A call for civility | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/5122/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAzADgA)

True or False. This MAPS (3) is structured the SAME way as the original MAPS (1) and MAPS 4 KIDS, except the ballot has been changed because of lawsuits. This MAPS (3) has the SAME legal requirements in place as the original MAPS (1) and MAPS 4 Kids.

Actually, false.

Urbanity has cited both state statue and city charter issues which have me convinced that the single-subject rule actually does apply to OKC.

Actually, false.

Urbanity has cited both state statue and city charter issues which have me convinced that the single-subject rule actually does apply to OKC.

Here's the one from Midtowner

Urban Pioneer stated: "The "single-subject rule" means that you can't list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1".

Thats not exactly true. They could have listed the multiple projects on a single ballot as was done with MAPS 1 without violating the single-subject rule, the exception being, that each of the multiple projects would have required a separate vote. In MAPS 1 you had to vote for "all or none" of the multiple projects on a single ballot.

The fact of the matter is this. The Mayor and Council knew that a separate vote on each project would mean that certain projects would have been rejected. That is a fact, period. The Convention Center would have been rejected. The Chamber was not going to allow that to happen, and that's a fact.

Here is another fact. To call all of these multiple projects Capital Improvements so they could claim the ballot only contained a "single-subject", and then force the voter to vote for all or none, is a blatant circumvention the law, nothing more, or nothing less. Although this is a chicken **** tactic on the City's part, sadly to say it is most likely legal, but it should be criminal.

If not mistaken it was Mid that showed the problem they were trying to avoid ran them smack dab into the constitutional requirement that it be specific in the projects?? Something that is definitely missing in this Ballot/ordinance. If it was someone else, I apologize in advance.

A call for civility | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/5122/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAzADgA)

:congrats::congrats::congrats:

If not mistaken it was Mid that showed the problem they were trying to avoid ran them smack dab into the constitutional requirement that it be specific in the projects?? Something that is definitely missing in this Ballot/ordinance. If it was someone else, I apologize in advance.

No one knows what Article 10 Section 19 really means though. The single subject language, not the statutes or the city charter which apply to OKC, but the same language nonetheless, now have extensive case law giving us fair notice that things which violate the single subject rule won't pass muster. In fact, we actually know specifically that "capital improvements" isn't enough for everything to be the same subject because such a measure has actually been struck down very recently.

As far as Article 10 Section 19 goes, at least pertaining to the language requiring the ballot to distinctly specify (or specify distinctly, I forget) where the money goes could very well be satisfied by the capital improvements language. It's doubtful though since that language means nothing as far as I can tell... in fact it could mean anything. Nevertheless, the courts give a great deal of deference to acts of the legislature and extend the same to votes of the people. The question here I guess is how much deference... and the answer is anyone's guess.

The logrolling aspect of this ballot was pretty obvious. The city fathers think it's extremely important for the city's future to give us things which don't poll well. Regarding this, they were right in MAPS I as I recall some of the projects polled very poorly and some of those projects are now the most successful aspects of MAPS today. My bottom line is that I trust them to get it right again and the constitutional issues are out of my hands.

I take that to mean the Gazette won't be endorsing either side.