Oklahoma State Question 836, Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative (2026)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Oklahoma State Question 836

Flag of Oklahoma.png

Election date

November 3, 2026

Topic
Primary election systems
Status

Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballotNot on the ballot

Type
Initiated constitutional amendment 		Origin

Citizens


Oklahoma State Question 836, the Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative, is not on the ballot in Oklahoma as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.

Overview

What would the initiative have done?

See also: Measure design

The initiative would have established a top-two primary system for statewide and county offices, district attorney, state legislators, and congressional candidates. Candidates for an office would have appeared on one ballot regardless of their party affiliation. The top-two vote-getters would have moved forward to the general election.[1]

As of 2026, Oklahoma law stipulates that political parties can decide whether unaffiliated voters can vote in their primaries. No political party authorized Independent voters to participate in their primary elections in 2026 and 2027.[2] Winners in primary contests are determined by majority vote. The top-two candidates participate in a runoff election if no candidate wins a majority in the first round of balloting.

What states use top-two primaries?

See also: Top-two primaries in use by state

As of 2025, three states used a top-two primary for some elections: California, Nebraska, and Washington. In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections after the passage of Washington Initiative 872. California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010 after the passage of California Proposition 14. In Nebraska, a top-two primary system was utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature was nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels were not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates.

As of 2025, Alaska used a top-four primary, which is a variation of the top-two primary, for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. Voters approved this in 2020 with Ballot Measure 2. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency. Louisiana also used a variation of a top-two primary system in some elections.


Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the following sections for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.[1]


Expand All
Top-two primary system
Covered offices
Format of election ballots
Special elections


Text of measure

Ballot title

On February 3, 2026, the Oklahoma Attorney General announced that the ballot title submitted by the initiative's sponsors did not comply with the requirements.[3] The rewritten ballot title submitted by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State is as follows:[4]

“ This measure establishes, in the Oklahoma Constitution, an "open primary" system for regular and special elections for state officers, county officers, district attorneys, Members of the Legislature, and Members of Congress. All candidates for these offices would appear on the same primary ballot regardless of party affiliation or whether any party nominated or endorsed the candidates. Candidates would appear on the ballot in random order, and a candidate's party registration or independent status as of the filing date would appear next to their name. Ballots would state that a candidate's party registration does not imply nomination or endorsement by the party. A voter may vote for one candidate per office only. The two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation, meaning a general election could involve candidates from only one party. If only two candidates seek an office, then those candidates would proceed to the general election. The measure would repeal article 3, section 3 of the Constitution, which currently allows the Legislature to create and alter the primary system. The measure would invalidate any conflicting state law and remove legislative control over primaries. The measure would only authorize laws to implement the new system, like the process for when a candidate cannot participate in the general election. The measure could only be altered by a subsequent constitutional measure. Recognized political parties would still nominate Presidential Elector candidates at their conventions. Independent candidates for President could also petition to be on the ballot. The measure would become effective ninety days following approval and would not apply to any election if the candidate filing period begins prior to the measure's approval. Because the top two candidates proceed to the general election, runoffs would be eliminated, resulting in decreased government spending to conduct elections.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal - YES Against the proposal - NO

A "YES" vote is a vote in favor of the measure. A "NO" vote is a vote against this measure.[5]

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]

Support

VoteYes836.png

Vote Yes 836 was leading the campaign in support of the initiative.[6] Oklahoma United launched the campaign.[7]

Supporters

Officials

Former Officials

Organizations

  • Norman League of Women Voters
  • Oklahoma United
  • Women in Action for All Norman


Arguments

  • Mayor David Holt: "All of the candidates have to face all of the voters. This incentivizes candidates to build coalitions and propose pragmatic outcomes that have broad support. People across the state have little choice but to acknowledge that the city's governance has been exceptional, and our electoral system is the number one reason for that. I simply believe that all people should have the chance to vote, and that when that is the case, we make better decisions. I want the state to harness that wisdom and unlock the same success we enjoy in OKC."
  • Vote Yes 836: Our current primary system is broken. Partisan primaries guarantee meaningless November elections in which the vast majority of all elected offices have already been filled in primaries or run-offs. Partisan primaries disenfranchise voters by barring them (especially independents) from participation in primaries, even though their tax dollars fund those elections. ​Partisan primaries discourage voter turnout – Oklahoma is dead last in the nation when it comes to voter participation.
  • Anthony Stobbe, a writer of the initiative: "The current system says to me and numerous others that your opinion doesn’t matter. To add insult to injury, my taxpayer dollars and your taxpayer dollars pay to fund the very election I can’t vote in."
  • Oklahoma United: "Our citizens aren't buying what's on the menu in closed primaries and feel they don't matter. Research shows most voters want to choose the best person for the job regardless of party affiliation. Adopting an open primary system, like we use in every town and city in Oklahoma today with much higher satisfaction, makes sense and will put the focus on the people, and force officials to listen to ALL their constituents, not just a tiny fraction who show up in a partisan primary and closed run-off election."


Opposition

Stop836-logo.png

Stop 836 was leading the campaign in opposition to the measure.[8] Protecting Oklahoma Elections and Anchors of Liberty launched the campaign.

Opponents

Officials

Candidates


Arguments

  • Jonathon Small, President of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs: "In practice, SQ 836’s model can reduce voters’ November choices to two candidates from the same party. This has often been the case in California. Kamala Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate from California in a general election that pitted her against another Democrat. Had the California model been used in Oklahoma in 2018, the governor’s race that November would have pitted Democrat Drew Edmondson against Democrat Connie Johnson. Because multiple strong candidates ran for governor as Republicans that year, they split the Republican vote enough that Edmondson and Johnson would have been the “top two” vote recipients despite most votes being cast for a Republican in the primary."
  • Candidate for State Attorney General, Jeff Starling: "The courts in this country have consistently held that political parties have great leeway in determining their own rules and nominations. Liberals and special interests are determined to find a way to undermine conservatives and Oklahoma Republicans. Liberal states like California and Washington have embraced the jungle primary system, producing ineffective leadership that regularly makes national headlines for its dysfunction. Oklahomans should reject this failed experiment. My message to the liberals and special interest groups behind it: don’t California our Oklahoma."
  • Stop 836: "We believe that Oklahoma's election system should ensure all parties are represented in the general election, providing voters with meaningful choices across the political spectrum. The current system guarantees this representation, while SQ 836 would eliminate it by allowing general elections with candidates from only one party. We urge all Oklahomans to carefully consider the consequences of this dramatic change to our electoral process."
  • Letter signed by Speaker of the House Kyle Hilbert, Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton, and 112 other Republican members of the Oklahoma Legislature: "The practical effect of SQ 836 is to limit voter choices. Under SQ 836, there is virtually no chance any Libertarian or Independent candidates will ever be placed on a November general-election ballot in a competitive race. And, in many cases, SQ 836 would limit voter choice in November to two members of the same political party, as happens routinely in California in state and federal elections."


Media editorials

See also: 2026 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial board published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

  • The Oklahoman Editorial Board: "This year marks the 250th anniversary of this nation's Declaration of Independence. What better year to declare our independence from the two political parties and put the choice of candidates for our state elections in the hands of the people."


Opposition

Ballotpedia has not located media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share media editorial endorsements, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.


Background

Top-two primary

See also: Top-two primary

A top-two primary is a type of primary election where all candidates are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations. Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[9][10]

Top-two primaries should not be confused with blanket primaries. In both types of primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot and voters choose one candidate per office regardless of party affiliation. However, in a blanket primary, the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. This ensures that candidates from the same party will not compete against each other in the general election.[11][12]

Top-two primaries in the United States

The map below identifies states that utilize top-two primary elections or a variation. Hover over a state for additional details.

As of September 2025, three states used a top-two primary for some elections:

  • In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates.

Two additional states used some variation of top-two primaries for their elections:

  • In 2020, Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2 establishing a top-four primary, which is a variation of the top-two primary, for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency.
  • In Louisiana, rules to participate in primaries vary by the office up for election. For congress, justice of the supreme court, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Public Service Commission, the state uses a semi-closed primary. In these primaries, only unaffiliated voters and voters registered with a party may vote in that party's primary. For all other statewide offices—including state senator and representative—Louisiana uses the majority-vote system. In this system, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, they win the election outright. If, however, no candidate reaches that threshold, a second round of voting is held between the top two vote-getters. Any registered voter can participate in both the first-round and second-round elections.[13][14]


Statewide ballot measures related to top primary systems

Ballot measures related to primary election systems
YearMeasureSystem typeYes vote (%)No vote (%)Outcome
2024South Dakota Constitutional Amendment HTop-two primary34.39%65.61%
Defeatedd
2024Nevada Question 3Top-five primary47.04%52.96%
Defeatedd
2024Montana CI-126Top-four primary48.91%51.09%
Defeatedd
2024Idaho Proposition 1Top-four primary30.38%69.62%
Defeatedd
2024Colorado Proposition 131Top-four primary46.47%53.53%
Defeatedd
2024Arizona Proposition 140All top primaries41.32%58.68%
Defeatedd
2024Arizona Proposition 133All top primaries42.18%57.82%
Defeatedd
2024Alaska Ballot Measure 3Top-four primary49.88%50.12%
Defeatedd
2022Nevada Question 3Top-five primary52.94%47.06%
Approveda
2020Alaska Ballot Measure 2Top-four primary50.55%49.45%
Approveda
2020Florida Amendment 3Top-two primary57.03%[15]42.97%
Defeatedd
2014Oregon Measure 90Top-two primary31.77%68.23%
Defeatedd
2012Arizona Proposition 121Top-two primary33.07%66.93%
Defeatedd
2010California Proposition 14Top-two primary53.73%46.27%
Approveda
2008Oregon Measure 65Top-two primary34.06%65.94%
Defeatedd
2004Washington Initiative 872Top-two primary59.85%40.15%
Approveda
2004California Proposition 62Blanket primary46.17%53.83%
Defeatedd

Path to the ballot

Process in Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

An initiated constitutional amendment is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends a state's constitution. Eighteen (18) states allow citizens to initiate constitutional amendments.

In Oklahoma, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 15% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2026 ballot:

  • Signatures: 172,993 valid signatures
  • Deadline: Each initiative has its own deadline that is 90 days after it was approved to circulate.

Stages of this ballot initiative

The following is the timeline of the initiative:[3]

  • January 3, 2025: The initiative was filed with the Oklahoma secretary of state by Robert G. McCampbell and Melanie Wilson Rughani.
  • January 9, 2025: The secretary of state published the initiative and set the 90-day challenge period to run from January 9 through April 9, 2025.
  • April 9, 2025: The Oklahoma Republican Party filed a petition with the court system claiming the initiative is unconstitutional (Supreme Court Case No. O-123007), and the initiative was placed on hold.[16]
  • June 11, 2025: Supporters of the initiative filed a lawsuit with the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1027, which was signed into law in May of 2025. The law prohibits initiative petitions from gathering more signatures than 11.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from any one county. Dr. Ken Setter, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, "Politicians should not be attempting to stop this measure by sabotaging it with unconstitutional laws. They should let the voters decide."[17]
  • July 8, 2025: Two Oklahoma citizens filed a separate legal challenge to SB 1027, which they say unconstitutionally targets State Question 836. Their argument is that SB 1027 violates the constitution by applying retroactively to SQ 836 which violates Article V, Section 54 of the state constitution. That section prohibits laws from altering proceedings already in motion.[18]
  • September 16, 2025: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Oklahoma Republican Party's challenge of the initiative was premature. They also found that the summary of the initiative was not misleading and that the initiative would not place a severe burden on associational rights.[19]
  • October 8, 2025: The secretary of state announced that petitioners could begin gathering signatures in support of the petition on October 29, and that the deadline for signatures would be January 26, 2026. They also announced that the laws and policies in place in November of 2024 would apply to the signature gathering process, meaning the changes included in SB 1027 would not apply.
  • January 26, 2026: The secretary of state announced that supporters of the initiative submitted 42 boxes of petition pamphlets with signatures. Supporters of Vote Yes 836 announced they had submitted more than 200,000 signatures.[20]
  • January 28, 2026: The secretary of state began the process of certifying each signature in support of the measure.
  • March 5, 2026: The secretary of state announced that they had certified 142,567 signatures in support of the measure. As such, the measure was not placed on the 2026 ballot.[21]
  
Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the ballot initiative violate the U.S. Constitution?
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to prove that the initiative is unconstitutional or that the summary is misleading. As such, the initiative should be cleared to gather signatures.
Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Republican PartyDefendant(s): Kenneth Setter, Yvonne Galvan, and Anthony Stobbe
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative strips political parties of their ability to associate with candidates they choose, which violates the U.S. Constitution.		Defendant argument:
A top-two primary system does not infringe on the rights of smaller political parties as it does not change how political parties can support candidates.

  Source: Oklahoma Voice

On April 9, 2025, the Oklahoma Republican Party filed a petition with the Oklahoma Supreme Court under the claim that the initiative petition violates the United States Constitution. The process of approving the initiative to gather signatures was placed on an administrative hold.[16]

On June 24, oral arguments were held in court for the lawsuit. Ben Sisney, the representative of the Oklahoma Republican Party stated, "IP 448 unconstitutionally burdens petitions, First Amendment associational rights, it lacks a compelling justification, it’s not narrowly tailored, it’s not the least restrictive means, and we respectfully ask this court to strike it from the ballot."[22] He also said that the US. Supreme Court has a precedent of protecting the associational rights of political parties.[23] In contrast, Robert McCampbell, who represents the defendants, stated that the U.S. Supreme Court has a precedent of stating that a top-two primary system does not infringe on the rights of smaller political parties. He cited their 2008 decision in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.[22]

Anthony Stobbe, a petitioner of the initiative, gave a statement on the court proceedings. He said, "Let the people vote. That’s all we’re asking. The only reason party insiders are trying to block SQ 836 in court is because they know it has real momentum. Oklahomans are ready for a system where every voter gets to vote in every election, and the political elites are clearly scared of that.”[23]

On September 16, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Oklahoma Republican Party's challenge of the initiative was premature, as any challenge of the ballot initiative's title should take place after the initiative has gathered signatures. They also found that the summary of the initiative was not misleading and that the initiative would not place a severe burden on associational rights, thus it is not unconstitutional.[24]

Tony Stobbe, a sponsor of the initiative, responded to the ruling, saying, "Today’s ruling is a victory for Oklahoma voters and a defeat for the insiders and power-brokers who benefit from today’s closed, exclusionary primary process."[25]

Ronda Vuillemont-Smith, one of the parties challenging the measure, stated, "When you challenge a case like that, you know that there’s a chance, and after sitting through the hearing, I really didn’t think that it was going to come down in our favor. But what it did do is it did postpone their collecting of signatures."[25]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oklahoma Secretary of State, "State Question 836 full text," accessed February 5, 2026
  2. ↑ Oklahoma State Election Board, "Political Parties," accessed February 5, 2026
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Oklahoma Secretary of State, "State Questions," accessed November 27, 2024
  4. ↑ Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Ballot Title for State Question 836, Initiative Petition 448," accessed February 19, 2026
  5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  6. ↑ Vote Yes 836, "Homepage," accessed February 5, 2026
  7. ↑ Oklahoma United, "Homepage," accessed February 5, 2026
  8. ↑ Stop 836, "Homepage," accessed February 5, 2026
  9. ↑ Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary, "Jungle primary," accessed June 12, 2023
  10. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," accessed June 12, 2023
  11. ↑ Encyclopedia Brittanica, "Primary Election," accessed June 12, 2023
  12. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:410.3," accessed November 12, 2025
  13. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:401," accessed November 12, 2025
  14. ↑ A 60% supermajority vote was needed to pass the amendment.
  15. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Fox 25, "Oklahoma GOP fights to keep closed primaries, files challenge in Oklahoma Supreme Court," accessed May 15, 2025
  16. ↑ The Oklahoman, "Open primary proponents challenge Oklahoma law capping initiative petition signatures," accessed June 13, 2025
  17. ↑ Independent Voter News, "Lawsuit Slams Oklahoma Law as ‘Unconstitutional Sabotage’ of Open Primaries," accessed July 9, 2025
  18. ↑ Oklahoma Voice, "Open primary ballot plan OK’d by Oklahoma Supreme Court," accessed September 17, 2025
  19. ↑ KOCO News 5, "Supporters of open primary elections in Oklahoma submit signatures for ballot measure," accessed January 27, 2026
  20. ↑ KOCO News 5, "State Question 836, which would open Oklahoma's primary elections, falls short of valid signatures," accessed March 5, 2026
  21. ↑ 22.0 22.1 The Journal Record, "Oklahoma Supreme Court hears open primary elections challenge," accessed June 25, 2025
  22. ↑ 23.0 23.1 The Oklahoma Voice, "Oklahoma Supreme Court hears challenge to open primary initiative petition," accessed June 25, 2025
  23. ↑ OCSN Dockets, "No. O-123007," accessed September 17, 2025
  24. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Free Press OK, "Oklahoma Supreme Court clears petition for open primaries," accessed September 18, 2025
Flag of Oklahoma
v • e
State of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oklahoma_State_Question_836,_Top-Two_Primary_Elections_Initiative_(2026)&oldid=11121591"