Opinion ID: 1364850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: It Is Fairly Debatable Whether SB 142 Meets the Functionality and Germaneness Tests

Text: If it is fairly debatable whether the provisions assigned to a bill are reasonably related to a common theme or purpose [53] or contemplate some functional interrelationship or interdependence, [54] I would allow the legislation to pass constitutional muster. Both SB 142 and SB 725 meet the germaneness and functionality tests, given the fairly debatable constitutional threshold. When analyzing whether a bill is germane, courts look to whether [e]ach of [the measure's] several facets bears a common concern, general object or general subject [55] or whether the bill is reasonably related to a common theme. SB 142's title indicates that the agencies included in that act are grouped together according to their function as state cultural entities. The common concern or common theme or purpose of SB 142 is the appropriation of monies for state cultural activities. It is fairly debatable whether all of the provisions in this legislative initiative do relate to its common theme and are hence germane to one another. Whether for the purpose of tourism and recreation, libraries, arts council, or historical society, all of the subjects are related to appropriating monies for cultural activities. The same can be established for SB 725 in providing for the appropriation of state business regulatory agencies in that all of the provisions are related to the appropriation of monies for agencies which regulate business within the state. Using a strict germaneness test, the court singles out four sections of SB 142 as offensive to the single-subject mandate: (a) § 16 reappropriates monies from the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation [Tourism Department]; (b) § 17 reappropriates funds to the Tourism Department from the Department of Commerce which relate to the development of an industrial airpark economic study; (c) § 20 prohibits the closing of state parks without specific authorization of the legislature; and (d) § 23 establishes an internship program for tourism management by the State Regents of Higher Learning in conjunction with the Tourism Department. My own analysis of these provisions leads me to conclude that they could all meet the germaneness rule, if the fairly-debatable standard is applied. This is so because they are related to a common theme or purpose. Section 20, for example, prohibits the Tourism Department from closing state parks for one year effective July 1, 1992, ostensibly because funds have been appropriated for that purpose. It is debatable whether state parks are reasonably related to cultural development and hence the inclusion of § 20 meets the germaneness standard. I would conclude it is fairly debatable whether all of these disputed subjects are reasonably related to this common theme or purpose of appropriating monies for the Tourism Department, and hence to cultural activities. The functionality test requires that the provisions of a bill effectively interlock in a functional relationship. [56] The courts look to whether the measure is functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose. [57] This test determines whether an action or activity is appropriate [58] to further the underlying common purpose. Again, it is fairly debatable whether the action taken by the legislature in allocating the subjects within SB 142 and SB 725 contemplate some interrelationship or interdependence and are functionally related in furtherance of a common purpose of appropriating monies to provide for cultural activities or the regulation of business, respectively. [59] For example, as provided for in SB 142, ensuring that the state parks are not closed is functionally related to, or an appropriate action in furtherance of, the underlying purpose of the bill which is providing access to this cultural activity whether it be hiking, boating or camping. By strictly applying the germaneness test without the fairly debatable test, we arrive at a reductio ad absurdum: If these four provisions of SB 142 are nongermane within that bill, they are, for the reasons explained in the footnote, also potentially nongermane to any other legislation. [60] The court's germaneness analysis leaves the legislature without a workable standard to manage its own affairs. This will inevitably place the court in the position of having frequently to revisit these issues and will multiply the number of challenges made to legislative allocations. [61]