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

Background

HB 1449 (effective Nov. 1, 2017) imposed a "Motor Fuels Tax Fee": $100/year for electric-drive vehicles and $30/year for hybrid-drive vehicles, payable at registration and deposited into the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund.
The bill passed in the last five days of the 2017 legislative session with a simple majority (more than 51% but less than 3/4) in both chambers.
Sierra Club sought original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, challenging HB 1449 as an unconstitutional revenue bill under Article V, § 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution and requested writs of prohibition/mandamus; the Court assumed original jurisdiction and treated the petition as a request for declaratory relief.
The principal legal question: whether HB 1449 is a "revenue bill" (i.e., intended primarily to raise revenue and levying a tax in the strict sense), which would trigger Article V, § 33’s procedural supermajority and timing requirements.
The Legislature offered purposes: equalizing road-maintenance burdens because electric/hybrid drivers pay little or no gasoline tax; the bill contains no substantive regulatory scheme tying the fee amount to specific regulatory costs or usage.
The Court evaluated (1) whether the bill’s principal object is raising revenue and (2) whether it levies a tax in the strict sense (versus a regulatory/user fee).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sierra Club)	Defendant's Argument (State/Legislature)	Held
Is HB 1449 a "revenue bill" under Art. V, § 33?	The bill’s principal object is to raise revenue and thus must meet § 33 requirements.	It is not a revenue bill but a user fee to equalize road-maintenance costs.	Held: Yes — HB 1449’s principal object is raising revenue; it is a revenue bill.
Is the assessment a regulatory/user fee or a tax in the strict sense?	The assessment functions as a tax because proceeds fund general highway maintenance and the amount is not tied to direct services or regulatory costs.	The fee is a prototypical user fee tied to road use and parity with gasoline-tax payors.	Held: A tax in the strict sense — no direct nexus to a specific regulatory service; functions as revenue for general government expense.
Do precedents supporting user-fee characterization apply (e.g., mileage-tax or Air Tulsa)?	N/A (plaintiff relies on statutory/constitutional text and effect).	Relies on mileage-tax cases and Air Tulsa to characterize the measure as a permissible fee.	Held: Those precedents do not control — mileage cases involved regulation of commercial carriers and incidental revenue; Air Tulsa involved a municipal utility. HB 1449 lacks comparable regulatory scheme.
Remedy for constitutional violation (procedural defect under § 33)?	HB 1449 is void for failing to satisfy § 33’s origination, supermajority, and timing requirements.	N/A (defendants argued bill was not a revenue bill, so no § 33 violation).	Held: Because HB 1449 is a revenue bill, its passage in the last five days without 3/4 support violated Art. V, § 33 and is unconstitutional; declaratory relief granted.

Key Cases Cited

Leveridge v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 294 P.2d 809 (Okla. 1956) (defines "revenue laws" as those whose principal object is raising revenue and distinguishes bills that incidentally create revenue)
Naifeh v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 400 P.3d 759 (Okla. 2017) (reiterates two-part test: principal object and whether measure levies a tax in the strict sense)
City of Tulsa ex rel. Tulsa Airport Authority v. Air Tulsa, Inc., 851 P.2d 519 (Okla. 1992) (user-fee characterization where charges were for a municipal utility)
Olustee Co-op. Ass'n v. Oklahoma Wheat Util. Research & Mkt. Dev. Comm'n, 391 P.2d 216 (Okla. 1964) (payment merged in general benefit is a tax)
Sanders v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 169 P.2d 748 (Okla. 1946) (gasoline excise is a tax despite highway-use allocation)
In re Lee, 168 P. 53 (Okla. 1917) (filing fee upheld as compensation for services where closely tied to cost of service)
Ex parte Tindall, 229 P. 125 (Okla. 1924) ("mileage tax" case: fee incidental to regulatory scheme for commercial carriers)
Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 66 P.2d 1097 (Okla. 1936) (similar holding for commercial-use highway regulation)