Oklahoma Reclassification of Some Drug and Property Crimes as Misdemeanors, State Question 780 (2016)

Oklahoma State Question 780
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Drug crime policy
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
State Question 776 a
State Question 777 d
State Question 779 d
State Question 780 a
State Question 781 a
State Question 790 d
State Question 792 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Oklahoma Reclassification of Some Drug and Property Crimes as Misdemeanors Initiative, also known as State Question 780, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahoma as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this proposal to reclassify certain property offenses and simple drug possession as misdemeanor crimes.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal to reclassify certain property offenses and simple drug possession as misdemeanor crimes.

State Question 781, a law allocating funds from prison cost savings, was contingent upon voters approving State Question 780. Although State Question 781 would not have become law if State Question 780 did not pass, SQ 780 could have passed on its own and was not contingent on SQ 781.

Aftermath

House Bill 1269 to make SQ 780 retroactive

House Majority Leader Jon Echols (R-90) and Jason Dunnington (D-88) filed House Bill 1269 on January 17, 2019, which would make State Question 780 retroactive for Oklahomans who were convicted before the measure passed but would have been affected had SQ 780 been in place.

Jason Dunnington (D) said, "It is time for Oklahoma to get out of the business of arresting and prosecuting individuals afflicted by drug addiction. We have Oklahomans that are labeled as felons, and their crimes would be legal or a much lesser crime today. These folks are disenfranchised, and their families are suffering. This legislation seeks to heal these wounds and continue Oklahoma down the road of responsible criminal justice reform."

Jon Echols (R) said, "The people of Oklahoma have spoken loud and clear on the issue of criminal justice reform. I look forward to working with members of both parties to find not Democratic or Republican solutions, but Oklahoma solutions to the issues facing this state. This bill will be a great step in that direction.”

The bill was scheduled to be read for the first time on February 4, 2019.

Election results

State Question 780
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		831,123	58.23%
No		596,070	41.77%

Election results from Oklahoma State Election Board

Overview

Initiative design

State Questions 780 and 781

State Question 780 changed certain non-violent drug- and theft-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, which come with a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a fine of $1,000, thereby reducing the number and duration of state prison sentences for those crimes. State Question 780 and State Question 781 were connected; SQ 781 relied on Question 780. Since State Question 780 reclassified certain crimes as misdemeanors it saved the state prison system money by reducing the number and duration of incarcerations. Question 781 was designed to redistribute the money saved by the reduced prison costs to counties to fund rehabilitation of criminals. State Question 781 only went into effect because State Question 780 was also approved since without State Question 780 the prison costs allocated by State Question 781 would not exist.

Crimes that became misdemeanors

Previously, possession of illegal drugs was a felony according to state law. State Question 780 made drug possession a misdemeanor. The measure continued the classification of drug manufacturing, trafficking, and selling as felony offenses.

Previously, a theft or forgery of property worth over $500 dollars was considered a felony offense by state law. State Question 780 raised that threshold to $1,000 dollars. State legislation passed in 2016 enacted reforms that included many of the changes proposed by State Question 780 to laws governing property crime.

Allocation of funds

The prison cost savings brought about by State Question 780 were intended to be allocated according to the companion initiative, State Question 781. State Question 781 was designed to allocate the funds made available by the prison cost savings to counties in proportion to their population and could be claimed by privately-run rehabilitative organizations that provide drug and mental health treatment, job training, and education programs.

Text of measure

Ballot title

“

This measure amends existing Oklahoma laws and would change the classification of certain drug possession and property crimes from felony to misdemeanor. It would make possession of a limited quantity of drugs a misdemeanor. The amendment also changes the classification of certain drug possession crimes which are currently considered felonies and cases where the defendant has a prior drug possession conviction. The proposed amendment would reclassify these drug possession cases as misdemeanors. The amendment would increase the threshold dollar amount used for determining whether certain property crimes are considered a felony or misdemeanor. Currently, the threshold is $500. The amendment would increase the amount to $1000. Property crimes covered by this change include; false declaration of a pawn ticket, embezzlement, larceny, grand larceny, theft, receiving or concealing stolen property, taking domesticated fish or game, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, or issuing bogus checks. This measure would become effective July 1, 2017.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Ballot title change

The Oklahoma Supreme Court rewrote the ballot title on August 8, 2016, as part of a legal challenge. Initiative proponents and the Oklahoma Attorney General provided ballot titles, and the state supreme court ruled that both ballot titles were insufficient either because of bias or a lack of information. The originally proposed ballot titles were as follows:

Ballot titles proposed by proponents and the attorney general
SQ 780 proponent's proposed title This measure amends statutes to reform criminal sentences for certain property and drug offenses. It makes certain property offenses misdemeanors. It makes simple drug possession a misdemeanor. Property offenses where the value of the property is one thousand dollars or more remain felonies, and the distribution, possession with intent to distribute, transportation with intent to distribute, manufacture, or trafficking of drugs remain felonies.
Attorney General's title: This measure changes state law to reduce the punishments for drug possession and certain property offenses. Under current law, drug possession is a felony when, for example: • The drug is one that has a high potential for abuse; • The person possessing the drug has a prior conviction for drug possession; • The person possessed the drug within 1,000 feet of a public or private school or public park; or • The person possessed the drug in the presence of a child under the age of twelve. If voters approve this measure, these sorts of drug possession crimes would be misdemeanors instead of felonies. The measure also changes the law for certain property crimes like grand larceny, embezzlement, and writing two or more bogus checks. Under current law, if the value of the property involved in those crimes is more than $500, the crime is a felony. If it is less than $500, the crime is a misdemeanor. This measure would raise that amount to $1000, so that any crime involving less than $1000 worth of property would be a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.

Support

The group that led the support for State Questions 780 and 781 was Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform.

Supporters

The Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform website listed the following endorsements of State Questions 780 and 781:

Kris Steele, former Republican House Speaker, was a chief proponent of State Questions 780 and 781.

Organizations ACLU of Oklahoma CEO Works Family Policy Institute of Oklahoma George Kaiser Family Foundation Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Mental Health Association Oklahoma Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce Oklahoma Conference of Churches Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (Impact) Oklahoma Policy Institute Oklahoma Right on Crime Oklahoma Substance Abuse Services Alliance (OSASA) Oklahoma Women's Coalition ReMerge The Education and Employment Ministry (TEEM) The Oklahoma Academy Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce Tulsa Work Force Women in Recovery YWCA Tulsa Individuals Tom Ward, Chairman and CEO, Tapstone Energy Clay Bennett, Owner of Oklahoma City Thunder & Chairman of Dorchester Capital Corporation Gene Rainbolt, Chairman, BancFirst Corporation Brad Henry, Former Oklahoma Governor Rev. Dr. George E. Young, Sr., State Representative Rev. Theodis R. Manning, Sr., Senior Pastor, Divine Ray Owens, Pastor, Metropolitan Baptist Church Joe Johnston, CEO, Catalyst Treatment Centers J. Larry Nichols, Chairman, Devon Energy Corporation Dr. Hance Dilbeck, President, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma

Arguments in favor

Supporters made the following arguments in support of State Questions 780 and 781:

• SQ 780 and 781 would reduce crime and improve safety.
  • Supporters argued that the state's high incarceration rate has still left the state with high crime rates, implying that reducing prison time for certain non-violent crimes does not increase the rate of crime.
  • Supporters also argued that serving time in prison for non-violent drug crimes makes those people more likely to commit violent crimes after release.

• SQ 780 and 781 would allow people convicted of non-violent drug crimes to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
  • Supporters argued that having a felony record makes it difficult to get a job, find housing, and become involved in a community.

• SQ 780 and 781 would allow positive treatment of addiction and mental health issues at the root of most crimes.
  • Supporters argued that most non-violent drug crimes are committed by people who need professional help and rehabilitation and that the prison costs savings from State Question 780 could be used to address these needs.

Kris Steele, former Republican House Speaker, said, “ One in three people in Oklahoma's prisons need mental health treatment, and one quarter of inmates are serving time for a nonviolent drug offense. It is time to take a smarter approach to public safety by increasing access to programs that address the root causes of crime. ” Mike Neal, president and CEO of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, said that at least one in 12 Oklahomans has a felony conviction. He said, “ Many of them for small, nonviolent infractions that will prevent them from entering the workforce throughout their lifetime. ... This contributes to workforce shortages, ... harming economic growth and really overburdening the taxpayers. ” Stephanie Horten, director of the Women’s Defense Team, said that women would benefit from the measure: “ They would spend less time in jail. They would be with their children. They'd be able to keep their driver's license. ... If you had a misdemeanor instead of a felony, you might actually be able to get a job. Most of the women we work with have a very, very hard time finding a job with a felony on their record. Most employers won't even look at someone who has a felony charge. ” Ryan Kiesel, executive director of ACLU of Oklahoma, said, “ A felony conviction today operates in many ways as a modern-day form of societal banishment. These are bold reforms. In Oklahoma, about 17 percent of the people admitted to prisons each year have simple drug possession as their only or as their most serious offense. ” Concerning similar reforms in Texas, Adam Luck, a member of the conservative group Right on Crime, said, “ The State of Texas has saved close to $3 billion. They've closed three state facilities. ... They've cut their juvenile population by 52 percent, which has allowed them to close eight juvenile facilities, all while maintaining the lowest crime rates they've had since 1973. ”

Opposition

A No on 780 campaign was formed to campaign in opposition to State Question 780.

Since State Question 781 was designed to depend on State Question 780 and the opponents and opposing arguments are the same for both, the opposition campaign focuses on State Question 780.

Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51)
• District Attorney Jason Hicks - District 6
• Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler
• Garfield County Sheriff Jerry Niles
• Cleveland County District Attorney Grag Mashburn

Organizations

• Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police

Arguments against

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to State Questions 780 and 781:

• SQ 780 and 781 would increase crime.
  • Opponents argued that the proposal would remove incentives against drug-related crimes by making them misdemeanors instead of felonies.

• SQ 780 and 781 were unnecessary.
  • Opponents argued that the legislature already passed laws that would reduce prison overcrowding by reducing the minimum sentences for drug possession, increasing the value threshold at which thefts become felonies, and allowing prosecutors to chart certain felonies as misdemeanors, making SQ 780 and 781 unnecessary.

• SQ 780 and 781 would be unjust by making some drug crimes that should be felonies into misdemeanors.
  • Opponents argued that possession of meth, heroin, cocaine, and date rape drugs should be a felony, not a misdemeanor.

• SQ 780 and 781 would make the jobs of prosecutors and law enforcement more difficult.
  • Opponents argued that felony charges constitute important incentives used by prosecutors to compel members of gangs and criminal organizations to testify against each other and used to motivate drug users to participate in substance abuse treatment programs.

• SQ 780 and 781 were badly written and could result in communities lacking the funds necessary to fund county jails and achieve rehabilitation for a larger number of criminals.
  • Opponents argued that State Questions 780 and 781 do not provide rules or guidance about how to calculate the state prison savings by which proposed rehabilitation programs would be funded and could result in a disproportionate ratio of drug-related offenders and funding in certain counties and overcrowded county jails due to the larger number of misdemeanors.

Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51) said, “ I am adamantly opposed. They [SQ 780 and SQ 781] are reckless and dangerous. [...] Drugs like meth, heroin, cocaine and date rape drugs, those are the type of drugs that should remain felonies. There are only two reasons to have a date rape drug and that is to sell it or to use it, and that poses a significant risk. [...] We don’t need to be the guinea pig for these liberal ideals that put the public at risk. ” Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said, “ If this is passed, Oklahoma will be labeled as having the most liberal drug legislation in the country. This is more liberal than California. This is more liberal than the State of Washington. Oklahoma will never have another felony drug possession crime again if this passes. The net effect is this – if you are caught with methamphetamine today, if this new law passes, it would be a misdemeanor. Tomorrow, if you get caught with methamphetamine, it will be a misdemeanor. Two years from now, a misdemeanor. You could have 55 arrests and convictions for methamphetamine and always have a misdemeanor. The things that are obviously a threat to our community because of what happens for these people who try to fund their drug habits, you have got to have some kind of what I call a heavy hand. ” District Attorney Greg Mashburn said, “ I will have a conversation with a family with a guy who’s been six times in the county jail for meth, and then he kills somebody. And, I will have to tell them, if the law hadn’t change, I might could have stopped this guy. ”

Media editorials

Support

• The Sooner Politics editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on State Questions 780 and 781.
• The Oklahoman said: "State Questions 780 and 781 would reduce the penalties for some nonviolent crimes and use any resulting savings to fund rehabilitation and drug treatment programs. There are valid concerns about these proposals, but the law can be tweaked in future years as needed. The Oklahoman endorses a “yes” vote on both questions."
• The Tulsa World said: "Like drug addiction, incarceration is an expensive habit, and hard one to break. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Locking up more people than any state except Louisiana isn't making our state any safer. It's just making it poorer. It's time to wise up to realities and get smart on crime."
• The Journal Record said: "Treatment is cheaper than prison by a wide margin and statistically has much better outcomes. Locking up drug users for long stays in the penitentiary has accomplished nothing but crowded prisons and a lot of taxpayer expense. State Question 780 takes the lessons learned from the past 30 years and adjusts the system to a less expensive, more humane, more successful system and we encourage Oklahomans to vote yes."

Other opinions

• The Tulsa World editorial board wrote in July 2016 that, while it hadn't decided about the details of Question 780 and 781, it approved of what it saw as the goals of the proponents of the measures. The board wrote, "Oklahoma locks up too many people, and it isn’t doing enough to divert people from prison and into programs that can help turn their lives around. [...] If they do nothing more than provoke a full public discussion of Oklahoma’s expensive and ineffective mass incarceration, then they’ve served a purpose."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oklahoma ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$4,727,620.48
Opposition:	$4,290.00

As of February 1, 2017, one ballot measure committee, Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, formed to support State Question 780. The committee also backed State Question 781. One committee, VOTENO780.COM, formed to oppose the measure. Supporters raised $4,727,620.48 and spent $4,727,620.48, as of February 1, 2017.

Support

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform	$4,727,620.48	$4,727,620.48
Total	$4,727,620.48	$4,727,620.48

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform committee as of February 1, 2017:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
ACLU	$3,280,000.00	$561,267.12	$3,841,267.12
FWD US, Inc.	$700,000.00	$0.00	$700,000.00
Precision Strategies	$40,000.00	$0.00	$40,000.00
Devon Energy	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
BancFirst	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Opposition

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
VOTENO780.COM	$4,290.00	$4,290.00
Total	$4,290.00	$4,290.00

The following were the top five donors who contributed to VOTENO780 as of February 1, 2017:

Donor	Amount
JB Askins	$1,000.00
Ken Boyer	$1,000.00
Laurie Poole	$600.00
Jerry Dowell	$500.00
Connie Albritton	$200.00

Polls

The Oklahoman commissioned a poll of 398 likely voters from SoonerPoll in late July of 2016. The poll showed that 75 percent of likely voters supported State Question 780 and that 71 percent supported State Question 781.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

The measure was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on January 27, 2016. According to Oklahoma law, after a petition is approved, supporters have 90 days to collect the required number of valid signatures. Petitioners for State Question 780 needed to collect 65,987 valid signatures by early June, provided no official complaints complicated the process of approving the initiative for circulation.

Supporters submitted over 110,000 signatures on June 2, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $544,706.05 was spent to collect the 65,987 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.25.

Legal challenge

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners	Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R)
Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal.	Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title was accurately and neutrally explained the state question.

  Source: Justia US Law

On June 9, 2016, Oklahoma Secretary of State Scott Pruitt reworded the ballot title. Supporters filed a request to the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to reject the revised ballot title wording, because, they said, it contained language that was biased in opposition to the measure. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that both the original and revised ballot title wording were biased or inaccurate. New ballot titles were written, and the court allowed State Question 780 to be placed on the November 2016 ballot.

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
• Influencers in Oklahoma
• Oklahoma fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• Oklahoma 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Oklahoma Legislature
• List of Oklahoma ballot measures
• Oklahoma Secretary of State, "Search State Questions"

External links

• Oklahoma 2016 State Questions Guide
• Oklahoma State Election Board: 2016 State Questions
• Oklahoma Policy Institute State Question Guide
• Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs 2016 Ballot Measure Voters' Guide

Support

• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 website
• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 Facebook
• Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform/Yes on 780 and 781 Twitter

Opposition

• Vote No 780 website