Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 (2016)
| Oklahoma State Question 779 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Taxes and Education | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, also known as State Question 779, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahoma as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was defeated.
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of increasing the state sales tax by one percentage point to generate a predicted $615 million per year for education funding. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against increasing the state sales tax.[1] |
Election results
| State Question 779 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 853,573 | 59.4% | ||
| Yes | 583,429 | 40.6% | ||
- Election results from Oklahoma State Election Board
Overview
Initiative design
Revenue from the one percentage point increase in the sales tax would have been distributed as follows:[2]
- 69.50 percent for common school districts.
- 19.25 percent for institutions under the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
- 3.25 percent for the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education
- 8.00 percent for the State Department of Education
Question 779 would have also required an increase in teacher salaries of at least $5,000. The measure would have mandated an annual audit of school districts' use of the revenue.
Sales tax in Oklahoma
Oklahoma's sales tax in 2016 was 4.5 percent. Question 779 would have increased the statewide sales tax to 5.5 percent. Localities in Oklahoma can add an additional sales tax as well. The highest additional local sales tax imposed by an individual locality in 2016 was 5.5 percent. These additional local sales taxes can overlap. For example, in 2016 the total sales tax rate in the town of Hallett was one of the highest in the state at 11 percent, and it consisted of the state's 4.5 percent tax, the countywide local sales tax of 2 percent, and the town's local sales tax of 4.5 percent.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ |
This measure adds a new Article to the Oklahoma Constitution. The article creates a limited purpose fund to increase funding for public education. It increases State sales and use taxes by one cent per dollar to provide revenue for the fund. The revenue to be used for public education shall be allocated: 69.50% for common school districts, 19.25% for the institutions under the authority of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 3.25% for the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, and 8% for the State Department of Education. It requires teacher salary increases funded by this measure raise teacher salaries by at least $5,000 over the salaries paid in the year prior to adoption of this measure. It requires an annual audit of school districts' use of monies. It prohibits school districts' use of these funds for increasing superintendents' salaries or adding superintendent positions. It requires that monies from the fund not supplant or replace other educational funding. If the Oklahoma Board of Equalization determines funding has been replaced, the Legislature may not make any appropriations until the amount of replaced funding is returned to the fund. The article takes effect on July 1 after its passage. SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO[4] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article XIII, Oklahoma Constitution
The measure would have added an Article 13-C to the Oklahoma Constitution.[1] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
SECTION 1. CREATION OF OKLAHOMA EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT FUND There is hereby created in the State Treasury a limited purpose fund to be known as the "Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund." The fund shall consist of the proceeds of the sales tax levy and the use tax levy provided in Section 2 of this Article XIII-C, and any monies or assets contributed to the fund from any other source, public or private. SECTION 2. LEVY OF ONE CENT SALES TAX AND USE TAX FOR OKLAHOMA EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT FUND There is hereby levied upon all sales, not otherwise exempted in the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code, an additional excise tax of one percent (1.0%) of the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale of tangible personal property, or of other goods and services subject to the sales tax as provided in the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code. Except as otherwise provided herein, this tax shall be collected, reported, and remitted or paid in accordance with the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code. There is hereby levied and there shall be paid by every person storing, using, or otherwise consuming within this state, tangible personal property purchased or brought into this state, an additional excise tax on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of such property at the rate of one percent (1.0%) of the purchase price of such property. Said tax shall be levied on the storage, use or consumption of personal property as provided in the Oklahoma Use Tax Code. Except as otherwise provided herein, this tax shall be collected, reported, and remitted or paid in accordance with the Oklahoma Use Tax Code. This sales tax levy shall be in addition to, and shall not supplant, the general sales tax levied in the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code or any other sales tax authorized by Oklahoma law and this use tax levy shall be in addition to, and shall not supplant, the general use tax levied in the Oklahoma Use Tax Code or any other use tax authorized by Oklahoma law. All revenue from the sales tax and the use tax levied pursuant to this Article XIII-C, and penalties and interest thereon, collected by the Oklahoma Tax Commission shall be paid to the State Treasurer and deposited into the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. SECTION 3. ALLOCATION OF MONIES IN OKLAHOMA EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT FUND - PURPOSES - USES - ETC. A. Monies in the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund shall be apportioned by the State Treasurer, appropriated by the Legislature, and distributed monthly for the educational purposes established herein, as follows: 1. Common Education: Sixty-nine and one-half percent (69.5%) of said monies shall be apportioned among and between all the several common school districts of the State in proportion to the school population of the several districts, on the basis of the state aid formula for common education then in effect. (a) Monies from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund shall be specifically identified and segregated from other monies appropriated and apportioned among the several common school districts of the State on the basis of said state aid formula. (b) The common school districts shall use eighty-six and one-third percent (86.33%) of the additional funds provided to them under this Article XIII-C to increase teacher salaries as required by Section 4 of this Article, and to otherwise address and prevent teacher and certified instructional staff shortages in the manner most suited to local district circumstances and needs, including but not limited to differentiated compensation methods or performance pay. (c) The common school districts shall use thirteen and two-thirds percent (13.67%) of the additional funds provided to them under this Article XIII-C to adopt or to expand programs, opportunities, or reforms to improve reading in the early grades, to improve high school graduation rates, and to increase college and career readiness. The common school districts may use the amount apportioned to them under this Section 3(A)(1)(c) only to adopt or to expand said programs, opportunities or reforms, and may not use the amount apportioned to them under this Section 3(A)(l)(c) to maintain programs, opportunities or reforms established prior to the effective date of this Article XIII-C. (d) The State Auditor and Inspector shall approve auditors who shall annually audit the use made of the monies distributed to the school districts under this Article XIII-C to ensure that it is used only for the purposes specified in this Article XIII-C. 2. Higher Education: Nineteen and one-quarter percent (19.25%) of said monies shall be paid to the education and general operating budgets of the institutions under the authority of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, for use in improving college affordability, or otherwise in the improvement of higher education. 3. Career and Technology Education: Three and one-quarter percent (3.25%) of said monies shall be paid to the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, for use in the improvement of career and technology education. 4. Early Childhood Education: Eight percent (8%) of said monies shall be paid to the State Department of Education, for use in increasing access to and enhancing the quality of voluntary early learning opportunities for low-income and at-risk children prior to entry into the common education system. B. Monies expended or distributed from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund as provided herein shall be used only for the purposes specified in this Article XIII-C, Section 3. C. None of these monies distributed from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund to common school districts may be used to add superintendent positions or increase superintendents' salaries. SECTION 4. INCREASE IN TEACHER SALARIES Each common school district of the State of Oklahoma shall pay each teacher employed by such district a salary at a rate that is at least $5,000 greater than the salary schedule transmitted by such district in the most recent year prior to the adoption of this Article XIII-C. SECTION 5. FUNDS NOT TO SUPPLANT OTHER EDUCATION FUNDING A. Monies expended or distributed from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund shall supplement, and shall not be used to supplant or replace, other state funds supporting common education, early childhood education, higher education, or career and technology education, including but not limited to the Permanent School Fund, the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund, the Education Reform Revolving Fund, the Common Education Technology Revolving Fund, the Higher Education Capital Revolving Fund, the Oklahoma Tuition Scholarship Revolving Fund, the Common School Fund, appropriations from the Legislature as provided in Article XIII, Section la of the Constitution, and any other appropriations from the Legislature used for educational purposes. B. The Legislature shall appropriate the monies from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund solely to supplement other funds supporting common education, early childhood education, higher education, or career and technology education. The Legislature shall not appropriate such monies to supplant or replace any other state funds supporting common education, early childhood education, higher education, or career and technology education. C. In order to ensure that the monies from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund are used to enhance and not supplant funding for education, the State Board of Equalization shall examine and investigate appropriations from the Fund each year. At the meeting of the State Board of Equalization held within five (5) days after the monthly apportionment in February of each year, the State Board of Equalization shall issue a finding and report that shall state whether appropriations from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund were used to enhance or supplant education funding. If the State Board of Equalization finds that education funding was supplanted by monies from the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund, the State Board of Equalization shall specify the amount by which education funding was supplanted. In this event, the Legislature shall not make any appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year until an appropriation in that amount is made to replenish the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE, CONSTRUCTION A. This Article XIII-C shall become effective on July 1 immediately following its passage. B. Nothing in this Article XIII-C shall be construed as conflicting with Article X, Section 23 of the Constitution. SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY The provisions hereof are severable, and if any part or provision hereof shall be void, invalid, or unconstitutional, the decision of the court so holding shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions hereof, and the remaining provisions hereof shall continue in full force and effect.[4] |
Support
Yes for 779, also known as Oklahoma's Children, Our Future, led the campaign in support of State Question 779.[5]
Supporters
Former officials
- State Secretary of Commerce Dave Lopez
- State Secretary of Education Phyllis Hudecki
Organizations
- Stand for Children[6]
- Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration[7]
- Oklahoma State School Boards Association
- Oklahoma Education Association
Individuals
- David Boren, President of the University of Oklahoma[8]
Arguments
Yes for 779 answered the question "Why is the ballot measure needed?" with the following statement:[9]
| “ | This effort is needed because there is a teacher shortage crisis in Oklahoma. Oklahoma teachers have not had a raise in nearly a decade and the state ranks 48th in teacher pay.
|
” |
"Yes on 779: Kids Deserve Better”
|
Other arguments in support of the measure included:
- David Boren, President of the University of Oklahoma, said, "College students, faculty, every employee in the university and the school district, because it affects teacher salaries, they’ll have a huge interest in getting something done because the legislature obviously has no money unless there’s additional revenue. That’s why we need to do something. If we don’t do something, the crisis continues for two, three or more years."[6]
- Todd Crabtree, Superintendent of Byng Public Schools, argued, "We have added and added and added, all in the name of reform. ... And every time we’ve given teachers any money, as long as I can remember, there’s always been lots of strings attached. ... So this time, we need to give teachers a raise to compensate them for all the reforms that we’ve already passed. This tax — this penny sales tax proposal — is the only game in town to do that.[10]
Campaign advertisements
The following campaign advertisements were produced by Yes for 779:
|
|
Opposition
Opponents
Oklahoma Deserves Better led the campaign in opposition to State Question 779.[11]
Officials
- Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb (R)[12]
- Sen. Kyle Loveless (R-45)[13]
- Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett (R)[7]
Organizations
- Oklahoma Municipal League
- Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs Impact
Municipalities
- Edmond City Council[14]
Arguments against
Oklahoma Deserves Better’s “Vote NO on tax bill SQ779"
|
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to State Question 779:[15]
- SQ 779 was unnecessary.
- Opponents argued that money can be made available to give raises to teachers through other means.
- SQ 779 would be regressive.
- Opponents argued that a sales tax increase harms low-income and middle-income households more than high-income households, making it a regressive and unfair tax.
- SQ 779 would make the state's already relatively high sales tax rates the highest in the nation.
- Opponents argued that, with state and local sales taxes, Oklahoma residents pay more than residents of most other states and that SQ 779 would increase these rates to more than 10 percent in some cities and counties.
- Opponents argued that raising the state sales tax would prevent cities from raising local sales tax and inhibiting essential locally prioritized revenue.
- SQ 779 would allow the legislature to pass future tax cuts.
- Opponents argued that, despite provisions preventing revenue from the sale tax increase from replacing other revenue, the legislature could pass tax cuts in the future that could make SQ 779 a way to change source of education funding rather than increasing it.
Sen. Kyle Loveless (R-45) wrote an editorial at the request NonDoc, an Oklahoma City media outlet, in which he opposed Question 779. He wrote:[13]
| “ | I don’t believe saddling our citizens and future generations with a tax increase is the right solution to any problem. Another solution must be found. We have been told this proposal is just “a penny for the kids,” but that’s not an entirely accurate statement. While the tax is increasing by one cent, it is in all actuality a 22 percent tax increase.
By raising the sales tax, we would make it virtually impossible for local governments — especially cities and towns — to increase local taxes for local projects. … If SQ 779 were truly about improving teacher pay, I would think more of the funding would be used for that purpose. Instead, only 86.33 percent of revenue will be set aside for teacher pay increases. … By increasing the sales tax by 22 percent, we will be disproportionately affecting lower-income Oklahomans where it hurts — the grocery store. Higher-earning Oklahomans will be able to afford the increase with little pain, but single parents and the working poor, who already struggle financially, will face an additional obstacle on their way to next payday. Inscribing a tax increase into our state’s already outdated, cumbersome constitution is not the most effective solution. This will only cause problems for future governors and legislators by denying them the flexibility needed to balance a budget and provide government services. …[4] |
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $7,174,573.52 |
| Opposition: | $896,159.21 |
As of February 1, 2017, one ballot measure committee, Oklahoma's Children, Our Future, Inc., registered to support State Question 779. One committee, Oklahoma Deserves Better, formed to opposed the measure. Supporters raised $7,174,573.52 and spent $7,116,573.32, as of February 1, 2017.[16]
Support
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma's Children, Our Future, Inc. | $7,174,573.52 | $7,116,573.32 |
| Total | $7,174,573.52 | $7,116,573.32 |
The following were the top donors who contributed to Oklahoma's Children, Our Future, Inc. as of February 1, 2017:[16]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stand for Children, Inc. | $1,978,752.14 | $533,406.77 | $2,512,158.91 |
| Stacy Schusterman | $2,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,000,000.00 |
| National Education Association | $750,000.00 | $0.00 | $750,000.00 |
| David Boren | $462,000.00 | $0.00 | $462,000.00 |
| George Kaiser Family Foundation | $350,000.00 | $0.00 | $350,000.00 |
Opposition
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma Deserves Better | $896,159.21 | $884,874.92 |
| Total | $896,159.21 | $884,874.92 |
The following were the top donors who contributed to Oklahoma Deserves Better as of February 1, 2017:[16]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greater Oklahoma City Chamber | $231,139.21 | $34,297.73 | $265,436.94 |
| Forward Oklahoma City | $250,000.00 | $0.00 | $250,000.00 |
| Sue Ann Arnall | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. | $40,000.00 | $0.00 | $40,000.00 |
| Oklahoma State Home Builders Association | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
Media editorials
Support
- The Muskogee Phoenix editorial board said the following: "Many believe that penny would be the tipping point that could halt our city’s economic growth. [...] But, our children are far too important to leave to chance. Their success is far too important to trust to state legislators who would rather cut state income tax and provide high-dollar incentives to corporations than ensure little Johnny has the skills to work at one of those corporations. [...] we recommend approving SQ 779."[17]
Opposition
- Enid News said: "While we have long said Oklahoma teachers deserve a pay raise, we cannot support State Question 779... However, a sales tax is the wrong approach to take. For one, a sales tax is a regressive tax. It impacts lower-income people more than it does those with higher incomes. For another, cities, towns and many counties rely on sales tax revenue to fund services for their residents. Adding to the sales tax burden through SQ 779 would hamstring the ability of municipalities to raise funds for projects they might need."[18]
- The Oklahoman said: "Teacher pay needs to be addressed, certainly, but SQ 779 is not the answer. Instead, citizens need to pressure state lawmakers to get serious about education and education reform."[19]
- Sooner Politics said: "There is one (SQ 779) which is very suppressive and should be rejected as a constitutional mandate. It would make Oklahoma's repressive sales tax an even greater burden on all of us, especially those of very limited economic means."[20]
Background
- See also: Public education in Oklahoma
As of 2016, Oklahoma had not given across-the-board raises to teachers in eight years, and despite discussion during the 2016 legislative session, the legislature did not pass any bills providing funding for pay increases for teachers. The shortfall reportedly resulted in eliminations of teaching positions, reductions in support personnel, and decreased funding for school programs. Some schools moved or have plans to move to four-day weeks to cut costs as well.[21]
Personnel salaries
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average national salary for classroom teachers in public elementary and secondary schools declined by 1.3 percent from the 1999-2000 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. During the same period in Oklahoma, the average salary increased by 3.2 percent.[23]
| Estimated average salaries for teachers (in constant dollars**) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999-2000 | 2009-2010 | 2011-2012 | 2012-2013 | Percent difference | |
| Oklahoma | $42,772 | $50,907 | $45,130 | $44,128 | 3.2% |
| Arkansas | $45,625 | $49,850 | $47,085 | $46,632 | 2.2% |
| Kansas | $47,805 | $49,804 | $47,496 | $47,464 | -0.7% |
| Missouri | $48,727 | $48,373 | $47,178 | $47,517 | -2.5% |
| United States | $57,133 | $58,925 | $56,340 | $56,383 | -1.3% |
| **"Constant dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis. The CPI does not account for differences in inflation rates from state to state." | |||||
Path to the ballot
The measure was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on October 21, 2015. The petition filing was approved, and supporters had 90 days to collect 123,725 valid signatures, with a deadline of May 16, 2016.
The secretary of state determined that 301,518 signatures had been submitted, and they were certified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on June 1, 2016.[24]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Education Petition Campaign, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,517,446.87 was spent to collect the 123,725 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $12.26.
Lawsuits
- See also: Single-subject rule
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of single-subject rule. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. | Defendant argument: The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject." |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff arguments: The ballot summary lacked pertinent information. | Defendant arguments: The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot. |
Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman
OCPA Impact, a section of the conservative policy group Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, challenged the initiative, claiming it violated the rule that constitutional amendments must only pertain to a single subject. According to OCPA Impact, the initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. The defendants argued that "single-subject" meant relating to a single scheme, as the court ruled in 1995's Rupe v. Shaw.[25] The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument in a 6 to 3 vote on January 12, 2016, and cleared the measure for the signature collection phase beginning on February 16, 2016.[26] Echoing the defendants' argument, the majority opinion stated, "The proposed initiative petition clearly constitutes a single scheme to be presented to voters, and each section is germane to creating and implementing the Oklahoma Education Improvement Fund."[27]
OCPA Impact filed a second lawsuit on June 23, 2016, contending that the explanatory statement on the signature petitions omitted pertinent information, including that the new tax would be in addition to existing sales and use taxes. The legal challenge also claimed the petition inadequately explained that the sales tax would increase by one percent instead of one penny.[28] Anna King, a proponent of the measure, responded to the lawsuit, saying,"It's time to let the people vote to invest more in our schools and our teachers. ... Obstructing direct democracy — especially at such a critical time for our schools — is shameful."[29]
On July 18, 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the challenge, but rewrote the ballot title, stating that the initial one was misleading.[30]
State profile
| Demographic data for Oklahoma | ||
|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 3,907,414 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 68,595 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 73.1% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 7.2% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.9% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 7.3% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 7.8% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 9.6% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 86.9% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 24.1% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $46,879 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 19.7% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Oklahoma. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Oklahoma
Oklahoma voted Republican in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.
More Oklahoma coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Oklahoma
- United States congressional delegations from Oklahoma
- Public policy in Oklahoma
- Endorsers in Oklahoma
- Oklahoma fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oklahoma Education Sales Tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
- State Question 779
- Oklahoma State Election Board: 2016 State Questions
- Oklahoma Policy Institute State Question Guide
- Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 2016 Ballot Measure Voters' Guide
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Initiative 779," accessed December 23, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Oklahoma State Election Board, "Oklahoma 2016 State Questions Guide," accessed September 23, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma Tax Commission, "New Rates and Effective Dates," August 3, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Yes for 779, "Homepage," accessed September 23, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 OUDaily, "Penny tax supporters to begin collecting signatures soon," February 1, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Tulsa World, "Education groups file brief supporting proposed sales-tax increase in Oklahoma," December 12, 2015
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedow - ↑ Yes for 779, "FAQ," accessed September 23, 2016
- ↑ Ada News, "Penny sales tax proposal debated in Ada," March 12, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma Deserves Better, "Homepage," accessed November 1, 2016
- ↑ Edmond Sun, "Lamb opposed to State Question 779," June 23, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 NonDoc, "Counterpoint: Sen. Kyle Loveless opposes SQ 779," September 20, 2016
- ↑ Edmond Sun, "Edmond City Council opposes SQ 779," July 26, 2016
- ↑ Oklahoma Policy Institute, "State Question 779 Sales Tax for Education," accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Oklahoma Ethics Commission, "The Guardian Committee Search," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ Muskogee Phoenix, "EDITORIALLY SPEAKING: 779 would help fund education," November 1, 2016
- ↑ Enid News, "Editorial: The wrong solution to the problem," October 17, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Recapping our endorsements in the 2016 election," November 6, 2016
- ↑ Sooner Politics, "Editorial: Mostly 'Yes' To State Questions," September 16, 2016
- ↑ Tulsa World, "Tulsa World Editorial: Oklahoma could fall below Mississippi in teacher pay," June 13, 2016
- ↑ Maciver Institute, "REPORT: How much are teachers really paid?" accessed October 29, 2014
- ↑ United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, "Table 211.60. Estimated average annual salary of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by state: Selected years, 1969-70 through 2012-13," accessed May 13, 2014
- ↑ KOCO, "Oklahoma high court sends education tax question to ballot," June 1, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma Supreme Court hears arguments on 1-cent tax increase," December 16, 2015
- ↑ The Washington Times, "Oklahoma Supreme Court OKs vote on penny education tax," January 12, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma Supreme Court rules sales tax initiative can go forward," January 12, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Opponents of penny sales tax file legal challenge," June 23, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Backers of Oklahoma penny tax for schools say legal challenge 'obstruction,'" June 24, 2016
- ↑ KOCO, "Oklahoma Supreme Court gives education tax new ballot title," July 18, 2016
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Oklahoma Oklahoma City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |