Michael L. Smith (University of Oklahoma – College of Law) has posted Oklahoma’s Mandatory Constitutional Convention Referendum (Oklahoma Law Review, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The Oklahoma Constitution requires that every twenty years, voters must decide whether to convene a convention to amend, revise, or replace the state constitution. But this mandate has been neglected for decades. The last vote over holding a convention took place in 1970. Oklahoma’s governor recently proclaimed that a vote over a convention will be held in early 2027, prompting debate over the meaning of Oklahoma’s convention referendum mandate and who has the authority to put the convention vote before the people—particularly when the legislature has refrained from authorizing such a vote well past the constitutional deadline.
Inspired by this turn of events, this article takes a deep dive into Oklahoma’s convention referendum mandate, exploring its text, its historical origins and application, and its context within the state constitution as a whole and among thirteen other state constitutions with similar provisions. Oklahoma’s convention referendum mandate is abstract and lacking in detail, which necessitates this complex interpretive exercise. This involved treatment also provides context and perspective for those hoping to better understand Oklahoma’s convention provision, how the provision fits within the broader structure and functions of the state constitution, and how the modern dispute over the state constitutional convention compares with similar debates in past decades.
Beyond informing immediate debates over calling a convention vote, this article suggests paths to reform. Thirteen other states mandate recurring convention votes, and most of their constitutional provisions contain details over who must call the vote, what the convention question must look like, and how the convention must be convened. These states offer models for constitutional or legislative reform that might head off future disputes over the meaning of Oklahoma’s convention provision. Finally, this article explores how Oklahoma’s past applications and present neglect of the recurring convention referendum inform debates over the value of state constitutional conventions, including the role they play in ensuring popular representation in increasingly unrepresentative state governments.
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum