Oklahoma State Question 794, Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment (2018)

Elections in Oklahoma, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 12
• Early voting: Nov. 1 - Nov. 3
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: No
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Oklahoma State Question 794
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Oklahoma measuresOklahoma State Question 788 - JuneOklahoma State Question 793Oklahoma State Question 794Oklahoma State Question 798Oklahoma State Question 800Oklahoma State Question 801Submit

Oklahoma State Question 794, the Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment, was on the ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Oklahoma Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to add specific rights of crime victims to the state constitution beyond those added to the constitution in 1996.

This measure is part of a national effort to enact similar Marsy's Law amendments. Measures concerning Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendments were put on the ballot in six states for 2018 elections. Electors in all six states voted to approve the amendments. Read more about Marsy's Law here »

Election results

Oklahoma State Question 794
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		905,195	78.01%
No		255,230	21.99%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Amendment design

State Question 794 amended Section 34 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution, a section addressing the rights of crime victims, with a version of a Marsy's Law. Voters passed a constitutional amendment adding Section 34 in 1996.

State Question 794 provided crime victims with specific rights, including the right to be "treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy;" to reasonable and timely notice of proceedings upon request; to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole of the accused; to reasonable protection; to reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused upon request; to refuse an interview or other request made by the accused; to full and timely restitution; to proceedings "free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case;" and to confer with the attorney for the state upon request.

Status of Marsy’s Law

Going into 2018, six states had ratified constitutional amendments known as Marsy's Law. The first of these states was California in 2008, where voters approved the citizen-initiated Proposition 9. In 2014, the Illinois State Legislature became the first state legislature to refer a Marsy's Law to the ballot. Voters approved the amendment. The Oklahoma Legislature became the second state legislature to refer a Marsy's Law to the ballot with State Question 794. In 2016, the national organization supporting Marsy's Law started initiative campaigns in three states—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—and saw all three measures approved on November 8, 2016. The Montana Supreme Court overturned the 2016 Marsy's Law initiative, ruling that it had violated the state's separate vote requirement by effectively making multiple changes to the state constitution with one ballot question. Ohio voters approved a Marsy's Law initiative in November 2017. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., provided financial backing for the initiatives. Marsy's Law was named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983. Measures to enact Marsy's Law constitutional amendments were put on 2018 ballots in five other states besides Oklahoma.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

This measure amends the provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that guarantees certain rights for crime victims. These rights would now be protected in a manner equal to the defendant’s rights. The measure would also make changes to victims’ rights, including: (1) expanding the court proceedings at which victims have the right to be heard; (2) adding a right to reasonable protection; (3) adding a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (4) adding a right to talk with the prosecutor; and (5) allowing victims to refuse interview requests from the defendant without a subpoena. The Oklahoma Constitution currently grants victims’ rights to crime victims and their family members. This measure would instead grant these rights to crime victims and those directly harmed by the crime. Victims would no longer have a constitutional right to know the defendant’s location following arrest, during prosecution, and while sentenced to confinement or probation, but would have the right to be notified of the defendant’s release or escape from custody. Under this measure, victims would have these rights in both adult and juvenile proceedings. Victims’ rights would be protected in a manner equal to the rights of the defendants. Victims would be able to assert these rights in court and the court would be required to act promptly. SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Oklahoma Constitution

The proposed amendment amended Section 34 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Rights of Victims

A. To preserve and protect the rights of victims to justice and due process, and ensure that victims are treated with fairness, respect and dignity, and are free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process, any victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the status of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case, including all proceedings wherein a disposition of a case is likely to occur, and where plea negotiations may occur. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the location of the defendant following an arrest, during a prosecution of the criminal case, during a sentence to probation or confinement, and when there is any release or escape of the defendant from confinement. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has a right to be present at any proceeding where the defendant has a right to be present, to be heard at any sentencing or parole hearing, to be awarded restitution by the convicted person for damages or losses as determined and ordered by the court, and to be informed by the state of the constitutional rights of the victim.

To secure justice and due process for victims throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim of a crime shall have the following rights, which shall be protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused: to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy; upon request, to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct; to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated; to reasonable protection; upon request, to reasonable notice of any release or escape of an accused; to refuse an interview or other request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused, other than a refusal to appear if subpoenaed by defense counsel; to full and timely restitution; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; upon request, to confer with the attorney for the state; and to be informed of all rights enumerated in this section.

B. An exercise of any right by a victim or family member of a victim or the failure to provide a victim or family member of a victim any right granted by this section shall not be grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence.

The victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the state upon request of the victim may assert in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority with jurisdiction over the case, and have enforced the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request. This section does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court.

C. As used in this section, a "victim" includes any person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor or incapacitated victim.

D. The Legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, has the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section, including the authority to extend any of these rights to juvenile proceedings and if enacted by the Legislature, youthful offender proceedings.

D. E. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights granted guaranteed by the Legislature or retained by victims.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 10, and the FRE is 53. The word count for the ballot title is 195, and the estimated reading time is 52 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Marsy's Law for Oklahoma led the campaign in support of State Question 794.

Supporters

The following legislators co-authored the amendment in the state legislature:

• Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-24)
• Sen. AJ Griffin (R-20)
• Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51)
• Rep. Josh Cockroft (R-27)
• Rep. Jadine Nollan (R-66)
• Rep. Mark McBride (R-53)
• Rep. Tim Downing (R-52)
• Rep. Kevin McDugle (R-12)
• Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-43)

Arguments

• Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51), one of the co-authors of the amendment in the state legislature, said, "What we are wanting to do is to make sure the victim’s rights are equal to the defendants rights not greater or less but to make them balance and make them equal moving forward."

Opposition

In the state legislature, two Democrats voted against referring the amendment to the ballot.

Arguments

Jeanne Hruska, Policy Director, ACLU of New Hampshire, argued that the Marsy's Law crime victim rights model impedes the principle of due process, potentially violates the rights of defendants, and could have unintended consequences. Excerpts from Hruska's article are as follows:

“ Though well intended, the Marsy’s Law formula is poorly drafted and is a threat to existing constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions guarantee defendants’ rights because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights only apply when the state is attempting to deprive the accused – not the victim – of life, liberty, or property. Victims’ rights are not rights against the state. Instead, they are rights against another individual. [...] In fact, many of the provisions in Marsy’s Law could actually strengthen the state’s hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of our legal system — the presumption of innocence. This risk further underscores one of the overarching concerns about Marsy’s Law: It pits victims’ rights against defendants’ rights. Creating such a conflict means that defendants’ rights may lose in certain circumstances. [...] In other words, the chances that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime they did not commit could potentially increase. The proponents of Marsy’s Law may not intend for this outcome, but nothing in their formula prevents it. [...] Many states have enshrined language that is unique to their state and that works with their statutes. By contrast, Marsy’s Law is in no way tailored to any one state’s existing laws. Put simply, the Marsy’s Law formula amounts to a constitutional experiment for any state that adopts it. This experimental “model law” is so expansive and ambiguous, it is impossible to know how courts would interpret it or what its impact would be in any one state. For instance, Marsy’s Law includes a constitutional right to privacy for victims, yet it is impossible to know what that right would encompass in practice. [...] To oppose Marsy’s Law is not to oppose victims’ rights. Rather, it is to oppose the highly problematic formula that is Marsy’s Law. There are many ways that states could better support crime victims. ”

Please email opposition arguments and links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Oklahoman said: "The opportunity for crime victims to voice their opinion regarding plea bargains is also significant. SQ 794 would require that judges have an opportunity to consider the views of victims when weighing whether to approve a plea agreement. There have been reported instances in which crime victims weren't notified of a plea deal and would have voiced opposition. The provisions of SQ 794 appear sensible, and there is no glaring downside to mandating consideration and respect for victims of crime. The Oklahoman encourages citizens to vote “yes” on State Question 794."

• Tulsa World said: "We endorse State Questions 794, also known as Marsy’s Law. The measure assures limited and reasonable victims’ rights within the state Constitution."

• The Muskogee Phoenix said: "We view SQ 794 as not being overly burdensome but as improving laws for victims’ rights already protected within state law."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing State Question 794. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oklahoma ballot measures

One committee—Marsy's Law for Oklahoma SQ 794—was registered to support State Question 794 and had received $4.2 million in contributions. The Marsy's Law for All Foundation provided $3.31 million in contributions, and Henry Nicholas provided $900,000.

No committees registered to oppose State Question 794.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$4,214,350.00	$0.00	$4,214,350.00	$4,140,658.68	$4,140,658.68
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$4,214,350.00	$0.00	$4,214,350.00	$4,140,658.68	$4,140,658.68

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of State Question 794
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marsy's Law for Oklahoma SQ 794	$4,214,350.00	$0.00	$4,214,350.00	$4,140,658.68	$4,140,658.68
Total	$4,214,350.00	$0.00	$4,214,350.00	$4,140,658.68	$4,140,658.68

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Marsy's Law for All Foundation	$3,313,000.00	$0.00	$3,313,000.00
Henry Nicholas	$900,000.00	$0.00	$900,000.00
Kim Moyer	$100.00	$0.00	$100.00

Background

Voting on Law Enforcement
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

State Question 674

See also: Oklahoma Victim Rights, State Question 674 (1996)

In 1996, 91.2 percent of voters approved State Question 674, which added Section 34 to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. Section 34 was designed to address the rights of crime victims.

State Question 674 provided crime victims with "the right to know the status of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case, including all proceedings wherein a disposition of a case is likely to occur, and where plea negotiations may occur;" "the right to know the location of the defendant following an arrest, during a prosecution of the criminal case, during a sentence to probation or confinement, and when there is any release or escape of the defendant from confinement;" and "a right to be present at any proceeding where the defendant has a right to be present, to be heard at any sentencing or parole hearing, to be awarded restitution by the convicted person for damages or losses as determined and ordered by the court."

State Question 794 of 2018 replaced State Question 674 of 1996. The following table compares the rights of crime victims as outlined in the two amendments:

Issue	State Question 674 (1996)	State Question 794 (2018)
Definition of victim	Does not define victim; provides same rights to family members of a victim	Defines victim as "person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act;" also defines who cannot be considered a victim
Justice systems effected	Criminal justice system; also allows legislature to extend rights to juvenile justice proceedings	Criminal justice system and juvenile justice system
General rights	Ensures victims "are treated with fairness, respect and dignity, and are free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse"	Provides a right to "be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy"
Right to know of and be present proceedings	Provides a right to know of all proceedings where a disposition of a case is likely to occur or where plea negotiations may occur; provides a right to be at proceedings that the defendant has a right to be at	Provides a right to reasonable and timely notice of all proceedings; provides a right to be at all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct
Right to be heard at proceedings	Provides a right to "to be heard at any sentencing or parole hearing"	Provides a right to "be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated"
Right to unreasonable delay	Does not provide	Provides a right to "proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case"
Right to know of release or escape	Provides a right to "know when there is any release or escape of the defendant from confinement"	Provides a right to "reasonable notice of any release or escape of an accused"
Right to refuse interview at request of accused	Does not provide	Provides a right to "refuse an interview or other request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused"
Right to state attorney	Does not provide	Provides for a right "to confer with the attorney for the state"
Right to restitution	Provides a right to "be awarded restitution by the convicted person for damages or losses as determined and ordered by the court"	Provides a right to "full and timely restitution"
Right to protection	Does not provide	Provides a right to reasonable protection
Right to be informed of rights	Provides a right to "be informed by the state of the constitutional rights of the victim"	Provides a right to "informed of all rights enumerated in this section [Section 34 of Article II]"

Marsy's Law

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.

Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

California Proposition 9

Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the SEIU California State Council, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.

Marsy's Law ballot measures

The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.

Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.

The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 9	2008	53.84%	46.16%	Approved
Illinois	Amendment	2014	78.45%	21.55%	Approved
Montana	Initiative 116	2016	66.09%	33.91%	Approved (Overturned)
North Dakota	Measure 3	2016	62.03%	37.97%	Approved
South Dakota	Amendment S	2016	59.61%	40.39%	Approved (Amended)
Ohio	Issue 1	2017	82.59%	17.41%	Approved
Florida	Amendment 6	2018	61.61%	38.39%	Approved
Georgia	Amendment 4	2018	80.93%	19.07%	Approved
Kentucky	Amendment	2018	62.81%	37.19%	Approved (Overturned)
Nevada	Question 1	2018	61.19%	38.81%	Approved
North Carolina	Amendment	2018	62.13%	37.87%	Approved
Oklahoma	State Question 794	2018	78.01%	21.99%	Approved
Average			66.44%	33.56%

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred 63 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 52 and rejected 11 of the referred amendments. All but one of the amendments were referred to the ballot for general elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the general election ballot was between five and six. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 82.5 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 17.5 percent. The following table contains data for referred amendments during even-numbered election years from 1996 through 2016:

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Annual average	Annual median	Annual minimum	Annual maximum
62	51	82.26%	11	17.74%	5.64	6.00	3	9

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Oklahoma Constitution

In Oklahoma, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a simple majority vote in each house of the state legislature during one legislative session.

The amendment was introduced on January 20, 2017, as Senate Joint Resolution 46. On March 21, 2017, the Oklahoma Senate voted 43 to 2, with three senators excused, to approve the amendment. On April 4, 2017, the Oklahoma House of Representatives approved the amendment, with 88 members in favor and 11 members excused. At the time of the vote, two House seats were vacant. On April 5, 2017, the amendment was filed with the secretary of state.

Vote in the Oklahoma State Senate March 21, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 25  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	43	2	3
Total percent	89.58%	4.17%	6.25%
Democrat	4	2	0
Republican	39	0	0

Vote in the Oklahoma House of Representatives April 4, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 52  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	88	0	11
Total percent	87.12%	0%	10.90%
Democrat	21	0	5
Republican	67	0	6

Ballot language

On April 12, 2017, the attorney general's office (R) rejected the ballot title for State Question 794. A group of legislators co-authored the measure's ballot title. The legislators' ballot title read:

“ This measure would amend the Oklahoma Constitution. It would amend Section 34 of Article 2. This section provides rights for crime victims. This measure would expand rights of crime victims. It requires crime victims to be informed of their rights. It requires courts to enforce these rights. ”

Dawn Cash, First Assistant Attorney General, said that the gist of the proposition “does not completely explain the effects of the proposition” in the following ways:

“

1. It does not explain what expanded rights crime victims will have under the amended constitutional provision; 2. It does not explain that victims’ rights are to be protected in a manner equal to those of a criminal defendant; 3. It does not explain that victims’ rights may be asserted by victims of a crime and other persons directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a crime; and 4. It does not explain that victims’ rights will apply to juvenile proceedings.

”

The attorney general's office rewrote the ballot title and sent copies to the original co-authors on April 26, 2017. The ballot title was finalized on May 18, 2017.

HJR 1002

See also: Oklahoma Crime Victim Rights Amendment, HJR 1002 (2018)

During the 2017 legislative session, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed an amendment, House Joint Resolution 1002, similar in substance to Senate Joint Resolution 46 (State Question 794). The differences between HJR 1002 and SJR 46 were (a) formatting and (b) whether other rights of crime victims not mentioned in the amendment are granted, as stated in HJR 1002, or guaranteed, as stated in SJR 46, by the state legislature. The House approved the Senate version, sending SJR 46 to the ballot.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Oklahoma

Poll times

In Oklahoma, all polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Oklahoma, one must be at least 18 years old, a United States citizen, and a resident of Oklahoma.

The deadline for registration is 25 days prior to the election.

“	You can fill out a Voter Registration Application using the OK Voter Portal "wizard." (Be sure to print, sign, and mail or hand-deliver the application to your County Election Board to complete the process.) Voter registration applications are also available at your County Election Board, most tag agencies, post offices, and libraries and can be downloaded from the State Election Board website..	”
—Oklahoma State Election Board

Once an applicant has been successfully registered, the county election board will mail him or her a voter identification card.

Automatic registration

Oklahoma does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Oklahoma has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Oklahoma does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in Oklahoma, you must be a resident of the state.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Oklahoma does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a voter who submits false information commits a "felony punishable by not more than five years in prison, by a fine of not more than $50,000, or both."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Oklahoma State Election Board allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Oklahoma requires voters to present identification while voting. Generally, voters are required to present a photo ID, but there is an exception to this requirement.

Valid forms of identification include government-issued photo IDs and county election board voter identification cards (which do not include photographs).

Voters can present a document issued by the United States government, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized tribal government. The document must include the following information:

• Name
• Photograph
• Expiration date that is after the date of the election

State profile

Demographic data for Oklahoma
	Oklahoma	U.S.
Total population:	3,907,414	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	68,595	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	73.1%	73.6%
Black/African American:	7.2%	12.6%
Asian:	1.9%	5.1%
Native American:	7.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	7.8%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	9.6%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	86.9%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	24.1%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$46,879	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	19.7%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Oklahoma. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Oklahoma

Oklahoma voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More Oklahoma coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Oklahoma
• United States congressional delegations from Oklahoma
• Public policy in Oklahoma
• Endorsers in Oklahoma
• Oklahoma fact checks
• More...

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot

Oklahoma

• Oklahoma ballot measures
• Oklahoma ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

Related measures

Law enforcement measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Washington	Washington Initiative 940: Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure a
Georgia	Georgia Amendment 4: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a
South Dakota	South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a
Kentucky	Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment ot
Louisiana	Louisiana Amendment 4: No Dedication of Transportation Trust Fund Revenue to State Police Amendment a
Florida	Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment a
Ohio	Ohio Issue 1: Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative d
Nevada	Nevada Question 1: Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment a
North Carolina	North Carolina Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment a

External links

Amendment

• Senate Joint Resolution 46

Support

• Marsy's Law - Oklahoma
• Marsy's Law for Oklahoma on Facebook
• Marsy's Law for Oklahoma on Twitter

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oklahoma 2018 Marsy's Law Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oklahoma State Question 794, Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment (2018) - Google News