Court Opinion

ID: 9845944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:42.058099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.703964
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Vice Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
My concurrence is based largely upon Proposition IV of Oklahoma City’s brief wherein it is asserted:
“Enrolled Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 embraces a general subject not expressed in its title; and its body is broader than said title, both in violation of Article 5, Section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution.”
Art. 5, Sec. 57, Okla.Const., provides in part:
“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, * * * Provided, That if any subject be embraced in any act contrary to the provisions of this section, such act shall be void only as to so much of the law as may not be expressed in the title thereof.”
In Section 9 of S.J.R. No. 24 it is provided (70 O.S.Supp.1963, § 1210.29) that $2.00 shall be separated from certain fines and forfeitures collected—
“ * * * which shall be transmitted at the end of the month by the official collecting such fine to the county treasurer who shall in turn deposit such amounts with the State Treasurer for credit to the Driver Education Fund hereby created, which fund shall be reserved for the exclusive use and expenditure by the State Board of Education to assist in defraying the cost of driver education as provided in this resolution.”
From the foregoing it is clear that the Driver Education Fund is created by the Legislature; or the fund is created by county and municipal officials and received by county treasurers for deposit with the State Treasurer to be credited to the Driver Education Fund. By the Resolution county and municipal governments are deprived of revenues which had theretofore been used by these governments in financing their obligations. The loss of this revenue would be of concern to officials of municipal and county governments charged with the responsibility of financing these governments, yet they were not alerted to this proposed diversion of county and municipal revenues by the title of S.J.R. No. 24. The Resolution is identified and explained by its title as follows:
“A Joint Resolution relating to driver’s education; providing the State Board of Education with pozvcr *466to promulgate certain rules and regulations creating a driver education fund; providing financial assistance to schools offering such course; and fixing effective date of resolution.” (emphasis supplied)
From the title it would appear that the State Board of Education will create the fund with school funds or school revenues within their control. This title would not alert county and municipal officials to the fact that some of their revenues would be diverted by legislative approval of the Resolution.
In State ex rel. Short v. Johnson, 90 Okl. 21, 215 P. 945, the reason and purpose of Art. 5, Sec. 57, Okla.Const., was carefully considered and explained, and in the third paragraph of the syllabus we held:
“Inasmuch as the supreme legislative power of the state, including the power to reject legislative acts, is reserved to the people by sections 1, 2, and 3, art. 5 of the Constitution, one primary object of the above provision of section 57, art. 5, is that the title of an act shall bear clear notice, not only to the legislative body, but to the electorate of the state, of what an act may contain.”
Since the title of S.J.R. No. 24, as quoted, would not bear clear notice to the legislative body and to the electorate that the Driver Education Fund would be created in substantial part by a diversion of county and municipal revenues, I am of the view that the Resolution, insofar as it requires the separation of $2.00 from each fine collected or bail forfeited for violations of the Motor Vehicle Code and city ordinances, is violative of Art. 5, Sec. 57, Okla. Const., supra. I therefore agree with the majority that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed in so far as it holds Section 9, supra, constitutional.
I am authorized to state that WILLIAMS, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur in the views herein expressed.