Oklahoma ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Oklahoma State Question 847, explained
Lower caps on annual growth in property values. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wordingWhat appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
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 it actually means
Oklahoma taxes property on its "fair cash value," and the constitution caps how fast that value can rise each year — 5% for most property, 3% for a home you live in or for farmland. This measure lowers those caps to 4% and 1.75% from 2027. It also rewrites the senior freeze: today a homeowner 65 or older whose income is under the county median sees no increase at all, and everyone above that line gets nothing; under the measure the freeze stays for those at or below the median and seniors above it get a sliding cap from 0.35% up to 1.75% depending on income. Property taxes in Oklahoma fund schools, CareerTech and county government, not the state.
If you vote YES
- From tax year 2027 the annual cap on growth in assessed value falls from 5% to 4% for commercial and other non-homestead property, and from 3% to 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land.
- The senior freeze stops being all-or-nothing. A homeowner 65 or older with household income at or below the county median (as measured by HUD) still sees no increase; above that, the cap is 0.35% up to 120% of median, 0.7% to 140%, 1.05% to 160%, 1.4% to 180%, and 1.75% above 180%.
- The income cap that currently disqualifies higher-income seniors from any protection is eliminated, so every homeowner over 65 gets some limit on growth.
- Local property tax revenue would grow more slowly than under current law. The caps do not cut anyone's current bill — they slow future increases.
- The caps still do not apply in a year when a property is sold or improved: on sale the value resets to the sale price, so a new buyer can inherit a much larger bill than the previous owner paid.
- The Attorney General's ballot title states the measure will have a fiscal impact on the state, but that the exact impact is unknown.
If you vote NO
- Article X, Section 8B keeps the caps set by voters in 1996 and 2012: 5% a year for most property, 3% for homesteads and agricultural land.
- The senior freeze stays as it is — a complete freeze on assessed value for homeowners 65 or older whose household income is at or below the county median, and nothing for those above it.
- Assessed values for schools, CareerTech, counties and other local services keep growing at the current caps, which are above recent inflation for most property.
- Nothing changes about the reset on sale or the treatment of improvements, which are already outside the caps.
The numbers that matter
- Cap on most property, now and proposed
- 5% → 4% a year
- Cap on homesteads and agricultural land, now and proposed
- 3% → 1.75% a year
- Senior caps by income, as a share of county median
- 0% at or below 100%; 0.35% to 120%; 0.7% to 140%; 1.05% to 160%; 1.4% to 180%; 1.75% above 180%
- Fiscal impact
- An impact on the state, amount unknown
Article X, Section 8B, Oklahoma Constitution, as amended by the measure from tax year 2027
Article X, Section 8B, Oklahoma Constitution, as amended by the measure from tax year 2027
Attorney General's Final Ballot Title; median measured by HUD for the county or metropolitan statistical area
Attorney General's Final Ballot Title, certified by the Secretary of State
What each side says2 for, 2 against — quoted, not summarised
Why supporters say YES
"Seniors often live on a fixed income, so tax relief for them ensures they are not priced out of their homes. This senior freeze is tiered so it does not disincentivize work, but also gives older Oklahomans much-needed tax relief."
— House Speaker Kyle Hilbert (R-29), the measure's principal House author
The measure limits increases but local entities could still pass bonds to pay for what they need, and property is reassessed at full value when it is sold, which would probably easily cover the costs.
— Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton (R-Tuttle), the measure's principal Senate author, on the Senate floor
Why opponents say NO
"[The amendment] severely restricts future revenue growth from property taxes. This means less revenue for local services across the board, permanently. This will be the largest cut to public education and career techs in recent history. SJR 39 doesn't help, it hurts Oklahoma communities."
— Oklahoma Policy Institute
"Lower caps will mean slower growth. Which means less revenue for schools, CareerTechs and roads, but with the same debt obligation and that reduces their capacity to take on, or even support existing bonds."
— State Rep. Ellen Pogemiller (D-88)
What's genuinely uncertain
- The size of the fiscal effect is officially unknown. The Attorney General's ballot title says only that there will be an impact on the state and that the exact amount cannot be stated; no dollar estimate was published.
- Whether bills go up or down for any given owner is contested. The Oklahoma Policy Institute argues that because voter-approved bond payments must still be made, local governments may have to raise millage rates, which would raise bills even where assessed values are capped. Supporters say bonding capacity and the reset on sale absorb the difference. Neither case has been tested.
- Opposition is not only from the left. Sen. Kendal Sacchieri (R-Blanchard) called the measure a "slap in the face" for offering too little relief, and Sen. Lisa Standridge (R-Norman) said it "enrolls them in the Jelly of the Month Club." A vote against it can mean wanting more relief as well as wanting none.
- No committee had registered to support or oppose SQ 847 as of July 31, 2026, so there is no campaign finance record for either side.
- How many seniors would be newly protected depends on HUD's county median income figures, which change each year.
The bottom line
Slower growth in property tax bills, and a senior freeze that reaches further up the income scale, set against slower growth in the money that schools, CareerTech and county services run on — with no official estimate of how much.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Sources (4)The numbers in the text above link here
- 1State Question 847, Legislative Referendum 381 — Enrolled SJR 39, Attorney General ballot titles and Secretary of State certification — sos.ok.gov
- 2State Question 847 – Changing assessment caps for property tax — Oklahoma Policy Institute — okpolicy.org
- 3Oklahoma voters to decide property tax question in November — Oklahoma Voice — oklahomavoice.com
- 4Oklahoma State Question 847, Reduce Annual Increases in Property Values for Tax Calculations Amendment (2026) — Ballotpedia — ballotpedia.org
Checking it against the official text
The Oklahoma State Election Board publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Oklahoma State Election Board.
Other measures on the Oklahoma ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in Oklahoma
- Oklahoma governor's race
- Oklahoma's 1st congressional district
- Oklahoma's 2nd congressional district
- Oklahoma's 3rd congressional district
- Oklahoma's 4th congressional district
- Oklahoma's 5th congressional district