Explaining State Questions 845 & 847 Ahead of Tuesday’s Election

SHARE NOW

While Tuesday’s election ballot is largely highlighted by the governor race between Republican candidate Mike Mazzei and Democratic candidate Cyndi Munson, there will also be a pair of referendums up for a vote.

In this story, we will break down state questions 845 and 847 to help you make an informed choice!

State Question No. 845: Changing the Structure of the Judicial Nominating Commission

The Judicial Nominating Commission is responsible for picking the three candidates the governor chooses from whenever a judicial vacancy opens.

If the proposal is approved, then the commission would be newly comprised of six members appointed by the governor, six members appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association and three at-large members selected by at least 8 of the aforementioned appointees. The at-large members would all serve two-year terms while the other appointees would serve six-year terms.

A “yes” vote also lead to a removal of limits on how many appointees can belong to the same political party, the allowance of commissioners to serve consecutive terms and the allowance of commissioners and their families to be attorneys.

Proponents of the changed structure claim it would “modernize”  commission and help it retain experienced members, while detractors fear for an increase in partisanship that would further impact the decisions on new judges.

State Question No. 847: New Income-Based Caps for Senior Homeowners

This question aims to lower annual property valuation caps for senior homeowners.

Starting in tax year 2027, the annual cap for homesteads and agricultural land would lower from 3% to 1.75%, while homeowners age 65 and older would see a 0% increase for households at or below 100% HUD median income and create five additional income-based caps up to 1.75%.

The measure would alter valuation limits instead of setting the property tax rates themselves, meaning those rates would still be depend on rates and levies.

Proponents of the measure say its gives older property owners increased protection, while detractors fear how slower valuation growth could impact funding for government expenses and schools.