Freedom Reins

The race track was there prior to the housing development who is now complaining about the noise.

I support SB 1195 because it protects existing racing facilities from nuisance lawsuits brought by people who move nearby after the facility is already lawfully established. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure fairness for neighboring property owners and to prevent the immunity from being stretched beyond its original purpose. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Limits on the Scope of Immunity

Example: A racetrack that later adds a new type of high-noise event or significantly expands operating hours would not automatically be protected unless those changes were part of the original, permitted operation.

Why: This prevents the immunity from being used to shield major expansions or new activities that neighbors could not have reasonably anticipated.

2) Clarify What “Substantial Compliance” Means

Example: If a racing facility repeatedly violates noise limits, safety rules, or environmental requirements, nearby property owners would still have the ability to bring a nuisance claim.

Why: This ensures the protection only applies to facilities that are actually following the rules, not those operating recklessly or ignoring enforcement.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect racing facilities by giving them predictable protection for lawful, established operations; protect nearby landowners by ensuring they are not forced to accept new or expanded harms without recourse; and protect local communities by preventing abuse or overly broad use of nuisance immunity.

I support SB 1199 because it strengthens transparency and public trust by tightening conflict-of-interest rules for school and technology center boards. To make the bill clearer and fairer in practice, it needs a few narrow clarifications—specifically around how “interest” is measured, how family employment is handled when no real control or profit exists, and when immediate implementation is truly necessary. These changes would improve consistency and prevent overreach without changing the bill’s intent.

1) Clarify What Counts as a Meaningful Financial Interest

Example: A board member’s adult child works hourly at a large regional company that happens to contract with the district, but the family has no ownership, control, or influence over pricing or decisions. This situation would be clearly distinguished from a family-owned business that benefits directly from the contract.

Why: Without clearer boundaries, routine employment relationships could be treated the same as true financial conflicts, leading to confusion and unnecessary disqualifications.

2) Add a Practical Safeguard for “Only Local Provider” Situations

Example: In a rural area where only one supplier exists within a reasonable distance, the board could proceed if the relationship is fully disclosed, the interested member does not vote, and the reason for using that provider is clearly recorded.

Why: Rural districts often have limited options, and without clear safeguards this provision could either be abused or avoided altogether due to uncertainty.

3) Narrow the Emergency Effective Date

Example: Instead of applying immediately to all situations, the bill would take effect right away only for new contracts, while allowing a short transition period for existing arrangements to be reviewed and disclosed.

Why: Immediate implementation without transition can unintentionally disrupt ongoing operations that were lawful and transparent when entered into.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect students, taxpayers, and school districts by ensuring conflicts are addressed consistently and fairly, not arbitrarily. They protect board members from accidental violations, help rural districts continue operating effectively, and prevent the rules from expanding beyond their purpose while still preserving transparency and public trust.

I support SB 1200 and its goal of preventing financial conflicts of interest on school and technology center boards. The bill takes an important step toward protecting public trust in education governance. To strengthen the bill without changing its intent, I respectfully suggest a few clarifications to better define what qualifies as a disqualifying interest, limit unintended exclusions of community members, and ensure the rule is applied fairly and consistently.

1) Clarify What “Interest” Means

Example: A retired contractor who owns a small, inactive stake in a construction company that has not worked with a school district in years would not automatically be disqualified.

Why: Without clarification, the term “interest” could be read too broadly and exclude people with no real influence or involvement in school contracts.

2) Limit the Scope to Active or Direct Involvement

Example: A person who works for a large company that occasionally issues bonds statewide but has no role in school-related projects or decisions, would not be barred from serving.

Why: This prevents the rule from unintentionally excluding individuals who have no practical ability to influence school board decisions.

3) Provide a Clear Look-Back or Time Boundary

Example: Someone who sold their business years ago or ended involvement before filing for office would be eligible to run.

Why: Without a time boundary, past or long-ended activities could permanently disqualify otherwise qualified candidates.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect local voters, school districts, and community members who want ethical governance without unnecessary exclusions. They help ensure the bill targets real conflicts of interest, prevents confusion or uneven enforcement, and keeps school boards open to qualified citizens while maintaining public trust.

I support SB 1215 because it strengthens transparency when state tax dollars or incentives are used, while still recognizing that private businesses have legitimate proprietary information that should not be exposed. To fully protect both taxpayers and good-faith businesses, the bill would benefit from clearer limits on what qualifies as “proprietary,” clearer guidance on how disclosure decisions are made, and a simple safeguard to prevent nondisclosure from being used to hide the basic use of public funds. These clarifications improve fairness and trust without changing the bill’s intent.

1) Clarify the Boundary Between Public Spending and Proprietary Details

Example: A contract summary would show how much public money is being provided and for what purpose, while keeping internal business details like formulas, supplier pricing, or profit margins private.

Why: Without a clear boundary, agencies may withhold too much information, undermining transparency for taxpayers.

2) Require Consistent Disclosure Standards Across Agencies

Example: Two different state agencies offering similar incentives would follow the same basic disclosure approach instead of one releasing key details and the other withholding nearly everything.

Why: Inconsistent practices can lead to confusion, unequal treatment, and public distrust.

3) Prevent Overuse of “Proprietary” as a Catch-All

Example: An agency could not label an entire agreement as proprietary simply because it involves a private business; only specific business-sensitive portions would qualify.

Why: This prevents the exception from swallowing the rule and protects against secrecy creep.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect taxpayers by ensuring they can see how public funds are used, protect businesses by preserving legitimate trade secrets, and protect state agencies by giving clear, consistent guidance that reduces disputes and accusations of favoritism or secrecy.

YES! "A. Except as provided by subsection B of this section, no state governmental entity or public trust having the state as its beneficiary may enter into any agreement with a person, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, or other legal entity that would prohibit the state governmental entity or public trust from making disclosure of the terms of any agreement with such entity to make payment to or confer value upon the entity using an incentive, tax credit, direct or indirect payment, grant, or similar benefit Req. No. 2397 offered to the entity if the benefit is provided through the use of state taxes."

I support Senate Bill 1222 and its goal of ensuring that commercial drivers operating in Oklahoma are properly licensed and accountable by no longer allowing non-domiciled commercial driver licenses, meaning licenses held by drivers who are not residents of this state. During COVID, when licensing offices in some states were shut down, drivers were temporarily allowed to obtain or renew CDLs in other states. That situation no longer exists. CDL licenses are only valid for two years, and six years have now passed since those shutdowns. There is no longer a legitimate need for non-domiciled CDLs, and anyone operating a commercial vehicle on Oklahoma roads should be required to hold a regular, properly issued CDL. Eliminating non-domiciled CDLs closes a loophole that has been exploited to bypass residency and documentation requirements, strengthening safety, accountability, and enforcement on our roadways.

Stops illegals with commercial drivers licenses from other states from driving in Oklahoma.

I support SB 1223 in its effort to clean up and clarify language enacted in Senate Bill 1392 from the 2024 session, which established English-language proficiency requirements for commercial drivers. This bill does not change the intent or scope of the original law, but instead refines unclear language related to how proficiency is demonstrated, how enforcement is applied, and how drivers and carriers are notified and brought back into compliance. By addressing these technical issues early, SB 1223 helps ensure consistent, fair enforcement, improves clarity for both law enforcement and the trucking industry, and strengthens the effectiveness of the underlying safety policy without expanding authority or creating new penalties.

I support SB 1229 because it strengthens privacy protections for Oklahomans who choose a non-REAL ID driver license by limiting the collection, storage, and use of personal and biometric data. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure clear limits on data use and fair, consistent application across all applicants. These changes improve clarity and accountability without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Limits on Data Use Beyond Licensing

Example: If someone applies for a non-REAL ID license, their personal or biometric information could only be used to confirm identity for licensing purposes—not reused later for unrelated investigations, data matching, or agency searches.

Why: This prevents personal data collected for licensing from being quietly repurposed beyond what the applicant agreed to.

2) Consistent Standards for Biometric Waivers

Example: Two applicants requesting a biometric waiver for the same reason should be evaluated under the same standards, regardless of which office they visit or which employee handles the request.

Why: This prevents uneven treatment, confusion, or arbitrary approval or denial of waivers.

3) Transparency Around Emergency Implementation

Example: If the bill takes effect immediately, Service Oklahoma could provide a public explanation of what changes right away and how applicants will be notified.

Why: This prevents confusion for both applicants and staff during the transition period.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protectindividual applicantsby ensuring their personal information is not misused, protectreligious and privacy-conscious citizensby ensuring fair and consistent treatment, and protectthe stateby preventing confusion, uneven enforcement, or future expansion beyond the bill’s original purpose.

I support SB 1230 and its goal of ensuring that driver licenses and identification cards are issued only to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States. The bill strengthens the integrity of state-issued identification, improves public confidence in those credentials, helps reinforce trust in other civic systems that rely on accurate and reliable identification, and establishes clear consequences for those who knowingly falsify records.

Very important legislation to stop illegals from obtaining drivers licenses, driving on our highways and potentially voting. The OKGOP platform is clear on this matter.

Proposing amoratorium on new data centers until November 1, 2029. Also requires the Corporation Commission to study the potential impacts of data centers on:

• State water supplies, including aquifers, streams, and wastewater systems
• Utility rates
• Property values within a three-mile radius of proposed facilities
• Other areas deemed relevant by the Commission

I support SB 1488 and its intent to pause large-scale data center development while the state studies impact to water, utilities, property values, and grid reliability. The bill could be stronger with a few clarifications that set clear limits on the moratorium, narrow how new rules can be used, and ensure the study does not quietly turn into a permanent ban or centralized siting authority. These changes keep the bill focused on fact-finding and public protection without changing its purpose.

1) Clear Scope of the Moratorium

Example: Clarify that the pause applies only tonew, large-scale facilities meeting the defined size threshold, not upgrades, maintenance, or expansion of existing operations below that level.

Why: Without a clear scope, the moratorium could unintentionally halt unrelated projects or discourage infrastructure improvements that were never meant to be targeted.

2) Guardrails on Rulemaking Authority

Example: Specify that any rules developed are limited to recommendations and standards informed by the study, not automatic approvals, denials, or siting decisions.

Why: Broad rulemaking authority without limits creates a risk that temporary research authority turns into permanent regulatory control.

3) Study Use and Sunset Clarity

Example: State plainly that the study informs future legislative decisions and does not itself authorize ongoing restrictions once the moratorium expires.

Why: This prevents the study from being used later as justification for indefinite delays or non-legislative regulation.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect landowners, local communities, utility customers, and future businesses by ensuring the bill remains a temporary, transparent pause for study—not a backdoor expansion of regulatory power. They also protect the Legislature’s role by keeping long-term decisions in the hands of elected representatives rather than agencies acting beyond the bill’s original intent.

Costly to taxpayers; must be stopped!

YES! Moratorium on Data Centers until study impacts, etc.

I support SB 1768 because teaching students practical financial skills is valuable and timely. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure classrooms remain focused on financial education, districts keep flexibility, and instruction does not drift into advocacy or confusion. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent to strengthen financial literacy.

1) Clarify Instruction vs. Advocacy

Example: Instruction on how inflation works would explain multiple perspectives and basic mechanics, rather than requiring or favoring a specific viewpoint or book.

Why: This prevents classroom instruction from being perceived as promoting a single political or ideological position instead of teaching students how to think critically.

2) Preserve Local Curriculum Flexibility

Example: A district could choose different age-appropriate materials or examples to teach inflation and monetary policy, as long as students learn the core concepts.

Why: This avoids a one-size-fits-all approach and respects that districts and teachers know what works best for their students.

3) Align the Emergency Clause with the Effective Date

Example: The bill would take effect on the stated future date without using emergency language, unless a clear and immediate need is demonstrated.

Why: This prevents confusion about timing and avoids setting unnecessary precedent for using emergency declarations when the bill already has a scheduled start date.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect students by keeping instruction educational rather than ideological, protect teachers by giving them clear boundaries and flexibility, and protect school districts by preventing confusion, controversy, or future expansion beyond the bill’s original purpose.

I support SB 1828 because it reduces unnecessary administrative burden by excluding very low-value property accounts from county tax rolls. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure consistent application across counties and prevent confusion for property owners whose accounts fall near the exclusion threshold. These changes improve clarity and fairness without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Treatment of Fluctuating Property Values

Example:If a property’s assessed value is $195 one year and $210 the next due to routine adjustments, the county clearly notifies the owner when the account is added back to the tax roll and when it is excluded again.

Why:This prevents confusion and surprise tax bills when small valuation changes move an account in and out of eligibility.

2) Uniform County Implementation Standard

Example:All counties apply the same process for identifying and excluding qualifying accounts, rather than each county creating its own method or timing.

Why:This avoids inconsistent treatment of taxpayers based solely on county practices.

3) Owner Notification When Accounts Are Excluded(optional)

Example:Property owners receive a simple notice stating their account was excluded due to low assessed value and that no taxes are due for that year.

Why:This prevents misunderstandings, unpaid notices, or the mistaken belief that an error occurred.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect property owners by providing clarity and notice, protect county assessors by reducing disputes and administrative confusion, and protect local governments by preventing inconsistent application or unintended errors in tax administration.

I support SB 1835 because it strengthens fairness for property owners when land is taken for public use and helps ensure people are not left worse off after losing their property. The bill’s intent is sound, but a few clarifications would help prevent confusion, uneven application, and future disputes—especially around how replacement property is evaluated, how benefits are claimed, and how negotiations are handled. These changes would improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s purpose.

1) Clarify “Same Community” for Replacement Property

Example: If a landowner’s home is taken in a rural area with no similar properties available nearby, the replacement option should clearly allow use of the closest practical area with similar living conditions, rather than limiting choices to an artificially narrow boundary.

Why: Without clarity, agencies and owners may disagree on what counts as the “same community,” leading to delays, disputes, or unequal treatment.

2) Require Clear Proof When Claiming Property Benefits

Example: If an agency claims the remaining property benefits from a project, it should show concrete evidence—such as measurable access improvements or utility upgrades—rather than general statements about future economic growth.

Why: This prevents vague or speculative claims from being used to reduce what a property owner receives.

3) Protect Fair Negotiation Before Formal Action

Example: During negotiations, property owners should receive clear, written explanations of how compensation was calculated before being asked to agree to a settlement.

Why: This promotes transparency and reduces pressure on owners to accept terms they don’t fully understand.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect property owners by ensuring fair treatment, clear expectations, and honest calculations. They also protect taxpayers and public agencies by reducing disputes, litigation, and inconsistent outcomes—keeping the process fair, transparent, and focused on the bill’s original intent.

I support SB 1840 because it protects the right of Oklahomans to freely access natural healing arts while clearly distinguishing those services from licensed medical care. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure consumer clarity and consistent enforcement while preventing misuse or regulatory overreach. These changes improve clarity and fairness without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Consumer Disclosure Standard

Example: Before a session begins, a natural healing practitioner provides a simple written notice stating that they are not a licensed medical provider and that their services are non-medical and voluntary.

Why: This prevents consumer confusion and protects both clients and practitioners by ensuring expectations are clearly set.

2) Limit Enforcement to Actual Prohibited Conduct

Example: Enforcement action occurs only when a practitioner falsely claims to be licensed or performs a specifically prohibited act, rather than based on disagreement with a healing modality itself.

Why: This prevents arbitrary enforcement or professional board overreach into lawful, non-medical practices.

3) Clarify Referral Language

Example: A practitioner may encourage a client to consult a licensed medical professional when appropriate, without being accused of practicing medicine or interfering with treatment.

Why: This avoids chilling responsible behavior and promotes cooperation rather than conflict between practitioners and licensed providers.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protectconsumersby ensuring transparency and informed choice, protectpractitionersby preventing vague or subjective enforcement, and protectthe stateby preventing regulatory creep or unintended expansion beyond the bill’s

I support SB 1841 because it allows members of the Legislature to better fulfill their oversight responsibilities related to child welfare and state agencies. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure records are accessed only for legitimate oversight purposes and that existing privacy protections for children and families remain intact. These changes improve clarity and accountability without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Limit Access to Oversight Purposes Only

Example: A legislator reviews aggregate case information to evaluate agency performance or identify systemic issues, but does not access records for personal, political, or non-oversight reasons.

Why: This prevents sensitive child records from being accessed for reasons unrelated to legislative oversight.

2) Maintain Confidentiality Safeguards

Example: Records provided to a legislator remain confidential, cannot be copied or publicly disclosed, and must be handled using the same safeguards required of other authorized recipients.

Why: This reduces the risk of accidental disclosure or misuse of highly sensitive information.

3) Clarify Documentation of Access

Example: A simple internal log notes when records are accessed by a legislator and for what general oversight purpose, without creating a new approval process.

Why: This provides accountability and transparency without reinstating barriers the bill seeks to remove.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protectchildren and familiesby preserving privacy, protectstate agenciesby preventing misuse of records, and protectlegislatorsby providing clear guardrails that prevent misunderstanding, overreach, or allegations of improper access.

I support SB 1848 because it focuses state and local tax incentives on true manufacturing and job-creating investment rather than subsidizing industries that do not align with the original intent of these programs. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure consistent application across communities and clear limits that prevent confusion or unintended exclusion of legitimate projects. These changes improve clarity and fairness without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Definition of Excluded Establishments

Example: A local development authority can clearly determine whether a data-related facility qualifies or is excluded based on how the business actually operates, not just how it is labeled on paper.

Why: This prevents inconsistent decisions and disputes caused by vague or overly technical classifications.

2) Local Flexibility for Mixed-Use Projects

Example: A project that includes both manufacturing space and non-qualifying operations can still receive incentives for the manufacturing portion, while the excluded portion receives none.

Why: This avoids discouraging legitimate manufacturing investment simply because a project includes multiple business functions.

3) Transparency in Incentive Removal or Denial

Example: When an incentive is denied or revoked, the affected business receives a clear explanation of why and what criteria were not met.

Why: This prevents arbitrary enforcement and protects against confusion or perceptions of unfair treatment.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect local governments by giving them clear, workable standards, protect businesses by ensuring predictable and fair application of the law, and protect taxpayers by preventing misuse or unintended expansion of incentive programs.

I support SB 1855 because it modernizes and updates the county property inspection cycle to better reflect current assessment practices and workloads. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure transparency for property owners and reasonable limits on administrative discretion. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Notice to Property Owners:Example: A homeowner receives a plain-language notice explaining when their property is scheduled for visual inspection, what “visual inspection” means, and what inspectors may or may not do during the process.

Why: This prevents confusion and concern among property owners who may otherwise assume inspections involve entry, enforcement, or reassessment beyond what the bill intends.

2) Reasonable Flexibility for County Resources:Example: A rural county with staffing shortages can adjust its inspection schedule within the five-year cycle without penalty, as long as all properties are still inspected within the cycle period.

Why: This prevents smaller or under-resourced counties from being forced into unrealistic timelines that could result in rushed or inconsistent inspections.

3) Limits on Use of Inspection Data:Example: Information collected during a visual inspection is used only for property valuation purposes and not shared or repurposed for unrelated enforcement or regulatory actions.

Why: This prevents mission creep and protects property owners from unintended use of data beyond tax assessment.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect property owners by ensuring transparency and predictability, protect county assessors by allowing practical flexibility in meeting inspection requirements, and protect the public by preventing misuse or expansion of inspection authority beyond the bill’s stated purpose.

This provides accountability to charter school sponsors who currently have very minimal responsibilities post school approval. This brings Oklahoma up to the standards set in other states regarding charter school governance. As charter schools continue to expand across our state, accountability and transparency measures like the ones in this bill, which seek to inform and involve the stakeholders-the parents, are vital for the protection of parental rights and representation that should be provided when public dollars are granted. This corrects the 'taxation without representation' we currently have in some charter schools, by providing some form of voice for parents. This bill puts the responsibility of follow up on the sponsor of the charter school to make sure they are not operating independently from the tax payers they serve. As charter school families do not get to elect their board members, stakeholders have next to no representation for their tax dollars. This bill provides a starting place to correct that.

I support SB 1971 because it strengthens accountability and transparency in the charter school system by improving oversight, performance reviews, and sponsor responsibility. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure clear limits on sponsor penalties and fair, predictable application of new requirements. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Standards Before Sponsor Suspension

Example: If a sponsor has several schools close due to factors outside its control—such as enrollment shifts or serving high-risk student populations—the sponsor would receive clear notice of specific deficiencies and an opportunity to correct them before losing authority to approve new schools.

Why: This prevents automatic or arbitrary punishment of sponsors without clear, fixable benchmarks.

2) Reasonable Timing for New Compliance Requirements

Example: New survey, reporting, and review requirements would apply after a defined adjustment period so existing schools and sponsors have time to implement systems without disrupting school operations.

Why: This avoids rushed compliance that could create paperwork errors or unintended technical violations.

3) Limits on Emergency Use

Example: The bill would take effect on a normal timeline unless a true, immediate safety risk to students is identified, rather than applying emergency status to long-term policy changes.

Why: This prevents emergency powers from being used for administrative convenience rather than urgent necessity.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect students and families by ensuring stable school oversight, protect charter schools by preventing sudden or unclear penalties, and protect sponsors and taxpayers by preventing overreach, confusion, and unintended expansion of enforcement authority.

Incentives at the expense of the taxpayers should be serving the PUBLIC AS A WHOLE NOT private companies.

I support SB 2015 because it strengthens accountability in local development incentives by ensuring public funds are used for projects that benefit the entire community, not just private interests. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure consistent application and prevent uneven interpretation across jurisdictions. These changes improve clarity and fairness without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clarify What “Serve the Whole Public” Means

Example: A project plan could qualify by including public infrastructure like roads, utilities, sidewalks, public parking, or shared civic improvements that are open and accessible to the general public—not just customers or tenants of a private development.

Why: Without clarification, different cities or counties could apply this standard inconsistently, creating confusion or disputes over whether a project truly benefits the public.

2) Prevent Token Public Benefits

Example: A project plan should not qualify if it includes only a minimal or symbolic public feature—such as a small sign, decorative element, or limited-access amenity—while the overwhelming benefit flows to a private entity.

Why: This prevents private developments from meeting the requirement in name only, which would undermine the bill’s intent.

3) Confirm Local Flexibility with Clear Documentation

Example: Local governing bodies could document how the public benefit is achieved in the project plan approval record, rather than being required to follow a one-size-fits-all checklist.

Why: This preserves local control while still ensuring transparency and accountability.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect taxpayers by ensuring public incentives deliver real community benefits, protect local governments by reducing legal and interpretive disputes, and protect honest developers by creating clear, consistent expectations that prevent abuse or loopholes.

I support SB 2028 because it expands consumer choice and supports small farmers by allowing limited, direct sales of ungraded raw milk and related products. To strengthen the bill without changing its intent, a few clarifications are needed so producers clearly understand what is allowed, consumers receive consistent notice, and enforcement remains fair and predictable rather than discretionary.

1: Clear Consumer Notice Standard

Example:A producer selling ungraded raw milk posts a simple, visible notice at the point of sale and on containers stating that the product is not inspected or regulated.

Why:Without a clear, consistent notice standard, producers could face uneven enforcement based on subjective judgments about what “notification” means.

2: Defined Scope of “Incidental Sales”

Example:A small farm selling raw milk directly to families understands that “incidental sales” means small-scale, supplemental sales tied to on-farm production—not a commercial retail operation.

Why:Clarifying this prevents confusion and stops future expansion of enforcement that could treat small farmers like large commercial dairies.

3: Limits on Transport Expectations

Example:When a farmer delivers raw milk directly to a consumer, expectations are limited to basic handling consistent with small-scale, direct sales, not commercial-grade transport requirements.

Why:Without clear limits, agencies could later impose costly standards that were never intended for direct, farm-to-consumer sales.

Who These Amendments ProtectThese amendments protect small farmers from arbitrary enforcement, consumers from inconsistent information, and regulators from pressure to stretch the law beyond its intent. Clear boundaries preserve the bill’s purpose while preventing regulatory creep, confusion, and unequal treatment.

I support SB 2125 because it expands freedom for small farmers and consumers by allowing the direct sale and advertising of ungraded raw milk and raw milk products. To keep that intent intact while avoiding confusion or misuse, a few clarifications are needed around third-party sales, labeling consistency, the emergency clause, and the definition of “incidental sales”. These changes strengthen the bill without changing its purpose.

1) Clear Limits on Third-Party Sales

Example: If raw milk is sold at a farmers market or through a third party, the consumer should be able to clearly identify the original farm that produced it, and the producer should remain responsible for how it is handled and represented.

Why: Without clear limits, third-party sales could blur responsibility and create enforcement confusion if something goes wrong.

2) Consistent, Plain-Language Labeling

Example: Every container sold should clearly state that the product is raw or unpasteurized, list the date it was filled, and plainly disclose that it is not inspected or regulated.

Why: Clear and consistent labels ensure consumers understand what they are buying and reduce the risk of disputes or claims of deception.

3) Narrow the Emergency Clause

Example: The bill could take effect on a standard timeline rather than immediately, unless a clear and specific public safety need is identified.

Why: Using emergency clauses when there is no immediate threat can set an unnecessary precedent and weaken public trust.

4) Clear Definition of “Incidental Sales”

Example: Incidental sales should be clearly understood as small-scale sales connected to what a farm actually produces each month, not ongoing or high-volume distribution that looks like a commercial operation.

Why: Without a clear meaning, the exemption could be stretched beyond its intent and used as a loophole by large or industrial-style sellers.

Who These Amendments Protect

These amendments protect small farmers by reducing the risk of unfair enforcement, protect consumers by ensuring transparency and informed choice, and protect the state by preventing regulatory creep or confusion as the market grows. The result is a clearer, fairer system that honors the bill’s intent while guarding against abuse.

This bill is THE BEST raw milk bill this session!

-Great: Allows all raw milk to be advertised

-Great: Allows raw milk to be transported off farm

-Great: Allows 1500 gallons of raw milk to be sold per month** (This bill increases raw milk sales from 100 gallons a month to 1500 gallons a month, however, there should be NO limits on sales of raw milk, this restricts farms from making a decent living and limits their ability to be competitive, and appears to be unconstitional favoring of certain industries over small business....see below.)

-Great: removes ALL raw milk producers from the egregious Oklahoma Milk Products Act!!!

(To be even better, get with Rep Hardin and amend to add language allowing off farm sale to restaurants, feed stores, and farmers markets.)

***HR 8374 "The Interstate Milk Freedom Act" proposed in Congress will allow the interstate sale of raw milk. When it is enacted, the state of Oklahoma will be putting raw milk farms at a disadvantage in the USA by limiting their sales of raw milk per month and prohitibing them from their constitutional right to freedom of speech (advertising their legal product) under current regulations of the Oklahoma Milk Products Act.

I support SJR44 because it strengthens voter control by requiring broad public approval before new taxes or debt can be imposed. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure clarity and prevent unintended barriers to routine local financing. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Definition of “Voters Voting”

Example: If 1,000 voters turn out for a local election, the two-thirds requirement applies to those 1,000 voters who actually cast ballots, not to all registered voters who stayed home.

Why:This prevents confusion or legal challenges over whether non-voters are being counted as “no” votes.

2) Exclusion for Existing or Previously Approved Obligations

Example: A city renewing a bond or tax already approved by voters would not be required to hold a new two-thirds election unless the rate or amount is increased.

Why: This prevents disruption to existing commitments and avoids unnecessary repeat elections.

3) Protection for Essential Local Services

Example: Emergency repairs to water systems or public safety facilities could proceed under existing voter-approved funding without delay.

Why: This prevents the amendment from unintentionally slowing urgent infrastructure or safety needs.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protectvotersby ensuring the rule is applied clearly and fairly, protect local governments by preventing legal uncertainty and unintended delays, and protect taxpayers by preventing confusion, overreach, or misuse of the supermajority requirement.