SIERRA CLUB v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 2017 OK 83

Background

H.B. 1449 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017) imposed an annual "Motor Fuels Tax Fee" of $100 on electric-drive vehicles and $30 on hybrid-drive vehicles, payable as a prerequisite to registration, with revenue credited to the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund.
The bill passed in the last five days of the legislative session with >50% but <75% support in each chamber.
Sierra Club filed an original action in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking prohibition/mandamus; the Court assumed original jurisdiction and treated the petition as a request for declaratory relief.
Plaintiff argued H.B. 1449 is a revenue bill that must meet Article V, § 33 requirements (originate in House, 3/4 vote or referendum, not passed in last five days), and therefore is unconstitutional as enacted.
State respondents argued the assessment is a user fee (a regulatory/compensatory charge) to equalize roadway maintenance burdens, not a revenue bill subject to § 33.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is H.B. 1449 a "revenue bill" under Art. V, § 33?	The fee's principal object is to raise revenue for highways, making it a revenue bill subject to § 33.	The measure is a user fee to equalize burdens and compensate for lost motor fuel taxes, thus regulatory not a revenue bill.	Held: H.B. 1449's principal object is raising revenue; it is a revenue bill.
Does H.B. 1449 levy a tax in the strict sense or merely create incidental revenue?	The statute levies a generalized assessment untethered to specific regulatory costs or direct nexus to usage — functioning as a tax.	It is a prototypical user fee tied to road use and parity with gasoline-tax payers.	Held: The Motor Fuels Tax Fee functions as a tax in the strict sense (no direct nexus to service cost; flat fee regardless of mileage).
Are precedents on mileage taxes and user fees (e.g., mileage-tax cases, Air Tulsa) controlling?	Precedents distinguishing taxes and fees show this measure is a tax, not an incidental fee (and mileage cases were regulatory/commercial).	Relied on mileage-user precedents and Air Tulsa to analogize H.B. 1449 to allowable user fees.	Held: Mileage-tax cases and Air Tulsa are distinguishable (applied to commercial carriers or municipal utilities); they do not save H.B. 1449.
Was H.B. 1449 properly enacted given timing and vote?	If the bill is a revenue bill, it failed § 33 requirements (passed in last five days with less than 3/4 vote) and is unconstitutional.	Contended it was not a revenue bill so § 33 does not apply.	Held: Because it is a revenue bill and did not meet § 33 requirements, H.B. 1449 is unconstitutional.

Key Cases Cited

Leveridge v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 294 P.2d 809 (Okla. 1956) (distinguishes revenue laws from measures that incidentally raise revenue)
Naifeh v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 400 P.3d 759 (Okla. 2017) (overarching test: whether measure is intended to raise revenue is controlling)
City of Tulsa ex rel. Tulsa Airport Authority v. Air Tulsa, Inc., 851 P.2d 519 (Okla. 1992) (fuel flow charge held a user fee where assessed by municipal utility)
Sanders v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 169 P.2d 748 (Okla. 1946) (motor fuel tax is an excise on fuel, i.e., a tax, despite earmarking for highways)
Olustee Co-op. Ass'n v. Oklahoma Wheat Utilization Research & Mkt. Dev. Comm'n, 391 P.2d 216 (Okla. 1964) (payment merged in general benefit constitutes a tax)
In re Lee, 168 P. 53 (Okla. 1917) (filing fees tied to service cost are compensatory fees, not taxes)
Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 66 P.2d 1097 (Okla. 1936) (mileage/usage assessments deemed incidental to regulatory schemes)
Ex parte Tindall, 229 P. 125 (Okla. 1924) (mileage fee incidental to regulation of common carriers)
Ex parte Sales, 233 P. 186 (Okla. 1924) (similar to Tindall; fee incidental to regulation of enterprises using highways)