Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Oklahoma State Question 790, Repeal of Ban on Public Funding for Religious Institutions Amendment (2016)
| Oklahoma State Question 790 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Religion-related policy |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
Oklahoma State Question 790 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Oklahoma on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported repealing the constitutional provision that prohibits public money or property from being used, directly or indirectly, to support any religious organization, religious leader, or sectarian institution. |
A "no" vote opposed repealing the constitutional provision that prohibits public money or property from being used, directly or indirectly, to support any religious organization, religious leader, or sectarian institution. |
Election results
|
Oklahoma State Question 790 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 607,482 | 42.88% | ||
|
|
809,254 | 57.12% | ||
Overview
Question 790 would have repealed Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits public money from being spent for religious purposes.[1] According to supporters of Question 790, passage of the measure would have allowed the Ten Commandments monument to be returned to the State Capitol.
Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution is known as a Blaine Amendment.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The proposed ballot question was as follows:[2]
| “ | This measure would remove Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits the government from using public money or property for the direct or indirect benefit of any religion or religious institution. Article 2, Section 5 has been interpreted by the Oklahoma courts as requiring the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the grounds of the State Capitol. If this measure repealing Article 2, Section 5 is passed, the government would still be required to comply with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which is a similar constitutional provision that prevents the government from endorsing a religion or becoming overly involved with religion.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO[3] |
” |
Constitutional changes
The proposed amendment would have removed from Section 5 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution:[1]
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.
[3]
Support
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R)[4]
- Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb (R)
- House Speaker Jeffrey W. Hickman (R-58)[5]
- Rep. Randy Grau (R-81)[6]
- Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-43)[6]
Individuals
- Archbishop Paul S. Coakley[7]
Arguments
U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R) and Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb wrote an opinion article in the Tulsa World. The two wrote:[4]
| “ | We support SQ 790 because it would remove from Oklahoma’s Constitution the “Blaine Amendment” a provision added in the 19th century during a time of anti-Catholic prejudice for the primary purpose of preventing Catholic schools – and Catholic orphanages, hospitals and charities – from receiving any government benefits....
Like the 'Jim Crow' laws that promoted segregation, the Blaine Amendment is a discriminatory provision in our Constitution that flies in the face of many of the Oklahoma values we cherish – love of neighbor, reverence for humanity and respect for the right to express religious freedom. Our hope is that Oklahomans will exercise their compassion for others and expand religious freedom for everyone on Nov. 8 by voting “Yes” on SQ 790.[3] |
” |
Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-43) contended:[6]
| “ |
For me it was important to repeal Art. II, Sec. 5, not just for the Ten Commandments, but also because of the long ranging consequences of the State Supreme Court’s decision in Prescott will have. ... The new interpretation of this provision can potentially make our state hostile to religion and have damaging impacts on our counties, cities and school districts. This impact has already been felt in Johnston County, where the ACLU filed a lawsuit based solely on Art. II, Sec. 5, and forced the removal of their Ten Commandments monument.[3] |
” |
House Speaker Jeffrey W. Hickman (R-58) stated:[5]
| “ |
Oklahomans overwhelmingly supported the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol, and they will now be given the opportunity to address the issue in our constitution which the Supreme Court cited in ordering the removal of the Ten Commandments monument.[3] |
” |
Roman Catholic Archbishop Paul S. Coakley said:[7]
| “ | Section 5 has thus created artificial and completely unnecessary barriers to providing help to the neediest among us, including children with disabilities. What’s worse is that if Section 5 were ever strictly applied in the way some anti-religion groups have asked it to be, it would be devastating to Catholic and other religious hospitals, social service agencies like Catholic Charities, homeless shelters, halfway houses for released inmates, substance abuse programs, and the like. ...
Finally, there is one other reason that repealing Section 5 is relevant to Catholics – repealing Section 5 would right a major historical wrong. Many people do not know that Section 5 was a provision that Congress mandated that Oklahoma include in its state constitution as a condition of becoming a state in 1907. It is a “Blaine Amendment,” one of a series of state constitutional provisions that were designed to exclude Catholics from providing religious education and from public life more generally. Repealing Section 5 would remove this black mark on Oklahoma’s history.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- ACLU of Oklahoma[6]
- Rep. Ben Loring (D-7)[8]
Arguments
Ryan Kiesel, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, argued:[6]
| “ | As we expected, the Oklahoma House of Representatives took time away from real issues Wednesday to hold a campaign rally dressed up as a Sunday School class. Members of both parties voted to move the state one step closer to Ten Commandments Litigation Part II. We applaud the ten members of the House who chose intellectual honesty over political expediency. Meanwhile, the budget crisis remains, the future of education is in peril, women continue to be marginalized, and health care remains an unaffordable luxury for hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans. Oklahoma can do better.[3] | ” |
Other arguments against the measure included:
- Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said, “There are already a lot of protections that churches and religious organizations enjoy that I think would be threatened if this were to pass.”[9]
- Mitch Randall, pastor of NorthHaven Church in Norman, contended, “Any time money begins to flow from the coffers of the state, there are strings attached to that money. I don't think churches have thought through the dynamics of this state question.”
- Clarence Oliver, Professor of Education at Oral Roberts University, expressed concern that Question 790 could allow state-funded school vouchers to be used for religious schools. claimed, “I think SQ 790 would move Oklahoma toward a voucher system, and I'm opposed to that.”
Background
| Oklahoma Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| 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 • XXV-A • XXVI • XXVIIIA • XXVIII • XXIX • XXX • Schedule |
Blaine Amendments
Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution is known as a "Blaine Amendment," named after Republican Speaker of the U.S. House James G. Blaine. Although Blaine Amendments have been interpreted to defend a separation of church and state, the amendments were designed in response to Catholic immigration and were meant to decrease Catholic influence in education.[10]
Voters in Louisiana removed their Blaine Amendment in 1975, when approving a new constitution. Attempts to remove Blaine Amendments have failed in Florida with Amendment 8 of 2012 and in Oregon with Measure 4 of 1972.
Ten Commandments monument
In 2015, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Ten Commandments monument displayed on the grounds of the Oklahoma state capitol violated Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. In early October 2015, the monument was removed.[11]
Rep. Mike Ritze (R-80) proposed the monument in 2009, and a Republican majority in the Oklahoma Legislature quickly approved it. While no taxpayer money was spent on the display, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma challenged its presence as unconstitutional.
This measure was proposed largely in response to this supreme court ruling. This measure was designed to remove the section of the Oklahoma Constitution that the monument violated.
Media editorials
Support
- The Oklahoman said: “Yet that provision was not designed to prevent state establishment of religion. Instead, its intent was to target Catholics even as governments financially supported Protestant church teachings in public schools. … Rather than try to make sense of these apparently conflicting rulings, and perpetuating a constitutional provision that encourages lawsuits whenever people of faith interact with state government, Oklahoma should end the arbitrary discrimination and repeal the Blaine Amendment.”[12]
Opposition
- Talequah Daily Press said: "Regardless of the wording of S.Q. 790, allowing the use of taxpayer funds in any way to support a religious-themed monument for one faith will automatically extend the privilege to others. And it might not stop there. How would you like your tax money to be funneled into a religious school with tenants that run completely counter to your own beliefs? Oklahoma voters need to leave the constitution the way it is. We shouldn't continue allowing Pruitt a free hand to waste our money. Simply put, we can't afford it."[13]
- Tulsa World said: "It would also clear the way for state funding of private religious schools, which would be good news for parochial schools, Islamic madrasas and worshipers of any god you can imagine. There’s all sorts of other intended or unintended consequences to SQ 790, and none of them solves any of the major problems facing the state of Oklahoma."[14]
Polls
- The Sooner Poll found a plurality opposed to Question 790 in late July 2016. However, 25 percent of respondents were undecided.[15]
| Oklahoma State Question 790 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Sample size | |||||||||||||||
| Sooner Poll 7/25/2016 - 7/29/2016 | 32.0% | 43.0% | 25.0% | 400 | |||||||||||||||
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
Campaign finance
Yes on 790 Association registered to support State Question 790 and raised $172,566.85. No committees formed to oppose the measure.[16]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $4,166,353.36 | $561,267.12 | $4,727,620.48 | $4,166,353.36 | $4,727,620.48 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $4,166,353.36 | $561,267.12 | $4,727,620.48 | $4,166,353.36 | $4,727,620.48 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.[17]
| Committees in support of State Question 790 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Yes on 790 Association | $172,566.85 | $0.00 | $172,566.85 | $172,566.85 | $172,566.85 |
| Total | $172,566.85 | $0.00 | $172,566.85 | $172,566.85 | $172,566.85 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the support committee(s).[17]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Becket Fund for Religious Liberty | $172,566.85 | $0.00 | $172,566.85 |
Opposition
There were no committees registered to oppose the measure.
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
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 7, 2016, the Oklahoma Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 72, with 39 senators voting in favor and five voting against. The House approved the measure on April 21, 2016, with 65 representatives in favor and seven against.[18]
Senate vote
March 7, 2016
| Oklahoma SJR 72 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 39 | 88.64% | ||
| No | 5 | 11.36% | ||
House vote
April 21, 2016
| Oklahoma SJR 72 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 65 | 90.28% | ||
| No | 7 | 9.72% | ||
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...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oklahoma Question 790 Religion. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
- Senate Joint Resolution 72
- Oklahoma State Election Board: 2016 State Questions
- Oklahoma Policy Institute State Question Guide
- Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 2016 Ballot Measure Voters' Guide
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oklahoma Legislature, "SJR 72," accessed April 25, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma State Election Board, "State Questions," accessed September 23, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Tulsa World, "U.S. Sen. James Lankford and Todd Lamb: Support religious freedom for all Oklahomans and State Question 790," October 26, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 KFOR, "House approves Ten Commandments constitutional amendment," April 21, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 KFOR, "Oklahoma House passes measure on Ten Commandments monument," March 9, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, "State Question 790: Helping the “least of these” while healing the past," October 16, 2016
- ↑ The Miami News-Record, "'Ten Commandment Monument' question on ballot," accessed September 18, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Some Oklahoma clergy fear State Question 790 is going down ‘dangerous road’," September 19, 2016
- ↑ The Collegian, "Okla. should repeal its Blaine Amendment," February 23, 2016
- ↑ Tahlequah Daily Press, “SQ 790 arose from Ten Commandments monument removal,” September 10, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Repeal of Oklahoma constitutional provision is long overdue," July 6, 2015
- ↑ Talequah Daily Press, "SQ 790 not good idea, even if words change," August 10, 2016
- ↑ Tulsa World, "Tulsa World editorial: Voters should reject State Question 790," October 9, 2016
- ↑ Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, "SoonerPoll: Likely voters support penny sales tax for education," August 2, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma Ethics Commission, "The Guardian Committee Search," accessed November 17, 2016
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsup - ↑ Open States, "SJR 72," accessed April 25, 2016
|
State of Oklahoma Oklahoma City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
