Save Oklahoma Farms And Ranches

YES: Adds "; and 89. Sales of tangible personal property or services by or to certified recovery homes and certified recovery community organizations. For the purposes of this paragraph, "certified" shall mean recovery homes and organizations that meet the standards set by the National Alliance for Recovery Residences and are certified by the recognized National Alliance for Recovery Residences state affiliate."

This should be a no-brainer.

If public officials are working for the people, they should never be silenced by nondisclosure agreements about their official duties.

HB 3030 simply says:

• You don’t get to serve the public and keep secrets from them.
• No elected or appointed official should be required or allowed to sign an NDA that limits transparency about government business.
• If it involves public office, public decisions, or public resources, the public has a right to know.

This bill:

• ✔️ Strengthens transparency
• ✔️ Reinforces accountability
• ✔️ Protects whistleblowers and honest officials
• ✔️ Prevents backroom deals disguised as “confidentiality”

It does not interfere with:

• Legitimate litigation strategy
• Truly personal or private matters unrelated to public office
• Existing public records laws or ethical safeguards

Bottom line

If lawmakers believe in:

• Open government
• Accountability
• Serving constituents over special interests

HB 3030 should pass unanimously.

Any opposition to this bill raises a simple question:

What are they trying to hide?

Bill needs to pass!

HB 3036 would reduce certain statutory restrictions on where handguns may be carried in Oklahoma by deleting those restrictions from state law.

• Supporters see this as reinforcing constitutional rights and simplifying gun laws.

Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Removes restrictions for carrying handguns on certain property. This bill is an OK2A bill. OKGOP platform is clear on protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

Anyone with a valid Oklahoma handgun license may carry a concealed handgun through the State Capitol building security checkpoint if attended by a peace officer, after presenting their license. Officers cannot inspect or remove concealed handguns or restrain licensed carriers without probable cause of a crime.

21 states allow the carrying of handguns in the capitol building including 5 surrounding states: New Mexico, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas.

A very good bill!

directing the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry to not require livestock to have certain tags; directing the Department to plan

compacts with other states to allow the sale of livestock without certain tags.

Yes, Need to amend to also ban sale of cultivated MILK.

A. For the purposes of this section, the term "cultivated meat" means a meat or meat product that was produced from cultured animal tissue produced from in vitro animal cell cultures outside of the animal from which the cells were derived. B. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute any cultivated meat product in this state.

Yes, take away unnecesary restriction on food trucks fire suppression systems.

Protects minors from AI systems designed to simulate human-like relationships, prohibit the deployment of social AI companions and human-like AI chatbots to minors and would require reasonable age certification measures, with a narrow exception for certain therapeutic tools under strict professional oversight.

Yes, but the fines need to be more severe, and unlimited liability if the chatbot results in a suicide or other self harm.

Yes, but should be even stronger and give patients recourse if the AI rejects them from receiving needed treatments.

HB 3723 would shift approval power for certain large green energy projects to local elected officials — and potentially local voters — before those projects can be built.

THIS BILL IS CRITICAL

Great: Protects ratepayers from paying for increased power due to high demand facilities

Great: Requires water usage assessment and limits overusage of water from high demand facilities

Great: Prohibits high demand facilities on agricultural land

Great: Prohibits foreign ownership of high demand facilities

Great: Gives local citizens initiative and referendum petition power as provided for by the Oklahoma Constitution

HB 3727 would bar local governments from spending public dollars on lobbyists, especially former legislators.

The goal is to keep taxpayer funds focused on core services and limit the influence of paid lobbyists using public funds.

An Act relating to lobbying regulation; prohibiting political subdivisions from spending public funds on hiring a lobbyist or paying a nonprofit state association or organization that hires lobbyists.

Yes, please add former members cannot be appointed to positions in Government for 6 years.

"Beginning on January 1, 2027, no former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives or the Oklahoma State Senate may work or register as a lobbyist until six (6) years after their last term has expired. Former members of the Legislature who have become registered lobbyists prior to January 1, 2027, shall not be eligible for renewal of their registration until six (6) years after their last term has expired."

Thank you Representative Gann!

Protects property rights

YES!!!! "NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 22 of Title 31, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows: A. Triggering Condition. The provisions of this section shall take effect only upon certification by the Secretary of State that State Question 842 has been approved by the voters. B. Unconditional Ownership Established. 1. Ownership of owner-occupied residential real property in this state shall be absolute and unconditional, subject only to: a. voluntary conveyance, Req. No. 14524 Page 3 b. eminent domain exercised in accordance with constitutional requirements, c. judicial foreclosure arising from voluntary private debt, or d. enforcement of criminal forfeiture pursuant to a final conviction. 2. No state agency, political subdivision, or taxing authority shall treat residential real property ownership as conditional upon payment of any tax, fee, assessment, or charge not expressly authorized by the Oklahoma Constitution. C. Prohibition on Indirect Forfeiture. No governmental entity shall: 1. Impose any substitute tax, assessment, service charge, lien, penalty, or fee that functions to: a. encumber title, b. condition possession, c. compel forfeiture, d. authorize sale for nonpayment, or e. circumvent the elimination of residential ad valorem taxation. 2. Recharacterize property taxes as fees, special assessments, utility surcharges, or occupancy charges for the purpose of enforcing collection through lien or sale. D. Limits on Government Remedies. Req. No. 14524 Page 4 For owner-occupied residential real property: 1. No lien shall attach for nonpayment of any governmental charge unless: a. expressly authorized by the Oklahoma Constitution, and b. unrelated to the former ad valorem taxation of residential property. 2. No forced sale, eviction, or dispossession shall occur based solely on failure to pay a governmental charge arising after the effective date of this section. E. Private Rights Preserved. Nothing in this section shall impair: 1. Voluntary contractual obligations entered into by the owner; 2. Mortgage, deed of trust, or consensual lien rights; 3. Homeowners' association covenants voluntarily accepted by the owner. SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 23 of Title 31, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows: A. Any owner aggrieved by a violation of this act shall have standing to seek: 1. Declaratory relief; 2. Injunctive relief; 3. Quiet title; 4. Recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Req. No. 14524 Page 5 B. Sovereign or governmental immunity is waived to the extent necessary to enforce this section. SECTION 4. The provisions of this act are severable and if any part or provision shall be held void the decision of the court so holding shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions of this act."

Under Gann’s proposal, the Legislature and all committees, conference committees, task forces and working groups would be required to:

• provide advance public notice and agendas;
• allow public observation and recording of meetings;
• post meeting records online within seven days; and
• refrain from taking votes outside Open Meeting Act compliance.

Also requires lawmakers to file a Lobbyist Impact Statement if they have received campaign contributions, gifts or other benefits from lobbyists connected to legislation they sponsor and mandates that legislators disclose any nondisclosure agreements they sign, and any agreement restricting communication with constituents or legislative deliberation would be void.

Supports openness and transparency in procedural processes

"The board shall maintain its records pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, except those records which are considered private or confidential, and shall post such records on the water district's website if applicable."

Requires companies to decommission data centers within one year once facilities are no longer in use. This decommissioning would include removing all buildings and equipment, disposing of hazardous materials and environmental restoration of the land.

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 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.

This legislation would exempt certain firearms from sales taxes during the period of July.

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.

Clarifies eminent domain to be used for PUBLIC USE NOT economic development to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

YES!!! Great bill.

Great bill!

"E. The monies referred to in subsection A of this section may be expended for water quality projects, including, but not limited to, sewer line construction or repair and related storm or sanitary sewer projects, water line construction or repair, improvements and repairs to existing water infrastructure of rural water districts and irrigation districts, water treatment, water acquisition, distribution or recovery and related projects"

Moral values and common sense.

Employees are prohibited from drinking on the job or being inebriated in the private sector, so why are supposed "servants of the people" allowed to do so? A moral and common-sense refrainment!

Sad that this is necessary, but apparently it is. Thank you for this bill!

A court shall not abridge a person’s right to purchase, possess, concealed carry, or open carry a firearm in this state. No court shall require a firearm seized due to a misdemeanor arrest or conviction to be forfeited or destroyed.

Amend / scratch Section 4. Be specific about what this bill will mean. Vague bills that allow agencies to "promulgate rules" often result in even MORE regulations and requirements and hoops to jump through. I believe the intent of this bill is to lessen restrictions and allow telemedicine for animals (which is absolutely necessary and already being used by great veterinarians, which begs the question, is telemedicine by veterinarians explicitly illegal now? If not, why this bill?) Keep it simple, explain the rules in the bill itself, and don't let this inadvertantly turn into another bureacratic overreach mess for our Vets and farmers and ranchers.

Data centers in Oklahoma may not be directly or indirectly rented, leased, or controlled by a foreign owner. Declares that any current rental or lease agreements would be deemed invalid from the date of adoption. The bill also declared that any current rental or lease agreements would be deemed invalid from the date of adoption.

As long as they can't use the same form to get around, maybe no form and specific requirements.

YES!! "C. Any No public body or its members, officers, or staff, nor any law enforcement officer or security personnel, present at a public meeting shall prohibit any person attending a public meeting from recording the proceedings of the meeting by videotape video recording, audio recording, or by any other method; provided, however, such recording shall not interfere with the conduct of the meeting.

YES!!! Citizens should be allowed to record public meetings of the legislature!

Yes, BUT need to amend to allow for farmers and ranchers and off grid homesteads to use small scale solar to power wells, electric fences, homesteads, etc.

Yes: Pro food freedom: Added "a. Sales of products by: (1) an entity that exclusively sells homemade food products produced by a home food establishment, as those terms are defined in Section 5-4.2 of Title 2 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and (2) an entity that sells homemade food products produced by a home food establishment, as those terms are defined in Section 5-4.2 of Title 2 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or bakery items, including bread, rolls, buns, biscuits, bagels, croissants, pastries, donuts, Danish, cakes, tortes, pies, tarts, muffins, bars, cookies, and tortillas, when those sales are made at farmers markets registered pursuant to Section 5-3A.3 of Title 2 of the Oklahoma Statutes. b. To be granted the exemption provided by this paragraph, an entity shall submit an application prescribed by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. Upon verification that the entity meets the requirements of this paragraph, the Department shall notify the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Upon notification by the Department, the Commission shall issue an exemption card to the entity. The exemption card shall expire two (2) years from the date of issuance. Within two (2) months prior to the date of expiration of the exemption card, the entity may resubmit an application to the Department, and, upon notification by the Department, the Commission shall issue a new exemption card on the date the preceding exemption card expires. The Department and the Commission may promulgate rules to effectuate the provisions of this section.

Yes, all meat should be labeled with country of origin.

Yes, we shouldn't have to get a permit to sneeze. Or raise captive bred alligators. ;)

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.

YES! Make real food accessible and profitable for farmers

This bill needs to be heard in committee for the will of the people!

Adding additional insurance requirements for anyone towing a trailer? Insurance costs are already through the roof, this makes farmers and ranchers and anyone with a trailer have an additional cost just to do business.

Amends relating to the Oklahoma Community Economic Development Pooled Finance Act for local government entities. Increased to $125 million from $100 million. The OKGOP platform states we support sunset laws, zero-based budgeting and performance audits to justify govenment programs.

No, giving away another $25,000,000.

Raises should be based on merit, especially when they are paid with Oklahoma tax dollars.

If I want to hire Joe Schmoe to fix my toilet and he doesn't have a degree, license, or certificate, but he does a bang up job on toilets, that's on me. Don't make our tradesmen jump through more hoops to work.

NO. Who asked you to run this bill? The new rare earth mineral plant in Stillwater? Or another NDA company? Does this help the people of Oklahoma, or private industry. Clearly it's not for the people. . If an establishment cannot provide a manufacturer exemption permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 1359.2 of this title, if the establishment is engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of material or substances and otherwise qualifies pursuant to the provisions of this section, the establishment shall be a qualifying manufacturing concern,

NO: Higher education is already cost prohibiitve for most students. A voluntary donation fund for schools wishing to participate is fine, but no school should be penalized (a penalty that will be passed on to the students via tuition raised). STRIKE this and make it voluntary.

"2. Failure to meet the deadline established by paragraph 1 of 6 this subsection shall result in a punitive fine of one percent (1%) of the institution of higher education’s appropriated budget for each month of noncompliance. Collected fines shall be deposited 9 into the General Revenue Fund."

This legislation infringes on 2nd Amendment rights. "Restricted bullet", "Body Armor", and Modifications to Firearms. OKGOP platform is clear on protecting our 2nd Amendments. This is a bad bill.

NO!!!!! terrible bill adds following; 2. “Restricted bullet” means a round or elongated missile with a core of less than sixty percent (60%) lead and having a fluorocarbon coating, which is designed to travel at a high velocity and is capable of penetrating body armor; and 3. “Restricted weapon” means any firearm that is capable of shooting more than one round automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term includes devices that convert ordinary firearms or semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic firearms, and includes, but is not limited to, Glock switches or auto sears, but does not include bump stocks.

A 24 page bill of amendments and new laws regarding Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act. The primary objections/unacceptable parts are on page 20 regarding 1/4 and 1/2 mile setbacks (should be at least 1 mile) and no county option for residents to opt out. Same bill as SB2123.

Appears to be a duplicate bills of SB 2123 by Frix and SB 1514 by McIntosh and SB 2183 by Seifried...

YES IF increase setbacks, this is not sufficient: "1. The minimum setback for the base of any wind turbine from a nonparticipating landowner’s property line shall be equal to the greater of one quarter (1/4) of a nautical mile or two (2) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip. A nonparticipating landowner may elect to sign a waiver that allows a wind turbine or group of wind turbines to be placed up to one and one-tenth (1.1) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip from the nonparticipating landowner’s property line; 2. The minimum setback from the base of a wind turbine shall be one half (1/2) of a nautical mile from any residential structure that exists at the time the permit application is submitted to the Corporation Commission; 

We can't continue taking away people's rights under the guise of safety and security. Let's follow the laws and policies already in place and hold those accountable.

Violates parental rights; horrible bill

Note from Millstone Press on this bill: "Senator Avery Frix’s SB 1774 (introduced in the 2026 session) amends 10A O.S. § 1-2-105 to empower the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) during child abuse/neglect investigations.

The critical addition allows district courts to order temporary emergency custody (up to 72 hours) if parents refuse to cooperate—even absent proven imminent harm. While framed as enhancing investigations, this bill risks state overreach into family autonomy, potentially punishing parents for asserting their rights.

The Bill’s Core Change

The new language in subsection B.1 states:

“If a parent refuses to cooperate with the Department in its investigation, the Department shall immediately notify the district attorney’s office of the refusal and a district court may order the child to be placed in temporary emergency custody for up to seventy-two (72) hours while the investigation is being conducted.”

This goes beyond existing tools (court-ordered access, exams, or records) by authorizing short-term removal solely for non-cooperation. Other provisions (reasonable discipline protections, multidisciplinary teams, collaborative processes) remain, but the custody trigger stands out as expansive.

Senator Frix’s Background

Frix’s conservative record on taxes, business, limited government—but this bill expands state child welfare powers.

So is Frix really Pro-Trump as this move exhibits extending government overreach, which secures more funding into Oklahoma.

Supporters may argue it prevents obstruction in legitimate probes, especially for vulnerable children (disabled, non-verbal). However, critics see it as lowering the bar for state intervention.

Major Concerns: Overreach, Parental Rights Erosion, and Constitutional Violations

This provision effectively gives OKDHS leverage to take children for “failing to participate”—a vague standard that could encompass disputing a report, demanding warrants, or invoking privacy. The 72-hour removal, while temporary, inflicts real trauma on families, particularly in erroneous or low-risk cases.

Critically, SB 1774 potentially infringes on fundamental constitutional rights. The Oklahoma Constitution explicitly protects inherent liberties that government cannot arbitrarily restrict:

• Article II, Section 1: “All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.”

• Article II, Section 2: “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

These affirm that any law infringing on constitutional rights is not legal and cannot restrict our liberties without due process or compelling justification.

Parental rights to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of children are recognized as fundamental liberty interests under both Oklahoma and U.S. constitutional frameworks (see also U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Troxel v. Granville, affirming parents’ fundamental rights).

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) reinforces this:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

As established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” If SB 1774 enables removals that violate due process (14th Amendment) or inherent family liberties without adequate safeguards, it risks being unconstitutional and unenforceable. Broad “non-cooperation” triggers could disproportionately burden families exercising their rights to question state actions, conflicting with these protections.

The bill lacks robust checks: no explicit penalties for bad-faith reports, narrow definitions of cooperation, or mandatory post-removal reviews beyond standard procedures. In Oklahoma’s overburdened child welfare system, this invites abuse and erodes the limited-government principles Frix has championed elsewhere.

Broader Context

SB 1774 emerges amid ongoing debates over parental rights in Oklahoma (e.g., prior Parents’ Bill of Rights expansions). Yet it moves in the opposite direction by expanding state removal authority. As of now, the bill is newly introduced with no hearings scheduled.

Final Thoughts

Senator Frix’s bill prioritizes investigation convenience over family integrity, granting OKDHS troubling power to separate children for mere non-participation. The media has been plaqued with allegations of dishonest, low integrity caseworkers and this will be another tool in their bag of tricks to enter fraud into cases.

By conflicting with the Oklahoma Constitution’s inherent rights to liberty (Art. II, §§ 1–2) and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—principles that render infringing laws void—this measure threatens core liberties rather than safeguarding children. Oklahoma families deserve better: robust child protection without unconstitutional overreach.

Parents, constituients and Lawmakers should reject SB 1774 to respect these foundational limits on government power. Track progress at oklegislature.gov.

Contact your representatives and tell them to stop this bill in its tracks. Contact your Governor Candidates and tell them this bill needs to die in committee.

Continuing to create law that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Oklahoma Constitution makes that law void.

A 24 page bill of amendments and new laws regarding Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act. The primary objections/unacceptable parts are on page 20 regarding 1/4 and 1/2 mile setbacks (should be at least 1 mile) and no county option for residents to opt out.

Appears to be a duplicate bills of SB 2123 by Frix and SB 1514 by McIntosh and SB 2183 by Seifried...

YES IF increase setbacks, this is not sufficient: "1. The minimum setback for the base of any wind turbine from a nonparticipating landowner’s property line shall be equal to the greater of one quarter (1/4) of a nautical mile or two (2) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip. A nonparticipating landowner may elect to sign a waiver that allows a wind turbine or group of wind turbines to be placed up to one and one-tenth (1.1) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip from the nonparticipating landowner’s property line; 2. The minimum setback from the base of a wind turbine shall be one half (1/2) of a nautical mile from any residential structure that exists at the time the permit application is submitted to the Corporation Commission;

A 24 page bill of amendments and new laws regarding Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act. The primary objections/unacceptable parts are on page 20 regarding 1/4 and 1/2 mile setbacks (should be at least 1 mile) and no county option for residents to opt out.

Appears to be a duplicate bills of SB 2123 by Frix and SB 1514 by McIntosh and SB 2183 by Seifried...

YES IF increase setbacks, this is not sufficient: "1. The minimum setback for the base of any wind turbine from a nonparticipating landowner’s property line shall be equal to the greater of one quarter (1/4) of a nautical mile or two (2) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip. A nonparticipating landowner may elect to sign a waiver that allows a wind turbine or group of wind turbines to be placed up to one and one-tenth (1.1) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip from the nonparticipating landowner’s property line; 2. The minimum setback from the base of a wind turbine shall be one half (1/2) of a nautical mile from any residential structure that exists at the time the permit application is submitted to the Corporation Commission;