Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Michael D. Reynolds's challenge to provisions of Oklahoma general appropriation bills enacted from 2012 through 2014. The court held that the challenged fund transfers and expenditure authorizations constituted appropriations, that differing effective dates did not violate the Oklahoma Constitution, and that the challenged appropriations of previously unappropriated funds were not unconstitutional.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether provisions transferring money into the Special Cash Fund, together with provisions appropriating money from that fund, violated Okla. Const. art. 5, §§ 55 and 56.
- Whether transfer authorizations and expenditure authorizations in general appropriation bills constituted appropriations despite not using the word "appropriate" and therefore violated Okla. Const. art. 5, §§ 55 and 56.
- Whether provisions of general appropriation bills taking effect on July 15 rather than July 1 violated Okla. Const. art. 10, § 23 or required a July 1 effective date under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 58.
- Whether appropriations of funds not otherwise appropriated in a prior fiscal year violated Okla. Const. art. 10, § 23.
- Whether the 2013 reappropriation and redesignation of part of a 2011 appropriation violated the two-and-one-half-year payment restriction in Okla. Const. art. 5, § 55.
Holdings
- Transfer sections in the challenged general appropriation bills, when construed together with sections appropriating money from the Special Cash Fund, constituted appropriations and did not violate Okla. Const. art. 5, §§ 55 or 56.
- A provision need not use the word "appropriate" to constitute an appropriation; the challenged transfer and expenditure authorization provisions were appropriations because they authorized expenditure or movement of public money in specified amounts for specified purposes.
- The Oklahoma Constitution does not require every section of a general appropriation bill to take effect on July 1, and the July 15 effective dates for the challenged transfers did not violate Okla. Const. art. 10, § 23.
- Appropriating funds not otherwise appropriated in a prior fiscal year is permitted by Okla. Const. art. 10, § 23(2), and reappropriating part of an earlier appropriation within two and one-half years does not violate Okla. Const. art. 5, § 55.
Key quotations
“We hold that the effect of the combined transfer sections with the appropriation sections created an appropriation when, as here, they were all accomplished in a single bill.” (¶ 12)
“They all constitute appropriations under our definition in Smith.” (¶ 15)
“Based on Reynolds' allegations and constitutional authority we find no requirement for a July 1, the commencement of the fiscal year, effective date.” (¶ 19)
“All we have here is a constitutional appropriation of funds that were reappropriated prior to their lapsing.” (¶ 27)
Factual background
Reynolds, a resident taxpayer, challenged provisions in SB 1975, HB 2301, and SB 2127, asserting that the general appropriation bills contained substantive legislation, failed to specify appropriation objects, used effective dates other than July 1, and appropriated or reappropriated funds from prior fiscal years. The challenged provisions included transfers to and from the Special Cash Fund, transfer and expenditure authorizations, provisions effective July 15, appropriations of funds not otherwise appropriated in an earlier fiscal year, and a 2013 reappropriation of an amount originally appropriated in 2011. The state officials moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed the amended petition.
Procedural history
Reynolds filed an amended petition asserting 18 causes of action challenging the constitutionality of provisions in three Oklahoma general appropriation bills enacted from 2012 through 2014. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Reynolds's motion for summary judgment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the accelerated appeal and affirmed.