Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment, State Question 777 (2016)
| Oklahoma State Question 777 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Food and agriculture | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment, State Question 777 was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was defeated.
| A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch. |
| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to amend the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch. |
Election results
| State Question 777 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 864,827 | 60.29% | ||
| Yes | 569,668 | 39.71% | ||
- Election results from Oklahoma State Election Board
Overview
Amendment design
State Question 777, which was placed on the ballot by the Oklahoma Legislature, was designed to require courts to rule on any law regulating farming and agriculture passed after December 31, 2014, by employing "strict scrutiny." This means that had the measure passed, courts would have had to overturn any challenged agricultural or livestock regulations that are not necessary for protecting a “compelling state interest.” This would have made any law restricting or regulating the farming industry in the state more vulnerable to lawsuits, which would have likely resulted in fewer government regulations over the industry.[1]
In other words, State Question 777 was designed to require the courts to apply the same standards to lawsuits concerning agriculture and livestock as in cases concerning free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom.[1]
Arguments of supporters and opponents
Supporters argued that State Question 777 would allow farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws or laws that would harm the industry, make the state more attractive to farmers, and allow consumers to decide best farming practices through free market competition.[2]
Opponents argued that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claimed the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.[3]
Text of measure
Official ballot title
The final official ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ |
This measure adds Section 38 to Article Il of the Oklahoma Constitution. The new Section creates state constitutional rights. It creates the following guaranteed rights to engage in farming and ranching:
These constitutional rights receive extra protection under this measure that not all constitutional rights receive. This extra protection is a limit on lawmakers' ability to interfere with the exercise of these rights. Under this extra protection, no law can interfere with these rights, unless the law is justified by a compelling state interest—a clearly identified state interest of the highest order. Additionally, the law must be necessary to serve that compelling state interest. The measure—and the protections identified above—do not apply to and do not impact state laws related to:
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO [4] |
” |
Gist of the proposition
The gist of the proposition that the legislature put forward was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure adds a new section of law to the State Constitution. It adds Section 38 to Article 2. It protects the rights of citizens and lawful residents to engage in farming and ranching practices. It prohibits the Legislature from passing laws that would take away the right to employ agricultural technology and livestock production without a compelling state interest. It provides for interpretation of the section.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?[4] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article II, Oklahoma Constitution
The proposed amendment was designed to add a Section 38 to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The following text would be added by the proposed measure's approval:[1]
To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the right so citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.[4]
Right to farm movement
| Right-to-farm movement |
|---|
 |
| Amendments |
| ND Measure 3 in 2012 |
| MO Amendment 1 in 2014 |
| Proposals |
| OK Question 777 in 2016 |
North Dakota Measure 3
The first right-to-farm amendment, Measure 3, was approved in North Dakota in 2012. Unlike Missouri Amendment 1 or Oklahoma State Question 777, North Dakota Measure 3 was an initiative. The North Dakota Farm Bureau sponsored the measure.[5] Two-thirds of voters cast ballots in support of the amendment.
Missouri Amendment 1
In August 2014, Missouri became the second state to approve a right-to-farm constitutional amendment, although multiple states had right-to-farm statutes at the time. The measure explicitly guaranteed farmers and ranchers the right to engage in their livelihoods and produce food for others. What exactly that means, however, has been a point of debate in the Missouri agricultural community.[6][7]
Supporters argued that all farmers and ranchers need protections due to out-of-state interests in restricting certain practices. Opponents countered that the amendment would actually provide protections to large corporate and multinational agribusiness, and it would, in fact, make it harder for family farmers and ranchers to protect themselves from business interests. Amendment 1's broadly written language made postulating possible outcomes difficult. Since the measure officially passed, the official definition of "right-to-farm" will likely be decided in the courts.[8]
California Proposition 2
Tom Buchanan, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, said his support for a right-to-farm amendment was partially triggered by the approval of California's Proposition 2 in 2008.[9] Over 60 percent of California voters approved Proposition 2, which prohibited the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.[10] The constitutionality of the proposition was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2015.[11] Buchanan specifically took issue with Proposition 2's restrictions on cage sizes for egg-laying hens.
Support
Yes on 777 led the campaign in support of State Question 777.[2]
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R)[12]
- Rep. Leslie Osborn (R-47)[13]
- Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51)
- Rep. Jon Echols (R-90)
- Rep. Scooter Park (R-65)
Former officials
Organizations
- Oklahoma Farm Bureau[13]
- Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association
- Oklahoma Pork Council
- Oklahoma Cotton Council
- Oklahoma Sorghum Association
- Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council
- The Poultry Federation
- American Farmers & Ranchers
- Oklahoma Wheat Grower’s Association
- Oklahoma Agri-Women
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of State Question 777:[2]
- SQ 777 would protect the rights of farmers and allow them to succeed by preventing unnecessary and restrictive laws, including policies pushed by animal rights or environmental protection groups. Supporters argued that the number of rules and regulations are on the rise and that SQ 777 is needed to give farmers a way to fight against unfair laws.
- SQ 777 would help the economy by allowing farmers to provide food at a lower cost and create jobs. Supporters claimed that the farming industry provides $8 billion per year to the state's economy and provides thousands of jobs and that SQ 777 is necessary to ensure the health and growth of the farming industry.
- SQ 777 would allow consumers to determine which farms succeed and which ones fail through open-market competition. Supporters argued that the consumer should be able to freely decide what farms to support and which ones to avoid and that SQ 777 would protect against laws that would inhibit the consumers' right to choose.
Terry Detrick, President of the American Farmers and Ranchers, argued:[2]
| “ | If you eat, you are involved in Agriculture! That’s why AFR is so committed to the passage of SQ#777, ‘Right to Farm’. The constitutionally protected right to engage in modern farming and ranching activities based on sound science is imperative in preparation for the projected 9 billion people by 2050 with less land available on which to do so. The passage of SQ #777 will provide incentive for continued development and research as we incorporate the latest technology to enhance the natural production capabilities of both crops and livestock to insure safe, dependable and affordable food supplies for the future.[4] | ” |
Mark Yates, Director of Field Operations for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, contended:[15]
| “ | The opposition is making this about water, and it has nothing to do with water. ... They are also the ones who are putting the billboards [up] in Tulsa and Oklahoma City [saying the same thing], and it’s not what this is about. ... This is something we want for Oklahoma family farmers and ranchers to do what they do best, and that is to provide a safe, abundant food supply for Oklahoma and for the nation.[4] | ” |
Other arguments in support of the measure included:
- Tom Buchanan, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, said State Question 777 is necessary to prevent legislation "not friendly to agriculture." He continued, "The regulatory environment is becoming more restrictive on a daily basis. What we've seen, even in the Oklahoma Legislature every year, is legislation that is not friendly to agriculture."[9]
- Michael Kelsey, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, said, "Oklahoma farmers and ranchers work hard raising wholesome and high quality food. State Question 777 gives assurance that they can continue their stewardship of the land, animals, crops and ultimately all of us as consumers."[2]
- Roy Lee Lindsey Jr., executive director of the Oklahoma Pork Council, stated, "Oklahoma’s hog farmers start every day with a commitment to produce safe food, care for our animals and the environment, and invest in our local communities. Your 'yes' vote on SQ777 will protect our opportunity to raise hogs and help feed the world."[2]
Campaign advertisements
The following campaign advertisements were produced by Yes on 777:[14]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opposition
No on 777 led the campaign in opposition to State Question 777.[3] The Oklahoma Stewardship Council organized the campaign. Former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson (D) led the group.[16]
Opponents
Officials
- Rep. Brian Renegar (D-17)[17]
- Rep. Donnie Condit (D-18)
- Mayor Cindy Rosenthal, Norman[18]
Former officials
American Indian nations and organizations
- Cherokee Nation[20]
- Chickasaw Nation[21]
- Choctaw Nation
- Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
- Muscogee Creek Nation
Municipalities
Organizations
|
Individuals
- Barry Switzer, retired University of Oklahoma and NFL coach[26]
- Gary Allison, Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa[27]
Arguments
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to State Question 777:[3]
- SQ 777 would give large, corporate farmers an advantage over small, local farms. Opponents argued that industrialized farming operations could use the right to farm amendment to prevent or overturn laws designed to protect small, family farms.
- SQ 777 would remove the rights of voters. Opponents argued that giving out-of-state corporations the right to farm in Oklahoma prevents voters from enacting regulations either directly through citizen initiatives or indirectly through laws proposed by their representatives in government.
- SQ 777 would be used to enable animal cruelty. Opponents argued that SQ 777 could be used to prevent laws prohibiting and regulating things like cruel farming practices, puppy mills, and rooster breeding businesses that source cockfighting operations.
- SQ 777 would prevent regulations designed to protect drinking water. Opponents argued that many laws intended to ensure pure drinking water sources require restrictions on farming practices and could be compromised by SQ 777.
- SQ 777 would result in an increase in costly litigation. Opponents claimed that the measure was poorly written and would require a large number of lawsuits to clarify the law, which could also result in unintended effects.
Drew Edmondson, head of the Oklahoma Stewardship Council, argued the following:[28]
| “ | This measure would not only take away the power of the legislature and municipal governments to regulate agricultural practices, it effectively takes away the power of the people to vote on such changes. The world of industrial agriculture is changing with chemical additives to feed, growth hormones and genetic modifications. I can understand why they want to be free from scrutiny and regulation, but I cannot understand why we should let them.[4] | ” |
Adam Price, an Oklahoma Food Cooperative representative, stated:[28]
| “ | I’m actually terrified for what it means for our farmers markets and the small family farmers I work with. Our farmers already have the right to farm, they don’t need to run from regulation they have nothing to hide, they already produce foods that are healthy for the land, the animals and the consumers. This question directly benefits large corporations with a goal of just increasing their profits.[4] | ” |
Other arguments against the measure included:
- Johnson Bridgwater, executive director of the Oklahoma Sierra Club, contended that State Question 777 was designed to protect and empower large agribusinesses. He elaborated, "This would do nothing but work to protect large corporate farming and ranching interests. It is so vaguely written that it basically gives free reign [sic] or the possibility of all types of pollution to go forward without the legal ability to address them."[9]
- Paul Muegge, former Oklahoma state senator and long-time farmer, argued, "SQ 777 is bad news for Oklahoma farmers and their communities. We have witnessed the demise of family agriculture as a result of the industrial model of food production. We must support and maintain diverse food systems, for our economic well-being and for our personal health."
- Denise Deason-Toyne, president of Save The Illinois River, contended, "State Question 777 amounts to a massive giveaway to corporate agriculture in a truly unprecedented way. ... Oklahomans have a right to clean water, clean air, and food safety. This ‘Right to Harm' amendment strips them of those rights in favor of an industry that cares only about its own bottom line."[29]
- Sara Hill, secretary of natural resources for the Cherokee Nation, said, "Our concern is that you cannot justify taking an industry, which affects Oklahoma so much, out of the hands of the Oklahoma Legislature and its oversight. ... Regulation involves the way land is managed and agriculture is conducted, and removing it presents dangers."[20]
- Mickey Thompson, executive director of Oklahomans for Food, Farm and Family, stated, "It’s no coincidence the Farm Bureau came forward with this idea, with this question, and changed their legislative priorities where they are suddenly in favor of water transfer. ... They are suddenly in favor of selling water to Texas in the guise of helping solve our budget crisis in Oklahoma."[15]
- Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, argued, "This state question is designed to be exploited by huge agribusiness and corporate farms. Dodging oversight and polluting our land and water are not in the heart of what an Oklahoma farmer is all about, and they are most definitely not at the heart of what it is to be Cherokee."[30]
Campaign advertisements
The following videos and campaign advertisements were produced by No on 777 and other opponents:[31]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media editorials
Support
- The Sooner Politics editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on State Question 777.[32]
Opposition
- The Journal Record editorial board wrote the following in opposition to State Question 777:[33]
| “ |
The law was not written by local farmers; ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, approved the model legislation in 1996 and again in 2013. The state has a model; the Legislature can add, subtract and update laws as the world changes. In 1776, no one imagined a need for laws governing self-driving cars, but the public certainly can imagine the value of those today. No one knows how the agriculture industry will grow and change in Oklahoma, but the public representatives at the Capitol must be allowed to help the law adapt to whatever might surface. We must not cede governance of an industry to the industry. Voters must defeat State Question 777 in November.[4] |
” |
- The Norman Transcript said,[34]
| “ | In effect, SQ 777 would freeze any new legislation directed at farming or ranching. The industry should certainly be allowed to develop and utilize new technologies, methods and practices, but the state and cities should be able to pass laws and ordinances when necessary. Restricting them from doing so takes power away from leaders elected by Oklahomans.[4] | ” |
- The Oklahoman said,[35]
| “ | If SQ 777 will have little impact, then there's not much justification for adding it to the state constitution.
More worrisome is the idea that one industry should be singled out above all others for constitutional protection against regulation. Many other industries face challenges from activist groups (oil and gas companies certainly spring to mind). If agriculture deserves constitutional protection, then how do you draw the line for other industries?[4] |
” |
- The Tulsa World said,[36]
| “ | The first rule of constitutional amendments should be: First, do no harm, and in its potential for unintended consequences — especially in the state’s ability to protect its own environment — we fear harm in SQ 777. Farming is very important, but SQ 777 doesn’t solve any real Oklahoma problems, and its potential to create new problems in the future makes it bad policy.[4] | ” |
Campaign finance
Oklahoma Farmers Care SQ 777 registered to support the measure. The committee raised $1.70 million.[37]
The Oklahoma Stewardship Council, Inc. and Oklahoma Food Farm & Family, Inc. registered to oppose the measure. The committees raised $2.46 million.[38]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $1,615,876.79 | $85,868.55 | $1,701,745.34 | $1,615,876.79 | $1,701,745.34 |
| Oppose | $2,414,788.09 | $51,899.41 | $2,466,687.50 | $2,414,788.09 | $2,466,687.50 |
| Total | $4,030,664.88 | $137,767.96 | $4,168,432.84 | $4,030,664.88 | $4,168,432.84 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.[39]
| Committees in support of State Question 777 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Oklahoma Farmers Care SQ 777 | $1,615,876.79 | $85,868.55 | $1,701,745.34 | $1,615,876.79 | $1,701,745.34 |
| Total | $1,615,876.79 | $85,868.55 | $1,701,745.34 | $1,615,876.79 | $1,701,745.34 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the support committee(s).[39]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company | $500,000.00 | $0.00 | $500,000.00 |
| Oklahoma Pork Council, Inc. | $353,777.00 | $3,310.13 | $357,087.13 |
| Oklahoma Farm Bureau | $59,111.36 | $35,095.78 | $94,207.14 |
| Farm Credit of Western Oklahoma, FLCA | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| GoBank | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) in opposition to the measure.[40]
| Committees in opposition to State Question 777 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| The Oklahoma Stewardship Council, Inc. | $1,478,807.37 | $51,899.41 | $1,530,706.78 | $1,478,807.37 | $1,530,706.78 |
| Oklahoma Food Farm & Family, Inc. | $935,980.72 | $0.00 | $935,980.72 | $935,980.72 | $935,980.72 |
| Total | $2,414,788.09 | $51,899.41 | $2,466,687.50 | $2,414,788.09 | $2,466,687.50 |
Donors
The top donors to the opposition committee(s) were as follows:[40]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma Rising, Inc. | $924,480.72 | $0.00 | $924,480.72 |
| Humane Society Legislative Fund | $650,000.00 | $0.00 | $650,000.00 |
| Humane Society of the United States | $604,000.00 | $23,068.89 | $627,068.89 |
| American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Charles Shipley | $45,600.00 | $0.00 | $45,600.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Polls
- See also: 2016 ballot measure polls
| Oklahoma State Question 777 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| SoonerPoll 10/18/2016 - 10/20/2016 | 37.0% | 49.0% | 14.0% | +/-4.26 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
| SoonerPoll 10/5/2016 - 10/6/2016 | 49.0% | 36.0% | 15.0% | +/-4.88 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 43% | 42.5% | 14.5% | +/-4.57 | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
Legal challenge
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State Question 777 should not be placed on the statewide ballot because it is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Filed in Oklahoma County Court; appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' request and allowing SQ 777 to remain on the ballot. The court did not determine the constitutionality of SQ 777 in this decision. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save The Illinois River Inc, The Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, John Leonard | Defendant(s): The Oklahoma State ex rel the Oklahoma State Election Board, Election Board Chairman Steve Curry, Election Board Vice Chairman Tom Montgomery, Election Board Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer Paul Ziriax, Election Board Member Dr. Tim Mauldin, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt |
| Plaintiff argument: State Question 777 was unconstitutional because it violated single subject rule, its language was vague, it violated separation of powers, and it would keep the legislature from being able to repeal/change the law in the future. | Defendant argument: The plaintiffs did not file the lawsuit in a timely manner, and therefore their case should be dismissed. |
On March 1, 2016, Save The Illinois River Inc. and state Rep. Jason Dunnington (D-88) filed a legal challenge against the measure, saying,[29]
| “ | State Question 777 would require Oklahoma courts to strike down any legislation that affects farming, ranching, and the use of livestock production practices, ranching practices, and agricultural technology, absent a 'compelling state interest.'[4] | ” |
Additionally, the complaint claimed that the petition "unconstitutionally delegates policy-making decisions, is too vague, regulates too many subjects and will impermissibly prevent future legislators from doing their job."[41]
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed a brief in court on March 20, 2016, asking to dismiss the lawsuit. The brief said that challenges to legislative referendums prior to enactment were not provided for under state law. Even if the challenge would have been permitted, it was not filed within 10 business days of the publication of the ballot title, as state law prescribed. Pruitt wrote in the brief, "Their challenge both fails to state a valid cause of action and is time-barred."[42]
As of May 30, 2016, Oklahoma County District Judge Patricia Parrish dismissed the lawsuit.[43]
In early July 2016, Save the River Illinois, Rep. Jason Dunnington (D-88), and two private citizens filed an accelerated appeal, citing the alleged unconstitutionality of the measure. Heather Hintz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "There is a strong Oklahoma policy that something that is facially unconstitutional should not go to the ballot because it's a waste of resources and it misleads voters."[44]
On August 8, 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the measure can remain on the November 8 ballot. The court's opinion said, "To decide the validity of legislation before it is passed on by the governor or the voters, is for a court to inject itself into the legislative process. ... The challenges raised here remain unadjudicated and intact, as does any challenge brought under the federal or state constitutions by a proper party if State Question 777 is passed by voters."[45]
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 April 21, 2015, the Oklahoma Senate passed HJR 1012, with 39 senators voting in favor and six voting against. The Oklahoma House of Representatives approved the measure on April 29, 2015, with 85 representatives in favor and seven against. On April 30, 2015, it was filed with the Oklahoma secretary of state.[1]
Senate vote
April 21, 2015
| Oklahoma HJR 1012 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 39 | 86.67% | ||
| No | 6 | 13.33% | ||
House vote
April 29, 2015
| Oklahoma HJR 1012 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 85 | 92.39% | ||
| No | 7 | 7.61% | ||
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
| Food and agriculture measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, Question 3 |
Recent news
This section links to a Google news search for the term "Oklahoma + right + farm + question + 777"
See also
- Oklahoma 2016 ballot measures
- 2016 ballot measures
- Oklahoma Legislature
- Food and agriculture on the ballot
- Federal land policy in Oklahoma
- Influencers by policy#Agricultural policy influencers
External links
- Text of State Question 777
- Oklahoma State Election Board: 2016 State Questions
- Oklahoma Policy Institute State Question Guide
- Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 2016 Ballot Measure Voters' Guide
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Oklahoma Legislature, "Enrolled House Joint Resolution 2," accessed July 25, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Yes on 777, "Homepage," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 No on 777, "Homepage," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 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 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 - ↑ AG Week, "ND amendment would protect farming, advocate says," August 5, 2011
- ↑ MyNWMO.com, "Lawmakers send 'right-to-farm' measure to 2014 ballot," May 15, 2013
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, "HJR 11," accessed May 26, 2014
- ↑ St. Louis Beacon, "Proposed 'right to farm' constitutional amendment likely to end up in court," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Connecticut Post, "Oklahoma voters to decide death penalty, farming questions," May 30, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Proposition 2 Official Voter Guide," accessed June 1, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Egg-laying hens in California win another court battle," February 4, 2015
- ↑ Altus Times, "Inhofe touts right to farm," October 15, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Yes on 777, "Endorsements," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Youtube, "Yes on 777," accessed October 24, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Oklahomans for Food, Farm & Family, "Oklahomans voice concerns with State Question 777," accessed June 21, 2016
- ↑ Capital Press, "Group forms to oppose Oklahoma farming proposal," November 18, 2015
- ↑ McAlester News-Capital, "Renegar, Condit against 777," November 2, 2016
- ↑ Norman Transcript, "Mayor Rosenthal joins opposition to SQ 777," June 17, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Tulsa World, "State question opponents challenge intent of 'Right to Farm,'" March 29, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Tahlequah Daily Press, "Cherokee Nation opposes Oklahoma’s ‘Right to Farm’ question," May 11, 2016
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 No on 777, "Opponents," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ KOSU, "Oklahoma City Council Issues Resolution Formally Opposing State Question 777, Right-To-Farm," September 14, 2016
- ↑ News on 6, "Norman City Council votes to oppose 'Right to Farm' measure," October 12, 2016
- ↑ Fox 23 News, "Tulsa leaders approve resolution urging residents to look into negative ramifications of SQ 777," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, "‘Right to Farm’ bill gathers opposition," June 13, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Barry Switzer: SQ 777 would let Big Ag be player and referee," September 10, 2016
- ↑ Stillwater News Press, "Troubling by definition: Legal expert says 'Right to Farm' puts burden on the state," October 8, 2016
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Red Dirt Report, "Concerns raised over State Question 777," November 18, 2015
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma nonprofit sues over state 'Right to Farm' question," March 1, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoma Observer, "SQ 777 Bad For Oklahoma Communities, Farmers," May 2016
- ↑ Youtube, "No on 777," accessed October 24, 2016
- ↑ Sooner Politics, "Editorial: Mostly 'Yes' To State Questions," September 16, 2016
- ↑ Washington Times, "Editorial Roundup: Recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers," July 26, 2016
- ↑ The Norman Transcript, "EDITORIAL: 'Right to Farm' unnecessary, restrictive," September 28, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma voters should reject SQs 776 and 777," October 30, 2016
- ↑ Tulsa World, "Tulsa World endorsement: Against State Question 777," October 2, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma Ethics Commission, "Oklahoma Farmers Care SQ 777," accessed March 5, 2025
- ↑ Oklahoma Ethics Commission, "The Oklahoma Stewardship Council, Inc.," accessed March 5, 2025
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsup - ↑ 40.0 40.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedopp - ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Okla. farm rights bill called a deception," March 3, 2016
- ↑ Tulsa World, "State wants legal challenge dismissed against Right to Farm proposal," March 26, 2016
- ↑ Tahlequa Daily Press, "Lawsuit to keep ‘Right to Farm’ off state ballot dismissed," May 30, 2016
- ↑ NewOK.com, "Challenge seeks to keep Oklahoma farming measure off November ballot," July 13, 2016
- ↑ Tulsa World, "Right to Farm stays on November ballot, state high court rules," August 9, 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 |
