Vetoes and failures: Where the #okleg stands after its latest deadline

Support Journalism

When Rep. Melissa Provenzano saw her House Bill 1389 pass the House unanimously and receive 34 votes of support in the Senate, she thought the bill’s stronger requirements for health insurance companies to cover breast cancer screening procedures would help the roughly one in six Oklahomans who are diagnosed with such malignancies in their lifetimes.

But when Gov. Kevin Stitt announced his veto of the bill Tuesday with a statement and a video, it shocked her.

“To be honest, I hadn’t considered he would veto it because he signed the [initial version] from 2022, so I was stunned and a little bit shocked,” Provenzano said.

In the days that followed, Stitt has received broad criticism while Provenzano has received an outpouring of support from fellow Democrats and Republicans at the Capitol. But as the week wound down and she pondered the pathway to potential veto override votes, she had a bigger event on her calendar Friday: the 11th of her 12 scheduled chemotherapy treatments for the breast cancer diagnosis she received in December while already working on HB 1389.

“Actually, my mom got diagnosed on October and had surgery on Election Day, and then I got diagnosed Dec. 11. We had the genetic testing, and we actually have two different types, which is wild to me,” Provenzano said. “So by the time I got diagnosed, the diagnostic mammogram for me had already happened, and what I want is for women to be able to have the same access that I had, because my insurance is decent. But not all insurance companies are the same.”

Provenzano said she initially did not want to make her own cancer diagnosis an issue while working the bill, but ultimately she decided to tell her colleagues.

“It was going to be hard to hide because this happened right as we were beginning session, and I had a single breast surgery in January and then began chemotherapy in February, and one of the byproducts of chemotherapy is your hair falls out. All sorts of things happen to your body, so it was going to be hard to mask,” she said. “I also thought, if this is the time in my life that I have a platform and I can get this done, then I’m going to be public. Normally, I’m a very private person, but I made the decision to share. And the response from the House of Representatives, Republican and Democrat, was overwhelming to me. It was beautiful. You stripped away Republic and Democrat, and we just became humans. (…) It was beautiful. When I brought it to the floor and I was recognized to speak, I turned around and looked at all of my peers, and there were dots of pink everywhere. Almost every member had something pink on to to be recognized, and it was almost overwhelming — a very special moment just to feel that support.”

In his veto message, Stitt said he is “deeply sympathetic to the women across our state who have bravely fought breast cancer,” but he cited an apparent philosophical belief on the topic of health insurance mandates as justification for his veto.

“While early detection and access to care are critical priorities, this legislation imposes new and costly insurance mandates on private health plans that will ultimately raise insurance premiums for working families and small businesses. Mammograms are already covered, and when a doctor sees the need for further tests, they are empowered to order further tests that can be covered by insurance,” Stitt wrote. “Without fail, when government gets involved in markets, prices rise for everyone. Rather than expanding government mandates, we should focus on empowering individuals and encouraging innovation in the marketplace to improve access and affordability.”

Stitt’s explanation fell short of satisfying some legislators. Sen. Brenda Stanley (R-Midwest City) released a statement expressing her “sincere disappointment in the governor’s veto of House Bill 1389,” calling the proposed mandate “a life-saving measure for all Oklahomans.”

“This legislation was vetoed due to the belief that the provision of this care could contribute to higher insurance premiums, although the reality is that the costs of providing preventative screenings are minuscule when compared to the costs to treat late-stage disease,” Stanley said. “The rejection of this bill is disheartening, but we will continue working until every woman and man in our state can access this essential and life-saving care, without having to also endure financial hardship.”

Attorney General Gentner Drummond tweeted criticism of Stitt’s veto late Wednesday.

“Next time you or a loved one is denied coverage for a mammogram, be sure to thank [Gov. Stitt],” Drummond said. “He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would force insurance companies to cover this life-saving procedure. The health insurance companies are celebrating—are you?”

Stitt vetoes 21 bills in one week

Provenzano’s proposal was far from the only bill Stitt vetoed last week. Uncapping the veto pen he has used liberally throughout his seven-year tenure, Stitt has already axed 21 of the 281 bills sent his way this session, with more likely to come.

Vetoes can be overridden by the Legislature and pushed into law despite the governor’s objection if two-thirds of both legislative chambers vote to do so. If a bill has an emergency clause on it specifying an implementation date earlier than Nov. 1, the Legislature’s override process requires three-fourths support.

Provenzano is hoping that the House and Senate will override Stitt’s veto on HB 1389, and other lawmakers and interest groups whose legislation has been vetoed are looking for the same. But veto override decisions typically pile up at the end of session, and it’s not always clear why a certain veto is or is not overridden and whether the simple factors of time and bandwidth factor in.

Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association, said his organization has “hope” that lawmakers will override Stitt’s veto of HB 2167, which would require newspapers that are paid to publish legal notices to post them on their websites in front of paywalls. The bill would also increase the fees collected by newspapers for publishing legal notices, which typically concern public meetings, property issues, probate matters and other processes.

“The bill addressed readability and accessibility of public notice in local newspapers and included the first increase in the state-controlled legal notice rate in over 20 years,” Thomas said. “The law required all notices to be in front of any website paywall and on a statewide site free to the public. (It) increased the type size of notices, established a maximum deadline, required the newspaper run a notice for free if they failed to run it properly the first time, and more. These reforms have been studied and discussed for a long time, so its incredibly disappointing the governor would veto a bill that clearly improves the system of constructive notice in Oklahoma.”

Newspapers refusing to place their legal notice publications online and in front of paywalls has been a major access issue in the internet era, although OPA maintains a website where people can search for notices from around the state. Stitt appeared not to realize that in his veto message, which focused on the impact of the rate increase on the public.

“This bill would significantly increase the cost for publishing legal notices in newspapers and force newspapers to create a statewide website to house these legal notices electronically, among other things,” Stitt wrote. “I have said publicly and repeatedly that we need to lower Oklahomans’ financial burden, not raise them. These measures would create unreasonable burdens on private entities and an unreasonable financial barrier to the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of legal disputes.”

Stitt also raised eyebrows by vetoing HB 1137, which made small changes to existing statute about how the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation shall coordinate with the U.S. Department of Justice on efforts regarding the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous persons.

In his veto message, Stitt appeared to be unaware that OSBI was already conducting such efforts, and he continued to describe Indian status as only “race” instead of a political classification under federal law.

“While I support efforts to solve missing persons and homicide cases, I cannot endorse legislation that singles out victims based solely on their race. House Bill 1137 requires the creation of a unit within [OSBI] that focuses exclusively on missing and murdered Indigenous persons. But every missing person—regardless of race or background—deserves equal attention and urgency,” Stitt said. “Oklahoma already has both the Missing Persons Clearing House and the Cold Case Unit within OSBI, which are tasked with investigating disappearances and unsolved cases across all communities. Creating a separate office that prioritizes cases based on race undermines the principle of equal protection under the law and risks sending the message that some lives are more worthy of government attention than others. Justice must be blind to race. Our resources and investigative efforts should be deployed based on the needs of the case, not the identity of the victim.”

Rep. Ron Stewart (D-Tulsa) authored HB 1137, which simply deleted a requirement for OSBI to pursue and receive federal funding for MMIP work. The issue has gained traction in recent years owing to the disproportionate number of Indigenous victims whose cases go unsolved, and Stewart said he was “deeply disappointed in the governor’s decision (…) especially on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples Awareness Day at the Capitol.”

“This bill represented a meaningful step forward in addressing an issue that affects families and communities across Oklahoma,” Stewart said. “While this veto is a setback, it is not the end. I will use this moment as motivation to continue working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to advance legislation that serves the best interests of all Oklahomans, honors the lives impacted, and ensures no community is left behind.”

Hunter McKee, OSBI’s public information manager, downplayed the effect of HB 1137’s veto.

“Our two special agents assigned to MMIP investigations will continue to assist with those cases,” he said. “Their roles will not change at this time.”

The other 21 bills vetoed by Stitt so far this session are:

Legislature resurrects failed bills

While Stitt was axing bills on the Capitol’s Second Floor, lawmakers were trying to stop others ahead of their May 8 deadline for measures to advance off the floor opposite their chamber of origin.

Throughout last week’s hectic double-barrel chamber work, a half-dozen major measures failed on House and Senate floors, although five of them were resurrected like Mark William Calaway and pushed back into the ring for further tussling. SB 1046, which would have established procedures and parameters for third-party curbside alcohol delivery, failed 31-61 on May 6, and it stayed failed.

Five other measures that failed, however, were reconsidered:

• SB 2, proposing wind farm setback requirements for certain counties in the state, initially failed May 6 by a 44-49 vote. But the next day, it was reconsidered with its title off and sent back to the Senate by a 54-39 vote;
• SB 209, which would create the Taiwan Regional Trade Office within the Department of Commerce, initially failed May 6 by a 45-42 vote. But the next day, it was reconsidered and sent back to the Senate by a 55-30 vote;
• SB 889, which would require hospitals to maintain a public, online list of standard charges for services, initially failed May 6 by a 46-46 tie vote. But the next day, it was reconsidered and sent back to the Senate by a 51-38 vote;
• HB 1427, which would modify and expand applicability of a tax credit for investment in clean-burning motor vehicles, initially failed May 7 by a 17-25 vote. But the next day, a motion to reconsider was approved, but the bill was laid over and remains property of the Senate for next session; and
• HB 2565, which would allow a limited liability partnership — regardless of whether the company is owned out of state — to hold a retail liquor license, initially failed May 6 by a 20-23 vote. But the next day, it was reconsidered and advanced back to the House by a 25-17 vote.

Mark Yates, executive director of the Oklahoma Power Alliance, issued a statement criticizing “the amount of political gymnastics needed to ram through SB 2 after multiple failures.”

“(That) speaks loud and clear that this bill is bad for Oklahomans and will inevitably lead to higher utility rates,” Yates said. “As families continue to stretch their budgets to keep up with inflation, Oklahomans long for leadership that will leverage all our energy resources for a strong economic future and to keep energy costs low. It is unfortunate that many Republican legislators appear to value cheap political points over protecting the private property rights of their constituents.”

One major bill that stalled without a hearing in the Senate last week was HB 1220, which passed the House 97-0 to reinstate an exemption of ratepayers’ Winter Storm Uri securitized utility debt from the franchise agreements collected for cities and towns. Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett briefly visited the Senate lounge Thursday in an effort to make sure senators knew their inaction would equate to roughly $150 million in taxes on electricity and gas ratepayers around the state.

Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton, however, admitted he was “not at all familiar” with the situation, mistakenly thinking the Oklahoma Municipal League was for the bill as opposed to against it.

“Oh. That shows you how much I know about it,” said Paxton (R-Tuttle). “It is a bill that the floor leader team has dealt with, but I could check on that for you for next week, but I have not been involved with it.”

But with HB 1220 failing to be heard in the Senate before the May 8 deadline, it would be up to Paxton and House Speaker Kyle Hilbert to strike an agreement over the next three weeks to block the additional taxation from taking effect.

“To me, it’s ridiculous that cities are trying to profit off of Winter Storm Uri in this fashion, and that was never the intent of that legislation we passed (authorizing ratepayer debt securitization),” said Hilbert (R-Bristow). “So I’m strongly supportive. I think it makes sense, so I’m going to continue to advocate for it.”

Support Journalism