By Constitution Staff

Oklahoman’s have voted on over 400 State Questions since statehood. State Questions can be initiated by the Legislature with passage of a resolution in both chambers, and does not require approval of the governor. But, proposals can also be placed on the ballot through the initiative petition process by collecting the signatures of a sufficient number of voters. One such initiative is already scheduled for a vote in 2026, one has been approved to start collecting signatures, and another is in the challenge phase of the process.

On July 18, the Oklahoma Secretary of State notified proponents of recreational marijuana initiative that since no challenges had been filed, the 90-day signature collection period can proceed for State Question 837. The proposed constitutional amendment, the Oklahoma Responsible Cannabis Act, would legalize marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older. Proponents can start collecting signatures starting on August 6, and they must submit signatures by 5 p.m. on November 3. Currently in Oklahoma, 172,993 valid signatures are required for initiatives such as SQ 837 that would make a constitutional change.

On March 31, 2025, Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA) filed the initiative petition. Current state law only allows residents to purchase and possess marijuana if they have a medical marijuana patient license. If proposal becomes law, anyone could walk into a dispensary and make a purchase if they are at least 21 years old.

The proposal would preserve the existing medical marijuana system structure, and those who keep their medical patient status would be exempt from paying the current 7% excise tax for cardholders. Those without a patient license would pay a new 10% excise tax on their purchase. The excise tax revenue would be split between the state, and the county and city where it was sold. The amendment also includes a provision that authorities cannot presume someone’s impairment or intoxication based solely on the use of marijuana or the presence of THC in their body. “Proof of impairment requires confirmation of impairment through the use of cognitive, kinetic and/or behavioral evaluations,” the proposed constitutional change states.

ORCA Director Jed Green said the proposal is different than what was proposed in State Question 820 which was defeated in a Special Election in 2023 by nearly 62% of voters. “One of the fundamental differences between that and what is now State Question 837, is that SQ 820 would have created a duplicate licensing system that has demonstrably failed in multiple other states,” Green said. Also, the previous state question would have only amended state statutes instead of the Oklahoma Constitution, which Green has said would have made it easier for state lawmakers to later alter the law.

If there are sufficient signatures, ORCA says it wants SQ 837 to be voted on as soon as the 2026 June primary election, or as late as the general election in November. Governor Kevin Stitt could also call for a Special Election, according to state statute.

One measure is already on scheduled for a statewide vote. Last summer, supporters of an initiative petition to place State Question 832 on the ballot submitted nearly 180,000 signatures and the Secretary of State verified 157,287 signatures to be valid. The proposal would gradually raise the minimum wage in Oklahoma from the current $7.25 per hour to $15 in 2029 and require future increases based on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index.

By the time the Minimum Wage initiative passed the final legal hurdles, the deadline for the General Election on November 5, of 2024, had already passed. So, Governor Stitt scheduled the election for the next statewide vote which will be the June 16, 2026 Primary Election ballot. In a statement, Governor Stitt said setting the question for the next eligible statewide election would save the state $1.8 million compared to holding a Special Election for the measure.

Another proposal, assigned as State Question 836, would dramatically change the way elections are conducted – going from the present “closed primary” system to an “open primary” method – if a group calling itself Oklahomans United for Progress is able to garner enough signatures and then win a statewide vote.

The group originally filed a petition to place State Question 835 on the ballot, but later withdrew that petition and refiled the issue, and it is now progressing as State Question 836. Officials with the group say they took this action to clarify concerns and strengthen the petition language. The refiled petition explicitly clarifies that its constitutional provisions do not impact the selection of presidential electors and ensures that the initiative solely addresses the process for partisan primary elections at the state, county, and at the federal level for U.S. Senate and U.S. House elections. Additionally, SQ 836 includes that candidates will appear on the ballot identified by party “registration” (SQ 835 had used the term “affiliation”).

The proposal is labeled as Open Primary Elections, which is actually misleading. In a closed primary system, which Oklahoma and most states presently use, one must be registered as a voter in a specific political party in order to vote in that political party’s primary. In other words, only voters registered Democrat can vote in the Democratic primary, and only voters registered Republican can vote in the Republican primary. In most states that have an open primary system, a voter does not have to be registered with the political party to vote in its primary, but the voter does have to choose the ballot of one party or the other.

The proposed jungle primary, on the other hand, is different. In a jungle primary, which is being proposed for Oklahoma, all candidates for an office, whether they be Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or independent, run on one unified primary ballot. While the candidates are still identified by their party, the voter can choose any candidate they wish on that ballot. If one candidate wins a majority of the vote, then that candidate has won the election, and there is no need for a general election. If no candidate gets a majority, then the top two appear on the General Election ballot.

Since it is highly unlikely that a candidate could achieve a majority in a large field of candidates including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and independents, the jungle primary usually sends the top two vote-getters, regardless of political party, to the general election. It is therefore possible – and it has happened in California – where both general election candidates are of the same political party.

In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections. California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010. In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska’s state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed next to the names of state legislative candidates.

The initiative petition for State Question 836 was filed on January 3, 2025 and the first 90-day protest period concerning the Constitutionality of the proposal ended on March 9. Since a protest was filed, the petition is on hold until all appeals, protests and rehearings have been resolved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The protest was filed by the Oklahoma Republican Party and Ronda Vuillemont-Smith, former chair of the Tulsa County Republican Party. The challenge includes many issues, but the most fundamental part of the protest is that it would strip from the state’s political parties the ability to ensure candidates running under the party’s name are, in fact, bona fide adherents to that party’s platform, and meet that party’s requirements. It would dissolve one of a political party’s most fundamental roles of choosing their candidates to carry their banner to the voters.

Earlier this year, the Oklahoma Legislature passed legislation which was signed into law on May 23 by Governor Stitt that will impact the future collection of signatures on initiative petitions. Senate Bill 1027, by Sen. David Bullard (R-Durant) and House Speaker Kyle Hilbert (R-Bristow) makes reforms to the initiative petition process. The bill requires that initiative petitions gather signatures from a larger geographic swath of Oklahoma, although successful petitions could still visit far less than half the state. The number of signatures from any given county is capped at a set percentage of the number of votes cast in that county in the last general election for Governor. The effect of this reform is that signatures must come from at least 18 of Oklahoma's 77 counties. It also requires paid signature gatherers to disclose their financial backers and mandates that only registered Oklahoma voters are eligible to gather signatures. It also will simplify the language of petition summaries, or gists, and requires that these summaries explicitly state whether a petition will have a fiscal impact. It also requires that those who sign a petition must first read the full ballot title for the proposed measure. It will be interesting to see how this will affect future initiatives.