.
Oklahoma State Questions: https://okpolicy.org/oklahoma-2018-state-questions-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.

Yes them all.

Yes them all.

Ditto.

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!!

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.

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

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

Yes, except on SQ 801

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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-oklahomans-believe-the-governor-and-lieutenant-governor-should-run-as-a-team-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.

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.

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.

No on all of them, except perhaps 800.

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

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.

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.


You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

It's as fictional as the whole "your dog's vet will be able to prescribe medical marijuana" thing. No retailer will be dictating medical care, obviously. Nobody is suggesting the greeter at Walmart is going to glance at you and write your eye prescription. Eye exams will be done exactly as they are now, by a qualified medical professional. You'll simply have more places where you can buy your frames/lenses. Go to any optometrist you want, go to any store you want. As seen above, even the people opposed admit that it will still be a qualified, licensed optometrist doing the exam.

Or, you know, maybe they're right and everyone will go blind if we're actually dumb enough to allow this. Just like everyone in the other states besides Rhode Island, Delaware, and Oklahoma did.

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

It's about letting retailers rather than qualified medical professionals dictate standards of care. If you go to an optometrist, they're going to test for glaucoma and a myriad of other conditions. The vast majority of people will not go for those full exams if something more convenient and less expensive is available. That impacts public health--and when the result is blindness, the public picks up the tab for that.

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

Read the Oklahoma Constitution sometime. It covers a lot of seemingly random subjects like the flash point of kerosene--a fact often used by some to justify having a Constitutional Convention, which is technically required and long overdue according to the Constitution. I think we're all too afraid to have a Constitution because our legislators are mostly young and inexperienced and we'd end up with something largely written by lobbyists.

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

The desire to put a new law or regulation in the state constitution comes from the belief that it makes it much harder for the legislature to mess with. If, instead, it's put in the statutes, the legislature can substantially change it or do as much as throw the whole thing out. However, I bet a lot of people were surprised that the governor and legislative leaders changed their minds and did not go with a special session to gut SQ788. In 2019, it will be interesting to see, if they remain faithful to what is prescribed in SQ788. If they do, it will encourage supporters to legalize rec marijuana to go with a statute change for the next petition, while having a considerably lower required number of signatures.

It's about letting retailers rather than qualified medical professionals dictate standards of care. If you go to an optometrist, they're going to test for glaucoma and a myriad of other conditions. The vast majority of people will not go for those full exams if something more convenient and less expensive is available. That impacts public health--and when the result is blindness, the public picks up the tab for that.

Sorry I just don’t buy that argument. The majority of people that end up going this route don’t do anything now. Sure there will be some that switch. Those that have major eye issues will continue going where they do. I feel like this fits where I am. I have perfect vision. I went 8 years ago because I thought my vision was slipping. I got told my vision was perfect, no need to come back for a decade unless I’m having issues. Ended up costing me $100 or more cause no vision insurance. Now had Walmart offered a similar test for half that I absolutely would have gone that route. I could find out if it was just eye strain (which it was, some cheap computer glasses on amazon helped a ton) or if there is something more serious. To me that would have been much better option for me. Someone like my wife who is nearly blind without contacts would never be satisfied going to Walmart, but then again we’d have options.

i just don't understand why everyone is so apathetic about 798. our big issue over the past 8 years was partisanship in the state government... so we just want to make that easier to happen???? i'm really at a loss

i just don't understand why everyone is so apathetic about 798. our big issue over the past 8 years was partisanship in the state government... so we just want to make that easier to happen???? i'm really at a loss

Now tell the truth... can you name all three candidates for Lt. Governor?

That's why.

Now tell the truth... can you name all three candidates for Lt. Governor?

That's why.

Anastasia Pittman and Matt Pinnell and the independent is something holmes.. he is the one that i don't know much about

Anastasia Pittman beet out Anna Dearmore in the primary for the Dems

and Matt Pinnell beat out Dana Murphy for the GOP.

so my question is this... if we combine the ticket will we get to choose the candidate for each ticket in the primaries? or will the gubernatorial candidate select each one? there are a lot of questions with regard to this state question on how things will actually change and will it just end up giving us fewer choices as voters.... and i still have not heard a single reason as to why this change is needed.

i'm very passionate about it because if it isn't broke and there is no positive outcome from making the change... then why give voters fewer choices? doesn't it sound like we a voters are the only one to gain or lose anything here?

^

Jedicurt echos my sentiments on 798 exactly. I believe Oklahoma voters stand to lose with that SQ.

I’m actually trying to decide what I think of 798. And maybe learn something. I’m leaning toward yes but I want to ask another question similar to Midtowner’s. Can anyone name something that each of the last three L.G.s did that made a notable difference in the life of an average citizen like me. A law they got pushed through or one they got blocked, a change in some state agency’s operation, etc. ? I might just not pay enough attention but I don’t see that our L.G.s do much.

I’m actually trying to decide what I think of 798. And maybe learn something. I’m leaning toward yes but I want to ask another question similar to Midtowner’s. Can anyone name something that each of the last three L.G.s did that made a notable difference in the life of an average citizen like me. A law they got pushed through or one they got blocked, a change in some state agency’s operation, etc. ? I might just not pay enough attention but I don’t see that our L.G.s do much.

the Lt. Governor is on the Cabinet of the Governor (sometimes with a more important and contributory role than other times). while it is difficult to point to a single thing and say "hey the LTG did that". it is a way to for the Oklahoma voters to be able to help give their input into every decision the Governor makes... by allowing us, the citizens to have direct input into the policies of the Governor. the LT Governor in Oklahoma also sits on the following boards of commissions (by statute and the Constitution) and thus gives the citizens of Oklahoma the ability to vote on this member who is active in making changes to the state... these commissions and position are as follows

Tourism and Recreation Commission - Chair
Film Office Advisory Commission - Chair
Oklahoma State Board of Equalization - Vice-Chair
School Land Commission - Vice-Chair
Oklahoma Linked Deposit Board - Vice-Chair
State Insurance Fund - Member
Archives and Records Commission - Member
Oklahoma Capitol Complex Centennial Commission - Member
Capital Improvements Authority - Member
Native American Cultural & Education Authority - Member

all of these Commissions have done things that have affected average citizens like you... and we get to vote on a board member currently for them... and in some cases that board member is the chair or vice-chair.

in many cases when the Governor and lt governor are of the same party, they are appointed with an official role within the cabinet (just as with mary fallin under Keating as the Small Business Advocate, as well as Todd Lamb in the same role under Fallin)

so can i point to a single thing and say the LT Governor did that? no... but i am certain the Capital Improvement Authority and perhaps several of the other commissions that the LT Governor sits on has affected you, either positively or negatively.

Thanks jedicurt. That does give me something to consider.

One way Republicans could make government smaller would be to get the people to vote on a state question that would abolish the Lt. governor and have the leader of the state senate step in as governor when needed.

Is Walmart going to replace our Oklahoma Board of Optometry? Are they going to be in charge of licensing Optometrists and in charge of writing the rules and regulations over their practice that protects consumers

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

So they can rewrite the minimum standards set by the board of optometry?

The same way CVS and Walgreens regulate Nursing practice in our state?

One way Republicans could make government smaller would be to get the people to vote on a state question that would abolish the Lt. governor and have the leader of the state senate step in as governor when needed.

except that due to the Lt Governor being specifically listed via statute and in the constitution makes this virtually impossible and not likely to ever happen...

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

Really? Got a cite for that? I checked out what I think is the text of the SQ and didn't see anything at all in there about defining or redefining examinations, had mainly to do with locations and entrances, etc....

Optometrist can decide what services they offer, same as everywhere else. The State Board will continue to be able to set minimum standards, same as they currently are doing, and optometrists everywhere will have to follow them.

I see about as may ads to vote yes for Marcy's Law, SQ794, as I do for SQ793. So who stands to make money if SQ794 passes? Lawyers? Anyway, the cons against SQ794 only make me a weak yes for it.

Read the Oklahoma Constitution sometime. It covers a lot of seemingly random subjects like the flash point of kerosene--a fact often used by some to justify having a Constitutional Convention, which is technically required and long overdue according to the Constitution. I think we're all too afraid to have a Constitution because our legislators are mostly young and inexperienced and we'd end up with something largely written by lobbyists.

and. .


The desire to put a new law or regulation in the state constitution comes from the belief that it makes it much harder for the legislature to mess with. If, instead, it's put in the statutes, the legislature can substantially change it or do as much as throw the whole thing out. However, I bet a lot of people were surprised that the governor and legislative leaders changed their minds and did not go with a special session to gut SQ788. In 2019, it will be interesting to see, if they remain faithful to what is prescribed in SQ788. If they do, it will encourage supporters to legalize rec marijuana to go with a statute change for the next petition, while having a considerably lower required number of signatures.

thanks!! what I surmised and that makes me a "no". I see absolutely no reason to throw more frass in the stew (constitution)!!

I see about as may ads to vote yes for Marcy's Law, SQ794, as I do for SQ793. So who stands to make money if SQ794 passes? Lawyers? Anyway, the cons against SQ794 only make me a weak yes for it.

Marcy's Law, while it sounds okay, imposes a lot more requirements on our prosecutors without adding one dime to their funding. I'd be fine with something more narrowly tailored to cover victims of sex crimes or severely violent crimes. This will have the legislator scrambling to fund it and they will probably go to 'ol reliable--increasing fines, fees and costs.

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

Still haven't heard an answer about this from you (or anybody), can you point me to where the SQ says that?

Still haven't heard an answer about this from you (or anybody), can you point me to where the SQ says that?I was sitting in a Firestone tire waiting area this morning so I didn’t catch names but Channel 9 was interviewing some state official about the issue. He said that since the optometrists in retail settings would be held to the same standards as optometrists are now that the idea of lower care in retail settings is not true. He was specifically asked if retailers could set standards of operation for optometrists on their site and he responded “Absolutely not. All optometrists are held to the same standards by the state”.

The funny thing is there won't even be any optometrists in retail settings, they'll still be in doctor's offices. What, are they trying to imply you'll be getting an eye exam in aisle 5 between the bread and the peanut butter? Of course not. Continuing with the Walmart example, they will have an area in the front that is within the building itself, but NOT part of Walmart. Like many that have a hair styling place inside, I imagine the receipt says whatever the name of the hair styling place is, not Walmart. (Can't be sure on this as I've not had a haircut at such places, but if they have their own sign, I would imagine they have their own receipts). Those that have a McDonald's inside...you're still buying your chicken nuggets from McDonald's. When they have Jackson Hewitt kiosks set up, your taxes are being done by Jackson Hewitt, not Walmart. The only place Walmart features in the setup is as a landlord.

Maybe this is what all the fuss is about? They think eye doctors are going to be setting up kiosks? As if they don't need a room set to a certain brightness (or lack thereof) in order to perform the exam? Well if they're that damn dumb maybe they DO think they're buying Quarter Pounders from Walmart.

You want to see what's going to happen when this passes, simply go to any of 47 other states. I believe I've noted before, the Costcos with eye centers DO NOT have an eye doctor in the store. They have one in the same building, with their own separate entrance, and the receipt doesn't say Costco for one simple reason...they don't work for Costco. That's what 'independent' means.

From https://www.costco.com/optical.html

"If you need an exam, please call an Independent Doctor of Optometry* at or next to Costco Optical to schedule an appointment.

*Independent Doctors of Optometry are located at or next to Costco Optical in most states. "

https://www.eyeexampros.com/wal-mart-faqs/

Bill and stile99 - That's the point I was trying to make and call Midtowner out on his misinformation, thank you for confirming exactly what I thought. :)

Ballot text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_793,_Right_of_Optometrists _and_Opticians_to_Practice_in_Retail_Establishment s_Initiative_(2018)

I think this may be the confusing part?
"It does not prohibit optometrists and opticians from agreeing with retail mercantile establishments to limit their practice. Laws conflicting with this Section are void."

I think that references Section 3 Paragraph F in the Full Text: https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/793.pdf

In CO, the optometrist is Wal Mart branded and is in the front of the store as described above. The office is separate, but accessible from the optical shop and also has a door to the entrance area inside the store. I've used them and COSTCO for 10+ years and have never had problems. They have always been competent and professional and are far cheaper than the traditional offices. There is no reason to limit the discounters.

Ballot text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_793,_Right_of_Optometrists _and_Opticians_to_Practice_in_Retail_Establishment s_Initiative_(2018)

I think this may be the confusing part?
"It does not prohibit optometrists and opticians from agreeing with retail mercantile establishments to limit their practice. Laws conflicting with this Section are void."

I think that references Section 3 Paragraph F in the Full Text: https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/793.pdf

They don’t have to offer their fill scope of practice. They still have to offer the legal minimum of practice as required by their licensing body. If the State Board requires certain exams, they are not exempt.

After giving much thought about SQ 801, I am firmly against it. Why? Twenty-five years experience with public schools in OK. In theory it sounds good, giving flexibility to local districts; however, in practice I can think of scenarios such as: giving a coach a pay increase of thousands of dollars, while giving other teachers nothing (nothing in the law says that can't happen, and you can't rely on local school boards not to fall victim to the dream of having a "winning" coach!) or another, buying one of the teams all new uniforms (nothing wrong with that), but then NOT using the money to repair leaky roofs, failing HVAC systems, etc. The bill relies on the wisdom, expertise, experience, and dedication of an elected school board to provide to ALL parts of a school district and to be fair, reasonable, and smart about spending money. No, the current system isn't that great, but I foresee that this bill will bring a whole new dimension to the "law of unintended consequences."

Good articles with numbers and hard information about SQ794:

https://nondoc.com/2018/10/16/sq-794-should-ok-add-marsys-law-to-its-constitution/

https://okpolicy.org/marsys-law-is-well-intentioned-but-be-wary-of-unintended-consequences/

Apparently a similar law was ruled unconstitutional in Montana, so armed with that knowledge and the costs of it, along with other things wrong with it, it's a no for me.

After giving much thought about SQ 801, I am firmly against it. Why? Twenty-five years experience with public schools in OK. In theory it sounds good, giving flexibility to local districts; however, in practice I can think of scenarios such as: giving a coach a pay increase of thousands of dollars, while giving other teachers nothing (nothing in the law says that can't happen, and you can't rely on local school boards not to fall victim to the dream of having a "winning" coach!) or another, buying one of the teams all new uniforms (nothing wrong with that), but then NOT using the money to repair leaky roofs, failing HVAC systems, etc. The bill relies on the wisdom, expertise, experience, and dedication of an elected school board to provide to ALL parts of a school district and to be fair, reasonable, and smart about spending money. No, the current system isn't that great, but I foresee that this bill will bring a whole new dimension to the "law of unintended consequences."

Voters would hopefully vote down bonds that want to fund something that may not seem appropriate, for instance, raising the pay of anybody by a huge amount. If I knew legislators next year would do their jobs and be responsible enough to better fund the schools, I wouldn't be feeling that I have to vote yes on 801. So far, as I see it, candidates are only paying it lip service. They don't want to say where the funding for education is to come from. Voters already made it clear they don't want to pay more sales tax for education, which is another good reason to vote yes for 801.

Anastasia Pittman and Matt Pinnell and the independent is something holmes.. he is the one that i don't know much about

Anastasia Pittman beet out Anna Dearmore in the primary for the Dems

and Matt Pinnell beat out Dana Murphy for the GOP.

so my question is this... if we combine the ticket will we get to choose the candidate for each ticket in the primaries? or will the gubernatorial candidate select each one? there are a lot of questions with regard to this state question on how things will actually change and will it just end up giving us fewer choices as voters.... and i still have not heard a single reason as to why this change is needed.

i'm very passionate about it because if it isn't broke and there is no positive outcome from making the change... then why give voters fewer choices? doesn't it sound like we a voters are the only one to gain or lose anything here?

I think Republicans put it up so they can be assured a Republican will replace their governor should he or she have to leave office.