Committees

Trending

Children, Youth and Family Services


1 Update

All Committees

(33)

Administrative Rules

14 Members

Appropriations and Budget

32 Members
10 Subcommittees

Commerce & Economic Development Oversight

17 Members
5 Committees

Conference Committee on Administrative Rules

15 Members

Conference Committee on Commerce and Economic Development Oversight

16 Members

Conference Committee on Education Oversight

9 Members

Conference Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Oversight

14 Members

Conference Committee on Government Oversight

17 Members

Conference Committee on Health and Human Services Oversight

14 Members

Conference Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight

14 Members

Conference Committee on Rules

10 Members

Education Oversight

9 Members
2 Committees

Energy and Natural Resources Oversight

14 Members
4 Committees

GCCA

32 Members

Government Oversight

17 Members
5 Committees
1 Update

Health and Human Services Oversight

14 Members
4 Committees

Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget

31 Members

Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding

13 Members

Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding - Economic Development and Workforce Working Group

3 Members

Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding - Government Transformation and Collaboration Working Group

3 Members

Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding - Health and Human Services Working Group

3 Members

Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding - Transportation, Infrastructure and Rural Development Working Group

3 Members

Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations

5 Members

Joint Task Force on the Grand River Dam Authority

5 Members

Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight

14 Members
3 Committees

Legislative Evaluation and Development (LEAD)

5 Members

Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT)

7 Members

Rules

10 Members

Select Committee to Review Mental Health Finances

14 Members

Special Conference Committee on HB 2104

5 Members

Special Conference Committee on SB 1000

5 Members

Special Conference Committee on SB 1054

6 Members

Special Conference Committee on SB 647

5 Members

Committees News & Announcements


Nov 18, 2025

Stewart Condemns Federal Government’s Removal of Missing & Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) Resources From Federal Websites

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Ronald Stewart, D-Tulsa, issued the following statement today in response to the Federal Government’s decision to remove missing and murdered Indigenous persons (MMIP) information and resources from federal agency websites, with no commitment to restore them.  The administration further claims that the Office of Missing & Murdered Indigenous People constitutes a “DEI initiative,” implying it is unnecessary and nonessential. “I am deeply and unequivocally disappointed,” said Stewart. “Removing MMIP resources is not just an administrative choice—it is a direct assault on the safety, dignity, and visibility of Indigenous people. It is an erasure of lives already lost, families seeking justice, and communities which aren’t just looking for answers, they’re demanding them. And it is a gross disservice to dismiss the MMIP office as a ‘DEI initiative’ when the facts, the data, and the lived experiences of Indigenous families prove otherwise.” Stewart says MMIP is not a DEI initiative. “The Office of Missing & Murdered Indigenous People was created to address a documented public-safety crisis, not to serve as any form of ideological or diversity-based programming,” said Stewart. “The Trump Administration’s claim is not only inaccurate—it is dangerously disingenuous.” Stewart lists the following facts to support his statement:  MMIP Addresses a Law-Enforcement and Jurisdictional Crisis Indigenous people—especially Indigenous women and girls—are murdered or go missing at rates 4 to 10 times higher than the national average. The crisis stems from gaps in federal, state, tribal, and local law-enforcement coordination, not from demographic or workplace diversity concerns. The office was formed to streamline information sharing, strengthen investigations, and correct longstanding failures in federal response—not to function as an equity program. Congress Directed MMIP Action Through Bipartisan Legislation Savanna’s Act (2020) and the Not Invisible Act (2020) passed with broad bipartisan support. These laws require federal agencies to improve data collection, investigative protocols, and coordination regarding MMIP cases. Compliance with federal law is not optional and has nothing to do with DEI frameworks. The MMIP Office Responds to Victims and Families, Not “Diversity” Agendas MMIP exists because thousands of families have been denied justice for decades. The office provides trauma-informed victim services, case tracking, and investigative support. Nothing in its mission relates to hiring metrics, workplace diversity, or social programming of any kind. Tribal Nations Requested and Demanded MMIP Support Tribal governments across the United States have requested federal partnership and accountability on MMIP for years. Responding to sovereign Tribal Nations is a legal obligation of the federal government—not a DEI preference. ”I genuinely appreciate our state’s bipartisan commitment to addressing MMIP,” said Stewart. “The work accomplished in both the House and Senate reflects a shared dedication to ensuring a safer Oklahoma for all. However, let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision of the federal government. MMIP is not DEI. MMIP is DOJ. It is public safety. It is justice. It is, in far too many cases, life and death. Removing MMIP resources from federal websites sends one message: that Indigenous lives are expendable. That message is unacceptable, and it is beneath the dignity of this nation. This crisis predates any modern political talking points—it reaches back generations, and it continues today. Families deserve answers. Cases deserve attention. And Indigenous communities deserve the full weight of federal responsibility.” -END-



Nov 18, 2025

House Democratic members respond to Oral Arguments before Supreme Court of Oklahoma on SB 1027

OKLAHOMA CITY – Today, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma heard oral arguments for PR-123179 McVay v. Cockroft to determine the constitutionality of SB 1027. The legislation imposes several new restrictions on Oklahoma’s initiative petition process including restrictions on the number of signatures collected within a county and who can collect signatures.  SB 1027 also requires the Oklahoma Secretary of State to approve each initiative petition gist. Because the Secretary of State is a Governor appointed position, this measure impedes the intentions of the original initiative petition process to allow Oklahomans to make policy decisions independent of the legislature and the Governor. Oklahoma House Democrats say this legislation places unnecessary restrictions on the initiative petition process, in turn, silencing Oklahoma voters.  “The entire purpose of the initiative petition process is so that Oklahomans can propose changes to policy when the legislature does not,” said Oklahoma House Democratic Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City. “SB 1027 takes away Oklahomans’ right to fairly create meaningful change when those in power are unwilling. House Democrats have been against this legislation since day one because we recognize the way it infringes on Oklahomans and their constitutional right to petition the government.” Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, attended the oral arguments at the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  “Article 2, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution is crystal clear: all political power is inherent in the people,” said Fugate. “Not the legislature, not the Governor, not the courts, but the people. SB 1027 is a direct assault on that principle. It strips Oklahomans of their constitutional right to bypass politicians and propose their own changes to our laws and our constitution.  “The legislature has no business deciding when or how to take power away from the people. When SB 1027 was debated, I offered an amendment to let the people decide its fate. The majority voted it down. Even that small measure of respect for the people’s voice was too much for them in their rush to strip away the power of the people.  “Today’s oral arguments before the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed exactly what Oklahoma Democrats warned about in the House: SB 1027 is unconstitutional and undemocratic. While the Court’s decision is still ahead, one thing is certain: Oklahoma House Democrats stood up to defend the rights of Oklahomans and to ensure that the people's voice is not silenced.” -END-



Nov 17, 2025
Recent Posts

Hays Refiling Bill to Safeguard Against Deep-Fake Advertising

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Neil Hays, R-Checotah, today announced his intent to refile a bill that creates punishments for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep-fake technology without consent of the person whose name, image, likeness or voice is used to create digital content and advertising that is disseminated to the public with the intent to harm. Hays filed House Bill 3073 in 2024. The bill passed the House but was not advanced in the state Senate. Hays will refile the measure with some minor changes for the upcoming legislative session, which starts Feb. 2. “As we awaken each day to more sophisticated AI-generated media, we must recommit to the fundamental truth in advertising and the basic rights of every Oklahoman,” Hays said. “Every Oklahoman deserves to control their name, image, likeness and voice — and to know that when they are depicted, especially in an effort to influence the public, that they’re portrayed accurately.” Hays said AI now allows realistic substitutions of a person’s face, voice or image in video, audio and digital advertisements — often without the person’s permission and sometimes with harmful intent.  HB 3073 sought to criminalize publishing or distributing digitized representations of another individual’s name, image, voice or likeness without written consent and with intent to harm. The measure set criminal penalties, including elevation to a felony on a second offense.  Hays emphasized the marketplace and public discourse depend on trust. “If we erode trust because people are unsure whether what they see or hear is real, then we erode the very foundation of free and fair communication,” he said. "Technology isn’t slowing down, and legislation must keep pace,” Hays said. “By refiling this bill, we reaffirm our commitment to protecting Oklahomans’ rights in this new digital era. I'm asking my legislative colleagues to join me and return to the basics of integrity, transparency and individual consent.”