defining appropriation as "the designation or authorization of the expenditure of public moneys and stipulation of the amount, manner and purpose for a distinct use or for the payment of a particular demand"
How later courts described this case
- defining appropriation as "the designation or authorization of the expenditure of public moneys and stipulation of the amount, manner and purpose for a distinct use or for the payment of a particular demand"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IRWIN, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
In my opinion, Art. 10, § 23, Okl.Const., does not require the State Board of Equalization (Board) to make an itemized estimate and certify the revenues accruing to a “special fund” where such revenues have been earmarked and dedicated for a specific purpose by a continuing appropriation. I am of the view that the Board is required to estimate and certify only those revenues that must be appropriated by the succeeding Legislature and it is not required to estimate and certify those funds that are earmarked and dedicated and requires no legislative action before they can be encumbered.
The majority states:
*1268 “We are not persuaded by the argument that continuing funds are not subject to certification. The Court adopted the premise in State ex rel. Hawkins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 462 P.2d 536 (Okl.1969) that the earmarked continuing special gasoline excise tax was subject to the provisions of art. 10, § 23.”
I agree that Hawkins holds that the gasoline excise tax was subject to Art. 10, § 23 1 , but in my opinion, Hawkins will not support the conclusion that Art. 10, § 23, requires the Board to estimate and certify funds that are earmarked and can be encumbered without any legislative action.
Although Art. 10, § 23, has been amended since our 1969 decision in Hawkins, such amendments are not material to the issues presented here.
In Hawkins, we discussed in detail Art. 10, § 23, which is known as the “1941 Budget Balancing Amendment” and the 1941 Legislative enactment vitalizing the 1941 amendment. ( 62 O.S. 1941 , § 8.1-8.18). In my opinion, Hawkins, in so far as pertinent here, supports the following:
(1) The Legislature can constitutionally earmark or make a continuing appropriation to a special fund the revenues arising from a special tax and allocate or dedicate such revenues to a special purpose.
(2) If the Legislature does not provide that the unencumbered balance at the end of the fiscal year in such special fund shall be transferred, it is a “non-fiscal year fund” and the balance at the end of the fiscal year will remain in the same fund for the subsequent fiscal year and can be expended at any time without any legislative action.
(3) There are no constitutional limitations 2 upon the expenditure of such funds, but the state may not incur an indebtedness in excess of the unencumbered balance of surplus cash on hand in contravention of Art. 10, § 23.
If the Board is required to estimate and certify earmarked funds it would appear that there would be a conflict between two very important provisions in § 23. One proviso prescribes that all appropriations made in excess of the Board’s estimate shall be null and void. Another proviso prescribes that a department operating on revenues derived from any law or laws which allocate the revenues to such department shall not incur obligations in excess of the unencumbered balance of cash on hand. If the Board’s estimate is less than the cash actually accruing to an earmarked special fund, one of the above provisions would have to give way to the other. I say that both should be operative under any and all circumstances because in my opinion the “estimate and certification” requirements of § 23 are not applicable to funds that are earmarked and dedicated by a continuing appropriation where no legislative action is necessary to encumber the balance of cash on hand.
Petitioners state that prior to 1947 the Board meticulously estimated all funds, including earmarked funds, and it was not until 1947 that the Board simply stopped estimating the earmarked funds. The 1941 budget balancing amendment has been amended twice, in 1968 and in 1975, since its adoption. If there had been any intent to change the funds which the Board was required to estimate, surely the Joint Resolution proposing the two amendments, and the amendments, would have contained some language indicating a change. I am unable to find any intent to require the Board to estimate funds that have been earmarked and already appropriated and in my opinion, § 23 may not be construed to require such estimation. The estimation required by § 23 is directed only to those *1269 funds which are appropriated annually and not to earmarked funds that have been appropriated.
I respectfully dissent.
. It is subject to the proviso of Art. 10, § 23 that provides: “Any department ... operating on revenues derived from any law or laws which allocate the revenues thereof to such department . . . shall not incur obligations in excess of the unencumbered balance of cash on hand.”
. Art. 5, § 55, Okl.Const. provides: “No money shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this State . .. except in pursuance to an appropriation by law, nor unless such payments be made within two and one-half years after the passage of such appropriation act . . . ”