# 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/9627359

## 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:** Dissent by Watt
- **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/9627359

## 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

WATT, Justice,
with whom LAVENDER, OPALA and ALMA WILSON, JJ., join, dissenting:
¶ 1 The majority, through its original decision and by its vote today, sanctions the State’s use of long-term debt financing without a vote of the people. The actions of the Legislature — and of the majority of this Court in ratifying them — do not simply whittle away at the clear protecting mandates of Article 10, §§ 23 and 25 of the Oklahoma Constitution, their actions gut the State’s balanced budget amendments. Pursuant to the majority’s rationale, the State will never create a legally binding obligation against itself if it issues bonds that contain certain “magic” language disavowing the creation of any such debt, regardless of the economic realities of the situation. No decision of this Court should rest upon such a fallacy.
¶ 2 What is particularly disturbing about the ratification of the current bond issue is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Our citizenry would be well advised to prepare for future large-scale deficit financing of capital projects by State officials. Approximately two-thirds of the on-going one billion dollar road improvement legislation will be financed via these so-called “moral obligation” bonds. There is evidence in the record that suggests similar bonds for prison construction is next. The majority’s decision will serve as no legal impediment for the issuance of “moral obligation” bonds for any capital improvement project. The taxpayers will eventually be called upon to foot the bill.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627359. Public record. Not legal advice.