Constitutional amendment; requiring certain vote of people to change compensation of members of the Legislature.
Summary
SJR45 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how compensation for Oklahoma legislators is set and adjusted. It keeps the existing Board on Legislative Compensation, but adds a requirement that any recommendation to change legislative pay must be submitted to the voters as a statewide question at the next general election. Under the proposal, a pay change would only take effect if approved by a majority of voters.
The resolution also specifies the composition of the Board on Legislative Compensation, including appointees from various sectors and ex officio nonvoting members from the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the Office of State Finance. The Board would continue to review legislative compensation every two years and could recommend changes, but those changes would not become effective without voter approval. The measure also includes a provision requiring a legislator who is incarcerated and later convicted or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to return compensation received while incarcerated and to forfeit compensation during any later incarceration tied to that offense.
Impact
If approved, SJR45 would amend Article V, Section 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution and alter the process for changing legislative salaries. It would not itself set a new salary amount, but would require a public vote before any compensation change recommended by the Board on Legislative Compensation could take effect. The proposal would also add a constitutional repayment/forfeiture rule for legislators who receive compensation while incarcerated and are later convicted or plead guilty or nolo contendere to the offense.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available legislative history, the measure appears to be framed as a government accountability and transparency proposal, with an emphasis on giving voters direct control over legislative pay. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented debate or formal opposition in the available materials. The bill’s caption and ballot language suggest a generally reform-oriented presentation rather than a partisan policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether legislative compensation should be subject to direct voter approval rather than being adjusted solely through the Board on Legislative Compensation. Supporters would likely view the measure as a check on self-dealing and a way to increase public trust, while critics may argue it politicizes compensation decisions and could make it harder to keep legislative pay competitive. The incarceration-related repayment provision could also raise questions about enforcement and timing, though no specific objections are recorded in the available context.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.