Oklahoma State Questions

[Laramie]

.
Oklahoma State Questions: https://okpolicy.org/oklahoma-2018-s...and-elections/

In addition to state and national races, voters will decide five state questions on November 6th.

State Question 793 – a citizen-initiated referendum to allow optometrists and opticians to operate in retail establishments;

State Question 794 – expanding the constitutional rights of crime victims, known as ‘Marcy’s Law’;

State Question 798 – providing for the election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor on a joint ticket starting in 2026;

State Question 800 – creating a new budget reserve fund, the Oklahoma Vision Fund, to receive a portion of gross production tax revenues;

State Question 801 – allowing local building fund revenues to be used for school operations.

[Bunty]

Yes them all.

[Zuplar]

Yes them all.

Ditto.

[Bobby821]

I would vote NO to them all except for maybe 794. Don't need my property taxes going higher for the schools I do not use!!

[jerrywall]

Yes them all.

Why, out of curiosity? Especially 798. I've always thought that was a strength. Having them on the same ticket consolidates more power with a single branch/office.

[PaddyShack]

What exactly does sq794 do? Does it have any adverse affect on the defendant and their rights?

[PaddyShack]

Also, would sq 801 just move money around and push the blame of funding issues to someone else?

[OkiePoke]

Yes, except on SQ 801

[OkiePoke]

Also, would sq 801 just move money around and push the blame of funding issues to someone else?

Kind of... It would allow schools to use property tax to fund other items besides capital/buildings. It could shift the funding issues a few years down the road, kind of an instant gratification without any plan to really fix the issue. That's my thought on it.

[jedicurt]

i'm absolutely voting no on 798... and i would encourage all of you to do the same... this is one of the strengths of the Oklahoma government as it currently is, to allow the possibility to have a multi-party executive and give us more ideas and better policy decisions...

i still need to research all the rest, but pretty much in favor with the little i know

[shawnw]

creates deferred maintenance issues. find the KOSU piece done on this recently, schools don't seem to actually want it.

[jedicurt]

creates deferred maintenance issues. find the KOSU piece done on this recently, schools don't seem to actually want it.

good to know they did a piece... i'll have to go check it out. added to my list for SQ801 research

[TheTravellers]

i'm absolutely voting no on 798... and i would encourage all of you to do the same... this is one of the strengths of the Oklahoma government as it currently is, to allow the possibility to have a multi-party executive and give us more ideas and better policy decisions...

So.....how's that working out?

[David]

State Question 793 – Yes, I even signed the petition for this one

State Question 794 – Undecided, I would like a better explanation for why the proponents think it is needed. My gut reaction is that it goes hand in hand with the "tough on crime" philosophy that got us in such a problematic situation with our jail population in the first place.

State Question 798 – Leaning no

State Question 800 – Yes

State Question 801 – Leaning no

[jedicurt]

So.....how's that working out?

well. you go back and look at the times where they were not of the same party, and you see some of the best times in Oklahoma history. things seems to be quite good under Brad Henry when Mary Fallin was LT Governor...

time periods where they were separate parties

1963-1967 you had Leo Winters at Lt gov under Henry Bellmon
and 1967-1971 you had George Nigh under Dewy Bartlett

by the end of the 1960's oklahoma had one of its strongest and most diversified economies in state history, as we went from being mostly agricultural to expanding into manufacturing activity as well. from 1963-1973 there were 65,000 new manufacturing jobs brought to oklahoma

1987-1991 Robert S kerr III under Henry Bellmon with the fallout from the Oil Bust going on... the hemorrhaging that oklahoma was experiencing was terrible in 1986, and even in 87-89... but by 1990 there seemed to be some hope of coming out of it... and it was policy decisions of this split executive that were a large reason for the start of the turn around.

from 2003-2007 Mary Fallin as Lt Gov and Brad Henry helped see oklahoma grow it's economy when the rest of the country was going through a massive recession due to the housing bubble burst as well as the fall of Enron... Forbes Magazine in early 2008 said that the last 5 years had proved that Oklahoma was quote "Recession Proof"

Do you have a counter argument to support your claim that it didn't work out well for us?

[shawnw]

I don't like how it is, but don't want to go with how it's done federally (currently) either. I'd personally like both federal and state go back to how federal used to be, which is the top two vote getters for president become prez and vp. I feel like that would help re-institute some civility in government, by necessity.

[dteagle]

SQ793 YES

SQ794 NO, not because the overall concept of allowing victims to participate in certain proceedings is bad, but because:

• The notice requirement would be a nightmare to administer as currently drafted. Rather than create a situation where the courts or district attorneys must arguably put resources into tracking down victims that have relocated, a much better idea would be to limit the notice obligation to victims who have voluntarily supplied email or physical addresses for notice. Place the obligation on victims or their representatives to keep the information current (anyone who cares enough to participate in the process should be willing to update contact information).
• The scope of victim and others affected is too broad, and likely to lead to people with fairly remote ties to the crime participating in the process. At a minimum, the legislature should be granted authority to modify the scope (in case it proves unworkable).
• The crimes to which the requirement applies should be narrowed with a specific list.

SQ798 NO

SQ 800 YES

SQ 801 YES. I realize the concern is that this would give the legislature a pass on adequately funding education. However, it provides important flexibility for districts to redirect resources as needed. Right now, a routine argument against additional state education funding is, why should we add funding for schools when we have failed to take advantage of the low hanging fruit, such as flexible use of local taxes and reduction of administrative costs through consolidation? Passing SQ 801 will remove lack of flexibility from the list of excuses.

[TheTravellers]

well. you go back and look at the times where they were not of the same party, and you see some of the best times in Oklahoma history. things seems to be quite good under Brad Henry when Mary Fallin was LT Governor...

time periods where they were separate parties

1963-1967 you had Leo Winters at Lt gov under Henry Bellmon
and 1967-1971 you had George Nigh under Dewy Bartlett

by the end of the 1960's oklahoma had one of its strongest and most diversified economies in state history, as we went from being mostly agricultural to expanding into manufacturing activity as well. from 1963-1973 there were 65,000 new manufacturing jobs brought to oklahoma

1987-1991 Robert S kerr III under Henry Bellmon with the fallout from the Oil Bust going on... the hemorrhaging that oklahoma was experiencing was terrible in 1986, and even in 87-89... but by 1990 there seemed to be some hope of coming out of it... and it was policy decisions of this split executive that were a large reason for the start of the turn around.

from 2003-2007 Mary Fallin as Lt Gov and Brad Henry helped see oklahoma grow it's economy when the rest of the country was going through a massive recession due to the housing bubble burst as well as the fall of Enron... Forbes Magazine in early 2008 said that the last 5 years had proved that Oklahoma was quote "Recession Proof"

Do you have a counter argument to support your claim that it didn't work out well for us?

Not really a counter-argument, just that I (and many, many other people) believe that the Lt. Gov. doesn't do much here in OK, doesn't matter if they're the same or different party that the Gov. is. I could be wrong, though, because I really haven't delved too deeply into the Lt. Gov.'s responsibilities and duties.

Is it correlation or cause-and-effect? In 3 of your 4 examples, it was an R Gov. and D Lt. Gov., and only in the last one was it a D Gov. and R Lt. Gov. It could just as well be said that having an R Gov. made all those things happen, unless there's some kind of documentation that says "Lt. Gov. <insert-name-here> created this legislation/idea/plan/etc. that did <insert-great-thing-here>". And historically, I've always heard/thought/believed that the Lt. Gov. was pretty much instrumental in .... nothing. Never really heard of great things that the Lt. Gov. did, but that could just mean I wasn't paying attention and great things were accomplished by the Lt. Gov. working in tandem with the Gov., but I just never heard it. And not using Wikipedia as gospel, but even they say this: "However, when the governor and lieutenant governor are of different parties, the role of the lieutenant governor is minimal."

I just don't see the cause-and-effect relationship between great things happening and having a Gov. and Lt. Gov. of different parties, there are so many other factors at play that could be part of it. However, if information that truly shows that is posted, I'll gladly change my mind.

[jedicurt]

Not really a counter-argument, just that I (and many, many other people) believe that the Lt. Gov. doesn't do much here in OK, doesn't matter if they're the same or different party that the Gov. is. I could be wrong, though, because I really haven't delved too deeply into the Lt. Gov.'s responsibilities and duties.

Is it correlation or cause-and-effect? In 3 of your 4 examples, it was an R Gov. and D Lt. Gov., and only in the last one was it a D Gov. and R Lt. Gov. It could just as well be said that having an R Gov. made all those things happen, unless there's some kind of documentation that says "Lt. Gov. <insert-name-here> created this legislation/idea/plan/etc. that did <insert-great-thing-here>". And historically, I've always heard/thought/believed that the Lt. Gov. was pretty much instrumental in .... nothing. Never really heard of great things that the Lt. Gov. did, but that could just mean I wasn't paying attention and great things were accomplished by the Lt. Gov. working in tandem with the Gov., but I just never heard it. And not using Wikipedia as gospel, but even they say this: "However, when the governor and lieutenant governor are of different parties, the role of the lieutenant governor is minimal."

I just don't see the cause-and-effect relationship between great things happening and having a Gov. and Lt. Gov. of different parties, there are so many other factors at play that could be part of it. However, if information that truly shows that is posted, I'll gladly change my mind.

so let me ask you this... voting yes to to change the way things are... so let me go on the other side... why change it? show me the evidence that shows that having them be the same party is advantageous? i can easily point to what Falin and Lamb have done as plenty of example why we don't want partisan politics leading us... so show me the counter point as to why you think we should spend the time to make this change. it hasn't been needed the over 100 year history of our State... so why now is it needed?

[TheTravellers]

so let me ask you this... voting yes to to change the way things are... so let me go on the other side... why change it? show me the evidence that shows that having them be the same party is advantageous? i can easily point to what Falin and Lamb have done as plenty of example why we don't want partisan politics leading us... so show me the counter point as to why you think we should spend the time to make this change. it hasn't been needed the over 100 year history of our State... so why now is it needed?

I can't really answer that. Due to the way the Lt. Gov. and Gov. roles are in OK, it probably doesn't make a difference either way, other than giving the Gov. office in total a "unified vision" (which may or may not be a good thing, going back to your Lamb/Fallin reference):

From https://soonerpoll.com/majority-of-o...on-the-ballot/

“Partnering the Governor and Lieutenant Governor is a common-sense move that will ensure we have a leadership team with a unified vision,” said Cordon DeKock, Vice President for Political Affairs at the State Chamber of Oklahoma, and a supporter of the legislation. “Aligning these positions will allow our officials to coordinate to provide more robust oversight of executive agencies and to accomplish other goals for the state.”

But will it really do that? Even during the best of times, I believe the Lt. Gov. role is minimal, so maybe planning for the future if the Lt. Gov. role does become more important, the groundwork will have been laid?

Just read that in TX, the Lt. Gov. is the most powerful office in the state because they appoint all the committee chairs of the committees in the Senate, determines where the bills are going to be sent, and to what committees and the timing of that. So if the OK Lt. Gov. had that kind of power and was teamed up with the Gov. in the same political party, things would be way different. But yeah, as it stands, the SQ will really change nothing unless the Lt. Gov.'s powers/duties change.

[Midtowner]

State Question 793 – a citizen-initiated referendum to allow optometrists and opticians to operate in retail establishments;

I'm against this. We have very affordable vision care in Oklahoma. I don't think it's good policy to let retailers dictate medical care. It is good for Oklahomans to have full and thorough eye examinations. It is in all of our interest that they do as ultimately, the public is going to end up paying for anyone who loses their vision due preventable disease.

State Question 794 – expanding the constitutional rights of crime victims, known as ‘Marcy’s Law’;

This is probably the worst of the bunch. Not many people know what it actually does. This law is going to impose additional burdens on our justice system and has no mechanism to pay for it. I assume we'll just end up with more fee increases at the guilty plea, which means more people in jail for missing payments which means more cost to the taxpayer. We need to let our prosecutors try their cases unshackled. Let them stand for election. If they're treating victims poorly, the voters can hold them accountable.

State Question 798 – providing for the election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor on a joint ticket starting in 2026;

This is fine.. I'd be even more fine with eliminating the position of L.G. We could do something like elevate the Speaker of the House until an election could be set. That'd probably be a decent savings to the state.

State Question 800 – creating a new budget reserve fund, the Oklahoma Vision Fund, to receive a portion of gross production tax revenues;

No. We just gave teachers a pay raise paid for by the GPT. We can't start shifting that revenue around. If this was paired with an increase back to 7%, I'd be on board.

State Question 801 – allowing local building fund revenues to be used for school operations.

Terrible idea. This will be great for some schools which are off the funding formula. Rumor has it Edmond wants to dramatically increase teacher pay. We need solutions for ALL school districts. This helps the richest and will allow us to continue to punt on real solutions.

[Bunty]

from 2003-2007 Mary Fallin as Lt Gov and Brad Henry helped see oklahoma grow it's economy when the rest of the country was going through a massive recession due to the housing bubble burst as well as the fall of Enron... Forbes Magazine in early 2008 said that the last 5 years had proved that Oklahoma was quote "Recession Proof"

No, the nation was not going through a massive recession during 2003-2007. Instead, it was bouncing back well from 9/11. This massive recession you referred to started in late 2007 and continued until 2009. That recession began a decline in Oklahoma schools and other areas, due to funding cuts from which it has yet to recover. Would it have helped to have a Democrat Lieut. governor since then? I tend to doubt it from overwhelming domination by Republicans. If most other states don't have separate races for Liet. Gov and Gov, then it's probably the way to go.

[hoya]

No on all of them, except perhaps 800.

[Dustin]

793 - Sure
794 - No
798 - Why not
800 - No
801 - No

[Bunty]

Also, would sq 801 just move money around and push the blame of funding issues to someone else?

SQ801 is simply the Oklahoma Legislature's response to the fact that hardly anybody, including them, want to adequately fund Oklahoma education. Legislators have been cutting education for too long. Raising teacher pay was like pulling hen's teeth only able to be done after a failed first session that wasted taxpayer money. Oklahoma voters don't want to better fund education as was proven by failure of the question to hike state sales tax. School bond issues have greater success at the ballot box, so this is a good source to try to find more money for education while keeping it local.

If people still want to vote no on 801, then try to find where your legislative candidates stand on education funding. Because too many legislators refuse to be responsible for school funding and explains why the need for 801. The fact that around 8 Republican legislators got voted out of office last summer for their failure to support the bill passed to raise teacher pay gives credit to the people for finally noticing what's been going on.