Court Opinion

ID: 9793687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:51:31.714246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:40.204920
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
concurring specially:
The etiology of legislative distress, as I perceive it, derives from Article 10, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, which unequivocally mandates a balanced annual state budget pursuant to clearly enumerated procedures. In pertinent part, Section 23 states:
§ 23. Balanced budget — Procedures
“The state shall never create or authorize the creation of any debt or obligation, or fund or pay any deficit, against the state, or any department, institution or agency thereof, regardless of its form or the source of money from which it is to be paid, except as may be provided in this section and in Sections 24 and 25 of Article X of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
To ensure a balanced annual budget, pursuant to the limitations contained in the foregoing, procedures are herewith established as follows: ...”
The salutary policy embodied in this budget balancing constitutional provision has previously been considered by this Court in Boswell v. State, 181 Okl. 435, 74 P.2d 940 (1937). This Court acknowledged therein that the debt limitation provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution are a vital part of the document and were adopted for the purpose of fixing the power and responsibility of legislation relating to the fiscal affairs of the state upon the existing legislative assembly, and to prevent one legislative assembly from laying its mandate upon a future legislature. Thus, debt limitation guarantees the autonomy of future legislative bodies *1252and protects Oklahoma citizens from deficit spending beyond the revenues available.
More recently, this Court said of Article 10, Section 23, in the case of Smith v. State Board of Equalization, 630 P.2d 1264 (Okl.1981):
“Article 10, § 23 was adopted by the people in 1941 to provide for budget balancing in this state. There is no room for construction or provision for further inquiry when the Constitution plainly speaks. A constitutional amendment should be construed in consideration of its purpose and be given a practical interpretation to carry out the plainly manifested purpose of the people who adopted it. The fiscal responsibility shown by Oklahoma has become an enviable example for the nation. This policy of fiscal restraint and control can only be applauded in a time of monetary crisis. We do not find this constitutional requirement to be unduly burdensome nor to be a vain endeavor. The citizens of this state, as well as the Legislature, have a vested constitutional right to know how much money is available for appropriation to the General Revenue Fund and special funds which are supported by direct taxes, fees, or other revenue.” [Emphasis mine.]
“[W]e hold that all funds which receive funds from taxes, charges, costs, grants, or other revenue are within the purview of Art. 10, § 23.” [Emphasis mine.]
In the case now before this Court, an application for injunctive relief to enjoin subsequent transfers from the Protest Fund in dispute was requested pending the disposition of the original suit challenging the constitutionality of the gross premium tax assessed against the Appellants herein. The trial court declined to issue the requested injunction. On appeal oral argument was granted in this matter. During the course of oral argument before the Oklahoma Supreme Court on June 3, 1986, counsel for the Insurance Commissioner protested injunctive relief as premature, on the ground that the legislative action sought to be averted in transferring more money from the Fund was merely threatened and not yet enacted. On June 11, 1986, Appellants filed in this action a copy of an Engrossed House Bill which had passed both houses of the Oklahoma Legislature on June 10, 1986. The Bill, inter alia, purports to authorize the transfer of additional monies from the disputed Fund and appropriates to the Department of Human Services an identical dollar amount, and further provided for payment of judgment debts incurred to protestants by reason thereof up to three years after presentation of a judgment debt finding that taxes sued for were illegally collected. We issued our order prohibiting transfer of additional monies from the special Protest Fund. I concur in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief and the decision to enjoin further transfers from the disputed Fund, except pursuant to the express provisions of 62 O.S. 1981 § 206, according to its provisions in effect at the time these proceedings ensued.
Aware, as I am, of the extremely difficult economic climate which presently pervades our State, and the attendant pressures upon our lawmakers to somehow maintain financial parity, an almost impossible task, I believe it even more imperative that this Court, as final guardians of the law sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, face up to our judicial responsibility. The task is not simple, although the admonition is. Fortunately, the ‘separation of powers’ in state government serves to distribute the responsibilities. It is incumbent upon this Court to discharge this duty. Otherwise, review by this Court would fail of its purpose in safeguarding constitutional rights.
I concur in the views expressed today by the majority. It is additionally my view, and my grave concern, that this Court not preside over the demise of the budget balancing amendment through silence or inaction.