Oklahoma Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 (2016)

Oklahoma State Question 781
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Drug crime policy
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

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 Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahoma as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this proposal to use money saved by reclassifying certain property and drug crimes as misdemeanors, as outlined in the Criminal Justice System Reform Initiative, State Question 780, to fund rehabilitative programs, including substance abuse and mental health treatment programs.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal to use money saved by reclassifying certain property and drug crimes as misdemeanors to fund rehabilitative programs, including substance abuse and mental health treatment programs.

State Question 781 only became effective because voters also approved State Question 780, which reclassifies certain property offenses and simple drug possession as misdemeanor crimes.

Election results

State Question 781
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		795,475	56.22%
No		619,580	43.78%

Election results from Oklahoma State Election Board

Overview

Initiative design

State Questions 780 and 781

State Question 781 allocated funds saved through prison cost savings from State Question 780, which changed certain non-violent drug- and theft-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, thereby reducing the number and duration of state prison sentences for those crimes. SQ 781 relied on Question 780. Since State Question 780 reclassified certain crimes as misdemeanors it saved the state prison system money by reducing the number and duration of incarcerations. Question 781 was designed to redistribute the money saved by the reduced prison costs to counties to fund rehabilitation of criminals. State Question 781 only went into effect because State Question 780 was also approved since without State Question 780 the prison cost savings allocated by State Question 781 would not exist.

How the money would be allocated?

Under State Question 781, the Office of Management and Enterprise Services will determine each year—either exactly or through an estimate—how much money was saved by the state prison system because of changes implemented by State Question 780. That amount will be divided proportionally to the population of each county and could be claimed by privately-run rehabilitative organizations that provide drug and mental health treatment, job training, and education programs.

Text of measure

Ballot title

“

This measure creates the County Community Safety Investment Fund, only if voters approve State Question 780, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act. This measure would create a fund, consisting of any calculated savings or averted costs that accrued to the State from the implementation of the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act in reclassifying certain property crimes and drug possession as misdemeanors. The measure requires the Office of Management and Enterprise Services to use either actual data or its best estimate to determine how much money was saved on a yearly basis. The amount determined to be saved must be deposited into the Fund and distributed to counties in proportion to their population to provide community rehabilitative programs, such as mental health and substance abuse services. This measure will not become effective if State Question 780, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act, is not approved by the people. The measure will become effective on July 1 immediately following its passage.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Ballot title change

The Oklahoma Supreme Court rewrote the ballot title on August 8, 2016, as part of a legal challenge. Initiative proponents and the Oklahoma Attorney General provided ballot titles, and the state supreme court ruled that both ballot titles were insufficient either because of bias or a lack of information. The originally proposed ballot titles were as follows:

Ballot titles proposed by proponents and the attorney general
SQ 781 proponent's proposed title: This measure creates the County Community Safety Investment Fund. The fund consists of costs saved by reclassifying as misdemeanors certain property crimes and drug possession. The funds must be distributed to counties for the purpose of funding rehabilitative programs, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. This measure only becomes effective if voters approve State Question 780 the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act.
Attorney General's title: This measure creates the County Community Safety Investment Fund ("Fund"), but only if voters also approve State Question 780, the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act. This measure presumes that the Oklahoma Smart Justice Reform Act will save the State money by making drug possession and certain property crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies. The measure requires the State's Office of Management and Enterprise Services to use either actual data or its best estimate to determine how much money was saved on a yearly basis. The amount that is determined or estimated to have been saved must be deposited into the Fund and distributed to counties in proportion to their population to pay for rehabilitative programs like mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. The measure does not identify a revenue source that will be used to pay the amount that is determined or estimated to have been saved. Payment into the Fund of this amount would be made from the General Revenue Fund, the primary fund used to pay for state government.

Support

The group that led the support for State Questions 780 and 781 was Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform.

Supporters

The Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform website listed the following endorsements of State Questions 780 and 781:

Kris Steele, former Republican House Speaker, was a chief proponent of State Questions 780 and 781.

Organizations ACLU of Oklahoma CEO Works Family Policy Institute of Oklahoma George Kaiser Family Foundation Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Mental Health Association Oklahoma Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce Oklahoma Conference of Churches Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (Impact) Oklahoma Policy Institute Oklahoma Right on Crime Oklahoma Substance Abuse Services Alliance (OSASA) Oklahoma Women's Coalition ReMerge The Education and Employment Ministry (TEEM) The Oklahoma Academy Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce Tulsa Work Force Women in Recovery YWCA Tulsa Individuals Tom Ward, Chairman and CEO, Tapstone Energy Clay Bennett, Owner of Oklahoma City Thunder & Chairman of Dorchester Capital Corporation Gene Rainbolt, Chairman, BancFirst Corporation Brad Henry, Former Oklahoma Governor Rev. Dr. George E. Young, Sr., State Representative Rev. Theodis R. Manning, Sr., Senior Pastor, Divine Ray Owens, Pastor, Metropolitan Baptist Church Joe Johnston, CEO, Catalyst Treatment Centers J. Larry Nichols, Chairman, Devon Energy Corporation Dr. Hance Dilbeck, President, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma

Arguments in favor

Supporters made the following arguments in support of State Questions 780 and 781:

• SQ 780 and 781 would reduce crime and improve safety.
  • Supporters argued that the state's high incarceration rate has still left the state with high crime rates, implying that reducing prison time for certain non-violent crimes does not increase the rate of crime.
  • Supporters also argued that serving time in prison for non-violent drug crimes makes those people more likely to commit violent crimes after release.

• SQ 780 and 781 would allow people convicted of non-violent drug crimes to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
  • Supporters argued that having a felony record makes it difficult to get a job, find housing, and become involved in a community.

• SQ 780 and 781 would allow positive treatment of addiction and mental health issues at the root of most crimes.
  • Supporters argued that most non-violent drug crimes are committed by people who need professional help and rehabilitation and that the prison costs savings from State Question 780 could be used to address these needs.

Kris Steele, former Republican House Speaker, said, “ One in three people in Oklahoma's prisons need mental health treatment, and one quarter of inmates are serving time for a nonviolent drug offense. It is time to take a smarter approach to public safety by increasing access to programs that address the root causes of crime. ” Mike Neal, president and CEO of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, said that at least one in 12 Oklahomans has a felony conviction. He said, “ Many of them for small, nonviolent infractions that will prevent them from entering the workforce throughout their lifetime. ... This contributes to workforce shortages, ... harming economic growth and really overburdening the taxpayers. ” Stephanie Horten, director of the Women’s Defense Team, said that women would benefit from the measure: “ They would spend less time in jail. They would be with their children. They'd be able to keep their driver's license. ... If you had a misdemeanor instead of a felony, you might actually be able to get a job. Most of the women we work with have a very, very hard time finding a job with a felony on their record. Most employers won't even look at someone who has a felony charge. ” Ryan Kiesel, executive director of ACLU of Oklahoma, said, “ A felony conviction today operates in many ways as a modern-day form of societal banishment. These are bold reforms. In Oklahoma, about 17 percent of the people admitted to prisons each year have simple drug possession as their only or as their most serious offense. ” Concerning similar reforms in Texas, Adam Luck, a member of the conservative group Right on Crime, said, “ The State of Texas has saved close to $3 billion. They've closed three state facilities. ... They've cut their juvenile population by 52 percent, which has allowed them to close eight juvenile facilities, all while maintaining the lowest crime rates they've had since 1973. ”

Opposition

A No on 780 campaign was formed to campaign in opposition to State Question 780.

Since State Question 781 was designed to depend on State Question 780 and the opponents and opposing arguments are the same for both, the opposition campaign focuses on State Question 780.

Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51)
• District Attorney Jason Hicks - District 6
• Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler
• Garfield County Sheriff Jerry Niles
• Cleveland County District Attorney Grag Mashburn

Organizations

• Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police

Arguments against

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to State Questions 780 and 781:

• SQ 780 and 781 would increase crime.
  • Opponents argued that the proposal would remove incentives against drug-related crimes by making them misdemeanors instead of felonies.

• SQ 780 and 781 were unnecessary.
  • Opponents argued that the legislature already passed laws that would reduce prison overcrowding by reducing the minimum sentences for drug possession, increasing the value threshold at which thefts become felonies, and allowing prosecutors to chart certain felonies as misdemeanors, making SQ 780 and 781 unnecessary.

• SQ 780 and 781 would be unjust by making some drug crimes that should be felonies into misdemeanors.
  • Opponents argued that possession of meth, heroin, cocaine, and date rape drugs should be a felony, not a misdemeanor.

• SQ 780 and 781 would make the jobs of prosecutors and law enforcement more difficult.
  • Opponents argued that felony charges constitute important incentives used by prosecutors to compel members of gangs and criminal organizations to testify against each other and used to motivate drug users to participate in substance abuse treatment programs.

• SQ 780 and 781 were badly written and could result in communities lacking the funds necessary to fund county jails and achieve rehabilitation for a larger number of criminals.
  • Opponents argued that State Questions 780 and 781 do not provide rules or guidance about how to calculate the state prison savings by which proposed rehabilitation programs would be funded and could result in a disproportionate ratio of drug-related offenders and funding in certain counties and overcrowded county jails due to the larger number of misdemeanors.

Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51) said, “ I am adamantly opposed. They [SQ 780 and SQ 781] are reckless and dangerous. [...] Drugs like meth, heroin, cocaine and date rape drugs, those are the type of drugs that should remain felonies. There are only two reasons to have a date rape drug and that is to sell it or to use it, and that poses a significant risk. [...] We don’t need to be the guinea pig for these liberal ideals that put the public at risk. ” Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said, “ If this is passed, Oklahoma will be labeled as having the most liberal drug legislation in the country. This is more liberal than California. This is more liberal than the State of Washington. Oklahoma will never have another felony drug possession crime again if this passes. The net effect is this – if you are caught with methamphetamine today, if this new law passes, it would be a misdemeanor. Tomorrow, if you get caught with methamphetamine, it will be a misdemeanor. Two years from now, a misdemeanor. You could have 55 arrests and convictions for methamphetamine and always have a misdemeanor. The things that are obviously a threat to our community because of what happens for these people who try to fund their drug habits, you have got to have some kind of what I call a heavy hand. ” District Attorney Greg Mashburn said, “ I will have a conversation with a family with a guy who’s been six times in the county jail for meth, and then he kills somebody. And, I will have to tell them, if the law hadn’t change, I might could have stopped this guy. ”

Media editorials

Support

• The Sooner Politics editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on State Questions 780 and 781.
• The Oklahoman said: "State Questions 780 and 781 would reduce the penalties for some nonviolent crimes and use any resulting savings to fund rehabilitation and drug treatment programs. There are valid concerns about these proposals, but the law can be tweaked in future years as needed. The Oklahoman endorses a “yes” vote on both questions."
• The Tulsa World said: "Like drug addiction, incarceration is an expensive habit, and hard one to break. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Locking up more people than any state except Louisiana isn't making our state any safer. It's just making it poorer. It's time to wise up to realities and get smart on crime."
• The Journal Record said: "Treatment is cheaper than prison by a wide margin and statistically has much better outcomes. Locking up drug users for long stays in the penitentiary has accomplished nothing but crowded prisons and a lot of taxpayer expense. State Question 780 takes the lessons learned from the past 30 years and adjusts the system to a less expensive, more humane, more successful system and we encourage Oklahomans to vote yes."

Other opinions

• The Tulsa World editorial board wrote in July 2016 that, while it hadn't decided about the details of Question 780 and 781, it approved of what it saw as the goals of the proponents of the measures. The board wrote, "Oklahoma locks up too many people, and it isn’t doing enough to divert people from prison and into programs that can help turn their lives around. [...] If they do nothing more than provoke a full public discussion of Oklahoma’s expensive and ineffective mass incarceration, then they’ve served a purpose."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oklahoma ballot measures

Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform formed to support State Question 781. The committee also backed State Question 780. The committee raised $4.72 million.

	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.

Committees in support of State Question 781
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform	$4,166,353.36	$561,267.12	$4,727,620.48	$4,166,353.36	$4,727,620.48
Total	$4,166,353.36	$561,267.12	$4,727,620.48	$4,166,353.36	$4,727,620.48

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
ACLU	$3,280,000.00	$561,267.12	$3,841,267.12
FWD US, Inc.	$700,000.00	$0.00	$700,000.00
Precision Strategies	$40,000.00	$0.00	$40,000.00
Devon Energy	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
BancFirst	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

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.

Polls

The Oklahoman commissioned a poll of 398 likely voters from SoonerPoll in late July of 2016. The poll showed that 75 percent of likely voters supported State Question 780 and that 71 percent supported State Question 781.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

The measure was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on January 27, 2016. According to Oklahoma law, after a petition is approved, supporters have 90 days to collect the required number of valid signatures. Petitioners for State Question 781 needed to collect 65,987 valid signatures by early June 2016, provided no official complaints complicated the process of approving the initiative for circulation.

Supporters submitted over 110,000 signatures on June 2, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $544,706.05 was spent to collect the 65,987.00 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.25.

Legal challenge

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners	Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R)
Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal.	Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title accurately and neutrally explained the state question.

  Source: Justia US Law

On June 9, 2016, Oklahoma Secretary of State Scott Pruitt reworded the ballot title. Supporters filed a request to the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to reject the revised ballot title wording, because, they said, it contained biased language in opposition to the measure. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that both the original and revised ballot title wording were biased. New ballot titles were written, and the court allowed the measure to be placed on the November 2016 ballot.

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

Suggest a link

• Oklahoma 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Oklahoma Legislature
• List of Oklahoma ballot measures
• Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Search State Questions"

External links

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

Support

• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 website
• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 Facebook
• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 Twitter

Opposition

• Vote No 780 website

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