Court Opinion

ID: 9627353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:42:37.554117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:45.037453
License: Public Domain

HARGRAVE, Justice,
with whom KAUGER, C.J., and SIMMS, J., join, concurring specially:
¶ 1 As pointed out by the majority, every act of the legislature is presumed to be constitutional and is the starting point for analysis of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment. The majority also sets out the three Constitutional debt-limitation provisions for debts or obligations against the state, Article 10, §§ 23, 24 and 25. The majority concludes that because the bonds in question are self-liquidating and do not legally obligate either the state or future legislatures, none of the three Constitutional limitation provisions applies. Specifically, in Part IV of the opinion, the majority holds that bonds that do not create a legal obligation to pay beyond the current annual appropriation are not debts that are prohibited by the Constitution and that, therefore, §§ 23, 24 and 25 of Article 10 do not apply.
¶ 2 I concur with the majority in holding that the bonds herein ’are not prohibited by the Constitution, but I would go further and *778find that a debt that does not create a legal obligation to pay beyond the current annual appropriation is specifically permitted by Article 10 § 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Article 10, § 23 provides:
“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 and 25 of Article X of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. ” (emphasis added).
¶ 3 The quoted language recognizes that debts or obligations may be created or authorized by the state in three ways, under § 23, § 24 or § 25. Article 10, § 24 provides that in addition to the above limited power to contract debts (provided in § 23), the State may contract debts to repel invasions, suppress insurrection or to defend the state in war. Article 10 § 25 provides that all other debts contracted by or on behalf of the state, except those specified in § 23 and § 24, must be authorized by law for some work or object that will be paid for by the levy of a tax that shall be approved by a majority of the voters at a general election. Neither § 24 or § 25 applies to the situation before us.
¶ 4 Section 23 provides that prior to the convening of each regular session of the legislature, the State Board of Equalization shall certify the amounts - available for appropriation and that legislative appropriations for any fiscal year shall not exceed it. All appropriations made in excess of the certification shall be null and void. The debts that lawfully may be created under Section 23 are those which incur no obligation to pay beyond the current annual appropriation.
¶ 5 Because 73 O.S. Supp.1997 § 168.6 does not create an obligation on the legislature to appropriate beyond its legislative term, I believe that the debt is specifically permitted by § 23. The majority opinion recites the various funding provisions used in 73 O.S. Supp.1997 § 168.6, which emphasizes that the bonds issued are to be retired by payments made from money appropriated annually by the Legislature to the Department of Transportation, but is subject to the receipt of an annual appropriation for that purpose by the legislature and the bonds are to carry the source of funding on the face thereof. Thus, there is no debt created beyond an annual appropriation by the legislature and future legislatures are not bound, which I believe describes precisely the kind of debt permitted by § 23 of Article 10.
¶ 6 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Kauger and Justice Simms join the views expressed herein.