 |
| Patrick Wyrick (R)2018 |
The Five Tyrants of the Oklahoma Supreme Court
The dissenting opinions of Justices Combs, Watt, Edmondson, and Colbert lay out a clear case of judicial activism and tyranny. You can read the entire decision here along with the dissenting opinion of the four honorable justices. You will notice that the two Republican appointed justices betrayed both the Republican Party and the people that voted for SQ 640.
 |
| John F. Reif (D) 2020 |
The Oklahoma Supreme Court didn't just get their ruling wrong on the car tax, they purposefully gutted SQ 640 and thwarted the will of the people. Their opinion relies upon one decision, Leveridge V. Oklahoma Tax Commission, a ruling that closed a loophole that allowed auto dealers to evade state tax on cars.
SQ 640 simply made it difficult for the legislature to raise revenue and taxes by requiring a super majority or a vote of the people and not allowing revenue raising bills to pass in the final five days of session. What these five tyrants did was add a second prong to what was historically used to determine if a bill was a revenue bill or not. The first prong, established one year after the formation of the court, is if the bill's purpose or principle object is the raising of revenue and not a bill where revenue is raised incidentally. What the five tyrants did was add the second prong of "does the bill levy a tax in the strict sense of the word".
 |
| Norma Gurich (D) 2018 |
The five tyrants conceded that the bill indeed raises revenue but they claim that the bill simply removes a partial exemption from a tax levied in 1933, using the Leveridge V. Oklahoma Tax Commission case in 1956. However, the legislation in question in that Leveridge case was HB855 which clarified the status of motor vehicles in the state for excise tax purposes and the revenue raised by HB855 was very limited in the words of the Tax Commission. As HB855's primary purpose was not to levy more taxes but to define what a motor vehicle was, HB was not a revenue bill. In the language of the Leveridge decision was this: "does not within its four corners levy a tax and for said reason is not per se a revenue bill." Leveridge v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1956 OK 77
And what is "levying a tax"? That occurs when the tax rate is set for the item in question. Yet the five tyrants believe that the state sales tax on cars was levied in 1935 despite the rate being set by HB2433 in the spring of this year.
 |
| James Winchester (R)2022 |
The difference between Leveridge's HB855 and HB2433 is stark and unmistakable. HB 2433 levies a tax of 1.25% instead of closing a loophole that clever auto dealers could use to evade taxation. HB2433 had the sole purpose of filling a state budget hole with millions of dollars in new taxes. In Fent V. Fallin the court ruled that SQ had two primary purposes, to limit the generation of state revenue to existing revenue measures and second to require that future legislation raising revenue receive a passing vote of the people or a 75% super majority vote in the legislature. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Fent V. Fallin determined that SQ 640's overriding purpose was to effect tax relief for the citizens.
Earlier in Calvey V. Daxon the court ruled that the 1992 amendments brought by SQ 640 did not change the clearly settled meaning of the terms "revenue bill or bill for raising revenue" but that amending existing revenue raising measures are okay as long as the amendments do not "raise or increase the tax burden". Obviously HB 2433 does exactly that.
 |
| Yvonne Kauger (D) 2018 |
The second controversy of the ruling this week is that a constitutional provision must be construed considering its purpose and given a practical interpretation that the people that voted for the state question would have understood. State questions are not to be parsed by judges or lawyers, they are clear directives to the legislature and the court so that both will understand their rights and duties under the constitution.
Another chicanery by the court was calling the sales tax increase an extension of the excise tax yet had the legislature tried to increase the excise tax by 1.25% they clearly would have been required to have a super majority vote or refer it to the people for approval. Yet the new tax is collected in the same manner as the existing excise tax, at the tag agent office, not at the point of sale as sales taxes are collected.
The dissenting opinions on this tyrannical decision point out that all of the ten billion dollars worth of tax exemptions are now up for removal with a simple 51% vote at the legislature. SQ 640 is eviscerated for all times.
The 2018 is coming up and three of the five justices are up for renewal. One dissenting judge is on the ballot, James Edmondson. Vote accordingly.
