Until she started trying to convince Republican voters that she's a tough-on-crime conservative, Colleen McCarty frequently spoke out to protect career criminals from tougher laws. In 2021, State Sen. Lonnie Paxton proposed SB 334. The bill would allow courts to aggregate multiple misdemeanor larcenies within a six-month period. The effect would be that if the total amount stolen within those six months reached a felony level, the perp could be charged with a felony, with the potential of felony penalties, instead of multiple misdemeanors. It would make it harder for someone to make a career of thefts just below the felony threshold. In March 2021, Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform produced a one-minute video opposing SB 334. When OCJR produced this video, this is the entirety of the change that would have been made to existing law:

B. When three or more separate offenses under this section are committed within a ninety-day one hundred eighty-day period, the value of the goods, edible meat or other corporeal property involved in each larceny offense may be aggregated to determine the total value for purposes of determining the appropriate punishment under this section.

Here is the text of the video:

Text on screen: WHY IS SENATE BILL 334 BAD FOR OKLAHOMA? Colleen McCarty, OCJR Policy Counsel: If you think about where you were 6 months ago versus right now, totally different things were probably happening in your lives, different stressors, different uh considerations, different risks that you're assessing every day. In the context of SB 334, that's important to think about. Text on screen: OKLAHOMA SENATE BILL 334 COMBINES AN OFFENDER'S MISDEMEANOR THEFT CHARGES OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD AND TURNS THEM INTO A FELONY Colleen McCarty, OCJR Policy Counsel: It's important to remember that in America when you commit a crime, you get charged with that crime. Text on screen: THE LEGISLATION SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR OKLAHOMANS AND DEFIES VOTERS BY ROLLING BACK REFORM Colleen McCarty, OCJR Policy Counsel: The collateral consequences of of this are massive. Text on screen, over a man in an orange suit in a jail cell: THE LAW WILL UNNECESSARILY CREATE MORE FELONS WHO RELY ON TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND BECOME DEPENDENT ON THE SYSTEM Kris Steele, OCJR Executive Director: It makes no sense to spend literally $20,000 a year to incarcerate somebody who steals $1,000 worth of merchandise uh to either meet their basic needs or to feed an addiction.

While SB 334 passed both House and Senate with nearly identical language, some legislative technicalities kept it from going to the Governor's desk in 2021. The 180-day language was eventually passed and is current law: 21 O.S. § 1731 I am still scratching my head over what McCarty is trying to imply with her strange words. Is she saying it's understandable that you might just accidentally find yourself stealing again within a six-month window because of "different stressors, different considerations"? Note that the video mutes her during the second statement, and you have to assume that the muted words were even more incoherent. Consider that what you hear was the best of the material they had to work with. Terrifying. I am befuddled even more by the postcard I received today of a handful of alleged conservatives endorsing McCarty. Watch the video three or four times and ask yourself, Do I want this inarticulate, ill-prepared, soft-headed liberal leading the fight against crime in Tulsa County?
- May 12, 2026 at 12:26AM
Colleen McCarty: Multiple thefts shouldn't be a felony
Click the headline to read the full story.

Colleen McCarty, the long-time Democrat advocate for "criminal justice reform" and "alternatives to incarceration" who is running for Tulsa County District Attorney as a "Republican," used to have a fairly well-followed Twitter (now X) account. While she has deleted her Twitter account, a couple of threads of her tweets have survived thanks to ThreadReaderApp. In reaction to my article on McCarty's short, progressive, soft-on-crime resume, her supporters have claimed that she can't be blamed for the initiatives she led and the position papers she wrote as Policy Counsel and Deputy Director of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and as the Founding Executive Director at Oklahoma Appleseed Project for Law and Justice. They claim, implausibly, that these were just jobs, that she might not necessarily agree with the work of those organizations, that she was just following orders from the board. What a ludicrous apologetic! As a law student, McCarty could have published articles on any number of legal subjects, but she chose to publish articles supporting SQ 780 and 781 and opposing the efforts of District Attorneys to mitigate the damage those sentence-reducing "criminal justice reform" initiatives did to law enforcement in Oklahoma. As a newly minted attorney, a wide range of fields of practice were open to her; she chose to work exclusively for organizations pushing to reduce incarceration rates -- to help criminals avoid the consequences of their crimes. Any claims that these were merely jobs evaporate in light of what survives of her well-scrubbed social-media history. One of the surviving threads, McCarty's pitch in support of State Question 805, is clearly a heartfelt explanation of her personal motives driving her career and her personal philosophy of crime and punishment. Below is a Colleen McCarty Twitter thread dated October 17, 2020. SQ 805 was on the November 2020 ballot. It was a constitutional amendment to eliminate sentence enhancements for a convicted criminal's prior crimes. In other words, prosecutors would not be able to seek, and judges and juries would not be able to impose, tougher sentences on repeat offenders. Happily, Oklahoma voters defeated SQ 805, with 61% voting no. SQ 805 was heavily backed by national left-wing groups like FWD.us and the ACLU, who contributed a combined $6.3 million to its passage, and by local liberal Democrat leaders like former Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor, former Governor Brad Henry, and disgraced former Governor David Walters. Conservative leaders like Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell, victims of violence, law enforcement, and prosecutors united to oppose SQ 805. Former Gov. Frank Keating, writing in opposition to SQ 805, called it "the ultimate gift to the career criminal and the insect crime wave of the lifetime repeat offender." Keating noted that under SQ 805, if you repeatedly commit one of many "very serious and dangerous" criminal acts, such as drunk driving and causing injury, child trafficking, incest, hate crimes, stalking and violation of protective orders, and drug distribution, "a second offense remains a first offense for punishment. No matter how many times you offend. There is no 'enhancement' permitted. 'After Former Conviction of a Felony' will become a useless phrase. A person's selfish and destructive long life of crime will be handled as one first offense after another. The fifteenth offense is the first offense as far as punishment goes.... How many times can a criminal do these? As many as they wish. Each time, they will be treated as a first offender." In this thread, Colleen McCarty calls for passage of SQ 805, implying, in a statement with racist overtones, that "citizens of color" are more likely to be repeat offenders:

Voting Yes on 805 means doing justice. We are eliminating enhancements on nonviolent crimes which reflects the enhancements systems in other states and brings OK's sentencing into the modern age. To continue to participate and architect a system that perpetuates cycles of harm on citizens of color and low income communities is not doing justice. It is immoral and cruel.

Colleen McCarty reveals what drove her career choices in the thread. Her initial desire to be a prosecutor was "inspired by @adamjohnfoss and his work around restorative justice" and cites an example of putting a thief "on a plan" instead of taking him to trial. "This type of justice was what I was interested in as a legal intern in the DA's office." [According to her LinkedIn profile, McCarty's DA office internships lasted two months in Tulsa County and one month in Wagoner County.] McCarty's use of the term "justice" is typical of the left. She confuses justice with mercy when she writes, "Sometimes it means convicting, sometimes [i]t means dismissing." Neither convicting, the prerogative of a jury, nor dismissing, the prerogative of a judge, is in the hands of the prosecutor. Justice for a thief is to be convicted and penalized for his crime. She is calling for mercy, to spare a young man from the punishment he deserves for the crime he has committed. Undergirding this whole approach to justice is a failure to understand human nature. It doesn't work -- not even in schools -- because some people have decided to pursue evil. Let's learn more about Colleen McCarty's inspiration: Adam Foss served 7 years and 9 months as an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in the Suffolk County, Massachusetts, DA's office -- that's in Boston. He gave a TED talk in 2016, "A Prosecutor's Vision for a Better Justice System," that gave him a national profile. In 2017, he founded Prosecutor Impact, described on the University of Oregon's Diversity and Inclusion page as "a non-profit developing training and curriculum for prosecutors to reframe their role in the criminal justice system." (Emphasis added.) A left-wing foundation that gave a $250,000 grant to Prosecutor Impact described the organization:

Adam Foss's experience as an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in Boston convinced him that prosecutors are the most influential actors in the criminal justice system. One ADA's discretion and decisions can make the difference between a young person being charged with multiple felonies and beginning their adulthood in prison, or being diverted from the system without a criminal record and giving them second chance. By providing ADAs with the training and resources to approach their jobs with compassion, knowledge and creativity, he believes he can make a substantial impact on thousands, if not millions, of lives. Foss founded Prosecutor Impact in 2016 and began to seek partners who would be willing to test a radical new way to prepare ADAs for work. PI's model is very new, but grounded in experience and research and tested on a small scale in other cities. This proposal would support an unprecedented partnership in Philadelphia's District Attorney's office that will allow them to credibly test their eight-week program for incoming prosecutors.

Prosecutor Impact went out of business circa 2020, but its website was captured by the Wayback Machine. A page called "The Role of the Prosecutor" sets out the strategy of Prosecutor Impact: Expose new ADAs to "those most in contact with the criminal justice system" in order to "inform prosecutors' decision-making at all points in the life of case [sic]". Foss wanted to groom ADAs to resist "pressures from judges, veteran police officers, court clerks, seasoned defense attorneys, and senior colleagues... [that] can wear down the resolve of new prosecutors and leave them feeling unsupported to make the tough decisions we want them to." "Prosecutors are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. Because they choose who to charge, what to charge them with, and the number and severity of the charges, prosecutors heavily influence the short and long-term outcomes of the people impacted by the system." In a nutshell, the vision of criminal justice that inspired Colleen McCarty to go to law school is one in which progressive lawyers infiltrate DA's offices to become prosecutors who choose not to prosecute crimes. It's a vision of criminal justice that puts the criminal's future first. Protecting the public from predators is an afterthought. McCarty says that her brief exposure to prosecution as a law student intern in the Tulsa County and Wagoner County DA's offices (two months and one month, respectively) convinced her that "it's impossible to 'do justice' in OKs justice system. The system has been written and architected to be unjust and to foster unjust results. One of the main reasons for this is sentence enhancements for any prior felony." Seeing the Oklahoma District Attorney's Association (ODAA) successfully advocate against banning these prosecutorial tools against career criminals enraged McCarty and turned her against prosecution as a career.

When a task force in 2016 recommended restricting the use of sentence enhancements they put a bill forward to accomplish this. This is essentially the policy in State Question 805. The ODAA fought it and killed it in committee. FOUR TIMES.... Seeing how our elected DAs actively thwart the creation of a just system ultimately [p]ushed me out of choosing prosecution as a profession.

I'm going to guess that Colleen McCarty's publication and advocacy record by that point, her work for Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform to commute sentences and here law review articles arguing that DAs should stop finding workarounds to jail repeat offenders and drug pushers, would have made her a less-than-attractive applicant for an ADA position in any Oklahoma DA's office. Instead, she went to work as an attorney and then Deputy Director for Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and then founded the Oklahoma Appleseed Project, two organizations funded by leftist foundations and actively agitating to make it easier for career criminals to avoid jail or get out of jail earlier than they should, where they can go back to their career of hurting Oklahomans. If your goal is to radically redefine the work of prosecuting crime, and you can't get hired as an ADA to infiltrate the system, running for DA as a stealth candidate would be the only path to your goal. Colleen McCarty has been telling us for years exactly what kind of DA she wants to be. Colleen McCarty has been telling us for years that her vision of justice puts the criminal's best interests first. Here's hoping that Tulsa County's Republican voters will have the discernment to see that. Here's the whole Colleen McCarty thread in support of SQ 805, as preserved by ThreadReaderApp:

[THREAD] I went to law school to be a prosecutor. I was attracted to the job because the prosecutor's duty is to "do justice." This is the commonly and dearly held belief in the profession. Doing justice means just what it says. Sometimes it means convicting, sometimes (1/18) It means dismissing. I was inspired by @adamjohnfoss and his work around restorative justice. In his @TEDTalks he discusses being able to put a defendant on a plan instead of taking him to trial for theft. Defendant was a young kid. Due to Adam's redirect as the (2/18) Prosecutor, the kid repaid all the damage done and ultimately went on to become a doctor. He would never have been able to go to medical school with a felony on his record. This type of justice was what I was interested in as a legal intern in the DA's office. (3/18) I worked for two different DAs in OK, urban and rural. Truthfully loved everyone I worked with and for. They taught me the law. I will always appreciate them for that. But, what I came to realize is it's impossible to "do justice" in OKs justice system. (4/18) The system has been written and architected to be unjust and to foster unjust results. One of the main reasons for this is sentence enhancements for any prior felony. Another maxim I heard routinely was "we just follow the law." The idea that they may not like the law (5/18) But they will follow it. DAs often paint themselves as removed from the law-making process and project an air that their duty is to follow the letter of the law. The whole system hinges on this idea - this is how we decide to charge crimes and apply discretion. (6/18) The problem is that this idea is false. In OK there is no more powerful lawmaking body than the DA's Council (DAC). This body runs the OK DA's Association (ODAA) who lobbies on their behalf for law changes. This body has never lobbied for reform. They have used their (7/18) Power and influence to fight reform every step of the way, even lobbying to repeal voter-led change in 2016. They use taxpayer funds to fight the changes the very same taxpayers voted for. This is how "doing justice" is applied OK. (8/18) The DAC and the ODAA have lobbied to add felonies, make more crimes violent, lengthen sentence ranges, and effectively make the harshest justice system in the world even harsher. They do not lobby for alternatives to prison nor do they put forward any change that would (9/18) Reduce OK's incarceration crisis. When a task force in 2016 recommended restricting the use of sentence enhancements they put a bill forward to accomplish this. This is essentially the policy in State Question 805 (10/18) The ODAA fought it and killed it in committee. FOUR TIMES. Running 805 as a bill would have allowed different crimes to be excluded and compromises to be made. Instead it's been killed so many times there is no hope of passing this policy legislatively. (11/18) Doing justice means creating a just system. It means letting the people create a just system. It means not fighting just reforms. Doing justice is not restricted only to the courtroom. Seeing how our elected DAs actively thwart the creation of a just system ultimately (12/18) Pushed me out of choosing prosecution as a profession. I believe creating a just system that does not routinely dole out life sentences for low level crimes is the most just work I can ever or will ever do. (13/18) Voting Yes on 805 means doing justice. We are eliminating enhancements on nonviolent crimes which reflects the enhancements systems in other states and brings OK's sentencing into the modern age. (14/18) To continue to participate and architect a system that perpetuates cycles of harm on citizens of color and low income communities is not doing justice. It is immoral and cruel. (15/18) To fight against modest reforms and fear monger their own constituents is in violation of the oath violates their duties as public servants. They swore to utter no falsehoods. They pledged to do justice. (16/18) We as citizens have the ability to do what our leaders and public servants refuse to do. We can vote to correct decades of overcriminalization and government overreach that has destroyed our state. (17/18) If our prosecutors refuse to do justice, then we the people will do it for them. (18/18) #yeson805 #massincarceration #criminaljustice #justicereformok

For your convenience, here's a downloadable PDF of Colleen McCarty's October 17, 2020, thread. In the other thread, dated January 17, 2021, Colleen McCarty complains about proposed legislation that would make it harder to put leftist policies on the ballot. "Since Oklahomans have used the initiative petition process to pass many significant law changes in the last five years (including criminal justice reforms (SQ780/781), Medicaid expansion (SQ802), and medical marijuana (SQ788)) this is something that should concern all of us." (Downloadable PDF. ) MORE: On the occasion of her promotion to Deputy Director of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, Colleen McCarty wrote a personal reflection. She speaks of "the carceral system" and "the overwhelming scale of our state's incarceration crisis." She demands, "It is imperative that we center the voices of BIPOC communities who are over-policed and overrepresented in our legal system." She cheers budget-busting Medicaid expansion.

May 3rd, 2021 Re: Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform Deputy Director Dear Advocates and Stakeholders, I began my career with Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform in 2018 as a legal intern helping to commute excessive sentences for crimes that are now misdemeanors. The experience opened my eyes to the overwhelming scale of our state's incarceration crisis. I learned injustice is the rule rather than the exception in Oklahoma. As I continued through law school and worked within the justice system, stories of Oklahomans trapped in the carceral system stuck with me. As Policy Counsel, I have worked with our team, coalition members, and advocates across the state to move legislation that addresses Oklahoma's overreliance on incarceration. Today I am excited to announce that I have accepted the position of Deputy Director for Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform. I am thankful for the opportunity and for the groundwork laid by my predecessor, Clint Castleberry, who will continue his amazing work at the Department of Corrections as the state begins to implement Medicaid Expansion. We will continue to advocate for Oklahomans caught in the carceral system. We do this by fighting for reform and elevating public safety to the forefront of each conversation. It is imperative that we center the voices of BIPOC communities who are over-policed and overrepresented in our legal system. I'm excited to see all we can do together. Let's get to work! Colleen McCarty, Esq.

- May 9, 2026 at 01:40AM
Colleen McCarty's kind of justice: Putting the criminal first
Click the headline to read the full story.

You can learn a lot about a candidate from her LinkedIn profile. Hazy, gauzy work references on campaign mailers ("Small business owner!" "Entrepreneur!" "Community leader!") come into sharp focus, with organization names, dates of service, and job titles. Colleen McCarty's LinkedIn profile reveals some things about her that ought to worry any Tulsa County resident who cares about public safety, anyone who has seen the damage done in cities across the nation by progressive DAs of the sort elected with the help of George Soros's money. Every job Colleen McCarty has had since becoming a lawyer has had turning criminals loose (euphemistically described as reducing incarceration rates) as a primary aim. A friend who has seen McCarty speak a few times tells me that "she's an open book." Well, I've been reading that book, looking at the organizations she's led and the position papers she's written. The public speeches and private conversations on the campaign trail are just a new cover designed to market the leftist, soft-on-crime contents of the book to naïve conservatives. You should never judge a book by its cover. Although she was a registered Democrat voter until a couple of years ago, and although she's only been an attorney for five and a half years, with only a few law-school internships as prosecutorial experience, McCarty is running as a Republican against incumbent District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler. The primary will be held on June 16, 2026. So let's take a tour of Colleen McCarty's LinkedIn. Starting at the top, we see that she has her pronouns listed: "(She/Her)." Not a typical feature of a conservative's profile. The preview of recent posts includes her claim to have "out raised [her] opponent by 3 times." In fact, Steve Kunzweiler raised $49,555.01, while McCarty raised $58,511.00. That's more, but not three times more. McCarty appears to be counting the $100,000.00 she loaned to the campaign. We've seen this move before: A loan to your own campaign can be a way to hide donors that might be politically inconvenient; these donors give after the election and the post-election contributions then are used to reimburse the candidate. This can be coordinated in advance, but the voters won't know until it's too late. There's a lot to discuss in her LinkedIn profile, so if you're on the home page, click the "Continue reading" link as we delve into Colleen McCarty's work experience.
- May 6, 2026 at 09:37PM
Colleen McCarty's short, progressive, soft-on-crime resume
Click the headline to read the full story.

In addition to a lengthy primary ballot, Oklahoma voters will decide on June 16, 2026, whether to approve or reject a permanent and annually escalating increase in the minimum wage in Oklahoma. Oklahomans should reject this job-killer that is being pushed by socialists and other economic ignoramuses. As economist Thomas Sowell says, the real minimum wage is always zero. If the economic benefit of a job is less than a mandated minimum wage, that job simply won't exist. The passage of higher state and local minimum wages has led to an increase in automation and elimination of jobs that provide young people a first step into the job market. From Sowell's Basic Economics:

Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker's productivity worth that amount -- and if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed. Yet minimum wage laws are almost always discussed politically in terms of the benefits on workers who receive those wages. Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force.

Pay for entry-level jobs has already been on the rise, above the statutory minimum wage, as employers face a shrinking labor pool. And an entry-level job is not meant to support a family. It's meant to be a place where you learn the basic habits needed to work with other people and for other people, and to begin to learn and improve skills so that your labor can become valuable enough to support a family. Oklahomans should vote no but probably won't, because a lot of money has been and will be spent to put sob-stories on TV commercials. Raising the minimum wage sounds like the "nice" thing to do, as long as you don't think about the people who will spend more time with no job at all, because employers (particularly the many small businesses that give young people their first shot at a job) will have to cut costs to stay in business, and because many small businesses just won't make it. If you actually want to understand the harm SQ 832 will do, read OCPA's articles on the topic or visit their website dedicated to the issue, www.sq832killsjobs.com. We don't have to guess about this effect. The State of Washington's youth labor participation rate dropped as its minimum wage was on the same kind of inflation-indexed escalator created by 832. A targeted increase for fast-food workers in California killed jobs in that industry and stressed related industries. Now to the details you won't see in the ads or on the ballot. Here is what voting yes on SQ 832 means in legal terms. SQ 832 is a statutory initiative petition. Because a statute can be amended without a vote of the people, the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot is lower than for a constitutional amendment. If SQ 832 passes, it will amend Oklahoma's existing minimum wage law, originally passed in 1965, 40 O.S. 197.1-197.17. Specifically, passage would amend section 197.2, which currently sets the Oklahoma minimum wage equal to the Federal minimum wage, and section 197.4, which defines who is and is not covered under the law. SQ 832 would also repeal 197.5. After the jump, you can see exactly what language will be added and what will be deleted. You might wonder why Oklahoma has a minimum wage law at all, given the existence of a federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage only applies to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, under the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, the definition of which has been stretched to include just about every possible activity. The Oklahoma law acts as a backstop, covering any business that is outside the Federal Government's vast reach. There is currently a provision exempting employers who are covered under federal law, so that there is no potential conflict; that provision would be eliminated under 832. There are exemptions under the existing law, many of which would be eliminated under 832. If SQ 832 passes, farm workers and feed-store employees, domestic servants (e.g. nannies, housekeepers), paperboys, part-time employees (less than 25 hours per week), high school students under 18 and college students under 22 would no longer be exempt from the state minimum wage. Exemptions would remain for federal employees, volunteers for charitable, religious, and non-profit organizations, truck drivers (regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission), reserve deputy sheriffs, anyone in an executive, managerial, or professional job, and outside salesmen. There will remain an existing exemption for businesses who have 10 or fewer full-time-equivalent employees at any one location and generate gross revenues of $100,000 or less, but that exemption level will not be indexed to inflation. Under SQ 832 the Oklahoma minimum wage would immediately increase from $7.25 to $10.50 per hour, then to $12 in 2027, $13.50 in 2028, and $15 in 2029. From that point forward, it would be indexed to CPI-W, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, a measure that, according to the US Department of Labor, reflects the spending of about 30% of the US population. The proponents could have chosen an inflation index that better reflects Oklahoma's economy. They chose the option that increases the fastest. A broader measure, CPI-U, reflects about 90% of the US population. Here's an article from 2014 explaining the distinction between CPI-W and CPI-U and why both measures are maintained. CPI-U is also calculated for Census Bureau regions. CPI-U for the West South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana) has been tracked since 2017. Over the last 8 years, CPI-U West South Central has increased by 27.470%, while CPI-W has increased by 31.800%. But any indexing strategy risks an inflationary doom loop: Increasing prices trigger increased wages which increase business costs which increase prices. There's no provision to stop the escalator in response to a local recession. After the link, the changes to the law that will be enacted if 832 passes.
- April 19, 2026 at 04:54PM
SQ 832: Vote no on the infinite minimum-wage escalator
Click the headline to read the full story.

In addition to a lengthy primary ballot, Oklahoma voters will decide on June 16, 2026, whether to approve or reject a permanent and annually escalating increase in the minimum wage in Oklahoma. Oklahomans should reject this job-killer that is being pushed by socialists and other economic ignoramuses. As economist Thomas Sowell says, the real minimum wage is always zero. If the economic benefit of a job is less than a mandated minimum wage, that job simply won't exist. The passage of higher state and local minimum wages has led to an increase in automation and elimination of jobs that provide young people a first step into the job market. From Sowell's Basic Economics:

Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker's productivity worth that amount -- and if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed. Yet minimum wage laws are almost always discussed politically in terms of the benefits on workers who receive those wages. Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force.

Pay for entry-level jobs has already been on the rise, above the statutory minimum wage, as employers face a shrinking labor pool. And an entry-level job is not meant to support a family. It's meant to be a place where you learn the basic habits needed to work with other people and for other people, and to begin to learn and improve skills so that your labor can become valuable enough to support a family. Oklahomans should vote no but probably won't, because a lot of money has been and will be spent to put sob-stories on TV commercials. Raising the minimum wage sounds like the "nice" thing to do, as long as you don't think about the people who will spend more time with no job at all, because employers (particularly the many small businesses that give young people their first shot at a job) will have to cut costs to stay in business, and because many small businesses just won't make it. If you actually want to understand the harm SQ 832 will do, read OCPA's articles on the topic or visit their website dedicated to the issue, www.sq832killsjobs.com. We don't have to guess about this effect. The State of Washington's youth labor participation rate dropped as its minimum wage was on the same kind of inflation-indexed escalator created by 832. A targeted increase for fast-food workers in California killed jobs in that industry and stressed related industries. Now to the details you won't see in the ads or on the ballot. Here is what voting yes on SQ 832 means in legal terms. SQ 832 is a statutory initiative petition. Because a statute can be amended without a vote of the people, the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot is lower than for a constitutional amendment. If SQ 832 passes, it will amend Oklahoma's existing minimum wage law, originally passed in 1965, 40 O.S. 197.1-197.17. Specifically, passage would amend section 197.2, which currently sets the Oklahoma minimum wage equal to the Federal minimum wage, and section 197.4, which defines who is and is not covered under the law. SQ 832 would also repeal 197.5. After the jump, you can see exactly what language will be added and what will be deleted. You might wonder why Oklahoma has a minimum wage law at all, given the existence of a federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage only applies to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, under the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, the definition of which has been stretched to include just about every possible activity. The Oklahoma law acts as a backstop, covering any business that is outside the Federal Government's vast reach. There is currently a provision exempting employers who are covered under federal law, so that there is no potential conflict; that provision would be eliminated under 832. There are exemptions under the existing law, many of which would be eliminated under 832. If SQ 832 passes, farm workers and feed-store employees, domestic servants (e.g. nannies, housekeepers), paperboys, part-time employees (less than 25 hours per week), high school students under 18 and college students under 22 would no longer be exempt from the state minimum wage. Exemptions would remain for federal employees, volunteers for charitable, religious, and non-profit organizations, truck drivers (regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission), reserve deputy sheriffs, anyone in an executive, managerial, or professional job, and outside salesmen. There will remain an existing exemption for businesses who have 10 or fewer full-time-equivalent employees at any one location and generate gross revenues of $100,000 or less, but that exemption level will not be indexed to inflation. Under SQ 832 the Oklahoma minimum wage would immediately increase from $7.25 to $10.50 per hour, then to $12 in 2027, $13.50 in 2028, and $15 in 2029. From that point forward, it would be indexed to CPI-W, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, a measure that, according to the US Department of Labor, reflects the spending of about 30% of the US population. The proponents could have chosen an inflation index that better reflects Oklahoma's economy. They chose the option that increases the fastest. A broader measure, CPI-U, reflects about 90% of the US population. Here's an article from 2014 explaining the distinction between CPI-W and CPI-U and why both measures are maintained. CPI-U is also calculated for Census Bureau regions. CPI-U for the West South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana) has been tracked since 2017. Over the last 8 years, CPI-U West South Central has increased by 27.470%, while CPI-W has increased by 31.800%. But any indexing strategy risks an inflationary doom loop: Increasing prices trigger increased wages which increase business costs which increase prices. There's no provision to stop the escalator in response to a local recession. After the link, the changes to the law that will be enacted if 832 passes.
- April 17, 2026 at 09:54PM
SQ 832: Vote no on the infinite minimum-wage escalator
Click the headline to read the full story.

Postdated to remain at the top of the page until the polls close on Tuesday, April 7, 2026. Tuesday, April 7, 2026, is general election day for K-12 school board seats in Oklahoma. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Seats on technology center boards (what we used to call vocational-technical, or vo-tech, schools) are also on the ballot. Some cities (Sapulpa among them) have city council runoffs, and there are some municipal and school district propositions up for a vote as well, including four school bond propositions in Tulsa and seven general obligation bond issues and a sales tax increase in Broken Arrow. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see. Not everyone will have a reason to go to the polls today, but TPS, Broken Arrow, and Tulsa Tech District 7 cover a lot of area and a lot of voters between them, so double-check, just to be sure. The following are my recommendations in the April 7, 2026, election, for races and propositions in the Tulsa and nearby cities and school districts. The name of the office links to the article I wrote on that race or proposition; the candidate's name leads to the candidate's website. Although party affiliation doesn't appear on the ballot for school and most municipal elections in Oklahoma, I've noted it below for those candidates I'm recommending. School board elections: Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 4: E'Lena Ashley (R)(i) Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 7: Michael Phillips (R) Tulsa Technology District, Office No. 7: Jim W. Baker (R) (i) Justus-Tiawah Public Schools, Office No. 1: Ted King (R) Liberty Public Schools, Office No. 1: Timothy Brown (R) Mannford Public Schools, Office No. 1: Clayton Paslay (R) Verdigris Public Schools, Office No. 1: Alicia Nees (R) School propositions: Tulsa Public Schools, Propositions 1 through 4 (Bond Issues): No Inola Public Schools, Propositions 1 & 2 (Bond Issues): No Central Tech, Proposition (2 mill permanent increase): Yes Municipal elections: Bixby, City of, Ward 4: Brad Girard (R) (i) Sapulpa, City of, Ward 1, Seat 1: Mike Harris (R) Sapulpa, City of, Ward 3, Seat 1: Alexander Hamilton (R) (i) Sapulpa, City of, Ward 5, Seat 1: Davood Mortazavi (R) (i) Municipal propositions: Broken Arrow, City of, Propositions 1 through 7 (Bond Issues): Yes Broken Arrow, City of, Proposition 8 (0.5%, five-year sales tax increase): No Oologah, Town of, Proposition (5% hotel tax increase): No
- April 7, 2026 at 08:00PM
2026 Oklahoma School Board general election: BatesLine ballot card
Click the headline to read the full story.

Three municipalities in the Tulsa metropolitan area have council seats and a proposition on the April 7, 2026, ballot. Here is a brief account of each with my recommendations. Oologah, Town of, Proposition (5% hotel tax increase): No. There is nothing about this election on the town's website or Facebook page, which suggests an intent to slide this past the voters unawares. The town has an existing lodging tax, but no hotels or motels. Taxes shouldn't be on an April ballot where voters have no other reason to go to the polls, and for that reason alone it should be defeated. City of Bixby, Ward 4: Brad Girard (R) (i). I haven't found any complaints about eight-year incumbent Girard, currently the councilor serving as mayor. His opponent is Jake Rowland, also a registered Republican, who has filed for state representative and school board in the past. Rowland has posted about running for office, but hasn't posted anything about his reasons for running. Sapulpa City Council: Sapulpa has elections for three seats on its City Council. In Ward 1, appointed incumbent Democrat Elizabeth Reeder-Nicolas is challenged by Republican Mike Harris, pastor of Beams of Light Church in Sapulpa. There was a third candidate, Brandon Mull, owner of Water Street Tattoo, but he was eliminated in the February primary, just 10 votes behind the second-place candidate. (Nicolas got 74 votes, Harris 71, Mull 61.) Mull has endorsed Nicolas. In Ward 3, Republican incumbent Alexander Hamilton faces Republican challenger Charlie Leroy Harrison, owner of Beverly Fine Jewelry. In Ward 5, Republican incumbent Davood Mortazavi, owner of Steak & Eggs restaurant, has a Republican challenger in Kent Glesener, a professional engineer, owner of Paradigm Construction and Engineering and co-founder of Shofar International Foundation. Sapulpa Firefighters IAFF Local 194 has endorsed Nicolas and Mortazavi. The Sapulpa FOP has also endorsed Nicolas and Mortazavi. They did not make any endorsements in Ward 3. There has been a huge ruckus in the Ward 5 race. A troublemaker printed off copies of an article about sharia law by Christie Glesener, co-founder of Shofar International Foundation, and then stapled a slip of paper to it calling attention to Mortazavi's exotic name, implying that there was a danger that he might impose Islamic law on Sapulpa. (Here is a four-page, text-only version of Christie Glesener's article on sharia law from 2011.) Mortazavi came to America from Iran as a child in 1983, one of many Iranian families that came to the United States after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to take refuge from the tyrannical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Steak and Eggs restaurant, owned by Davood and his brother Jerry, features Veterans Hall, a separate dining room decorated with portraits of local veterans and available for free as a meeting place for local civic groups. Christie and Kent Glesener have denounced the distribution of the article and insist that they were not involved in any way. Christie Glesener directly denied involvement in response to a Facebook post by a relative of Mortazavi. Micah Choquette of the Sapulpa Times reported on the controversy in the Monday episode of the newspaper's podcast, but also reported on the recent final determination in a U. S. Department of Labor case against Paradigm Construction and Engineering, the firm owned by the Gleseners. The company has been debarred from federal contracts for three years because of violations of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage act, misclassification of employees, and failure to pay overtime. The Gleseners made a final appeal to refer the case to the Secretary of Labor for review, but that appeal was denied on March 6, 2026. The DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) case number is 16-01093/94, and the Office of Administrative Law Judge case number is 2017-DBA-00010, and the Administrative Review Board case number is 2023-0054. Running a case search with any of those numbers will turn up a docket report tracing the case's history from 2017 to 2026. Here are links to the Administrative Law Judge's denial of summary judgment from August 27, 2020, the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order from August 28, 2023, Administrator's Response Brief from May 10, 2024, and the Decision and Order from January 30, 2026. However much one may disagree with the Davis-Bacon Act, if you're going to be a federal contractor, you had better obey the law and adhere to all the federal regulations that apply and are spelled out in your contract. If you screw up, best to admit fault and bring your practices into compliance. Sapulpa Times has a playlist of interviews with candidates for Ward 1 and Ward 5. (Ward 3 candidates declined to be interviewed.) Included in the playlist is an interview with Central Tech Superintendent Kent Burris discussing the proposed permanent millage increase for the Career Tech district, which also appears on the April 7 ballot. Here is a map of Sapulpa council districts. Ward 1 is the oldest section of Sapulpa, mainly between Main and Mission. Ward 3 is the southernmost district. Ward 5 covers mainly newly annexed areas east of Polecat Creek or north of Hilton Road. I can appreciate the frustration that many Sapulpans have, particularly Sapulpans with businesses on Dewey Avenue (Route 66), with city decisions that have blocked access to their businesses, and the feeling that city government cares more about a few blocks of downtown while neglecting the rest of the city. My recommendations: Sapulpa, City of, Ward 1: Mike Harris (R) Sapulpa, City of, Ward 3: Alexander Hamilton (R) (i) Sapulpa, City of, Ward 5: Davood Mortazavi (R) (i)
- April 7, 2026 at 12:39AM
Oologah, Bixby, and Sapulpa 2026 municipal elections
Click the headline to read the full story.

Broken Arrow voters will face eight propositions on the Tuesday, April 7, 2026, ballot. The first seven are 20-year general obligation bond issues which will be repaid by higher property taxes. Proposition No. 8 is a half-cent, five-year sales tax for sports facilities. Here is the sample ballot. All seven bond issues are for 20-year terms. Below are the amounts and purposes listed in the gist for each proposition as listed on the ballot, stripped of the bond issue boilerplate: Prop 1, Transportation Projects, $205,000,000: constructing, reconstructing, repairing, improving, and rehabilitating streets, roads, bridges, and intersections in the City (including lighting, sidewalks/bikepaths, landscaping, related drainage improvements, driveway reconstruction, and other related improvements). Prop 2, Public Safety Projects, $65,000,000: acquiring, constructing, expanding, renovating, repairing, and/or equipping public safety buildings, facilities, and equipment, all to be owned exclusively by the City. Prop 3, Quality of Life Projects, $74,000,000: constructing, expanding, repairing, which may also include improving, renovating, acquiring and equipping parks and recreational facilities, all to be owned exclusively by the City, or in the alternative to acquire all or a distinct portion of such property pursuant to a lease purchase arrangement. Prop 4, Public Facilities Projects, $65,000,000: acquiring, constructing, expanding, renovating, repairing, and equipping municipal buildings, facilities, and equipment, all to be owned exclusively by the City. Prop 5, Stormwater Projects, $6,000,000: constructing, expanding, repairing, which may also include improving, renovating, acquiring and equipping stormwater facilities on property owned exclusively or in part by the City. Prop 6, Drainage Projects, $5,000,000: drainage improvements to property owned exclusively or in part by the City. Prop 7, Library Project, $4,000,000: economic and community development including a new South Broken Arrow library. Prop 8, Sports Facilities Sales Tax, 0.5% for 5 years: sports facilities benefitting the City, including but not limited to Indian Springs Sports Complex, Arrowhead Softball Complex, Nienhuis Sports Complex, and Challenger Sports Complex. The Bond Transparency Act of 2017 (God bless State Rep. John Paul Jordan and State Sen. Nathan Dahm for getting this in the statute book) disclosure lists the specific projects for each bond proposal, along with an estimated cost for each. Unlike the "district wide" fudge in the Tulsa Public Schools' list of bond projects, Broken Arrow names specific intersections and subdivisions. For example:

Widen and/or improve Tucson Street (121st Street) from Aspen Avenue (145th E. Avenue) to Olive Avenue (129th E. Avenue) including, but not limited to, design, construction of required appurtenances, and acquisition of easements and right-of-way. $15,600,000

The biggest single item in the seven bond propositions is $42 million for a new community center at Elam Park, near Aspen and Florence behind Aspen Creek Elementary, plus an additional $4 million for outdoor facilities at the park. That money is in Proposition 3. Proposition 4 for Public Facilities includes renovation and expansion of the Senior Center, Rose District Plaza, the BA History Museum, and Arts@302, and moving the Military History Museum to near Veterans Park. The Bond Transparency Act disclosure goes all the way back to the 2004 Bond Issue, listing projects funded with past bonds, percent complete, and which bonds are still outstanding. The bond issue vote-yes website states that bonds will be sold over an 11-year period as current bonds expire to keep the overall millage rate from rising. If the bond issues fail, property taxes on a home worth the median value in Broken Arrow of $229,300 will drop gradually, reaching a savings of $110.98 per year by 2030 and $324.37 per year for 2038 and thereafter (if no other bond issue is approved). So well done to Broken Arrow officials for listing specific projects and grouping them according to subject matter, unlike Tulsa Public Schools and Inola Public Schools. That earns them some trust. If I lived in Broken Arrow, I would be inclined to vote for most or all of the first seven propositions. On the other hand, putting the propositions on the ballot in April, when there is nothing else on the ballot for most Broken Arrow residents, is a bad-faith move. It indicates an intention to minimize turnout in order to allow those who have a direct interest in passage to dominate the electorate. Even worse is putting a significant sales tax increase for questionable sports facilities expenditures on the same ballot as far less controversial bond issue proposals that won't raise tax rates over current levels. Proponents have been careful to avoid mentioning that Proposition 8 raises the sales tax rate, and in the Wagoner County part of the city, the total rate (state, county, city) will be over 10%. You have to be tuned in to the fact that they don't give the usual reassurance that your sales tax rate won't go up, as when one temporary tax replaces another. It looks like they're hoping that voters won't distinguish between the propositions, and they'll keep voting yes out of momentum. The package of propositions has generated some opposition. Fox 23 (or 8.2 or whatever it actually is now) covered Thursday night's protest by Taxed Enough Already (TEA), and Brent Watson has posted his reasons for opposing Proposition 8:

Why TEA opposes the Broken Arrow 2026 Sales Tax Increase EXTREME

• If passed this increase will place us in the top 1% of sales tax rates imposed on citizens. The combined tax rate for Broken Arrow citizens living in Wagoner County would be 10.1%. There is something very wrong with a double-digit sales tax rate! This is higher that most folks tithe to their churches.
• The ONLY major ***cities in the US with higher rates are Chicago at 10.25% and Seattle at 10.35%. Citizens of BA do not want to live in Chicago, and we don't want to be taxed like that! Don't Chicago our Broken Arrow! ***Population >500,000
• For those living in Tulsa County, the combined rate will be nearly 9% - 8.917% This is far above the average US sales tax rate of 7.53.

EXPENSIVE

• For a family of four, this tax will cost over $1,760. This regressive, anti-family tax would cost approximately $441 per person over the 5-year life. Styling this as a "half-penny" is disingenuous.

UNNECESSARY

• This is an unnecessary tax to replace sports facilities. This is not for necessary provisions like roads, police, or fire protection. The City should live within its budget. Alternate funding, including raising user fees, redirecting other spending or obtaining private donations can be used to make improvements.

ENDURING

• This will probably become a permanent tax. Despite the City's assurance that this is a 5-year tax, history shows that most temporary taxes are rolled over into other permanent taxes - as was the Vision 2025 tax. Also, all 7 bond proposals are rollovers of previously imposed property taxes - just now designated for other usages. This is how temporary taxes become permanent taxes.

IMPROPERLY PURSUED

• City leaders scheduled this as a special election instead of placing it with a primary or general election. Special elections are often decided by less than 20% (sometimes less than 5%) of registered voters. Officials know that they can count on those with vested interests to vote for these taxes. This is how our taxes continue to be raised incrementally to very high rates. Additionally, the City has spent a huge amount of money on billboards and expensive mailers promoting this tax increase. They have omitted disclosing the true cost per person and family and that this would raise part of Broken Arrow to a sales tax rate over 10%. This would mean that every time someone spends $100 at WalMart, they would pay over $10 in tax.

SUMMARY: We are taxed enough already. In the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, we are rising to oppose oppressive taxes. Please vote for family and common sense values and vote NO April 7 to this tax grab. We need to tell our city leaders: "Don't Chicago my Broken Arrow!" NOTES: As of early 2026, the nationwide population-weighted average combined state and local sales tax rate in the United States is approximately 7.53%. Tax Foundation Calculation of cost per capita: The City states collections will total about $53M, divided by current population of 120,000 = $441.67/person.

If I lived in BA, I would vote Yes on Propositions 1 through 7 (bond issues), NO on Proposition 8 (sales tax).
- April 3, 2026 at 11:11AM
Broken Arrow 2026 bond issues and sales tax increase
Click the headline to read the full story.

Some information on other school board races and school propositions in the Tulsa area. Keep in mind that I don't live in these communities, and so my information is limited, but what I've found, I present below, and hopefully you'll find it helpful. I'd welcome any additional information readers could offer. I will tell you how I would vote based on what I've presented, but treat it as a very tentative recommendation, particularly in the school board races. Inola school bond issue: Inola Public Schools has two propositions, each for $29,900,000, over 18 years, with very similar lists of specific projects on each. The Bond 2026 page has a pretty detailed explanation and a response to Frequently Asked Questions, such as the impact of the expansion Sofidel facility on the Net Assessed Value of property in the district, which is the basis for calculating property tax increases to repay the bonds. They acknowledge that property taxes will increase if either or both propositions pass, while a more recent 2023 bond issue will expire in 2028. The Sofidel plant expansion will not benefit the school district for 7 years because it is in a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district and any taxes resulting from the increase in property value will be captured for TIF district improvements. Proponents state that the taxes are necessary to address overcrowding in schools, as new housing developments are being built and modular buildings are already being used to house the 1st Grade. The expansion would also allow 5th graders to move out of the middle/high school campus and back to elementary school. The Inola Bond Transparency Act statement lists the spending on the much smaller 2023 bond issue propositions, $2,075,000.00 for building improvements and materials, and $510,000.00 for vehicles for pupil transportation. As in Tulsa, the Inola bond propositions are a hodgepodge of different types of projects. There's no way to vote for air conditioning for the secondary gym or additional elementary classrooms without also voting for giving out Chromebooks to all the students. Districts and municipalities consistently violate the state constitution's single-subject rule, and they get away with it, because someone would have to pay for the lawsuit to enforce it, with no guarantee that a judge would handle the suit fairly. I noticed a few Vote No signs around Inola, including the two planted at the intersection of Broadway and Commercial next to two Vote Yes signs (photo above). One of the signs claims that 37% of the money raised by the property tax increase will leave the district to pay banks and investors. Given the amount being raised and the long term of the bonds, that is not surprising. My inclination would be to vote no and then ask the board to try again, with different propositions to allow voters to pick and choose which spending they deem necessary (more classrooms, air conditioning for the old gym) and which (Chromebooks) they deem harmful. Whittling the propositions down to the most essential would also make it easier and less expensive to finance the projects. Central Tech 2-mill property tax increase: Central Tech is the Career Tech district covering nearly all of Creek County, plus parts of Osage, Pawnee, Payne, and Lincoln Counties. The district is seeking a permanent tax increase of 2 mills, to be added to the current levy of 10 mills for general fund and 3 mills for the building fund. The district has no bonded indebtedness. The website for the tax increase says, "Many long-term career programs are at capacity, and there are more than 400 students currently on wait lists." The district's Estimate of Needs lays out Central Tech's revenues and expenditures from 2024-2025 and the forecast numbers for 2025-2026. The additional 2 mills would generate an estimated $3.3 million per year in addition to the roughly $22 million in taxes currently generated. An extra 2 mills is an extra $20 per year on a $100,000 house with a homestead exemption. That would be 15 mills total; compare that with 13.33 mills for Tulsa Technology Center. A yes or no vote would depend on how confident I was in the stewardship of the Central Tech board and administration. I could see where a district with a lower net valuation would need a higher millage than Tulsa Tech to generate sufficient revenue to meet program demand. You can read the most recent two years' audits on the State Auditor's website: 2023-2024, 2022-2023. I don't see any adverse findings. I'd lean towards voting yes. After the jump, a look at school board races in Liberty, Verdigris, and Mannford.
- April 1, 2026 at 11:19PM
Oklahoma school election 2026: Inola, Liberty, Mannford, Verdigris, Central Tech
Click the headline to read the full story.

Tulsa Public Schools is asking voters to approve four bond issue propositions, totalling $609 million, on the April 7, 2026, ballot. Every voter registered within the boundaries of Tulsa Public Schools is eligible to vote, regardless of party registration, whether or not you have children in TPS, whether or not you directly pay property taxes. The breakdown and ballot language is here. Proposition No. 1: $200,985,000, due in 5 years, "to provide funds for the purpose of purchasing or acquiring textbooks, library books, electronic media content, computer software, perpetual or continuous district software license agreements and web-based software subscriptions, along with programs and facilities for early childhood, Montessori, stem labs, post-secondary readiness, fine arts, and athletics including the construction, equipping, repairing and remodeling of those facilities, acquiring and improving school sites, and purchasing or acquiring school furniture, fixtures, and equipment...." Proposition No. 2: $276,000,000, due in 15 years, for "repairing, remodeling, constructing and equipping school buildings, purchasing or acquiring school furniture, fixtures and equipment and acquiring and improving school sites...." Proposition No. 3: $104,785,000, due in 5 years, for "purchasing or acquiring technology equipment including computer hardware and software and web-based software subscriptions along with repairing and remodeling school buildings to accommodate technology equipment...." Proposition No. 4: 27,230,000, due in 5 years, for "purchasing or acquiring transportation equipment...." There's a further "breakdown" of each proposition into "specific projects" at the link, but it doesn't get into specifics as to which school sites will receive the specified improvements. The term "district wide" gets used a lot. The grouping is puzzling, and there seems to be overlap between Prop 1 and Prop 3 when it comes to computer equipment. The phrase "including but not limited to" applies to each list of spending line items. There really isn't a way for a voter to choose traditional bond issue items like building repairs, without also voting for computer software. It's a violation, in spirit, of the single-subject rule in the Oklahoma Constitution. The biggest line items in the breakdown, everything over $10 million, in descending order:

• $119,095,000 in Prop 2: Remodeling of various school facilities district wide; furniture purchase or acquisition for school facilities district wide; painting flooring service contracts for school facilities district wide; window repair and replacement for school facilities district wide; foundation and paving repairs for school facilities district wide; and LED lighting replacement for school facilities district wide.
• $68,324,000 in Prop 3: Student & Teaching Technology
• $67,760,000 in Prop 2: HVAC repair and replacement for school facilities district wide
• $61,292,000 in Prop 1: Instructional learning materials; textbooks; instructional electronic media content and software; exceptional and special needs equipment and curriculum
• $42,192,000 in Prop 2: Safety and Security, Entries, Fencing and Radios including secure entry and security improvement for school facilities district wide; fencing at school facilities district wide; radios district wide and alarm panels and sensor replacements for school facilities district wide
• $40,900,000 in Prop 1: Post-secondary readiness and career academies district wide
• $40,567,000 in Prop 1: Wellness and physical education equipment purchase or acquisition; and constructing, equipping, repairing and remodeling school facilities district wide including sports fields, turf, and facilities
• $33,730,000 in Prop 3: Cybersecurity, data storage, and network systems and software
• $22,000,000 in Prop 2: Roof replacement or repair for school facilities district wide
• $14,020,000 in Prop 4: Buses
• $12,804,000 in Prop 1: Fine arts facilities district wide including improvements to auditorium stage, sound, and lighting; fine arts uniforms, equipment, and instruments
• $12,250,000 in Prop 2: Dining, kitchen improvements and kitchen equipment purchase or acquisition for school facilities district wide
• $11,550,000 in Prop 1: Site project funding for repairing, remodeling, constructing, and equipping school facilities district wide along with the purchase or acquisition of equipment
• $10,860,000 in Prop 1: Early childhood and Montessori programs district wide

The money for "post-secondary readiness and career academies" and "early childhood and Montessori programs" looks like mission creep. Is this money for new buildings? It can't be used to pay salaries. Will it be used to pay consultants? Are these projects that the philanthropocrats are pushing for? Former Tulsa City Councilor and financial analyst Jayme Fowler urges a no vote on all four propositions. He points out that the TPS cost per student is 25% more than the cost of private school and has increased 56% since 2018, with a 73% increase in non-instructional costs and a 21% drop in student achievement in that same time frame. Fowler notes that TPS had about 80,000 students and 9 high schools in 1969. 57 years later, TPS still has 9 high schools but only about 34,000 students. (Granted, TPS opened a high school, Mason, and closed it a few years later in the 1970s.) Fowler wants TPS to consolidate programs to fewer campuses and sell off surplus properties. TPS Per Pupil Expenditure is $14,415.28. That's twice the amount per student spent by Tulsa Classical Academy ($7,115.67) and higher than the state average of $11,962.54. Fowler writes:

This $609 Million bond package is business as usual on auto-pilot. The bonds continue the long history of zero accountability and the inevitable waste of tax-payer money. But far worse, they rob our children of the future they deserve and reward the system and the people responsible for that theft. The proposals are entirely out of sync with the TPS 5-year plan. The Pathways to Opportunity plan is a commitment made to students and families that TPS must keep.

Fowler reminds us that TPS was audited on a small portion of their spending, and the audit found massive fraud:

[The State Auditor] Investigated $37.7 million in spending, 2015 - 2023. Only included 90 vendors and 900 invoices. That's less than 1% of the $4.1 Billion spent by TPS in that timeframe. [The audit] Uncovered wire fraud, misappropriation of funds, illegal no-bid contracts & payments, and coordinated attempts to hide spending related communications in violation of the open records act. A single person, Devin Fletcher was charged for misappropriating $824,000. TPS Illegally paid over $500,000 in bonuses to 35 administrators and 5 other employees through a third-party, Foundation for Tulsa Schools. It's time to audit the other 99% of TPS spending!

Not all conservatives are opposed to the bond issues. Bob Jack, former Tulsa County Republican Party chairman, served on the TPS Bond Development Committee and urges voters to support it. He claims that concerns of lack of financial control are outdated. "...[U]nder the leadership of a new CFO and the addition of internal auditor, patrons of TPS can be assured that the problems of the past are no longer an excuse." Oklahoma's use of long and rotating board terms, with elections happening at an odd time of year, mean that our public school boards don't have much in the way of effective accountability from the voters. Unfortunately, at most two Tulsa board members are up for election every year, and it takes four years for each seat to come up in turn. Voting down bond issues are an excellent way for voters to get the attention of the board and the administration. I could make an argument for voting for Propositions 2 and 4, which are more in line with traditional bond issues for facilities and transportation, but against 1 and 3, which includes new programs and more money for non-facility items. Even so, TPS's record of financial irresponsibility makes me wonder about how much fluff and padding is in the numbers for those "non-controversial" line items. It would be reasonable to expect the board to commit to truly specific projects, naming the schools that will receive new roofs or the specific sports and fine arts facilities that will be upgraded. That would also be a way for the voters to ensure that there isn't favoritism in the allocation of improvement money to schools. Without those specifics, there's nothing to hold TPS to. I encourage TPS residents to vote no on April 7, 2026, on all four Tulsa Public School bond issues. MORE: The Bond Transparency Act of 2017 requires public school districts to report annually on their outstanding bond issues -- how much was approved, how much has been bonded, how much has been spent and on what specific items. These reports do delve into which specific school buildings received which upgrades and at what cost.

• 2015 Tulsa Public Schools Bond Transparency Report
• 2021 Tulsa Public Schools Bond Transparency Report
• Tulsa Public Schools 2021 Bond Website

- March 31, 2026 at 12:54PM
Tulsa Public Schools 2026 bond issues: No on all four
Click the headline to read the full story.