YES on SQ 847: Lower the cap on property tax valuation increases

Section 8B. Despite any provision to the contrary, on and after January 1, 2013, the fair cash value of any parcel of locally assessed real property shall not increase by more than five percent (5%) in any taxable year for tax years 2013 through 2026 and four percent (4%) for tax year 2027 and subsequent tax years; provided, if such property qualified for a homestead exemption or is classified as agricultural land, any increase to the fair cash value of such locally assessed real property in a taxable year shall be limited to three percent (3%) for tax years 2013 through 2026 and one and seventy-five-hundredths percent (1.75%) for tax year 2027 and subsequent tax years. The provisions of this section shall not apply in any year when title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person or when improvements have been made to the property. If title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person, the property shall be assessed for that year based on the fair cash value as set forth in Section 8 of Article X of this Constitution. If any improvements are made to the property, the increased value to the property as a result of the improvement shall be assessed for that year based on the fair cash value as set forth in Section 8 of Article X of this Constitution. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any personal property which may be taxed ad valorem or any property which may be valued or assessed by the State Board of Equalization.

The Legislature shall enact any laws necessary to implement the provisions of this section.

Section 8C. A. Despite any provision to the contrary, beginning January 1, 2005 2027, the fair cash value, as determined by law, on each homestead of an individual head of household whose gross household income from all sources for the preceding calendar year did not exceed an amount as provided in was within the limits as prescribed by subsection B E of this section, and which individual head of household is sixty-five (65) years of age or older, shall not exceed the fair cash value placed upon the property be subject to a limit on an increase as prescribed by subsection D of this section during the first year in which the individual head of household was sixty-five (65) years of age or older and had gross household income from all sources which did not exceed an amount within the applicable limits as provided in subsection B E of this section. Subject to the limitations of this section, the any increase in the fair cash value shall not exceed such amount the percentage as prescribed by subsection D of this section, as modified based upon gross household income amounts as provided by subsection E of this section, for the applicable assessment year as long as the individual head of household who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older owns and occupies the property and as long as the gross household income from all sources does not exceed an amount is within the applicable limit as provided in subsection B E of this section. B. If any improvements are made to the property, the fair cash value of the improvements shall be assessed in accordance with law by the county assessor and added to the assessed value of the property. Once the fair cash value of the improvements has been added to the fair cash value of the property, the total fair cash value shall not exceed the revised valuation of the property so long as the individual head of household who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older owns and occupies the property and so long as the gross household income from all sources does not exceed an amount as is within the applicable limits as provided in subsection B E of this section.

C. For any individual head of household who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older prior to January 1, 1997, and has gross household income from all sources of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or less in calendar year 1996, the fair cash value of the real property shall be the fair cash value placed upon the property on January 1, 1997. If the individual head of household ceases to own and occupy the property or if the gross household income from all sources exceeds an amount as provided in subsection B E of this section, the fair cash value of the property shall be determined as if the provisions of Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma or any other provisions relating to a limitation on the fair cash value of locally assessed real property had been in effect during the time the property was valued pursuant to the provisions of this section.

B. The D. Except as otherwise provided by subsection E of this section, the maximum percentage increase in the fair cash value of a homestead property as authorized by this section shall not exceed one and seventy-five-hundredths percent (1.75%) for the 2027 and all subsequent assessment years.

E. In order to qualify for the applicable limit on increases in the fair cash value of the homestead as prescribed by subsection D of this section, the income threshold for the gross household income from all sources for an individual head of household under this section shall not exceed be based upon the amount determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to be the estimated median income for the preceding year for the county or metropolitan statistical area which includes such county according to the following schedule:

1. If the owner of the homestead had one hundred percent (100%) or less than the median income amount, the limit on increases in the fair cash value of the homestead as otherwise prescribed by subsection D of this section shall not be applicable and for the period of time the homestead property is owned by a person age sixty-five (65) or older, there shall be no increase in the fair cash value of the homestead except as otherwise provided by subsection B of this section;

2. If the owner of the homestead had over one hundred percent (100%) to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the median income amount, the percentage amount otherwise prescribed by subsection D of this section shall be thirty-five-hundredths percent (0.35%);

3. If the owner of the homestead had over one hundred twenty percent (120%) to one hundred forty percent (140%) of the median income amount, the percentage amount otherwise prescribed by subsection D of this section shall be seven-tenths percent (0.7%);

4. If the owner of the homestead had over one hundred forty percent (140%) to one hundred sixty percent (160%) of the median income amount, the percentage amount otherwise prescribed by subsection D of this section shall be one and five-hundredths percent (1.05%);

5. If the owner of the homestead had over one hundred sixty percent (160%) to one hundred eighty percent (180%) of the median income amount, the percentage amount otherwise prescribed by subsection D of this section shall be one and four-tenths percent (1.4%); and

6. If the owner of the homestead had over one hundred eighty percent (180%) of the median income amount, the homestead property shall be subject to a limitation on increases in fair cash value of one and seventy-five-hundredths percent (1.75%).

F. The Oklahoma Tax Commission shall provide such information to each county assessor each year as soon as such information becomes available.

The constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature as SJR 39 (2026). The Senate-approved version was much simpler and had deeper reductions in the general cap (from 5% to 3%) and the homestead cap (from the current 3% to 1%). The House added the change to eligibility for the senior citizen valuation freeze with the income brackets and lessened the reductions in the cap. Republicans generally voted for and Democrats voted against the proposal, with conservative Senate Republicans objecting to the House changes, but supporting the proposal generally.

MORE:

The Oklahoma Farm Bureau supports SQ 847 because the reduction of the 5% general cap to 4% gives farmers needed relief from inflation-induced property tax hikes.

OCPA offers a summary of SQ 845 and SQ 847.

MORE on state questions and property taxes:

You may have heard that another state question regarding property taxes, SQ 843, was struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Brooks et al. v. Reynolds et al.. SQ 843 was an initiative petition to amend a state statute, 68 O.S. 2890, to grant a homestead exemption that would increase over three years from 1/3 of the full assessed value in 2027, to 2/3 of the full assessed value in 2028, to the full assessed value in 2029. This language would have replaced the statute granting an additional homestead exemption to low-income homeowners. The petition was filed with the Secretary of State in January and was approved as sufficient for circulation, but left-wing protestants filed a lawsuit to block it just before the 90-day protest deadline in April. Their argument was that granting an exemption based on assessed value would violate the constitutional requirement in Article X, Section 8 that real property "shall not be assessed for ad valorem taxation at a value less than eleven percent (11%) nor greater than thirteen and one-half percent (13.5%) of its fair cash value...." Proponents counterargued that a separate constitutional provision, Article XII-A, dating back to SQ 201 in 1935, explicitly grants the legislature the power to exempt homesteads from all forms of ad valorem taxation.

All homesteads as is or may be defined under the Laws of the State of Oklahoma for tax exemption purposes, may hereafter be exempted from all forms of ad valorem taxation by the Legislature; provided, that all assessments, levies, encumbrances and other contract obligations incurred or made prior to the taking effect of such act of the Legislature shall in no way be affected or impaired by the exercise of Legislative power as authorized by this amendment.

The constitutional right to initiative and referendum (Article V) gives the people the right, via petition and election, to enact any provision that can be enacted by the Legislature.

Of the five justices voting to strike down SQ 843, only Richard Darby is on this year's retention ballot. (Gurich and Edmondson narrowly escaped removal in 2024; Winchester and Combs will be on the 2028 ballot.) Dissenting justices (Rowe, Kuehn, Kane, and Special Justice Blackwell), argued that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to rule on the constitutionality of a proposed law until it has been enacted (in this case, by a vote of the people), that the practice of preemptive rulings since the Norman decision of 1975 violates the people's constitutional power of initiative and referendum. (Civil Appeals Court Judge Gregory Blackwell was appointed to hear the case in place of Justice Travis Jett, who had to recuse on this issue because his cousin, State Sen. Shane Jett, was one of the named defendants.) You can read the docket and all filings and opinions here.

Two of the justices who voted to uphold the initiative rights of the people, Dana Kuehn and John Kane, are on the retention ballot in November, as is Travis Jett. All three are appointees of Gov. Stitt; Jett was appointed to replace Justice Yvonne Kauger, who was ousted by the voters in 2024, the first judge or justice ever to lose a retention vote.