WATT, J.:

¶ 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified two questions of Oklahoma law to this Court under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2011 § 1601, et seq. We are not asked to determine whether the Legislature's amendment of § 34.70(B)(5) of title 62,1 which raised the required membership minimum from 1,000 to 2,000 employees for organizations seeking to have dues withheld through a system of voluntary payroll deductions, violates constitutional standards of free speech. Rather, we were requested to address two related first impression questions.2 We address a single reformulated first impression question:3

¶ 2 The question is answered in the affirmative. We hold that, if the federal court determines that the numerosity requirement of 62 O.S.2001 § 34.70(B)(5) conflicts with constitutional guarantees of free speech, the offending statutory provision may be severed pursuant to 75 O.S.2011 § 11a.

¶ 3 In the second question, we were asked to address the issue of whether severance pursuant to 75 O.S.2011 § 11a would revive the prior membership requirement of one thousand (1,000) found in 62 O.S. Supp.2005 § 7.10(B)(5)5 or eliminate the numerosity language in its entirety. Here, the membership number at issue approaches nineteen hundred (1,900).6 Therefore, if the federal court determines the statute is unconstitutional, whether the former membership requirement of one thousand (1,000) is imposed or it is completely eliminated, any pronouncement on the issue would be advisory in nature.7

CERTIFIED FACTS8 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The plaintiff/appellant, Oklahoma Corrections Professionals Association (Corrections Association), is a non-profit organization devoted to lobbying on behalf of state correctional employees. Title 62 O.S.2011 § 34.70(B)(5)9 allows such organizations with a minimum membership to collect voluntary payroll deductions from those they represent. Prior to 2008, a non-profit organization was required to have one thousand (1,000) dues paying members for the organization to qualify for the automatic payroll withholding. The statute was amended that year to raise the required minimum membership to two thousand (2,000) employees.

¶ 5 In December of 2010, the Corrections Association, having a membership of approximately nineteen hundred (1,900) state employees, filed suit against the defendant/appellee, Oscar B. Jackson, Jr., Administrator and Cabinet Secretary for Human Resources (Jackson/administrator),10 in federal district court. It sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the termination of voluntary payroll deductions for members of the Corrections Association scheduled to terminate on January 31, 2011 along with preservation of the "status quo" which it defined as an order requiring reinstatement of dues collection through the voluntary payroll deduction program should payroll deductions be terminated before the district court could act.

¶ 6 The Corrections Association alleged that the 2008 amendment was designed to eliminate, by doubling the membership requirements for voluntary payroll deductions, the organization as a rival to the Oklahoma Public Employees Association (Public Employees Association). The Corrections Association contended that its very existence was dependent on collecting membership dues through the payroll deduction system. It asserted that: 1) the Public Employees Association was unfairly exempted from the numerosity requirement; and 2) the new membership requirement should be invalidated as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination11 in violation of the First12 and Fourteenth13 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Further, the Corrections Association argued that the statute was unconstitutional, on its face and as applied, because of its impact on the associational rights of its members.

¶ 7 The federal district court issued an order on April 19th of 2011. It dismissed the Correction Association's federal claims for lack of standing and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Specifically, the district court held that the Correction Association had not met standing requirements of redressability. Even assuming the statutory provision's unconstitutionality, it reasoned that: 1) striking the offending statutory subsection would not restore the availability of voluntary payroll deductions; and 2) because the Legislature would not have included the provision without the numerosity provision, severing the requirement would amount to "rewriting" the law.

¶ 8 On April 19, 2011, the Corrections Association filed its notice of appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified questions to this Court on February 2, 2012 pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2011 § 1601, et seq. We set a briefing cycle which was concluded with our order accepting the Corrections Association's filing of its response brief out of time on March 20, 2012.

¶ 9 IF THE FEDERAL COURT DETERMINES THAT THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT OF 62 O.S.2011 § 34.70(B)(5) CONFLICTS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH, THE OFFENDING STATUTORY PHRASE MAY BE SEVERED PURSUANT TO 75 O.S. 2011 § 11a.

¶ 10 The Corrections Association asserts that the potentially constitutionally infirm language of § 34.70(B)(5) of title 62 is clearly severable whether the numerosity requirement is entirely eliminated or the prior membership status of one thousand (1,000) is revived as a part of parsing the statutory provision. Jackson argues that the statute is not severable. The administrator contends that the Legislature simply would not have enacted the provision without including the minimum membership requirement of two thousand (2,000) dues-paying, state employees. We disagree with Jackson's contention.

¶ 11 Title 62 O.S.2011 § 34.7014 governs voluntary payroll deductions generally and is a part of the Oklahoma State Finance Act, 62 O.S.2011 § 34, et seq. Several provisions of the statute allow state employees to request voluntary payroll deductions without imposing any numerosity requirement; e.g. deductions requested to Oklahoma credit unions, banks, or savings associations; salary adjustment agreements included in an authorized flexible benefits plan; payments to a college savings account administered under the Oklahoma College Savings Plan Act; subscriptions to Oklahoma Today magazine; payment of insurance premiums for long-term care due private insurance organizations regulated by the Insurance Commission; employee contributions to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Retirement Plan; retirees' premium payments for group insurance; payroll deductions for employees of the Oklahoma School for the Blind or the Oklahoma School for the Deaf to any statewide educational employee organization or association; Department of Correction employee contributions to the Correctional Peace Officer Foundation; and any statewide association granted a payroll deduction prior to January 1, 2008. Numerosity requirements of five hundred (500) are imposed for: premium payments to private insurance organizations offering supplemental life, accident, and health insurance; insurance premiums for legal services; and supplemental retirement plans.

¶ 12 Only subsections (B)(5) and (6) impose the two thousand (2,000) membership requirement. The first for voluntary payroll deductions for any statewide dues-paying association other than the Oklahoma Public Employees Association. The second for contributions to any non-profit foundation, other than the Oklahoma Public Employees Association, with a minimum membership of two thousand (2,000) dues-paying state employees.

¶ 13 We are in a unique procedural posture. We are not asked to determine whether the statute at issue contains an unconstitutional provision. Rather, the federal court requests that we determine whether, if it finds the numerosity requirement to be unconstitutional, the balance of the statute should stand. In so doing, we begin with a cardinal principle of statutory construction "to save and not destroy."15 A severability analysis is necessary when some, but not all, provisions of an enactment are condemned as unconstitutional and void.16 Considerations relevant to severability are outlined in 75 O.S.2011 § 11a.17 It is a general provision creating a presumption that if one portion of a statutory provision should fail, the balance should retain its validity.18 The statute requires that we determine whether: a) the purpose of the statute would be significantly altered by severing the offending language; b) the Legislature would have enacted the remainder of the statute without the offending language; and c) the non-offending language is capable of standing alone.19

¶ 14 Title 62 O.S. § 34.7020 contains no legislative statement that severance is forbidden. It, like all other subsections of the statute, relates to situations where voluntary payroll deductions are allowable. General rules of statutory construction require that we construe provisions in pari materia together.21 Striking the numerosity requirement of subsection 34.70(B)(5) will not affect the clear intent of the whole of the statutory provision — to allow state employees the convenience of utilizing voluntary payroll deductions in certain instances. Furthermore, nothing in the numerosity requirement itself leads this Court to believe that the Legislature would not have enacted the statute without the potentially offending provision. Finally, the surviving provisions can be fully executed without relying on the severed portion for meaning or enforcement.

¶ 15 Should the federal court determine the numerosity requirement of 62 O.S.2011 § 34.70(B)(5) is unconstitutional, we conclude that the portion of the statute sought to be severed, requiring a membership of two thousand (2,000) dues-paying state employees to qualify for voluntary payroll deductions, is not essentially and inseparably connected with and dependent upon the rest of subsection (B)(5) or other provisions of the statute. It can be severed from the rest of the subsection, leaving the balance operational.22 The altered statute is capable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent to allow state employees the opportunity to enjoy the convenience of payroll deductions. Therefore, we conclude that the Legislature would have enacted the payroll deduction provision without the membership requirement should the federal court determine it to be unconstitutional. Our view is consistent with the general legislative directive in 75 O.S.2011 § 11A23 that if any part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall be valid.24

CONCLUSION

¶ 16 Severability of Oklahoma statutory provisions is a matter of state law.25 In our view, the Oklahoma Legislature would have, in the event the federal court determines the numerosity provision of 62 O.S.2011 § 34.70(B)(5) is unconstitutional, enacted the balance of the statutory provision allowing state employees to opt for voluntary payroll deductions for membership dues. After excision of the subsection's numerosity requirement, the balance of the statute can most certainly stand on its own just as do multiple other subsections requiring no minimum membership or a substantially lower amount of participation.

CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR