OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday requiring voter identification, making the state the first this year to enshrine such rules in its constitution.
The measure, State Question 846, passed with nearly 55% support during the primary runoff election. The amendment adds voter ID requirements to the state Constitution and grants the Legislature authority to enact future laws specifying acceptable forms of identification. The change makes it more difficult to alter voter ID laws, as any future modifications would require a public vote.
The amendment builds on existing state law, which already required one of three forms of identification to vote. Supporters argued that enshrining the requirement in the Constitution would prevent future lawmakers from removing voter ID rules without voter approval. House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, and Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, sponsored the legislation placing the measure on the ballot.
Critics warned that the amendment could give lawmakers greater control over election laws, potentially leading to stricter identification requirements that might disenfranchise some voters. Opponents also expressed concern that the Legislature could impose additional burdens without a public vote.
The measure follows a broader trend in 2024, with voters in at least six states deciding ballot initiatives related to voter ID. Oklahoma was the first to vote on such a proposal, while other states, including Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina, will consider stricter ID requirements in the general election. Earlier this year, lawmakers in eight other states also made voter ID requirements more stringent, according to the Voting Rights Lab.
The constitutional amendment ensures that any future changes to voter ID laws in Oklahoma will require a statewide vote, making the process more difficult than altering state statutes. Supporters, including Hilbert and Paxton, framed the measure as a safeguard against potential future changes to election laws. Paxton previously stated that the amendment was necessary to ensure voter ID requirements could not be removed without public consent.
Opponents, however, argued that the change could lead to unintended consequences, such as the Legislature imposing stricter ID rules that disproportionately affect certain groups of voters. The debate reflects ongoing national discussions about election integrity and access, with some states tightening ID requirements while others expand voting methods.