The issue presented is whether Initiative Petition No. 358 is insufficient because the proposed legislative measure violates the Oklahoma Constitution. We find and hold that Initiative Petition No. 358 is sufficient and should be submitted to a vote of the people of the State of Oklahoma as State Question No. 658.

On April 19, 1993, Oklahoma Best, Inc., Douglas A. Branch and Melvin C. Hall (proponents) caused Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658 to be filed with the Secretary of State. The signed copies of the initiative pamphlets were returned to the Secretary of State within ninety days, on July 15, 1993.1 The Secretary of State made a physical count of the signatures and, on July 30, 1993, certified that the total number of valid signatures of Oklahoma registered voters is 197,798, and the total number of signatures required for an initiative petition is 111,229.2 The signatures appearing to be numerically sufficient,3 notice of the filing and time to protest was published on August 1, 1993. Within the time allowed, Dwayne Burrows of Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Larry Kettles of Guthrie, Oklahoma, David Vance of Edmond, Oklahoma, and David Murphy, Gary Simpson, Jeff True and Charles Wooden of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (protestants) filed their protest to Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658 on August 9, 1993.4 Pursuant to this Court’s order, protestants filed their brief in support of the protest on October 15,1993; proponents filed their response brief on November 15, 1993; and protestants filed their reply brief on November 29,1993. Additionally, on December 2, 1993, proponents filed an application requesting this Court to disregard the new issues raised in the reply brief and, on December 9, 1993, protestants filed their response to the application.

Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658 proposes enactment of the “Oklahoma Lottery Act” which consists of thirty-one sections including the short title, sever-ability clause and repealer of conflicting provisions. Review of the proposed statutory scheme reveals that its contents are generally explained in the suggested Ballot Title and the gist of the proposition set forth on the *784signature pages which provide:5

This measure would create a State Lottery. It would be operated by the Oklahoma Lottery Authority. The Authority would be run by a board of directors. The Governor would appoint the directors. The Authority would be an independent public body of the state. The Authority would be run with funds from the Lottery. It would not receive tax dollars. Around 50% of lottery money would go for prizes. The Authority would pay its own start-up costs. After that, it would give around 35% of the lottery money to the State. One-half of the State’s share would be used by the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology. At least 35% of the State’s share would be used for the capital needs of educational entities. The rest of the State’s share would be used for the capital needs of the State. The Authority would select people to sell lottery tickets. The Authority would choose the type of lottery games to be played. The Authority could not permit other forms of gambling. The’ State Lottery would be the only legal lottery. This measure contains many other laws. Those laws would regulate the Lottery and provide criminal penalties.

The protest and briefs in support assert that the proposed measure is unconstitutional on its face and that its implementation will violate our state constitution. The protestants contend that resolution of their constitutional challenges will avoid a needless election and spare the people of the futile effort of voting on a measure which could not be applied or enforced because its provisions are constitutionally unacceptable. Proponents respond that the proposed Lottery Act is not unconstitutional on its face, but if any provision is found to be facially invalid, that part should be stricken under the severability clause and the petition, as amended, should be submitted to a vote of the people. While agreeing with protestants that this Court may review the constitutional challenges to the proposed legislation, proponents argue that this Court may not withhold the proposed measure from the voters except upon a finding that the constitutional violation strikes at the very heart of the proposed measure.

This Court has jurisdiction to entertain protests to initiative petitions pursuant to Section 8 of Title 34 of the Oklahoma Statutes.6 Prior to 1973, protests were filed with the Secretary of the State and reviewed by this Court in original actions seeking extraordinary relief. With strict adherence to the separation of powers doctrine,7 judicial review of the contents of a measure proposed by an initiative petition and opinion upon the constitutionality thereof were withheld from the extraordinary relief available. Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403, 109 P. 558 (1910).8

*785With the 1973 statutory change, exception to the Threadgill rule of withholding pre-election determination of the constitutionality of the contents of a proposed legislative measure was carved out in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla. 1975). The exception to Threadgill v. Cross formulated in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma is grounded in the separation of powers doctrine, which prevents the Legislature from enjoining purely administrative duties upon this Court, and the inherent power of this Court, upon a proper request, to grant extraordinary relief from the costly expenditure of public revenues on a needless election.9 Subsequent to In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma and under its rule, federal constitutional challenges to the contents of proposed statutes10 and proposed constitutional amendments11 and state constitutional challenges to the contents of proposed constitutional amendments12 have been reviewed to prevent costly expenditure of public revenues on needless elections.

The doctrine of separation of powers 13 prevents judicial interference with the initiative law-making process with the same force that it prevents legislative restriction upon this court’s inherent powers. In accordance with the notions of separation of powers, we have consistently confined our pre-election review of initiative petitions under 34 O.S.Supp.1993, § 8 to clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities.14 Constitutional *786challenges to the interpretation, implementation or application of an initiative proposal present nothing more than abstract questions and will not be reviewed through this Court’s inherent power to grant relief from costly expenditure of public revenues on needless elections.15

Previously this Court reviewed the contents of an initiative measure proposing a statutory scheme for a state lottery and determined the initiative petition to be invalid. In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 776 P.2d 556 (Okla. 1989). In that case, the proposed statutes would have allowed the Lottery Commission to distribute lottery proceeds for public purposes without any guidelines as to the object or state agency to be benefitted or the amounts to be disbursed. We held that the proposed measure, on its face, would delegate the purely legislative power of appropriation contrary to Art. IV, § 1 and Art. V, § 55, Okla. Const.

The protestants rely on In re Initiative Petition No. 332 for their contention that the instant proposed measure would unconstitutionally delegate fiscal policy making because the Lottery Authority has unbridled authority to create the formula for determining gross revenues and net revenues. .Unlike the clear facial constitutional infirmity found in In re Initiative Petition No. 332, the instant proposed measure specifies the percentage of gross lottery revenues to be paid into the state treasury and the purposes for which the revenues may be appropriated by the Legislature.16 The language of the proposed measure authorizing the Lottery Authority to determine “net revenues” does not clearly contravene Art. IV, § 1 or Art. V, § 55, Okla. Const. Although it is conceivable that the implementation of the proposed measure may result in an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative power of appropriation, we refrain from further consideration of this argument because implementation cannot be discerned from the face of the proposed measure.

Protestants also argue that the proposed measure, taken as a whole, would legalize lottery gaming for the profit of a special class of the five members of the board of directors and that the Lottery Authority will be vested with powers of all three branches of government to be exercised free from state control contrary to several constitutional provisions. They assert that the benefits to the state are too speculative to establish a relationship between the Lottery Authority and the state and therefore the proposed measure creates a private corporation contrary to Art. V, § 59, Okla. Const., with special privileges contrary to Art. 11, § 32, Art. V, § 51, and Art. IX, § 38, Okla. Const.17 Proponents *787respond that protestants’ have failed to show that an integral part of the proposed measure directly violates the constitution and that if any language is found to be unconstitutional it should be severed under the sever-ability clause.

In In re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553, 649 P.2d 545, 547 (Okla. 1982), this Court said that if a part of a proposed measure which could not be severed without defeating the whole is challenged, then the contents of the proposed measure would be reviewed under the authority of In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, supra. In that ease, we found that two sections relating to taxation and county option were integral to the proposed parimutuel betting scheme and non-severable and, hence, reviewed those sections for constitutional infirmity.

The integral parts of the instant proposed measure are those provisions which authorize a state lottery and provide a mechanism for operation of the lottery.18 Protestants do not contend that the language providing these essential components directly contravenes the constitution. Instead, they contend that the implementation of various provisions authorizing the method of operation of the Lottery Authority will create constitutional infirmities. As we have already said, this Court will not interpret the contents of an initiative proposal, nor speculate implementation, at this pre-election stage. Further, if adopted and a constitutional infirmity becomes apparent in the implementation of any of the challenged provisions, the measure expressly provides for severability. Hence, we refrain from further consideration of these arguments.

The protestants also contend that the proposed measure would amend existing law by reference contrary to Art. V, § 57, Okla. Const., and that, in vague, ambiguous and conflicting language, the proposed measure would vest the Lottery Authority with executive and judicial powers contrary to Art. IV, § 1, Okla. Const. Again, these arguments require interpretation of the proposed measure and will not be reviewed. Because we refuse to consider protestants’ constitutional challenges to the interpretation and implementation of the contents of the legislation proposed by Initiative Petition No. 358, proponents’ application that we disregard arguments raised for the first time in protestants’ reply brief is rendered moot.

Initiative Petition No. 358 is legally sufficient for submission to a vote of the people as State Question No. 658. Petitions for Rehearing, if any, shall be filed within twenty days of the filing of this opinion with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts.

concurring in result:

I concur with the result reached by the majority. However, I write separately to emphasize that the majority opinion should not be read to signal a return to the teaching of Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403, 109 P. 558 (1910). Threadgill prohibited the consideration of even a patently unconstitutional measure before it was submitted to the vote of the people. After In re Initiative Petition

*788No. 349, 838 P.2d 1, 11 (Okla. 1992), In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petition in Norman, Oklahoma No. 74-1 & 74-2, 534 P.2d 3, 8 (Okla. 1975) and Oklahomans for Modern Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Shelton, 501 P.2d 1089 (Okla. 1972), Threadgill is viable only to the extent that: a proposed provision is not severable; the constitutional challenge is “nothing more than an abstract opinion on a hypothetical question”; 1 or there is no apparent properly preserved constitutional issue.

We advised parties of the dangers of relying on the narrow teachings of Threadgill in In re Initiative Petition No. 349, 838 P.2d 1, 11 (Okla. 1992). We said:

“Even though the proponents continue to cling to Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403, 109 P. 558, 562 (1910), this Court implicitly recognized in 1975, that the Threadgill doctrine was frequently nothing more than a rationalization for deferring obvious issues of constitutionality. The effect of this doctrine, especially when it involves transparently unconstitutional proposals, is subject to the perception by the citizens of our state that their votes, so eagerly solicited, are ultimately meaningless acts in an elaborate charade. The danger of Threadgill is that, in effect, citizens may be led to believe that their votes on matters of intense public concern count, when this Court is already fully aware that the proposed measure is subject to being struck down as unconstitutional within months should the voters approve it. Conversely, the vote on an indisputably unconstitutional measure will almost certainly be distorted by wide-spread citizen awareness of the invalidity of the measure. In any event, a truly meaningful vote on the initiative becomes impossible.

The underlying sense of our cases dating back to 1975 is that Threadgill trumpets a triumph of form over substance which calls into question the very legitimacy of the initiative process itself by merely postponing the inevitable. For seventeen years, the majority of this Court has understood that the Threadgill doctrine has been modified to the extent that it no longer operates as a bar to the pre-submission review of constitutional defects in initiative proposals.”

The public should be advised that this Court will not refrain from addressing viable constitutional challenges to a measure in order to prevent a costly and meaningless election. Likewise, the inclusion of abstract constitutional challenges to possible defects will not result in a judicial activism intended to circumvent the right of the people to cast their votes in the initiative process.

concurring in result.

The court declares today that the initiative measure under consideration — which would establish a state-run lottery — qualifies for submission to a vote of the people. While I concur in clearing the measure for an election, I write separately to reiterate my views on the outer limit of permissible scrutiny an initiative measure may undergo when it is before us upon a protest for alleged legal deficiency.

I would not undertake to test the validity of a measure’s content before its adoption by a vote of the people. My commitment to the undiluted force of Threadgill v. Cross1 continues with undiminished fervor.2, Thread-gill teaches that conformity of a measure’s content to the commands of our constitution — state and federal — may not be judicially examined in advance of the initiative peti*789tion’s adoption by the people. Presubmission review of a measure’s fundamental-law conformity should be confined to fatally vitiating infirmities in the initiative process itself. The electorate’s effort at legislating directly must not be hindered by pre-election attacks other than those which target the petition’s compliance with some sine qua non requirement for submission.

While on its journey to the ballot box a measure proposed by initiative petition is entitled to the same judicial deference that is accorded a legislative bill in progress. Judges cannot police the lawmaking process for conformity to the constitution without raising an impermissible restraint on the free exercise of political activities.3 Just as the passage of a seemingly infirm bill in progress will not be enjoined to save the cost of processing the act through the Houses of the Legislature, so, too, an initiative that passes muster for submission should not be condemned in advance of the measure’s adoption just to avoid a costly election. The burden or loss borne by the people when an election fails because the law is later held invalid is the price to be paid for our system of constitutional democracy that authorizes the electorate to legislate directly.4

I

THREADGILL AND ITS PROGENY

Threadgill, which enjoyed full and unlimited sway from 1910 until 1975,5 teaches that an initiative petition need only pass a procedural threshold test to qualify for submission to a vote of the people. It must (a) be in substantial compliance with the sine qua non procedural requirements for submission and bear the requisite number of valid signatures,6 (b) address but a single subject7 and (c) deal with a subject not explicitly excluded from the people’s lawmaking power.8 Unless a fatal procedural impediment be found in one of these categories, a petition must be cleared for a vote. All constitutional challenges to an initiative’s content will be postponed to await the measure’s adoption as enforceable law. They may later be pressed in the context of a lively forensic controversy between antagonistic adversaries by parties with legal standing to sue.9

*790Threadgill should be kept in fall force because it raises a necessary barrier of insulation between the judicial department’s judicature and the people’s lawmaking. The former is a function of judges, the latter of the people. Any departure from the basic teachings of Threadgill creates an impermissible burden on the people’s fundamental-law power to initiate and pass measures that may change the state’s constitution as well as her statutes.

The Prudential-Rule-of-Necessity Barrier To Deciding Purely Academic Questions

Moreover, the “prudential rule of necessity”, adhered to by all state and federal courts, commands that constitutional issues not be resolved in advance of strict necessity.10 Pre-enactment testing of proposed legislation clearly offends the prudential rule. Measures in the process of lawmaking, popular or legislative, are not subject to court-enforced constitutional orthodoxy. I would not today relax the prudential rule to consider the protestants’ constitutional challenges to an unenacted measure.

II

CONSTITUTIONAL ORTHODOXY MAY NOT BE IMPRESSED ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF INITIATIVE LAWMAKING

The process of changing statutory law or the state’s constitution by initiative petition is a form of lawmaking. Lawmaking is a political process. Judicial pre-enactment scrutiny of proposed legislation for constitutional flaws raises an impermissible restraint on the free exercise of political activity.11 Unlike enacted law, lawmaking in progress need not meet constitutional orthodoxy. Judges serve as stewards of constitutional purity in law, but do not also function as government agents enforcing constitutional conformity upon the political process of lawmaking. No official censor’s imprimatur12 or nihil obs-tat13 is required for the content of a measure to reach the people.14

*791Public debate on an unenacted measure and the electorate’s claim to its adoption is every bit as protected by Art. 2, § 22, Okl. Const.,15 as is a proposed bill before either of the two legislative chambers. Our fundamental law explicitly proscribes judicial tinkering with the election process. Art. 3, § 5,16 and Art. 2, § 4, Okl. Const.17 These constitutional provisions protect both the election and the right of franchise from unauthorized or excessive use of judicial power.18 There is no reason why the cost of a futile election should be a factor that militates in favor of presubmission constitutional testing of the people’s measure. That cost is never considered in deciding whether a legislative bill in progress should be enjoined or condemned in chancery.

Only in the clearest case of firmly settled and stable constitutional jurisprudence that absolutely condemns a proposed measure as facially impossible of enforcement, application or execution — and then only if the prot-estante have standing to complain of constitutional infirmity — should this court ever undertake to trump an initiative petition that is on its journey to the ballot box.

SUMMARY

Because of my continued and unswerving commitment to Threadgill’s teachings, I would not test for constitutional orthodoxy the content of an initiative petition in advance of its submission and adoption.19 The electorate’s effort at legislating directly should not undergo judicial scrutiny unless the petition is attacked for noncompliance with some sine qua non requirement for submission. I would once again counsel the court that its imposition of constitutional orthodoxy on lawmaking process raises an impermissible barrier to lawful efforts at bringing about government reforms. Judges have no power either to censor or to chill the marketplace debate about competing political ideas.

*792The measure under consideration is fit for submission; I hence concur in the court’s disposition of the protest but not in its pronouncement.