Court Opinion

ID: 9878928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:49:07.622569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.799026
License: Public Domain

WINCHESTER, J., with whom GURICH, V.C.J. and Reif, J., join, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would find HB 1449, assessing a fee of $100- for electric driven cars and $30 for Hybrid driven cars, constitutional as a measure designated to equalize the burden of maintaining Oklahoma’s roads and highways. This Court in Naifeh v. State, 2017 OK 63, ¶17, 400 P.3d 759, established a two part test: “bills for raising revenue:” are.those,whose principal objective is to raise revenue and not those under which revenue is incidentally raised, and which levy taxes , in the strict sense of the word. Naifeh found a cigarette fee that generated $215 million dollars with funds going to various state agencies without specifically designating their purpose, unconstitutional. Naifeh v. State, 2017 OK 63, 400 P.3d 759 In 2016, motor fuel taxes generated $473,586,031. The fees generated by electric or hybrid driven cars are anticipated to generate $4 million. The legislature determined a gasoline driven vehicle generated $123 per vehicle in gasoline taxes. They, conservatively, established an electric driven car fee of $100 and a fee of $30 for hybrid driven cars. The fees are to go to the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund to compensate the dollars required to maintain Oklahoma roads and highways, the same roads used by electric and. hybrid driven vehicles. The fee is a fair exchange for this maintenance. There is a direct correlation between the fee the state charges and the benefit these vehicles receive. The Legislature is charged with establishing the policies of the state and their actions are presumed constitutional. 'They must be given some leeway when circumstances change to address maintenance of our highways. I would hold HB 1449, the electric/hybrid car fee, constitutional.