2010 Oklahoma State Question 755
State Question 755, also known as the Save Our State Amendment, was a legislatively-referred ballot measure held in the U.S. state of Oklahoma on November 2, 2010, as part of the 2010 Oklahoma elections. The ballot measure was intended to amend the Oklahoma state constitution to ban the use of Sharia law, and international law, from being used by courts within the state. Sharia law had not previously been used in Oklahoma, with the ballot measure being promoted as a "pre-emptive strike".
The ballot measure was used by conservatives in the state to motivate their base and increase their voter turnout. The ballot measure passed with over 70% of the vote, and Oklahoma Republicans defeated many Democrats in the simultaneous state elections, especially in rural areas. However, despite its electoral victory, the ballot measure never went into effect. Soon after the amendment passed, Muneer Awad, a local member of the Council on American–Islamic Relations, filed a federal lawsuit claiming the amendment violated his rights under the Establishment Clause. A federal court agreed and struck down the amendment. Continued legislative efforts in 2011 and 2012 to introduce a similar amendment were unsuccessful.
Background
Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, anti-Muslim sentiment became more common in the United States. Sharia law, derived from Islam, came under increasing scrutiny, especially as Sharia law as practiced in many countries authorizes severe punishments for acts such as adultery and the consumption of alcohol. However, Sharia law can exist as a source of ethical inspiration for individual Muslims, in line with the Quran, and applying Sharia principles for that purpose does not necessarily entail a radical legal system. In 2010, Muslims were a small share of the state's population, with the Oklahoma Council on American–Islamic Relations estimating that between 15,000 and 30,000 Muslims lived in the state.A few cases in the 2000s in the United States where Sharia law played some role were also cited by opponents of Sharia law. Most famously, in 2010, a woman in New Jersey was denied a restraining order against her husband after she alleged that he raped her; her husband argued that he was acting in accordance with his religious beliefs in forcing her to have sex. This ruling was issued even though there was sufficient evidence present to prove sexual assault. The ruling was quickly overturned, but it gained significant national attention, and inspired Oklahoma lawmakers to pursue a ban on the use of Sharia law in their state. After the amendment passed, Oklahoma's solicitor general, Patrick R. Wyrick, cited this case as part of his attempt to defend the amendment in court.
Legislative history
The amendment was introduced as House Joint Resolution 1056 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. State Representative Rex Duncan was the primary author of the amendment, with Mike Reynolds, Ann Coody, Sue Tibbs, David Derby, Sally Kern, Randy Terrill, John Enns, Mike Christian, George Faught, Lewis H. Moore, and Charles Key as coauthors in the House, and with Anthony Sykes and Randy Brogdon as coauthors in the Oklahoma Senate. Duncan argued the ban would be a "pre-emptive strike against Sharia law" as Oklahoma would be the first state to enact such a ban. Sykes also brought up comments Elena Kagan made during her Supreme Court nomination where she expressed an openness to considering international law while hearing cases.The resolution was first voted on in the House on March 10, 2010, passing 91–2 on its third reading, with 8 absences. The measure then passed the Senate on April 20 by a margin of 40–5, with 3 absences. The resolution went back to the House for its fourth reading on May 18, where it passed 82–10, with 9 absences; it was again approved by the Senate on May 24 by a margin of 41–2, with 5 absences.
Contents
The state legislature named the proposal the "Save Our State Amendment" and sent it to the state's ballots with the following ballot title:The proposal would add the following text to the Section 1 of Article VII of the state constitution:
However, as the ballot title did not explain what Sharia law or international law were, Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson deemed it inadequate and replaced it with a more explanatory ballot title. In Oklahoma, ballot titles are legally significant: ambiguity in ballot language can lead to amendments being struck down or otherwise litigated in state courts even if the text added to the state constitution is unambiguous. The proposal was therefore listed on ballots as follows:
On August 9, governor Brad Henry officially placed the amendment on statewide ballots with the rewritten title. The amendment was numbered and listed on ballots as State Question 755 and as Legislative Referendum 355.
Support and opposition
The amendment was supported by most legislators, with only ten in the House and two in the Senate voting against the measure. All opponents in the House were Democrats, though 24 Democrats in the House supported the measure. ACT for America, a conservative advocacy group led by activist Brigitte Gabriel, strongly supported the measure, with Gabriel visiting the state to make multiple speeches in favor of the amendment. The group's campaign efforts also included a minute-long radio ad – which cited the New Jersey rape case as a "chilling example of how Islamic Sharia law has begun to penetrate America", and robocalls from former CIA director James Woolsey. The Tulsa Beacon, a conservative newspaper, endorsed the measure.Democratic state representative Cory Williams, one of the opponents of the measure, argued that it was unnecessary and singled out Muslims. Chris White, the executive director of governmental affairs of the Osage Nation, expressed concerns that the measure could undermine treaty rights established in U.S.–Native American treaties. Several religious groups also opposed the measure, with Saad Mohammed, the director of information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, arguing that the measure was unnecessary and only targeted Muslims without a good reason.
Many newspapers in the state opposed the measure. The Oklahoman opposed the amendment, describing it as an unnecessary "feel-good measure". The Enid News & Eagle similarly opposed it, noting that state and federal law is already the only law used in Oklahoma. Tulsa World described the measure as bigoted, and The Oklahoma Daily described it as Islamophobic.
Polling
conducted polling on State Question 755, as well as other state questions, in July and October. Each poll found the measure leading by a significant margin.| Poll source | Dates administered | Sample size | Margin of error | Support Question 755 | Oppose Question 755 | Don't know/refused | Lead |
| SoonerPoll | October 18–23, 2010 | 753 | ± 3.57% | 57% | 24% | 19% | 33 |
| SoonerPoll | October 3–7, 2010 | 352 | ± 5.2% | 45% | 25% | 30% | 20 |
| SoonerPoll | July 16–21, 2010 | 755 | ± 3.57% | 49% | 24% | 27% | 25 |
Results
The amendment was approved by 70% of voters. Support was high across the state, with more than 60% of voters supporting it in every county.The referendum, held alongside the other 2010 Oklahoma elections on November 2, was used as a wedge issue by Republicans in some races. Republicans campaigned against Cory Williams, a prominent opponent of the measure in the Oklahoma House, by sending out mail advertisements suggesting he supported using Islamic law in the state. The referendum also succeeded in driving high Republican turnout, leading to many statewide and downballot victories, especially against more conservative Democrats from rural areas. Other conservative-aligned ballot measures also passed, including State Question 751, making English the state's official language.
Aftermath
Despite passing by a wide margin, the amendment never took effect due to legal challenges. Further efforts to pass a similar amendment were unsuccessful.Court proceedings
After its passage, the amendment was scheduled to go into effect on November 9, when the election would be certified. However, on November 4, Muneer Awad, a local leader of the Council on American–Islamic Relations, sued the Oklahoma State Election Board to stop the amendment from being enacted. He said that he wanted his estate to be dealt with under Islamic law, and that a ban on Islamic law would therefore violate his rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case, Awad v. Ziriax, was filed against the state's election board as it was the entity responsible for certifying the results of the amendment. Awad was supported in his lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.A temporary restraining order was issued on November 9, preventing the amendment from going into effect while the court ruled on Awad's request for a preliminary injunction. Vicki Miles-LaGrange, a judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, issued a preliminary injunction on November 29, 2010. The injunction was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where it was upheld on January 10, 2012. The amendment was struck down in its entirety by Miles-LaGrange on August 15, 2013, with her finding that the law clearly violated the First Amendment. Oklahoma officials argued that only the Sharia prohibition in the law could be struck down, while leaving the rest intact, but Miles-LaGrange found that as most campaigning regarding the amendment focused on Sharia law, there was insufficient evidence that it would have been approved by voters without the Sharia prohibitions.