Oklahoma City – Governor Kevin Stitt is pressing the Oklahoma Legislature and the public to approve a state question that would call a constitutional convention, a move not seen in the state for more than half a century. The governor argues that the state constitution itself obligates a vote on a convention every 20 years, citing Article 24, while former state lawmaker Mark McBride has filed a lawsuit claiming the governor lacks the authority to unilaterally place the question on the ballot.
Legal dispute over gubernatorial power
McBride’s lawsuit contends that the Oklahoma Constitution does not grant the governor the power to call a constitutional convention without legislative approval. “It’s a precedent that the state, or any state, can’t allow governors to step out of their authority,” McBride told KOCO 5. He emphasizes that elected officials must “stay in their lane” and that the people, not the governor, should initiate the process.
Stitt counters that Article 6 requires him to faithfully execute the laws of the state, and he points to the language in Article 24 that mandates a periodic opportunity for voters to consider a convention. “The constitution says the people shall vote every 20 years,” Stitt said. “They haven’t been able to vote for this in 56 years, so as governor I got tired of waiting for the legislature.”
Why a convention now?
The governor says a new convention could address a range of issues, including potential reforms to Medicaid expansion and medical marijuana policy. He argues that a modernized constitution would better reflect Oklahoma’s current values and economic priorities.
Supporters of the idea note that the last constitutional convention took place 56 years ago, a period during which the state’s demographics, economy, and legal landscape have changed dramatically. Proponents argue that a fresh convention could streamline outdated provisions and give Oklahomans a direct voice in shaping their governing document.
Potential impact on voters
If the lawsuit is resolved in favor of the governor, the state question could appear on the ballot in the April election, giving voters a clear choice on whether to convene a constitutional convention. The outcome would set a precedent for how future governors may use ballot initiatives to advance policy goals.
Critics warn that a convention could open the door to sweeping changes that may not align with conservative principles, such as expanding government programs or altering property rights. They stress the importance of a careful, transparent process should the convention be authorized.
Next steps
The case is expected to move quickly through the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which will decide whether the governor’s interpretation of the constitution holds legal weight. Both sides have expressed confidence in their positions: McBride believes he will prevail, while Stitt expects the courts to uphold the governor’s authority and has said, “Anytime anybody does anything around here, there’s going to be some lawsuits. We expect that and let the Supreme Court decide.”
Regardless of the legal outcome, the issue underscores a broader conversation about state sovereignty, constitutional fidelity, and the role of elected officials in facilitating direct democracy for Oklahoma families and communities.
Original reporting: Oklahoma City News Feed (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
