Over the past few weeks, I have had a number of conversations about State Question 844. Almost every one quickly turned to school funding. That concern is understandable. SQ 844 raises real questions about funding for schools and local governments. But after researching the measure, I came to believe it raises an even more fundamental question: Who should decide Oklahoma’s reimbursement policy?

That is why I support State Question 844. If voters give the

Legislature greater authority, they should also expect greater accountability.

The surprising part is that SQ 844 does not change the tax exemption itself. It changes who decides how local governments are reimbursed. Oklahoma voters created the current system in 1985, when 69.7 percent approved State Question 588. Companies making qualifying investments receive a temporary property tax exemption. The state then reimburses local governments for property tax revenue they otherwise would have collected.

The Oklahoma Constitution currently requires reimbursement for revenue lost by common schools, county governments, cities and towns, emergency medical services districts, vocational-technical schools, junior colleges, county health departments and libraries.

The original idea was straightforward. Oklahoma wanted to encourage economic development without forcing local communities to absorb the cost alone.

For four decades, lawmakers have repeatedly changed who qualifies for the exemption. They expanded eligibility beyond traditional manufacturing, then later closed future eligibility for wind generation and most data center property. A 2021 law allowed certain existing data center operations to continue claiming exemptions for eligible property placed in service through 2036.

Those changes addressed one question: Who qualifies for the exemption? State Question 844 asks another: Who should decide the reimbursement?

The exemption would remain unchanged. SQ 844 would replace the current constitutional reimbursement requirement with language directing the Legislature to establish reimbursement levels and methods in state law.

The measure would also change how exempt property counts toward local debt limits. If lawmakers reduced reimbursement below 100 percent, some communities could lose annual revenue and future borrowing capacity.

Supporters argue the current system deserves another look. According to the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s 2026 report, nearly 60 cents of every reimbursement dollar was associated with Mayes and Tulsa counties. Thirty-five Oklahoma counties received no reimbursement at all. The dedicated funding source has also required additional legislative appropriations for years.

Supporters further argue that because taxpayers across Oklahoma ultimately fund these reimbursements, voters should be able to hold elected lawmakers accountable for how reimbursement policy is established.

Opponents answer that reimbursements generally follow the exemptions. Communities hosting the largest industrial projects also forgo the most local property tax revenue. They view the payments as reimbursement for a larger local loss, not a windfall. They also point out that SQ 844 sets no minimum reimbursement and does not require any savings to be redirected elsewhere.

Those concerns deserve serious consideration. For me, the answer does not depend on which party controls the Capitol. Constitutions are written to outlast elections. If reimbursement policy belongs in the Constitution, it belongs there regardless of who holds office. If it belongs in statute, the same principle applies.

I believe reimbursement levels and methods belong in statute, where  legislators debate them publicly and answer directly to Oklahoma voters.

The tax exemption survives untouched. Reducing reimbursement would not  reduce what a qualifying company receives. It would shift more of the cost to the schools and local governments the Constitution now protects.

If voters approve SQ 844, lawmakers should adopt a transparent formula, honor commitments communities have relied upon, adequately fund local governments and explain why any significant changes serve Oklahoma as a whole.

In 1985, Oklahoma voters placed this reimbursement requirement in the Constitution. On August 25, they will decide whether the Legislature should receive greater authority over reimbursement levels and methods.

If voters approve that change, legislators will receive greater authority, and voters should demand greater accountability.

Accountability does not end on Election Day. It begins there.