Oklahoma House Bill HJR1067

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Report Pass: 3/5/26
• Engrossed: 3/26/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Report Pass: 4/6/26

Caption

Joint resolution; terminating effect of Medicaid expansion coverage mandate under specified condition; providing certain construction.

Summary

HJR1067 proposes a constitutional amendment, and related statutory language, dealing with Oklahoma’s Medicaid expansion for low-income adults. Under the measure, the state would continue to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income adults, but that obligation would end if the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid expansion falls below 90%. The proposal also states that if the FMAP later rises again, the state’s constitutional duty would not automatically return. It further clarifies that the Legislature would still be free to enact laws providing such coverage even if the constitutional mandate ends. The resolution also includes a contingency tied to another measure from the same legislative session: if the state question resulting from Enrolled House Bill 4440 is approved by voters, this amendment would not take effect. The bill orders a statewide special election for August 25, 2026, and provides ballot language for the proposed constitutional change. It also directs filing with the Secretary of State and Attorney General.

Impact

If approved, HJR1067 would amend Article XXV-A of the Oklahoma Constitution and create parallel statutory language in Title 63 governing Medicaid expansion coverage for low-income adults. The practical effect would be to give the state a constitutional off-ramp from the expansion mandate if federal matching funds drop below 90%, shifting financial risk away from the state. It would also preserve legislative discretion to continue or restore coverage by statute even if the constitutional requirement ends.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the measure had solid but not unanimous support in both chambers. It advanced through the House and Senate with comfortable margins, and committee votes were favorable. The committee discussion indicates supporters framed the measure as a response to the fiscal problems that could arise if the state had to assume more of the cost of expanded Medicaid coverage. Overall, the sentiment appears generally supportive among proponents, with some opposition reflected in the recorded nays.

Contention

The main point of contention is fiscal responsibility versus maintaining Medicaid expansion coverage. Supporters, including the bill’s presenters, emphasized the risk to the state if federal participation declines and argued for a mechanism allowing Oklahoma to stop covering the expansion population under those conditions. Opponents appear to have objected to weakening the coverage mandate or to the possibility that low-income adults could lose eligibility if federal funding changes. A secondary point of complexity is the interaction with Enrolled House Bill 4440, since approval of that separate state question would prevent this amendment from taking effect.