Here's what you need to know about the State Questions on Oklahoma's 2026 ballot

Two weeks ago, I published Here's what you need to know about the judges on Oklahoma's 2026 ballot. In this post, I'll focus in on the two state questions that are on the ballot. I got some of my information from these helpful articles (SQ 845, SQ 847) at Ballotpedia, in addition to information from various blogs and sites.

STATE QUESTION 845

SQ 845 deals with the makeup of the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), the government board that approves appointees for the governor to select from whenever there are judicial vacancies.

That's right. The governor cannot simply pick any qualified individual to fill a spot on a state court like the Supreme Court. There's an unelected board of bureaucrats that picks three options, and presents that list to the governor. There are 15 members of the JNC, and wait until you see the parameters for how they are currently appointed to the commission:

• 6 members are appointed by the Governor (none of whom can be lawyers or have family members who practice law). No more than 3 of these can be from the same political party.
• 6 attorneys are elected by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Notably, there is no political party restriction here.
• 3 at-large members appointed by the other commission members (none of whom can be lawyers or have family who practice law). If 8 JNC members cannot agree on these, then 1 each is appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President. No more than 2 of these can be from the same political party. 

But wait, there's more! There are residency requirements for those appointed by the governor and Oklahoma Bar Association: for both groups of six, one each must be appointed from each of the six congressional districts in Oklahoma. 

But... doesn't Oklahoma only have five congressional districts?, you might ask. You would be correct! When the JNC was set up in the Constitution, however, we had six. So, despite the fact that Oklahoma lost its sixth congressional district in the 2000 census, and despite the fact that districts have been redrawn at least six times since 1967, 12 of the 15 members of the JNC are appointed by 60 year old borders.

This is one of the tweaks that SQ 845 would update. SQ 845 would update that residency requirement to 'as such congressional districts exist as of the date of the appointment', which would update as districts are redrawn moving forward from now.

Other changes made by SQ 845 include:

• 6 year terms for the 12 JNC members appointed by the governor and the bar association
• 2 year terms for the three at-large JNC members
• Removal of political party restrictions.
• No commissioner may serve more than twelve consecutive years (two terms).

There have been better Judicial Nominating Commission reform proposals in the past, but this at least gets it a step in the right direction.

I will be voting 'YES' on State Question 845, a position also taken by conservative Tulsa blogger Michael Bates. For what it's worth, Steve Fair opposes SQ 845, as does the Tulsa Beacon newspaper and Make Oklahoma Healthy Again PAC (formerly Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights).

STATE QUESTION 847

SQ 847 deals with property tax. This is an unnecessarily complicated state question, but to make it really basic and short, it slows the rate at which property taxes can increase, and allow some seniors above the "senior freeze" income level to have further reduced rates. 

To reiterate, none of this lowers any property taxes - but it does lower how much property taxes can increase annually. Currently, the increase in fair cash value (the biggest element in the formula that determines property tax) for most real property has a 5% annual cap, while homesteads and agricultural land have a 3% cap; SQ 847 would reduce that annual increase cap to 4% and 1.75%, respectively.

Currently, seniors under a certain income level (median income for the county/metro as calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) have a freeze on the assessed value of their homes. SQ 847 would reduce that proposed 1.75% increase cap with four income brackets ranging from 100%-120% of the median income (0.35% cap) to 160%-180% of the median income (1.4% cap).

I will be voting 'YES' on State Question 847, the same as Michael Bates (his detailed analysis here) and Steve Fair. Jason Murphey, who also recommends voting Yes, has a good post on why 'even a modest limit on property tax growth has Oklahoma’s left sounding the alarm'. The Tulsa Beacon supports a Yes vote, while MOHA PAC supports No.

If you are in need of information about judicial retention voting, check out my article Here's what you need to know about the judges on Oklahoma's 2026 ballot.

I hope this information has been helpful to you. Pass it along to any voter you know who needs this information before they cast their ballot!