In Re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627 , 61 O.B.A.J. 1641 ( 1990 )

OPALA, Vice Chief Justice,

concurring in result.

I concur only insofar as the court declares today that the measure under consideration qualifies for submission to a vote of the electorate and modifies the ballot title. My commitment to the teachings of Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okl. 403, 109 P. 558 [1910], remains undiminished. See In re Initiative Petition No. 315 etc., Okl., 649 P.2d 545, 554-555 (Opala, J., concurring in result), where I call for the court’s abandonment of present-day practice, first introduced into our jurisprudence by In re Supreme Court Adjudication etc., 534 P.2d 3, 8 [Okl.1975], which allows the constitutional validity of a measure’s contents to be challenged in advance of the initiative petition’s adoption by the people.