Opinion

In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

  • 69 O.B.A.J. 1183
  • 958 P.2d 759
  • 1998 OK 25
  • 1998 Okla. LEXIS 28
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Mar 20, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Wilson
On the bench
Ala, Kauger, Summers, Hodges, Hargrave, Simms, Lavender, Opala, Wilson, Watt
Cited by
51 cases

observing that “the framers of Oklahoma’s debt limitation provisions cannot be presumed to have anticipated a financially sophisticated society in which goods and services are purchased ... without a pledge of the full faith and credit of the state”

How later courts described this case

  • observing that “the framers of Oklahoma’s debt limitation provisions cannot be presumed to have anticipated a financially sophisticated society in which goods and services are purchased ... without a pledge of the full faith and credit of the state”
  • observing that appropriations-backed bonds do not “differ from arrangements where state buildings are rented by state agencies pursuant to multi-year leases”
  • reviewing and sustaining Oklahoma statute authorizing Oklahoma Capital Improvement Authority to issue highway bonds secured by pre-paid user fees, direct taxes, and State Transportation Rainy Day Funds
  • calling this exception “future installments for future services”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*795 ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

ALMA WILSON, J.,

with whom LAVENDER, OPALA, and WATT, JJ., join, dissenting to denial of rehearing:

¶ 1 Oklahoma’s constitutional hallmark, our balanced-budget provisions, Okla. Const., art. 10, § 23, prohibits officials in all three branches of our state government from creating multi-year debts or authorizing deficit spending. Even when it is for the laudable purpose of highway improvement to encourage economic growth which I support, the State may not become indebted without voter approval. Okla. Const., art. 10, § 25.

¶ 2 The Class of 2000 should not inherit the cost of today’s highway improvements unless that is the will of their parents and grandparents expressed at the ballot box. And, this Court should not join the Legislature in authorizing our highest Executive officials to engage in deficit spending without voter approval. Accordingly, rehearing should be granted so this Court may preserve the people’s constitutional right to approve the proposed highway bond indebtedness herein.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.