A lot happened last week—both at the Capitol and here in Norman—and if you tried to keep up in real time, you probably felt like you were drinking from a firehose.
Between the Legislature racing to meet its March 26 floor deadline and city leadership making decisions that will have long-term consequences for residents, it was nearly impossible for most people to track what actually mattered.
That’s exactly why we spent almost two hours breaking it all down on the podcast—and why I’ve pulled together the key moments, video clips, and takeaways here.
You’ll notice I didn’t dive into the City of Norman situation here—even though it was a big part of this week. That wasn’t an oversight. We covered it in detail on the podcast, and honestly, it’s something you need to hear play out in real time to fully appreciate what happened.
Because most people don’t have time to sit through hours of floor debate or late-night council meetings. But those conversations matter. They reveal how decisions are made, who is being prioritized, and—if you’re paying attention—who is actually representing you.
And when people tell you who they are, you should listen.
Legislative Reform
HB3453 Requiring Condemning Agencies to Prove Necessity to Use Eminent Domain
HB3453, with authors Rep. Staires, Wilk, Menz and Senator Reinhardt, made it off the house floor and to the Senate.
🎤 Floor Discussion
Rep. Staires presented the bill on the house floor on Wednesday March 25th.
Here’s the 8-minute clip.
He explains that his amendments are to make exemptions for oil and gas and utilities and natural gas and talks about how this is his tenth version of the bill, after speaking to multiple entities, and that this has been one of his favorite bills to run so far because “of all of the conversations that I’ve had and all of the entities are now on board.”
He thinks the bill “is a real good compromise because not everybody is fully happy.”
Translation: welcome to the Legislature.
🤔 “Who is this helping?”
He got a question from Rep. Marilyn Stark (R-Bethany), who asks the most straightforward question of the day.
Her question was “Who is this helping?”
I laughed out loud when I heard this question—because somewhere between when I drafted this bill in December 2025 and its tenth iteration, the Legislature had quietly carved out a large portion of the state’s eminent domain users.
Staires responds with a clear explanation of the intent: this bill is about requiring condemning authorities to actually prove necessity before using eminent domain (for those still covered under the bill).
But then comes the moment that perfectly captures the tension here.
Rep. Stark’s follow up was
“You you carved out all of the utilities, one by one. So this is just for private landowners. Would you find it surprising that I kinda wish you would just do away with eminent domain? - Rep. Stark (R-Bethany).
Cue applause from the gallery.
Rep. Staires laughs and responds. “That would not pass.”
Cue laughter.
That laughter tells you everything.
Because everyone in that room understands the same thing: the Legislature will never vote to take away the government’s power to seize private property—or even seriously limit it.
Not now. Not ever.
Even if that’s exactly what the people they represent would choose.
He’s not wrong. But it lays bare the truth: the version that can pass is the version that preserves government power—not the one that fully protects citizens.
✂️ The Carve-Out Conversation
To get this bill heard, oil and gas companies, utilities, and natural gas providers were carved out of the requirement to prove public use before exercising eminent domain.
Why?
Because without those carve-outs, their lobbyists would have ensured the bill never made it to the floor.
Which means the bill still improves things—but not for some of the most frequent users of eminent domain authority.
That’s the tradeoff that got this bill across the house floor.
🙃 Clarifying Questions… and Then Some
Now for the part of the floor discussion where the line between representing constituents and carrying water for condemning authorities starts to blur—though in this case, it’s not particularly subtle.
Rep. Grego, R - District 17 (SE Oklahoma - term limit 2030) asked “You may have touched on this, but oil and gas. What is its effect on oil and gas, eminent domain?”
Rep. Staires: “That was in the amendment to the amendment which carves out oil and gas specifically. So they would not be involved in this.”
Rep. Grego follow up: “You stated while this thing is proven the need, so if we get into a fight with the landowner, will the project will be stopped, while we are trying to sort out whether this project is a legitimate project or not, or will they do like they’ve always done, run over the landowner, put in the project, say we’ll settle it in court at some other date.”
Rep. Staires. “That specific issue is not addressed in this piece of legislation.”
And just like that, the priorities are laid bare.
Not the landowner. Not due process. The project.
“If WE get into a fight with the landowner?”
Who is WE, sir?
Buried in that exchange is a glaring truth though: in Oklahoma, a home can be seized, demolished, and replaced with a project before a court ever decides whether the taking was justified. Even if the homeowner wins, the damage is already done—permanently. That’s not due process. That’s not justice. Yet somehow, it’s become the “Oklahoma Standard.” And it’s exactly what these reforms must confront.
🏛️ The Question Everyone Was Waiting For
Ah… here we go.
Rep. Grego follow up. “Where is ODOT and OTA at in this bill? Have they endorsed this, or do they not like it?
Staires: “They have not endorsed this. They are one of the parties that is not fully happy with this, but they are not against it. This was all part of the conversation coming to the 10th different version of this to find something that all parties could accept even though they are not all happy with it.”
In other words: they can live with it.
And that’s often the real test—not whether it protects citizens, but whether it preserves the system.
My sense is that Tom Gann, Rick West, and Justin Humphrey voted no because the bill carves out a significant share of condemning authorities—undermining the kind of consistent, across-the-board property rights protections they’ve long advocated for.
As for Jim Grego, it’s difficult to identify a coherent policy position in his comments. At best, the line of questioning suggests a reflexive deference to condemning authorities; at worst, it reflects a willingness to accept a system where projects can move forward before citizens have a meaningful chance to be heard. Either way, it raises serious concerns about whose interests are actually being prioritized.
🧭 Where That Leaves Us
So here’s the takeaway from the floor:
This bill is a step forward, not a final solution
It reflects compromise after extensive negotiation
It leaves key gaps that will need to be addressed in future reforms
Not glamorous. Not perfect. But movement.
And in this building, movement matters.
This bill is currently scheduled for the Senate ……. but we aren’t sure what committee yet. Probably Judiciary, chaired by Senator Howard. I am hopeful he will hear this bill.
HB 1939 5-year sunset on new turnpike authorizations, requiring real public notice and engagement, mandating Supreme court bond validation
HB1939, authored by Sterling, Staires, Menz, Manger and Senator Standridge, made it off the House floor Thursday, March 26th. I’ve pulled a 10-minute clip from the floor debate—and it’s worth your time. To really understand how discussion gets redirected, diluted, and sometimes completely derailed, you need to watch it play out.
This bill was run last session but we pulled it because the OTA put in language that we were not comfortable with and we couldn’t find a way forward. We resurrected it last minute with two important amendments - but it still wouldn’t move forward with leadership unless we agreed to let the OTA take out one key sentence in the bill:
“The Authority shall collaborate with elected officials of cities and counties where the new route will be located.”
Why doesn’t the OTA want to “COLLABORATE WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS?”
When people tell you who they are, LISTEN, and then ACT.
Let me show you what Joe Echelle, the Director of the OTA, thinks about this collaboration statement in the bill.
In a discussion/email/exchange with Rep. Tedford about using this HB1939 to insert language allowing a location authorization for a bridge over the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Bixby, Joe Echelle said the following:
“The issue this bill has, for me, is in the collaborate with local elected officials. This would mean that any future project would need the support of the cities and counties. Historically, this would stop all turnpike projects because there has always been some city or county that didn’t support the project.” - Director Joe Echelle
Cities and counties should HAVE A SAY IN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND HOW THEY WANT THEIR CITIES TO LOOK AND FEEL.
The legislative leadership sided with the OTA and told Rep. Sterling that if he didn’t amend the bill to remove the collaboration statement, they wouldn’t hear it. So that was Amendment #3.
Of course, because the OTA wanted it, Amendment #3 was the FIRST amendment discussed on the floor and the first amendment adopted and so, as of right now, that municipality cooperation is removed from the bill.
But no one actually TALKED about the substance of the amendment.
When Rep. Sterling was asked to introduce amendment #3 he said “This is just some tweaking that we need to do to the bill.”
Rep. Grego and Rep. Dempsey ignored the amendment and went off the rails on the bill’s additional OTA requirement to “use its best efforts to provide notice to all known property owners within one (1) mile on each side of the new route, considering the number and types of property interests of such owners, by methods including, but not limited to, first class mail and targeted advertisements which shall include the utilization of certified mail to give notice to affected property owners.”
Grego said “Certified mail. Are you putting that back in that they must use certified mail to notify the people?”
Sterling: “Yes, we plan to leave that in at this point in time, simply because I think anytime you are dealing with peoples property that is going to be affected by being taken over by the turnpike authority, we need to exhaust all options in making sure everyone affected should be contacted.”
Grego: “As a 23 year postal employee, I don’t trust certified mail. Do you trust certified mail?”
Sterling: “I’ve never had a reason not to.”
Grego: “Can I give you an example sir?” And then he goes on to give an example of why certified mail is AWFUL.
The Speaker interrupts and says “this line of questioning is not on the amendment.”
So then Dempsey is recognized and says “So, you trust the postal service?”
I can’t with these guys.
The Speaker interrupts again and says “Still not on the amendment.”
And just like that, the conversation derailed—from a substantive amendment about local collaboration… to a full-blown debate on the reliability of certified mail.
It would almost be funny if it weren’t so effective.
Because while everyone was arguing about envelopes and tracking numbers, no one was actually talking about the amendment.
But somehow, without even discussing what the amendment was actually about, the amendment passes.
Then Sterling said he needed to take up Amendment #1.
Amendment 1 was to make it mandatory that the OTA go to the Supreme Court for Bond Validation. Right now, it is optional.
But when asked to explain the amendment, Rep. Sterling said that “Yes, this amendment basically was language that was originally in the bill, we are just reinstating it, it was oversight.”
But this explanation was for Amendment #2 - the poison pill that the OTA had placed in our bill last session, forcing us to kill it.
Rep. Sterling had confused Amendment #1 and #2. But it was still ok, because regardless of the incorrect explanation, Amendment #1 was successfully adopted on the floor without any discussion. This was a great win for the citizens of the state, if we can keep the language in across the finish line.
But then when the Speaker asked Sterling if he requested any further explanation of his duly amended bill, Rep. Sterling replied “Not at this time,” and yielded to questions on the floor.
At that point, you might expect the conversation to shift to the substance of the bill—what had just been amended, what it means, and why it matters.
Instead, we went right back to certified mail.
Are they paid by FedEx and UPS to disparage the USPS? I don’t fully understand their hang-up with notifying affected homeowners.
You need to watch it.
It’s wild.
Because the requirement to notify homeowners that their property may be taken isn’t controversial—it’s common sense. ODOT already does it. The OTA agreed to it last year. And yet, instead of debating whether citizens deserve clear notice, we spent floor time debating the reliability of the postal service.
But let’s talk more about the most important amendment that would restore a huge constraint on the OTA that Henry Bellmon, the 18th (1963-1967) and 23rd (1987-1991) Oklahoma Governor, instated back in 1987 that the OTA desperately wants to go away.
Amendment 2 was to restore stricken language that the OTA wanted taken out to protect them in future Supreme Court challenges on additional segments of their “outer-loop” which is currently location authorization #20. The Majority Supreme Court Opinion in 2023 was wrong - and the OTA knows it.
The OTA struck the following language from Title 69m, Section 1705f:
That single clause was the foundation of our argument in the OTA’s 2022 Bond Validation Case (O-120619): the East-West Connector could not be legally built on its own. Yet when we raised this point and showed all the evidence that the legislative intent was clear, the judiciary bent over backwards to protect the OTA instead of enforcing the legislature’s plain words.
“(f) To issue turnpike revenue bonds of the Authority, payable solely from revenues, including the revenues accruing to the trust fund created by Sections 1701 through 1734 of this title, for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any one or more turnpike projects. Provided that any bonds issued for the construction of the proposed turnpike referred to in subparagraphs (10), (20), (21) and (22) of paragraph (e) of this section shall be issued as one issue for all four of the proposed turnpikes and shall be financed, constructed and operated under one bond indenture.”
The second sentence of § 1705(f) strictly limits the OTA’s bonding and building authority in the case of the four turnpikes (part of the Chickasaw (10), part of the Cherokee (22), part of the Creek (21), and part of the Oklahoma City Outer Loop (20)) enumerated in 69 O.S. § 1705(e).
The Supreme Court dissenting minority (3 intellectually honest justices), agreed with our interpretation of the legislative intent - that the OTA could NOT get additional bonds to build the roadway. They had the following to say about the clause that ever since 1987, the OTA has been TRYING to get out of statute.
The OTA is trying to protect themselves in future attempts to build more segments of the outer loop by removing that one sentence from statute. We can’t allow that to happen. And now that Chevron is dead, maybe the Oklahoma Supreme Court will adjudicate law as written - not give agencies broad deference.
If you didn’t know, the Chevron doctrine gave the OTA the ammunition to tell the court to defer to THEM and THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law because THEY KNEW BEST.
So what is the Chevron Doctrine?
“The Chevron doctrine was a legal fiction created entirely by the SCOTUS in it’s ruling in 1984 on Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron case was related to a question of statutory interpretation and the Court decided that when a statute is ambiguous a court should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law. This was a clear abdication of the duties of the court as laid out in the Constitution and APA (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706) in my opinion and has lead to administrative agencies being able to do anything they want without any opportunity for people to challenge the legality of their actions.” ~ Tom Renz
Judge Winchester (Oklahoma State Supreme Court Justice) used this Chevron doctrine out loud several times to justify his opinion on why the OTA should be allowed to build the turnpikes.
The practical reality of Chevron was that any challenge to an agency or agency action was going to be decided based on an individual judges feelings towards the action rather than objective law. This is not how the courts were intended to work under the Constitution and the SCOTUS majority finally fixed this issue - but they didn’t do it until 2024, and the opinion in our case was levied in August of 2023.
Amendment #2 was never meaningfully discussed on the floor—lost in confusion and the chaotic way the House runs debate. Listen to the clip; it speaks for itself.
As it stands, the stricken language remains in the bill.
That has to change—or we will kill the bill again.
It now moves to the Senate Aeronautics and Transportation Committee, chaired by Senator Jech. I do not expect it to advance. Most likely, it will either be denied a hearing or conditioned on further concessions we are not willing to make.
🧭 Where That Leaves Us
So here’s the takeaway from the floor:
This bill had the potential to be one of the strongest guardrails on the OTA
Key accountability language was stripped to get it heard
Critical protections are still in play—but not guaranteed
HB 1939 contains real reforms—sunsetting dormant turnpike authorizations, requiring Supreme Court bond validation, and improving notice to affected landowners. Those are meaningful steps.
But the removal of the local collaboration requirement tells you everything you need to know about the pressure behind the scenes. When given the choice between empowering communities or appeasing the agency, leadership made their decision.
And then, to make matters worse, one of the most important remaining provisions—the restoration of statutory limits on how these projects are financed—was never even discussed clearly on the floor.
That’s not just frustrating—it’s a problem.
Because when legislators don’t fully understand what’s in a bill, or when amendments aren’t clearly explained, accountability breaks down.
So where does that leave us?
This bill is still technically alive—but it’s probably done for the session, especially since it is assigned to the Aeronautics and Transportation Committee, chaired by Jech, who blocked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR BILLS so far this session.
SB80: The Appearance of Reform
SB80, authored by Senator Standridge, is is often presented as a companion to HB1939—but it is not its equal.
While it includes some of the same concepts, the overall structure and language are noticeably weaker. And that’s what makes this bill concerning. In my experience, the bills that survive are often the ones that look like reform, without actually changing much of anything.
To be clear: we did not write this bill. We have been working for over a year to strengthen this language, and those efforts were unsuccessful. The co-authors are Senators Bergstrom, Jett, and Sacchieri, and Representatives Staires and Menz.
This bill was presented on the Senate Floor on Monday, March 23rd around 4:30 pm in the afternoon.
I am not a fan of a majority of the language, because it is posturing - pretending to do something, while allowing bad behavior to continue, with no consequences.
Let me break this down into what actually matters—and what doesn’t.
What Actually Matters
Sunsetting Location Authorizations
SB80 strikes all unbuilt and infeasible existing location authorizations and sunsets any new location authorizations within 5 years if construction has not started, which mirrors HB1939 and it’s strong.
This is the one provision in the bill with real teeth.
If it stays intact, it prevents the OTA from sitting on decades-old authorizations and using them as justification for projects that communities never agreed to.
Everything else in this bill? Not so much.
What Sounds Good But Changes Nothing
The rest of the bill falls into a different category: things that sound like accountability, but don’t actually change behavior.
The bill requires public notice in a newspaper “in the vicinity of” a project, posted for four weeks. We already know how the OTA interprets “in the vicinity of…”—and it’s not in a way that meaningfully informs affected residents.
It requires approval of design contracts in an open meeting. That sounds nice, until you remember that the OTA board is largely a rubber stamp and the real decisions are made long before those meetings occur.
It requires reporting to the Governor, Legislature, and local officials within 90 days of those meetings.
Too little. Too late. No consequence.
It requires public meetings within 180 days, where citizens can provide comments—along with an online portal for feedback.
We’ve seen this movie before.
The OTA’s sham “townhalls” over the past four years consisted of tables staffed by consultants saying, “I don’t have the answer to that,” while citizens filled out comment cards and marked up maps.
But did any of that change their minds?
No.
Even when opposition reached 97%, the reporting was spun to say otherwise.
So what exactly does this language fix?
Nothing.
This isn’t reform. It’s posturing.
Where It Breaks Down
The most concerning part of the bill is how it handles notice to affected property owners.
SB80 requires the OTA to make a “good-faith effort” to notify property owners within half a mile of a proposed route—but then gives the agency full discretion to decide how to do it.
“publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the new route is to be located…… in addition, the Authority shall make a good-faith effort to provide notice to all known property owners within 1/2 mile on each side of the new route. The Authority shall use its discretion in selecting the method to provide the notice to property owners, considering the number and types of property interests of such owners.”
Let that sink in.
We are no longer in a world where agencies get deference to interpret vague statutes in their favor. Chevron is DEAD.
We don’t give “DEFERENCE” to state agencies anymore.
We the People are supposed to define the rules clearly.
Instead, this bill hands that discretion right back to the agency.
No standards. No enforcement. No accountability.
And then it adds a requirement that if a route changes based on public input, the OTA must report that change.
Can we be honest?
That has never happened in the history of the OTA.
They do not change course based on public input. And nothing in this bill forces them to.
And Then There’s the Blair Amendment
In addition to all this language to wade through, there was an amendment to this bill from Senator Blair.
Do you know what this amendment means?
Neither did 95% of the Senators reading it. Well, that’s assuming any Senator DID attempt to read it.
That’s not an accident—it’s part of the process.
The way amendments are written and presented on the floor is intentionally confusing, so only the people “in the club” fully understand what’s happening.
Here’s what it actually does.
It modifies an existing location authorization for a bridge in Tulsa County.
Originally, the statute specified:
#32: A new bridge crossing the Arkansas River between South Delaware Avenue and Memorial Drive in Tulsa County. This project shall commence upon a determination by the Oklahoma Transportation Authority that such bridge shall be self-sufficient at the some point over a thirty-year time period from the toll charges associated with the bridge project.
The amendment changes that to:
#13: A new bridge crossing the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Bixby.
There we go with “in the vicinity of….” again.
And it removes the requirement that the bridge be financially self-sufficient.
So now we have:
No clear location
No financial constraint
No meaningful public input
Has the community been asked if they want this bridge? Where they want it? Whether they’re okay with being tolled indefinitely?
There’s no evidence of community engagement.
And yet, the authorization moves forward.
A quick aside: His partner in crime, Rep. Tedford, tried to take over our HB1939, but ended up taking HB2123, originally a shell bill, and turning it into a bill to authorize the same bridge of the Arkansas River.
It went from a shell bill on February 10, 2026 to being heard in the first committee on February 11th, to being heard in the second committee on February 26th, to being heard on the House floor on March 16th, to being sent to the Senate on March 17th.
WOW!
Our legislative system works really fast when the agencies are in agreement with the bills that give them more power and money.
The Bigger Picture
That being said, I believe a community has the right to decide on their infrastructure needs. I am not part of the Bixby community, so I will refrain from commenting on the necessity of a bridge over the Arkansas River “in the vicinity of Bixby.”
However, I don’t believe that the community was properly asked about this with enough detail to create a legislative authorization.
I also existentially disagree with the legislature giving the OTA any more authorizations to build additional infrastructure unless we get the legislature to enact meaningful oversight.
I especially disagree with giving the OTA any more authorizations that say “in the vicinity of……”
“In the vicinity of…” has already been used to justify projects miles—sometimes tens of miles—away from what anyone would reasonably consider the original location.
We’ve seen it in Cleveland County and the City of Norman with the currently proposed 19-mile southern extension that was erroneously greenlighted by a controversial Oklahoma Supreme Court split decision in August 2023 when the majority failed to adjudicate true legislative intent.
Even the OTA admitted that they didn’t have authorization to build it in an email to the governor back in the summer of 2022. The location authorization the OTA argued in Court (Section 1705(e) #28) actually describes the H.E.Bailey Spur, SH9 and SH4.
I don’t like vague.
I like specifics—especially when dealing with agencies that have the power to take property, issue billions in bonds, and move projects forward regardless of public opposition.
At a minimum, the Legislature should be holding them to that.
The bill passed 39-3.
So after all of that language, all of those requirements, all of those proposed “guardrails,” the real question is:
What Actually Changes?
SB80 is the perfect example of how weak reform survives.
One provision actually matters
The rest is political cover
And the system stays exactly as it is
Yes—the 5-year sunset on unused turnpike authorizations is strong. That piece has real teeth and should absolutely stay.
But everything else?
It’s performative.
It creates the appearance of transparency without enforcing it. It requires “notice” without defining it. It mandates “public meetings” that we already know don’t influence outcomes. And it allows the OTA to continue operating with broad discretion—because the Legislature chose not to close those gaps.
That’s not reform. That’s insulation.
And the danger here is bigger than this one bill.
Because bills like SB80 are the ones that pass. They give legislators something to point to. They give agencies something to comply with—on paper. And they give the public the impression that something has been fixed… when nothing fundamental has changed.
So where does that leave us?
If the sunset provision holds, SB80 does one important thing.
If the rest of the bill stays as written, it does something just as important for the OTA—it gives them cover.
And that’s the tension.
Real reform versus the appearance of it.
Right now, SB80 leans heavily toward the latter. This bill is headed to the Transportation Committee in the House, chaired by Ronnie Johns and the Commerce and Economic Development Oversight, chaired by Brian Hill, with Vice Chair Mark Tedford, of HB2123 fame.
This one might make it through committee just because it is relatively weak, performative reform, with that extra location authorization of a bridge over the Arkansas River “in the vicinity of Bixby” that Tedford wants.
Movement Isn’t the Same as Reform
Three bills moved forward. On paper, that sounds like progress—and in some ways, it is. There are real improvements in pieces of this legislation, and the effort it took to get even this far shouldn’t be discounted.
But let’s be honest about what we’re looking at.
These bills reflect what can pass—not what fully protects Oklahomans.
They are shaped by carve-outs, softened by compromise, and in some cases, padded with language that creates the appearance of accountability without actually delivering it.
That’s the game.
And if this session has made anything clear, it’s that meaningful reform isn’t going to come from one bill, one vote, or one week at the Capitol. It’s going to take sustained pressure, informed citizens, and a willingness to keep showing up—even when the process is frustrating, confusing, or intentionally opaque.
Because the other side is counting on you not paying attention.
So watch the clips. Share them. Talk to your neighbors. Ask your legislators hard questions.
And most importantly—remember what you saw.
Because election season is coming.
And now you know exactly who is representing you—and who isn’t.
I’m curious where you land on this:
Do you think these bills represent real reform—or the appearance of it?
