I have the opposite feeling. If we can't get a tax passed for parks (very popular), how will we do so for transit, granted it's a larger voting area.

Well, the Chamber and most OKC elected officials will actually support the RTA. You'll notice that only a portion of OKC's elected Council publicly supported the Parks tax. And the Chamber certainly didn't pay for a pro-campaign like they've done for Maps. And the police/fire unions stayed silent. Not too hard to see how the Parks tax ended up not passing.

Interesting...

Yes for MAPS4: 31,882
Yes for Parks: 50,228


Obviously, lots more voters in the Parks initiative.
Wasn’t MAPS 4 an off election? I would bet the voter turnout was much lower. Typical tactics to get something to pass or fail depending on the strategy used.

Interesting...

Yes for MAPS4: 31,882
Yes for Parks: 50,228


Obviously, lots more voters in the Parks initiative.

I think MAPS planned it that way. AllI know is in my district everyone I talked to prior to MAPS4 vote was against it yet it passed easily (in my district). And all I talked to about parks were pretty evenly split for and against. Yet parks lost and MAPS won.

It tells me a lot of voters were disenfranchised by “when” they held the MAPS vote vs Parks was held during a Primary.

Yes, those who did not want MAPS yet failed to vote can’t complain. But reality is the city held MAPS vote intentionally when they knew less would vote and those voting would pass it. I’d loved to have seen MAPS on yesterdays ballot. It still may have passed but we’ll never know.

Thanks for posting the comparison, I had no idea so few turned out for MAPS vote

I think "disenfranchised" is too strong of a word there. I would think any proposition to raise taxes would face an uphill battle when voted on at the same time as a presidential vote regardless of what the tax would be used for. There is bound to be a large percentage of the population that is generally uninformed and will shoot anything down if it involves raising taxes. Not saying that stance isn't valid if you are familiar with the proposition, but I would argue that it's more "fair" to vote on something like MAPS in an off election.

^

There was also an expensive TV and billboard campaign against the proposition funded by a local dark money group.

For people who didn't know the details, they just saw "Say NO to new taxes" and that was that.

I will admit that the biggest reason I voted against the parks tax was that I did not want Ed Shadid thinking he could run the city. He lost in his bid to be mayor and he chose to leave the city council. I think he chose to pursue this tax increase outside the normal flow of the powers that be in OKC. I'm not saying they are the greatest and purest, but I trust Mayor Holt and other city leadership.

I think "disenfranchised" is too strong of a word there. I would think any proposition to raise taxes would face an uphill battle when voted on at the same time as a presidential vote regardless of what the tax would be used for. There is bound to be a large percentage of the population that is generally uninformed and will shoot anything down if it involves raising taxes. Not saying that stance isn't valid if you are familiar with the proposition, but I would argue that it's more "fair" to vote on something like MAPS in an off election.

You make really great points. But let me counter.

You say more voters means MAPS likely fails. I would contend most people voting have done some type research and are better informed than non voters. So when we get less voters we are not franchising a bigger segment of the voters.

I caution that with those who failed to vote can only blame themselves. But timing is everything and imo MAPS planned it when they get less voters. I may be wrong but was surprised when MAPS passed at least in my district. Then I see the numbers and it tells me many stayed away. Primaries get more voters out so tactically they didn’t hold MAPS til then as it may not have passed?

Its a great topic and just shows how much variance in voter numbers there is and how it can really make a difference.

It's not that more voters means MAPS fails. It's voters that are going there primarily to vote in a presidential primary that vote no on a proposition they aren't informed on just because it says it will raise taxes. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to raise taxes, and a no vote is your prerogative, but you should at least know what you are voting no for. I'm saying having a separate election for MAPS allows a higher percentage of informed voters.

It's not that more voters means MAPS fails. It's voters that are going there primarily to vote in a presidential primary that vote no on a proposition they aren't informed on just because it says it will raise taxes. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to raise taxes, and a no vote is your prerogative, but you should at least know what you are voting no for. I'm saying having a separate election for MAPS allows a higher percentage of informed voters.

I contend MAPS4 was widely known about and got lots of press and discussion around town. So my guess is more voters would have defeated it or made it closer. This is unscientific but I know a lot of people in my district against it yet most of them failed to go out and vote. They mostly claimed it was a busy time of year and didn’t make time. My comeback was MAPS is a 8 year tax so whats 15 minutes of time when it saves you money/taxes.

Anyways, I don’t disagree with your point its possible Primary voters are not up on other topics but I think MAPS was a well known topic.

It's entirely possible and even likely that more votes = MAPS fail when included on a presidential ballot. And I do agree that MAPS is more well-known and doesn't compare to a 1/8th cent parks tax. But I don't think there's any shady business going on by having MAPS on a separate ballot. Strategic, sure, but I'd actually prefer it that way to get more informed voters on something so substantial. As far as finding time to vote, that's a whole separate issue and why we still vote on Tuesdays is beyond me.

It's entirely possible and even likely that more votes = MAPS fail when included on a presidential ballot. And I do agree that MAPS is more well-known and doesn't compare to a 1/8th cent parks tax. But I don't think there's any shady business going on by having MAPS on a separate ballot. Strategic, sure, but I'd actually prefer it that way to get more informed voters on something so substantial. As far as finding time to vote, that's a whole separate issue and why we still vote on Tuesdays is beyond me.

Thats fair. And I agree, shady is too strong. It was likely tactical and deliberate. I don’t blame them for doing so its their bread and butter. I also blame the voters who made excuses to not get out. I only wish it was held when more could show and is why I used the disenfranchised word. That may be too strong, but since its 8 years long (and I admit I wanted a 2 year MAPS to allow us to adjust as city grows/changes) we are unable to change it. Thats a long time for a temporary tax.

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

I will admit that the biggest reason I voted against the parks tax was that I did not want Ed Shadid thinking he could run the city. He lost in his bid to be mayor and he chose to leave the city council. I think he chose to pursue this tax increase outside the normal flow of the powers that be in OKC. I'm not saying they are the greatest and purest, but I trust Mayor Holt and other city leadership.

Um, initiative petitions are part of the normal flow. It's in the city charter. It just so happened that Ed funded this one, but any of us could go out and get 6500 signatures to force a vote on an issue. There's nothing wrong with it and I wish we'd see more of that sort of thing ("people doing something about an issue") vs all the belly aching.

https://www.okc.gov/departments/initiative-petition


The Oklahoma State Constitution, the Charter of The City of Oklahoma City and state law give residents the power to file initiative peitions about legislative issues.

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

I agree that it should be made even easier, but it's already very easy to vote by mail. You sign up at the voter portal. You can select the option for them to mail you every ballot you're eligible to vote on for the entire year. You receive your ballots weeks ahead of time. If you forget to send it in, you can still go to the polls, you just have to sign an affidavit saying you didn't send in your mail ballot.

https://okvoterportal.okelections.us/

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

Agreed. But it was the time of vote. 10 Dec. People are off work enough with holidays plus parties and school events and Christmas shopping. Its a poor excuse for people to not vote but its the reality of when the vote was held that kept most away. Compare to yesterday with Primaries and much less to keep voters away. I vote every time something comes up. Probably why I’ve gotten called plenty for jury duty lol.

I agree that it should be made even easier, but it's already very easy to vote by mail. You sign up at the voter portal. You can select the option for them to mail you every ballot you're eligible to vote on for the entire year. You receive your ballots weeks ahead of time. If you forget to send it in, you can still go to the polls, you just have to sign an affidavit saying you didn't send in your mail ballot.

https://okvoterportal.okelections.us/
Except absentee voting in Oklahoma still requires a notary, unless you are physically incapacitated.
I think in Colorado you can drop your ballot in mail, without witnesses signatures or notary.

Except absentee voting in Oklahoma still requires a notary, unless you are physically incapacitated.
I think in Colorado you can drop your ballot in mail, without witnesses signatures or notary.

I agree that is a slight downside, but your signature is witnessed at the polls as well, and it's not difficult to find a notary. It's quite possible you have one at your office, if not just around the corner.

Except absentee voting in Oklahoma still requires a notary, unless you are physically incapacitated.
I think in Colorado you can drop your ballot in mail, without witnesses signatures or notary.

You are correct about Colorado. All l did was sign the ballot.

Um, initiative petitions are part of the normal flow. It's in the city charter. It just so happened that Ed funded this one, but any of us could go out and get 6500 signatures to force a vote on an issue. There's nothing wrong with it and I wish we'd see more of that sort of thing ("people doing something about an issue") vs all the belly aching.

https://www.okc.gov/departments/initiative-petition

I still maintain that Ed Shadid worked outside the normal flow of the powers that be. He did not (either by choice or by being rejected) work to get it implemented with the full endorsement and cooperation of city government. He decided this was an issue that needed a solution and implementation that was more pressing than city government did, and tried to get the citizenry to agree. He failed.

What he did is 100% legal. It also struck me as the pet project of a guy who thought his vision of future of Oklahoma City is singularly better than the vision and work of elected and professional city government.

I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, because I have no idea what Ed did.

But if some random dude went and got 6500 signatures on an issue and didn't tell another soul, including his councilperson, and just showed up at city hall one day to file his signatures, that doesn't mean he worked outside the normal flow of government. There is nothing about this process that requires you get likes from your favorite government insiders. It's specifically there so citizens can push issues important to them that their government is not pushing.

Sorry, I'm just a fan of the IP process and wish we'd use it much more as citizens.

I think the IP process is a vital tool for citizens to have as a way of keeping government honest and attentive.

Over the last 30-40 years I have had several interactions with Oklahoma City government. I have always found them to be responsive, informative and helpful. I have also found them to always be aware of the potential impact on all stakeholders involved. Federal, state, county and possibly tribal governments, as well as business or citizen groups, and individual citizens. There is an incredible amount of moving parts IMO. That is why I talk about working with city government.

I still maintain that Ed Shadid worked outside the normal flow of the powers that be. He did not (either by choice or by being rejected) work to get it implemented with the full endorsement and cooperation of city government. He decided this was an issue that needed a solution and implementation that was more pressing than city government did, and tried to get the citizenry to agree. He failed.

What he did is 100% legal. It also struck me as the pet project of a guy who thought his vision of future of Oklahoma City is singularly better than the vision and work of elected and professional city government.

I do wonder, it takes time to get signatures. If he started the park tax signature initiative prior to the MAPS 4 vote perhaps he expected MAPS to fail and then went ahead after it passed anyways since he was gathering or had gathered enough signatures? To me MAPS 4 addressed some of the park money so my guess is folks thought this was overkill on parks?

You only have 90 days to collect signatures once you file your petition. But then the city decides when to schedule the election. I remember signing the petition. They definitely chose to schedule this vote well after MAPS 4.

I voted for this hoping areas to the south and east would actually see a nice park or two. Wishful thinking I guess as the city is only interested in developing and improving north of I-40 and West of I-35.

I voted for this hoping areas to the south and east would actually see a nice park or two. Wishful thinking I guess as the city is only interested in developing and improving north of I-40 and West of I-35.

C'mon, stop with this north/south crap. The "city" wasn't involved in this tax vote at all, and if passed, it would've (most likely, I didn't read all of the detailed plans) applied to parks all over the city. Also, the tax wasn't really going to actually create parks (not sure if that's what you mean by "actually see a nice park or two"), just put more money into the operational and maintenance funds.

I voted for this hoping areas to the south and east would actually see a nice park or two. Wishful thinking I guess as the city is only interested in developing and improving north of I-40 and West of I-35.

I totally get it. I want the city to have nice parks. At the same, I have no reason to trust the City of OKC to fund the parks system with any measure of equity. Why keep voting to tax myself when so little of the funds is allocated within my community? At some point you feel like a sucker.This vote was for additional funds to maintain and program the parks. Three southside parks were listed under the dream big portion of the MAPS 4 presentation but so were a lot of other things.

I agree that is a slight downside, but your signature is witnessed at the polls as well, and it's not difficult to find a notary. It's quite possible you have one at your office, if not just around the corner.

You're much more likely to have a notary at the office if you work a white collar job too. So there's some built in bias against the poor in this requirement in that they might not have easy access to a Notary.

You're not wrong, but every tag agency has a notary, and most folks do business at tag agencies at some point or other. And they're not allowed to charge more than $5. Still a barrier I agree.

Also, and not necessarily directly relevant to your point, but I just learned there are now online notaries in Oklahoma. I've asked if those can be used for ballots and how that would work, but haven't gotten an answer yet.

https://www.sos.ok.gov/notary/info/generalInformation.aspx

You're not wrong, but every tag agency has a notary, and most folks do business at tag agencies at some point or other. And they're not allowed to charge more than $5. Still a barrier I agree.

Also, and not necessarily directly relevant to your point, but I just learned there are now online notaries in Oklahoma. I've asked if those can be used for ballots and how that would work, but haven't gotten an answer yet.

https://www.sos.ok.gov/notary/info/generalInformation.aspx

I am glad you agree that it's an unnecessary barrier. States with true vote by mail don't require it.
As a side issue, both tag renewals and banks are online.I can't remember the last time I set foot in either thing. In fact my bank doesn't have a physical location anywhere in Oklahoma. I don't think I'm an outlier.

I had my mail in vote notarized. It does not cost anything at a Tag Agency. At the least the one in Midwest City didn't charge me.

I had my mail in vote notarized. It does not cost anything at a Tag Agency. At the least the one in Midwest City didn't charge me.

I could be wrong, but I believe it is illegal for any notary to charge to notarize a ballot.