Tulsa, USA - The author of a bill authorizing the placement of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds says it's likely to become law even if Gov. Brad Henry vetoes it.
"The way it looks from previous votes, I would expect (Henry) would sign it because I would think we'd have the votes for an override," said Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.
A final version of the bill passed the Oklahoma House, 83-2, on Thursday morning, after the Senate voted for it, 37-9, on April 20.
Democrats Dennis Bailey of Broken Bow and Wallace Collins of Norman cast the two dissenting votes. An unusual number of representatives 16 were counted as absent.
Henry, who in the past has indicated he does not want the monument to become a distraction from what he considers more substantive issues, remained noncommittal.
"We have not seen the final version of the bill and will not make a decision until we have had a chance to review it," said Henry spokesman Paul Sund.
A two-thirds vote is required to override a veto, meaning 68 votes are needed in the 101-member House or 32 votes are needed in the 48-member Senate.
Tamya Cox, program director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, said that organization does not expect a veto. She said the ACLU of Oklahoma has not decided whether it would challenge the measure if it becomes law.
Ritze has promised to pay for the 3-by-6-foot monument. He said a Texas organization, Liberty Legal Institute, will defend any challenges to the monument free of charge.
That decision, though, would be made by the state attorney general.
Ultimately, the monument's future may be determined by a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning a Ten Commandments monument on the Haskell County Courthouse grounds in Stigler. That display was ruled constitutional by a federal district court.
Cox said the pending appeals court ruling could determine whether the ACLU challenges.
"We expect that to come down in the next several weeks," she said. "We probably won't make a decision until then."
Cox said the appeals court's reasoning in the case will be a bigger factor than the decision itself.
"Even if the Haskell County monument is found unconstitutional, it doesn't mean we would challenge this one," she said. "By the same token, if it is found constitutional, it doesn't mean we won't challenge this one."
Some critics of the proposed Capitol monument say the state Constitution is more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution. It includes a prohibition against the use of "public money or property ... directly or indirectly" for the "benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination or system of religion ...."