2010 Oklahoma State Questions

I am posting a list of the ballot questions we will see in November here in Oklahoma. This is a neutral summary of the measures, the changes that they are proposing, and some reasons that proponents support the measure and opponents oppose it. This is intended to be an informative list, not persuasive.


744: Education Spending. State Question 744, also known as the “Helping Oklahoma Public Education Act” or “HOPE Initiative”, was initiated by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) after the union lost a lawsuit seeking to increase education funding. If approved, this constitutional amendment would determine the annual education budget in Oklahoma by assessing the regional average per pupil in six neighboring states and spending that amount per pupil in Oklahoma. That average would be determined by the State Equalization Board as part of the revenue certification process. There are no provisions in the measure on how the state would fund this.
• Proponents of this measure claim that if passed, Oklahoma will have the ability to raise teachers’ salaries, decrease class sizes, and purchase new textbooks and technology. This would give Oklahoma children the same educational opportunities as children in neighboring states. Proponents also say that investing in education will bring business investment to our state and result in a better educated workforce.
• Opponents of this measure claim that the budget challenges that the education fund is facing is shared by all spectrums of state government. Mandating a huge increase in spending without ensuring an equal increase in revenues will likely result in our state falling behind in other important areas of public investment, including services that are relied on by schoolchildren and teachers. Opponents also disagree with making a budget appropriations policy constitutionally mandated because it takes the flexibility out of the budget process in difficult economic times. Many believe that this measure will be challenged in court if it passes.


746: Voter ID. State Question 746, also known as the “Oklahoma Voter Identification Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Oklahoma state senator John Ford. The measure was previously introduced as Senate Bill 692 during the 2009 legislative session and was passed by the House but vetoed by Governor Henry. If passed it would require any person casting a vote to present either photo identification or voter registration cards. Those without a valid ID can still cast a provisional ballot which will be counted once they confirm their identity.
• Proponents of this measure claim that verifying the identity of voters is critical in maintaining the integrity of our democracy. They claim that the measure would not be considered an undue hardship or an inconvenience to voters and would discourage voter fraud.
• Opponents of this measure claim that requiring identification creates an unnecessary impediment to voting and is in conflict with the Oklahoma Constitution. The state charges for identification cards and some say to require someone to have one is similar to an illegal poll tax, impacting minorities, the elderly, and the poor most frequently. Opponents also claim that this measure is a solution in search of a problem due to the fact that voter fraud has not been a problem in Oklahoma.


747: Term limits for statewide elected officials. State Question 747, also known as the “Oklahoma Term Limits Question,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Randy Brogdon. If passed, a constitutional amendment would be enacted that limits all statewide elected officials to only two terms in a specific office. That would be a lifetime total of 8-years in office for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Labor Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Labor Commissioner and 12-years in office for Corporation Commissioners. Partial terms would not apply to the limit. Those in office already when it passes would not have prior time count against them except the Governor.
• Proponents of the measure claim that enacting these stricter term limits will continue to bring new ideas to the state and will discourage scandal in the offices of state-wide elected officials.
• Opponents of the measure do not see the need for enacting stricter term limits because they trust future Oklahoma voters to determine on a case by case basis whether or not an incumbent is qualified to remain in office.


748: Apportionment. State Question 748, also known as the “Oklahoma Reapportionment Commission Measure,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Coffee and Representative Benge that seeks to establish a commission that would determine new district boundaries if the Legislature cannot agree on new districts following a U.S. census. The commission will have seven members instead of the current three. The Lt. Governor will head the commission along with six members appointed by the Governor, House Speaker, and Senate president pro-tem. Each must nominate one Democrat and one Republican.
• Proponents of this measure claim this is a good backup measure designed to step in only if the legislature cannot agree on redistricting.
• Opponents of this measure claim that this measure is a step taken by the legislative branch to shift power from elected offices and move it to the legislature.


750: Ballot Access. State Question 750, is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Randy Brogdon. If passed, the Oklahoma Constitution would be amended to lower the signature requirement required to gain access to the ballot via initiative and referendum petitioning to be based on the turnout in the most recent gubernatorial election. The current formula is based on a percentage of voters in the last general election which includes presidential elections where the turnout is greater and therefore more signatures are currently required during the two years following a presidential election.
• Proponents of the measure state that current Oklahoma initiative requirements are too stringent and this will help make the process simpler.
• Opponents of the measure say that the state has seen several ballot questions on previous ballots that were proposed by the initiative process and do not see the need in changing the requirements.


751: English Language. State Question 751, also known as the “English is the Official Language of Oklahoma Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Randy Terrill. If passed, this measure would constitutionally mandate all official actions of the state to be conducted in English. It does not prohibit the use of tribal languages. It also states that NO lawsuit could be brought against political subdivisions of the State to provide services in languages other than English.
• Proponents of the measure claim that it would increase the incentives for immigrants to learn English and make them more successful U.S. citizens because they would more easily assimilate to our culture. Proponents also say that this measure would reduce any government expenditures spent on translating and publishing material in languages other than English.
• Opponents of the measure say that the measure would create problems in the state, especially for non-English speakers when seeking government services. That impact might end up hurting the state economy instead of helping it. This measure is also being watched by the U.S. Department of Justice who has stated that this measure may be in conflict with federal law that requires Oklahoma to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient persons and if passed, federal funds received by the state may be in jeopardy.


752: Judicial Nominating Commission. State Question 752, also known as the “Judicial Nominating Commission Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by state Senators Patrick Anderson, Clark Jolley, and Representative Daniel Sullivan. If passed, the Judicial Nominating Commission would be increased by two members. Currently the commission has 13 members: 6 lawyers appointed by the bar association and 7 non-lawyers appointed by the Governor. This would add two more non-lawyers, one each appointed by the Speaker of the House and President Pro-Tem of the Senate. The measure also changes the qualification for the non-lawyer members of the commission and prohibits them from having an immediate family member that is an attorney in any state.
• Proponents of the measure claim that this will make the commission more balanced and remove the majority of control from the Oklahoma Bar Association who prefers judicial activists.
• Opponents do not see the necessity of this measure and note that the commission is already comprised of more non-lawyers than lawyers. Opponents also state that this legislative referendum is a way for the legislative branch to retain more power.


754: State Spending. State Question 754, also known as the “No Mandated State Expenditures Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Todd Lamb along with multiple representatives. This measure was proposed in response to SQ 744. If passed, this constitutional amendment would not allow the constitution to mandate legislative appropriations based on a predetermined formula, how much other states spend, or how much any entity spends on a function. If this measure passes and SQ 744 fails it will become law. If both measures pass, the one that passes by a larger majority will prevail.
• Proponents of this measure claim that the constitution cannot require the legislature to make appropriations decisions based on comparisons to spending in other states. When budget appropriations are added to the constitution, flexibility is removed from the budget process.
• Opponents claim that by not allowing any challenge to this measure, the rights of every future generation of Oklahomans to determine their own means of governing themselves would be taken away. Some also question the constitutionality of this measure.


755: State Courts. State Question 755, also known as the “Oklahoma International Law Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Rex Duncan and many other representatives and senators. If passed, the constitutional amendment would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when making decisions and forbids decisions based on international or Sharia law.
• Proponents of the measure claim that this law is a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma and is necessary to protect Oklahomans.
• Opponents of this measure say that there have not been any instances of Sharia law in Oklahoma and that this is just another attack against Muslims. Opponents say that the law is Anti-American and singles out an entire community to incite unnecessary fear.


756: Health Insurance. State Question 756, also known as the “Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Mike Thompson and Senator Dan Newberry in response to potential federal healthcare provisions. If passed, this constitutional amendment would categorize a law that would prohibit any future law that requires residents, employers, or health care providers to participate in any health care system and would allow residents to be exempt from any health care mandates.
• Proponents of this measure claim that this is a step toward ensuring that voters get the chance to decide on the health care issue. Some proponents claim that passing this measure will provide Oklahomans with a legal protection against the federal government.
• Opponents of this measure state that even with the passage of this measure the effect will be futile because federal law will override state law. Many, including Governor Henry, state that passing this measure will only lead to lawsuits against the state due to the conflict with federal law which is an expense that the state does not need.


757: Rainy Day Fund. State Question 757, also known as the “Oklahoma Rainy Day Fund Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Mike Johnson and Representative Ken Miller. If passed, this constitutional amendment would increase the amount of money that can be placed in the Constitutional Reserve Fund, known as the Rainy Day Fund. The current maximum is 10% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues and this measure would raise that to 15%.