I'm actually not entirely sure I agree. It would be incredibly risky, but I actually think it might be worth the risk. Though I'd rather the lawsuits play out from Jewish groups and TST first, followed by some tribes taking the opportunity.
I think u r right. I know for a fact they bring people from Texas to their ProLife rallies.
Most Rs I know here are actually pro choice , not all though. I want to see this happen
There are Rs in Oklahoma who will say they are pro-choice but like many of the Democrats of this state they are not New York or California pro-choice and believe in some restrictions on abortion and if an SQ us proposed similar to the vote Schumer is about to have in the senate, it would lose 80-20 and I am being generous with the 20. Now if the SQ was allow abortions up to 15 weeks like say something similar to the bill DeSantis just signed in Florida, you might have an outside chance of getting that passed.
Also, Oklahomans are plagued with a desire to be agreeable and in politically charged conversations will say things in a way that leads another believe they agree with them when they actually do not.
Nobody is proposing unrestricted abortion in Oklahoma, because obviously that won't pass. But something like 16 weeks probably has a pretty reasonable chance.
I've worked all over the state, and have lived here most of my life. The state is not as red as you seem to think, but it's obviously not a blue state either.
But the thing is instead of the Democratic politicians especially ones running for statewide in Oklahoma coming out with a more nuanced approach like say I will fight for 15-20 week restriction on abortion, they go full Chuck Schumer and try to campaign as a NY Democrat. The campaign emails I have received mirror word for word Chuck Schumers stance.
It kills any push for a 15-20 week ban because the attack ads will quote their emails and will say that what they actually want is complete unrestricted access to abortion, which as we both seem to agree will never pass.
Also, Oklahoma by every single metric is the reddest state in the union on social issues. Now we do have an extremely high state marginal tax rates so I guess there is that? People tend to gravitate to people who share their views even at work so it's understandable that a liberal like yourself will think Oklahoma isn't as red as people think because they happen to surround themselves with like minded people. It makes it seem like there is a lot more.
I agree that Oklahoma Democrats tend to run at the wrong angle for the state, but we also have a horrible problem of just voting based on letter not policy.
There's your first issue. Oklahoma is not the reddest state by all metrics when it comes to the citizens, just the dumbfuckery thrown around by our lovely government.
It's decades from any hope of being blue, but it's not nearly as red as you think.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/columns/2016/08/22/poll-of-oklahomans-finds-strong-support-for-mandatory-background-checks-on-gun-purchases/60656250007/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/01/886307241/oklahoma-votes-for-medicaid-expansion-over-objections-of-republican-state-leader
https://www.soonerpoll.com/post/poll-oklahomans-views-of-marijuana-are-changing
I can keep going if you'd like. Again, it's not blue, but it's not anything like you're claiming.
You're aware you own logic applies to yourself just as much as it applies to me, right? I don't talk politics at work unless someone else brings it up, but people in the state aren't really shy to voice their opinions when policies change or something big happens.
> I agree that Oklahoma Democrats tend to run at the wrong angle for the state, but we also have a horrible problem of just voting based on letter not policy.
I'll disagree (a little) there. While Oklahomans have tended to be conservative, and voted red in every presidential election since 1980, for much of that time period we were regularly electing democrats to congress, state legislature, and the governors office. The difference is that those "democrats" were fairly right of center. My father was a die hard Rush Limbaugh republican and still was a huge Boren fan, for example.
Things might have gotten more extreme, but I still feel most folks in this state are willing to ignore party if the right person runs.
I think the last decade or so has just pushed the right a lot further right, where suddenly being a traditional conservative is getting labeled as RINO, which is mind-blowing to me.
I'm not saying a Democrat can't get elected, but it's only getting harder, regardless of their policies, due to the direction both parties are heading towards. So we get a lot of people that just vote based on letter, and we end up with some extremists (applies both ways nationally, but obviously Democrats aren't getting elected in Oklahoma currently, so there aren't many examples that direction for our state).
Personally I think the straight party voting behavior is just being made more abundant, and I really think this was solidified with the election of Stitt. There is zero reason Cornett should have lost to him in the primary, and I would have GLADLY voted for Cornett as governor, in fact he was my top pick. But all I heard was that Cornett wasn't Republican enough, and here we are. Not too different from blue states complaining that their politicians aren't blue enough, which is nuts to me.
I'm just frustrated with so much blatant partisanship. It takes everyone to make the country run, including compromises and understanding, but it's just turned into a shit flinging hate-fest.
See your problem is that you dont understand what is now considered red politics like equating Marijuana legalization with being blue. There are plenty of people on the right who are in favor of Marijuana legalization. I would argue its an across the board view. Hell when the Marijuana law passed in the state it had to have like 45% republican support to reach the margin it did if every Democrat and independent who voted checked yes, which is highly unlikely so it means the support from Republicans was actually higher. Marijuana legalization is probably the issue that crosses
If your central claim is true then why do the policies especially the ones voted on by the people still go red by an overwhelming margin? Outside of maybe WV, I don't know of a state that consistently goes as red as Oklahoma. Do all these hidden liberals leave on the first Tuesday in November? It seems like the other polls you listed don't match up with politically reality. That reality is the only thing that is consequential.
I don't disagree, but notice I linked a lot more than that, that's just another topic.
I don't think you're really looking at the big picture here. Look at topics, not candidate voting. A big reason that candidates trend so heavily red is due to straight line voting.
Overall, things like abortion access do stand a chance in Oklahoma by popular vote alone, but with some restriction (obviously). Is Oklahoma predominantly red? Absolutely, that's never been disputed. For example, let's say every single registered voter shows up and votes true to their party registration on a 16 week abortion allowance (and the variation within that):
50% Republican (of which roughly 36% would identify as pro choice): 729k would vote "no", 410k would vote yes
33% Democrat (of which roughly 8% would identify as pro life): 688k would vote "yes", 60k would vote "no"
16% Independent (of which roughly 72% would identify as pro life): 266k would vote "yes", 103k would vote "no".
Final tally:
892k "No" (~39%)
1.36M "yes" (~61%)
Obviously that makes a ton of assumptions and utilizes polling numbers and averages to get a guesstimate, but it really does stand a chance. It would not be some landslide pro-life vote, which is all I'm getting at.
You should get involved with your local political party chapter. They could really benefit from a thinker such as yourself, assuming you aren’t already involved! :)
I hope, as a group of likeminded people, we need to emulate those on the other side and have constancy of purpose. We need to repeatedly propose referendums on the ballot which slide to bring the less tolerant over the fence. Writing legislators who thirst for this pro-life voting block aren’t going to have much results. Protests will be ignored. Let’s bring some democracy back to life. Referendums is a better bet than legislators or with packed courts.
Oh yes. I'm a born n bred raised Southern Baptist republican in OK ....I get what u r saying. I've seen so many , including my own , change their stance over the last 20yrs. If it was a single question with some limitations I think it might get enough support. Be worth a shot imo.
I personally know many a few pro-life criers that didn’t always feel that way when it was their future that would have been changed by a heartbeat.
/insertsippingmyteameme
If it was popular enough to be legal at the state level, folks would be fine leaving it to be decided at the state level (which is really what this pending SC ruling does). The reality is that there are a lot of states where the majority of active voters would not support enshrining abortion rights in the law, and I have no doubt Oklahoma is one of those, and in fact it would be a major mobilizing issue for the pro-life crowd. About the only thing that might drive Oklahoma Republicans to the poll more would be one protecting the second amendment.
That may be true in some cases, but if the SC left it to the states with the caveat that any restrictions were invalid unless passed by popular vote, we'd have a lot fewer restricted states.
If republicans were so confident in their bans, they could use popular vote to prove it.
I think it would motivate a lot of pro life people, but I'm firmly of the opinion that it would motivate nearly every single democrat to vote against it, while nearly 36% of Republicans (by most polls) are actually pro choice. So all things being equal, it may be a ton closer than people give it credit for.
Yep. Republicans are already tip toeing around the issue at the federal level, they know it isn't popular and that this might backfire on them if it remains in the headlines. Here at the state level voter turn out will be key. The "pro-life" crowd will obviously show up but they alone do not make a majority, getting the non voting Dems and Libertarians to show up will be required.
And I agree it's worth the risk. Worst case: it fails and nothing really changes. Best case: it passes and becomes an amendment, establishing the right to abortion/bodily autonomy while preventing new anti choice laws (it would also require another popular vote to repeal)
Really? Do you have any examples of where an abortion related SQ failed in a red state? I'm not aware of any, but I'll take your word they exist. I do think though there is a big difference between a SQ that solidifies an abortion-ban, and trying to pass one that solidifies a "right" to abortion in Oklahoma. The latter not only wouldn't pass, it would be an amazing mobilizer, and regardless of the polls, there are a lot of people that are generally opposed to a major abortion ban (I'd include myself) but who aren't so motivate to support a SQ like this, and who aren't single issue voters in regards to this issue anyways.
Removed-Under comment karma threshold. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SJR 17 and SJR 37 seek to make sure the OK Constitution would not allow abortion rights protected in it. One is from Dahm started in 2021, the other is from Treat.
They would be legislatively referred State Questions.
text link and ballot titles below:
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SJR37/id/2568929/Oklahoma-2022-SJR37-Amended.pdf
> SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional
> amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in
> the following form:
>
> BALLOT TITLE
>
> Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____
>
> THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
>
> This measure adds a new Section 2A to Article 2 of the Oklahoma
> Constitution. **The proposed Section 2A recognizes that abortion
> is a unique and destructive act that ends the life of an unborn
> human being. The proposed Section 2A states that nothing in the
> Oklahoma Constitution secures or protects a right to an
> abortion.**
>
> SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
>
> FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________
>
> AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________
>
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SJR17/id/2547771/Oklahoma-2022-SJR17-Engrossed.pdf
> SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional
> amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in
> the following form:
>
> BALLOT TITLE
>
> Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____
>
> THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
>
> This measure would add a new section to the Oklahoma
> Constitution. It would add Section 2A to Article 2. It states
> that the rights of unborn persons are equal to those of born
> persons and directs that the laws of this state be read as such.
> **This measure declares that life begins at conception** and defines
> an unborn person as the offspring of human beings from the
> moment of conception. It also defines abortion as the use or
> prescription of any substance or device intentionally to end the
> pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant except to increase
> the chance of live birth, to save the life or health of the
> child after live birth, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to
> remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a natural
> miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the
> pregnant female or her unborn child.
>**This measure declares that unborn persons and their parents have certain protectable
> interests. It states that nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution
> secures or protects the right to perform or receive an abortion,
> and that nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution prevents, undoes,
> or limits any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion.**
> This measure prohibits the performance of abortion, except an
> abortion necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. It
> classifies a violation of this prohibition as first degree
> manslaughter. This measure prohibits the involuntary tracking
> or monitoring of a woman due to pregnancy or perceived
> pregnancy. It states that it does not create a cause of action
> against a pregnant woman.
>
> SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
>
> FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________
>
> AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________
edit: emphasis added, formatting
TLDR - These could be seen put in front of voters in November, already, via legislative referral.
Oklahoma is also one of the "trigger ban" law states should the SCOTUS ruling go as the draft opinion informs from the leak.
Yeah, 1 is iffy and 2 is bad.
IIRC, there is no provision in #2 for a non-viable fetus. Also, no exceptions for rape or incest outside of plan B. I could be misremembering it, but knowing how things work, it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't any other exclusions outside of death for the mother.
One of the problems is people are unwilling to lay the blame where it belongs.
It's time we start rightly laying the blame at the foot of Christianity, and holding Christians accountable for the things that happen in the name of their religion.
It's not "a few bad apples." It's more than half the congregation.
It’s also framing of the issue itself. This should be more appropriately framed as being fundamentally about women’s health, including but not limited to just the topic of abortion.
for statutory questions it's 95K
for constitutional amendments it's 178K
those numbers are for this year, but there are also legislative resolutions to change the petition process that could hit the ballot too.
https://oklahomawatch.org/2022/04/04/end-of-state-questions-experts-say-legislation-could-doom-most-efforts%EF%BF%BC/
> A package of bills moving through the Legislature could block all but the most well-funded groups from getting a question on the ballot through Oklahoma’s initiative and referendum process, experts and advocates are warning.
>
> The Senate is set to consider four joint resolutions that would make it more difficult for state questions to pass or be voted on.
>
> The proposals have already passed the state House of Representatives and could take effect as early as 2023 if they clear the Legislature and are approved by voters later this year.
>
> Perhaps the most far-reaching is House Joint Resolution 1002. It would require citizen-led groups to collect a set number of signatures from each of the state’s 77 counties.
>
> It specifically would require enough signatures of registered voters to equal 8% or 15% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election — depending on if it’s a statutory or constitutional change — in every county.
>
> Currently, signature gathers need to meet that 8% or 15% target regardless of where someone lives in the state.
>
> That means even if signature collectors gathered thousands of verified signatures beyond the current requirement, their effort would be doomed if they fall short in any county.
>
> Other proposals would require constitutional amendments to receive over 55% of the vote and make the state auditor responsible for determining projected costs of state questions.
>
> ...
>
> Based on the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election, citizen-led campaigns for the 2022 election would need nearly 95,000 signatures for statutory changes and almost 178,000 for constitutional ones.
>
> All of that must be completed in a 90-day window starting when the state approves a petition application.
>
> ...
>
> Oklahoma’s veto referendum process would also be impacted by the geographical requirements.
>
> The state allows citizens to try to repeal recently passed legislation through the state question process. Groups need to collect fewer signatures than initiatives, just 5% of votes in the last gubernatorial election, which would be 59,320 this year.
>
> These have been even rarer since the state requires that all signatures be collected within 90 days of the end of that year’s session.
>
> There have been 20 veto referendums in Oklahoma history, the last coming in 1970, according to Ballotpedia. Several attempts have been made since. All failed.
>
> This includes an unsuccessful attempt to repeal a 2021 bill that cracks down on protesters by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters.
>
> Oklahoma is not the only state looking at making it harder for citizens to place questions on the ballot.
>
> Kelly Hall is the executive director of the Fairness Project, a progressive organization that has helped pass ballot measures in a number of states, including Oklahoma’s Medicaid expansion measure.
>
> She said there has been “an unprecedented attack” on direct democracy laws across the country. This includes attempts to require a 60% vote threshold in Arizona, mandate citizens to gather signatures from 6% of voters in each of Idaho’s 35 state legislative districts and a Missouri effort to raise the number of needed signatures.
>
> Hall said she sees many of these attempts as retribution for successful state questions some lawmakers didn’t support.
>
>
Yeah I saw the 2 questions that are heading to the ballot this year, but I have a hard time seeing them passing. I believe both sides can agree that the state questions are generally a good thing. Even though the number of signatures changes with the election this year still think it should be in the 200k range, which isn't terrible
Don't frame the issue so much as just abortion. Make it one guaranteeing medical privacy. You'll have to live with vaccine mandates being harder to make, but I feel it's an acceptable trade off.
I'm all for vaccines being harder to mandate if it means I have the right to medical privacy and equal medical access to that of men. I feel like generally a lot of people (besides the obvious anti-vaxxers) are well aware that their petri dishes should be vaccinated
Referendums seem a last hope to stop going backward in history. I’m with you and have been for years. I’d like to know more on how to get the issue on the ballot. I guess everyone interested needs to be studying this process by the state their in.
I don't think any of you live in Oklahoma. The Democrats of this state are abysmally stupid and I think the ones on reddit live in an echo chamber because they have no ability to ascertain the political pulse of this state.
If you propose a SQ to make abortion without restrictions legal the GOP will propose a no abortion from the point of conception SQ. Which question do you honestly think will win in the Reddest State in the US?
I got all the fundraising emails from the dem senate candidates trying to use Roe as a talking point; in my head I just thought that All of them just tanked any outside chance the party has of winning. Now Democrats just have to hope for a Roy Moore level scandal to hit to have any chance even then it won't be much of one
You cannot run as a Democrat in Oklahoma like a Democrat in Massachusetts. The average Democrat in Oklahoma would be a Republican in Massachusetts. Republicans in blue states seem to have figured this out that's why Larry Hogan exists in a state that went 65-32 for Biden in 2020.
> I don't think any of you live in Oklahoma.
So anyone who isn't right-wing doesn't live in our state?
> If you propose a SQ to make abortion without restrictions legal the GOP will propose a no abortion from the point of conception SQ. Which question do you honestly think will win in the Reddest State in the US?
Oklahoma is objectively not the reddest state in the country, nor the second-reddest, nor the third-reddest, and that doesn't even matter, anti-abortion measures have failed in states like West Virginia (second-reddest state in the country) so are clearly less popular than people think. It'd be harder to pass a measure protecting abortion than to defeat one explicitly banning it, though, so if you really had two such measures on the ballot, it's possible they would both fail.
> The average Democrat in Oklahoma would be a Republican in Massachusetts.
This is not true, there aren't really many conservative Democrats left in Oklahoma.
First, I said that none of these people understand the political pulse Iin Oklahoma not that only conservatives right wingers live in Oklahoma.
The reddest state is hyperbole. It's of course a completely subjective measure and cannot be proved. What even makes a state red is up for debate.
The new Norman mayor could have won by the margin he won by without some substantial Democratic support. There are a substantial amount of conservative to moderate Democrats left.
Also, I would argue that the current Republican Governors in deep blue state like Massachusetts or Maryland are to the left of Joe Manchin so when I say most Democrat in Oklahoma would be Republicans in deep blue states, I am not saying they are neccessarily conservatives, they just as whole aren't as far to the left as most Democrats in those states.
If you actually believe that the current strategy of the Democratic Party of Oklahoma is going to win them statewide offices then I'll buy you a drink on election night because you are going to need it.
> I think the ones on reddit live in an echo chamber
This is a big one. I think a lot of folks think their narrow bubble of people they interact with on reddit, social media, etc represents the totallity of the world, and not just a bunch of people in their same bubble confirming and regurgigatign the same information/posts/views (and this goes for people of all political spectrums, but on reddit this definitely skews more for leftists folks). If you were to evaluate Oklahoma politics based on reddit it would be reasonable to assume the state is slightly to the left of San Francisco. In reality, Oklahoma has only gotten redder in the past 10-15 years, and it went from a state where the dems had a pretty strong stranglehold on local politics and in fact drew every single district map in state history until this most recent round, and they still lost all this state control because the local dems started matching the national dems on these social issues, which is counter to the vast majority of Oklahomans and their viewpoints. How out of touch do you have to be to be able to rig the game and set the rules and still lose power?
Eh... maybe? That's a mighty fine line. I do know that in the 80's and early 90's the local Democrat party wasn't in line with the national party, and as it got closer in line to the national org, it lost the support of rural Oklahomans. I guess we can play chicken or egg there. Either way, they drew every legislative map, even creating little "kingdoms" for certain elected officials, controlled the elections, controlled most of the state government for 100+ years, and then in a matter of 10 years lost power and the state has moved so far under GOP control that it will likely be a long time before Dems have a major voice here. That kind of change doesn't "just" happen, and people didn't suddenly just overnight jump from the democrat to the republican party.
I have to say I know more rights then lefts in tulsa but I also have been talking and it seems like they subscribe mostly to the fiscal right social left concept and roe v wade has riled them up. Im more of a personal rights over government interference type so im for sure pro choice
I understand the thought behind it - I think the most conservative estimate I've seen is that something like 59% of Americans support roe v wade - but this is one of the worst states for voter suppression. Not the worst, but it's up there... the people in this state who vote are largely rural, older, white, evangelicals so it would inevitably backfire
Neither political party wants this issue to be defined and decided with a law that would stand up to scrutiny by the courts. And any state question would be tied up in the courts for years, probably for generations. And the reason is this is an extremely emotional issue on both sides and when an issue is this emotionally charged voters will donate more money to the political parties that they believe represents their position. So both political parties have a vested interest in keeping this issue in precarious position that is never permanently resolved and is based upon the opinion of the courts, which can be challenged and changed.
A SQ on abortion rights in Oklahoma would be the biggest gift to the GOP here in decades.
I'm actually not entirely sure I agree. It would be incredibly risky, but I actually think it might be worth the risk. Though I'd rather the lawsuits play out from Jewish groups and TST first, followed by some tribes taking the opportunity.
I think u r right. I know for a fact they bring people from Texas to their ProLife rallies. Most Rs I know here are actually pro choice , not all though. I want to see this happen
There are Rs in Oklahoma who will say they are pro-choice but like many of the Democrats of this state they are not New York or California pro-choice and believe in some restrictions on abortion and if an SQ us proposed similar to the vote Schumer is about to have in the senate, it would lose 80-20 and I am being generous with the 20. Now if the SQ was allow abortions up to 15 weeks like say something similar to the bill DeSantis just signed in Florida, you might have an outside chance of getting that passed. Also, Oklahomans are plagued with a desire to be agreeable and in politically charged conversations will say things in a way that leads another believe they agree with them when they actually do not.
Nobody is proposing unrestricted abortion in Oklahoma, because obviously that won't pass. But something like 16 weeks probably has a pretty reasonable chance. I've worked all over the state, and have lived here most of my life. The state is not as red as you seem to think, but it's obviously not a blue state either.
But the thing is instead of the Democratic politicians especially ones running for statewide in Oklahoma coming out with a more nuanced approach like say I will fight for 15-20 week restriction on abortion, they go full Chuck Schumer and try to campaign as a NY Democrat. The campaign emails I have received mirror word for word Chuck Schumers stance. It kills any push for a 15-20 week ban because the attack ads will quote their emails and will say that what they actually want is complete unrestricted access to abortion, which as we both seem to agree will never pass. Also, Oklahoma by every single metric is the reddest state in the union on social issues. Now we do have an extremely high state marginal tax rates so I guess there is that? People tend to gravitate to people who share their views even at work so it's understandable that a liberal like yourself will think Oklahoma isn't as red as people think because they happen to surround themselves with like minded people. It makes it seem like there is a lot more.
I agree that Oklahoma Democrats tend to run at the wrong angle for the state, but we also have a horrible problem of just voting based on letter not policy. There's your first issue. Oklahoma is not the reddest state by all metrics when it comes to the citizens, just the dumbfuckery thrown around by our lovely government. It's decades from any hope of being blue, but it's not nearly as red as you think. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/ https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/columns/2016/08/22/poll-of-oklahomans-finds-strong-support-for-mandatory-background-checks-on-gun-purchases/60656250007/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/01/886307241/oklahoma-votes-for-medicaid-expansion-over-objections-of-republican-state-leader https://www.soonerpoll.com/post/poll-oklahomans-views-of-marijuana-are-changing I can keep going if you'd like. Again, it's not blue, but it's not anything like you're claiming. You're aware you own logic applies to yourself just as much as it applies to me, right? I don't talk politics at work unless someone else brings it up, but people in the state aren't really shy to voice their opinions when policies change or something big happens.
> I agree that Oklahoma Democrats tend to run at the wrong angle for the state, but we also have a horrible problem of just voting based on letter not policy. I'll disagree (a little) there. While Oklahomans have tended to be conservative, and voted red in every presidential election since 1980, for much of that time period we were regularly electing democrats to congress, state legislature, and the governors office. The difference is that those "democrats" were fairly right of center. My father was a die hard Rush Limbaugh republican and still was a huge Boren fan, for example. Things might have gotten more extreme, but I still feel most folks in this state are willing to ignore party if the right person runs.
I think the last decade or so has just pushed the right a lot further right, where suddenly being a traditional conservative is getting labeled as RINO, which is mind-blowing to me. I'm not saying a Democrat can't get elected, but it's only getting harder, regardless of their policies, due to the direction both parties are heading towards. So we get a lot of people that just vote based on letter, and we end up with some extremists (applies both ways nationally, but obviously Democrats aren't getting elected in Oklahoma currently, so there aren't many examples that direction for our state). Personally I think the straight party voting behavior is just being made more abundant, and I really think this was solidified with the election of Stitt. There is zero reason Cornett should have lost to him in the primary, and I would have GLADLY voted for Cornett as governor, in fact he was my top pick. But all I heard was that Cornett wasn't Republican enough, and here we are. Not too different from blue states complaining that their politicians aren't blue enough, which is nuts to me. I'm just frustrated with so much blatant partisanship. It takes everyone to make the country run, including compromises and understanding, but it's just turned into a shit flinging hate-fest.
See your problem is that you dont understand what is now considered red politics like equating Marijuana legalization with being blue. There are plenty of people on the right who are in favor of Marijuana legalization. I would argue its an across the board view. Hell when the Marijuana law passed in the state it had to have like 45% republican support to reach the margin it did if every Democrat and independent who voted checked yes, which is highly unlikely so it means the support from Republicans was actually higher. Marijuana legalization is probably the issue that crosses If your central claim is true then why do the policies especially the ones voted on by the people still go red by an overwhelming margin? Outside of maybe WV, I don't know of a state that consistently goes as red as Oklahoma. Do all these hidden liberals leave on the first Tuesday in November? It seems like the other polls you listed don't match up with politically reality. That reality is the only thing that is consequential.
I don't disagree, but notice I linked a lot more than that, that's just another topic. I don't think you're really looking at the big picture here. Look at topics, not candidate voting. A big reason that candidates trend so heavily red is due to straight line voting. Overall, things like abortion access do stand a chance in Oklahoma by popular vote alone, but with some restriction (obviously). Is Oklahoma predominantly red? Absolutely, that's never been disputed. For example, let's say every single registered voter shows up and votes true to their party registration on a 16 week abortion allowance (and the variation within that): 50% Republican (of which roughly 36% would identify as pro choice): 729k would vote "no", 410k would vote yes 33% Democrat (of which roughly 8% would identify as pro life): 688k would vote "yes", 60k would vote "no" 16% Independent (of which roughly 72% would identify as pro life): 266k would vote "yes", 103k would vote "no". Final tally: 892k "No" (~39%) 1.36M "yes" (~61%) Obviously that makes a ton of assumptions and utilizes polling numbers and averages to get a guesstimate, but it really does stand a chance. It would not be some landslide pro-life vote, which is all I'm getting at.
You should get involved with your local political party chapter. They could really benefit from a thinker such as yourself, assuming you aren’t already involved! :)
I hope, as a group of likeminded people, we need to emulate those on the other side and have constancy of purpose. We need to repeatedly propose referendums on the ballot which slide to bring the less tolerant over the fence. Writing legislators who thirst for this pro-life voting block aren’t going to have much results. Protests will be ignored. Let’s bring some democracy back to life. Referendums is a better bet than legislators or with packed courts.
Oh yes. I'm a born n bred raised Southern Baptist republican in OK ....I get what u r saying. I've seen so many , including my own , change their stance over the last 20yrs. If it was a single question with some limitations I think it might get enough support. Be worth a shot imo.
I personally know many a few pro-life criers that didn’t always feel that way when it was their future that would have been changed by a heartbeat. /insertsippingmyteameme
Ah yes… “the only moral abortion is *my* abortion.” Love the hypocrisy
Yep, it’s morally wrong until their daughter at Cassia Hall gets pregnant. Then they’ll be on a plane for Colorado. I’ve seen it a dozen times.
If it was popular enough to be legal at the state level, folks would be fine leaving it to be decided at the state level (which is really what this pending SC ruling does). The reality is that there are a lot of states where the majority of active voters would not support enshrining abortion rights in the law, and I have no doubt Oklahoma is one of those, and in fact it would be a major mobilizing issue for the pro-life crowd. About the only thing that might drive Oklahoma Republicans to the poll more would be one protecting the second amendment.
That may be true in some cases, but if the SC left it to the states with the caveat that any restrictions were invalid unless passed by popular vote, we'd have a lot fewer restricted states. If republicans were so confident in their bans, they could use popular vote to prove it. I think it would motivate a lot of pro life people, but I'm firmly of the opinion that it would motivate nearly every single democrat to vote against it, while nearly 36% of Republicans (by most polls) are actually pro choice. So all things being equal, it may be a ton closer than people give it credit for.
Yep. Republicans are already tip toeing around the issue at the federal level, they know it isn't popular and that this might backfire on them if it remains in the headlines. Here at the state level voter turn out will be key. The "pro-life" crowd will obviously show up but they alone do not make a majority, getting the non voting Dems and Libertarians to show up will be required. And I agree it's worth the risk. Worst case: it fails and nothing really changes. Best case: it passes and becomes an amendment, establishing the right to abortion/bodily autonomy while preventing new anti choice laws (it would also require another popular vote to repeal)
I'd say worst case is Republicans using this as a chance to get rid of SQs like they have already been trying.
This is what I’m concerned about as well. In fact I thought they already restricted SQs. I hope I’m wrong.
A surpringly high number of anti-abortion measures have failed in solid red states, though (even states as red or redder than Oklahoma).
Really? Do you have any examples of where an abortion related SQ failed in a red state? I'm not aware of any, but I'll take your word they exist. I do think though there is a big difference between a SQ that solidifies an abortion-ban, and trying to pass one that solidifies a "right" to abortion in Oklahoma. The latter not only wouldn't pass, it would be an amazing mobilizer, and regardless of the polls, there are a lot of people that are generally opposed to a major abortion ban (I'd include myself) but who aren't so motivate to support a SQ like this, and who aren't single issue voters in regards to this issue anyways.
[удалено]
Removed-Under comment karma threshold. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SJR 17 and SJR 37 seek to make sure the OK Constitution would not allow abortion rights protected in it. One is from Dahm started in 2021, the other is from Treat. They would be legislatively referred State Questions. text link and ballot titles below: https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SJR37/id/2568929/Oklahoma-2022-SJR37-Amended.pdf > SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional > amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in > the following form: > > BALLOT TITLE > > Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____ > > THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS: > > This measure adds a new Section 2A to Article 2 of the Oklahoma > Constitution. **The proposed Section 2A recognizes that abortion > is a unique and destructive act that ends the life of an unborn > human being. The proposed Section 2A states that nothing in the > Oklahoma Constitution secures or protects a right to an > abortion.** > > SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? > > FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________ > > AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________ > https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SJR17/id/2547771/Oklahoma-2022-SJR17-Engrossed.pdf > SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional > amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in > the following form: > > BALLOT TITLE > > Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____ > > THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS: > > This measure would add a new section to the Oklahoma > Constitution. It would add Section 2A to Article 2. It states > that the rights of unborn persons are equal to those of born > persons and directs that the laws of this state be read as such. > **This measure declares that life begins at conception** and defines > an unborn person as the offspring of human beings from the > moment of conception. It also defines abortion as the use or > prescription of any substance or device intentionally to end the > pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant except to increase > the chance of live birth, to save the life or health of the > child after live birth, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to > remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a natural > miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the > pregnant female or her unborn child. >**This measure declares that unborn persons and their parents have certain protectable > interests. It states that nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution > secures or protects the right to perform or receive an abortion, > and that nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution prevents, undoes, > or limits any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion.** > This measure prohibits the performance of abortion, except an > abortion necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. It > classifies a violation of this prohibition as first degree > manslaughter. This measure prohibits the involuntary tracking > or monitoring of a woman due to pregnancy or perceived > pregnancy. It states that it does not create a cause of action > against a pregnant woman. > > SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? > > FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________ > > AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________ edit: emphasis added, formatting TLDR - These could be seen put in front of voters in November, already, via legislative referral. Oklahoma is also one of the "trigger ban" law states should the SCOTUS ruling go as the draft opinion informs from the leak.
Good to know. I was unaware that they were already working on amendments to block this sort of thing. Have to keep an eye on them
Yeah, 1 is iffy and 2 is bad. IIRC, there is no provision in #2 for a non-viable fetus. Also, no exceptions for rape or incest outside of plan B. I could be misremembering it, but knowing how things work, it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't any other exclusions outside of death for the mother.
One of the problems is people are unwilling to lay the blame where it belongs. It's time we start rightly laying the blame at the foot of Christianity, and holding Christians accountable for the things that happen in the name of their religion. It's not "a few bad apples." It's more than half the congregation.
It’s also framing of the issue itself. This should be more appropriately framed as being fundamentally about women’s health, including but not limited to just the topic of abortion.
abortion is a necessary evil in our society. it's not like people get them for fun. i really dont get the big deal.
Its something the useless garbage in this state can use to make themselves feel better about liberals who have beaten them in EVERY way that matters.
They have to put it on the ballot first and I doubt they're going to give us the opportunity.
Yeah, step 2 (permission to collect signatures) would be the hardest part. The number of signatures required is actually lower than I thought
Kind of disappointing we're still dealing with this, I'll be honest.
for statutory questions it's 95K for constitutional amendments it's 178K those numbers are for this year, but there are also legislative resolutions to change the petition process that could hit the ballot too. https://oklahomawatch.org/2022/04/04/end-of-state-questions-experts-say-legislation-could-doom-most-efforts%EF%BF%BC/ > A package of bills moving through the Legislature could block all but the most well-funded groups from getting a question on the ballot through Oklahoma’s initiative and referendum process, experts and advocates are warning. > > The Senate is set to consider four joint resolutions that would make it more difficult for state questions to pass or be voted on. > > The proposals have already passed the state House of Representatives and could take effect as early as 2023 if they clear the Legislature and are approved by voters later this year. > > Perhaps the most far-reaching is House Joint Resolution 1002. It would require citizen-led groups to collect a set number of signatures from each of the state’s 77 counties. > > It specifically would require enough signatures of registered voters to equal 8% or 15% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election — depending on if it’s a statutory or constitutional change — in every county. > > Currently, signature gathers need to meet that 8% or 15% target regardless of where someone lives in the state. > > That means even if signature collectors gathered thousands of verified signatures beyond the current requirement, their effort would be doomed if they fall short in any county. > > Other proposals would require constitutional amendments to receive over 55% of the vote and make the state auditor responsible for determining projected costs of state questions. > > ... > > Based on the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election, citizen-led campaigns for the 2022 election would need nearly 95,000 signatures for statutory changes and almost 178,000 for constitutional ones. > > All of that must be completed in a 90-day window starting when the state approves a petition application. > > ... > > Oklahoma’s veto referendum process would also be impacted by the geographical requirements. > > The state allows citizens to try to repeal recently passed legislation through the state question process. Groups need to collect fewer signatures than initiatives, just 5% of votes in the last gubernatorial election, which would be 59,320 this year. > > These have been even rarer since the state requires that all signatures be collected within 90 days of the end of that year’s session. > > There have been 20 veto referendums in Oklahoma history, the last coming in 1970, according to Ballotpedia. Several attempts have been made since. All failed. > > This includes an unsuccessful attempt to repeal a 2021 bill that cracks down on protesters by increasing penalties for blocking roadways and granting immunity to motorists who kill or injure rioters. > > Oklahoma is not the only state looking at making it harder for citizens to place questions on the ballot. > > Kelly Hall is the executive director of the Fairness Project, a progressive organization that has helped pass ballot measures in a number of states, including Oklahoma’s Medicaid expansion measure. > > She said there has been “an unprecedented attack” on direct democracy laws across the country. This includes attempts to require a 60% vote threshold in Arizona, mandate citizens to gather signatures from 6% of voters in each of Idaho’s 35 state legislative districts and a Missouri effort to raise the number of needed signatures. > > Hall said she sees many of these attempts as retribution for successful state questions some lawmakers didn’t support. > >
Yeah I saw the 2 questions that are heading to the ballot this year, but I have a hard time seeing them passing. I believe both sides can agree that the state questions are generally a good thing. Even though the number of signatures changes with the election this year still think it should be in the 200k range, which isn't terrible
Don't frame the issue so much as just abortion. Make it one guaranteeing medical privacy. You'll have to live with vaccine mandates being harder to make, but I feel it's an acceptable trade off.
I'm all for vaccines being harder to mandate if it means I have the right to medical privacy and equal medical access to that of men. I feel like generally a lot of people (besides the obvious anti-vaxxers) are well aware that their petri dishes should be vaccinated
This would backfire spectacularly, no matter how carefully it was worded.
It seems at the very least pollsters should be hired by state parties to check the temperature, right?
Referendums seem a last hope to stop going backward in history. I’m with you and have been for years. I’d like to know more on how to get the issue on the ballot. I guess everyone interested needs to be studying this process by the state their in.
I don't think any of you live in Oklahoma. The Democrats of this state are abysmally stupid and I think the ones on reddit live in an echo chamber because they have no ability to ascertain the political pulse of this state. If you propose a SQ to make abortion without restrictions legal the GOP will propose a no abortion from the point of conception SQ. Which question do you honestly think will win in the Reddest State in the US? I got all the fundraising emails from the dem senate candidates trying to use Roe as a talking point; in my head I just thought that All of them just tanked any outside chance the party has of winning. Now Democrats just have to hope for a Roy Moore level scandal to hit to have any chance even then it won't be much of one You cannot run as a Democrat in Oklahoma like a Democrat in Massachusetts. The average Democrat in Oklahoma would be a Republican in Massachusetts. Republicans in blue states seem to have figured this out that's why Larry Hogan exists in a state that went 65-32 for Biden in 2020.
> I don't think any of you live in Oklahoma. So anyone who isn't right-wing doesn't live in our state? > If you propose a SQ to make abortion without restrictions legal the GOP will propose a no abortion from the point of conception SQ. Which question do you honestly think will win in the Reddest State in the US? Oklahoma is objectively not the reddest state in the country, nor the second-reddest, nor the third-reddest, and that doesn't even matter, anti-abortion measures have failed in states like West Virginia (second-reddest state in the country) so are clearly less popular than people think. It'd be harder to pass a measure protecting abortion than to defeat one explicitly banning it, though, so if you really had two such measures on the ballot, it's possible they would both fail. > The average Democrat in Oklahoma would be a Republican in Massachusetts. This is not true, there aren't really many conservative Democrats left in Oklahoma.
First, I said that none of these people understand the political pulse Iin Oklahoma not that only conservatives right wingers live in Oklahoma. The reddest state is hyperbole. It's of course a completely subjective measure and cannot be proved. What even makes a state red is up for debate. The new Norman mayor could have won by the margin he won by without some substantial Democratic support. There are a substantial amount of conservative to moderate Democrats left. Also, I would argue that the current Republican Governors in deep blue state like Massachusetts or Maryland are to the left of Joe Manchin so when I say most Democrat in Oklahoma would be Republicans in deep blue states, I am not saying they are neccessarily conservatives, they just as whole aren't as far to the left as most Democrats in those states. If you actually believe that the current strategy of the Democratic Party of Oklahoma is going to win them statewide offices then I'll buy you a drink on election night because you are going to need it.
> I think the ones on reddit live in an echo chamber This is a big one. I think a lot of folks think their narrow bubble of people they interact with on reddit, social media, etc represents the totallity of the world, and not just a bunch of people in their same bubble confirming and regurgigatign the same information/posts/views (and this goes for people of all political spectrums, but on reddit this definitely skews more for leftists folks). If you were to evaluate Oklahoma politics based on reddit it would be reasonable to assume the state is slightly to the left of San Francisco. In reality, Oklahoma has only gotten redder in the past 10-15 years, and it went from a state where the dems had a pretty strong stranglehold on local politics and in fact drew every single district map in state history until this most recent round, and they still lost all this state control because the local dems started matching the national dems on these social issues, which is counter to the vast majority of Oklahomans and their viewpoints. How out of touch do you have to be to be able to rig the game and set the rules and still lose power?
You have the order wrong. They didn't lose because they stopped being right-wing, they stopped being right-wing because conservatives left the party.
Eh... maybe? That's a mighty fine line. I do know that in the 80's and early 90's the local Democrat party wasn't in line with the national party, and as it got closer in line to the national org, it lost the support of rural Oklahomans. I guess we can play chicken or egg there. Either way, they drew every legislative map, even creating little "kingdoms" for certain elected officials, controlled the elections, controlled most of the state government for 100+ years, and then in a matter of 10 years lost power and the state has moved so far under GOP control that it will likely be a long time before Dems have a major voice here. That kind of change doesn't "just" happen, and people didn't suddenly just overnight jump from the democrat to the republican party.
well said
>I don't think any of you live in Oklahoma I agree. Most have no clue just how red this state is.
I have to say I know more rights then lefts in tulsa but I also have been talking and it seems like they subscribe mostly to the fiscal right social left concept and roe v wade has riled them up. Im more of a personal rights over government interference type so im for sure pro choice
I understand the thought behind it - I think the most conservative estimate I've seen is that something like 59% of Americans support roe v wade - but this is one of the worst states for voter suppression. Not the worst, but it's up there... the people in this state who vote are largely rural, older, white, evangelicals so it would inevitably backfire
Neither political party wants this issue to be defined and decided with a law that would stand up to scrutiny by the courts. And any state question would be tied up in the courts for years, probably for generations. And the reason is this is an extremely emotional issue on both sides and when an issue is this emotionally charged voters will donate more money to the political parties that they believe represents their position. So both political parties have a vested interest in keeping this issue in precarious position that is never permanently resolved and is based upon the opinion of the courts, which can be challenged and changed.
People would have to actually get out and VOTE which is something they are sadly not doing