Oklahoma voters have an unusually broad field in the 2026 U.S. Senate election: Republican Kevin Hern, Democrat N’Kiyla “Jasmine” Thomas, Libertarian Sevier White, and independents Ron Meinhardt and Curtis Stinnett. All five are on the November ballot.
Several of the candidates have positions that overlap with CIVPAC’s. But each also presents substantial disagreements or unanswered questions on issues we consider important.
Kevin Hern
Representative Kevin Hern offers voters by far the most extensive governing record in the field. He is a pro-market conservative who favors lower taxes, less regulation, increased domestic energy production, stronger border enforcement, and greater reliance on competition in health care. He also emphasizes deficit reduction and supports a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. Those positions overlap with CIVPAC in several areas, particularly the importance of markets and fiscal discipline.
There are also substantial differences.
Hern has closely identified himself with President Trump and says he has worked to advance the Trump agenda. In February he said he was “proud to stand alongside President Trump.” Much of Trump’s agenda is very troubling from our perspective, including his use of tariff powers to conduct an erratic and damaging trade policy, controversial cabinet appointments that are often counterproductive, his treatment of America’s alliances including NATO, immigration enforcement that is undisciplined and unnecessarily harsh, and his engagement in a war with Iran without congressional authorization and without a convincing plan for bringing it to a successful conclusion.
His conduct following the 2020 election also matters. After the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Hern voted to sustain objections to the electoral votes of both Arizona and Pennsylvania. He condemned the violence but continued to describe concerns about the election and allegedly unconstitutional changes in election procedures as legitimate reasons for his votes. Congress rejected both objections. Related challenges to the election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania had also been dismissed or rejected by state and federal courts. The certified electoral vote made Joe Biden president.
CIVPAC has consistently regarded acceptance of legitimate election results and resistance to unsupported efforts to overturn them as important institutional tests.
Foreign policy produces additional differences. Hern voted in June against the Ukraine Support Act. He has repeatedly voted against War Powers resolutions directing President Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorized the action. CIVPAC strongly supports Ukraine and places considerably greater weight on Congress reclaiming its constitutional responsibility over prolonged military action.
On abortion, Hern supports federal legislation protecting unborn life and has cosponsored legislation including the Life at Conception Act and measures restricting federal funding for abortion. That differs substantially from CIVPAC’s preference for preserving significant individual reproductive choice, particularly earlier in pregnancy.
Hern therefore combines significant agreement with CIVPAC on markets, taxes, regulation and fiscal policy with major disagreements over the 2020 election, presidential power, Ukraine and abortion.
N’Kiyla “Jasmine” Thomas
N’Kiyla Jasmine Thomas, a nurse and citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, approaches government from a very different direction. Her platform emphasizes universal health care, workers’ protections, childcare, housing assistance, reproductive rights, disability services, environmental health and civil rights.
There are areas of agreement. Thomas supports restoring federal abortion protections, protecting marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws, expanding rural health services, and strengthening services for disabled children and their families.
Thomas also emphasizes tribal sovereignty. We do not have a general CIVPAC position on that broad subject, and in Oklahoma the phrase encompasses quite different questions—including criminal jurisdiction, taxation, gaming compacts, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, and relations between state and tribal governments. Thomas’s published platform is more specific in supporting tribal water sovereignty and protection of tribal rights and cultural heritage. Nothing we have found provides enough detail to identify a clear CIVPAC disagreement or alignment on those issues. This is one of those issues where it would be helpful to receive feedback from readers on the details of an issue that has more local impact.
Her position on Israel deserves similar care. Thomas has been highly critical of AIPAC and has accused the Netanyahu government of genocide in Gaza. She has also said U.S. funding for the war should stop. Those positions go considerably beyond the criticisms CIVPAC would likely make of the Netanyahu government, including its conduct of the Gaza war, settlement policy, and opposition to a two-state solution. She has explicitly said that her objections are not to Jewish people, Judaism or Israel’s existence, and she supports a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians both have peace, security and national self-determination. Criticism of that government is not in itself a CIVPAC concern. What we would like to know is exactly what military assistance Thomas would end, under what conditions, and how she views Israel’s longer-term security.
The larger disagreements are economic. Thomas explicitly supports Medicare for All, a “living-wage” minimum wage, price-gouging protections, universal affordable childcare, paid family leave, housing and utility assistance, and numerous other federal commitments.
CIVPAC favors universal health coverage, but through competing private plans under strong federal rules and with limited real per-capita financial exposure for the government rather than a single government insurance system with a potentially unlimited entitlement. We also support market competition and direct income assistance rather than price controls and broad statutory wage-setting. Thomas’s program therefore implies a considerably larger federal role in allocating resources than CIVPAC supports.
Her campaign presently provides considerably more detail about new benefits and protections than about the taxes, spending tradeoffs and long-term fiscal structure required to finance them. We would also like much more information about Ukraine, NATO, China and trade.
Thomas has also said she would work during her first 100 days in office to “impeach, remove, and convict” President Trump. We do not regard strong support for impeachment as automatically disqualifying. Impeachment is inevitably both a constitutional and a political process, and we have serious concerns about this president’s conduct. However, a senator sitting in an impeachment trial must swear a special oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” Precommitting to conviction before knowing what articles the House might adopt or what evidence would be presented creates an obvious tension with that oath. But impeachment would be only one part of a senator’s responsibilities. We would like to hear substantially more about how Thomas would govern beyond her opposition to Trump.
Ron Meinhardt
Independent Ron Meinhardt describes himself as a constitutional conservative and remains a member of the Republican Party while running outside the party structure. His campaign emphasizes “principle over party machinery” and argues that constitutional limits should apply regardless of which party controls the presidency.
He says Congress must authorize open-ended wars and calls for adherence to the War Powers Resolution. He also criticizes immigration policy conducted through shifting executive action and instead calls on Congress to enact clear and enforceable law. He favors fiscal restraint, a balanced-budget amendment, reduced regulation and local control over large data-center projects. Those positions overlap with CIVPAC’s concern about congressional responsibility, fiscal discipline and limits on executive power.
But Meinhardt is clearly running as a conservative rather than as an ideological centrist. The League of Women Voters of Oklahoma voter guide reports that he favors extending the Trump tax cuts, eliminating federal wind and solar subsidies, reducing regulation of oil and natural gas, supporting the Make America Healthy Again initiative and allowing alternative medical options. It also reports that he supports a total abortion ban.
The abortion position is a major difference from CIVPAC. On energy, we also differ: CIVPAC would prefer replacing subsidies and detailed regulation with a carbon tax that prices the environmental cost of fossil fuels. Meinhardt’s published material discusses affordability and regulation but does not establish how he would address climate change or even if he views it as a serious issue.
His support for MAHA is harder to evaluate. The label encompasses too many ideas to be useful by itself. He does explicitly describe himself as a “staunch advocate for health freedom and alternative medical choices,” and the Oklahoma voter guide says he advocates alternative medicine options to lower costs. The phrase “health freedom” is ambiguous, and we are not sure what to make of it. We have not found a clear statement from him on vaccines or vaccine mandates. His support for alternative medicine would become a concern for us if it meant weakening scientific standards for demonstrating safety and effectiveness, but we have not found enough detail to conclude that it does.
We also have not found clear positions from Meinhardt on Ukraine and NATO, the legitimacy of the 2020 election, Trump’s January 6 pardons, Israel, Social Security, or the future structure of Medicare and private health insurance. His argument that constitutional principle should come before party is potentially important; answers on those issues would show much more clearly what that principle means in practice.
Curtis Stinnett
Independent Curtis Stinnett, a pharmacist, has produced the most extensive policy program of the candidates outside the two major parties.
Stinnett supports Medicare for All and proposes folding Medicaid, TRICARE and VA health coverage into Medicare. He favors restoring Roe, a locally adjusted living wage, public financing of elections, restrictions on corporate political spending and a constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United.
These are unusually specific proposals, but they would expand the federal government’s role in health care, credit, education, income redistribution and resource allocation substantially beyond CIVPAC’s preferred reliance on markets and market-like mechanisms for the allocation of resources.
On Israel, Stinnett calls for ending all U.S. military assistance until Israeli operations in Gaza cease, Netanyahu and his governing partners are replaced, and restitution begins. He strongly condemns the Israeli government’s conduct while explicitly rejecting antisemitism. CIVPAC shares serious concerns about the Netanyahu government but has not supported ending all military assistance to Israel.
His published material provides considerably less information about Ukraine, NATO and China.
Sevier White
Sevier White is the Libertarian nominee, but there is much less information available with which to evaluate him.
The League of Women Voters of Oklahoma voter guide reports no available positions from White on the economy, energy, foreign policy, taxes or health care. Our searches likewise found little current policy material attributable directly to his campaign.
We do not think it is appropriate to assume that White holds every position associated with the national Libertarian Party. Candidates should be evaluated on what they themselves say and propose.
Where the Evaluation Stands
The five candidates present very different combinations of agreement, disagreement and unanswered questions.
Hern has a substantial record and overlaps with our views on markets, taxation, regulation and fiscal policy, while differing sharply on several institutional, foreign-policy and social issues.
Thomas has presented a detailed domestic agenda and has what we would view as reasonable positions on civil rights, reproductive choice and access to health care, while advocating a substantially larger governmental role in the economy and leaving important foreign-policy and fiscal questions unresolved.
Meinhardt’s emphasis on congressional war powers and constitutional limits addresses concerns we take seriously, while his abortion position and portions of his domestic agenda differ significantly from ours and several important issues remain unspecified.
Stinnett has offered unusually detailed proposals, many of which would substantially expand government’s role in health care, wage determination, credit, redistribution and political finance.
White simply has not yet provided enough publicly available information for a comparable evaluation.
CIVPAC does not expect candidates to take centrist positions on every issue. What matters is the overall combination of policy agreement, institutional responsibility, independence of judgment and willingness to confront difficult tradeoffs. Additional information—particularly concerning foreign policy, fiscal policy and institutional independence—would materially improve the evaluation of several candidates.