SQ 836: Just say no to jungle primaries

A flock of very aggressive petition circulators have been accosting shoppers in parking lots over the last month or so, trying to meet the signature requirement to put State Question 836 on the Oklahoma ballot. The deadline for signature collection is in the next few days. They call SQ 836 an initiative petition for open primaries, but that isn't accurate. Texas and other states have open primaries by virtue of the fact that they don't have party registration for voters. In Texas, each election year you decide before the primary date in March whether you will take the Republican, Democrat, or some other party ballot, and that limits you to that party for the rest of the year, but you could choose to take a different party's ballot the following year. SQ 836 would set up a jungle primary, in which all voters (all who bother to show up) would choose from all candidates of all parties in a single primary. If no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the top two candidates, regardless of party, would advance to a runoff. The only difference between this and the City of Tulsa's non-partisan elections is that party labels could appear on the ballot. Under the SQ 836 system, the general election (really a runoff) would only offer the voters two choices. There would be no third-party candidates, no independent candidates, no option even for a protest vote against the top two. It's a bad idea that sounds very small-d democratic. An example of how it goes wrong is the governor's race in Louisiana in 1991: Several reasonable candidates (including incumbent governor Buddy Roemer) split the majority of the vote in the primary, so that the top two to advance to the general were Edwin Edwards, a crooked former governor who had lost the 1987 election, who had already been tried for corruption, and who would later serve time in prison for racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and David Duke, a former Klan Grand Wizard. There was a popular bumper sticker at the time that read, "Vote for the Crook. It's important." Because it was a top-two runoff, voters had no other options, no independent or third-party candidates to choose from, no way to cast a protest vote. Wikipedia's description of that election:

The first round primary gubernatorial contest included Roemer, Edwin Edwards, David Duke, and Eighth District Congressman Holloway who all ran in Louisiana's open primary. Roemer was wounded by his mistakes as governor, while Edwards and Duke each had a passionate core group of supporters. Roemer placed third in the primary. One of the contributing factors to his defeat was a last-minute advertising barrage by Marine Shale owner Jack Kent; Marine Shale had been targeted by the Roemer administration as a polluter, and Kent spent $500,000 of his own money in the closing days of the campaign to purchase anti-Roemer commercials.

Had Holloway not run, Roemer likely would have finished second and given voters a sensible choice in the runoff. The SQ 836 system is very sensitive to spoiler candidates, who, with some dark-money backing, could win enough support to take out all the reasonable choices in the race. Average voters who have been seduced by SQ 836 believe that they'll have as many choices as they do today. But nothing is static, and these changes will push parties to return to the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms." As a strategic matter, parties would develop private processes to select a party-backed nominee to represent the party on the ballot, in order to avoid splitting the majority party's vote among several candidates and allowing the other party to win with a tiny minority. To enforce this unity, parties would have to impose penalties on any party member who files for office without the party's endorsement. This is the system used in the UK; the nomination process is entirely private. SQ 836 is a massive, two-page-long constitutional amendment, an awkward add-on that would be called "Article 3A." That link will take you to the actual language that the petition-backers wants to stick into the Oklahoma Constitution. The details of Oklahoma's election processes are currently set out in statute, where they can be adjusted by legislation over time. SQ 836 would write processes in stone. Even if you wanted something like SQ 836's system, but saw some minor changes you'd want to make, you wouldn't have the power. This massive constitutional amendment is generic, developed by its out-of-state promoters, and it doesn't plug in neatly to the language used elsewhere in Oklahoma's constitution. It even has a severability clause, for pete's sake, which means the authors of SQ 836 expect that some aspects of it will be thrown out by courts; who knows what will survive? Voters and candidates will have to live with uncertainty while challenges move through the courts, and whatever does survive court challenges will be extremely hard to change however mutilated it may be. Backers say we need this because there are too many elections decided in Republican primaries because no Democrats, Libertarians, or independents bother to file for office. There's an obvious remedy that doesn't require a constitutional amendment: File for office, and be sane enough to appeal to voters. Back in the 1970s, when my family lived in Wagoner County, there were many county offices that were decided without any input from my parents, who were rare registered Republicans in that heavily Democrat county. That was the norm all over Oklahoma as recently as the 1970s, but the situation has completely flipped, without the help of constitutional amendments that change the election system. Republicans started running for those offices, and voters, who were already voting for Republicans over the loony leftist Democrats at the Federal level, started voting for Republicans at the county and local level. 1964 was the last time that Oklahoma gave its electoral votes to a Democrat, but it wasn't until the 2000s that Republicans gained majorities in the legislature, and it was the 2010s before the GOP became dominant in county government. There's a lot more that could and has been said. OCPA has a lot of material on SQ 836 on their website. OCPA has also set up a website to urge Oklahomans NOT to sign the 836 petition: DeclineToSign.com If you signed the petition for SQ 836 and have come to regret it, there is a way to rescind your signature. There is a form from the Secretary of State's office that you will need to fill out, then sign in front of a notary public (UPS Stores and banks usually have a notary), then submit in person or by mail to the Secretary of State's office in Oklahoma City. Withdraw of Signature Affidavit - Statewide Petitions - oksos2025.pdf. Here are the instructions:

1. Please provide your name, address and county information, as it appears on your voter registration record.
2. Must identify and state the petition number and state question number for signature removal [Petition Number 448, State Question 836]
3. Along with the date the petition was signed
4. Execute/Sign your affidavit, in witness of an Oklahoma Notary Public (only handwritten, original signatures are accepted).
5. Notary public must fully execute their witness statement accordingly.
6. Then, please mail or deliver in person your original (copies are not accepted), fully executed affidavit to:

Oklahoma Secretary of State Exec/Leg Division - Statewide Petitions Oklahoma State Capitol Bldg. 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Ste. 122 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

No Republican elected official has come out in support of SQ 836. David Holt, a former Republican state senator who now serves a part-time non-partisan position as chairman of the Oklahoma City Council, is its most prominent supporter.
- January 21, 2026 at 01:54AM
SQ 836: Just say no to jungle primaries
Click the headline to read the full story.