Oklahoma State Questions 2018

In 2016, I published a blog on the state questions and what I thought about them. Even though I am late in getting this done, I have been studying them for quite some time, and I will be happy to provide my opinion on them.

For me, state questions are rarely cut and dried. There truly are pros and cons on many of these questions. So, without further ado here’s what I think.

SQ 793 (Eye care) would allow people to receive eye exams and purchase eyeglasses and contact lenses from retail establishments such as Walmart, Costco, and Target, rather than solely in optometry offices.

Proponents say this will provide cheaper and better access to eye care for many Oklahomans, which I think we all can agree would be a good thing. However, optometrists in Oklahoma overwhelmingly oppose this question, saying giant retailers (Walmart) would gain a degree of control over an optometric physician’s scope of practice, which conflicts with the Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Optometry guidelines. They also say quality of care will be compromised by the profit motive of large retailers. Proponent ads tout that glasses sold at Walmart are much cheaper. However, Walmart can already sell glasses if they want, and also, cheap glasses are available on other discount eyewear chains and also online.

So, I recommend a NO vote based on the opposition of local optometrists, and, I personally don’t really want to see Walmart start gaining more market share on medical services.

SQ 794 (Marsy’s Law) would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to reinforce and extend the rights of crime victims to be heard during court proceedings, to be notified of all their rights, and to have their rights protected equally to those of the accused.

Proponents say it would assure victims’ rights are protected by the state constitution in a manner equal to defendants’ rights. Victims would be informed immediately of their rights, would know of any court proceedings of the accused, as well as when and if a perpetrator were released. Victims would gain the right to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole, and any proceeding during which the rights of the victim are at issue.

Opponents of the issue’s main objection seems to be that it would place an unreasonable financial burden on local court systems that lack the money for dedicated victims’ rights staff. The measure would require tracking and notifying thousands of crime victims about criminal cases and could cost millions of dollars. Also, apparently the law has come under legal scrutiny in other states that have enacted it. The ACLU opposes it.

Frankly, I recommend a YES vote because victims really do not have the kind of rights they should when it comes to notification of parole hearings or releases. The system as set up now for victims isn’t really working. Some states that have passed the law are tweaking it, and that may have to be done if Oklahoma passes it.

SQ 798 (Single Ticket). This proposal would change the existing election process for governor and lieutenant governor from separate elections to a joint ticket, similar to that for the president and vice president of the United States.

Proponents say the lieutenant governor would be more effective because he or she would work in tandem with the governor. The leadership team would have a common vision when providing oversight of executive agencies. The measure would eliminate an adversarial relationship within the executive branch.

I don’t see why we even need a lieutenant governor. Right now, the duties of that office are primarily to promote tourism and economic development. That’s vague if I’ve ever heard it. As for the need for an executive if the governor is not available for some reason, the Senate Majority Leader could take up those duties just as easily.

The main reason for this measure, in my opinion, is to make it easier for the party that holds the governorship to “groom” the next governor through the lieutenant governor’s office. For that reason, I recommend a NO vote on this. The only adversarial relationship recently between governor and lieutenant governor was this past year when the Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb saw the writing on the wall in being attached to sitting Gov. Mary Fallin. His prediction came true, and he was bounced from the ticket during the first primary.

SQ 800 (GPT Rainy Day Fund) formally known as the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Development Tax Revenue Investment Fund Amendment—is also called the Oklahoma Vision Fund. The purpose of the measure is to establish an additional investment/savings fund for the state.

Proponents say the measure would create a reliable revenue source that endures even if oil and gas production tax receipts experience a long-term decline or go through more boom-and-bust cycles. As the fund grows, it could eventually reduce the need to raise other state taxes or could allow for tax reductions. This proposal appropriately places a limit on use of the trust fund to pay off government indebtedness.

Opponents are the school districts, who say this measure diverts much-needed gross production tax funding to current educational needs. They also say there is already a rainy day fund.

I can truly see both sides to this issue, and I change my mind regularly on it.  The school districts, after a decade of being underfunded, don’t want to run the risk of their funding being cut any more by taking a small percentage of the current GPT out of the funding pool now.

However, the cyclical nature of the oil and gas business make a separate GPT rainy day fund an intriguing idea. And frankly, the majority of Oklahomans (including legislators) don’t understand the oil and gas business or its taxation, and they are often too willing to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry, even as they say the state needs to diversify its tax base. Still, the oil and gas industry makes up nearly 25% of all state revenues.

Right now, I am leaning toward a YES vote on this measure. However, I can still mark myself as UNDECIDED at this time.

SQ 801 (Ad valorem tax for education) seeks to allow local districts to tap another funding source—ad valorem taxes dedicated to a school building fund—for operations expenses, including teacher and other salaries.

Proponents argue school districts would have the option to use building fund property taxes in excess of their capital needs to pay for operating expenses such as teacher salaries and textbooks. The flexibility in using these funds would reduce the need for the state to raise taxes.

Opponents are rightly concerned that the amendment would incentivize the Legislature to reduce appropriations for education as well as cause teacher unions to push for tapping the building fund for salary increases.

I recommend a NO vote on this one. The same thing was tried several years ago with textbook funding. The districts wanted discretion over that money instead of it being line-itemed. So, what happened? School districts didn’t get textbooks replaced because in the hard times, they used funding for other things.

So, there you have it. These are my thoughts on the questions. There are some very good resources out there for you to do some research on the state questions. One really good resource is linked here – the League of Women Voters Oklahoma Voter Guide.