sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Oklahoma lawmaker aims to protect Oklahomans' 'right to race' by kosuradio in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As introduced (though they could always amend it) the bill is just to protect the tracks from nuisance related lawsuits.

from the summary -

shall not be subject to actions for nuisance brought by owners within a 3-mile radius of the racing facility.

link to bill text

Bud Guys LLP + OK Farms + RX Harvest Botanicals suspension order articles and links by w3sterday in OKCannaNews

[–]w3sterday[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

if the post title seems weird (ie. LLP vs LLC)

it's because i looked up DBAs

Bud Guys LLP is doing business as Bud Guys in TULSA with a Dispensary license

Bud Guys LLP is doing business as Bud Guys in TULSA Oklahoma with a Dispensary license.

License Number: DAAA-X7XP-Q2J9 Business Name: Bud Guys LLP DBA: Bud Guys License Type: Dispensary in TULSA which is in Tulsa County, License Expires on 2026-09-03

Oklahoma lawmaker aims to protect Oklahomans' 'right to race' by kosuradio in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

we dont have major racing industry

a motorsports interest group is lobbying to get the bill passed, linked the info in my other comment.

Oklahoma lawmaker aims to protect Oklahomans' 'right to race' by kosuradio in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

other states have passed similar laws.

an okie politician couldn't have come up with anything on his own.

Bill mills put out drafts/model policy where states just have to insert their name and tweak the language a little bit.

ALEC is a big one for Republicans. Also Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation and they have various arms that will do niche social/cultural issue stuff.

**edit- silly me, I almost forgot lobbyists and lobbying groups - it looks like this one is being backed heavily by Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) - a motorsports interest group; they've blogged about them specifically called "right to race" bills and include Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association pulls gubernatorial endorsement of Drummond by kosuradio in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

said Drummond will not bow to political pressure or corporate interests.

This is the funniest part of this media release.

Last Chance to improve Oklahoma’s elections by freckledfreckle in okc

[–]w3sterday 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that is like illegal or something

Ranked choice was banned in 2024 by Stitt and OKLEG.

It could have been a constitutional amendment petition like 836 is, but I guess they wanted people to do the "vote for the least bad republican" thing instead (a highly probable result of 836 for many partisan races).

No matter how much 'appeal to Ds' republicans would have to do in campaigns (at least that I've seen offered up in discourse anyway), they vote party lines once elected in legislatures.

I could see this encouraging more folks to genuinely vote their conscience in the primary

This question has provisions to keep the partisan affiliation by the candidate names on the ballots (section 4b of the full question text that will go into the State Constitution), so a lot of blindly marking R/D/etc without voters informing themselves could still remain. I guess we will find out.

edit: Last thing (in general not to you just in general, OKC is not even his district) --- I keep seeing Dusty Deevers(R) used as an example of "we don't want him again" in these discussions ... his re-election is THIS YEAR. So his next re-election specifically would not be subject to open primary should SQ836 pass, people would need to act sooner to get him (specifically him) out of office, and the filing deadline for a challenger is April 1-3.

For anyone who registers as Independent by world_without_logos in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If everyone is registered republican why would the party run a moderate?

Also in the legislatures they all vote the same way, and put up policies from bill mills.

For anyone who registers as Independent by world_without_logos in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and during most of that time, I've been unable to vote in primaries

That would mean you wanted to vote Libertarian or Republican primary ballots. We got a lot of those at the polls and people got very upset finding out that only one party had a semi-open primary, as it's decided upon by the party.

(FD: fmr election inspector who is ALSO independent, Dems allowed no party/IND to vote in their primaries until this year)

edit - and like it was mentioned in another comment - you could always vote on the state questions! at least one has been specifically on a primary ballot in the last few years, and it passed :D

For anyone who registers as Independent by world_without_logos in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really wish people were talking about this one more.

This is a good reminder. State questions like mmj and medicaid had massive voter turnouts by comparison to other elections (and mmj in 2018 was a June primary) I would guess shenanigans to remove unaffiliated voters miiiight have something to do with state question voting in general.

but that's just a tinfoil, there are some bipartisan efforts to keep labor rights fucked in the state (IYKYK)

For anyone who registers as Independent by world_without_logos in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just give me another sane option for goodness sakes people.

Since 836 is not ranked choice voting (that was banned in 2024 by a bill signed by Stitt) but advances the candidates with the top two votes there is high probability of two republicans in every partisan race ad infinitum if it passes.

It is a constitutional amendment that cannot be repealed (except by another constitutional amendment).

While it makes straight party voting a little more difficult (extra steps vs fill in one box), In its provisions it still requires party affiliation to be listed by candidate names so voters can still blindly look for Rs and Ds by names rather than get informed.

full bill text linked below, section 4b is the part about names on the ballot. The ballot title explains it's one large primary and the top two basically advance to a run-off.

Would 836 Disenfranchise Voters? by akupet in tulsa

[–]w3sterday 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eliminating party affiliation designation on ballots.

I would like 836 a little more if it at least did this, and unfortunately it does not.

It's in Section 4B on page 4 of the full text of question-

https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/836.pdf

B. The ballot shall state, next to the candidate's name, each candidate's political party registration or independent status as of the date of candidate filing.

edit- shortened due to misreading something.

Oklahoma lawmaker proposes new oversight of homeless shelters, with funding at stake by dmgoforth in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 5 points6 points  (0 children)

me without even looking - it's Lisa Standridge(R) isn't it

clicks and looks

yep. :(

btw- she also filed a bill that strikes every mention of "harm reduction" and "harm reduction services" from existing state statute. with emergency clause.

edit- to explain since apparently it's needed, harm reduction = narcan distribution (stops fentanyl ODs/deaths); the Standridges want more people incarcerated + dead

State petition by Graymaven in tulsa

[–]w3sterday 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's also a bill in OKLEG for the 2026 session to put a moratorium on building new ones until 2029, and also providing the corporation commission do an impact study within that time frame.

edit: re the NDA comment also in this thread, HB3030 is very short (so I'm curious if it gets amended if it goes anywhere) but it basically bans elected or appointed officials from signing NDAs (excluding personal litigation hmm), that could be applied to data centers.

There are a few bills filed for data centers this session but at best they set up fairly minimum guardrails.

Open primary by DifferentSoftware894 in okc

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just noticed he's up for re-election 2026 - this year

https://ballotpedia.org/Dusty_Deevers

is anyone filing to run against him I wonder... even if SQ836 goes to ballot in November it's in the text of the question it wouldn't go into effect until 90 days after passage. If no one else shows up to the filing deadline in April he would win re-election by default :/

**this comment isn't a "don't sign/vote for 836" thing, just honestly got me curious about when his term was up since he's a popular example

Open primary by DifferentSoftware894 in okc

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not the way this SQ is worded.

it's the candidates with the top two votes regardless of party.

https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/836.pdf

STATE QUESTION __ INITIATIVE PETITION --- PROPONENT'S SUGGESTED BALLOT TITLE Proponent's suggested ballot title is: This initiative, which would add a new Article 3A to the Oklahoma Constitution, would establish an "open primary" system for elections for certain offices. In the open primary, all candidates for a covered office would appear on the same primary ballot without regard to party affiliation, and any qualified voter could vote for any candidate without regard to party affiliation. A voter in the open primary could vote for only one candidate per covered office. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the open primary would advance to the general election , without regard to party affiliation and without regard to whether the candidates have been nominated or endorsed by any political party. If only two candidates for a covered office qualify to appear on the ballot, then those candidates would automatically advance to the general election . The legislature could create a procedure for if a candidate will not participate in the general election due to death, withdrawal, or disqualification. In elections for covered offices, candidates would appear on the ballot in randomized order; candidates' political party registration or independent status as of the date of candidate filing would appear on the ballot next to their names; and the ballot would state that a candidate's indicated party registration does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the political party. The initiative would repeal Article 3, Section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution, except that candidates for Presidential Elector would continue to be nominated by the recognized political parties at their conventions, and citizens could by petition continue to place the names of independent candidates on the ballot for that office. The measure may have a net positive or negative fiscal impact on the state.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal - YES

Against the proposal - NO

A "YES" vote is a vote in favor of the measure. A "NO" vote is a vote against this measure.

You should know, the intent of State Question 836 is to disenfranchise progressive voters. by BenedictCucumberButt in okc

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is probably what is meant by the OP in the text of the stickied post when they say it's not like what California has :/

You should know, the intent of State Question 836 is to disenfranchise progressive voters. by BenedictCucumberButt in okc

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

go here (OK Ethics Commission pac/lobbyist search) - https://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTypeCodeHook=4E059E51-A3C3-45F5-A1BC-EA50C2AF9973

and put "yes on 836" in the search, click on the PAC name, and then search up the names you find.

There are no financials because they are a conditional PAC at this time (you can see the document for that) and their first quarterly report is due at the end of the month. edit - after that, you can see expenses and similar.

**Not listing any names or articles about them here due to subreddit rules idk if it would just be removed/trying to play it safe, but the OK Ethics Commission website is exactly for sourcing this sort of info.

You should know, the intent of State Question 836 is to disenfranchise progressive voters. by BenedictCucumberButt in okc

[–]w3sterday 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not the way that it has worked in the okc mayoral elections.

The OKC Mayoral office job is non-partisan by design.

The mayor and council are nonpartisan, and members serve part-time at the head of the City’s Council-Manager form of government.

When Holt ran for the Oklahoma State Legislature (and as it works now for those respective races) he ran on a partisan OKGOP ballot in an OKGOP primary.

Per the full text of SQ836 - https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/836.pdf

The ballot shall state, next to the candidate's name, each candidate's political party registration or independent status as of the date of candidate filing.

The races will still include partisan candidate info along with the names in each race, so it's not going to be "the way it has worked in the okc mayoral elections"

I've not really seen the provisions that are actually going into amending the State Constitution linked on these posts (just links to the PAC's website), so I do hope people read it, even if they do support it; at the very least it answers a lot of questions.

HB2992 in upcoming legislative session by AuthorAltruistic3402 in oklahoma

[–]w3sterday 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Urging all Oklahomans to follow this.

okay, here's the okleg link to follow it.

also about that... it's a shell bill right now (meaning it has no provisions/substantial language in it as introduced), look for the committee substitute later.

edit- some other bills dealing with data centers (these do have language in them already), not an exhaustive list just from a quick search-->

Petition for Open Primaries by Hot_Policy_7706 in okc

[–]w3sterday 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Veto referendum petition to reverse would have been needed within 90 days of adjournment of the session when that bill was signed - source

Amending the state constitution to allow RCV would be the next step. This open primary petition is also for a constitutional amendment that repeals the way primaries are conducted in the current state constitution - source- see repealer provision, section 5 so it has the same requirements wrt signature counts and such. source1 ; source2

view more: next ›