HJR1007 is a proposed constitutional amendment resolution that would ask Oklahoma voters to change how constitutional amendments are approved by the Legislature before being submitted to the ballot. Under current language, a proposed amendment must be agreed to by a majority three-fourths of all members elected to each house; this resolution would raise that threshold to three-fourths of the members elected to each chamber. The measure also preserves the existing requirement that constitutional amendments be submitted to the voters at a general election unless a two-thirds vote of each house orders a special election.
The resolution includes the required ballot title and directs the Secretary of State and Chief Clerk of the House to file the proposal and ballot language with the proper state officials. If approved by voters, it would amend Section 1 of Article XXIV of the Oklahoma Constitution, which governs the legislative process for referring constitutional amendments to the people. The proposal does not itself change substantive policy areas; instead, it changes the procedural vote threshold for legislative passage of future constitutional amendment proposals.
Impact
If adopted, HJR1007 would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to make it harder for the Legislature to place constitutional amendments before voters by increasing the required legislative vote from a majority of each chamber to three-fourths of each chamber. This would affect the Legislature’s internal amendment process, the Secretary of State’s referral duties, and the timing and availability of future constitutional amendment questions on the ballot. It would not directly alter statutory law or substantive rights, but it would raise the procedural hurdle for constitutional change.
Sentiment
The available record shows little direct debate, committee testimony, or recorded votes, so there is no clear evidence of broad support or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a process reform aimed at tightening legislative control over constitutional amendments. The absence of committee discussion or vote history limits the ability to gauge sentiment beyond the bill’s formal presentation.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the higher legislative threshold itself. Supporters would likely view the change as a safeguard against frequent or lightly supported constitutional amendments, while opponents may see it as making constitutional reform too difficult and giving a minority of legislators more power to block proposals. Because the resolution concerns the rules for future constitutional amendments rather than a policy issue, disagreement would center on institutional power, ballot access, and the balance between legislative gatekeeping and voter consideration.