Constitutional amendment; repealing ad valorem tax.
Senate Joint Resolution 35 proposes a constitutional amendment to eliminate Oklahoma property taxes by repealing a broad set of constitutional provisions related to ad valorem taxation. The resolution would send the question to voters and, if approved, would repeal multiple sections of Articles V, X, and XII-A of the Oklahoma Constitution effective January 1, 2031. The ballot title states that the measure would eliminate all property taxes in the state and the taxing jurisdictions that rely on them.
In addition to repealing the property-tax provisions, the resolution amends Section 21 of Article X governing the State Board of Equalization. The amendment would remove the Board’s assessment duties and preserve or adjust its membership depending on whether the offices of State Examiner and Inspector and State Auditor are consolidated. If those offices are consolidated, the State Auditor and Inspector would replace the State Auditor on the Board and the Superintendent of Public Instruction would be added; if not, the current membership structure would remain unchanged. The measure also directs the Senate President Pro Tempore to file the resolution and ballot title with the Secretary of State and Attorney General.
The bill’s impact would be significant because it would alter the Oklahoma Constitution rather than ordinary statute, and it would fundamentally change state and local revenue systems by ending property taxes if adopted by voters. It would affect counties, municipalities, school districts, and other taxing jurisdictions that currently depend on ad valorem taxes, while also changing the constitutional role of the State Board of Equalization in property valuation and assessment.
The general sentiment available from the bill materials is limited, because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included. Based on the ballot language, the measure is framed as a sweeping tax repeal proposal, which suggests a strong ideological push to eliminate property taxation. However, because the resolution has only been referred to Rules and has no recorded floor debate in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative consensus or opposition in the context provided.
The main point of contention is the elimination of property taxes and the resulting loss of funding for local governments and public services. Supporters would likely view the measure as tax relief and a major reform of the state’s tax structure, while opponents would likely focus on the fiscal consequences for schools, counties, and other local entities. The proposed changes to the State Board of Equalization are secondary but still notable because they remove its assessment function and tie board membership to a separate executive-branch consolidation question.
If approved by voters, SJR35 would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to repeal multiple property-tax provisions and eliminate ad valorem taxation statewide effective January 1, 2031. It would also revise Article X, Section 21 to remove the State Board of Equalization’s property assessment duties and adjust its membership structure depending on whether certain state offices are consolidated. The measure would directly affect counties, school districts, municipalities, and other taxing jurisdictions that rely on property tax revenue, and it would supersede existing constitutional tax provisions rather than merely changing statutory law.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition in the available materials. The resolution’s ballot title and caption show that it is a broad anti-property-tax proposal, which typically signals strong support among tax-reform advocates and likely concern among local-government and education funding interests. In the context provided, the sentiment is best characterized as unresolved procedurally and highly consequential substantively.
The central controversy is whether Oklahoma should eliminate property taxes altogether. Supporters would likely argue that the measure provides major tax relief and simplifies the tax system, while opponents would likely argue that it would devastate local revenue streams for schools, counties, cities, and other taxing entities. A secondary point of contention is the constitutional restructuring of the State Board of Equalization, including the removal of its assessment duties and the conditional addition of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to the board.