Oklahoma — State Question 662 (1996)

Overview

Oklahoma voters adopted State Question 662 (1996), establishing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure included provisions authorizing informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

The measure formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Measure Identification

• Measure name: State Question 662

• Year: 1996

• Adoption method: Citizen initiative constitutional amendment

• Election date: November 5, 1996

• Result: Approved

Ballot Language

State Question 662 instructed Oklahoma’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

three terms for Members of the House of Representatives
two terms for Members of the Senate

The amendment also authorized informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The amendment instructed Oklahoma’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction expressed the position of Oklahoma voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

State Question 662 authorized informational ballot statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These statements communicated candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Following adoption of State Question 662, Oklahoma election officials were authorized to implement informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Administrative History

The constitutional validity of ballot informational statements in federal elections was later addressed by the Supreme Court in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Litigation History

No separate Supreme Court litigation specific to Oklahoma’s State Question 662 produced a controlling decision.

However, the broader legal environment surrounding ballot informational statements in federal elections was affected by litigation in other states culminating in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike addressed ballot informational statements used to favor or disfavor candidates based on policy positions in federal elections.

Because Oklahoma’s amendment authorized similar informational ballot statements, the decision affected the broader legal viability of such systems.

Institutional Design Observations

Oklahoma’s State Question 662 illustrates the instruction + ballot informational statement architecture used in several ballot instruction initiatives adopted in 1996.

The amendment combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the proposed amendment.

Sources

• Oklahoma State Election Board — State Question 662 (1996) ballot materials and election records
  https://oklahoma.gov/elections

• Oklahoma State Election Board — 1996 General Election Results
  https://oklahoma.gov/elections/results.html

• Ballotpedia — Oklahoma Congressional Term Limits Instruction Initiative (State Question 662, 1996)
  https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Congressional_Term_Limits_Instruction_Initiative,_State_Question_662_(1996)

• Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/510/