Oklahoma State Question 776, Allow State to Impose Death Penalty Amendment (2016)

Oklahoma State Question 776
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Death penalty
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

2016 measures
November 8
State Question 776 a
State Question 777 d
State Question 779 d
State Question 780 a
State Question 781 a
State Question 790 d
State Question 792 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Oklahoma Allow State to Impose Death Penalty Amendment, also known as State Question 776, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.

Voting yes supported amending the Oklahoma Constitution to guarantee the state’s power to impose capital punishment and set methods of execution.

Voting no opposed amending the Oklahoma Constitution to guarantee the state’s power to impose capital punishment and set methods of execution.

Election results

State Question 776
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		942,504	66.36%
No		477,717	33.64%

Election results from Oklahoma State Election Board

Overview

Status of death penalty policy in Oklahoma

In 2016, the death penalty was legal in 31 states. It was illegal in 19 states plus the District of Columbia. Voters in Nebraska and California also decided ballot measures concerning the death penalty on November 8, 2016.

In Oklahoma, although the death penalty is legal, all executions were put on hold in October of 2015 after several executions were conducted incorrectly. A review of the methods and protocols used during execution is ongoing. State Question 776 was designed, in part, to ensure that executions resume after the questions about protocol are settled.

As of January 1, 2016, there were 49 inmates on death row. Three executions, including the high-profile case of Richard Glossip, were scheduled in 2015 but were not carried out due to the court-ordered halt and procedural review.

Amendment design

State Question 776 placed the following provisions into the Oklahoma Constitution's bill of rights:

• gives the legislature, rather than the judicial or executive branches of government, the authority to provide for any method of administering the death penalty not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution
• prevent any death sentences already passed down from being prevented due to successful legal challenges to or changes in the method used by the state for execution, requiring death sentences to remain in force until a legal method for execution is determined
• declare that the death penalty, as such, cannot be established as cruel and unusual punishment, independent from any rulings about specific methods of execution.

Oklahoma's previously overturned death penalty law and its death penalty law in place as of 2016 were designed to provide specific methods for execution: electrocution and lethal injection, respectively. State Question 776 established the death penalty as legal and as a right of state residents independent from the method used.

Text of measure

Official ballot title

The final official ballot title was as follows:

“

This measure adds a new section to the Oklahoma Constitution, Section 9A of Article 2. The new Section deals with the death penalty. The Section establishes State constitutional mandates relating to the death penalty and methods of execution. Under these constitutional requirements: The Legislature is expressly empowered to designate any method of execution not prohibited by the United States Constitution. Death sentences shall not be reduced because a method of execution is ruled to be invalid. When an execution method is declared invalid, the death penalty imposed shall remain in force until it can be carried out using any valid execution method, and The imposition of a death penalty under Oklahoma law—as distinguished from a method of execution—shall not be deemed to be or constitute the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment under Oklahoma's Constitution, nor to contravene any provision of the Oklahoma Constitution. SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO

”

Gist of the proposition

The gist of the proposition that the legislature put forward was as follows:

“

This measure adds a new section to the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds Section 9A of Article 2. It states that all death penalty statutes are in effect. It states that methods of execution can be changed. It states that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Oklahoma Constitution

The measure added a Section 9a to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The following text was added by the measure's approval:

All statutes of this state requiring, authorizing, imposing or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative or referendum. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the Legislature. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. The death penalty provided for under such statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments, nor shall such punishment be deemed to contravene any other provision of this Constitution.

Support

Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-24) was the amendment's chief legislative sponsor.

Supporters

Officials

The following officials sponsored the measure in the Oklahoma Legislature:

• Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-24)
• Rep. Mike Christian (R-93)
• Rep. Mike Ritze (R-80)
• Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-43)
• Rep. Dennis Johnson (R-50)
• Rep. Lewis Moore (R-96)

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of State Question 776:

• Oklahomans strongly support the death penalty, and State Question 776 would protect the state's ability to employ the death penalty against lawsuits and lobbying efforts.

• State Question 776 would ensure that the state is able to provide justice for victims of the most heinous crimes.

• State Question 776 prevents Oklahoma's death penalty law from being tied to one specific method of execution, allowing the legislature to provide for an alternative procedure if one used by the state is ruled unconstitutional.

Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-24), the amendment's chief sponsor, said the measure was designed to preserve capital punishment for the worst criminals. He continued:

“

We have an obligation to the people of Oklahoma to ensure that we can effectively enforce the death penalty. Oklahomans strongly support the death penalty, and it is critical that we protect our ability to enforce it.

”

Opposition

Think Twice Oklahoma led the campaign in opposition to State Question 776.

Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Regina Goodwin (D-73)

Organizations

• ACLU of Oklahoma
• Amnesty International Oklahoma Groups & Members
• Catholic Charities/Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
• Center for Conscience in Action
• Democratic Socialists of America Oklahoma City Chapter
• League of Women Voters of Oklahoma
• Libertarian Party of Oklahoma
• Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation
• NAACP Oklahoma City Branch
• Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
• Oklahoma Conference of Churches
• Oklahoma Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Our Revolution
• Oklahoma Democratic Party
• Peace House Tulsa
• Republican Liberty Caucus of Oklahoma
• Witness to Innocence

Individuals

• Rev. Dale Assink, Regional Minister, Synod of the Heartland, Reformed Church in America
• Rev. Dr. Bobby Best, Bishop, Ninth Episcopal District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
• Most Rev. Paul S. Coakley, Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
• Rev. Dr. Gregory J. Coulter, Presbyterian Church, USA
• Rev. Dr. Gordon Edwards, Executive Presbyter, Cimarron Presbytery
• Rex Friend, Religious Society of Friends
• Rev. Michael Girlinghouse, Bishop, Arkansas-Oklahoma Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Rev. Dr. Stephen D. Graham, Coordinator, Cooperating Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma
• Dr. Edith Guffey, Conference Minister, Kansas-Oklahoma Conference, United Church of Christ
• Bishop Mildred B. Hines, Bishop, Southwestern Delta Episcopal District, West Tennessee, Mississippi, South Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma Conferences, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
• Rev. Pamela Holt, Regional Minister, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Oklahoma
• Most Rev. David Konderla, Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa
• Rt. Rev. Dr. Edward J. Konieczny, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Oklahoma
• Rev. Heidi Regier Kreider, Conference Minister, Western District Conference, Mennonite Church USA
• Rev. Dr. Matt Meinke, Stated Clerk, Indian Nations Presbytery, Presbyterian Church, USA
• Rev. Calvin Miller, Progressive Oklahoma Baptist State Convention
• Rt. Rev. Michael L. Mitchell, Presiding Bishop, Twelfth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
• Rev. James G. Nunn, Bishop, Oklahoma Conference of the United Methodist Church and the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference
• Rev. Dr. William Tabbernee, Executive Director, Oklahoma Conference of Churches

Arguments

Think Twice Oklahoma made six arguments against State Question 776:

“

SQ 776 circumvents the traditional checks & balances of our 3-branch system of government by undermining the role of the courts to interpret Oklahoma law SQ 776 neither changes, protects, or places the death penalty at risk in Oklahoma SQ 776 dos not impact Oklahoma's ability to carry out executions, but it will open up the state to further costly legal challenges paid for by taxpayers The only valid purpose of SQ 776 has already been achieved via legislation SQ 776 will be voted on before the bipartisan Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission completes its work to examine the state's death penalty system from top to bottom SQ 776 may be voted on at a time when the recommendations of the Multi-County Grand Jury investigation, which revealed serious problems in the administration of Oklahoma’s death penalty, are still being considered by the Department of Corrections

”

Other arguments against the initiative included:

• Rev. Don Heath argued, “It is turning the Bill of Rights inside out. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individuals from the state. This should scare people about state power, even if they support the death penalty.”
• Rev. Adam Leathers, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said, "The death penalty is state-sponsored murder and it's disgusting, and we're telling the rest of the world that not only are we OK with it, but we're making it a fundamental value and putting it in our constitution. This will truly make us look ignorant, brutish and all manner of negative attributes."
• Connie Johnson, chair for the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, stated, "This referendum is deeply flawed and does nothing to alter Oklahoma’s ability to carry out executions, but could open up the state to further costly legal challenges paid for by taxpayers. ... Our goal is to educate citizens about this expensive governmental overreach, and to urge them to vote ‘No’ to SQ 776."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oklahoma ballot measures

No to SQ 792 registered to oppose the measure. The committee raised $12,486.72.

There were no committees registered to support the measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$21,220.50	$102.50	$21,323.00	$22,370.50	$22,473.00
Total	$21,220.50	$102.50	$21,323.00	$22,370.50	$22,473.00

Support

There were no committees registered to support the measure.

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.

Committees in opposition to State Question 776
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Say No to SQ 776	$21,220.50	$102.50	$21,323.00	$22,370.50	$22,473.00
Total	$21,220.50	$102.50	$21,323.00	$22,370.50	$22,473.00

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition committee(s).

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Catholic Mobilizing Network, Inc.	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
Amnesty International	$1,500.00	$0.00	$1,500.00
Mark Baker	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Donald F. Heath, Jr.	$888.30	$0.00	$888.30
Terry Gilbert	$776.50	$0.00	$776.50

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• Sooner Politics said: "The purpose of S.Q. 776 is to reiterate, in the state Constitution, that capital punishment is not unconstitutional in Oklahoma."

Other opinions

• Muskogee Phoenix said: "But this question appears to ensure that the conveyor belt of death-row inmates can’t be slowed or stopped. Executing a citizen should have enough constitutional restrictions and legal benchmarks to ensure the state does not put to death an innocent person."

• The Oklahoman said: "On the issue of the death penalty, Oklahoma appears to be swimming upstream. [...] Time will tell if that strong support is enough to overcome the death penalty's mounting legal and pragmatic challenges."

• Tahlequah Daily Press said: "There is no need for this question. Courts have to follow state law, but they also have to follow federal law. And, federal law always trumps state law. Even if SQ 776 passes, there is nothing to prevent a challenge to it or to a method of execution in federal court."

• Tulsa World said: "The measure has no intended consequences, but the nature of unintended consequences is that they are unintended, and sometimes unpredictable. We do know this: Whenever the state messes with its death penalty law, it creates a new set of issues for inmates and their lawyers to test in court."

• Stillwater News Press: said: "This is yet another attempt of Oklahomans trying to protect Oklahoma from future Oklahomans. How many times as Oklahomans have we asked the government to stop trying to protect us from ourselves? Aren’t we showing the same lack of trust for future Oklahomans?"

Polls

The following poll was conducted about State Question 776. The poll was conducted through a combination of cell phone calls, landline calls, and an online panel.

Oklahoma State Question 776 (2016)
Poll	Strongly support	Somewhat support	Undecided	Somewhat oppose	Strongly oppose	Margin of error	Sample size
Sooner Poll - Commissioned by The Oklahoman July 2016	47.6%	24.4%	7.7%	9.7%	10.7%	+/-4.91	398
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Oklahoma death penalty timeline

• 1915: Oklahoma carried out its first execution of Henry Bookman by electrocution.
• June 19, 1936: Arthur Gooch, the only criminal in Oklahoma to be put to death by being hanged, was executed.
• 1966: The last execution by electrocution was conducted.
• 1972: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Oklahoma's law requiring execution by electrocution to be unconstitutional.
• 1977: The Oklahoma state legislature passed a law reinstating the death penalty through lethal injection.
• September 10, 1999: The first execution by lethal injection was conducted.
  • There were no executions from 1966 through 1999.
• April 29, 2014: Clayton Lockett died from a heart attack after his lethal injection was carried out incorrectly.
• January 2015: Warner v. Gross (later called Glossip v. Gross) was filed in the United States Supreme Court.
• January 15, 2015: Charles F. Warner was executed using potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride, the drug provided for in the state's protocol.
• April 13, 2015: After approval in both branches of the legislature, State Question 776 was sent to the Oklahoma secretary of state for inclusion on the November 2016 election ballot.
• June 29, 2015: The United States Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma's three-drug execution procedure.
• September 30, 2015: Gov. Mary Fallin called a halt to the scheduled execution of Richard Glossip hours before his execution because the drug about to be used was potassium acetate rather than potassium chloride.
• October 16, 2015: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt agreed to halt all executions until the completion of all requests by plaintiffs on death row concerning investigations into the execution protocol.
• May 19, 2016: A grand jury report was released about the scheduled, but cancelled, execution of Glossip and the apparent intention of state officials to use potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride.

Death penalty in Oklahoma

As of January 1, 2016, there were 49 inmates on death row.

Oklahoma has carried out 195 executions of death row inmates since its first in 1915:

• One by hanging
• 82 by electrocution
• 112 by lethal injection

Of the 195 executions, three were women. The average age of those executed was 38. The youngest to be executed was 18 and the oldest was 74. From the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1990 through September of 2015, the average number of days that inmates spent on death row was 4,529. In 2001, more executions occurred in Oklahoma than in any other year, with 18 executions.

Glossip v. Gross

The United States Supreme Court decided Glossip v. Gross, a case brought forth by three Oklahoma death-row inmates, on June 29, 2015. In a 5 to 4 vote, the justices upheld Oklahoma's three-drug execution protocol.

The petitioners challenged Oklahoma's execution protocol, specifically the sedative midazolam, following the botched execution of Clayton Lockett on April 29, 2014. Glossip v. Gross was originally titled Warner v. Gross, but Oklahoma carried out the execution of petitioner Charles F. Warner on January 15, 2015.

The case brought forth three questions, which can be read verbatim here. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS blog paraphrased the three questions:

“	Is a three-drug execution protocol unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment if the first drug cannot reliably put the inmate into deep unconsciousness and he may therefore suffer real pain while dying from the other two drugs’ effects? Will the Supreme Court keep intact its declaration in a 2008 lethal-injection case (Baze v. Rees) restricting postponement of lethal-drug executions unless there is a clear risk of severe pain when compared to what would result by using an alternative protocol? Must a death-row inmate, seeking to challenge a state’s lethal-injection protocol, prove that a better alternative protocol is available, even if the existing procedure violates the Eighth Amendment?	”
—Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS blog

Opinion of the Court

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold Oklahoma's lethal injection method. Justice Alito wrote the court's opinion. The opinion included the following remark:

“	Our decisions in this area have been animated in part by the recognition that because it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional, “[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a [constitutional] means of carrying it out.” Id., at 47. And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. Ibid. After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune. Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether.	”
—Justice Samuel Alito

During oral arguments in Glossip v. Gross, Justice Samuel Alito insinuated that the petitioners' case was part of a "guerrilla war against the death penalty" instead of being about Oklahoma's execution protocol. Justice Antonin Scalia was even more forward about his impression of the case. He told Robin Konrad, the petitioners' attorney, that states have fewer options for execution drugs because "drugs have been rendered unavailable by the abolitionist movement putting pressure on the companies that manufacture them." He continued, "now you want to come before the Court and say, well, this third drug [midazolam] is not 100 percent sure. The reason it isn’t 100 percent sure is because the abolitionists have rendered it impossible to get the 100 percent sure drugs, and you think we should not view that as... relevant to the decision that you’re putting before us?"

Dissenters

Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all dissented in the case. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg even argued that all forms of capital punishment are unconstitutional. Justice Breyer's dissent stated:

“	In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that would protect against those constitutional problems. Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed. Today’s administration of the death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use. I shall describe each of these considerations, emphasizing changes that have occurred during the past four decades. For it is those changes, taken together with my own 20 years of experience on this Court, that lead me to believe that the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited “cruel and unusual punishmen[t].” U. S. Const., Amdt. 8.	”
—Justice Stephen Breyer

During oral arguments in Glossip v. Gross, the dissenting justices drilled Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick, who represented the state, on how the state justifies using midazolam. Breyer questioned the use of midazolam, which is meant to cause unconsciousness, since the drug does not necessarily put someone in a state of coma-like unconsciousness. Ginsburg brought up the fact that surgeons will use midazolam to put a patient to sleep at first, but not to keep him or her unconscious. Kagan emphasized the effects of the drug potassium chloride, which is supposed to stop the heart, saying "it gives the feeling of being burned alive" if the midazolam is not effective.

States with the death penalty

The death penalty is legal in 31 states. It is illegal in 19 states plus the District of Columbia.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Oklahoma Constitution

A simple majority vote was required in both chambers of the Oklahoma Legislature in order to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. On March 9, 2015, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed the measure, known in the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 31 (SJR 31), with 80 members voting in favor and 10 voting in opposition. The Oklahoma Senate approved the measure on April 9, 2015, with 44 representatives in favor and none against. It was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on April 13, 2015.

House vote

March 9, 2015

Oklahoma SJR 31 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		80	89%
No		10	11%

Senate vote

April 9, 2015

Oklahoma SJR 31 Senate vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		44	100%
No		0	0%

State partisanship

See also: Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government

Prior to the November 2016 general elections, Oklahoma was one of 23 Republican state government trifectas. As a result of the elections, Oklahoma was one of 25 Republican state government trifectas in the 2017 state legislative sessions.

See also: Oklahoma State Legislature, Oklahoma House of Representatives, Oklahoma State Senate

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...

Related measures

Death penalty measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
California	California Proposition 62, Abolition of Death Penalty Measure d
California	California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure a
Nebraska	Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal, Referendum 426 d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oklahoma Death Penalty Question 776. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oklahoma State Question 776, Allow State to Impose Death Penalty Amendment (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• Oklahoma 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Oklahoma Legislature

External links

Basic information

• Senate Joint Resolution 31
• Oklahoma State Election Board: 2016 State Questions
• Oklahoma Policy Institute State Question Guide
• Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 2016 Ballot Measure Voters' Guide

Opposition

• Think Twice Oklahoma
• Think Twice Oklahoma Facebook
• Think Twice Oklahoma Twitter

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox