SQ 844 would give future lawmakers more control over tax reimbursements, while SQ 846 would make voter ID harder for them to undo.
OKLAHOMA CITY — One state question asks Oklahoma voters to give future lawmakers more discretion. The other asks them to prevent future lawmakers from eliminating an existing policy.
The two proposed constitutional amendments on the Aug. 25 ballot address unrelated subjects. State Question 844 concerns reimbursements to communities losing property-tax revenue because of a manufacturing exemption. State Question 846 concerns proof of identity for voting.
Underneath those differences, the questions move power in opposite directions.
SQ 844 would give the Legislature greater control over a reimbursement obligation now embedded in the Oklahoma Constitution. SQ 846 would place the basic voter-identification requirement in the Constitution, where lawmakers could not eliminate it without another statewide vote.
Together, they ask a larger question not found in either ballot title: When should Oklahoma voters bind future Legislatures, and when should legislators have room to adjust state policy?
The same legislative architects
The principal authors of both proposals are House Speaker Kyle Hilbert and Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton, the Legislature’s two highest-ranking members.
Hilbert led the House resolution that became SQ 844, with Paxton as the Senate author. Their roles were reversed on SQ 846.
That does not necessarily make the measures inconsistent. Lawmakers may conclude that a financial formula needs flexibility while a voting requirement should be protected from changing political majorities.
But the questions reflect distinctly different judgments about how much authority future legislators should possess.
More discretion over reimbursements
Oklahoma voters approved the five-year property-tax exemption for qualifying manufacturers in 1985. Because the state grants the exemption while property taxes support local services, the state reimburses affected schools, counties, cities and other entities for the revenue they lose.
SQ 844 would not eliminate that exemption or automatically reduce reimbursements.
Instead, it would authorize lawmakers to establish reimbursement levels and methods. A future Legislature could continue full reimbursements, reduce the percentage paid or create a different formula.
Supporters argue that lawmakers need flexibility to control the program’s cost and prevent a disproportionate amount of state money from going to a small number of communities.
Opponents argue that the state created the exemption and should continue making local governments whole. They warn that leaving reimbursement levels to future Legislatures could expose schools and other local entities to cuts after they have relied on the existing system.
A “yes” vote would preserve the exemption but give lawmakers more control over what the state pays. A “no” vote would retain the current constitutional reimbursement language.
Less discretion over voter ID
SQ 846 takes the opposite approach.
Oklahoma already requires voters to prove their identity. Voters approved the current law in 2010, and it took effect the following year.
Voters may present qualifying government-issued photo identification or the free voter identification card issued by a county election board. Those without identification may cast a provisional ballot and sign a sworn affidavit. For absentee voting, notarization or, in certain cases, two witness signatures serves as proof of identity.
SQ 846 would add a section to the Oklahoma Constitution requiring proof of identity for any method of voting in an election conducted by a county election board or the State Election Board.
Lawmakers would retain authority to determine what constitutes acceptable proof and how the requirement applies to different voting methods. But they could no longer eliminate the underlying requirement on their own.
Supporters say voter identification is an election safeguard important enough to receive constitutional protection. Opponents say the amendment is unnecessary because Oklahoma already requires identification and gives future lawmakers broad authority to decide what proof voters must provide.
A “yes” vote would place the requirement in the Constitution while leaving its details to lawmakers. A “no” vote would leave the existing law in place but subject to future legislative changes.
Opposite judgments about future lawmakers
Neither question presents voters with a choice between keeping and eliminating an existing policy.
The manufacturing exemption would remain regardless of whether SQ 844 passes. Oklahoma’s voter-identification requirement also would remain if SQ 846 fails.
Instead, voters are being asked to make opposite judgments about future Legislatures: Give lawmakers more room to act on one policy, and less room to act on the other.
All registered Oklahoma voters may make those choices Aug. 25, even if they are not eligible to participate in one of the partisan runoff elections.
