Oklahoma Healthcare Freedom Amendment, State Question 756 (2010)
|Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIIA • VIIB • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIIA • XIII • XIIIA • XIIIB • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • XX • XXI • XXII • XXIII • XXIV • XXV • XXVI • XXVIII • XXIX • Schedule|
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of measure
- 3 Support
- 4 Opposition
- 5 Media endorsements
- 6 Ballot title controversy
- 7 Polls
- 8 Path to the ballot
- 9 Similar certified measures
- 10 See also
- 11 External links
- 12 Additional reading
- 13 References
Some opponents stated that a health care measure would not create much of an effect on the issue because federal law would overlap state law. Opponents also stated that because of this, there were more serious problems affecting the state that needed to be addressed.
- See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Official results of the measure follow:
|Question 756 (Health Care)|
Results via the Oklahoma Election Board.
Text of measure
| This measure adds a new section of law to the State Constitution. It adds Section 37 to Article 2. It defines “health care system.” It prohibits making a person participate in a health care system. It prohibits making an employer participate in a health care system. It prohibits making a health care provider provide treatment in a health care system. It allows persons and employees to pay for treatment directly. It allows a health care provider to accept payment for treatment directly. It allows the purchase of health care insurance in private health care systems. It allows the sale of health insurance in private health care systems.
The measure’s effect is limited. It would not affect any law or rule in effect as of January 1, 2010.
Nor could the measure affect or negate all federal laws or rules. The United States Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. That clause makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Under that clause Congress has the power to preempt state law. When Congress intends to preempt state law, federal law controls. When Congress intends it, constitutionally enacted federal law would preempt some or all of the proposed measure.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Against the proposal
- Representative Mike Thompson was the sponsor of the measure, SJR 59, and said that lawmakers were determined to allow voters to decide on the health care issue in November 2010.
- Dan Newberry was the sponsor of the measure, and urged residents to pass the measure during a campaign a few months before the election. According to Newberry, the measure "may be the single most important issue on the November ballot," he said.
- The Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise took stances on a number of the 11 questions on the November ballot. The group's position on State Question 756 was to vote yes on the measure.
- According to Mike Thompson, “This constitutional amendment will provide Oklahomans with a powerful legal protection against the federal government’s attempt to insert itself into everyday decisions that affect their finances and health."
- Governor of Oklahoma Brad Henry was a strong opponent of the measure.
- Reports out of the state showed little organized opposition to the measure.
- Brad Henry stated that the measure would only lead to lawsuits against the state, and that the proposed constitutional amendment conflicted with federal law.
- The Tulsa Beacon made recommendations for all the state questions on the ballot, and recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.
- The Oklahoman recommended a 'no' vote on the measure, stating, "The constitutionality of a federal health care mandate already is being challenged in court, and passage of this question won't be a factor. It would be an unnecessary addition to the state constitution."
- The Enid News and Eagle recommended a 'no' vote on the measure, stating, ."..this is more of a political statement against the current presidential administration than anything else. The constitutionality of the matter already is being debated in court and passing this won’t make any difference in the outcome of that case."
- The Tulsa World was against the measure, recommending a 'no' vote: "The measure was intended to nullify federal health care reform in the state, but probably violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause and should be rejected."
- The Oklahoma Daily was against the measure, stating, "Don’t let the ideological fear mongering sway you to vote for a questionable opt-out measure that, at best, will probably do nothing, and at worst, will cost you money. Vote “no” on SQ 756."
Ballot title controversy
Reports out of the state were saying that some state legislators weren't happy with the ballot title of the measure. According to Senator Dan Newberry, who sponsored the measure, stated that ballot title, written by the office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, "is vague in nature and isn't a true depiction of what it really does.” However, according to Neal Leader, the senior assistant attorney general, he argued, "The ballot title just doesn't parrot the language in the measure. It is to explain the measure.”
- See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
- In one of the last polls taken by SoonerPoll before the general election, the results showed support of the measure by those surveyed. The poll included 384 Democrats, 345 Republicans and 24 independents.
|Date of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided||Number polled|
|October 18-23, 2010||SoonerPoll.com||66%||23%||11%||753|
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oklahoma Constitution
Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 59) was the bill in the Oklahoma State Legislature to place State Question 756 on the ballot.
SJR 59 was passed by the Oklahoma State Senate with a vote of 30-13 on May 5, 2010. The proposal was then sent to the House for approval and consideration for the ballot. The measure was then voted on, without debate, and won approval with a vote of 88-9. House Republicans voted 61-0 in favor, and House Democrats voted 27-9. The measure was then forwarded to the Oklahoma Secretary of State for inclusion on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot.
The Oklahoma State Legislature can approve a proposed amendment by a majority vote. (However, if the state legislature wants the proposed amendment to go on a special election ballot, it has to approve the amendment by a 2/3rds vote.)
SJR 59 also had a number of official co-authors. They were:
Charles Key, John Wright, Glenn Coffee, Sue Tibbs, Cliff Aldridge, Cliff Branan, Randy Brogdon, Harry Coates, Jim Reynolds, John Trebilcock, Ron Justice, John Ford, Don Barrington, Brian Crain, Clark Jolley, Todd Lamb, Rex Duncan, Jeffrey W. Hickman, Sally Kern, Steve Martin, Miller, Paul Wesselhoft, Mike Schulz, Brian Bingman, Bill Brown, Anthony Sykes, David Derby, George Faught, Mark McCullough, Randy McDaniel, Jason Murphey, Earl Sears, Bryce Marlatt, Gary Stanislawski, Steve Russell, Leslie Osborn, Pat Ownbey, Mike Sanders, Dan Kirby, Mike Ritze, and Lewis Moore.
Similar certified measures
|Healthcare on the ballot in 2010|
Similar measures in other states that were certified for a 2010 ballot include:
- Florida had a measure on the ballot that would allow voters whether or not to ban any laws that require people to participate in a health care system. A minimum of 60% of voters must have approved the amendment in order for it to take effect. The measure was on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot.
- Voters in Missouri also got a chance to decide whether or not to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and ban punishment for those without health insurance. Advocates said the measure would "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars said the proposals were mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and had little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.
- A question in Arizona was slated for the November 2, 2010 ballot, and asked voters whether or not to bar any rules or regulations that forced Arizonans to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment, if enacted, would ensure that individuals had the right to pay for private health insurance.
- Healthcare issue being fought by ballot measures
- BREAKING: Federal judge rules health care reform unconstitutional
- Oklahoma State Questions Booklet for the November 2, 2010 election, prepared by the Oklahoma State Election Board
- Senate Joint Resolution 59 of the 52nd Oklahoma State Legislature, the act that placed State Question 756 on the ballot
- Oklahoma Secretary of State Homepage
- Tulsa World, "Bills target health care overhaul," February 25, 2010
- The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma voters to decide whether to approve ban on federal health care mandate," May 26, 2010
- Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Proposed State Questions," accessed on August 23, 2010
- Oklahoma Legislature, "Text of Measures" (Scroll to SJR 59)
- LifeSiteNews.com, "Oklahoma Voters May Nullify Fed Health Care Law in November," May 26, 2010
- Leagle.com, "Voters urged to exempt state from health law," September 10, 2010
- Tulsa Beacon, "11 state questions may pose problems," September 15, 2010
- Tulsa Beacon, "Tulsa Beacon voting endorsements for the Nov. 2 Election," October 28, 2010
- The Oklahoman, "Our SQ choices," October 17, 2010
- The Enid News and Eagle, "Our take on the state questions," October 18, 2010
- Tulsa World, "State questions," October 24, 2010
- Oklahoma Daily, "OUR VIEW: Don't fall to fear — vote 'no' on SQ 756," November 1, 2010
- The Oklahoman, "Healthcare question ballot text criticized," September 13, 2010
- Tulsa World, "SQ 744 opposition rises," October 30, 2010
- The Oklahoma, "Swap of President Obama's portrait causes flap in Oklahoma House," March 12, 2010
- The Alva Review-Courier, "Healthcare opt out approved by Senate," March 23, 2010
- Tulsa World, "Oklahoma Senate approves 'opt-out' health-care option, can't override gun-bill veto," May 5, 2010
State of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City (capital)
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | State Auditor and Inspector | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Commissioner of Agriculture | Director of Wildlife Conservation | Commissioner of Labor | Commissioner of Corporations |