Local officials line up against SQ 844. Stillwegian readers reject both state questions

Nearly every elected official and candidate who answered a Stillwegian survey said they will vote against State Question 844, and most said they will vote for State Question 846. Stillwegian readers, polled separately, rejected both.

The sharper divide is on SQ 846. Officials and candidates backed the voter identification measure 12-6. Readers rejected it better than 2-to-1. On SQ 844 the two groups pointed the same direction; on 846 they pointed opposite ways.

Both measures would amend the Oklahoma Constitution. SQ 844 would let the Legislature decide how much the state pays local schools, counties, and other taxing entities for revenue lost to a manufacturing property tax break. SQ 846 would write Oklahoma's existing voter identification requirement into the constitution. Both are legislative referendums, and both need a simple majority Aug. 25.

On SQ 844, officials from Stillwater city hall, Payne County, and the Legislature answered almost as a bloc: 15 said no, two said yes, one was undecided, and one declined to answer the question. On SQ 846, the same group divided 12 yes, six no, one undecided.

Readers opposed both.

Reader poll results

Among the 162 poll respondents who said they are registered to vote in Oklahoma, 131 voted against SQ 844 and 31 voted for it, or 81 percent to 19 percent. On SQ 846, 114 voted against and 49 voted for, or 70 percent to 30 percent.

The Stillwegian's reader poll asked the same two yes-or-no questions that appear on the ballot. It offered no undecided option. Of 166 total respondents, 162 said they are registered to vote in Oklahoma.

Among all respondents regardless of registration status, SQ 844 drew 134 no votes to 32 yes votes, and SQ 846 drew 117 no votes to 50 yes votes.

The reader poll is an unscientific snapshot of signed-in Stillwegian readers, not a survey of Payne County or Oklahoma voters. See methodology below.

On SQ 844, readers and officials pointed the same direction. On SQ 846 they did not: officials backed the measure 12-6 while readers opposed it better than 2-to-1.

SQ 844: 15 no, two yes, one undecided, one declined

Oklahoma's constitution currently requires the state to make local governments whole when a qualifying manufacturer receives a five-year exemption from property taxes. Schools take the largest share of those reimbursements. SQ 844, filed as Legislative Referendum No. 378, would amend Section 6B of Article 10 to give the Legislature authority over how much is appropriated and how it is divided.

That is the piece officials returned to again and again.

"More erosion of local control," Stillwater Mayor Will Joyce said. "844 would allow the state legislature to hand out tax breaks without reimbursing the counties and school districts most impacted by the state's decisions."

Payne County Assessor Jason Gomez, a Republican, said the state should keep the bargain it made. "Payne County should not have to compete with other counties for reimbursement dollars, nor should local taxpayers be placed at risk when the state chooses to offer economic incentives," Gomez said.

Payne County Clerk Glenna Craig, a Republican, said she supports recruiting manufacturers but cannot support the measure without a replacement funding source. Craig listed the entities she said stand to lose: public schools, county governments, career technology centers, libraries, county health departments, emergency medical services, rural fire departments, and technology and education districts.

PAID Advertisement

Oklahoma heat is hard on windows. Thermal expansion stresses glass, seals, and frames until seals fail and cool air escapes. Stillwater Building Center provides estimates and pinpoints your problem areas.

Request Your Estimate

Opposition crossed party and office lines. Two Republican legislators who said they dislike the current guarantee still said they would vote no on changing it.

"While I disagree with the current law that the State is constitutionally obligated to reimburse 100% of the ad valorem exemptions back to the cities or counties, the truth is that the cities and counties have no control over whether the exemption is allowed or not," said state Rep. Jim Shaw, R-Chandler, whose House District 32 includes Perkins.

State Rep. Molly Jenkins, R-Coyle, who represents House District 33, said the measure leaves the underlying tax break untouched while putting the reimbursement at risk. "I will not surrender a constitutional protection merely to give future Legislatures a blank check to decide the details later," Jenkins said.

Payne County Commissioner Zachary Cavett, a Republican who represents District 1, said he opposes the measure in part because of what a future budget shortfall could invite. "When/if the state enters a budg[et] deficit, this will become a source of revenue that the legislature can then tap into, leaving counties short," Cavett said.

ADVERTISEMENT

August is bursting with excitement in Stillwater! From the Payne County Free Fair and the return of Cowboy sports to the start of a new semester and can't-miss community events, there's something for everyone to enjoy.

View Events

The two yes votes came from Payne County Treasurer Lee Denney, a Republican, and Max Burchett, the Democrat running in House District 33.

"I believe this spreads the reimbursement distribution out so no county receives a larger proportion over other counties when manufacturing facilities are lured to the state," Denney said.

Burchett said local entities should not carry an unfair share of the cost of a state incentive, and that SQ 844 would give the Legislature a mechanism to update the formula. "The details of that future formula will matter," Burchett said. "I would expect the process to be transparent, based on reliable fiscal analysis, and designed to avoid placing an unreasonable burden on rural communities, growing counties, or public schools."

State Rep. Dillon Travis, R-Maramec, who represents House District 35, selected undecided. His written answer described the measure in favorable terms. "SQ 844 provides the Legislature with the flexibility to establish a predictable reimbursement system instead of being locked into an open-ended constitutional obligation," Travis said. "I believe we can support economic development while demanding fiscal responsibility."

State Sen. Chuck Hall, R-Perry, who represents Senate District 20, declined to answer on SQ 844. He answered on SQ 846.

SQ 846: 12 yes, six no, one undecided

Oklahoma has required proof of identity to vote since voters approved State Question 746 in 2010. Acceptable identification includes a government-issued photo ID or the free voter registration card issued to every registered voter, and voters without either may cast a provisional ballot. SQ 846 would place a proof-of-identity requirement in the constitution, apply it to all authorized voting methods, and direct the Legislature to set the specific standards.

Supporters framed the measure as locking in a policy that already works.

"This state question simply puts the requirement for identification in our state constitution preventing future legislatures from removing the requirement without a vote of the people," Hall said.

Craig, a former secretary of the Payne County Election Board, said the requirement should not depend on shifting legislative majorities. "I believe the requirement to verify a voter's identity should not be subject to changing political priorities," Craig said.

Payne County Sheriff Joe Harper, a Republican, and Cavett both compared the requirement to everyday transactions. "Valid ID is required to purchase tobacco, alcohol, rent a motel room, rent a car, make a credit purchase at most retail stores, fly, and I believe it should be required to vote," Cavett said.

Burchett, who also voted yes, said identification rules need accessible alternatives. "The law should not create unnecessary barriers for older adults, people with disabilities, rural residents, tribal citizens, students, or low-income voters," Burchett said.

Opponents did not dispute that Oklahoma should require identification. They disputed that the constitution is the place for it.

"My vote on SQ 846 is not about whether Oklahoma should require voter ID, because we already do," Stillwater Vice Mayor Amy Dzialowski said. "It is about whether that policy belongs in the state constitution."

Joyce called the measure "a solution in search of a problem," and said Oklahoma's election system already works. Stillwater City Council member Kevin Clark, who holds Seat 3, said the measure "would not add any new security measures or strengthen the voter verification process."

State Rep. Trish Ranson, D-Stillwater, who represents House District 34, said the measure's language would hand the Legislature the final say over what counts as identification. "The language of this measure would give the Legislature the authority to determine what forms of voter identification are acceptable, and no one could challenge its decision on the basis of the state constitution," Ranson said.

Payne County Commissioner Seth Condley, a Republican who represents District 2, was the lone undecided. "We already have voter ID laws in Oklahoma, and they work really well," Condley said. "On the other hand, if 846 does provide a stronger means to protect our elections then that would be a good thing in my opinion."

When to vote

Early voting for the Aug. 25 runoff runs Aug. 20-21 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Aug. 22 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., according to the Payne County Election Board. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Voters can confirm their polling place at okvoterportal.okelections.gov.

Full responses

Responses are printed as submitted, edited only for clarity and AP style.

SQ 844 — Voting no

Will Joyce, Stillwater mayor: "More erosion of local control. 844 would allow the state legislature to hand out tax breaks without reimbursing the counties and school districts most impacted by the state's decisions."

Amy Dzialowski, Stillwater vice mayor: "I plan to vote no on SQ 844. Oklahoma voters previously approved reimbursing local governments and school districts for revenues lost due to the state's manufacturing property tax exemption. As a local elected official, I am concerned about any change that could create uncertainty in those reimbursements and lead to financial hardships for cities, counties, and schools that rely on those funds."

Kevin Clark, Stillwater City Council, Seat 3: "The Oklahoma constitution currently requires the state to reimburse local governments for property tax revenue lost because of the state's five-year ad valorem tax exemption for qualifying manufacturing and certain other businesses. School districts receive the largest share of these reimbursements. Payments are made from a dedicated state fund, and if that fund does not contain enough money, the constitution requires the legislature to appropriate additional funds to make local governments whole. SQ 844 would amend the constitution to give the legislature discretion over both the amount of funding appropriated for these reimbursements and how those funds are distributed. Under the proposed amendment, the legislature could fully fund, partially fund, or eliminate reimbursement appropriations. If appropriations fall short, local governments, including school districts, could receive less than the full amount of property tax revenue they would have otherwise received."

Christie Hawkins, Stillwater City Council, Seat 4: "— Threatens school and county funding — Shifts the cost of a state incentive (approved by our legislators) onto local taxpayers with communities still having to absorb the additional infrastructure costs of new industrial projects without the tax revenue to pay for them. — Creates financial instability for local budgets"

Zachary Cavett, Payne County commissioner, District 1 (R): "I am generally opposed to altering the constitution, except for making clarifications, as it has worked the way it was written for years. With that said, I [oppose] SQ 844. From what I understand about the question, I feel it will give too much power to the Senate pro tem and speaker of the House. Additionally, when/if the state enters a budget deficit, this will become a source of revenue that the legislature can then tap into, leaving counties short."

Seth Condley, Payne County commissioner, District 2 (R): "My understanding is that in this proposed amendment, the legislature could partially fund, completely fund, or remove reimbursement appropriations. If funds come up short, local governments, including school districts, could possibly receive less than the full amount of property tax revenue they would have received from the state. As a former teacher and current high school soccer coach, this does not have my vote."

Jason Gomez, Payne County assessor (R): "For more than 40 years, Oklahoma's manufacturing ad valorem exemption program has operated under a simple principle: when the state grants a property tax exemption to attract industry, the state fully reimburses local governments, schools, county health departments, and other entities for the resulting loss of revenue. SQ 844 would remove that constitutional safeguard and allow the Legislature to determine reimbursement levels and methodologies in the future. While supporters argue this provides flexibility, flexibility for the state can mean uncertainty for local communities. Counties and other local entities depend on predictable revenue to provide essential services. When reimbursement is no longer guaranteed, school districts, and local governments, may face budget shortfalls through no fault of their own. Payne County should not have to compete with other counties for reimbursement dollars, nor should local taxpayers be placed at risk when the state chooses to offer economic incentives. If Oklahoma believes a manufacturing exemption is valuable for economic development, then the state should continue honoring its commitment to fully reimburse the local governments that lose revenue because of that decision. SQ 844 shifts authority away from a clear constitutional protection and places it into the hands of future legislatures, where reimbursement levels could change from year to year. Local governments need certainty, not uncertainty. I encourage voters to carefully consider the long-term impact on counties, schools, and public services and vote NO on State Question 844."

Glenna Craig, Payne County clerk (R): "State Question 844 proposes amending the Oklahoma Constitution regarding reimbursement to local governments for manufacturing property tax exemptions. I fully support economic development and bringing quality jobs to Oklahoma. However, I cannot support a measure that removes critical local tax revenue unless and until there is a reliable, permanent funding mechanism in place to replace every dollar that would otherwise be lost by our local jurisdictions. As currently written, this measure could have devastating financial consequences for the very entities that provide essential services to our citizens, including: public schools, county governments, career technology centers, libraries, county health departments, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), rural fire departments, technology and education districts, and other local taxing jurisdictions that depend on property tax revenue. Without a guaranteed and sustainable replacement funding source, these local governments would face significant budget shortfalls that could result in reduced public services, delayed infrastructure improvements, and increased financial pressure on local taxpayers. Economic development should never come at the expense of the communities that educate our children, protect our families, and provide essential public services. I understand and I am compassionate to the economic strain this could cause to some elderly citizens and veterans in our state and support looking at a form of relief for these citizens beyond what is already addressed in the law to exemptions in regard to property tax, but until a comprehensive funding mechanism is established that fully protects these jurisdictions, I believe State Question 844 should not be adopted."

Joe Harper, Payne County sheriff (R): "I will be voting NO on SQ 844. As far as I can tell the only major change in current language is the potential for the State to not pay reimbursements to Local Government."

Trish Ranson, state representative, House District 34 (D-Stillwater): "State Question 844 would give the Oklahoma Legislature the authority to reimburse local governments for lost ad valorem tax revenue at less than 100%. The state currently reimburses affected schools, career techs, and local governments for the full amount of the lost revenue. Ad valorem taxes are property taxes paid on homes, businesses, and other property. In Oklahoma, that revenue is a primary source of funding for local public schools, career technology centers, county governments, roads, emergency services, and other essential community services. To encourage companies to locate in Oklahoma, the state offers manufacturing tax exemptions that reduce or eliminate certain property taxes. State Question 844 would allow the Legislature to reduce those reimbursements in the future. I oppose State Question 844 because it could result in less funding for public schools, career techs, county governments, roads, and other local services that Oklahomans rely on every day."

Jim Shaw, state representative, House District 32 (R-Chandler): "I will be voting No on SQ844. While I disagree with the current law that the State is constitutionally obligated to reimburse 100% of the ad valorem exemptions back to the cities or counties, the truth is that the cities and counties have no control over whether the exemption is allowed or not. If SQ844 were to pass, the legislature could possibly reduce the reimbursement amount to the detriment of the cities, counties, schools, etc. who would have no control or recourse in the situation. Our personal and corporate tax codes need to be fair and consistent across the board. SQ844 turns a current 100% consistent obligation, however fiscally irresponsible it may be, into possible inconsistent and unequal outcomes."

Molly Jenkins, state representative, House District 33 (R-Coyle): "I will be voting no because SQ 844 allows the Legislature to reduce reimbursements owed to schools, counties and other local entities while leaving the underlying corporate tax exemption intact. It provides no minimum reimbursement, no defined formula and no guarantee that money withheld from one county will benefit another. If we truly want fairness, we should eliminate the special incentive, require every business to pay into the property-tax system under the same rules, and then allow the state to distribute. I will not surrender a constitutional protection merely to give future Legislatures a blank check to decide the details later."

Aaron Means, Republican candidate, House District 34: "The reason for my NO vote for SQ 844 is our state legislative leaders want the voters to expand their authority. I do not believe they will act in the best interest of tax paying citizens."

Andy Brown, independent candidate, House District 32: "I believe 844 will hurt the schools and local communities where the most economic development is occurring and will actually end up hurting economic growth."

Randy Grellner, state senator, District 21 (R-Cushing) (responded by text message): "No on 844. A yes puts the Career techs in a potential bind with funding. This proposal would potentially leave the decision to the legislature to direct extra funds in or out of certain districts. I think that process should be spelled out in detail before a state question is approved."

SQ 844 — Voting yes

Lee Denney, Payne County treasurer (R): "I believe this spreads the reimbursement distribution out so no county receives a larger proportion over other counties when manufacturing facilities are lured to the state."

Max Burchett, Democratic candidate, House District 33: "I plan to vote Yes on State Question 844. Oklahoma uses the five-year manufacturing property-tax exemption to encourage business investment and expansion, but local schools, counties, municipalities, and other public entities should not be left carrying an unfair share of the cost. SQ 844 would provide a mechanism for the Legislature to update the reimbursement methodology. The details of that future formula will matter. I would expect the process to be transparent, based on reliable fiscal analysis, and designed to avoid placing an unreasonable burden on rural communities, growing counties, or public schools. Economic-development incentives should produce measurable public benefits while protecting the financial stability of the communities providing essential services."

SQ 844 — Undecided

Dillon Travis, state representative, House District 35 (R-Maramec): "Oklahoma should compete for manufacturing investment, but we also have a responsibility to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. SQ 844 provides the Legislature with the flexibility to establish a predictable reimbursement system instead of being locked into an open-ended constitutional obligation. I believe we can support economic development while demanding fiscal responsibility."

SQ 844 — Declined

Chuck Hall, state senator, District 20 (R-Perry), declined to answer on SQ 844.

SQ 846 — Voting yes

Zachary Cavett, Payne County commissioner, District 1 (R): "I am in favor of SQ 846, as I feel it is only clarifying what I believe was the intention of the constitution. I feel that this will only bolster the integrity of our elections. Valid ID is required to purchase tobacco, alcohol, rent a motel room, rent a car, make a credit purchase at most retail stores, fly, and I believe it should be required to vote."

Lee Denney, Payne County treasurer (R): "We have had voter ID in this state as a state statute. Those can easily be changed by the legislature. By including it into the State Constitution, it will become more permanent. Of course it can still be changed, but it will be harder to change."

Jason Gomez, Payne County assessor (R): "Election integrity is the foundation of public confidence in our democratic process. Oklahoma has successfully required voter identification for more than a decade, and State Question 846 would ensure that this important safeguard remains protected in the Oklahoma Constitution. SQ 846 does not create a new voter identification requirement. Instead, it places Oklahoma's existing voter ID requirement into the Constitution, ensuring that any future effort to eliminate voter identification would require approval from the voters themselves rather than a simple act of Legislature. Oklahomans overwhelmingly support secure elections. Requiring proof of identity is a common-sense measure that helps verify that each ballot is cast by an eligible voter while maintaining public trust in election outcomes. Oklahoma's voter ID law has been in place since 2011 and has proven to be a reasonable and effective part of the election process. SQ 846 also applies the same principle of voter verification to all authorized methods of voting and directs the Legislature to establish the specific requirements for proof of identity. This creates a consistent constitutional standard while allowing lawmakers to address administrative details through statute."

Glenna Craig, Payne County clerk (R): "The integrity of our elections is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional republic. Requiring voters to present identification and verify their eligibility to vote helps ensure that every lawful vote is protected and that Oklahomans can continue to have confidence in our election system. While Oklahoma currently has voter identification requirements established in state law, laws enacted by the Legislature can be amended or repealed by future legislative action. I believe the requirement to verify a voter's identity should not be subject to changing political priorities. Instead, it should be enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution as a clear expression of the will of the people. By approving State Question 846, voters would affirm that election integrity is a fundamental constitutional principle. I believe every eligible citizen has both the right and the responsibility to vote, and that requiring proof of identity is a reasonable safeguard that protects the voting rights of every lawful voter."

Joe Harper, Payne County sheriff (R): "I will be Voting YES on SQ 846. It only makes sense to provide ID when voting. We are required to show identification to board an airplane and even smaller scale to purchase certain items at a convenience store."

Jim Shaw, state representative, House District 32 (R-Chandler): "I will be voting Yes on SQ846. Requiring proof of identity to vote is as critical as it is common sense. Anyone who is opposed to this is at best unserious about our constitutional right to vote or at worst has an ulterior motive to compromise the integrity of one of the most powerful tools citizens have in keeping the government accountable to the people."

Molly Jenkins, state representative, House District 33 (R-Coyle): "I will be voting yes on State Question 846. Asking voters to provide proof of identity is a simple, reasonable safeguard that helps protect every legitimate vote. Oklahoma already requires voter identification, and placing that requirement in our Constitution will help preserve it for the future. Voting is one of our most important rights, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect both access to the ballot and public confidence in the results."

Chuck Hall, state senator, District 20 (R-Perry): "Oklahoma has required identification in order to vote since 2011 which is partly why Oklahoma's election system has been rank[ed] nationally as one of the best systems in the country for election security. This state question simply puts the requirement for identification in our state constitution preventing future legislatures from removing the requirement without a vote of the people."

Aaron Means, Republican candidate, House District 34: "The current statu[t]e relating to this state question has a good purpose. I am aware OK Constitution is too big, but adding this wording into the OK Constitution is justifiable."

Dillon Travis, state representative, House District 35 (R-Maramec): "I'm in support of State Question 846 because it ensures our state elections remain secure. I believe showing proof of identity for voting should be in our state constitution, as this would make the requirement a constitutional protection that future legislatures could not simply repeal without voter approval."

Max Burchett, Democratic candidate, House District 33: "I also plan to vote Yes on State Question 846. Oklahoma already requires voters to provide proof of identity, so this measure would not create an entirely new Election Day requirement. It would place that principle in the Oklahoma Constitution and require identification standards to apply across authorized voting methods. Election security and ballot access must be protected together. I support voter-identification requirements provided they include reasonable alternatives for eligible voters who do not possess standard photo identification. The law should not create unnecessary barriers for older adults, people with disabilities, rural residents, tribal citizens, students, or low-income voters. Identification rules should be clear, consistently administered, and paired with accessible procedures that ensure every qualified Oklahoman can cast a ballot."

Randy Grellner, state senator, District 21 (R-Cushing): "846 is a yes. Although this proposal still is not perfect it is a step in the right direction."

SQ 846 — Voting no

Will Joyce, Stillwater mayor: "A solution in search of a problem. Oklahoma already has voter ID laws that work. Oklahoma has the most efficient, secure, and reliable election system in the country; 846 will not make any improvements and who knows what the unintended consequences might be. If we're going to amend the state constitution, it should be to fix actual problems, not just to get a talking point for campaigns."

Amy Dzialowski, Stillwater vice mayor: "Safe, secure, and accessible elections are critical to public confidence in our democracy. I support voter identification requirements and trustworthy elections. My vote on SQ 846 is not about whether Oklahoma should require voter ID, because we already do. It is about whether that policy belongs in the state constitution. I believe Oklahoma's current law provides election security while preserving the Legislature's ability to address future issues through the normal legislative process. I do not believe that every election policy belongs in the constitution. For that reason, I will be voting no on SQ 846."

Kevin Clark, Stillwater City Council, Seat 3: "Oklahoma already has a strong election management system with effective voter identification and verification requirements. Registered voters must present either a federal- or state-issued photo ID or the state-issued voter registration card, which is provided at no cost to every registered voter. Voters who do not have valid identification may cast a provisional ballot, which is kept separate and counted only after the county election board verifies the voter's eligibility. SQ 846 would not add any new security measures or strengthen the voter verification process. It would not make Oklahoma's elections safer or more secure. Instead, it would amend one of the nation's longest state constitutions without changing how elections are actually conducted."

Christie Hawkins, Stillwater City Council, Seat 4: "— It is redundant and unnecessary — Passage of this SQ would give unchecked power to state lawmakers to pass more restrictive rules without voter approval — Further, by elevating voter ID requirements from state statute to Oklahoma Constitution, lawmakers who enact voter restrictions in the future will have a stronger shield against state court challenges. — Threatens mail-in and absentee voting and can make it significantly harder, especially for rural, elderly and homebound voters."

Trish Ranson, state representative, House District 34 (D-Stillwater): "State Question 846 would place voter identification requirements into the Oklahoma Constitution. Under current law, voters are already required to provide identification, such as a driver's license or voter registration card, before casting a ballot. The language of this measure would give the Legislature the authority to determine what forms of voter identification are acceptable, and no one could challenge its decision on the basis of the state constitution. This effectively gives the legislature unfettered power over the identification methods used for voting. I oppose State Question 846 because I do not believe this change is necessary. Supporters argue it is needed to address voter fraud, but Oklahoma's voter fraud rate does not demonstrate a need for this constitutional change. In fact, Oklahoma's election system is one of the most secure in the country. I believe it could create additional barriers for eligible voters while addressing a problem that is not widespread."

Andy Brown, independent candidate, House District 32: "846 is a solution in search of a problem that we don't have. ID is already required to register and vote. We need to encourage citizens to vote not make it harder."

SQ 846 — Undecided

Seth Condley, Payne County commissioner, District 2 (R): "We already have voter ID laws in Oklahoma, and they work really well. Trying to lump Oklahoma in with other states and their voter ID issues could cause unintended consequences down the road. On the other hand, if 846 does provide a stronger means to protect our elections then that would be a good thing in my opinion."

Declined to participate

Tim Hardin, Stillwater City Council, Seat 2, declined to participate in the survey and did not answer on either state question.

Every member of the Stillwater Board of Education who received the survey also declined. Their responses are described in the methodology note below.

How this was reported

The Stillwegian sent the same two questions to every elected official and candidate it covers, from city council and school board to county offices and the state House and Senate: how will you vote on each state question, and why? Officials could answer yes, no, or undecided, with up to 300 words to explain, or decline. Responses were originally due Aug. 7, and the deadline was extended to Aug. 14. Responses appear as submitted, edited only for clarity and AP style.

Counts in this story reflect the 19 officials and candidates who gave a yes, no, or undecided answer on at least one question. Chuck Hall answered on SQ 846 and declined on SQ 844; he is counted among the 19. Tim Hardin and the Stillwater Board of Education members who received the survey declined to participate and are not.

Party affiliation is listed for partisan offices and candidates. Stillwater's mayor, vice mayor, and City Council seats are nonpartisan offices, and no party is listed for them.

Every member of the Stillwater Board of Education who received the survey declined to participate. Board member Kiah Butcher was not contacted; she was appointed to the board after the survey went out.

"As a member of the Stillwater Board of Education, it is our practice not to publicly comment on political matters or ballot questions in our capacity as board members," board member Dr. Clyde C. Wilson Jr. said in an email. "Additionally, media inquiries regarding district matters are directed to the Superintendent, who serves as the district's official spokesperson."

The reader poll ran on The Stillwegian's website and was open to signed-in readers, one vote per reader. Votes were recorded anonymously and are not linked to reader accounts. The poll offered only yes or no on each question — no undecided option — while the officials' survey allowed officials to answer undecided. Results reported here lead with the responses of readers who said they are registered to vote in Oklahoma; that answer was not checked against voter records.

The reader poll is an unscientific snapshot of Stillwegian readers who chose to participate. It is not a scientific survey of Payne County or Oklahoma voters, and it should not be read as a prediction of the outcome Aug. 25.