Joint resolution; calling a Constitutional Convention to alter, revise, or amend the present state Constitution or propose a new Constitution.
SJR43 is a joint resolution that would call a Constitutional Convention for Oklahoma, with the stated purpose of altering, revising, or amending the current state Constitution or proposing an entirely new Constitution. The convention would be scheduled to convene at the State Capitol in Oklahoma City on July 12, 2027, and would be required to adjourn no later than June 30, 2028. Any constitutional changes or a new constitution produced by the convention would then be submitted to Oklahoma voters at the 2028 general election.
The resolution lays out a detailed structure for the convention, including 112 delegates drawn from the Legislature, executive agencies, the judiciary, and the public at large. Most delegates would be selected by lot, with some legislative leaders making initial selections and a Constitutional Convention Commission overseeing applications, selection procedures, alternates, and public hearings. The measure also sets eligibility rules, limits participation by federal officeholders, requires delegates to take an oath, and provides for recall and misdemeanor penalties for violating that oath.
SJR43 would not itself amend the Constitution; instead, it would place before voters the question of whether to authorize a convention. If approved, it would trigger a state-funded convention process, including reimbursement for delegate travel and per diem for up to 90 days, and require the Legislature to pay convention and election expenses. It also restricts the convention from revising provisions added through the initiative petition or legislative referendum process, and requires a two-thirds vote to open an article for review before any proposed change can be adopted by a simple majority.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is procedural and reform-oriented rather than partisan, emphasizing public input, geographic balance, and voter approval of any final constitutional changes. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context, there is no documented debate or formal support/opposition history to gauge broader sentiment. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to make a convention orderly and controlled, while still allowing a broad review of the state’s foundational law.
Notable points of contention are likely to center on the scope and cost of a constitutional convention, the selection of delegates, and the limits placed on what the convention may review. The use of a lottery-based selection process, the inclusion of legislators and government officials as delegates, the east/west-of-I-35 geographic balance, and the exclusion of certain constitutional provisions from review could all draw scrutiny. The requirement that the state fund the convention and any resulting election may also be a point of concern for opponents.
If enacted by voters, SJR43 would create a new constitutional convention process under Oklahoma law and activate a temporary commission, delegate-selection system, and convention rules. It would not directly change substantive statutes, but it would establish a state-funded mechanism for proposing constitutional revisions and would require the Legislature to finance the convention and the 2028 election on any proposed constitutional changes. It also affects the constitutional amendment process by limiting what the convention may consider and by requiring final voter approval.
The bill appears to be framed as a structured, voter-driven constitutional reform measure, with an emphasis on transparency, public participation, and geographic and institutional balance. In the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials. The overall tone of the resolution is serious and procedural, suggesting proponents view it as a lawful mechanism to revisit the state Constitution, while potential critics may view it as an expansive and costly undertaking.
Likely areas of contention include whether Oklahoma should convene a constitutional convention at all, given the scale and expense of the process, and whether the delegate-selection method gives too much influence to legislators and government insiders. The geographic allocation of delegates, the lottery-based selection process, and the exclusion of initiative- and referendum-adopted provisions from review may also be disputed. Another likely issue is the requirement that the state pay all convention and election expenses, which could raise fiscal concerns among opponents.