Official sample ballots · November 3, 2026
The sample ballots
These are the sample ballots Pittsburg County published for precinct 610004. They are shown exactly as issued: the PDFs are byte-for-byte copies, and each one's fingerprint is listed below.
Ballots differ from precinct to precinct. Your county commissioner district, your city or town, and any school or municipal questions depend on where you live. To see your own sample ballot and polling place, look yourself up on the OK Voter Portal.
Precinct 610004-REGNP
County ballot
Who gets it: Every voter in precinct 610004.
Download the PDF 116 KB · 2 pages
Contents of this ballot, as text
- STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING: REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC, LIBERTARIAN
- FOR GOVERNOR: MIKE MAZZEI (Republican); CYNDI MUNSON (Democrat); ORLANDO LYNN BUSH (Independent); ROBERT E BROOKS SR (Independent); JERRY GRIFFIN (Independent)
- FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: T. W. SHANNON (Republican); KELLY FORBES (Democrat)
- FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL: JON ECHOLS (Republican); NICK COFFEY (Democrat)
- FOR STATE TREASURER: CINDY BYRD (Republican); KIEFER PERRY (Libertarian)
- FOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: ROBERT FRANKLIN (Republican); JENNETTIE MARSHALL (Democrat)
- FOR COMMISSIONER OF LABOR: KEVIN WEST (Republican); KEVIN DAWSON (Democrat); MIKE HALL (Libertarian)
- FOR INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: BOB SULLIVAN (Republican); CRAIG MacINTYRE (Democrat)
- FOR CORPORATION COMMISSIONER: BRAD BOLES (Republican); RHONDA EASTMAN (Democrat)
- FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR: KEVIN HERN (Republican); N'KIYLA JASMINE THOMAS (Democrat); SEVIER WHITE (Libertarian); RON MEINHARDT (Independent); CURTIS STINNETT (Independent)
- FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 02: JOSH BRECHEEN (Republican); BRANDON WADE (Democrat); RONNIE HOPKINS (Independent)
- FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 3: ROSS SELMAN (Republican); JONATHAN CASEY MYERS (Independent)
- FOR COUNTY SHERIFF (UNEXPIRED TERM): FRANKIE McCLENDON (Republican); BOBBY COX (Independent)
- Shall M. JOHN KANE IV of the OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall TRAVIS V. JETT of the OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall DANA KUEHN of the OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall RICHARD B. DARBY of the OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall ROBERT L. HUDSON of the OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall STACIE L. HIXON of the OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall JANE P. WISEMAN of the OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall DEBORAH B. BARNES of the OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS be retained in office? YES / NO
- Shall JAMES R. HUBER of the OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS be retained in office? YES / NO
-
State Question 845 — Judicial Nominating CommissionAs printed on the ballot
STATE QUESTION NO. 845 · LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 378
This measure amends article 7-B, section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution, changing the Judicial Nominating Commission's structure. Currently appointments are based on congressional districts as constituted in 1967. If approved, appointments to the fifteen-member Commission will be as follows: 1) Governor appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the time of their appointment; 2) the Oklahoma Bar Association appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the date of selection; and 3) no less than eight members select three at-large members. The measure will permit any number of the commissioners to be licensed attorneys in Oklahoma or another state. The prohibition against immediate family members from practicing law will be removed. The measure changes terms so that at-large commissioners would serve a two-year term, and all other commissioners would serve a six-year term. Additionally, it removes restrictions on political party membership for members appointed by the Governor and at-large members. The measure also permits a commissioner to succeed himself or herself. Vacancies will be filled in the same manner as a commissioner is appointed or selected for the remainder of the relevant term. This measure will not have a fiscal impact.
Shall the proposal be approved?
FOR THE PROPOSAL - YESAGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO -
State Question 847 — Property valuation limits and the senior freezeAs printed on the ballot
STATE QUESTION NO. 847 · LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 381
This measure amends article 10, sections 8B and 8C of the Oklahoma Constitution. Currently, section 8B limits annual growth in fair cash value to 5% for most real property or 3% for homesteads and agricultural land. If approved, the measure would limit annual growth in fair cash value for tax year 2027 and after to 4% for most real property or 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land. Currently, section 8C prohibits any increase in fair cash value of homestead property for persons age sixty-five (65) or older whose income does not exceed certain limits, sometimes referred to as the senior freeze. Instead of prohibiting any increase in fair cash value for these homesteads, there would be an annual limit of 1.75%. The measure eliminates the income cap on gross household income to qualify for the senior freeze. If approved, the annual limit on an increase in fair cash value would be tied to how much gross household income the homestead owner had in the preceding year. If a homeowner's gross household income from the previous year was at or below the median income for their county or area (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's estimated median income amount for the county or metropolitan statistical area), a homeowner's homestead fair cash value cannot be increased. If the income amount was in excess of certain thresholds, the limit on increases in fair cash value for homesteads owned by persons age 65 or older could be 0.35% (income over 100% up to 120%); 0.7% (income over 120% up to 140%); 1.05% (income over 140% up to 160%); 1.4% (income over 160% up to 180%); or 1.75% (income over 180%). If passed, this measure would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown.
Shall the proposal be approved?
FOR THE PROPOSAL - YESAGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO -
Pittsburg County Proposition — 5% lodging taxAs printed on the ballot
Shall the imposition of a new excise tax increase upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from the service of furnishing rooms by hotel, apartment hotel, motels, vacation rental homes, tourist homes, houses or courts of any kind or nature, lodging houses, inns, rooming houses, bed and breakfast establishments, corporate lodgings, trailer houses, trailer motels, dormitory space where bed space is rented to individuals or groups, apartments of any kind or nature not occupied by permanent residents, and for the furnishing of any other facility for public lodging, except campsites, within those areas of Pittsburg County wherein municipal lodging tax is not currently in effect as of November 3, 2026, of five percent (5%) effective on April 1, 2027, for an unlimited duration or until repealed by the voters of Pittsburg County, said gross proceeds or gross receipts to be utilized for the promotion of tourism within Pittsburg County, be approved?
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YESAGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO
SHA-256 0069c1214359b002a5a364fff230e36bbad9a6a3a4da00ef9500e57546cbcab5
Precinct 610004-MCAL
City of McAlester ballot
Who gets it: Voters in precinct 610004 who live inside McAlester city limits, in addition to the county ballot.
Download the PDF 128 KB · 2 pages (page 2 is blank)
Contents of this ballot, as text
-
City of McAlester Proposition — hotel tax from 6% to 10%As printed on the ballot
This proposition increases the tax paid on the rents of hotel rooms from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%) to continue until repealed. This proposition also divides all revenues generated by the tax equally between the following purposes: (1) tourism promotion, and (2) economic development. The revenues may not be used for any other purpose. The details regarding implementation of this proposition can be found in Ordinance No. 2878.
Shall the proposition be approved?
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YESAGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO
SHA-256 ee697fc46a66247d57d9e0de97543970bd569ec0df48c476df88bbb240a220d7


