Housing stability has been a priority for Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt (D-OKC) since she took office.
Her district is home to City Care, a homeless shelter, and she works closely with the City Rescue Mission, which offers housing assistance in Oklahoma City. In meetings with constituents and community groups, she learned about the devastating impact evictions can have on Oklahoma families.
“Families pull up to shelter doors having just been evicted, and they’re in shock,” Kirt said. “They lose their job, they’re trying to find a place to live. Do you know how hard it is to get back on your feet if you are evicted?”
Such discussions led her to author SB 128, which aims to extend Oklahoma’s statutory eviction process by five days. Despite receiving bipartisan support, SB 128 was one of two bills intended to increase housing stability that Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed earlier this month.
“This bill seeks to expand minimum wait times in eviction proceedings, making the already burdensome and difficult process of obtaining an eviction that much more burdensome. The existing procedures already provide adequate due process and notice,” Stitt wrote in his veto message. “This bill would also do the opposite as intended. Instead of assisting renters in arrears, it would incentivize landlords to specifically not rent housing units to low-income households, for risk of greater eviction costs. We cannot overcome economic realities with good intentions.”
But at a time when homelessness and cost burdens are on the rise in several Oklahoma communities, supporters of SB 128 and SB 333 are pushing back on Stitt’s claims that the measures, respectively, would place an undue burden on property owners and improperly interfere with private industry.
“I think we have a system that sides with landlords and owners of property,” Kirt said. “So I think [the governor] saw enough Republican ‘No’ votes and would be suspicious of changes that are specifically about renters and their concerns.”
While Kirt and supporters would like to see SB 128 brought up for floor votes to override Stitt’s veto, the Senate’s minority leader said it may not be politically feasible before session ends Friday, May 30. The bill passed 26-19 in the Senate and 51-35 in the House, significantly shy of the two-thirds majorities needed for overrides.
“I wasn’t surprised. I mean, it didn’t make it out of the Legislature with enough votes to override a veto,” Kirt said. “We would definitely have to talk a whole lot of people into it.”
Advocate calls eviction process ‘really close to impossible’ for tenants
As legislative leaders make decisions about what veto overrides to pursue in the final week of the 2025 session, advocates in the housing and homelessness space see troubling trends on Oklahoma’s horizon.
Homelessness and the cost of living continue to rise in the state, and Oklahoma has also seen a significant increase in evictions. Between 2016 and 2024, Oklahoma saw a 7.86 percent increase in filings for eviction cases, rising from 44,524 to 48,024, according to Legal Services Corporation’s Eviction Tracker. After pandemic-era eviction policies and prevention funding ended, the numbers have climbed. Nationwide, Tulsa and Oklahoma City both rank within the top-20 large cities for eviction rates, and Del City, Midwest City and Lake Aluma all rank within the top 65 for eviction rates among small and mid-sized cities, according to Princeton University’s Eviction Lab.
Katie Dilks, executive director of the Access to Justice Foundation, said the high and rising rate of evictions in Oklahoma largely stems from the state’s eviction laws, which legally allow a tenant to go from missing a rent payment to being evicted in as little as two weeks. The minimum statutory timeline for evictions under current law is:
- Day 1: The tenant misses a rent payment.
- Day 2: Unless a lease contains a buffer period, the landlord can deliver a “notice to pay or quit.” Upon receiving that notice, the tenant has five days to pay the missed rent.
- Day 7: The landlord may file for an eviction hearing, which is supposed to be scheduled within five to 10 days.
- At least three days before trial, Title 12, Section 1148.5 requires the court to issue a summons to the tenant.
- If the eviction goes to trial and the tenant loses in court, the judge issues a writ of execution, which typically gives the tenant 48 hours to move out of the rental property.
Dilks said the timeline makes it difficult for tenants to seek financial or legal assistance, let alone appear in court. If tenants fail to appear, a district court judge can automatically rule against them.
“It’s just really close to impossible to structure your life in a way to get child care, coordinate transportation, get time off work, whatever you might have to do in order to get to court with only three days’ heads up,” Dilks said.
Kirt, alongside Rep. Daniel Pae (R-Lawton), introduced SB 128 in an attempt to slow the process. The bill would extend the scheduling of eviction hearings to between 10 to 15 days after filing, rather than the current five to 10 days. The bill would also require tenants to be notified seven days, rather than three days, before their eviction hearing. Kirt argued SB 128 would grant Oklahomans additional time to pay missed rent or better prepare for court.
Pushing back on the concerns articulated by Stitt in his veto message. Dilks said the notion that an extended eviction timeline would disincentivize leasing to low-income households constitutes a “misunderstanding” of the housing market.
“As long as there are low-income tenants and there are units to rent, people will rent to low-income tenants,” Dilks said. “When you look at other states that have more humane eviction timelines, guess what? Landlords rent to low-income tenants there, because that’s just how the business works.”
Nick Jones, a property owner and vice president of the Apartment Association of Central Oklahoma, said his organization was neutral on SB 128 and did not lobby against it in the Legislature or with the governor. Jones emphasized that he appreciated the chance to talk with Kirt about the topic at hand, but nonetheless he has concerns that a lengthened timeline would overly stretch eviction proceedings and disincentivize the grace periods that many landlords offer their tenants. If a tenant is facing eviction, Jones said landlords generally want to work out a way to allow them to remain in the unit, although legal requirements that every tenant be treated equally can limit the flexibility offered by landlords.
But if the situation reaches an eviction proceeding, he said it is better for renters and owners alike that the process is completed within the month.
Oklahoma homelessness data
In 2024, 5,497 Oklahomans were considered homeless — 17.6 percent higher than the previous year, and a 29.5 percent increase since 2007. Oklahoma’s homelessness rate outpaces that of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In 2024, 11 percent or 167,831 households were considered severely cost-burdened, meaning they spent at least half of their income on housing, according to a report from the University of Wisconsin.
“If we drag them into another month, now they owe me a whole other month’s worth of rent as soon as they start that day on the first,” Jones said. “Now they’re going to owe the next month’s rent while they’re still in a proceeding for the previous month, and it just creates more problems for the tenant.”
Although not legally required, Jones said many landlords will wait between five to 10 days before issuing a notice to quit or beginning the eviction process in hopes that a late tenant will reach out to explain their circumstances or make a payment before the court gets involved. However, if SB 128 extends the minimum timeline and makes it more likely that proceedings will roll into the next month, Jones warned that landlords may drop that informal grace period.
“My heartache was that I agree with what she’s doing,” Jones said. “I understand the logic of trying to give people more time, but I also would argue that people know they’re late on the first, and they know that they haven’t paid up until whatever day they get filed on in court.”
Kirt said those issues were discussed in her meetings with the Apartment Association, which led her to add only five days to the existing eviction process. Kirt acknowledged that the longer timeline may delay “fair and professional” landlords who offer their tenants a grace period, but she said offering a week’s notice before a trial that occurs later in the process can help protect Oklahomans from any potential exploitation.
‘Every community is in need of housing’
Both Kirt and Jones acknowledged that eviction issues in Oklahoma are far from the only facet of the state’s growing housing crisis. Access to low-income or subsidized housing is frequently out of reach for several Oklahomans, especially in communities where building new multi-family housing is regularly opposed at the local level. People in need of subsidized housing may wait years before being considered for a “housing choice” or Section 8 voucher. In the wake of federal funding cuts, the Tulsa Housing Authority recently approved a plan to unenroll voucher holders if necessary.
Passed 25-19 in the Senate and 78-16 in the House, SB 333 aimed to help smaller communities develop voucher-subsidized or project-based housing by authorizing partnerships with the large public housing authorities in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. The bill would have allowed public housing authorities to consult on and then help develop projects anywhere in the state with the consent of local authorities, although it would not have allowed those authorities to administer housing beyond their jurisdiction.
Ginny Hensley, Tulsa Housing Authority’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said the measure would have “directly contributed to addressing Oklahoma’s housing shortage.”
Hensley said smaller communities in the metro area approached the Tulsa Housing Authority seeking assistance in developing and constructing public housing projects, but current law only permits public housing authorities to develop projects within the city or county where they are based.
“Affordable housing development is incredibly challenging, particularly in the current economic environment, and many [public housing authorities] don’t have the bandwidth to execute large-scale developments like the ones we’ve brought to Tulsa,” Hensley said.
In his veto message, Stitt said allowing housing authorities to develop projects throughout the state would diminish local control and would allow the government to insert itself into private industry unduly.
“SB 333 would allow local public housing authorities to operate statewide for construction and rehabilitation projects, expanding their reach — and their eminent domain powers — far beyond their local jurisdictions,” Stitt wrote. “This threatens private property rights and undermines local control. Housing authorities exist to meet local needs under local oversight. Broadening their authority statewide risks confusion, overreach and less effective service to the communities they were created to serve.”
House Majority Leader Mark Lawson (R-Sapulpa) co-authored SB 333 alongside Sen. John Haste (R-Broken Arrow). Lawson said SB 333 would require a housing authority to obtain the consent of the local housing authorities and the area’s governing bodies before being allowed to consult or develop projects outside of its original domain. Lawson also said that allowing Oklahoma’s public housing authorities to collaborate would be a more efficient use of federal funding and would meet a need for several Oklahoma communities.
“We need housing across the board. Every community is in need of housing,” Lawson said. “When it comes to some of these HUD projects, when there’s federal monies involved, it just makes sense that we make use of resources that are available here in the state. And the only reason these housing authorities can’t do such consultation now is because our laws are outdated and restrict them to a certain geographic region.”
Lawson said opposition to the idea is short-sighted.
“We see it all the time with other bills, why aren’t we using Oklahoma companies? Why aren’t we using Oklahoma people?” he said. “This was a way to use Oklahoma people and Oklahoma expertise on Oklahoma projects. But for some reason, I think there’s a lot of NIMByism that goes around, and I think that some people don’t want housing projects or poor people living in their town or their neighborhood, and that’s unfortunate because (…) we have workforce needs across the state. We’ve got to have a place for people to live.”
After Stitt’s vetoes, Lawson and Kirt said they doubted they would be able to get the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the vetoes. Despite this, Kirt said she planned to continue organizing meetings and studies to promote housing stability in Oklahoma.
“We’ve got to work on this housing issue,” Kirt said. “It’s not a foregone conclusion. It’s an economic reality that we can change through good policy. If we’re not willing to deal with any of these housing factors, then we’re going to be dealing with homelessness.”
