October 2018 Archives

Oklahoma State Question 800 would add a new section to Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It would siphon off part of the gross production tax into a fund that the State Treasurer could invest in private businesses.

I'm voting NO, AGAINST SQ 800.

Here is the new section that would be added to Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution:

Section 44. A. There is hereby created in the State Treasury a trust fund to be designated the "Oklahoma Vision Fund" to support the operation of state government and to provide tax relief.

B. The Oklahoma Vision Fund principal shall consist of:

1. Any amounts appropriated by the Legislature;

2. Any other deposits and apportionments from other sources as may be provided by law;

3. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020, and for each fiscal year thereafter, five percent (5%) of total actual revenue from the gross production tax on oil and gas which percentage shall increase in increments of two-tenths percentage points each year thereafter; and

4. Investment and income returns from the fund principal.

C. Four percent (4%) of the average annual amount of the principal of the Oklahoma Vision Fund for the immediately preceding five (5) complete fiscal years, shall be apportioned to the General Revenue Fund not later than September 30 each year. The State Treasurer shall determine the balance of the Oklahoma Vision Fund as of June 30 each year and for the preceding five (5) years in order to apportion the required amount to the General Revenue Fund each fiscal year as required by this subsection. The deposit required by this subsection shall not begin before July 1, 2020.

D. The balance of the Oklahoma Vision Fund shall be invested by the State Treasurer in a manner consistent with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims and by diversifying the investments of the Oklahoma Vision Fund so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so.

E. The Oklahoma Vision Fund shall not be subject to the restriction of Section 15 of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution with regard to investment of public funds and the monies in the Oklahoma Vision Fund may be invested in equity of lawful for-profit business enterprises, whether denominated as shares, stock, membership interests or similar equity securities.

F. Not more than five percent (5%) of the monies in the Oklahoma Vision Fund may be used for debt service payments due on bonds or other financing instruments issued by the State of Oklahoma, counties, municipalities, authorities, commissions, political subdivisions or any other governmental entities within the State of Oklahoma, subject to such restrictions as may be provided by law.

Giving this proposal the most generous interpretation, it appears that the intent of SQ 800 is to diversify Oklahoma's economy by investing taxes generated by the energy industry, on which Oklahoma's economy is overly dependent, into new businesses. It sets up what amounts to a venture capital fund. Ideally, it would help new businesses in new industries to survive the startup period and become established, creating jobs and tax revenue that aren't dependent on how much oil the King of Saudi Arabia decides to produce at any given time.

Putting the worst construction on it, it creates a slush fund that the State Treasurer could use to reward his friends and campaign contributors in the business world.

You'll note that the proposed amendment creates an exception to Article 10, Section 15. This is the constitutional provision banning state investment in private companies, except to a very limited extent:

Article 10, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution begins:

A. Except as provided by this section, the credit of the State shall not be given, pledged, or loaned to any individual, company, corporation, or association, municipality, or political subdivision of the State, nor shall the State become an owner or stockholder in, nor make donation by gift, subscription to stock, by tax, or otherwise, to any company, association, or corporation.

In a later paragraph of Article 10, Section 15, an exception is made for the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST), which is authorized to make loans or purchase shares in companies that are "involved with research or patents from projects involving Oklahoma colleges or universities," but this discretion is limited by a requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority vote in the legislature, which also has the mandate to "establish procedures to review and evaluate the extent to which the purposes of any statute authorizing use of public funds by the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology are achieved." The idea of this exception is to allow the state to help commercialize technologies that are developed at Oklahoma's universities. While you could debate the wisdom of even this much state involvement in private enterprise, it has boundaries and safeguards that SQ 800 lacks.

The office of State Treasurer, with its discretion to steer large amounts of state money to favored banks and investment companies, provides ample opportunity for corrupt dealings. Since Robert Butkin's election in 1994 the state treasury has been managed with professionalism and without any hint of scandal, but there were accusations of corruption involving the three treasurers preceding Butkin:

Leo Winters:

1974: A federal grand jury indicted state Treasurer Leo Winters, accusing him, among other things, of using his position to extort campaign money from banks. He was acquitted of four counts during a well-publicized trial, and other counts later were dropped. A few weeks after that, he was re-elected. Winters served five terms and was trying for a sixth when his 1986 campaign was doomed by allegations that a Tulsa bank may have written off millions in loans to him.

Ellis Edwards:

Bellmon was asked at a news conference about a weekend newspaper report that said Edwards' office participated in more than $2 billion in securities trades with five individuals who contributed to his 1986 election campaign after he was elected to help retire his election debt.

Claudette Henry:

Mrs. Henry has been accused by a former top assistant of covering up a securities trading scheme that led to a $6.7 million lawsuit filed by Oklahoma against brokers in California and New York. The FBI is investigating.

Without safeguards in place, there would be strong incentives for companies hoping for state investment to make campaign contributions to boost a venal and sociopathic self-salesman to the treasurer's office.

Corruption aside, SQ 800 is a bad idea because it creates yet another segregated pot of money that can only be used for one purpose. Oklahoma's budget woes are exacerbated by the proliferation of separate "pots" of taxpayer dollars that have been earmarked for one purpose or another. These laws protect favored agencies during lean economic times from sharing the burden of reduced revenues, and they limit the legislature's ability to direct taxpayer dollars to where they are most urgently needed.

Because of the potential for corruption, because of the dubious wisdom of investing public money in private enterprise, and because it further inhibits budget flexibility, wise Oklahomans will vote NO on SQ 800.

Oklahoma State Question 798 introduces the idea of electing governor and lieutenant governor on a single-ticket, but leaves the details of how that it to be accomplished to some future legislature. While I've been critical of other state questions (e.g. 793) for putting too much detail in the state constitution, the process of electing officers ought to be set out clearly and concretely in a state constitution, something SQ 798 fails to do.

Oklahoma has always elected the two offices separately. The Lieutenant Governor, like the Vice President, has a constitutional role as President of the Senate, with the ability to cast a deciding vote in case of a tie. The framers of the Oklahoma Constitution, suspicious of concentrated power, created a large number of executive offices that would be directly elected by the people, rather than appointed and confirmed. Reforms in the 1970s cut that number somewhat (we no longer elect an Inspector of Mines, for example).

Here is the constitutional language that will be enacted if voters approve SQ 798. It is a new section under Article 6.

Section 3.1. Beginning with the General Election held in 2026 and in each General Election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor held thereafter, one vote shall be cast for the candidates for those positions of the same political party. The Legislature, by law, shall provide the procedure for the joint nomination and election of candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

Will the primary runner-up automatically become the lieutenant governor nominee?Will the gubernatorial nominee pick his running mate, or will the running mate be chosen by a party executive committee? Or perhaps primary voters will choose the governor and lieutenant governor nominees independently, but they'll appear together on the general election ballot.

The current arrangement has its hazards. We have had, on occasion, a governor and lieutenant governor of opposite parties and the potential for mischief when the governor is out of state and the lieutenant governor becomes acting governor. For example, from 2003-2007, Democrat Governor Brad Henry served alongside Republican Lt. Governor Mary Fallin. Of the four Republican governors in Oklahoma history, only Keating and Fallin have had Republicans serving as Lieutenant Governor. Gov. Henry Bellmon served alongside Leo Winters in the 1960s and Robert S. Kerr III in the 1980s, and longtime Lt. Governor George Nigh served alongside Dewey Bartlett's single term in office.

SQ 798 was placed on the ballot by HJR 1019, which was approved by a vote of 34-9 in the State Senate and 68-22 in the State House.

While I'm open to the idea of having the top two offices run as a ticket, the process needs to be nailed down before we add it to the constitution. I'm voting NO on SQ 798.

Oklahoma State Question 794, on the November 6, 2016, general election ballot, substantially modifies Article 2, Section 34, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which establishes certain rights for the victims of crime. If passed, SQ 794 would replace most of the existing text, narrowing the scope to the victims themselves (currently it includes the family members of a crime victim), and providing for concrete remedies to enforce these rights.

This was initiated by the Oklahoma Legislature in the 2017 regular session, via SJR 46. The resolution was approved by a vote of 43-2 in the State Senate, by a unanimous 9-0 House rules committee vote, and a unanimous 88-0 vote in the State House. The only nay votes came from two urban Democrat state senators: Kay Floyd from Oklahoma City and Kevin Matthews from Tulsa. As a constitutional amendment, it must be ratified by a vote of the people.

One word was changed during the committee process: Sen. Nathan Dahm proposed changing the word "granted" to "guaranteed." The state can't grant us civil rights, but it has a duty to guarantee our God-granted rights.

Here is how the constitution will change if SQ 794 is approved. Additions are underlined, deletions are stricken through.

Section 34. A. To preserve and protect the rights of victims to justice and due process, and ensure that victims are treated with fairness, respect and dignity, and are free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process, any victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the status of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case, including all proceedings wherein a disposition of a case is likely to occur, and where plea negotiations may occur. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the location of the defendant following an arrest, during a prosecution of the criminal case, during a sentence to probation or confinement, and when there is any release or escape of the defendant from confinement. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has a right to be present at any proceeding where the defendant has a right to be present, to be heard at any sentencing or parole hearing, to be awarded restitution by the convicted person for damages or losses as determined and ordered by the court, and to be informed by the state of the constitutional rights of the victim.

B. An exercise of any right by a victim or family member of a victim or the failure to provide a victim or family member of a victim any right granted by this section shall not be grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence.

C. To secure justice and due process for victims throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim of a crime shall have the following rights, which shall be protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused: to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy; upon request, to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct; to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated; to reasonable protection; upon request, to reasonable notice of any release or escape of an accused; to refuse an interview or other request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused, other than a refusal to appear if subpoenaed by defense counsel; to full and timely restitution; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; upon request, to confer with the attorney for the state; and to be informed of all rights enumerated in this section.

B. The victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the state upon request of the victim may assert in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority with jurisdiction over the case, and have enforced the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request. This section does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court.

C. As used in this section, a "victim" includes any person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor or incapacitated victim.

D. The Legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, has the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section, including the authority to extend any of these rights to juvenile proceedings and if enacted by the Legislature, youthful offender proceedings.

E. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights granted guaranteed by the Legislature or retained by victims.

While I'm leery about creating new "positive rights" that require the state to take certain actions (as opposed to "negative rights" that limit the state's power, such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights) and putting this level of detail in the State Constitution, since this provision is already in the Oklahoma Constitution, it makes sense to amend it in the same place. The proposed changes appear to fix practical problems created by the original amendment, approved by State Question 674 in 1996, and carefully avoids infringing upon the due-process rights of the accused.

MORE:

Ballotpedia's detailed discussion of Oklahoma SQ 794 includes a side-by-side comparison of the existing section with the proposed replacement.

State Question 793 would add a section to Article 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Currently that article of the Constitution contains only two short sections: Section 1 guarantees the right to produce and sell "denaturized alcohol" -- ethyl alcohol adulterated with poison so that it can be used as an industrial solvent, but not consumed; this would have been an important law during Oklahoma's 52 years of prohibition. Section 2 defines the specific gravity of kerosene.

Here is the full text of the proposed amendment to the state constitution. If you vote Yes on SQ 793, this will be added as Article 20, Section 3.

RIGHT OF OPTOMETRISTS AND OPTICIANS TO PRACTICE IN RETAIL MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENT

A. No law shall restrain, abridge or infringe on the ability of optometrists or opticians to practice their respective professions within a retail mercantile establishment.

B. No law shall discriminate against an optometrists or opticians based to the location and setting of their practice.

C. No law shall require an optometric office located within a retail mercantile establishment to have an entrance opening on a public street, hall, lobby, or corridor.

D. No law shall restrain, abridge or infringe on the ability of a retail mercantile establishment to sell, allow the sale, or provide for the sale of optical goods and services, upon prescription, to the general public within the premises of the retail mercantile establishment.

E. Notwithstanding the limitations of this section, the Legislature may, by statute:

1. limit or prohibit optometrists from performing laser or nonlaser surgical procedures within a retail mercantile establishment;

2. limit the number of office locations at which an optometrist may practice;

3. maintain licensing requirements for the practice of optometry, provided those requirements do not impose restrictions on the location where services are provided or otherwise conflict with subsections A-D of this section;

4. require that an optometric office, when located within a retail mercantile establishment, be located within a separate area or room of that establishment, provided that any such requirement must permit direct access to and from the optometric office from inside the retail mercantile establishment; or

5. impose minimum health and safety standards for optical goods and services, provided such standards do not discriminate against any provider of optical goods and services.

F. Nothing in this section or in Article 23, § 8 of this Constitution shall be construed as prohibiting optometrists or opticians from agreeing with a retail mercantile establishment to limit the scope of their practice.

G. This section shall become effective upon adoption, and laws in conflict with this section shall be deemed null and void. After this section is effective, an optometrist, optician, or retail mercantile establishment may bring a declaratory judgment action to determine whether this section affects the validity of a law.

H. As used in this section:

1. "Law" means any state or local law, including statutes, regulations, rules, ordinances, zoning provisions, and judicial decisions, either now in force or hereafter enacted or issued;

2. "Optometrist" means a person licensed in Oklahoma to practice optometry;

3. "Optician" means a person who fills prescriptions for ophthalmic lenses, including but not limited to spectacles and contact lenses, from licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists;

4. "Optical goods and services" means eyewear, including prescription spectacles and contact lenses, and all services associated with providing, modifying, and repairing such eyewear; and

5. "Retail mercantile establishment" means a business establishment selling merchandise to the general public.

While I'm sympathetic with the stated objective of increasing competition and convenience for the purchase of eyeglasses, I can't agree with the idea of enshrining a set of very specific rules and regulations pertaining to one profession in the constitution. This sort of thing ought to be statutory, where rules and regulations can be adjusted as necessary through the normal process of legislation. I had the same objection to the 2016 "alcohol modernization" proposal: While I supported the notion of making strong beer and wine available for sale in grocery stores, I felt that the proposal baked too many special privileges and carveouts into the constitution.

Rather than pushing for profession-specific constitutional amendments, we should consider an amendment that requires a supermajority for the imposition of regulations on commercial activity or the imposition of licensing requirements, along with a constitutional requirement to sunset regulations after a certain number of years. There is a sort of legislative inertia that keeps existing regulations in place, reinforced by the principle of concentrated benefit, diffuse cost -- organizations that have a vested interest in existing legislation will lobby and contribute to keep it from being changed.

Beyond the impropriety of using the constitution to establish the legislative goals of a large corporation, opponents of the measure point out that Oklahoma's proposed constitutional amendment would enshrine a practice that is prohibited in 48 other states, calling attention to subsection F:

F. Nothing in this section or in Article 23, § 8 of this Constitution shall be construed as prohibiting optometrists or opticians from agreeing with a retail mercantile establishment to limit the scope of their practice.

Article 23, Section 8, says you can't sign a contract that gives away your constitutional rights. "Any provision of a contract, express or implied, made by any person, by which any of the benefits of this Constitution is sought to be waived, shall be null and void." Walmart's proposed constitutional amendment would create an exception to that guarantee.

Tulsa optometrist Jacoby Dewald has posted an essay on Facebook stating that "The Texas Optometry Act PROHIBITS commercial retailers of ophthalmic goods from attempting to control the practice of optometry; authorizes the Optometry Board and the Attorney General to sue a violator for a civil penalty; and provides that "[a] person injured as a result of a violation . . . is entitled to the remedies."

He goes on to explain why this provision was included in Oklahoma's proposed law:

Walmart has attempted to control the doctors in other states in which it is illegal and has been sued, resulting in the paying of monetary damages to the doctors. Walmart's way of avoiding this in Oklahoma is to dig deep in their pockets, run a multi-million dollar campaign deceiving voters into thinking this is the same laws as other states, then reap the rewards of an unprecedented CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.

Jacoby also calls attention to subsection G, which makes the nullification of conflicting laws a matter between the retailer and the courts. Rather than spell out which laws are being repealed before the vote is taken, there is this blanket statement: "This section becomes effective immediately, and laws conflicting with this section shall be deemed null and void. After this section becomes effective, the retail mercantile establishment may bring a declaratory judgement action to determine whether this section affects the validity of a law."

I encourage you to vote NO on State Question 793. Let's defeat this, but then encourage our legislators to support sensible modernization of laws to expand consumer choice without enshrining corporate interests in state law.

MORE: Ballotpedia has a comprehensive collection of links and videos, pro and con, for Oklahoma SQ 793.

Last Monday, October 15, 2018, the University of Central Oklahoma hosted a forum to discuss the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity from a Christian perspective. The event was co-sponsored by several student organizations: S.A.F.E - Student Alliance for Equality, UCO Women's Research Center, BGLTQ+ Student Center, all groups that reject the Biblical perspective on sexuality, and Valid Worldview, a Christian student group based at Fairview Baptist Church.

UCO's Dr. David Macey, Professor of English and Assistant Vice President for Global and Cultural Competencies, and the faculty adviser for Student Alliance for Equality, was the moderator.

The four participants, from left to right:

• Trey Witzel, Associate Pastor, First United Methodist Church of Edmond
• Kris Williams, Q Space LGBTQ+ Facilitator, NorthCare
• Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, Professor of New Testament, Houston Baptist University, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press)
• Stephen Black, Executive Director, First Stone Ministries, author of Freedom Realized - Finding Freedom from Homosexuality & Living a Life Free from Labels (Redemption Press)

Dr. Myron Pope, UCO VP for Student Affairs, welcomed the presenters and audience on behalf of UCO, and emphasized the importance of coming together and listening to one another. At a time when so many debates on contentious issues -- or really, the conservative, traditional perspectives on these issues -- are being shutdown by mob threats, UCO is to be commended for allowing this debate to occur. The participants all comported themselves with respect, as did the audience, with the exception of one speaker during the Q&A and an audience member at the end who was called out by Stephen Black for flipping him off as he gave his closing remarks.

The defenders of Biblical truth backed up their arguments with logic and evidence, but also spoke movingly from the heart. The opening question had to do with the source of their passion. Dr. Gagnon recalled a Laurel and Hardy scene, where they're in a lineup of soldiers and asked to step forward to volunteer, and everyone else takes a step back, leaving them as the volunteers. That explained how he felt when he was the only professor at Pittsburgh Seminary (part of the mainline, liberal Presbyterian Church USA) to make the case for the Biblical teaching on sexuality. His efforts ultimately turned into a 500-page book that comprehensively set out the Bible's teaching on the issue and addressed the various challenges that have been raised by religious liberals.

Stephen Black spoke about his personal history, how he became involved in homosexual activity (with the encouragement of his Catholic parish priest), and how God delivered him out of that way of life and then led him into ministry, helping people who deal with unwanted same-sex attraction and gender confusion. Later in the forum, he spoke at length about First Stone Ministries, their approach to counseling and what distinguishes their approach from much-maligned "conversion therapy."

Here is video of the forum itself:

And Q&A with the audience:

At one point, Witzel or Williams mentioned Matthew Vines, the former evangelical who wrote a book disputing the way Christians have understood the Bible's teaching on sex and sexuality. Gagnon replied that he had challenged Vines to a debate, but Vines had yet to accept.

It's in the Q&A that the gloves come off. In the face of Gagnon's thorough exposition of what Jesus taught about the nature of marriage and sex, and the acknowledgement by serious Bible scholars who support gay rights that the Bible condemns homosexuality, the leftists on the stage retreated to the claim that the Bible doesn't matter because we can't trust it. Early on, Witzel boiled down the position of the religious left: "I don't give a damn about scriptural interpretation." Toward the end, Williams claimed it was impossible to know what Jesus said or thought, because the gospels were like a game of telephone -- written down too long after and unreliably transmitted. As J. Gresham Machen pointed out almost 100 years ago, liberal religion is not a variety of Christianity, but an "essentially different type[] of thought and life."

Witzel and Williams illustrated the fact that the liberal Christian's God is one of his or her own invention. Effectively, they say that anything in the Bible that contradicts one's inner sense of morality can be discarded, thereby making one's own feelings the ultimate authority, not God or His word.

But for Christians who define their faith and practice by God's Word, this video, particularly the comments by Robert Gagnon and Stephen Black, will provide a solid apologetic that will strengthen them in their own walk and equip them to strengthen other Christians who feel beleaguered by the world.

MORE:

The day before the forum, Prof. Gagnon spoke at Fairview Baptist Church during the Bible study hour and during the morning service, whose campus ministry, Valid Worldview, co-sponsored the forum. The audio starts about 2 minutes in.

Finally, here is the extended version of a documentary that was screened at Fairview's Sunday evening service, "Such Were Some of You," which tells the stories of several men and women who left the "gay" lifestyle to follow Christ.

I'll be on 1170 KFAQ this morning (Monday, October 22, 2018) at 8 a.m. with Pat Campbell to discuss the state questions on Oklahoma's November 2018 general election ballot. Tune into 1170 on your AM dial, or listen live on the internet. (UPDATE: Here is a link to my discussion of the 2018 Oklahoma state questions with Pat Campbell.)

I plan to post a detailed discussion of each of the five questions over the next few weeks, but for starters, here are links to the actual legislative proposal we are voting on.

When we cast a vote on a state question, we are acting as legislators, either enacting a constitutional amendment or approving a statute. True, we only can vote aye or nay, and there's no opportunity to propose an amendment, but we make the final decision on these proposed laws and constitutional provisions.

You wouldn't want a legislator to cast a vote without reading the bill; neither should you vote on a state question without reading the legislation you're being asked to approve. What you will see on your ballot paper -- the ballot title -- is not the legislation. It is a summary of the proposal that may reflect the biases of the people who did the summarizing. Best to think of the words on the ballot as a memory prompt, but nothing more.

Here are links to the Oklahoma Secretary of State website for each of the five state questions:

• SQ 793: Constitutional amendment to prohibit certain legislation about opticians. Would create a loophole to constitutional provision nullifying contracts that waive constitutional rights. This was proposed via initiative petition.
• SQ 794: Constitutional amendment to establish victims' rights. This was proposed by the legislature.
• SQ 798: Constitutional amendment to elect governor and lieutenant governor on a single ticket, by a method to be decided later. This was proposed by the legislature.
• SQ 800: Constitutional amendment to create a "vision fund." This was proposed by the legislature.
• SQ 801: Constitutional amendment to allow school district voters to approve property tax increases to be used for operations as well as buildings. This was proposed by the legislature.

MORE: Here are links to my analysis and recommendation on each of the state questions.

• SQ 793: Optometrists and opticians in retail establishments: NO
• SQ 794: Reforming Victim's Bill of Rights: YES
• SQ 798: Electing Governor and Lt. Governor on the same ballot: NO
• SQ 800: Creating the Oklahoma Slush Vision Fund: NO
• SQ 801: Giving local school districts flexibility in use of bond funds: YES

A millennium before Elvis sightings were to appear regularly in supermarket tabloids, stories of another unlikely survival circulated around England and Scandinavia.

Eleanor Parker, author of the award-winning history blog A Clerk of Oxford, translated an Old Norse text called 'Hemings þáttr,' about a soldier named Heming who travels from Norway to England and serves in the army of Harold Godwinson, the Saxon King of England.

In this version of the story, Harold survives the Battle of Hastings under a pile of corpses, is discovered and nursed back to health by a cottager who had been looting the bodies, and chooses to become a hermit monk at Canterbury rather than lead a rebellion and ask his earls to break the oaths they swore to William of Normandy after his victory. Harold lives for three more years, and loyal Heming visits him often, bringing food to his cell. When Harold dies, William discovers what has happened and comes to see the body for himself. Admiring Heming's loyalty to Harold, William offers him a high position as a baron and leader of his bodyguard, but Heming asks to be allowed to live as a monk in Harold's cell, which request William grants.

The mainstream media, in the form of the Bayeux Tapestry, says that Harold was killed and dismembered at Hastings. HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST. History was written by the victors, embroidered, literally. Cause of death: Arrow to the eye, although there is some doubt about whether the arrow in the tapestry is original or the result of an overzealous 18th century restoration.

In 2014, shortly after the discovery of the remains of Richard III in a Leicester car park, an amateur historian paid to have ground-penetrating radar scan Waltham Abbey in search of the remains of King Harold Godwinson. (Other coverage: Telegraph, Daily Mail.) The site is named in an English text, Vita Haroldi ("Life of Harold"), which says that Harold survived the battle, then lived many years as a hermit monk at Dover and later at Chester.

For all the coverage in anticipation of the scan at Waltham, I haven't found an article saying what was found -- nothing, I assume. But three years later, there's a claim that Harold was buried in Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire.

Tom Nichols, a prominent "Never Trumper," and author of The Death of Expertise, has written an op-ed for The Atlantic to explain why he's leaving the Republican Party.

It's hard to take Mr. Expert seriously when he uses the "GOP" as the subject of a sentence, as an entity with undivided volition. He betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of parties as they have been since the nominating process was democratized, and his threatened change in political registration will have the an effect on the party 180 degrees out from his desired direction.

There is no unitary Republican entity. There's the RNC, the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate and their respective campaign committees, state parties, legislative caucuses, all of which operate more or less independently of each other.

Republicanism is defined by the people who happened to show up at the primary and asked for a Republican ballot. It's defined by whoever wins an election with an R by their name.

Party organizations and conventions have no influence and few resources to offer candidates. (Utah is a rare exception -- GOP convention delegates can filter the candidates who appear on the primary ballot, or nominate outright.)

Instead, the RNC and state parties depend on the goodwill of elected officials to raise funds and stay alive. Many state parties have rules requiring neutrality in primaries or bias in favor of incumbents with an R after their name.

Because the party resources aren't available during the primary, candidates build their own teams of aides, volunteers, and donors. They may get some help from party-wide get-out-the-vote efforts on election day, but there's little the party is able to offer to make a candidate feel beholden to the organization.

It's different in other countries.

In the UK, candidates for the UK Parliament, European Parliament, and local councils are selected by party members. To participate in selection of Conservative Party nominees, you have to have been a party member for at least three months. Joining the costs 25 pounds per year (with discounts for military service members and students), and acceptance is not automatic -- party officials can deny your application if they think your membership is contrary to the party's best interests.

Joining the Liberal National Party -- the right-of-center party in the Australian state of Queensland -- will cost you AU$110 a year, but you can buy a lifetime membership for AU$2000. The membership application asks:

• Do you believe in the values of the Liberal National Party - individual dignity, liberty, free enterprise, the family and personal and community responsibility?
• Have you ever been a member of the LNP, Liberal Party or The Nationals?
• Have you ever been a member of any other political party?
• Have you ever applied for, and been refused membership of the LNP, Liberal Party or The Nationals?
• Have you ever been expelled from either the LNP, Liberal Party or The Nationals?
• Have you ever nominated as a candidate in an election where the LNP has had an endorsed candidate?

When party members control the nominating process, and joining a party requires financial commitment and adherence to a set of overarching principles, you have a political party organization that matters -- a group of people organizing to advance a particular political philosophy through public policy.

In America, becoming a Republican at most requires changing the letter on your record at the election board. In some states, you don't need to do anything that permanent; you need only ask for the Republican ballot when you show up to vote, and you can ask for a different ballot at the next primary election. This is the outcome of early 20th century reforms that aimed to open up the "smoke-filled rooms" and give ordinary people a role in choosing the candidates on the ballot from which they would choose elected officials.

While I love the idea of a party organization that advocates for certain policies, holds elected officials accountable to enact those policies, and recruits candidates based on their aptitude to advance those policies, the "reformed" nominating process makes that impossible. If you want to create an organization like that, you have to go outside official party structures: PACs and grassroots groops (FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity), special caucuses (e.g. the Freedom Caucus and the Republican Main Street Partnership in the U. S. House; the Platform Caucus in the Oklahoma Legislature), activist groups (Tulsa Area Republican Assembly, Oklahoma Conservative PAC).

It's possible that when Tom the Expert says he joined the Republican Party and is now leaving it, he means that he donated to the RNC, attended his precinct caucus, served as a delegate at county & state conventions, and made GOTV calls on election day, and now he won't anymore. But I suspect he just means that long ago he changed his voter registration to R and is now changing it to I.

If Expert Tom and those likeminded change their voter registration, it will not teach the stupid GOP a lesson and induce the party to repent and beg for them to come back (as if the party were possessed of a unitary volition). Instead, people who disagree with Expert Tom and his ilk will have more influence over the outcome of Republican primaries, the results of which collectively define the overall direction of this amorphous thing we call the Republican Party.

UPDATE: I addressed the same subject in a slightly different way back in 2012, responding to the frustration of many of my conservative blogging acquaintances: The anthropomorphization of the GOP.

A Facebook worry has gone viral, with a warning of this sort appearing all over the timeline: "If you receive a friend request from me, my account has been hacked." Some are dismissive of the threat. Here's what's actually going on:

Facebook accounts are being cloned, not hacked. Scammers can do this without needing access to your password.

It hasn't happened much lately, but for a while I would regularly get friend requests from people with whom I was already friends. What happens is a scammer will grab photos and public information from a profile, create a new profile with the same profile photo and name, and send friend requests to people on the original profile's friend list. No hacking required, and changing your password can't stop it.

I found out why this is happening when I thoughtlessly accepted one of these friend requests. The scammer messaged me, starting a casual conversation -- how's it going -- which eventually turned into the scammer talking about some trick for getting money out of the Canadian Social Security system, a path that no doubt would have led to an attempt to get my personal financial details. I asked the scammer some questions which the real friend would have been able to answer, but which were not discoverable on the friend's real profile, and the scammer went away.

My wife dealt with a similar attempt by suggesting that they get together and talk. The scammer scarpered.

If you get a suspicious friend request, search your friends list before accepting it. A cloned account will usually be obvious upon close examination -- the profile and background picture may be the same, but there will be a lower friends count and few if any timeline posts. If the request is from a cloned account, click the ... icon at the top of the page, then select "Report" from the menu, and let your friend know about it as well. But remember: Changing passwords won't fix the problem.