FACTS FIRST

Cleveland County. Documents, then the fence.

Updated as of Oct 31, 2026 (CT)

← Norman News · Home · City Hall

Oklahoma’s two state questions on the Nov. 3 ballot: what they do and what the ballot leaves out

OKLAHOMA CITY — Two state questions are on every Oklahoma ballot Tuesday, Nov. 3: State Question 845, which rewrites the membership rules for the Judicial Nominating Commission, and State Question 847, which lowers the yearly limits on how fast the taxable value of real estate can rise.^[1] Both are constitutional amendments the Legislature sent to voters, and each needs a simple majority of the votes cast on it. This explainer quotes each ballot title, compares it with the measure’s actual text and lists what supporters and opponents say. Facts First takes no position on either question.

No other state question is on this ballot. The open-primary initiative, SQ 836, is not on the ballot, and the question of calling a state constitutional convention (SQ 848) is set for April 6, 2027, according to the Secretary of State’s list.^[20] Voters can look up their own sample ballot through their county election board.^[1]

At a glance

State Question 845: Judicial Nominating Commission

Background

The commission screens applicants for the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals, along with some district judgeships, and sends finalists to the governor, who picks one, KGOU and Oklahoma Politics Today reported.^[11][19] It was created by a 1967 constitutional amendment after a bribery scandal at the state Supreme Court, KGOU reported.^[11] Today it has 15 members: six named by the governor, six lawyers elected through the Oklahoma Bar Association, and three at-large members, one each picked by the Senate president pro tempore, the House speaker and the commission itself.^[3][11]

The ballot title (as printed, quoted)

The Attorney General rewrote the Legislature’s version. This is the corrected final title the Secretary of State certified on Aug. 13, 2026.^[2]

“This measure amends article 7-B, section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution, changing the Judicial Nominating Commission’s structure. Currently appointments are based on congressional districts as constituted in 1967. If approved, appointments to the fifteen-member Commission will be as follows: 1) Governor appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the time of their appointment; 2) the Oklahoma Bar Association appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the date of selection; and 3) no less than eight members select three at-large members. The measure will permit any number of the commissioners to be licensed attorneys in Oklahoma or another state. The prohibition against immediate family members from practicing law will be removed. The measure changes terms so that at-large commissioners would serve a two-year term, and all other commissioners would serve a six-year term. Additionally, it removes restrictions on political party membership for members appointed by the Governor and at-large members. The measure also permits a commissioner to succeed himself or herself. Vacancies will be filled in the same manner as a commissioner is appointed or selected for the remainder of the relevant term. This measure will not have a fiscal impact. Shall the proposal be approved? For the proposal – YES Against the proposal – NO”^[2]

What a yes vote and a no vote do

• Yes: the commission keeps 15 members and the same three appointing groups, but the limits on lawyers, on lawyers’ relatives and on party membership are removed, members may be reappointed for up to 12 consecutive years, and district rules use today’s congressional map.^[3]
• No: the current rules stay as they are: nine non-lawyer seats, party limits, one term per member and the 1967 district map.^[3]

What the text actually changes

Cost and effective date: The ballot title says there is no fiscal impact.^[2] The text says the new rules apply to each seat when its current term ends or it becomes vacant, so sitting members are not removed early.^[3]

How the ballot title compares with the text

• Who picks the at-large members. The ballot title says “no less than eight members select three at-large members.” The resolution’s text keeps the current split: the commission chooses only one at-large member, and the Senate president pro tempore and the House speaker each pick one.^[2][3] KGOU also describes the three seats that way.^[11]
• The 12-year cap. The title says commissioners could succeed themselves but does not mention the new limit of 12 consecutive years in the text.^[2][3]
• Terms barely change. The title says the measure “changes terms,” but the current constitution already sets six-year terms, with two years for an at-large member. The text mainly removes the old 1967 start-up schedule and writes the term length into each paragraph.^[3]
• A corrected title. The final title the Attorney General filed May 29 had the terms backward, giving two-year terms to the non-at-large members. On Aug. 13 the office filed a correction after members of the public pointed out the error, and the Secretary of State sent the corrected version to the State Election Board to replace the June 1 certification.^[2]
• Five districts, six seats. Oklahoma now has five congressional districts, Oklahoma Politics Today noted, compared with six in 1967.^[19] With “at least one from each” district, one of the governor’s seats and one of the bar seats would not be tied to a district. The text does not say how the bar would elect a sixth member; bar elections are set “under procedures adopted by the Board of Governors” of the bar, “until changed by statute.”^[3]
• The party limits went further than the first draft title suggested. The Attorney General’s May 7 preliminary title said up to nine of the 15 could come from one party. The final title says only that party restrictions are removed for the governor’s and at-large members.^[2] Because bar-elected members never had a party limit, the text would allow all 15 to belong to one party.^[3][11]
• No court challenge was available. State law, 34 O.S. § 10(B), says no ballot-title appeal “shall be allowed” for measures proposed by the Legislature.^[18] A Facts First search of news coverage found no lawsuit over SQ 845.

How it got on the ballot

The measure arrives amid a broader debate. Gov. Kevin Stitt has said he favors doing away with the commission and letting the governor appoint judges with Senate confirmation, KGOU reported; SQ 845 keeps the commission instead.^[11]

Who is paying

A Facts First search of the Ethics Commission’s 2026 contribution and expenditure data, current through Oct. 31 at 12:16 a.m., found no committee raising or spending money for or against SQ 845 or SQ 847.^[17] Spending by groups that do not file with the commission, or that file after the extract was made, would not show up there.

What supporters and opponents say

For: Rep. Moore told KGOU the measure is a middle ground that keeps the commission rather than eliminating it. He said governors can now get around the party limits by naming independents who share their views, and that the lawyer ban and one-term rule leave seats hard to fill; allowing reappointment up to 12 years would make the commission work better, he said.^[11] Senate Majority Floor Leader Julie Daniels told KOCO that letting more lawyers and their relatives serve would broaden the commission, and questioned why only bar-elected lawyers should take part.^[12]

Against: Cole Allen of the Oklahoma Policy Institute, which urges a no vote, told KGOU the party limits keep commissioners from being overly loyal to whoever appointed them, and that allowing reappointment could lead members to make choices aimed at keeping their seats. He said the current rules keep lawyers, who may later argue before the judges they picked, from making up a majority.^[11] Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, told KOCO she worries about people choosing judges and then practicing in front of them.^[12]

State Question 847: Property-value growth limits

Background

Oklahoma property taxes are figured on a property’s taxable “fair cash value.” The constitution caps how fast that value can rise each year: 3% for homesteads and farmland and 5% for other real estate. A separate “senior freeze” stops increases on the homes of owners 65 and older whose household income is at or below the median for their area, as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.^[7][16] In 2012, voters approved State Question 758, which cut the homestead cap from 5% to 3%, Oklahoma Watch reported.^[13]

The ballot title (as printed, quoted)

The Attorney General found the Legislature’s wording did not explain the income test or say whether there was a fiscal impact, and wrote this final title, certified June 4, 2026.^[6]

“This measure amends article 10, sections 8B and 8C of the Oklahoma Constitution. Currently, section 8B limits annual growth in fair cash value to 5% for most real property or 3% for homesteads and agricultural land. If approved, the measure would limit annual growth in fair cash value for tax year 2027 and after to 4% for most real property or 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land. Currently, section 8C prohibits any increase in fair cash value of homestead property for persons age sixty-five (65) or older whose income does not exceed certain limits, sometimes referred to as the “senior freeze.” Instead of prohibiting any increase in fair cash value for these homesteads, there would be an annual limit of 1.75%. The measure eliminates the income cap on gross household income to qualify for the senior freeze. If approved, the annual limit on an increase in fair cash value would be tied to how much gross household income the homestead owner had in the preceding year. If a homeowner’s gross household income from the previous year was at or below the median income for their county or area (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s estimated median income amount for the county or metropolitan statistical area), a homeowner’s homestead fair cash value cannot be increased. If the income amount was in excess of certain thresholds, the limit on increases in fair cash value for homesteads owned by persons age 65 or older could be 0.35% (income over 100% up to 120%); 0.7% (income over 120% up to 140%); 1.05% (income over 140% up to 160%); 1.4% (income over 160% up to 180%); or 1.75% (income over 180%). If passed, this measure would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown. Shall the proposal be approved? For the proposal – YES Against the proposal – NO”^[6]

What a yes vote and a no vote do

• Yes: starting with tax year 2027, taxable value could rise no more than 1.75% a year for homesteads and farmland and 4% for other real estate. Owners 65 and older above the freeze income line would get a smaller cap based on their income.^[7]
• No: the 3% and 5% caps and the current senior freeze stay as they are.^[7]

What the text actually changes

The caps still do not apply in a year the property is sold or transferred, and new improvements are still added at full value. Personal property and property valued by the State Board of Equalization are not covered.^[7] The measure does not change tax rates and does not lower anyone’s current value; bills can still rise within the cap or because of new levies and voter-approved bonds, the state school boards association and Oklahoma Politics Today noted.^[15][19] Oklahoma Watch’s example: a $200,000 homestead could rise to no more than $203,500 in 2027.^[13] In Oklahoma County, the 2026 income line for the senior freeze was $99,000, the outlet reported.^[13]

Cost: the estimates

The Tax Commission said the losses fall directly on local governments, mainly schools, CareerTech districts, counties and cities, and “may indirectly affect state funding through the school funding formula.”^[9][10] The House analysis put the direct cost to the state budget at $0.^[9]

How the ballot title compares with the text

• An estimate existed. The ballot says the exact fiscal impact is “unknown,” but a Tax Commission estimate of the final version, $45.78 million in the first year, was published in the House’s April 15 fiscal analysis, weeks before the Attorney General wrote the title.^[6][9] An estimate is not an exact figure, and the title’s wording is the Attorney General’s.
• Losses add up over time. A lower cap reduces growth every year, and each year’s smaller base carries forward. A Deer Creek schools official told a Sept. 15 legislative study that the effect could be small at first but significant in three to 10 years, Oklahoma Watch reported.^[13]
• Borrowing limits. School districts may not borrow more than 10% of the assessed value in their district, so slower value growth also means less bonding capacity. Oklahoma City officials estimated a $683 million hit to the city’s borrowing capacity over two decades, Oklahoma Watch reported.^[13]
• Bond-payment levies. Guthrie Superintendent Mike Simpson told Oklahoma Voice that districts still repaying bonds could have to raise millage rates in the short term; Speaker Kyle Hilbert said lawmakers adjusted the measure to reduce that risk.^[14]
• The senior freeze is kept, not replaced. The title says that “Instead of prohibiting any increase” there would be a 1.75% limit, but the text keeps the full freeze for seniors at or below the median, and adds the smaller caps only for seniors above it.^[6][7] Seniors whose income later rises above the median would move to a tier instead of losing protection altogether.^[7]
• Not just homes. Farmland gets the same 1.75% cap as homesteads, and commercial and rental property gets a lower cap too. In the final estimate, commercial and non-homestead property account for about $27.9 million of the $45.78 million.^[9]
• It started smaller and then grew. The Senate version had 1% and 3% caps and no senior change. The House rewrote it, and Hilbert said the caps were raised after talks with county, city and school groups.^[9][13]
• No court challenge was available. As with SQ 845, 34 O.S. § 10(B) bars ballot-title appeals for measures proposed by the Legislature.^[18] A Facts First search of news coverage found no lawsuit over SQ 847.

How it got on the ballot

What supporters and opponents say

For: Hilbert told Oklahoma Voice that homeowners have asked for relief from rising costs, that property tax is the piece the state can control, and that local governments would still collect more each year, just at a slower rate; he called the $45.78 million estimate money saved by taxpayers.^[14] On the House floor, he said the measure would give Oklahoma the lowest homestead growth cap in the country, Oklahoma Watch reported.^[13] The Oklahoma Farm Bureau supports it, saying farmland taxes keep climbing even in years when land loses money.^[13][14]

Against: Democrats voted against sending it to the ballot, Oklahoma Watch reported. Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, said in debate it would squeeze counties, jails and schools, Oklahoma Watch reported.^[13] The Oklahoma Policy Institute urges a no vote and says owners could see higher bills if local governments raise rates to cover existing bonds.^[13][16] The school boards association’s executive director, Shawn Hime, told Oklahoma Voice the money pays for core services from schools to roads and emergency response, and CareerTech state director Brent Haken said slower growth would mean fewer programs and students over time, Oklahoma Voice reported. The Oklahoma Association for Career and Technical Education says on its website that the measure would cut CareerTech funding.^[14][21]

Notes

• Some explainers quote the Legislature’s own ballot language for SQ 847. The language voters see is the Attorney General’s final title quoted above.^[6][16]
• Both measures amend the constitution, so any later change would require another vote of the people.
• Results will be posted by the State Election Board after the polls close Nov. 3.^[1]

Sources

1. Oklahoma State Election Board, State Questions (Nov. 3, 2026): https://oklahoma.gov/elections/elections-results/state-question-info.html
2. Oklahoma Secretary of State, SQ 845 file: HJR 1024, Attorney General ballot-title letters and the Aug. 13, 2026 correction (PDF): https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/845.pdf
3. Oklahoma Legislature, HJR 1024 enrolled text (PDF): https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/HRES/HJR1024%20ENR.PDF
4. Oklahoma Legislature, HJR 1024 bill history and votes: https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HJR1024&Session=2600
5. Oklahoma Senate, HJR 1024 floor amendment ordering an Aug. 25 special election (PDF): https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20FLOOR%20AMENDMENTS/Senate/HJR1024%20(4-01-26)%20(GOLLIHARE)%20FA1.PDF
6. Oklahoma Secretary of State, SQ 847 file: SJR 39 and Attorney General ballot-title letters (PDF): https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/847.pdf
7. Oklahoma Legislature, SJR 39 enrolled text (PDF): https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/SRES/SJR39%20ENR.PDF
8. Oklahoma Legislature, SJR 39 bill history and votes: https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SJR39&Session=2600
9. Oklahoma House, SJR 39 floor substitute bill summary with Tax Commission estimate, Apr. 15, 2026 (PDF): https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/SJR39%20FA1%20BILLSUM.PDF
10. Oklahoma Tax Commission, revenue impact statement, SJR 39 engrossed version, Mar. 31, 2026 (PDF): https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/impact%20statements/fiscal/Senate/SJR39%20ENGR%20FI.PDF
11. KGOU, Oct. 25, 2026: What to know about State Question 845: https://www.kgou.org/politics-and-government/2026-10-25/what-to-know-about-oklahoma-state-question-845-and-its-impact-on-the-judiciary
12. KOCO, What changes would State Question 845 make?: https://www.koco.com/article/what-changes-would-state-question-845-make-in-oklahoma/74233022
13. Oklahoma Watch, Oct. 8, 2026: State Question 847, what voters need to know: https://oklahomawatch.org/2026/10/08/state-question-847-what-oklahoma-voters-need-to-know-before-nov-3/
14. Oklahoma Voice, Oct. 14, 2026: State Question 847 would cap property tax growth. At what cost?: https://oklahomavoice.com/2026/10/14/state-question-847-would-cap-oklahomans-property-tax-growth-at-what-cost/
15. Oklahoma State School Boards Association, SQ 847 FAQ (PDF): https://www.ossba.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/SQ-847-FAQ.pdf
16. Oklahoma Policy Institute, State Question 847 explainer: https://okpolicy.org/state-question-847-changing-assessment-caps-for-property-tax/
17. Oklahoma Ethics Commission, Guardian bulk campaign-finance data (2026 contributions and expenditures): https://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/DataDownload.aspx
18. Oklahoma Statutes, 34 O.S. § 10 (ballot-title appeals), via OSCN: https://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=71562
19. Oklahoma Politics Today, Oct. 2026: Before You Vote, SQ 845 and SQ 847: https://okpoliticstoday.com/2026/10/before-you-vote-what-sq-845-and-sq-847-would-change/
20. Oklahoma Secretary of State, state question list (status of all pending questions): https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/questions.aspx
21. Oklahoma CareerTech educators association (OkACTE), SQ 847 overview: https://www.okacte.org/sq847