By Steve Byas

Attorney General Gentner Drummond declared that Governor Kevin Stitt acted outside his authority in ordering a state question, letting the people decide on April 6, 2027, whether to call for a constitutional convention. That is hardly news that Drummond opposes something proposed by Stitt. What would be news is if Drummond agreed with Stitt, even on something as trivial as saying the sun sets in the west.

Almost as unsurprising was that former Attorney General Drew Edmondson – a Democrat – agreed. “There should not be anything on the ballot as a result of this order,” Edmondson opined.

Stitt argued that he is simply enforcing a provision of the state Constitution that requires voters have the opportunity every 20 years to request a constitutional convention.

“SECTION XXIV-2

Constitutional convention to propose amendments or new constitution.

No convention shall be called by the Legislature to propose alterations, revisions, or amendments to this Constitution, or to propose a new Constitution, unless the law providing for such convention shall first be approved by the people on a referendum vote at a regular or special election, and any amendments, alterations, revisions, or new Constitution, proposed by such convention, shall be submitted to the electors of the State at a general or special election and be approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, before the same shall become effective: Provided, That the question of such proposed convention shall be submitted to the people at least once in every twenty years.”

“The Oklahoma Constitution is clear,” Stitt said in a media release. “At least every 20 years, Oklahomans have the right to decide whether it’s time to call a constitutional convention. It’s been 56 years since the question was sent to the people.”

Democrat, State Rep. Andy Fugate of Del City, said: “It’s just the latest example of this governor demonstrating just how little he’s learned in his eight years about the separation of powers that is the basis of American government.” Fugate suggested that Stitt could ask for a court order to force legislators to put the issue to a vote.

Perhaps Fugate needs to learn some civics, himself. If one reads the language in state Constitution, it is quite clear that putting the question to the people is not optional. “That the question of such proposed convention shall be submitted to the people at least once in every twenty years.” Notice that it says “shall” which means that this is a requirement, which binds everyone who takes an oath to follow the Constitution. It is not a suggestion. It is an order.

The legislators have been negligent in their duty for 36 years. The question was last on the ballot in 1970. Yes, they should have done what the Constitution required. But they have not.

The governor took an oath to follow the state Constitution. He is the chief executive officer of the state. It is his job to enforce the Constitution’s provisions. As such, he does not have to seek a court order. The statement of Fugate is typical of those who believe in judicial supremacy. They argue that only judges can interpret the clear wording of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that a governor has to wait for a judge before he can carry out his duty to follow the Constitution.

Yes, the Oklahoma Legislature should have followed the Constitution. And Oklahoma’s governors since 1990, both Democrat and Republican should have lived up to their oath and followed the Constitution, including Kevin Stitt, who waited until his last year in office to do his duty. Better late than never, I suppose.

If the Legislature passes a law, no one thinks it odd if the governor makes sure it is implemented. That is his job. But a mere statute is less than the Constitution itself. The Constitution is the law, and it has not been obeyed in 36 years.

Little was made of Governor Mary Fallin claiming executive authority to ban smoking in the Capitol. I don’t have a problem with a ban on smoking in the Capitol, but there was no law for Fallin to enforce. Governor Stitt issued an executive order to change the tenure system at some state institutions of higher education. Whether that was a good or bad policy, it was not his decision to make. Rather, it was the place of the Legislature or the state regents to do that.

I personally think the provision to have a convention every 20 years is a bad provision. But, I think there are lots of bad provisions in our state Constitution. It was crafted at the zenith of the progressive movement.

But good or bad, it is the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma. Stitt took an oath to follow it, and in this case, he has. He doesn’t need to ask a judge to enforce a statute, enacted by the Legislature. He certainly should not have to ask some judge to enforce the state Constitution.