# In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 20, 1998 · 69 O.B.A.J. 1183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627358

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Application of the OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY for Approval of Not Exceeding $300 Million Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority State Highway Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1997, for the Construction, Improvement, Maintenance and Repair of All or Part of Certain Roads, Highways and Bridges by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 20, 1998
- **Citations:** 69 O.B.A.J. 1183; 958 P.2d 759; 1998 OK 25; 1998 Okla. LEXIS 28
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Wilson
- **Judges:** Ala, Kauger, Summers, Hodges, Hargrave, Simms, Lavender, Opala, Wilson, Watt
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627358

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627358. Public record. Not legal advice.