Oklahoma State Question 836

[steross]

I think this could be a huge change for our state if it were to pass, but given the headwinds created by the legislature, I think it is unlikely.

This is just a ChatGPT summary because I couldn't find a great article about it.

I think it is a great idea. Would love to be able to just be an independent, instead of flipping my voter registration around all the time depending on who I find more important to vote for. The move to the middle would be great also.

Anyone against the idea?

---

What is State Question 836?​

• State Question 836 is a proposed constitutional amendment (via an initiative petition, IP 448) in Oklahoma. Ballotpedia+2Oklahoma Secretary of State+2
• Its core goal is to change Oklahoma’s primary election system into a top-two / open primary model. VoteYes836+3Ballotpedia+3NonDoc+3
• Under the proposal, for many offices (statewide, county, state legislative, congressional, district attorney), all candidates — regardless of party — appear on the same primary ballot. Every voter (regardless of party affiliation) may vote in that primary. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3Ballotpedia+3NonDoc+3
• Presidential primaries would not be affected. Oklahoma Voice+2Ballotpedia+2

This kind of system is sometimes called a “nonpartisan blanket primary” or “top-two primary.” Ballotpedia+2NonDoc+2

---

Legal Status & Process​

Initiative Process & Signature Gathering​

• To get on the ballot as a constitutional amendment in Oklahoma, the initiative must collect signatures equal to 15% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3Ballotpedia+3Oklahoma Voice+3
• For SQ 836, that means approximately 172,993 valid signatures are required. Ballotpedia+2GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+2
• Once signatures are collected, the petition is submitted to the Secretary of State, then legal objections may be filed, and finally the initiative can be placed before voters on a future ballot. Ballotpedia+2GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+2

Judicial Challenges​

• Opponents (including the Oklahoma Republican Party) filed a lawsuit claiming that SQ 836 is unconstitutional — particularly on First Amendment grounds (i.e. that it burdens the rights of political parties to associate and choose their own candidates). VoteYes836+4Ballotpedia+4NonDoc+4
• On September 16, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the petition is legally sufficient (i.e. it may proceed to signature gathering) and rejected the challenge as premature. The Court found that the “gist” (the summary description) was not misleading, and that it did not impose a severe burden on associational rights at this stage. NonDoc+2GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+2
• The Court said that doubts about legal sufficiency should be resolved in favor of allowing the people’s initiative process to move forward. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+1
• However, some justices wrote separately (concurring/dissenting in part) expressing concern about the court’s role in judging constitutionality before a measure goes to the people. NonDoc
• Also relevant: the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1027, which would limit the share of petition signatures from large counties. Opponents of SB 1027 argue it’s targeted to make it harder for SQ 836 to qualify; the courts have temporarily stayed parts of its application to SQ 836. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3NonDoc+3Oklahoma Voice+3

So as of now, SQ 836 has cleared the legal sufficiency hurdle and may proceed to gather signatures.

---

Arguments in Favor​

Supporters of SQ 836 advance several rationales:

1. Expanding voter participation / enfranchisement
   
   • Independent (no-party) voters are currently excluded from closed primaries in many cases; this measure would allow any voter to participate. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3VoteYes836+3Ballotpedia+3
   • The measure is pitched as a remedy to low turnout and disengagement, giving more meaningful choices in the general election. VoteYes836+2GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+2
2. Encouraging broader appeal & moderation
   
   • Proponents argue that candidates will need to campaign beyond party bases, appealing to a wider electorate. VoteYes836+3GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3Ballotpedia+3
   • The idea is to reduce the power of extreme factions within parties and promote more consensus-seeking politics.
3. Efficiency & fairness
   
   • It would simplify the primary process by having one ballot per office, rather than separate partisan ballots. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+3Ballotpedia+3VoteYes836+3
   • It gives voters more choice in the general, not limiting them by party labels. NonDoc+2VoteYes836+2
4. Constitutional protection for initiatives
   
   • The Supreme Court majority emphasized that the people’s right to propose constitutional amendments should not be hindered prematurely by legal challenges. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+1

---

Arguments Against / Risks & Criticisms​

Opponents raise a number of concerns:

1. Burden on political party associations
   
   • Critics argue that forcing parties into a system where they don’t control which candidates appear on the general ballot infringes their First Amendment rights of association. GableGotwals - Oklahoma Law Firm+4Ballotpedia+4NonDoc+4
   • They claim parties lose ability to endorse or “protect” their base in primaries. Ballotpedia+1
2. Potential for same-party general elections / reduced diversity
   
   • In a top-two system, it is possible for two candidates of the same party to advance to the general election, thereby limiting choices for voters of the other party. VoteYes836+3Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs+3Ballotpedia+3
   • Some argue this could disadvantage smaller parties or independent candidates, making it harder for them to compete. Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs+1
3. “Importing California” critique / change from status quo dynamics
   
   • Detractors have warned that adopting the California/Washington style system could shift political dynamics in ways unfavorable to conservative or mainstream parties in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
   • They point out that in states with top-two primaries, outcomes sometimes become unpredictable and not aligned with majority preferences. Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
4. Practical concerns about implementation
   
   • The new law (SB 1027) limiting signature gathering from large counties is seen as a barrier, possibly intended to stymie the initiative’s success. Ballotpedia+3Oklahoma Voice+3NonDoc+3
   • There may be cost, administrative, and logistical issues in setting up a new primary model (e.g., voter education, ballot design, legal challenges down the road).
5. Timing of judicial review / precedent issues
   
   • Some justices (in separate opinions) expressed concern about courts determining constitutionality of initiatives too early in the process (before the public has voted). NonDoc
   • Also, whether such a change would face federal constitutional scrutiny remains a possible future challenge.

---

Possible Impacts / Consequences​

If SQ 836 becomes law (i.e. approved by voters), potential effects include:

• Primary elections become more open: all voters could participate regardless of party registration.
• General elections might feature same-party matchups: e.g. two Republicans, two Democrats, or one independent in some races.
• Smaller parties & independent candidates may face difficulties breaking through unless they can finish in the top two in the primary.
• Campaign strategy would shift: candidates might focus less on appealing to the party base and more toward a broader electorate.
• Voter behavior changes: possibly more ticket-splitting, more cross-party voting, or vote-switching.
• Political balance risk: in some races, this system could lead to unexpected party results, especially in multi-candidate fields.
• Legal challenges might continue: even if passed, opponents may challenge on constitutional grounds (both state and federal).

 

[Stillwater Townie]

In short, it's not all that bad for primary election day. But when it comes to election day in November, I don't see how either Republicans or Democrats can be for it. Republicans fear the risk that there could be only two Democrats to vote for in a given race. Democrat fear there will only be two Republicans to choose from nearly every time. Even less likely that there will be a Libertarian or independent. I predict it will be voted down. For now, I lean no. But first it has to get enough signatures. If the sponsors can't hire paid signature takers, I'm not sure it can get enough of them. I think one of the sponsors is a Republican and another one is independent.

It seems only CA and WA have this system. It will help to know if any red states have it. Opponents will only want to bring up the blue states that have it.

 

[steross]

In short, it's not all that bad for primary election day. But when it comes to election day in November, I don't see how either Republicans or Democrats can be for it. Republicans fear the risk that there could be only two Democrats to vote for in a given race. Democrat fear there will only be two Republicans to choose from nearly every time. Even less likely that there will be a Libertarian or independent. I predict it will be voted down. For now, I lean no.

I disagree with you about what is feared.

In our state for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of two democrats in the general election is zero. The republicans don't fear an election with two democrats. They fear an election with a far-right looney tune and a "RINO" because the more appropriate RINO might win.

The democrats don't fear elections with no democrat. It happens all the time. Give the current state of affairs, I can't see how any democrat would be against this. Unless they make their money off party affairs or elections.

 

[oks10]

I disagree with you about what is feared.

In our state for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of two democrats in the general election is zero. The republicans don't fear an election with two democrats. They fear an election with a far-right looney tune and a "RINO" because the more appropriate RINO might win.

The democrats don't fear elections with no democrat. It happens all the time. Give the current state of affairs, I can't see how any democrat would be against this. Unless they make their money off party affairs or elections.

Basically, the only people I've seen oppose this so far are the same people that just RAVE about Trump winning all 77 counties and how red Oklahoma is. Yet they somehow think this will turn Oklahoma in to a woke liberal paradise.

 

[Bowers3]

I signed the petition.

 

[Big8+4-2-2+2-2+4+4]

Easiest sell for this bill is: “Remember how bad Ryan Walters was? Well this bill keeps that mess from happening”

 

[Stillwater Townie]

I signed the petition.

I got two petitions I need to sign, and one of them is for 836. If it gets on the ballot, I want to hear what the Republican propaganda against it will be about. No doubt they will bring up how horrible living conditions are in San Franciso and say that will happen in Oklahoma if 836 passes. Or in other words, "Don't Californiacate My Oklahoma". The Oklahoma Republican Party and Ronda Vuillemont-Smith, former chair of the Tulsa County Republican Party went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block 836. They called it unconstitutional and misleading. It didn't work. The court ruled against them unanimously. Anyway, I expect Republican opposition to 836 to be very heavy, especially from ones on the far right. That means OCPA.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Basically, the only people I've seen oppose this so far are the same people that just RAVE about Trump winning all 77 counties and how red Oklahoma is. Yet they somehow think this will turn Oklahoma in to a woke liberal paradise.

You mean "woke liberal HELLHOLE".

 

[OrangeFan69]

If both parties are against it. It's probably a better outcome for the constituents.