The state constitution is such a bloated mess. Ideally this would be better implemented like the alcohol changes with a paired removal from the constitution and legislation to set the new rules, but that would be hard to do via SQs if you don't already have the legislature largely on board.
Yep, and we're overdue for a legally mandated constitutional convention that should be done for this very reason.
From https://ballotpedia.org/State_consti...al_conventions
"Section 2 of Article XXIV of the Oklahoma Constitution says that the question of whether to hold a convention must go on the Oklahoma ballot every 20 years. However, the last time Oklahomans voted on such a question was in 1970. According to the State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse, "Since 1970, Oklahoma’s legislature has refused to follow its Constitution with regard to this provision. In 1994, it placed a referendum on the ballot to eliminate this requirement, but the people of Oklahoma defeated it. Since 1990, many bills have been introduced to implement this part of the Constitution but none has passed."
Pretty ridiculous that part (or parts) of the state Constitution can just be ignored with absolutely no consequences.
Maybe nobody cared enough to go through the court system with lawsuits when the state constitution is ignored.
Both parties are scared of the potential consequences.
Wondering if someone can force the issue, by bringing a lawsuit? Absolutely no clue if this would work, just curious if standing could be proven enough to proceed...
I’m going to be honest, I’m blown away 793 failed. Other than a couple people on here I don’t know one single person who voted no and about 98% of the signs I’ve seen were vote Yes.
At the end of the day I’m indifferent on it. I voted yes but I didn’t feel overly strong about it.
And the results were neck and neck, that surprised me as well.
Had my optometrist said to vote no, I would have voted yes from getting a $538 bill from her. After insurance and a $50 coupon coupon for contacts, I got it down to $350. I voted yes. Wouldn't be surprised if many people who seldom if ever go to an eye care doctor voted NO.
As I understand it, Wal-Mart can offer eye care, if it is willing to knock a hole in its wall for a door as the separate entrance to its eye care business. I bet Wal-Mart lost a few million from the campaign.
Boy, do I ever agree about the signs. I hope they get out there today and clean it up.
Ultimately, I think the Walmart boogeyman worked. If the narrative wasn't "Walmart is going to dictate healthcare" it was "Walmart is trying to change the constitution of our great state!". People in this very thread said they supported the issue, but were voting no because it changed the constitution. Which is really funny, considering it was pointed out that retail stores are prevented from offering vision care services BY the constitution.
Yes hopefully all the signs get cleaned up quickly.
I think you are right on the way the No vote portrayed it. My Aunt works in the business of eyecare and kept telling everyone in my family to vote no, so I guess I amend my prior statement, but I guess what I thought was funny is no one took the bait because they all didn't buy that passing with a Yes vote would lower the quality of healthcare like the No vote claimed.
At the end of the day I didn't feel super strong about any of them. If they all passed fine. If none did fine as well. This is why we go vote and the people have spoken.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks