FENT v. FALLIN
345 P.3d 1113
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Jerry R. Fent, an Oklahoma resident taxpayer, challenged Senate Bill No. 1246 (SB 1246), a 2014 statute modifying state income tax rates.
- SB 1246 originated in the Senate, passed both chambers, was signed by the Governor, and became effective August 28, 2014; its tax changes take effect in FY 2016.
- Article V, §33 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires all "bills for raising revenue" to originate in the House and imposes voter referendum or supermajority requirements for such bills; failure to follow those procedures can render a revenue bill invalid.
- Fent argued SB 1246 was a "raising revenue" bill subject to §33, so because it originated in the Senate it is invalid; he urged that laws collecting taxes are "revenue" bills regardless of whether they increase or decrease tax burden.
- Respondent Governor Fallin and the State argued the 1992 amendment to §33 (State Question 640) and its ballot title show voters intended "raise" to mean "increase," so a bill that reduces taxes (like SB 1246) is not a §33 revenue bill and need not satisfy origination/referendum rules.
- The Court assumed original jurisdiction and held SB 1246 is not a §33 revenue bill because the ordinary meaning of "raise" in the 1992 amendment and its ballot title is "increase," and thus the constitutional procedures do not apply to tax reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1246 is a "bill for raising revenue" under Art. V, §33 | Fent: Any statute that levies or collects taxes is a revenue bill subject to §33, regardless of whether it increases or decreases revenue | Fallin: The 1992 amendment and ballot title show "raise" was meant to mean "increase," so tax-reducing legislation is not a §33 revenue bill | Court: Held SB 1246 is not a §33 revenue bill; "raise" in the 1992 amendment means "increase," so §33 procedures do not apply to tax reductions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ritterbusch, 98 P. 1002 (Okla. 1908) (early Oklahoma case defining "raising revenue" as levying taxes for state purposes and excluding laws that only incidentally create revenue)
- In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 820 P.2d 772 (Okla. 1991) (approval of ballot title and text for the 1992 amendment to Art. V, §33)
- Calvey v. Daxon, 997 P.2d 164 (Okla. 2000) (discussion of §33's history and scope in context of fund transfers)
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma State Bd. of Equalization, 231 P.3d 638 (Okla. 2009) (principle that ballot title and text are read together to determine intent)
- Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Oklahoma County Bd. of Tax Roll Corrections, 578 P.2d 1200 (Okla. 1978) (construction of constitutional provisions to effectuate purpose)
- In re Assessment of Personal Property Taxes Against Missouri Gas Energy, 234 P.3d 938 (Okla. 2008) (ordinary-meaning interpretation of constitutional language for voter understanding)