As Union members, we understand that economic growth only benefits working people when we, the workers, have a seat at the table.
State Questions 844 and 846 present an opportunity to shape the development of major data center projects in our state. The question isn’t simply whether data centers should be built; it’s whether they will be built in ways that benefit workers, our communities, and future generations.
A Pro-Labor Approach
Labor groups have always backed smart economic growth. This means they want to promote investment while also ensuring that businesses treat their workers and the surrounding communities well. It’s about finding a balance between making money and doing right by people.
Our priorities include:
- Good-paying union jobs
- Safe working conditions
- Skilled apprenticeship opportunities
- Fair wages and benefits
- Local hiring whenever possible
- Accountability to the communities where projects are built
When these standards are in place, everyone benefits; not just corporations, but working families as well.
Accountability Matters
Supporting economic development does not mean giving corporations a blank check.
Union members know that large projects should:
- Respect workers’ rights.
- Contribute fairly to local infrastructure.
- Protect natural resources.
- Operate transparently.
- Be good neighbors in the communities where they are located.
If companies are unwilling to meet these expectations, organized labor should not support those projects. That’s why accountability is just as important as investment.
Why Labor Supports Responsible Growth
History has shown that when Unions are involved early in major infrastructure projects, workers earn better wages, receive better training, and enjoy safer workplaces.
Rather than driving investment elsewhere, responsible standards help ensure that the jobs created are quality jobs; jobs that can support a family and strengthen local economies.
As Union members, new technology and new industries should create opportunities for working people, not simply increase corporate profits.
An Educated Vote
Every member should take the time to learn about State Questions 844 and 846 before casting a ballot.
Whatever your personal perspective, consider these key questions:
- Will working families truly benefit from this economic growth?
- Does it guarantee that large corporations will be held accountable?
- Will this proposal create high-quality union jobs?
- Are local workers and communities adequately protected?
For organized labor, these are the most critical questions.
Our Future
TWU has always believed that progress and worker protections go hand in hand. Economic development thrives when it creates family-sustaining careers, strengthens communities, and respects the people whose labor makes these projects possible.
With the upcoming vote on State Questions 844 and 846, we urge all members to seek out facts, ask critical questions, and cast their ballots in a way that best supports working families.
Marla Johnson
TWU514 Vice President
Oklahoma AFL-CIO Vice President
SQ 844:
State Question 844 deals with property taxes. Specifically, it changes Oklahoma law regarding
how counties receive property tax exemption reimbursements.
CURRENT LAW
Oklahoma has a five-year property tax exemption in place for manufacturing plants that open
within the state. This applies both to brand new plants and existing plants that have expanded.
Without the exemption, counties would receive “ad valorem” tax payments from these
manufacturers. County governments are heavily reliant on property and ad valorem taxes to
fund their core services-namely, road, bridge, and infrastructure maintenance.
The motivation for an exemption is the theory that businesses will choose to open plants in
Oklahoma as a result of the incentive. Counties would be vehemently opposed to such
exemptions, but another law on the books in Oklahoma has appeased them: the property tax
reimbursement policy. Today, counties can request reimbursements from the state for lost
revenue due to the manufacturing plant exemption.
WHAT SQ 844 CHANGES
If SQ 844 passes, it will change existing law in the state of Oklahoma. While the law currently
requires the state to provide reimbursements, SQ844 would allow the state to simply create
“levels and methodologies” for how property tax reimbursements are created.
In simple terms, this sets a pathway for the state legislature to abandon its obligation to
reimburse counties for lost revenue due to the exemption. This reimbursement policy has
helped counties who would otherwise struggle to operate without the revenue to avoid a
financial crisis.
BOTTOM LINE
SQ 844 changes the law to give the legislature the ability to change how, and how much,
counties receive reimbursements. It creates the potential for some counties to lose out on
reimbursements altogether, which would have a devastating impact across the state, and
particularly in rural areas.
SQ 846:
State Question 846 changes Oklahoma’s constitution. It gives the legislature additional power to
define what constitutes proof of identity,” and requires them to establish in law a definition for
“proof of identity.” Current Oklahoma law already requires this, so the state question elevates
the weight of the law from a simple state statute to a law embedded in the state constitution.
CURRENT LAW
As stated earlier, Oklahoma law already requires what this state question seeks to do. As of
2026, proof of identity is defined in state law as a document issued by the U.S. government, the
state of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized Native American tribe that includes a voter’s name,
photo, and an expiration date in the future. If the document is valid indefinitely or it was issued
by the armed forces, an expiration date is not required.
WHAT SQ846 CHANGES
On the surface, the state question doesn’t change anything. But a harder look at the fine print
indicates that it may not be so simple.
The ballot measure requires the state legislature to establish a definition of “proof of identity.”
The current definition is spelled out above, and is pretty clear on what constitutes proof of
identity. However, recent political discourse suggests that there may be a desire on the part of
some elected leaders to tighten the definition in ways that could make it harder for some
Oklahomans to provide adequate proof.
The concern on the part of those who oppose this ballot measure is that the legislature will use
the opportunity it creates for them to define certain currently accepted forms of identification, like
tribal IDs or military IDs, as insufficient proof of identity.
BOTTOM LINE
SQ 846 looks very simple, and that’s why so many political observers are suspicious. The
provision calling on the legislature to re-define what constitutes proof of identity, at a time when
partisan politics are nastier than ever, opens the door to an over-politicized environment where
the worst impulses of our elected leaders could shape who gets to vote in Oklahoma.