9 1 1 4 3 1 0 1 9 6 9 8 6 2 . 3 8 4 . 7 .C A N A D IA N 4 8 2 8 3 1 0 9 9 6 9 8 6 0 . 8 8 1 . a
C A R T E R 9 4 4 9 3 6 3 0 1 1 9 6 9 6 2 . 3 8 0 . 4 C A R T E R 9 7 9 8 3 3 3 4 1 1 9 6 9 6 3 . 9 7 6 . 3
C H E R O K E E 3 1 0 4 2 3 9 9 7 1 9 1 5 6 . 9 7 6 . 9 C H E R O K E E 2 8 1 1 2 2 9 1 7 1 9 1 9 9 . S 7 0 . 8
C H O C T A W 2 9 8 7 1 8 7 9 6 0 2 9 9 8 . 0 7 4 . 0 C H O C T A W 2 9 0 9 1 9 9 3 6 0 2 9 5 6 . 2 7 4 . 0
C IM A R R O N 6 7 0 9 8 3 1 9 9 0 5 9 . 9 7 4 . 5 C IM A R R O N 1 0 0 2 9 1 1 1 9 9 0 6 6 . 2 7 7 . 6
C L E V E L A N D 4 2 1 7 3 3 2 7 9 9 8 9 9 5 . 9 7 8 . 7 C L E V E L A N D 4 1 8 2 3 1 6 1 9 9 8 9 9 7 . 0 7 6 . 6
C O A L 1 6 3 6 9 2 0 3 2 3 3 6 4 . 0 7 9 . 1 C O A L 1 4 9 1 9 9 1 3 2 3 3 6 1 . 1 7 S . S
C O M A N C H E 4 6 0 0 3 7 6 8 1 0 9 4 4 5 9 . 0 7 9 . 4 C O M A N C H E 4 1 8 1 3 8 7 9 1 0 9 4 4 5 3 . 2 7 4 . 9
C O T T O N 1 9 1 4 1 9 9 6 5 1 6 7 4 9 . 9 7 4 . 9 C O T T O N 1 7 8 2 1 9 7 9 5 1 6 7 4 7 . 4 7 2 . 8
C R A IG 3 3 0 1 • 2 7 2 9 7 9 2 8 9 4 . 8 8 0 . 0 C R A I G 3 4 3 4 2 4 7 7 7 5 2 8 5 8 . 1 7 8 . 9
C R E E K 1 1 8 1 4 9 0 4 3 2 0 3 7 6 7 0 . 1 8 2 . 7 C R E E K 1 1 0 2 6 4 8 1 7 2 0 3 7 6 6 9 . 6 7 7 . 8
C U S T E R 2 9 7 7 3 3 2 0 7 6 9 1 4 7 . 3 8 1 . 9 C U S T E R 2 9 8 8 3 2 2 4 7 6 9 1 4 8 . 1 8 0 . 8
D E L A W A R E 2 6 4 8 1 6 8 9 6 2 3 4 6 1 . 1 6 9 . 9 D E L A W A R E 2 4 7 2 1 6 9 1 6 2 3 4 5 9 . 4 6 6 . 8
O E W E Y 1 8 6 4 2 0 9 0 5 0 9 1 4 7 . 1 7 8 . 3 OEW EY 1 6 6 1 2 2 1 S 9 0 9 1 4 2 . 9 7 6 . 7
E L L I S 1 7 5 2 1 4 1 2 3 9 3 0 5 5 . 4 8 0 . 9 E L L I S 1 6 0 9 1 9 0 9 3 9 3 0 5 1 . 5 7 9 . 2
G A R F I E L D 1 0 6 8 2 5 6 9 6 1 8 9 2 8 6 9 . 2 8 6 . 9 G A R F lE L O 1 0 4 9 0 5 3 7 6 1 8 9 2 8 6 6 . 0 8 3 . 6
G A R V IN 3 6 6 9 2 8 1 7 8 2 2 9 5 6 . 5 7 8 . 8 G A R V I N 3 9 0 2 2 6 2 9 8 2 2 9 5 7 . 1 7 4 . S
G R A O Y 9 7 7 3 4 2 2 8 1 2 2 8 4 5 7 . 7 8 1 . 4 G R A O Y 5 8 7 4 3 8 1 6 1 2 2 8 4 6 0 . 6 7 8 . 9
G R A N T 2 8 6 4 2 7 0 2 6 4 1 1 5 1 . 9 8 6 . 9 G R A N T 2 8 3 9 2 6 8 9 6 4 1 1 5 1 . 4 8 6 . 1
G R E E R 2 0 4 2 1 6 5 6 4 6 4 9 5 5 . 2 7 9 . 6 G R E E R 1 9 8 0 1 6 3 0 4 6 4 5 5 4 . 8 7 7 . 7
HA RM ON 4 3 0 1 2 9 1 2 9 6 8 4 1 . 9 7 4 . 8 H A RM O N 8 2 3 1 3 9 6 2 9 6 8 3 7 . 1 7 4 . 8
H A R D E R 1 2 S 4 1 1 6 7 2 9 9 9 9 1 . 9 8 0 . 9 H A R P E R 1 0 8 9 1 2 8 4 2 9 9 9 4 9 . 9 7 9 . 1
H A S K E L L 2 7 2 8 1 7 0 1 6 2 2 4 6 1 . 6 7 1 . 2 H A S K E L L 2 4 1 7 1 8 1 0 6 2 2 4 9 7 . 2 6 7 . 9
H U G H E S 4 0 5 2 2 3 8 1 8 2 2 9 6 3 . 0 7 8 . 2 H U G H E S 4 0 6 9 2 1 7 9 8 2 2 9 6 5 . 1 7 6 . 0
JA C K S O N 2 9 6 0 2 6 6 2 6 7 6 1 4 9 . 0 7 7 . 2 J A C K S O N 2 6 7 7 2 3 9 4 6 7 6 1 5 3 . 2 7 4 . 4
J E F F E R S O N 1 8 3 6 1 9 4 1 9 0 9 7 4 8 . 6 7 4 . 7 J E F F E R S O N 1 7 2 0 1 9 9 6 5 0 9 7 4 6 . 8 7 2 . 7
J O H N S T O N 1 9 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 9 5 6 6 3 . 1 7 6 . 2 jn f M S T O N 1 * 9 7 • 0 8 1 3 9 « 5 6 3 , 7 * * 5 .3
K A Y 9 9 3 1 6 4 9 2 1 9 1 6 8 6 0 . 6 8 9 . 5 KAY 1 0 7 2 7 9 1 0 7 1 9 1 6 8 6 7 . 7 8 2 . 6
K I N G F I S H E R 3 3 1 7 2 9 2 0 6 7 9 1 9 6 . 8 8 6 . 0 K I N G F I S H E R 3 1 9 2 2 9 0 9 6 7 9 1 5 6 . 0 8 3 . 9
K IO W A . 3 2 6 3 2 6 1 2 7 4 8 3 9 9 . 5 7 8 . 9 K IO W A 3 1 1 0 2 6 0 3 7 4 8 3 9 4 . 4 7 6 . 3
L A T I M E R 2 0 0 7 1 1 8 0 4 4 6 9 6 3 . 0 7 1 . 3 L A T I M E R 1 9 8 9 1 3 5 0 4 4 6 9 5 4 . 1 6 9 . 8
L E F L O R E 9 5 8 9 3 0 4 0 1 2 1 8 4 6 4 . 8 7 0 . 8 L 6 F L O R E 9 0 9 S 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 8 4 6 1 . 2 6 8 . 4
L I N C O L N 4 8 8 2 4 3 1 0 1 1 7 4 8 9 3 . 1 7 8 . 2 L I N C O L N 4 8 7 9 4 2 4 3 1 1 7 4 8 9 3 . 9 7 7 . 6
L O G A N 5 5 9 9 3 0 6 9 1 0 9 2 2 6 4 . 5 8 2 . 0 L O G A N 9 9 9 4 2 9 9 1 1 0 5 2 2 6 9 . 8 8 1 . 6
L O V E 1 1 1 3 9 1 9 2 7 8 8 5 4 . 8 7 2 . 9 L O V E 1 0 6 9 8 6 8 2 7 8 8 5 4 . 5 7 0 . 1
M C C L A IN 2 3 1 9 1 8 6 1 9 3 3 0 5 5 . 4 7 8 . 3 ' M C C L A IN 1 9 9 6 1 8 6 9 5 3 3 0 5 1 . 6 7 2 . 5
M C C U R T A IN 2 9 0 2 1 7 3 9 6 2 8 4 6 2 . 6 7 3 . 8 M C C U R T A IN 3 0 3 9 1 6 6 0 6 2 8 4 6 4 . 6 7 4 . 7
M C IN T O S H 3 0 8 9 1 7 9 9 6 6 1 6 6 3 . 2 7 3 . 9 M C IN T O S H 2 7 4 1 1 8 4 9 6 6 1 6 5 9 . 8 6 9 . 3
M A JO R 1 7 4 1 1 7 9 7 4 3 2 9 5 0 . 9 8 2 . 0 M A JO R 1 5 6 5 1 9 6 4 4 3 2 5 4 4 . 3 8 1 . 6
M A R SH A L L 1 4 0 3 1 0 9 8 3 9 9 9 5 6 . 1 6 2 . 9 M A R S H A L L 1 4 9 4 1 0 2 9 3 9 9 9 5 8 . 6 6 2 . 1
M A Y E S 2 9 6 3 2 0 2 7 6 8 0 6 5 9 . 4 7 3 . 3 M A Y E S 2 8 7 9 1 9 9 0 6 8 0 6 5 9 . 6 7 1 . 0
M U R R A Y 1 9 4 7 1 3 2 3 4 1 0 4 5 9 . 5 7 9 . 7 M URRA Y 1 8 2 4 1 2 6 6 4 1 0 4 5 9 . 0 7 9 . 3
M U S K O G E E 1 2 3 0 1 4 3 5 8 2 0 3 3 0 7 3 . 8 8 1 . 9 M U S K O G E E 1 2 0 4 3 4 0 9 0 2 0 3 3 0 7 4 . 8 7 9 . 2
N O B L E 3 0 2 8 2 4 9 1 6 7 6 0 9 5 . 3 8 1 . 1 N O B L E 3 1 1 5 2 2 7 8 6 7 6 0 9 7 . 8 7 9 . 8
NOW ATA 2 9 8 7 1 9 4 1 6 2 7 8 6 0 . 6 7 8 . 9 NOW ATA 2 9 7 7 1 7 8 2 6 2 7 8 6 2 « 6 7 5 . 8
O K F U S K E E 3 4 7 6 2 3 9 9 7 1 8 9 5 9 . 6 8 I « 2 O K F U S K E E 3 2 0 6 2 2 2 3 7 1 8 9 5 9 . 1 7 5 . 5
O K LA H O M A 4 7 4 4 9 2 0 3 4 7 7 6 4 6 3 7 0 . 0 8 8 . 7 O K LA H O M A 4 4 9 2 0 1 8 8 3 2 7 6 4 6 3 7 0 . 3 8 2 . 9
O K M U L G E E 1 0 4 0 4 4 1 1 9 1 7 4 0 7 7 1 . 7 8 3 . 4 O K M U L G E E 1 0 3 4 6 3 6 8 5 1 7 4 0 7 7 3 . 7 3 0 . 6
O S A G E 9 2 8 4 3 9 7 2 1 5 3 4 0 7 2 . 2 9 3 . 8 O S A G E 9 1 7 0 3 2 6 8 1 5 3 4 0 7 3 . 7 8 1 . 1
O T T A W A 6 0 2 7 3 9 4 9 1 2 6 3 3 6 3 . 0 7 9 . 8 O TTA W A 5 8 9 8 3 3 2 1 1 2 6 3 3 6 4 . 0 7 3 . 0
R A W N E S 3 6 2 5 2 1 5 1 7 3 3 6 6 4 . 0 8 1 . 9 P A W N E E 3 9 3 2 1 9 9 7 7 3 3 6 6 6 . 8 8 0 . 3
F A Y N E 6 8 3 7 3 9 8 0 1 3 5 4 4 6 3 . 2 7 9 . 9 P A Y N E 7 7 2 9 3 6 0 6 1 3 9 4 4 6 8 . 2 8 3 . 7
P I T T S B U R G 6 8 8 2 4 5 0 9 1 3 9 8 9 6 0 . 4 8 1 . 4 ' P I T T S B U R G 6 3 9 3 4 3 2 8 1 3 9 8 9 9 9 . 5 7 6 . 4
P O N T O T O C 4 9 0 1 3 3 0 8 1 0 3 7 2 5 7 . 6 7 9 . 3 P O N T O T O C 4 3 0 9 3 1 3 7 1 0 3 7 2 5 7 . 9 7 1 . 8
P O T T A W A T O M IE 8 3 3 6 5 7 7 1 1 7 2 5 5 5 9 . 1 8 1 . 8 P O T T A W A T C M IE 7 9 0 9 9 1 9 3 1 7 2 5 5 6 0 . 5 7 9 . 7
P U S H M A T A H A 1 7 6 8 1 2 6 3 4 6 6 6 5 0 . 3 6 5 . 0 P U S H M A T A H A 1 7 0 6 1 2 7 8 4 6 6 6 5 7 . 2 6 4 . 0
R O G E R M I L L S 1 8 0 3 1 7 7 0 4 5 6 9 S O . S 7 8 . 3 R O G E R M I L L S 1 3 7 4 2 1 2 2 4 5 6 5 3 9 . 3 7 6 . 6
R O G E R S 3 5 0 6 2 9 0 9 7 6 9 4 5 8 . 3 7 8 . 2 R O G E R S 3 1 7 7 2 9 9 8 7 6 9 4 6 5 . 4 7 4 . 9
S E M I N O L E 7 9 6 7 4 8 0 4 1 6 1 1 9 6 2 . 4 7 9 . 2 S E M IN O L E 8 0 3 2 4 1 9 7 1 6 1 1 9 6 9 . 7 7 9 . 9
S E O U O Y A H 3 4 1 2 1 9 4 5 7 2 7 0 6 8 . 8 6 8 . 2 S E Q U O Y A H 3 3 3 1 1 4 8 9 7 2 7 0 6 9 . 2 6 6 . 2
S T E P H E N S 3 7 7 0 2 8 7 9 8 2 0 0 5 6 . 7 8 1 . 1 S T E P 1 C N S 3 4 9 4 2 7 5 6 8 2 0 0 5 5 . 9 7 6 . 2
T E X A S 1 4 8 3 1 5 6 4 4 5 7 7 5 5 . 9 7 7 . 9 T E X A S 2 9 5 2 1 1 6 4 4 5 7 7 6 8 . 7 8 1 , 2
T IL L M A N 2 6 1 9 2 4 1 8 6 5 2 7 5 1 . 8 7 7 . 5 T IL L M A N 2 5 0 1 2 3 7 0 6 5 2 7 5 1 . 3 7 4 . 6
T U L S A 4 8 5 0 1 1 3 3 5 9 7 1 0 2 3 7 8 . 4 8 7 . 1 T U L S A 4 8 8 6 0 1 0 3 6 7 7 1 0 2 3 8 2 . 5 8 3 . 4
W A G O N ER 2 6 6 4 1 3 9 0 5 2 3 9 6 5 . 7 7 7 . 4 W A GONER 2 4 5 8 1 3 8 2 5 2 3 8 6 4 . 0 7 3 . 3
W A S H IN G T O N 6 2 7 2 3 4 6 9 1 1 7 9 1 6 4 . 5 8 2 . 5 W A S H IN G T O N 6 5 2 6 3 0 9 2 1 1 7 9 1 6 8 . 1 8 1 « 2
W A S H IT A 2 6 1 1 2 7 6 3 7 1 6 0 4 8 . 6 7 5 . 1 W A S H IT A 2 3 5 9 2 9 8 9 7 1 6 0 4 4 . 1 7 4 . 7
w o n o s 2 4 4 9 3 2 5 8 6 6 9 0 4 2 . 9 8 5 . 2 w o n o s 2 0 9 6 3 4 9 6 6 6 9 0 3 7 . 8 8 3 . 0
WOOOW ARO 2 8 3 2 2 2 4 8 6 0 1 2 5 5 . 7 8 4 . 9 WOOOWARO 2 7 6 9 2 2 2 0 6 0 1 2 9 9 . 9 8 3 . 0
T O T A L T O T A L TO TA L M EANX M EA N S T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L M E A N S M E A N S
Y F S N O V O T E Y E S P A R T Y E S NO V O T E Y E S P A R T
3 R Q I A 2 2 3 2 3 1 0 7 6 7 7 4 5 6 2 . 7 6 1 . 1 3 7 9 4 0 5 2 1 9 9 9 6 7 6 7 7 4 5 6 3 . 3 7 8 . 1
454
TABLE D-50
REPEAL PROHIBITION W J N I C I P A L U T I L I T I E S
G6N ELECT NOV 3 • J6 G E N E L E C T N H V A « 3 8
I N T P E T 1 9 1 R E J E C T S T . O . 2 2 7 I N T P E T 1 4 2 R E J E C T S T . Q . 2 0 5
C O U N T Y V E S N O T O T A L S Y E S S P A R T C n U M T Y Y E S NO T O T A L W Y E S S P A R T
AD A I R 2 A G 3 2 2 5 3 6 2 2 1 5 2 * 5 7 6 . 3 A D A IR 1 1 3 1 1 9 4 8 6 0 9 2 3 6 . 7 5 0 . 5
A L F A L F A 8 6 9 4 8 3 9 6 1 1 4 1 5 . 2 9 3 . 4 a l f a l f a 7 7 4 3 4 3 6 5 5 2 8 1 6 . 4 7 6 . 2
A T O K A 1 6 5 7 1 9 7 7 4 4 2 0 4 5 * 6 8 2 . 2 A TO K A 9 6 9 1 5 1 4 4 0 0 0 3 9 . 0 6 2 . 1
B E A V E R 8 2 0 2 5 9 5 4 0 1 2 2 4 . 0 8 S . 1 B E A V E R 4 1 8 1 9 6 8 3 4 9 6 1 7 . 5 6 8 . 2
B E C K H A M 1 A 9 9 4 6 1 5 6 9 1 5 2 4 « S 8 8 . 4 B ECK H A M 7 6 8 1 9 5 4 3 9 4 0 2 8 . 2 6 9 . 1
B L A I N E 2 2 5 8 4 1 9 5 7 4 0 8 3 5 . 0 8 7 . 1 B L A I N E 9 8 2 3 3 7 7 6 1 2 9 2 2 . 5 7 1 . 1
8 R V AN 2 9 7 8 5 2 2 7 9 7 5 8 3 6 « 3 8 4 . 1 BRY A N 1 3 9 8 2 7 3 7 5 7 8 8 3 3 . 8 7 1 . 4
C A O O O 3 7 0 2 8 9 8 0 1 5 0 2 9 2 9 . 2 8 4 . 4 C A D D O 1 4 4 1 5 5 0 8 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 . 7 6 9 . 4
C A N A D IA N 3 6 6 2 5 1 1 4 9 6 9 8 4 1 . 7 9 0 . 5 C A N A D IA N 1 4 1 1 4 3 4 7 7 9 6 9 2 4 . 5 7 2 . 3
C A R T E R 3 9 9 1 6 1 4 7 1 1 9 6 9 3 9 . 4 8 4 . 7 C A R T E R 1 4 8 5 3 2 6 2 7 3 8 3 3 1 . 3 6 4 . 3
C H E R O K E E 2 3 6 0 3 1 3 3 7 1 5 1 4 3 . 0 7 6 . 8 C H E R O K E E 1 1 0 6 2 3 1 3 6 4 6 9 3 2 . 3 5 2 . 9
C H O C TA W 2 2 0 2 2 5 4 9 6 0 2 9 4 6 . 3 7 8 . 8 C H O C TA W 9 3 8 1 6 8 1 4 4 9 4 3 5 . 8 5 8 . 3
C IM A R R O N 6 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 9 5 0 3 9 . 1 8 4 . 3 C IM A R R O N 2 4 8 7 2 7 1 7 7 3 2 5 . 4 5 5 . 0
C L E V E L A N D 2 2 7 1 6 0 2 4 9 5 8 9 2 7 . 4 8 6 . S C L E V E L A N D 6 0 9 2 8 1 6 4 9 7 0 2 2 . 3 7 2 . 9
C O A L 1 4 9 1 1 1 6 1 3 2 3 3 S 6 . 2 8 2 . 0 C O A L 5 5 8 9 0 2 2 0 2 5 3 8 . 2 7 2 . I
C O M A N C H E 3 1 2 0 5 6 7 2 1 0 5 4 4 3 5 . 5 8 3 . 4 CDM ANCM E 1 4 2 5 4 0 4 3 8 1 3 3 2 6 . 1 6 7 . 2
C O T T O N 1 0 1 2 3 3 0 1 5 1 6 7 2 3 . 5 8 3 . 5 C O T T O N 4 2 1 1 6 3 3 3 1 5 5 2 0 . 5 6 5 . 1
C R A I G 2 9 9 4 3 7 1 5 7 5 2 8 4 1 . 1 8 3 . 8 C R A I G 1 1 5 2 2 8 6 2 6 3 0 1 2 8 . 7 6 3 . 7
C R E E K 8 2 4 2 8 8 5 3 2 0 3 7 6 4 8 . 2 8 3 . 9 C R E E K 3 5 8 2 6 9 2 9 1 6 0 9 1 3 4 . 1 6 5 . 3
C U S T E R 1 6 2 2 5 3 0 4 7 6 9 1 2 3 . 4 9 0 . 1 C U S T E R 8 4 8 3 2 2 1 5 6 6 0 2 0 . 8 7 1 . 9
D E L A W A R E 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 6 2 3 4 4 7 . 9 7 4 . 8 D E L A W A R E 9 4 3 2 1 9 7 6 1 0 0 3 0 . 0 5 1 . 5
O E W E Y 1 1 3 6 3 2 4 6 5 0 5 1 2 5 . 9 8 6 . 8 D E W E Y 5 7 0 2 4 8 1 4 3 6 3 1 8 . 7 6 9 . 9
E L L I S 1 1 1 6 2 4 1 4 3 9 3 0 3 1 . 6 8 9 . 8 E L L I S 3 4 7 2 0 6 8 3 4 2 0 1 4 . 4 7 0 . 6
G A R F I E L D 6 2 1 1 1 0 9 0 6 1 8 9 2 8 3 6 . 3 9 0 . 4 G A R F I E L D 1 8 8 5 1 0 7 9 6 1 5 7 1 0 1 4 . 9 8 0 . 7
G A R V I N 2 4 2 5 4 6 2 6 8 2 2 5 3 4 . 4 8 5 . 7 G A R V I N 6 8 9 2 7 9 9 4 8 7 4 1 9 . 8 7 1 . 6
G RAOY 3 2 5 7 7 3 6 2 1 2 2 8 4 3 0 . 7 8 6 . 4 G R A O Y 1 0 2 3 4 1 1 5 6 8 7 3 1 9 . 9 7 4 . 8
G R A N T 1 4 4 2 4 4 6 1 6 4 1 1 2 4 . 4 9 2 . 1 G R A N T 5 2 9 3 9 3 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 . 9 7 9 . 2
G R E E R 9 8 5 3 0 2 6 4 6 4 5 2 4 . 6 8 6 . 4 G R E 2 R 3 3 3 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 . 6 6 9 . 5
H A RM O N 4 9 0 2 0 5 9 2 9 6 8 1 9 . 2 0 5 * 9 HARM ON 1 8 3 8 7 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 . 4 7 9 . 8
H A R P E R 6 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 9 9 9 2 3 . 9 8 8 . 0 h a r p e r 2 7 7 I S l l 2 4 8 0 1 5 . 5 7 2 . 1
H A S K E L L 1 8 4 6 3 1 3 8 6 2 2 4 3 7 . C 8 0 . 1 H A S K E L L 1 0 7 4 1 7 6 5 5 3 0 1 3 7 . a 5 3 . 6
H U G H E S 2 9 3 9 4 1 8 1 8 2 2 5 3 7 . 8 8 1 . 7 H U G H E S 1 0 9 4 2 3 1 7 5 5 5 9 3 2 . 1 6 1 . 4
J A C K S O N 1 2 5 7 4 6 1 2 6 7 6 1 2 1 . 4 8 6 . 8 J A C K S O N 4 4 3 1 8 9 2 3 1 1 9 1 9 . 0 7 4 . 9
J E F F E R S O N 1 0 8 6 3 1 8 9 5 0 5 7 2 S . 4 8 4 . 5 J E F F E R S O N 4 5 3 1 6 6 6 3 1 9 6 2 1 . 4 6 6 . 3
J O 4 N 5 T 0 N 1 6 2 1 1 7 3 6 3 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 8 4 . 9 JO H N S T O N 5 9 2 1 5 5 0 3 3 9 6 2 7 . 6 6 3 . 1
K A Y 6 3 2 7 1 0 6 9 7 1 9 1 6 8 3 7 . 2 8 8 . 8 K A Y 2 3 9 0 8 4 9 1 1 4 7 7 5 2 2 . 0 7 3 . 6
K I N G F I S H E R 2 1 9 6 3 8 9 8 6 7 9 1 3 6 . 0 8 9 . 7 K I N G F I S H E R 6 9 1 4 0 9 7 6 1 8 4 1 4 . 4 7 7 . 4
K IO W A 1 7 4 9 4 8 7 8 7 4 8 3 2 6 . 4 8 8 . 6 K in W A 6 3 9 2 2 3 3 4 0 0 1 2 2 . 2 7 1 . 8
L A T IM E R 1 9 3 8 1 9 5 0 4 4 6 9 4 4 . 1 7 8 . 0 L A T I M E R 7 6 4 1 3 9 2 4 0 4 9 3 5 . 4 5 3 . 2
L E F L O R E 4 5 4 0 5 1 9 4 1 2 1 8 4 4 6 . 6 7 9 . 9 L E F L O R E 1 8 8 7 3 3 1 9 9 1 3 5 3 6 . 2 5 7 . 0
L I N C O L N 3 0 9 6 6 8 7 4 1 1 7 4 8 3 1 . 1 9 4 . 9 L I N C O L N 1 4 3 6 5 5 1 7 1 0 6 5 5 2 0 . 7 6 5 . 3
L O G A N 3 3 0 0 S 7 7 6 1 0 5 2 2 3 6 . 4 8 6 . 3 ■ L O G A N 1 7 0 4 4 6 1 9 9 3 6 3 2 6 . 9 6 7 . 5
L O V E 8 1 4 1 5 4 7 2 7 8 8 3 4 . 5 8 4 . 7 L O V E 3 0 9 8 9 8 1 9 3 6 2 5 . 6 6 2 . 3
M C C L A IN 1 5 7 8 2 9 6 0 5 3 3 0 3 4 . 8 a s . i M C C L A IN 4 2 4 1 4 0 4 2 5 6 3 2 3 . 2 7 1 . 3
M C C U R T A IN 2 5 9 2 2 9 6 9 6 2 8 4 5 0 . 2 8 2 . 1 M C C J R T A I N 9 0 2 1 8 1 9 4 1 1 4 3 3 . I 6 6 . 1
M C IN T O S H 2 5 1 4 2 5 2 0 6 6 1 6 4 9 . 9 7 6 . 1 N C IN T O S H 1 0 7 4 2 0 5 7 5 5 9 8 3 4 . 3 S S . 9
M A JO R 6 6 1 3 2 4 5 4 3 2 5 1 7 . 3 9 0 . 8 M A JO R 3 9 3 2 7 6 0 4 1 2 4 1 2 . 5 7 6 . 5
M A R S H A L L 9 1 0 1 9 4 3 3 9 9 9 3 1 . 9 7 1 . 3 MARS H A L L 2 2 3 9 0 9 1 7 4 5 1 9 . 7 6 4 . 9
M A Y E S 2 3 6 0 3 1 0 6 6 0 0 6 4 3 . 2 8 0 . 3 M A Y E S 1 0 2 8 2 4 3 2 6 2 7 7 2 9 . 7 5 5 . 1
M U R R A Y 1 3 2 5 2 1 3 1 4 1 C 4 3 8 . 3 8 4 . 2 M U R R A Y 5 6 4 1 2 9 9 2 9 7 9 3 0 . 3 6 2 . 5
M U S K O G E E 9 3 7 9 7 6 4 5 2 0 3 3 0 5 5 . 1 8 3 . 7 M U S K O G E E 3 0 1 3 5 4 2 8 1 2 8 9 7 3 5 . 7 6 5 . 4
N O B L E 1 6 8 3 3 9 8 9 6 7 6 0 2 9 . 7 8 3 . 9 N O B L E 8 0 9 3 1 8 8 5 4 7 0 2 0 . 2 7 3 . 1
N O W A TA 2 2 8 3 2 9 8 1 6 2 7 8 4 3 . 4 8 3 . 8 NOW ATA 1 0 7 9 2 4 4 7 5 9 2 3 3 0 . 6 5 9 . 5
O K F U S K E E 2 3 5 1 3 5 8 4 7 1 8 9 3 9 . 6 8 2 . 6 O K F U S K E E 1 3 3 9 2 2 2 9 5 3 7 8 3 7 . 5 6 6 . 3
O K L A H O M A 3 0 3 8 6 3 8 6 3 0 7 6 4 6 3 4 4 . 0 9 0 * 3 OKLAHOM A 7 7 5 1 2 6 3 6 4 4 4 4 1 9 2 2 . 7 7 6 . 8
O K M U L G E E 8 3 2 4 6 5 1 4 1 7 4 0 7 5 6 . 1 8 5 . 2 O K M U L G E E 3 7 4 4 4 6 8 4 1 2 0 4 5 4 4 . 4 7 0 . 0
O S A G E 8 1 4 7 5 4 1 6 1 5 3 4 0 6 0 . 1 8 8 . 4 O S A G E 1 9 8 3 3 8 1 8 8 2 4 5 3 4 . 2 7 0 . 4
O T T A W A 6 1 4 7 4 5 9 6 1 2 6 3 3 5 7 . 2 8 5 . 0 O T T A W A 2 5 2 0 3 9 9 0 1 0 6 4 3 3 8 . 7 6 t . 2
P A W N E E 2 6 2 7 3 5 7 8 7 3 3 6 4 2 . 3 8 4 . 6 p a w n e e 1 1 5 9 3 0 4 9 6 4 4 4 2 7 . 5 6 5 . 3
P A Y N E 3 5 3 6 7 8 4 5 1 3 5 4 4 3 1 . 1 8 4 . 0 , P A Y N E 1 9 1 5 4 7 4 2 9 4 7 4 2 8 . 6 7 0 . 3
P I T T S B U R G 4 8 7 3 6 9 4 8 1 3 9 8 9 4 1 . 2 8 4 . 5 P I T T S B U R G 1 7 7 7 4 1 0 5 8 8 1 3 3 0 . 2 6 6 . 7
P O N T O T O C 3 0 7 9 5 8 1 0 1 0 3 7 2 3 4 . 6 8 5 . 7 P O N T O T O C 9 2 6 2 7 9 5 5 1 0 9 2 4 . 9 7 2 . 8
P O T T A W A r O M I E 5 5 6 0 9 5 1 0 1 7 2 5 5 3 6 . 9 8 7 . 3 P O T T A W A T O M IE 2 6 5 0 6 7 7 9 1 5 3 1 8 2 8 . 1 6 1 . 6
P U S H M A T A H A 1 5 1 7 1 7 4 7 « 6 6 6 4 6 . 5 7 0 . 0 P U SH M A T A H A 8 5 9 1 7 5 4 4 9 2 8 3 3 . 6 5 3 . 6
R O G E R M I L L S 9 8 2 2 9 2 6 4 5 6 5 2 5 . 1 9 5 . 6 R O G E R M IL L S 5 5 1 1 6 4 3 3 2 0 3 2 5 . 1 6 8 . 5
R O G E R S 3 0 0 0 3 4 7 1 7 6 9 4 4 6 . 4 8 4 . 1 R O G Î R S 1 1 6 7 2 5 9 4 6 0 9 1 3 1 . 0 6 1 . 7
S E M I N O L E 5 9 4 3 7 0 7 3 1 6 1 1 9 4 5 . 7 8 0 . 7 S E M IN O L E 2 2 5 3 3 8 9 2 9 9 1 5 3 6 . 7 6 2 . 0
S E O U O Y A H 2 8 3 3 2 5 7 5 7 2 7 0 5 2 . 4 7 4 . 4 S F O U O Y A H 1 1 3 5 2 0 4 4 6 3 6 3 3 5 . 7 5 0 . 0
S T E P H E N S 2 0 6 9 S 0 9 4 8 2 0 0 2 8 . 9 6 7 . 4 S T F O M E N S 7 1 8 3 2 8 7 5 3 6 6 1 7 . 9 7 4 . 6
T E X A S 9 1 4 3 1 0 7 « 5 7 7 2 2 . 7 8 7 . 9 T E X A S 6 5 1 1 7 0 9 3 9 4 6 2 7 . 6 5 9 . 8
T IL L M A N 1 2 3 8 4 6 1 4 6 5 2 7 2 1 . 2 8 9 . 7 T IL L M A N 4 6 5 1 8 6 3 3 4 2 8 2 0 . 0 6 7 . 9
T U L S A 3 6 5 6 5 2 6 4 0 1 7 1 0 2 3 5 8 . 1 8 8 . 7 T U L S A 8 0 5 1 1 7 8 4 8 3 5 2 7 1 3 1 . 1 7 3 . 4
W A GONER 2 1 4 8 2 1 5 1 5 2 3 * 5 0 . 0 8 2 . 1 w a g o n e r 7 0 9 2 0 3 9 4 3 3 0 2 5 . 8 6 3 . 5
W A S H IN G T O N 4 4 9 8 9 8 0 8 1 1 7 9 1 4 3 . 6 H 7 . 4 W A S H IN G T O N 2 1 1 5 4 3 1 7 9 4 1 0 3 2 . 9 6 8 . 4
W A S H IT A 1 4 2 6 4 8 3 9 7 1 6 0 2 2 . 8 8 7 . 5 W A S H IT A 5 7 6 2 1 1 3 3 6 8 3 2 1 . 4 7 3 . 0
W O OOS 1 3 2 0 4 7 1 7 6 6 9 0 2 1 . 9 9 0 . 2 WOODS 8 5 5 3 5 7 6 6 1 9 3 1 9 . 3 7 1 . 5
W OOOW ARO 1 1 7 8 4 1 7 3 6 0 1 2 2 2 . 0 8 9 . 0 W OODWARD 6 8 9 2 9 9 9 5 0 5 1 1 8 . 7 7 3 . 0
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANS MEANS nTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANS MEANS
T E S NO VOTE VES PART T F S NQ VOTE YES PART
2 6 7 2 8 5 S 3 7 A 2 9
455
TABLE D-51
PIN BAIL MACHINCS OLEOMARGARINE TAX
CffN GLECT NOV m# 3# GEN ELECT NOV «• 3S
REP PET 071 REJECT ST.Q. 216 REF PET 073 REJECT ST.O. 236
COUNTY YES NO TOTAL XYES XPART COUNTY YES NO TOTAL XYES XPART
AOAIR ton 2028 6092 34.6 50.9 AOAIR 1398 1772 6092 44.1 52.0
ALFALFA 739 3744 5528 16.5 81 .1 alfalfa 1362 3275 5528 29.4 83.9
ATOKA flOt 1797 4000 30.8 64.9 ATOKA 1066 1539 4000 40.9 65.1
BBEECAKVER
437 2110 3496 17.2 72.9 REAVER 793 1824 3496 30.3 74.9
MAN 566 2292 3940 20.4 73.0 BECdMAM 1069 1930 3940 35.6 76.1
BLAINE 955 3509 6129 21.4 72.8 BLAINE 1536 3100 6129 33.1 75.6
BRYAN 1106 3179 5788 25.8 74 . 0 BRYAN 1757 2627 5788 40. 1 75. 7
CAOOO 1448 5828 10013 19.9 72.7 CAOOO 2360 5285 10013 30 .9 76.4
CANADIAN 1517 4477 7969 25.3 75.2 CANADIAN 3017 3492 7969 46.4 81 .7
CARTER 1541 3394 7383 31 .2 66.8 CARTER 2206 3107 7383 41.5 72.0
CHEROKEE 668 2604 6469 25.0 53.7 CHEROKEE 1400 2239 6469 38.5 56 . 3
CMOCTA* 860 1871 4494 31.5 60.8 CHOCTAW 1249 1586 4494 4 4 . 1 63.1
CIMARRON 239 880 1773 21.4 63.1 CIMARRON 586 633 1773 46.8 67.1
CLEVELAND 778 2995 4970 20.6 75.9 CLEVELAND 1904 2101 4970 47.5 60.6
COAL 412 1101 2025 27.2 74.7 COAL 623 944 2025 39.8 77.4
COMANCHE 1553 4319 8133 26.4 72.2 COMANCHE 2428 3590 8133 40.3 74.0
COTTON 477 1743 3155 21.5 70.4 COTTON 741 1541 3155 32.5 72.3
CRAIG 1134 2030 6301 35 .8 50.2 CRAIG 1712 2593 6301 39.8 68.3
CREEK 3564 7256 16091 32.9 67.2 CREEK 659S 4917 16091 57.3 71.S
CUSTER 914 3400 5660 21.2 76.2 CUSTER 1716 2749 5660 38.4 78.9
DELAVARS BBS 2265 6100 28.1 51.6 DELAWARE 1459 1974 6100 42.5 56.3
OEWEY 643 2548 4363 20.2 73. 1 OEWEY 1064 2203 4363 32.6 74.9
ELLIS 419 2146 3420 16.3 75.0 ELLIS 603 1994 3420 23.2 75.9
GARFIELD 2734 9668 15710 21.7 80.2 GARFIELD 5318 8083 15710 39.7 85.3
GARVIN 724 2981 4874 19.5 76.0 GARVIN 1326 2644 4874 33.4 81 .5
GRAOY 1281 4031 6873 24.1 77.3 GRADY 2621 3095 6873 45. 9 83.2
GRANT 720 3922 5633 15.5 82.4 GRANT 1538 3267 5633 32.0 85.3
GREER 386 1264 2221 23.4 74.3 GREER 781 974 2221 44.5 79.0
HARMON 197 852 1321 18.6 79 . 4 HARMON 429 690 1321 38.3 84.7
HARPER 322 1527 2480 17.4 74.6 HARPER 480 1482 2480 24.5 79.1
HASKELL 903 2048 5301 30.6 55.7 HASKELL 1257 1749 5301 41.8 56.7
HUGHES 875 2649 5559 24.8 63.4 HUGHES 1612 2081 5559 43.7 66.4
JACKSON 397 2024 3119 16.4 77.6 JACKSON 998 1530 3119 39.5 81 .1
JEFFERSON 428 1778 3196 19.4 69.0 JEFFERSON 815 1459 3196 35.8 71.2
jomsroN 520 1694 3396 23.5 65.2 JOHNSTON 852 1501 3396 36.2 69.3
KAY 2805 6647 14775 24.5 77.5 KAY 6157 5967 14775 50.8 82.1
KINGFISHER 671 4 052 6184 17.7 79.6 KINGF ISHER 1867 3580 6184 30.4 83.2
KIOWA 692 2354 4001 22.7 76.1 KIOWA 1092 2109 4001 34.1 80.0
LATIMER 676 1545 4049 30.4 54.9 LATIMER 996 1337 4049 42.7 57.6
LE FLORE 1702 4044 9135 29.6 62.9 LE FLORE 2462 3041 9135 4 4 . 7 60.2
LINCOLN 1314 5715 10655 16.7 66.0 LINCOLN 2443 5109 10655 32.3 70.9
LOGAN 1850 4943 9363 27.2 72.6 LOGAN 2753 4328 9363 38.9 75.6
LOVE 289 947 1936 23.4 63.8 LOVE 510 826 1936 38.2 69.0
MCCLAIN 421 1574 2563 21.1 77.8 MCCLAIN 735 1298 2563 36.2 79.3
MCCURTAIN 758 2114 4114 26.4 69.8 MCCURTAIN 1352 1549 4114 46.6 70.5
MC INTOSH 946 2226 5598 29.8 56.7 MCINTOSH 1289 1916 5598 40.2 57.3
MAJOR 469 2862 4124 14.1 80.8 MAJOR 640 2614 4124 24.3 83.8
MARSHALL 269 953 1745 22.0 70.0 MARSHALL 302 1070 1745 22.0 78.6
MAYES 1018 2627 6277 27.9 58.1 MAYES 1540 2283 6277 40.3 60.9
MURRAY 547 1326 2979 29.2 62.9 MURRAY 849 1212 2979 41.2 69.2
MUSKOGEE 2857 5544 12897 34.0 65.1 MUSKOGEE 4510 4349 12697 50.9 68.7
NOBLE 631 3316 5470 20.0 75.6 NOBLE 1621 2767 5470 36.9 80.2
NOWATA 1085 2629 5923 29 .2 62.7 NOWATA 1904 2212 5923 46.3 69.5
OKFUSKEE 1105 2465 6378 31.0 66.4 OKFUSKEE 1813 2090 5378 46.5 72.6
OKLAHOMA 9307 25527 44419 26.7 78.4 OKLAHOMA 23300 14515 44419 61 .6 85.1
OKMULGEE 3215 S3S1 12045 37.5 71 .1 OKMULGEE 5446 3429 12045 61.4 73.7
OSAGE 2143 3954 8245 35. 1 73.9 OSAGE 3880 2658 8245 59.3 79.3
OTTAWA 2218 4501 10643 33.0 63.1 OTTAWA 4218 3241 10643 56.5 70.1
PAWNEE 1145 3308 6444 25.7 69.1 PAWNEE 2110 2563 6444 45.2 72.5
PAYNE 1484 5537 9474 21. 1 74.1 , PAYNE 3059 4237 9474 41.9 77.0
PITTSBURG 1711 4689 8813 26.7 72.6 PITTSBURG 2935 3528 8813 45.4 73.3
PONTOTOC 811 3047 5109 21.0 75.5 PONTOTOC 1 786 2180 5109 45.0 77.6POTTAWATCMIE 2891 6985 15318 29.3 64.5 POTTAWATOMIE 5034 5253 15318 48.9 67.2
PUSHMATAHA 699 2069 4928 25.3 56.2 PUSHMATAHA 1080 1719 4928 38.6 56.8
ROGER MILLS 426 1950 3203 17.9 74.2 ROGER MILLS 640 1878 3203 25.4 78.6
ROGERS 1085 2865 6091 27.3 65.2 ROGERS 1832 2323 6091 44.1 68.2
SE Ml NOLE 1927 4523 9915 29.9 65.1 SEMINOLE 3491 3155 9915 52.5 67.0
SEQUOYAH 1032 2239 6363 11.S 51.4 SEQUOYAH 1448 2032 6363 41 .6 54.7
STEPHENS 751 3356 5366 18.3 76.5 STEPHENS 1561 2782 5366 35.9 80.9
TEXAS 594 2002 39 46 22.9 65.8 TEXAS 1259 1469 3946 46.2 69. 1
TILLMAN 454 2036 3428 18.2 72. 7 TILLMAN 1138 1486 3428 43.4 76.5
TULSA 8632 181 19 35271 32.3 75 .8 TULSA 19942 9112 35271 68. 6 82.4
WAGONER 695 2169 4330 24.3 66.1 WAGONER 1075 1973 4330 35.3 70.4
WASHINGTON 2163 4643 9410 31.8 72.3 WASHINGTON 4270 2931 9410 39.3 76.5
WA S H 1 TA 500 2380 3683 17.4 79 .2 WASHITA 837 2117 3683 28.3 80.2
WOODS 663 3741 6193 18.7 74.3 WOODS 1668 3062 6193 35.1 76.7
WOODWARD 675 3232 5051 17.3 77.4 WOOOWARO 1234 2909 5051 29.8 82.0
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANX MEANX TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MEANX MEANX
TES NO VOTE YES PART YES NO VOTE YES PART
2 9 0E 8A T O .4 1 6 4 6 1 9 2 1 5 7 9 9 4 6 .1
456
table D-52
T A X CaMMISSIONeX TCACHER PET: HE WENT
e C N E L E C T N O V S > 3 8 OEM ELECT NOV 8. 38
C P » C T 0 ? S R E J E C T S T # 0 * 2 3 8 L E G R E P 0 7 6 R E J E C T s r . Q . 2 4 2
C O U N T Y Y E S N O T O T A L S Y E S % P A * T C O U N T Y Y E S N O t o t a l S Y E S A P A R T
A O A tY l O A S 1 8 0 3 6 0 9 2 3 6 . 1 4 8 . 4 A O A IR 1 7 7 9 1 7 7 1 6 0 9 2 5 0 . 1 9 6 . 3
A L P A L P A 8 7 # 3 3 3 8 9 9 2 8 2 0 . 8 7 6 . 3 A L F A L F A I 9 6 0 2 9 6 6 9 9 2 8 3 4 . 6 8 2 . 0
ATO K A 8 2 9 1 9 3 4 4 0 0 0 3 9 . 0 9 9 . 0 A T O K A 1 2 1 4 1 9 6 0 4 0 0 0 4 3 . 8 6 9 . 3
8 E A V P » 9 3 9 1 9 7 9 3 4 9 6 2 1 . 4 7 2 . 0 B E A V E R 9 3 8 1 6 9 8 3 4 9 6 3 6 . 1 7 4 . 3
8E C K H A M 5 8 2 2 1 9 3 3 9 4 0 2 1 . 0 7 0 . 4 b e g » C fHflHUl(>A r M m m m
M 9 r * r
0o o X oo Aa
a ca 33223 8
; Z z az V>*r« > Vz co z ma m tA 8»Sr z fl » m < fi(Aa XZ :3S9333 So z Z > p X > 8"B-4 >H
zn
(Az m
rr >z l û
•Û( N u M ro A) K rv> A)A»A) to M A)U(lA» oV* NM a» aa Oa "fgu4a» aa M ua aa aa AU)wa o o 0 « aa a a M*4a A aO •«44oa Aa)wa a•j| a tao a a a a to± toa A» a 4 toa a A»a a a 3 a a to a a«4uw M a •*a a a a a 5 « N M a a a 4 a a a taoa aa a aa aa aa toaa aa aa taoaa 44 aa o t4oa4 O4 a a to5toaa aa aa 4a in
sq N u » a s a a M ow a *M NOM IV» fVJ U p. pp A»A pp p.
M » fS
S Ul o o a N a 4)a aa aww a as ae a0 N (o4aA»«M4O a O a 4 a o 4 A*
)t
Ul» 4
o
» 4 4 A»
A)Aa»A) A At AlAlaIo a t to Al M A
u w u o u o a M M W a s o A) a M A a a a w A» a Ma NW a wo ea 4 taoa otoAa»a a a4 Aa»a4 ao atoa4 atoa a aa Ma a t
ooatoa0 At»oaAla4 aa Aalatoa a a aa too 4 a a a a tototaoaa A4l §
IV» M» 1* o» a a♦ a a w u ».# m a w (4 u a aUl u a a N a A»N a N a a u A>topp* » B♦ a W u a a M4»as a aa wa aa a ao Na a aa as 0a oo 4 ao toato atoa
44 aa 4 toa a a N a a a a aa a O AO toa Ao»oa O4 toaa a a tao4a aa Atoaa a
a
s s a
a atotAol a o ato4 Al4 3
Ï M » IV»w o
1»» a M a w u w '"j** u 4) u o o a•4 a a w •*43 4 a a a a a a A»a a 4 oa a a A)•*4 4 a a toA»a a a taoA4lAlO *a aa taoAol•• P
•o “S ♦ » » o» Ul» oa N ao a Na a a a
ri
• » rv» u a % a«ws wa a Ma aw au ae aa aM pM aa 1a4aa Ma ao g a a aa a aa a pa AtIotaoa aa a4 a oaA» a aa a aa aa a a a to a a a• • # • # A»
aa A*toa a a a a a a
« "" o a B a a a a 14o a u a a a N (4a a a a a a o (4M 4a a a to 4 e A»a 4â e ""to•*A»a a a a « a» • • •»a Al4 a aâ•••• w K
o