Here’s the official ballot title for State Question 847, as it will appear on your November 3 ballot:
This measure amends article 10, sections 8B and 8C of the Oklahoma Constitution. Currently, section 8B limits annual growth in fair cash value to 5% for most real property or 3% for homesteads and agricultural land. If approved, the measure would limit annual growth in fair cash value for tax year 2027 and after to 4% for most real property or 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land. Currently, section 8C prohibits any increase in fair cash value of homestead property for persons age sixty-five (65) or older whose income does not exceed certain limits, sometimes referred to as the “senior freeze.” Instead of prohibiting any increase in fair cash value for these homesteads, there would be an annual limit of 1.75%. The measure eliminates the income cap on gross household income to qualify for the senior freeze. If approved, the annual limit on an increase in fair cash value would be tied to how much gross household income the homestead owner had in the preceding year. If a homeowner’s gross household income from the previous year was at or below the median income for their county or area (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s estimated median income amount for the county or metropolitan statistical area), a homeowner’s homestead fair cash value cannot be increased. If the income amount was in excess of certain thresholds, the limit on increases in fair cash value for homesteads owned by persons age 65 or older could be 0.35% (income over 100% up to 120%); 0.7% (income over 120% up to 140%); 1.05% (income over 140% up to 160%); 1.4% (income over 160% up to 180%); or 1.75% (income over 180%). If passed, this measure would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal – YES
Against the proposal – NO
What supporters and opponents say
- Supporters say property taxes have become unaffordable, and slowing how fast taxable values can rise would give homeowners some long-term relief. They say current local revenue isn’t cut, only its future growth, so local governments can adjust their budgets without cutting services, and that seniors who earn too much to qualify for the senior freeze could get relief, too.
- Opponents say this wouldn’t help most Oklahomans very much and would actually cause serious problems by decreasing tax revenues needed to maintain local governments.
Adapted from our 2026 State Questions Guide and OK Policy’s fact sheet.
Our recommendation: vote no
Let’s Fix This recommends a NO vote on State Question 847. But don’t take our word for it. Read OK Policy’s fact sheet on SQ 847 (or download it as a PDF), then hear from the Oklahomans below: teachers, a firefighter, a nurse, CareerTech students, parents, and public officials.
“I know from years of feedback that the top funding priorities for residents are streets and education.
State Question 847 does one thing only—it lowers the funding that goes towards streets and education—the two things you care most about.
If State Question 847 passes, we will see a decline in our streets and in our schools. No one wants that. A no vote on State Question 847 is the only way to support these two critical priorities.”
“The passage of SQ847 would cause the state to lose $42 million in its first year alone, by year ten that is $575 million less per year coming in to support public schools, career techs, libraries, first responders and county government.
The main entities that will see lower property taxes are corporations. There is no viable revenue source to replace that revenue, which will inevitably lead to rural school closures and loss of services to citizens.
I urge you to vote no on SQ 847.”
“We need tax cuts, but State Question 847 doesn’t actually cut your taxes.
What it does is force lawmakers to raise your sales taxes or cut essential services like emergency management, roads, schools, and CareerTechs.”
“SQ 847 would limit the local resources available to support essential services, leaving our community more dependent on the state legislature to decide our funding priorities.
I believe those decisions should remain in the hands of our community, which is why I’m voting NO on SQ 847.”
“For more than 20 years, I’ve dedicated my career to public education, but as a dad, this is personal.
The ballot language for SQ 847 says, ‘If passed, this measure would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown.’ When it comes to our public schools and the future we’re building for our kids, I’m not willing to gamble on an unknown.
And that’s why I’m voting NO on SQ 847.”
“Property taxes allow us to invest in our own children and their futures. Don’t let state lawmakers take away our ability to continue improving our schools and our community.
I urge you to vote no on SQ 847.”
“State Question 847 might appear to be good, but it is asking us to do more with less, less firefighters, less 911 operators, and less local input.
I urge you to vote no on SQ847.”
“As a nurse for 20 years, I understand the importance that CareerTechs provide in educating our healthcare professionals.
SQ847 does not cut your taxes, but it does cut the available funding for local services like career techs and shifts the control of who gets to make the decision of what gets funded to the state legislature.
I am voting no on SQ847 and I urge you to do the same.”
“Oklahomans have invested in their libraries for generations. We should protect that investment while finding better ways to address the unaffordability of this current economy.
Vote NO on SQ847 to protect our libraries.”
“I’m learning how to install and repair the heating & air systems at Mid-America Technology Center. I want a solid job, a decent paycheck, and to actually build my future here in Oklahoma.
I looked into SQ847, it won’t actually lower anyone’s current property taxes. Instead, it seems like it would put funding for public schools and CareerTech programs at risk. And that’s where students like me learn skills, find good jobs, and build a better life.
I’m a NO on SQ847.”
“I earned my Certified Nursing Assistant education through CareerTech.
State Question 847 limits opportunities for workforce training in local communities—leaving us reliant on the state legislature to decide which communities get funding and help.
I am voting NO on State Question 847.”
“I plan to vote NO on State Question 847 and keep local control of our tax dollars where it belongs: in our communities, supporting the people who live and work here.”
“I’m all for lowering my property taxes, but not at the expense of what I value most in my community.
Those tax dollars are essential in supporting the public schools my children attend, our local library that we frequent as a family, Francis Tuttle, our career tech that trains so many workers, and our local law enforcement.
With savings ranging from $0–$69/year, it just is not worth it to sacrifice these valuable entities in our community.”