In a recent legislative session, the Oklahoma House of Representatives saw the defeat of Senate Bill 2, a piece of legislation that, if passed, would have introduced "viewshed restrictions," potentially impeding private property rights. The bill's failure was met with words of relief from Rep. Nick Archer, R-Elk City, a notable opponent of the legislation and the chair of the House Energy Committee. According to a statement by Archer released by the Oklahoma House, he viewed the bill as a dangerous path towards infringing on constitutional rights.
During the debate, Archer emphasized the importance of the Fifth Amendment, which he cited as a guardian of private property rights. He stated, "It plainly says, if government takes your property, it owes you just compensation," and "that principle isn’t optional. It’s not up for debate," as noted by the Oklahoma House. His arguments, which questioned the legality of letting counties limit constitutional rights by majority vote, convinced the House to reject SB2 with a 44-49 vote on Tuesday evening.
The implications of SB2 stretched far beyond fiscal matters, touching upon the very fabric of democratic process and constitutional integrity. "Let’s not sugarcoat it: this bill gives local government the power to take from one private citizen in the name of another’s preference," he said, as reported by the Oklahoma House. "That is not conservative. That is not constitutional." He stressed that a group should not be empowered to "vote away your right to use your land," warning that such an approach violates fundamental democratic principles and would be subject to legal backlash.
Though the bill was defeated, Archer hinted at the potential for the measure to be reintroduced. He cautioned his colleagues and constituents, "And even if this body passes it, the courts will strike it down. I’d rather get it right today," as per the Oklahoma House. The notice after the vote indicates that a reconsideration is possible, leaving the future of viewshed restrictions and their impact on constitutional rights uncertain.
