State Question 846 is being marketed as an election integrity measure. It isn’t.
Every election, Oklahoma voters arrive at their polling place, present an acceptable form of identification, verify their eligibility, and cast their ballot. It’s a routine Oklahomans understand. The law has been on the books since 2011. It has survived court challenges. There is no crisis to fix.
So why are we being asked to amend the Oklahoma Constitution?
Because legislative leaders say they want to “set voter ID in stone.” That sounds reassuring until you read what the proposal actually does. SQ 846 doesn’t lock today’s voter ID law into the Constitution. Instead, it gives the legislature constitutional authority to determine what forms of identification will be accepted in the future.
That’s where I definitely part company with its supporters. This isn’t an argument about whether voter identification should be required. This is about whether you should trust current or future politicians with even greater constitutional authority over who gets to vote in what conditions.
Frankly, I don’t.
Over the past several years, we’ve watched Republican-controlled legislatures across the country repeatedly propose more restrictive election laws. Some may have been well-intentioned. Others were clearly driven by politics. Either way, I have learned to be skeptical anytime politicians tell me they need more power over the election process.
Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government. We are supposed to be cautious about expanding government authority simply because we happen to agree with the people currently in office. Legislatures change. Political winds shift. Constitutions should protect citizens from government overreach—not make government overreach easier.
Supporters argue that if Oklahoma already requires voter ID, putting it into the Constitution changes nothing.
If so, then why do it?
The answer is that it changes something. It gives future legislatures a stronger constitutional argument for whatever voter ID restrictions they may choose to enact later. If lawmakers decide to narrow the list of acceptable IDs, eliminate reasonable accommodations or otherwise make voting more difficult, they’ll be able to argue they’re simply carrying out a constitutional mandate.
That should concern every voter, regardless of party or political ideology.
The Oklahoma Constitution is supposed to establish broad principles of government. This measure simply allows that constitution to become a vehicle for solving imaginary problems or insulating lawmakers from future accountability.
When politicians ask you to amend the Constitution to address a problem that doesn’t exist, the answer should be simple. In this instance, the conservative answer is the simplest one: if it isn’t broken, don’t let politicians “fix” it.
Protect the integrity of Oklahoma’s Constitution. Vote no on State Question 846.
Cindy Allen 