State Question 847: Reduce Annual Increases in Property Values for Tax Calculations (Legislative Referendum 381)
Statewide — all of Oklahoma
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- The Legislature referred this amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 39 (SJR 39), received by the Secretary of State on April 28, 2026 and numbered State Question 847, Legislative Referendum 381. The Attorney General found the Legislature's proposed ballot title non-compliant and rewrote it; the Secretary of State certified the rewritten title to the State Election Board on June 4, 2026. The authors included House Speaker Kyle Hilbert.[1]
- SJR 39 passed the Senate 38-8 (Mar. 26, 2026), the House 85-9 (Apr. 15, 2026) as amended, and the Senate on final passage 40-8 (Apr. 27, 2026), according to the Oklahoma Legislature's bill history. Proposals to put it on a special election ballot failed in the Senate (26-21 on Apr. 27) and passed the House 80-14 (Apr. 15).[5]
The question on the 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.[1]
Beginning with tax year 2027, the annual cap on growth in the taxable (fair cash) value of locally assessed real property would fall from 5% to 4% for most property and from 3% to 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land. For homeowners age 65 or older, the measure replaces the income-capped senior freeze with a tiered annual limit tied to household income relative to the HUD median for the county or metro area: 0% at or below 100%, then 0.35%, 0.7%, 1.05%, 1.4% and 1.75% in successive 20-point bands. The ballot title says there would be a fiscal impact on the state but that the exact impact is unknown; the Oklahoma Tax Commission projected local tax jurisdictions would lose $45.78 million in revenue in the next fiscal year if it passes, and the Oklahoma State School Boards Association estimated $457.8 million over 10 years.[1][2]
A YES vote means
A yes vote lowers the annual caps on growth in taxable property value (to 4% for most real property and 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land from tax year 2027) and replaces the senior freeze's income cap with income-tiered annual limits for homeowners 65 and older.
A NO vote means
A no vote leaves the current caps (5% for most real property, 3% for homesteads and agricultural land) and the current senior freeze rules in place.
The law today
Per the official ballot title, section 8B of article 10 limits annual growth in fair cash value to 5% for most real property and 3% for homesteads and agricultural land. Section 8C (the “senior freeze”) prohibits any increase in the fair cash value of the homestead of a person 65 or older whose income does not exceed certain limits.[1]
Official fiscal estimate
The official ballot title says the measure “would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown.” No official fiscal note was found. Estimates reported by news outlets: the Oklahoma Tax Commission (state agency) projected local jurisdictions would lose $45.78 million in revenue in the next fiscal year (Oklahoma Voice). Not official: the Oklahoma State School Boards Association estimated $457.8 million over 10 years (Oklahoma Voice); University of Central Oklahoma political scientist Ryan Kiggins, in an analysis cited by the Oklahoma Policy Institute, estimated $42 million less local revenue in year one and $241 million by year five, excluding the senior-freeze change (Oklahoma Watch).[1][2][6]
Arguments made for
- House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said: “At the end of the day, that’s $45 million that’s being saved to taxpayers, which I think is a good thing.”[2]
- House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, who authored the measure, said: “Seniors often live on a fixed income, so tax relief for them ensures they are not priced out of their homes.”[3]
- The Oklahoma Farm Bureau, which supports the measure, wrote in its voter guide that “property taxes on that land continue to steadily climb.”[2]
Arguments made against
- Rep. Ellen Pogemiller, D-Oklahoma City, said: “Lower caps will mean slower growth,” adding, “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.”[4]
- Oklahoma State School Boards Association executive director Shawn Hime said: “We have to have the resources available for core services like emergency management, our roads and bridges, our police and fire.”[2]
- Guthrie Public Schools Superintendent Mike Simpson said: “The relief (for taxpayers) will not be immediate at all.”[2]
On record in support
Campaign money
As of Oklahoma Watch’s Oct. 8, 2026 report, no spending for or against SQ 847 appeared in Oklahoma Ethics Commission records; pre-general election reports are due Oct. 26.[6]
Research notes & limits
Oklahoma publishes no official voter pamphlet with pro/con arguments; arguments are quotes from named supporters and opponents as reported by Oklahoma Voice and News9. Question text is the Attorney General's final ballot title from the Secretary of State file. Oklahoma Voice (April) described the senior freeze as being lowered from 3% to 1.75%; the ballot title and the Oklahoma Policy Institute describe a different structure (a 0% limit at or below 100% of HUD median income, then tiers), which is what the summary follows. The $45.78 million and $457.8 million figures are an Oklahoma Tax Commission projection and a school boards association estimate, not an official fiscal note. The Legislature's own enrolled ballot title (rejected by the Attorney General) is not used. Added (Oct. 19): the fiscal estimates are not an official fiscal note; the Oklahoma Tax Commission figure is as reported by Oklahoma Voice and the Kiggins figure as reported by Oklahoma Watch. Supporter and opponent lists are from Oklahoma Voice, Oklahoma Watch and NonDoc reporting and the Farm Bureau’s own voter guide. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission portal was not queried directly.
Sources · 8
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.State Question 847 file: SJR 39, Attorney General ballot-title letters and final ballot title · Oklahoma Secretary of State · 2026-06-04 Official record
- 2.State Question 847 would cap Oklahomans’ property tax growth. At what cost? · Oklahoma Voice · 2026-10-14 News report
- 3.Oklahoma State Question 847: What would a yes or no vote mean for property taxes? · News9 · 2026-10-07 News report
- 4.Oklahoma lawmakers advance state question to cap property tax growth · Oklahoma Voice News report
- 5.SJR 39 bill information and history (2025-26) · Oklahoma Legislature · 2026-10-19 Official record
- 6.State Question 847: What Oklahoma Voters Need to Know Before Nov. 3 · Oklahoma Watch · 2026-10-08 News report
- 7.SQ 847: Voters to consider lowering maximum property valuation increases · NonDoc · 2026-10-09 News report
- 8.Oklahoma Farm Bureau 2026 voter guide · Oklahoma Farm Bureau Candidate's own words