The second and simplest state question on Oklahoma's November 5, 2024, ballot is SQ 834. It would modify the language of Article III, Section 1, of the Oklahoma Constitution:

Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe, all only citizens of the United States, who are over the age of eighteen (18) years, and who are bona fide residents of this state, are qualified electors of this state.

If SQ 834 passes, the section will read:

Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe, only citizens of the United States who are over the age of eighteen (18) years and who are bona fide residents of this state are qualified electors of this state.

The gist you will see on the ballot is:

This measure amends Section 1 of Article 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It clarifies that only citizens of the United States are qualified to vote in this state.

SQ834 began life as SJR 23, with a long list of coauthors. It passed the Senate 37-7 and passed the House 71-11. Among Tulsa Democrats, Reps. Suzanne Schreiber, John Waldron, Meloyde Blancett, and Regina Goodwin, and Sens. Jo Anna Dossett and Kevin Matthews voted no. Reps. Monroe Nichols (candidate for Tulsa mayor), Melissa Provenzano, and Amanda Swope did not vote.

The current language leaves open the possibility that a charter city might allow non-citizens to vote in city elections. Stating that all citizens are qualified electors doesn't exclude the possibility that non-citizens might also be qualified electors. The new language closes off that possibility, unless the Legislature itself permitted it.

I'd rather "subject to such exceptions" spelled out what types of exceptions would be reasonable. I assume those would only be excluding felons from voting. I'd prefer something like: "Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe depriving felons of the vote, all citizens of the United States, and only citizens of the United States, who are over the age of eighteen (18) years and who are bona fide residents of this state are qualified electors of this state."

Nevertheless, this is an improvement over the existing language, and I will be voting YES.

Oklahoma has two state questions on the November 5, 2024, ballot. The first and most controversial and confusing is State Question 833. I have this uneasy feeling that the proposal is not so much about solving problems for cities or even for developers as it is about creating a new market for financial services companies. I'm voting NO on SQ 833.

Here is the gist that appears on the ballot:

STATE QUESTION NO. 833 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 376

This measure adds a new section, section 9E, to article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Section 9E will permit the creation of public infrastructure districts to provide support, organization, operation, and maintenance of services. To create such a district, proponents for creating the district must file a petition with the municipality. The petition must include the signatures of one hundred percent of all surface property owners falling within the district's proposed boundaries. The municipality possesses the right to impose limitations on the district's powers prior to approving the district. Once approved, the district will be governed by a board of trustees.

Through the board, the district may issue bonds to pay for all or part of all public improvements implemented by and for the public infrastructure district. The district will be limited to issuing bonds issued for such improvements not exceeding ten (10) mills. For repayment of the bonds, the district, acting through its board of trustees, will levy and assess a special assessment on all property benefiting from the improvements in the district. Section 9E also authorizes the Legislature to enact laws necessary for the implementation of public infrastructure districts.

This question is a legislative referendum, which means the state legislature approved a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, which must then be ratified by the voters. SJR 16 was authored by Sen. John Haste, R-Broken Arrow, Rep. Terry O'Donnell, R-Catoosa, and Rep. Lonnie Sims, R-Jenks, who is the Republican nominee for Tulsa County Commission District 2. The resolution passed the Senate 38-7, with most of the consistent conservatives (e.g., Dahm, Deevers, Hamilton, Jett) voting no, and passed the House 66-27, again with most of the consistent conservatives (e.g., Banning, Gann, Olsen) voting against. Some usually reliable conservatives voted yes in both houses (e.g. Prieto, Crosswhite Hader), but I also notice lots of prominent Democrat names on the yes side (e.g., Provenzano, Schreiber, Dossett, Nichols, Blancett).

Here is the language that will be added to Article X of the State Constitution if SQ 833 passes:

Section 9E. A. There are hereby created public infrastructure districts.

B. Municipalities may approve the creation of public infrastructure districts, which may incur indebtedness and issue public infrastructure district bonds to pay for all or part of the cost of public improvements within such districts. The cost of all indebtedness so incurred shall be levied and assessed by the board of trustees of a public infrastructure district on the property benefited by such improvements following the passage and approval of the organization of a public infrastructure district pursuant to subsection C of this section. The board shall collect the special assessments so levied and use the same to reimburse the public infrastructure district for the amount paid or to be paid by it on the bonds issued for such improvements not to exceed ten (10) mills for the purpose of providing funds for the purpose of support, organization, operation, and maintenance of such services.

C. A public infrastructure district shall not be created unless a petition is filed with the municipality that contains the signatures of one hundred percent (100%) of surface property owners within the applicable area consenting to the creation of the public infrastructure district.

D. The municipality may impose limitations on the powers of the public infrastructure district through the governing document presented by the public infrastructure district applicant.

E. The levy shall be in addition to all other levies authorized by this Constitution, and when approved, shall be made for the repayment of public infrastructure district bonds issued by the public infrastructure districts for the public improvements agreed upon by the voters of the district as provided by the governing document.

F. The Legislature shall be authorized to enact such laws as may be necessary in order to implement public infrastructure districts in this state.

Reading between the lines to think through how this would work:

A public infrastructure district (PID) would likely be set up by a single property owner, since the consent of 100% of property owners is required. The property owner would be the proponent and would develop the governing document for the public infrastructure, which would presumably spell out the number, terms, and process for appointment of the trustees.

Only a municipality can approve a public infrastructure district, but nothing in this amendment says that the infrastructure district has to be within that municipality's limits. (That may be implied by other law, but it ought to be spelled out here.) It says the municipality may impose limitations in the district's powers, but the only power authorized in this section is to incur indebtedness and issue bonds. Perhaps a limitation would include capping indebtedness or restricting what improvements could be financed in this way. The limit of 10 mills implies that the assessments must be ad valorem, based on property value, rather than some other measure, such as linear street frontage, land area, or proximity to amenities.

There's nothing in the amendment to specify how trustees should be appointed or how to disband a PID once it has served its purpose.

This would appear to be a way for a private property owner to sell tax-exempt bonds rather than taxable bonds, without having to ask a city or county industrial authority to issue conduit debt on his behalf.

Sen. Haste and Rep. O'Donnell issued a press release after SJR 16 passed the House in April.

"Oklahoma has a housing shortage across the state, and we know one of the most significant barriers to new homes is the need to build the necessary infrastructure to support them," Haste said. "PIDs will help our municipalities finance the infrastructure to handle our state's growth."

It's noteworthy that Haste and O'Donnell's districts overlap in the section of Wagoner County within Tulsa's city limits.

OpenSecrets has not identified any committees supporting or opposing the measure. A search of independent expenditures and state question expenditures on the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's website turns up nothing.

Utah has Public Infrastructure Districts, but they do not appear to be limited to municipalities. Here is a Salt Lake City TV news report on the use of Public Infrastructure Districts by the Utah Inland Port Authority and the website for a pair of PIDs, one residential, one commercial, called ROAM in Morgan County, Utah.

D. A. Davidson, a Denver-based financial services company, has a Special District Group that works with cities and developers to set up PIDs; their presentation, explaining PIDs and providing examples, is included in the minutes for the July 11, 2024, Millville, Utah, City Council meeting. Here is a draft policy statement from the City of Toquerville, Utah, setting out the basis on which PIDs would be established by the city; document metadata indicates it was written by Laci Knowles, a managing director of D. A. Davidson's Special District Group. I found her name on several similar policy statements from other cities.

(By the way, Utah has a website for collecting every public notice issued by every public body in the state, including municipalities. The search engine could be better, but this is a great idea.)

Texas has Public Improvement Districts, which are municipal. Here is an analysis of Public Improvement Districts by John Whitsell, the City Manager of Chandler, Texas; it sounds very similar to what is proposed in SQ833.

I ran searches for Public Infrastructure District and Public Improvement District on the websites of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), two organizations that develop model legislation that state legislators reuse and adapt to local circumstances, and could find no reference to either concept.

The general idea seems to be that a developer would be able to have the city issue bonds on its behalf to fund a new subdivision's streets, sidewalks, sewers, waterlines, and common areas, and then the bonds are paid back by the assessments on the property owner(s) within the PID. This would be in lieu of the developer needing commercial financing for those costs as part of the overall financing for the project. This sort of infrastructure financing has been done with a TIF, but a TIF diverts the additional property tax or sales tax revenue generated by the development (e.g., Tulsa Hills, Jenks Outlet Mall) from taxing entities, while in a PID, the taxing entities would collect the entire millage, even on the increase in value, and the over-and-above PID assessment would go to repay the bonds. Someone buying a lot to build a home in a PID would pay more in property taxes over the years, even after his mortgage is paid off, instead of paying a higher price upfront (the infrastructure cost of the development would be rolled into the initial price).

It would help a lot to know who brought the idea to Sen. Haste and Rep. O'Donnell and who was lobbying for SJR 16. It looks like it would be a moneymaker for bond attorneys and bond underwriters. I did not find any Oklahoma lobbying expenses listing D. A. Davidson as a principal ("principal" is the lobbyist's client), but I could imagine that a financial services company might push to create this type of district to open up an entire state for new business opportunities.

Maybe there is some value to this idea, but the proposal needs more clarity, limitations, and safeguards. I plan to vote NO.

P.S. If you want to induce nausea, go to that Lobbyist Expenditure search page, enter the last name of a current legislator, and then look at the lobbyist column and be appalled and disgusted at the large number of former legislators who are trading on their legislative connections for the benefit of special interest groups. Maybe we'd be better off as a state if we paid departing legislators a big pension while banning them from serving as lobbyists.

All Oklahoma voters will have 12 judicial retention questions on the backside of the November 5, 2024, ballot. Unlike district judges, where competitors run in non-partisan elections, justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals are appointed, but face a retention ballot every six years. (I think unopposed district judges should also face a retention ballot.)

Oklahoma has two separate appeals systems. Decisions of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals can be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, while the Court of Criminal Appeals is the apex of Oklahoma's criminal court system. All of the appeals judges are appointed by the governor; the public has the opportunity to oust them at retention elections every 6 years.

In the 56-year history of Oklahoma's judicial retention elections, no judge or justice has ever been turned out of office by the voters. That may change this year.

The OCPA has produced an Oklahoma judicial scorecard, reachable at oklajudges.com. The nine current Oklahoma Supreme Court justices have been graded based on their ruling in selected cases. A description of OCPA's scoring methodology states:

To score well, a justice will join in opinions which respect their role as the interpreter--not maker--of law. As John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That means it's not the Court's role to say what the law should be. Furthermore, we score justices well who interpret the law based on the text as it was written by the legislature without finding ambiguity where none exists. In sum, we expect judicial officers to decide cases based on the facts and the law--not their own individual preferences.

The three justices on this year's retention ballot, Noma Gurich, Yvonne Kauger, and James Edmondson, have scores of 18%, 18%, and 22% respectively, exceeded only by Douglas Combs's 14%. All three voted in 2020 to override explicit language in the statute and allow absentee ballots to be accepted without notarization. In 2023, Gurich, Kauger, and Edmondson "found" a right to abortion in the emanationes et penumbrae of the Oklahoma Constitution, which nowhere mentions the barbaric practice which state statute prohibits. This year, the three plus Combs were on the anti-speech side of a free-speech case.

James Edmondson is the brother and former law partner of Drew Edmondson, former attorney general and 2018 Democrat nominee for governor. Yvonne Kauger and James Edmondson are the only two remaining justices who participated in the unjust 2006 decision to invalidate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative petition without a hearing.

Governor Stitt's three appointees, Justices Kane, Kuehn, and Rowe, all score 80 or above. Stitt has done well with his judicial appointments, despite the involvement of a left-leaning private club in the nominating process; defeating Gurich, Kauger, and Edmondson would give Stitt three more appointments, leading, we hope, to a Supreme Court majority that applies the law as written.

The judicial scorecard does not extend to the two appellate courts. I plan to vote for all of Governor Stitt's appointments. While my default in the absence of any information is to vote no (to cancel out someone else who reflexively votes yes), I don't want, ignorantly, to turf out a judge who is doing a good job. I've reached out to attorney friends to get their sense on the appellate judges.

Criminal Appeals Judge David B. Lewis was on the wrong side of a 2023 ruling in a case involving an egregious violation of due-process rights in an Oklahoma County District Court murder case. According to the findings of fact in an evidentiary hearing, District Judge Timothy Henderson and Assistant District Attorney Kelly Collins were involved in a secret sexual relationship at the time the case was assigned to Henderson and at the time the first pre-trial hearing was held. District Court Judge Paul Hesse, who conducted the evidentiary hearing, wrote that it was immaterial that the affair had ended before the trial proper had occurred: "An unconstitutional potential for bias existed because Henderson could not have been neutral if he still had romantic feelings for Collins or if he feared that Collins might disclose their relationship out of frustration if she was dissatisfied with a ruling." Henderson was suspended in March 2021 as allegations involving three female attorneys came to light.

(Henderson was also the judge in the Daniel Holtzclaw case; Holtzclaw was accused of the same sort of abuse of power for sexual favors that drove Henderson from office. In 2019, all five judges in the Court of Criminal Appeals concurred in upholding Holtzclaw's conviction; of those five, Lewis, Musseman, and Lumpkin are still on the court, Kuehn is now on the Supreme Court, and Hudson has retired.)

The Criminal Appeals Court agreed with Hesse and by a narrow 3-2 vote remanded the case for a new trial, but Judges David B. Lewis and Gary Lumpkin dissented. In his dissent, Lewis argued that the because the relationship had ended two years before the actual trial was held, "These facts do not establish an especially high degree of risk that the average trial judge in this situation is objectively likely to be biased in favor of the state and against the defendant."

In the tables below I list each judge on the ballot, their current party registration, age, and the governor who appointed them. I also list my recommendation where I have one. For the rest, I am still gathering information.

Oklahoma Supreme Court

Court of Criminal Appeals

Court of Civil Appeals

*NOTE: Judges Rowland and Bell no longer appear to be in the public voter database, presumably having sought protection under one of the Voter Privacy Programs. In the most records available to me, from 2022, both were registered Republican at that time.

MORE:

Ballotpedia has useful information on the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals retention ballots.

The group People of Opportunity, whose board includes OCPA President Jonathan Small and OCPA fellow Trent England, is running television ads calling for the defeat of Kauger, Gurich, and Edmondson.

The December 2023 issue of State Politics and Policy, an academic journal, has an article updating the party-adjusted surrogate judge ideology (PAJID) scores for state supreme court justices nationwide through 2019. PAJID scores range from 0 to 100, where 0 is most conservative, 100 is most liberal. OCPA president Jonathan Small notes, "Only Hawaii, West Virginia, and Maryland had supreme courts whose justices' median PAJID score was as liberal as Oklahoma's throughout the entirety of the 1970-to-2019 period reviewed." The PAJID scores of the three Oklahoma justices up for retention: Kauger 79.08630, Gurich 35.72624, Edmondson 77.80814. The dataset is available for download by a link on the Supplementary Materials tab.

A couple of friends have posted links to an article alleging shenanigans in Oklahoma's voter registration records. The article is on a website known for sensationalistic headlines, but that article linked to an analysis on another site more temperate in tone, but missing important context.

The bottom line: The voter ID number patterns which the analyst found suspicious in the short time he spent with the database have explanations rooted in the history of Oklahoma's voter registration system, specifically the transition to our first statewide registration computer system in 1990 and its replacement with a newer system in 2011.

The headline on The Gateway Pundit screams "Jerome Corsi: Oklahoma Added to the List of States with Irregularities in Board of Election Voter Registration Databases Suspected of Fraud." Corsi gets off to a misleading start:

In a highly suspicious August 27 run-off mayoral election in Tulsa, two relatively inexperienced political operatives with pedigree-quality, radically woke Democratic Party credentials beat a conservative Republican CPA, attorney, businessman, and pastor with a long history of community service, in Oklahoma, by the narrowest possible margins.

It wasn't a run-off -- it was the general election, with a run-off to come in November. Karen Keith, a 16-year county commissioner and 30+ year TV news reporter and anchor endorsed by the police and firefighter unions, and Monroe Nichols, an 8-year state representative endorsed by a former mayor, two former governors, and the daily paper, are hardly inexperienced. Brent VanNorman's long history of community involvement happened in other cities and states. Corsi doesn't appear to know that this election is officially non-partisan, with no party labels on the ballot. VanNorman was one of three registered Republicans running for mayor, but the only information about the party affiliations of the candidates was on websites like this one, not on the ballot. (I wonder who fed Corsi the above characterization of the Tulsa election.)

More about the dynamics of the mayoral race below. It was impressive that VanNorman did as well as he did with so little money, no name recognition, and a standing start with only three months to introduce himself to the voters. I'm not shocked that he failed to make the runoff; I'm amazed he came so close to making the runoff and beating the one-time front-runner, and I'm frustrated with the Republicans who withheld support entirely or until it was too late to matter (Tulsa County GOP, Kevin Stitt).

Corsi quoted a New York State-based analyst named Andrew Paquette, who has been acquiring voter databases from election boards and analyzing them, focusing on patterns in voter identification numbers as a potential indicator of fraud. Corsi goes on:

Paquette has charged that State Board of Elections official voter registration databases may contain cryptographic codes of intelligence agency complexity that enable rogue actors to obtain official state voter ID numbers for non-existent fraudulently created voters in an apparently criminal scheme designed to facilitate the certification of fraudulent mail-in votes.

(I have detected irregularities in Corsi's spelling of Paquette, which he spells "Pacquette" about as often as he spells it correctly.)

The article embeds Paquette's report but doesn't link to it, which is rather dodgy. Here is Paquette's report. Paquette's report is provided on his site as non-OCRed images, which is also rather strange. Here is the beginning of his Oklahoma analysis, which is much more circumspect than Corsi's lurid prose:

I have spent literally one day looking at Oklahoma's voter rolls. Much less if you subtract the time it took to import each county's database into a master database for study. In comparison, it took weeks before the first hints of voter roll algorithms were found in Ohio and New Jersey, and even longer in New York. With the caveat that this is not enough time to yield a definitive response either way, here are a few preliminary observations:

In this entry I'm going to focus on Paquette's suspicions about Oklahoma voter ID numbers and registration dates. He created scatterplots of date of registration on the X axis and was surprised to see that the voter ID numbers don't correlate in any obvious way to registration dates before 1990:

What this plot tells us is that ID numbers generally ascend as registration dates become more recent. There is a large break in CID numbers between about 720,000,000 through 800,000,000 that occurs in 2012. This break is found in all other OK counties. The reason for this is unclear, particularly for a state with a population size that is unlikely to ever exceed the available unused numbers. A close-up of numbers on the left of the plot reveals another break in the numbers in the year 1990, after which they ascend normally. Earlier numbers do not follow a normal ascending pattern, but are found in any year from 1950-1990, regardless of number size. That is, a high number from the series is just as likely to be from 1950 as 1990, but later numbers always ascend with the year. This is different from some counties and bears further investigation (Figure 2).

Had Paquette had more time with Oklahoma's numbers (why the big hurry?) he might have noticed that a large share of voter IDs from a given county begin with the same two digits and those two digits match the sequence of the county name in alphabetical order. Adair is 01, Woodward is 77. Tulsa and Wagoner are 72 and 73, respectively. Osage is 57 and Rogers is 66. Historically, back in the days of handwritten indexes, people sorted names beginning with Mc before all other names beginning with M, because a Mc name (a Celtic patronymic) is sometimes spelled as Mac, so McClain, McCurtain, and McIntosh are 44, 45, and 46, and Major is 47. Precinct numbers are six digits beginning with the two-digit county code. (FIPS county codes follow the same order, but are all odd numbers separated by two, which I suppose allows for a new county to be added in alphabetical order without renumbering the rest.)

So a large share of Tulsa County voter IDs, 155,841 out of 390,753 in the August 8, 2024, download, begin with 72. These were all issued on or before April 18, 2011. The rest of the voter IDs begin with 80, reflecting a move to a new statewide election computer system in 2011. Existing voters kept their ID numbers beginning with a county code, but new voters were registered with numbers beginning with 80, a value that would not conflict with any existing voter ID numbers, because Oklahoma has only 77 counties.

(Here is a January 2011 story announcing selection of a vendor for the new system, an op-ed by Oklahoma State Election Board Paul Ziriax, announcing the new system from Hart InterCivic, which included new ballot scanning machines to replace those that were nearly twenty years old, a July 2011 story mentioning the model names of the old (OPTECH III-P Eagle) and new scanners (Hart InterCivic eScan A/T Paper Based Digital Ballot Scanner), December 2011 article showing the difference in ballot styles between old and new machines.)

So why do voter ID numbers after 1990 increase monotonically with registration date, but are seemingly random until 1990? Because the Oklahoma State Election Board got its first statewide computer system that year. In Tulsa County there is a break in registrations between June 15, 1990, and June 30, 1990. If you sort the Tulsa County voter file by voter ID number and filter for registrations prior to June 15, 1990, you'll find that the names are mostly in alphabetical order. The exceptions to alphabetical order are mainly women; women are more likely to change their last name after they get married, but they keep their voter ID number. For example, near the end of those pre-1990 records, I found someone I know with the last name Werner whose voter ID number falls in sequence with people named Zumwalt, which was her married name in June 1990.

My wife and I are four numbers apart, even though I registered to vote in 1981 after I turned 18, and she registered to vote in Oklahoma eight years later, after we were married in 1989. Even though our first names are close together in alphabetical order, there were once six Michael Bateses registered to vote in Tulsa County, four with different middle names, and one with the same middle name and a date of birth six months earlier in the same year. There's still one other Michael Bates -- Michael S. Bates, the retired City of Tulsa human resources director, who was also registered to vote before the 1990 computer system went online -- his voter ID is after mine and before my wife's.

What is likely is that Tulsa County Election Board took its existing alphabetized voter database and entered them into the new system in that order, from A'Neal to Zyskowski. In the current database, those numbers range from 720000002 to 720300782, and the registration dates range from June 23, 1942, to June 15, 1990. I found only three exceptions in Tulsa County, three voters with ID numbers in that range who registered in October 1990, February 1991, and October 1996. Tulsa County's population in the 1990 census was 505,289; 59.5% seems a reasonable ratio of registered voters to population. Today there are 390,753 voters, and the 2020 population was 670,653 -- 58.3%.

There are only 51,323 voter records in that range of voter ID numbers today. A lot of people die or move away in 34 years. Whoever had 720000001 must fall in one of those categories. In 2016, 77,007 voters had ID numbers in that range.

(Here is an August 1990 Associated Press story about the state's then-new election administration computer system, running on Digital Equipment Corporation computers with software by Andersen Consulting, a branch of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, a May 1990 Okmulgee Daily Times story about election board worker training and reporting that the new system will go into use on July 1, and a July 1990 Oklahoma Press Association story on the new system.)

There are 226 records in the Tulsa County database with no recorded registration date. 189 of these have their addresses redacted with asterisks; among this group I recognize the names of district judges, assistant district attorneys, and others who might be at risk from stalkers. I'm not sure how blanking registration dates helps with security for these people, but there is a correlation. The law authorizing address confidentiality is here; the rules adopted by the State Election Board are here. (30 with redacted addresses have valid registration dates in 2023 or 2024, perhaps reflecting a later tweak to the law or election board procedure.)

Of the remaining 37 with no registration date, they were all born in 1962 or earlier, and all but one are in that initial group of voters entered into the computerized system in 1990. The date may not have been entered on the original record, or perhaps was illegible when the records were entered in 1990.

There are 9 records in the Tulsa County database where the registration date is earlier than the birth date. All 9 are part of the records that were input into the system in 1990. It's reasonable to guess that these were data entry errors when transcribing from cards to computer.

So, excluding the 219 redacted records, that's 46 voters out of 390,534 with blank or impossible voter registration dates, only 12 thousandths of one percent -- 0.012%. Ideally there wouldn't be any, but the county election board would have been wrong, as they entered the existing registration rolls into the computer system in 1990, to drop a duly registered voter for lack of a legible voter registration date.

Not all counties tracked voter registration dates prior to the 1990 computer system. The Osage County roll has only 48 voters with registration dates on or before June 15, 1990. 3,168 registration dates are blank out of 29,442. Wagoner County has only 44 voters with registration dates that pre-date the 1990 computer system, and 3,802 blank registration dates out of 51,987. But Rogers County apparently tracked registration dates before the 1990 computer system: It has only 805 blank registration dates out of 64,776 voter records; 23 of that 805 belong to voters with redacted addresses.

In summary, there's nothing weird about Oklahoma voter ID numbers or registration dates that isn't explained by the history of Oklahoma's computerized election management system. There are a small number of oddities that reflect a reasonable number of clerical errors.

Another concern raised by Paquette is that purged records are not retained in the database. The definition of a purged record is that it has been removed from the database. The State Election Board does, however, provide a separate file containing all records deleted statewide in the last 24 months. I am surprised that Paquette overlooked this data source. The file I downloaded on September 30, 2024, contains 244,388 records, of which 90,381 were removed as a county transfer (removed from the database of the voter's former county), 83,701 were deleted for inactivity, 51,647 as deaths (health department, next of kin, nursing/funeral home, written notice), 7,965 were deleted as duplicates, 3,128 for felony convictions, 2,572 are labeled CONF. NOTICE - STATE or CONF. NOTICE - COUNTY (possibly indicating that a confirmation postcard to the address on record was returned with a change of address out of county or out of state), 2,518 as a state transfer, 2,254 license surrender, 222 mental incapacity. The file includes the date of deletion, ranging from October 3, 2022, to September 29, 2024.

Paquette also complains about possible clones -- records with the same date of birth and first and last name. I haven't checked this yet; that would require looking at the entire state at once, and that involves loading all 77 separate county files into one database. I'll take a look at that at a later date.

On the jump page, I've got more detail regarding the dynamics of Tulsa's mayoral race and why Jerome Corsi's description doesn't fit the facts, on the contents of Oklahoma's voter registration database, and on why I don't trust any headline on The Gateway Pundit.

Some encouraging results in Tuesday's Republican runoffs; a heartbreaking near-miss in the Tulsa general election.

Grassroots candidates defeated three RINO incumbent legislators:

In Senate District 3, Julie McIntosh defeated incumbent Blake Cowboy Stephens by 61% to 39%. Corey DeAngelis, a leader in the national school choice movement celebrated the result, noting that Stephens was proud of being the teachers' union's Legislator of the Week.

In House District 32, Kevin Wallace, chairman of the House Appropriations and Budget Committee (a role that is a magnet for lobbyist money -- Wallace had almost three-quarters of a million dollars to spend) was defeated by Jim Shaw, 54% to 46%. Wallace's voting record received a failing grade from multiple conservative organizations. Wallace also lost support for his use of human manure ("biosolids") as fertilizer on his farmland and over concerns about wind and solar arrays displacing privately-owned farms and ranches in rural Oklahoma.

Gabe Woolley defeated House District 98 incumbent Dean Davis, whose arrest for public drunkenness made national news last year and had received a deferred sentence in 2019 after pleading nolo contendere to charges of a 2nd Offense DUI, speeding, and obstructing an officer.

Grassroots conservatives also fared well in open-seat runoffs. Lisa Standridge, wife of term-limited conservative stalwart Rob Standridge, has won her runoff in Senate District 15 by 51 votes of about 5,000 cast. Stacy Jo Adams in House 50 and Kelly Hines in Senate 47 each beat a better financed opponent 60% to 40%.

The closest race of the night was the two-vote victory of Jonathan Wilk over Mike Whaley in House 20, 1,668 to 1,666.

One of CAMP's few wins this season was in the Tulsa County Commission District 2 Republican runoff, with former State Rep. Lonnie Sims defeating Melissa Myers. Sadly, Josh Turley, running this year as an independent, has chosen to withdraw from the race. The general election will be between Sims and leftist activist Sarah Gray, who defeated former City Councilor Maria Barnes for the Democrat nomination.

City of Tulsa results were heartbreaking. Brent VanNorman, the only Republican with a significant campaign, finished just shy of making the runoff. Our choices in November (barring a change due to the recount that VanNorman has requested) will be Left and Lefter -- Democrat Karen Keith and Democrat Monroe Nichols.

The difference between 2nd & 3rd place was 438 votes, about 2.7 votes for each of Tulsa's 163 precincts. You can't help but wonder what would have happened if VanNorman had switched to the mayoral race a few weeks earlier, or if prominent Republicans like Gov. Kevin Stitt had endorsed early enough for TV ads and mail pieces. The key obstacle VanNorman faced was communicating to Republican voters that he was the candidate Republicans should support. That message had to be strong enough to stick with voters all the way into the voting booth, since the ballots carry no party labels.

Stitt's election eve endorsement came too late to communicate to the voters except by stickers on campaign signs election morning. I noticed that somehow, in their joint appearance at the Women for Tulsa meeting, no one managed to get a picture of Stitt and VanNorman together -- just an oversight, or purposeful on Stitt's part? Did the Governor want credit with the base for the last minute endorsement while not upsetting the people who really matter to him by making the endorsement so late and quiet as to make no difference? Stitt managed to find time to knock doors for Kevin "Humanure" Wallace and record a video attacking the supporters of Jim Shaw as "political animals." What if he had invested as much into helping a conservative Republican get elected as mayor of Oklahoma's second largest city?

And what if a long-time Tulsa Republican with a track record had run? State Sen. and former TU football coach Dave Rader, former AG Scott Pruitt, former AG John O'Connor, former Congressmen John Sullivan and Jim Bridenstine, former DA Tim Harris are just a few names that come to mind.

Keith's survival is thanks to early mail-in absentee ballots, presumably cast before her campaign began to sink. 53.4% of mail-in ballots were for Keith, 1,638 of 3,066 cast, giving her a 1,067 vote lead over Brent VanNorman. Keith and her CAMPaign team squandered a strong lead and positive name recognition. Many people had expected Keith to win without a runoff.

Election day ballots alone had Nichols at 33.2% (17,033), VanNorman at 33.0% (16,964), and Keith at 31.3% (16,082). Monroe Nichols won early voting at the Tulsa County Election Board, 975 to 801 for Keith and 492 for VanNorman.

VanNorman finished first in Districts 2 (43.4%), 6 (41.5%), 7 (40.8%), and 8 (47.5%), but turnout in 2 and 6 was particularly bad. Keith led only in District 9 (34.7%), but that had the highest turnout of any district. Although the districts were drawn to have nearly equal population, District 9 was 18.7% of the election day turnout. Districts 4, 8, and 9 combined for 54.0% of election day votes. Nichols dominated District 1 (66.4%) and District 4 (45.3%), and he finished slightly ahead in low-turnout District 3 (33.1% to 33.0% for Keith and 30.5% for VanNorman) and District 5 (34.5% Nichols, 31.4% VanNorman, 31.1% Keith).

The only bright spot in the city elections was the District 7 Council race, where Republican Eddie Huff made it to a November runoff against incumbent Democrat Lori Decter Wright, 43.7% to 48.6%. Decter Wright had only a 50-vote margin on election day, but she had a 204-vote lead from mail-in and early votes. This is a winnable race for Huff in November, but he will need volunteers and funds to reach Republican voters in the midst of a noisy general election season.

There will also be runoffs in Districts 2 and 9, and in both cases one candidate is above 40% with 2nd place trailing far behind. In District 2, Anthony Archie will face Stephanie Reisdorph, and in District 9, former State Rep. Carol Bush will face incumbent Jayme Fowler. Fowler spent several months running for mayor before deciding his run wasn't viable. He decided to file for re-election instead, although the other candidates had been campaigning under the assumption that this would be an open seat.

In District 2, as in the mayor's race, instant runoff voting might have produced a different top 2, as minor candidates would have been eliminated and had their votes redistributed to each voter's second choice.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2024, Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats have a partisan primary runoff election in a number of legislative and county races, and the City of Tulsa will conduct a non-partisan citywide general election, including races for Mayor, all nine City Council seats, as well as two charter-change propositions. There are a smattering of other school, municipal, and county propositions across Oklahoma. Here is the Oklahoma State Election Board's list of all races and propositions on the August 27, 2024, ballot.

In-person absentee voting will be available on Thursday, August 22, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on Friday, August 23, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and (in most counties) on Saturday, August 24, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. For most counties, in-person absentee voting takes place at the county election board, but there are a few exceptions; click here for the full list of early-voting locations. Wagoner County will have a locations at NSU-BA and First Baptist Church in Wagoner. Polls will be open Tuesday, August 27, 2024, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries were changed, in some cases dramatically, in 2022. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot.

In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican runoff election and City of Tulsa general election on August 27, 2024. (This entry may change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

Many readers have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold. The hyperlink on the name of the office will take you to the article where I discuss that race.

Republican primary runoff:

The State Senate 33 runoff was a hard call: While I would be happy with either candidate (and have concerns about each), Christi Gillespie has earned the support of courageous conservative stalwarts like Sen. Dana Prieto, outgoing Sen. Nathan Dahm, and Tulsa school board member E'Lena Ashley, and I believe her experience as a member of the Broken Arrow City Council will help her be effective in navigating the legislative process. Shelley Gwartney was endorsed by primary opponent, Bill Bickerstaff, someone I greatly respect. That said, if I were Gillespie I wouldn't brag about Tulsa Regional Chamber and Oklahoma State Chamber endorsements, but I suspect they jumped aboard the bandwagon in light of her primary finish above 40%. (Please read my 2016 article "Chambers of Horrors" to understand why social and fiscal conservatives, opponents of cronyism, and supporters of historic preservation should find Chamber endorsements problematic.)

• Tulsa County Commissioner District 2: Melissa Myers
• State Senate 3: Julie McIntosh
• State Senate 15: Lisa Standridge
• State Senate 33: Christi Gillespie
• State Senate 47: Kelly Hines
• State House 20: Jonathan Wilk
• State House 32: Jim Shaw
• State House 50: Stacy Jo Adams
• State House 53: Nick Pokorny
• State House 60: Ron Lynch
• State House 98: Gabe Woolley

City of Tulsa general election:

For City of Tulsa races, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff coincident with the state/federal general election in November. All of the candidates listed are registered Republican voters, except Angela Chambers (a Democrat running against a Democrat incumbent) and Aaron Griffith (an independent running against a Democrat incumbent).

Tulsa Mayor: Brent VanNorman

Tulsa City Council:

• District 1: Angela Chambers
• District 2: Aaron Bisogno
• District 3: Susan Frederick
• District 4: Aaron Griffith
• District 5: Karen Gilbert (very reluctantly)
• District 6: Christian Bengel (unenthusiastically)
• District 7: Eddie Huff
• District 8: Chris Cone
• District 9: Jayme Fowler

Tulsa charter amendments:

• Proposition 1: YES
• Proposition 2: YES

MORE INFORMATION:

OFFICIAL INFORMATION:

• Oklahoma State Election Board
• Tulsa County Election Board
• Oklahoma Ethics Commission Guardian campaign finance database

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news and analysis
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements (NOTE: NRA typically endorses an incumbent over a challenger, even if both have similar views
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

UPDATE 2024/08/26 Election Eve: Governor Kevin Stitt appeared tonight with Brent VanNorman at a Women for Tulsa meeting and endorsed VanNorman for Mayor.

The Republican Party of Tulsa County has officially endorsed Brent VanNorman for Mayor of Tulsa in the Tuesday, August 27, 2024, election. So have a number of Republican elected officials and leaders, but other prominent Republican voices have remained silent.

On Wednesday, August 21, the Tulsa County GOP issued the following statement

Mayoral Endorsement Brent VanNorman

The municipal elections in Tulsa are fast approaching, with less than a week remaining. Many inquiries have been made about the Republican candidates in the mayoral race and the preferred candidate of the Tulsa County Republican Party.

In recent months, Brent VanNorman has demonstrated remarkable commitment and effort in his campaign to become Tulsa's next mayor. He has been working relentlessly to increase his visibility and share his vision for the city, achieving considerable success in his endeavors.

After discussions with the other active Republican candidate, we have concluded that uniting behind a single candidate will maximize our chances of success in the Tulsa mayoral race on August 27th. With his encouragement, we are pleased to direct our support to Brent VanNorman.

The Republican Party of Tulsa County urges our fellow Republicans to cast their vote for Brent VanNorman for Tulsa Mayor on August 27th.

Of the three Republican campaigns, only Brent VanNorman and Casey Bradford filed a Statement of Organization with the City Clerk's office, as required by law for raising and spending more than $1,000, but only VanNorman has filed the required campaign contribution and expenditure reports, which show him receiving maximum contributions on a nearly daily basis.

On Friday, voters received a mailer from the Brent VanNorman campaign listing endorsements from:

• Congressman Kevin Hern
• Former Attorney General John O'Connor
• Former Tulsa Police Chief Dave Been
• State Senator Dana Prieto
• State Representative Mark Tedford
• State Representative Chris Banning
• State Representative-elect Rob Hall
• Bama chairman/CEO Paula Marshall

The mailer quotes Congressman Hern: "Brent's commitment to Tulsa values and his real-world experience are unmatched. He will bring the fresh, new leadership Tulsa needs." Former AG John O'Connor writes: "Brent is a true family man and business leader. He's the only Republican running with a bold plan to put Tulsans first and ensure a bright future. "

But many prominent Republican officials with Tulsa ties are still silent and on the sidelines. Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell, Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready, State Senator (and beloved former TU football coach) Dave Rader, Sheriff Vic Regalado, County Clerk Michael Willis, and County Court Clerk Don Newberry all reside in the City of Tulsa. (Gov. Kevin Stitt is registered to vote at the Governor's Mansion in Oklahoma City, but before he was elected, he lived in the Tulsa city limits.)

Why are these Republicans remaining on the sidelines? Some of them have a history of backing one Republican against others in past City of Tulsa elections. This time, they aren't backing someone other than VanNorman; they're just staying very quiet.

The number one reason is likely that VanNorman is so new to Tulsa. While we've had a relatively new Tulsan serve as mayor (Dick Crawford moved to Tulsa in 1978 and was elected mayor in 1986), it's an unusual circumstance. VanNorman's late entry into the mayor's race, switching just before filing from running for Council District 2, as Jayme Fowler dropped back to running for his old council seat, may be another eyebrow-raiser, although that looks like a pragmatic reaction to Fowler's failure to catch fire as a mayoral candidate and VanNorman's resources for a citywide campaign. Only recently has VanNorman campaign material reached mailboxes, radio, TV, and social media, so these GOP leaders may have been wondering if VanNorman's campaign was in earnest.

Elected officials are naturally focused on the preservation and extension of their own political careers, and an endorsement poses a risk to their own reputations. Some may be hoping that the problem will resolve itself after Tuesday -- either VanNorman is the lone Republican against a Democrat, making an endorsement in the November runoff straightforward, or else he's out and Tulsa voters choose between two Democrats in November.

I have to wonder, too, if some officials are deterred by their working relationships with either Democrat Karen Keith or her campaign consultants, who often represent Republicans.

While staying on the sidelines is understandable, these officials ought to expect a share of the blame from Republican voters in future elections if VanNorman fails to make the runoff by a slim margin while they remained silent.

I would think Gov. Stitt in particular would be glad to have the mayor of Oklahoma's second largest city on the same side of his fight for one system of laws and justice for all Oklahomans.

The latest poll released by VanNorman's campaign has the race tightening, with Karen Keith dropping to 25%, VanNorman rising to 23%, and Monroe Nichols slipping to 19%. Unsure is at 30% and other candidates are at 3% combined. But the margin of error is 7%, with only 227 responses, due to what the poll press release calls "response fatigue due to overpolling by many political races." The poll seems to indicate positive momentum for VanNorman, but at that MOE, any two of the three candidates could end up in the November runoff. The Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort will decide whether the November runoff includes a conservative Republican or is a choice between two left-of-center Democrats.

The key will be getting Republican voters to (1) turn up at the polls with an awareness that (2) VanNorman is the only conservative Republican running a well-funded campaign and (3) Karen Keith and Monroe Nichols a liberal Democrat. News coverage of trusted Republican voices endorsing VanNorman and robocall reminders from these officials to drive election-day turnout could have an impact. Even shifting a few hundred votes could be enough to make the difference in such a close race.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.

Tulsa voters will see two proposed amendments to the City Charter on the August 27, 2024, city general election ballot. Both are worth approving.

Proposition 1 amends Article II, Section 2, to change a city councilor's salary from a fixed $24,000 per year to $32,000 per year, with biennial adjustments up or down based on cost-of-living. Here is the current text:

Each member of the Council shall receive a salary of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000.00) per year, commencing December 1, 2014, payable as employees of the city are paid. The City Council shall have no power to change its salary by its own vote. Councilors may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

Here is the proposed replacement text, with new text underlined:

Each member of the Council shall receive a salary of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) per year, commencing December 2, 2024, payable as employees of the City are paid. Thereafter any adjustment to City Council members' annual salaries shall be as certified by the City Treasurer to the City Council. Any adjustment, up or down, certified by the City Treasurer shall coincide with the start of a new City Council term. The salary certified by the City Treasurer shall be commensurate with the most local consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the immediately preceding two-year period. The City Council shall have no power to change its salary by its own vote. Councilors may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

The original councilor's salary in the 1989 charter was $12,000. Although the Council had the power to vote for a salary increase to take effect after the next election, this was only done once, in 2002, increasing the salary to $18,000. In 2013, voters approved the current charter language, increasing the salary to $24,000 but removing the Council's power to adjust its salary.

While I like the idea of indexing the salary to inflation, and the method prescribed seems reasonable, I have a couple of concerns. City Treasurer is an office defined by the City Charter, but the method of appointment is not explicitly stated. If the City Treasurer is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, there's a separation-of-powers problem. It could be a means for the Mayor to punish a Council he doesn't like.

The definition of the price index in the "escalator clause" also requires some interpretation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly CPI-U release includes "Table 4: Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Selected areas, all items index." CPI-U is calculated monthly for the four standard statistical regions and nine statistical areas and the three largest metropolises (NYC, LA, Chicago), then every two months for 20 large and notably expensive metropolitan areas, like Boston, Atlanta, Washington, and Urban Hawaii. The number that appears to meet the definition of "most local consumer price index" is the West South Central CPI-U, which increased by 2.5% between July 2023 and July 2024. A note on the spreadsheet cautions against relying on local area numbers (emphasis added):

NOTE: Local area indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local index has a smaller sample size than the national index and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in their escalator clauses.

Proposition No. 2 would increase the ratio used to calculate the City Auditor's salary from the Mayor's salary. The current language, in Article IV, Section 2:

The salary of the City Auditor shall be seventy percent (70%) of the salary of the Mayor payable as employees of the city are paid.

The proposed replacement would say:

The salary of the City Auditor shall be seventy-five percent (75%) of the salary of the Mayor, payable as employees of the City are paid.

Currently, the Mayor's salary is $105,000, so the Auditor's pay would increase from $73,500 to $78,750. These salaries haven't changed since 2002. Barely six figures is not the money you pay the CEO of a billion-dollar corporation. Mid-five figures is not what you pay the auditor of a billion-dollar corporation.

Of course, we've never had a CEO in the Mayor's office under the 1989 "strong mayor" charter. We've had schmoozers and ribbon cutters. The people with the necessary skills to keep city departments running get paid much more than the mayor. (Before 1989, city departments were under elected commissioners who also served as the city's legislative body.) Most "strong" mayors have hired a Chief Administrative Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer to coordinate the department heads and leave Hizzonner free to schmooze. Republican Brent VanNorman is the only mayoral candidate this year with the experience to enable him to act as city government's CEO.

In theory, keeping salaries low compared to private-sector salaries for similar levels of responsibility should filter out those who are just in politics for the money. In reality, to run for a full-time office and serve, you'd either have to be independently wealthy, retired, or young enough for the pay to be a step up. Of you could be well-connected enough that the Powers That Be give your spouse a well-paid, no-show job, with the promise of a cushy sinecure for yourself when your time in office is over. Professionals in mid-career without those connections would have to put their careers on hold and take a huge pay cut. Their families would endure a lifestyle cut along with the absence of a parent and the massive disruption to family life that holding office entails.

City Council is even worse. Done right, it's a full-time job with part-time pay. You can make that work as a retiree (e.g. Jim Mautino, Roscoe Turner), with a solo professional practice (e.g., attorneys John Eagleton and Rick Westcott, although serving on the Council would have cut into their availability for legal work), or perhaps as a business owner with employees who can manage the business while you go to council meetings (e.g. Bill Martinson, Chris Trail).

If you're a non-profit executive, being a councilor is just an extension of your day job, so there's no need to take paid time off to attend council meetings. You're not there to represent your constituents, you're there to do the bidding of the philanthropocrats who fund or employ you. Any salary for being a rubber-stamp at council meetings is just icing on a very rich cake.

I'll be voting yes on both propositions as a step in a better direction, but there are consequences to the small amounts we pay our city officials.

The only valuable member of the current Tulsa City Council, the only councilor who was more than a rubber stamp, decided at the last minute not to run for re-election. District 5's Grant Miller had planned to run for a second term, but Tulsa's establishment (what I've called the Cockroach Caucus) made it clear that they were determined to ruin his life unless he went away.

Miller had the temerity to think for himself. He wisely opposed the Improve Our Tulsa 3 package, which was rushed to the ballot two years early and included $75 million for some magical, undefined solution for homelessness.

When Miller caught the Mean Girls Clique -- Vanessa Hall Harper, Laura Bellis, Lori Decter Wright -- texting each other during a public meeting of the Council's Urban and Economic Development Committee, in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, he exposed their catty messages through an Open Records request. They were privately discussing the agenda item and ridiculing Miller's ideas, rather than using facts and reason to debate Miller's ideas publicly.

The Mean Girls Clique got their revenge with the help of the Meanest Girl of All, Mayor G. T. Bynum IV. Councilor Miller had completed his law degree at the University of Tulsa, had passed his bar exam, and had applied for admission to the Oklahoma bar. Bynum, Hall Harper, Bellis, and Decter Wright communicated "concerns" about Miller to the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners, who denied him the right to practice law in Oklahoma. The Bynum Mean Girls Clique, with other accomplices, punished Miller for his politics by preventing him from earning a living in the profession for which he had been expensively educated.

(And that brings us back to this question: Why is conservative Oklahoma allowing a left-leaning, Commie-supporting private club to serve as gatekeeper to the legal profession and the judiciary in Oklahoma?)

On top of all that, just as Tulsans began to read about the clearly political reasons for Miller's exclusion from the bar, a bogus charge of domestic assault and battery, called in two days after the event from someone a thousand miles away from Tulsa, resulted in an arrest and headlines. Miller was quickly cleared, and he intended to continue his campaign for re-election, but his plans were changed by the realities of needing to care for two children, including a young son with autism, while, he told KRMG in May, his wife was hospitalized for alcohol-induced pancreatitis.

This is the System, the Cockroach Caucus, making an example of someone who dared to think critically and independently. No wonder it's hard to find good candidates to run for City Council.

A few months ago, I was at an event where several council candidates spoke. Julie Dunbar, running in District 9, spoke in a way that was touchingly naive about her hopes for serving on the council. This is paraphrasing from memory, but she was looking forward to exchanging and discussing different ideas for improving the city with her council colleagues. Ms. Dunbar is a social worker who specializes in "Relationship Issues, Trauma and PTSD, and Life Coaching," so you'd think she would be able to recognize organizations blighted by narcissism and toxicity. Her husband, Todd Huston, served a term as a city councilor, and the same forces that helped him win election in 2000 recruited an opponent to defeat him in 2002, because he didn't endorse the "It's Tulsa's Time" tax increase on the November 2000 ballot. You'd think Huston might have been able to communicate to his wife that the Tulsa establishment doesn't welcome a diversity of ideas.

A couple of years ago, Tina Nettles, a Tulsa friend who raises chickens in her backyard, discovered that the commission rewriting the animal welfare ordinance was completely uninterested in hearing from citizens who are knowledgeable on the subject.

If you're serving on the City Council or on a board or commission, you might think you're there to propose creative solutions to the problems on the agenda. In 1998, District 4 City Councilor Anna Falling believed she had found a less expensive way to meet the city's recycling goals. While her proposal may have met the requirements of the stated agenda of city leaders, it apparently didn't also meet the real, hidden agenda. And so the Mayor and a compliant news media set out to end her service on the City Council. We could go on to talk about what was done to Jim Mautino, Chris Medlock, and Roscoe Turner in the mid-2000s and the lawfare targeting councilors circa 2009.

What's the hidden agenda of the Powers That Be? It might include making sure that "our friends at this non-profit and our friends who own a heavy construction company and our friends the bond attorneys and bond bankers all get a piece of the pie while those guys over there who aren't beholden to us at all get nothing." A solution that doesn't involve massive spending is worse than no solution at all, from their perspective. An alternate, simpler, less expensive solution to the stated agenda might capture the imagination of the public and make the plan that satisfies the hidden agenda politically impossible.

In the immortal words of Sal Tessio:

Sally's stated agenda (protecting the boss in a meeting with his rival) didn't line up with his hidden agenda (setting up the boss to be assassinated). His angry reaction to the proposal of a different plan to meet the stated agenda exposed the treacherous hidden agenda. The future Fish was taken away to sleep with the fishes.

Which brings us to the August 27, 2024, City of Tulsa general election. For a start, we need to defeat these three harpies, the Mean Girls Clique, who carried out this attack on Miller on behalf of the Cockroach Caucus. We also recall Vanessa Hall Harper's racist verbal attack on Republican Sen. Tim Scott and Laura Bellis's obscenity-saturated speech at a fundraiser for Lori Decter Wright claiming Republican City Council candidates were "actual fascists," sentiments praised by Decter Wright.

Fortunately, each of those three districts has a better alternative on the ballot:

There are seven candidates on the August 27, 2024, ballot for Mayor of Tulsa. If one candidate manages more than 50% of the vote, he or she will be elected. If no candidate reaches that threshold, there will be a runoff on November 5, 2024, between the top candidates. From Article VI, Section 2.2 of the Tulsa City Charter: "If more than two (2) candidates file for an office and no candidate receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast at the election for that office, the names of the several candidates for the office receiving the greatest number of votes totaling fifty percent (50%) at such elections shall be placed on the ballot at a run-off election in November, on the day specified by the laws of Oklahoma, and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast at said run-off election shall be deemed elected."

Because of the number of candidates, the non-partisan ballot (no party primary), and the possibility of an outright winner in August, conservatives need to vote tactically. If conservative votes are divided among the three Republicans on the ballot, the likely outcome will either be an outright victory for Karen Keith in August, or a runoff between two bad Democrat options, Karen Keith and Monroe Nichols, in November.

A poll conducted after the mayoral debate has Democrat Karen Keith leading with 33.4%, Democrat Monroe Nichols with 21.9%, conservative Republican Brent VanNorman with 19.2%, and the other four candidates at 1.9% combined. 23.6% are undecided. If Republicans can hold Keith below 50% and get VanNorman into second place, there's a good shot at electing a conservative mayor for the first time in 38 years.

Brent VanNorman would bring a variety of experience to the table -- president of an investment company, pastor, accountant, attorney. Until June he served as president of TriLinc Global, but he continues as the investment firm's General Counsel, according to his LinkedIn resume. Prior to that, he spent 13 years as an intellectual property attorney, engaging in patent litigation for Hunton & Williams LLP in Richmond, Virginia. He connected with Tulsa when his son came here in 2008 to attend Oral Roberts University; he and his wife moved here in 2021.

It would be a breath of fresh air to have a mayor who is an outsider to the local establishment. He wants to make Tulsa the "business-friendliest" city in America. He acknowledges the growth of crime and homelessness and has plans to address both. VanNorman has been endorsed by Congressman Kevin Hern, who writes, "Brent combines diverse expertise with strong business acumen. His commitment to common-sense family values and real-world experience make him the fresh, effective leader Tulsa needs." Tony Lauinger of Oklahomans for Life writes that VanNorman is "strongly pro-life."

During the KJRH-NonDoc debate at Cain's Ballroom, Karen Keith issued platitudes and spoke of relationships, Monroe Nichols advocated for destructive policies, but Brent VanNorman presented common-sense solutions in a positive way. In the debate's section on homelessness, VanNorman was the only candidate to identify drug abuse and mental illness as the heart of the crisis, something that can't be fixed by subsidizing developers to build more housing (Keith's solution). He mentioned God's Shining Light's holistic ministry to the homeless. The church has restored the Saratoga Motel, a Route 66 classic, as a 107-unit sober living center, offering "a safe residential housing environment, counseling, training, job opportunities, and education in a grace filled atmosphere."

VanNorman was the only candidate to oppose Tulsa's "Welcoming City" certification, a status that implicitly forbids the city from cooperating with federal authorities enforcing immigration law under programs like 287(g) cooperation agreements or taking measures to deter illegal immigrants from settling here. He correctly exposed the label one step toward a sanctuary city.

Regarding the other major candidates, VanNorman said that they "are both liberal Democrats. They're great people, they're wonderful to be around, they're well intended, but their policies will lead us to being the next Seattle, the next Portland, the next Minneapolis, the next San Francisco," referring to the squalor, crime, and civil disorder that has characterized the failed governance of leftist-controlled cities."

More on Keith and Nichols after the jump:

Co-governance is a means for bypassing democracy. On the pretext of righting historical wrongs, the self-styled leaders of indigenous groups, representing a tiny percentage of the overall population, are given not only a seat at the table, but also a deciding vote or veto over decisions made by the elected representatives of the entire population.

New Zealand is furthest along the path to co-governance, although the voters there pushed back last year. (Here's an explainer from a pro-co-governance perspective.) For example, the previous government, led by socialist Jacinda Ardern of the Labour Party, started a process to take governance of water supply away from local governments and giving it to regional bodies with equal representation of Maori tribal leaders and the general population, a plan called Three Waters. Self-identified Maori constitute about 20% of the national population. There once was a requirement to prove Maori ancestry and a blood quantum over 50% in order to vote in elections for set-aside Maori parliamentary and council seats, but people can now self-identify, which is likely swelling the numbers.

Co-governance is a great setup for the Left. If you can't get the support of the general public for your "progressive" plans, you can more easily manipulate tribal leaders who were voted in by tiny electorates. Under co-governance those tribal leaders would be able to stop a conservative city or state government initiative or push a left-wing proposal that a majority of the total electorate would have rejected. If a billionaire with an agenda can turn the heads of the elected officials of a city of 400,000 people, it would be no problem for him to enlist the compliance of leaders elected by 5,193 voters with some cash for pet projects and promises of cushy non-profit gigs.

Citizens of Australia and New Zealand wisely rejected pushes for co-governance last October with Aussies overwhelmingly defeating the "Indigenous Voice to Parliament" proposal and Kiwis electing a new center-right coalition opposed to the co-governance that had been pushed by the defeated socialist government. The new New Zealand government has repealed the Three Waters proposal. David Seymour, leader of ACT, a junior partner in the newly-elected coalition government, writing before the election, explained eloquently the divisiveness and injustice inherent in co-governance:

"The current [Labour] government is presenting New Zealanders with a false choice. It says that if we want to right the wrongs of the past, cherish Māori language and culture, and give all New Zealanders equal opportunity, then we must throw out universal human rights in favour of co-government.

"Parties on the left, led by Labour, promote decision-making made by two parties jointly co-governing when it comes to regulatory decisions and government service delivery. ACT would overturn and replace the obsession with co-government, replacing it with a more liberal outlook that treats all humans with equal dignity....

"We are told that 'one-person-one-vote' is old-fashioned, and we should welcome a new, 'enlightened' type of political system. This new system is a 'tiriti-centric Aotearoa,' where we are divided into tangata whenua, people of the land, and tangata tiriti, people of the treaty. Each person will not have an inherent set of political rights because they are citizens of New Zealand. Instead, they will have rights based on their whakapapa or ancestry.

"Continuing to embed the extraordinary belief will be highly divisive. The danger is that if the Government continually tells people to regard each other as members of a group rather than individuals with inherent dignity, there is a danger people will internalise that lesson. Once that happens, it is very difficult to go back."

The wrongly-decided McGirt ruling laid a legal foundation on which co-governance could be justified in Oklahoma. Yes, co-governance would be built atop the pain and trauma of a four-year old girl who was sexually molested by her grandmother's husband.

By the way, child molester Jimcy McGirt, cornerstone of co-governance, is now a free man. Despite claims at the time (e.g. T. W. Shannon) that McGirt would receive a harsher penalty in Federal court, his 500-year Oklahoma district court sentence was replaced with a 30-year Federal sentence and credit for time served. (Details on how that came about on the jump page.)

Although Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion, backed by the Court's left wing, stated that the scope of the ruling was limited to prosecution of felonies under the Major Crimes Act, the City of Tulsa's amicus brief and Chief Justice John Roberts's minority opinion spelled out the dangerous implications of the McGirt ruling, which overturned 100 years of settled law and precedent:

Across this vast area, the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law.

None of this is warranted. What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the "well settled" approach required by our precedents. Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 5).

With Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a more recent ruling began to contain the toxic legal overflow of McGirt. The 2022 Castro-Huerta ruling, decided 5-4 with Gorsuch now in the minority, put crimes committed by non-Indians in eastern Oklahoma back under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma's district courts.

There is reason to hope that further rulings would continue to limit the bounds of McGirt and perhaps some day to reverse it altogether. Hooper v. Tulsa, a case questioning the City of Tulsa's ability to enforce its traffic laws, was working its way through the federal courts. The city sought a stay on the federal district judge's ruling, but a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court and SCOTUS both denied a stay. The district judge dismissed the case in December. (I have reached out to experts to find out where this case stands and whether the city will further pursue the case.)

Those mitigating rulings will not happen if our elected officials choose to drop the cases. Oklahoma is already hampered by a state attorney general who seems more beholden to tribal governments than to the people of Oklahoma. It's in the interest of tribal officials (and the forces who hope to harness them for their own ends) to get city and state elected officials to halt legal challenges to tribal jurisdiction and agree to co-governance, creating a fait accompli before the issue reaches SCOTUS.

You either have one territorial sovereign, elected by all the people and governing all the people, or you have something like South Africa's apartheid system, with different laws and courts for different people based on ancestry. It's to the benefit of all Tulsans, tribal citizens as well as the rest of us, to have a single system of laws and justice consistently applied to everyone, whether you have a great-great-great-great grandfather on the Dawes roll or not. We need our next mayor and council to pursue that goal aggressively through the federal courts.

The issue was raised at the recent Tulsa mayoral debate at Cain's Ballroom. Only one of the three major candidates, Republican Brent VanNorman, will defend the principle engraved on the pediment of the Supreme Court building: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

VanNorman would continue to pursue criminal jurisdiction over tribal members in the Federal courts. He had an apt illustration: "If someone's here from Kansas and is speeding, we expect our police to pull them over and give them a ticket." The law should be applied the same no matter what license plate you have. While VanNorman spoke about communication and coordination with tribal governments, which aren't prepared to handle the burden of law enforcement that sovereignty implies, VanNorman affirms that there must be one set of laws and one system of justice for everyone. Equal justice under law.

"Democrat" State Rep. Monroe Nichols is committed to co-governance with tribal officials. That means that officials elected by tiny numbers of voters, most of whom live outside the City of Tulsa, will decide how our city is run, not the elected representatives of the citizens of Tulsa.

Nichols's own webpage on the topic acknowledges that there are only 30,000 Native Americans living in Tulsa; undoubtedly fewer than that number are citizens of the tribes that claim to have reservations covering part of the city. Those 30,000 people are full citizens of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the USA, and are already represented in city, state, and federal elections. It's not democratic to give them more say than the 370,000 Tulsans who are not tribal citizens. (Thus the sneer-quotes around "Democrat" above; the "Democrat" Party has shown on this issue and in the replacement of Joe Biden with Kamala Harris that they don't respect democracy.)

Nichols stated at the debate that Tulsa is the largest city in the US in an Indian reservation. That's because for 113 years, it was NOT governed as if it were in an Indian reservation. (It wasn't in an Indian reservation, and it still isn't, except for the mineral rights of the Osage County portion.)

You can't build a city in a reservation. The Navajo reservation, the largest in the nation, is nearly the size of Oklahoma's pre-statehood Indian Territory (27,413 sq. mi. vs. 31,069.88 -- source here), but it has no cities. Land is held in common, controlled by the tribal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so it can't be developed. 40% of the population lives below the poverty line.

In Oklahoma, allotment gave tribal citizens land of their own to farm, develop, or sell, providing capital and clear title where cities and towns, businesses and industries could be established and grow. The Curtis Act and other laws of the period affirmed the USA's agreements with the the Five Tribes that their citizens, "when their tribal governments cease, shall become possessed of all the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States." Without the Curtis Act, allotment, and statehood, there would be no Tulsa, no McAlester, no Ardmore, no Ada. Tribal capitals like Tahlequah and Okmulgee would be villages, not the cities they became after they were platted and the lots transferred to tribal members.

In her answer (in most of her answers), Karen Keith talked about relationships. Keith said she has talked to "our Nations' leaders" about putting a "pan-tribal court" in a new Tulsa County Courthouse. She wants to come to "consensus" with tribal authorities in hopes of getting rid of the legal issues. In other words, she would capitulate to a dual system of justice but would hope to help citizens "navigate" the confusing system that Gorsuch, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan devised in McGirt.

I said before the midterm primaries that 2022 was the McGirt election, but every election will be a McGirt election until Congress explicitly reaffirms the disestablishment of reservations (already accomplished before statehood, but denied by Gorsuch et alii) or until the Supreme Court narrows or eliminates the scope of the ruling.

The McGirt case was wrongly decided, with the narrow 5-4 majority ignoring the legal developments that occurred in the decades leading to statehood. Subsequent rulings, after the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett, have limited the scope of McGirt, and we can hope that the U. S. Supreme Court will ultimately limit McGirt's implications to the Major Crimes Act cited in that ruling, and perhaps overturn it altogether. To reach that democratic goal, our mayor needs to be a strong advocate for democracy and equal justice, not a a puppet of petty tribal fiefdoms. That's one more reason I will be voting for Brent VanNorman for mayor on August 27, 2024.

Click "Continue reading" for video of the debate section on co-governance and more on the legal process that led to McGirt's release from prison last month.

Democrat Karen Keith, Tulsa County Commissioner for District 2 since 2009, is the front-runner in the August 27, 2024, election for Mayor of Tulsa. She has a reputation for niceness built on her years in television news.

Josh Turley has run against Keith for the District 2 County Commission seat. He was running again this year as an independent but recently withdrew from the race for personal reasons. He lives in far-west, unincorporated Tulsa County, where the County Commissioner has responsibility for road maintenance.

Turley has posted a long list of Keith's failures and broken promises in her four terms as County Commissioner. Here are his "14 Reasons to NOT Vote for Karen Keith":

Take a stroll, if you dare, down Archer and Denver. Karen's throwing your tax dollars at the homeless won't fix it.

While you're at it, slip down Charles Page to the QT at Gilcrease. See those doors closed? That's because she dumped the homeless at the old juvenile center and now they plague the area!

Cruise on down Charles Page and see how she's completely decimated a road that once was the busiest road in Tulsa. No help, just more words, to those on the West Side.

Make sure to see the Gilcrease Extension, which is really a turnpike!

Make sure to see how the turnpike doesn't exit at Charles Page as initially promised.

Remember how she told you the Gilcrease Turnpike would bring in more business? Well that portion of town definitely isn't growing!

When ya get to 65th West, make sure to check out those levees she's told you were gonna be fixed - for her entire time as County Commissioner.

Remember how she refuses to investigate the asphalt plant at 81st West and the river?

Yes, the one that contaminates the locals with clouds of smoke and the children's school just north of the highway!

Take a cruise down Wekiwa. This road was only asphalted for the bike race held every few years. Who builds a road for bicycles and that doesn't have bike paths..that's right Karen does.

While you are out our way, be sure to take a drive across the Keystone dam. A dam that they plan to raise at least 12 feet with no plan to add additional height to the levees that are still in disrepair. Oh, ya didn't know about that did ya? She's told us there's money for them levees, but when? How much? When will it start? ..just more talk.

Then take a quick drive below the dam to Swift Park. Yes, that's called Old Hwy 51. She let the road dilapidate into giant potholes. Some are so large that the Sand Springs Fire Department ripped an entire wheel off their boat responding to a water rescue. Oh, and then she closed off the road forcing emergency crews and citizens (wanting to fish) to take the route you just traveled from Sand Springs.

Once you change your flat from Old Hwy 51, cruise on over to 265th, then to 41st west ave S. This road is a major thoroughfare for us out west. Be sure to put your teeth in the glove box, a new pillow under your seat, cuz you gonna need it all the way to Sand Springs.

Then drive on to Berryhill and see how she deliberately put a turnpike through one of the last great small communities.

Take a drive by Berryhill School on 65th west, and know they have been promised a sewer solution, and they still don't have one!

Take a quick jaunt over to 31st and go east, once you go under the turnpike take a look to the right...yes, that is HER Tulsa County Road Barn! It's a dump!

Guess what Tulsa, we are glad to get rid of her, but you have the option to fight her off.

Vote NO MORE KAREN!
VOTE August 27th!

A County Commissioner is the official responsible for maintaining roads and infrastructure in unincorporated areas of his or her district, and District 2 has significant unincorporated territory west of Sand Springs. Keith has also boasted of her role in getting the Gilcrease loop completed as a toll road through Berryhill.

MORE:

Gene Savage reminds us of Karen Keith's role, as a member of the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority (Fair Board), in the demise of the Skyride at Expo Square:

Please, please, PLEASE don't vote for this woman August 27th! Karen Keith voted to tear down the Tulsa Skyride before it could be put on the National Register of Historic Places.

She ignored answers to the Fair Board's concerns about the Skyride's future. She ignored pleas from Tulsa citizens asking her to wait.

If she can't be bothered to care about something like the Tulsa Skyride, a historical ride unique in the United States that she was told could never be rebuilt if torn down, how can we trust her to take care of our city as mayor?

I don't believe we can. Her behavior suggests she will trash Tulsa history while taking money from foreign organizations.

Karen Keith has proven she is WRONG for Tulsa. Please vote anybody else August 27th.

During her first year in office, 2009, Karen Keith tried to bully Planning Commissioner Elizabeth Wright, the one homeowner-friendly member of the TMAPC, into resigning before the end of her term, bringing bogus accusations as grounds for removal. Wright's only "crime" was being a well-informed planning commissioner who asked developers insightful questions. At the NonDoc/KJRH mayoral debate, Keith boasted of working closely with her developer friends, a reminder that we can't trust Karen Keith to protect the character or historical integrity of Tulsa's neighborhoods.

I have seen some comments in social media and other voter guides about the Indian Nations Council of Government (INCOG), with the implication that anyone who has served on the INCOG board is a globalist and a minion of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). But INCOG has been around for nearly 60 years, has no real power of its own, and its board members are mostly whoever happens to be mayor of the municipalities who are INCOG members.

Concentrated areas of population rarely stay within a given set of boundaries. Cities acquire suburbs -- either new settlements on the edge of the city or small towns suddenly in the path of growth and booming. A municipal corporation has well-defined boundaries on the map; the area where people work and live and go to church and socialize has a very fuzzy boundary that likely incorporates many municipalities, may bleed into several counties, and in some cases will extend over state lines. Infrastructure -- water supply, waste disposal, transportation -- is interconnected as well. While it's great for residents and business owners to be able to choose among a variety of cities and towns and unincorporated areas, each with its own laws, tax rates, and leadership, it's also valuable for those municipalities to collaborate and coordinate across the region.

Many urban regions have established bodies of interlocal cooperation and governance of varying degrees of formality and authority. In 1829, the Metropolitan Police was set up for the municipalities in the vicinity of the square-mile City of London. Later in the century, the Metropolitan Board of Works was established to deal with infrastructure across the region around London. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey manages New York Harbor.

The class of which INCOG is an instance is sometimes called a Council of Governments, a Substate Planning District, or Economic Development District. These started springing up in earnest in the late 1960s during the Lyndon Johnson administration, in fulfillment of requirements attached to federal grant programs. This article on Federalism.org details the federal program requirements that pushed the growth of COGs as gatekeepers to federal grants, the reversal of many of these requirements by President Ronald Reagan, what COGs did to stay alive, and the ongoing role they have in distribution of federal transportation funding, in their role as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

Back in 2010, when there was some obfuscation about INCOG's interactions with the City of Tulsa, I wrote an explainer distinguishing between INCOG as the COG to which Tulsa belongs, as the MPO required for federal transportation grants, and as a contractor providing staffing and record-keeping for Tulsa's land-use process. Go read those articles first, and then let's zoom out and look at INCOG more broadly.

In 1965, Oklahoma passed the Interlocal Cooperation Act in response to regional planning requirements in the 1965 Federal Housing Act. There's a detailed explanation of how these entities came into existence in Oklahoma on the website of the Oklahoma Association of Regional Councils.

INCOG Is one of 11 that substate planning districts that cover the entire state:

• Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
• Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments
• Central Oklahoma Economic Development District
• Eastern Oklahoma Economic Development District
• Grand Gateway Economic Development Association
• Indian Nation Council of Governments
• Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma
• Northern Oklahoma Development Association
• Oklahoma Economic Development Association
• Southern Oklahoma Development Association
• Southwestern Oklahoma Development Authority

INCOG originally covered Tulsa, Creek, and Osage counties, the Tulsa Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Census Bureau between the 1960 and 1970 censuses. Today, INCOG is open to a broader membership. Five county governments (Tulsa, Creek, Osage, Wagoner, Rogers), 19 cities and towns, and three tribal governments (Osage, Muscogee Creek, Cherokee) are INCOG members, and another 32 cities and towns participate with INCOG in some way. Member governments have one seat on the general assembly, which meets once a year.

Oklahoma law explicitly does not require local governments to belong to a COG or to participate in a COG. But a COG may have to be involved in the pursuit of a federal grant.

The INCOG Board of Directors meets monthly. Each county has at least four seats on the board: The three County Commissioners and a member representing the county's small towns. Tulsa County has an additional six members. The City of Tulsa has 9 members, Broken Arrow has three, but the other member cities and towns have one. Usually the mayor of the municipality is the designated INCOG board member. Broken Arrow's three seats are filled by the mayor, vice mayor, and city manager. As BA vice mayor, Christi Gillespie serves on the INCOG board, as does Bixby mayor Brian Guthrie; Lonnie Sims was an INCOG board member when he was Mayor of Jenks.

You can find general assembly and board agendas on the INCOG website, but they are very terse. I wasn't able to find any meeting minutes online.

INCOG's list of services are a mix of functions relating to federal agencies and grants and services provided under contract to some member governments.

One area of particular concern is INCOG's involvement in regional lobbying. Twelve cities, Tulsa County, and INCOG are members of the Coalition of Tulsa Area Governments (CTAG), for which INCOG provides support staff. CTAG develops a slate of legislative issues each year and also signs up to the Tulsa Regional Chamber's One Voice lobbying agenda. It would be fair game to hold current or former CTAG and INCOG board members accountable for issues included on the CTAG and One Voice agendas.

Serving as an INCOG board member ex officio as the mayor of your town isn't suspicious in and of itself, but it's fair to look at the federal and non-profit grants that city governments are seeking and what strings are attached.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, former Tulsa Mayor, congressman, and Oklahoma's longest serving US Senator, died Tuesday, July 9, 2024, after suffering a stroke on July 4. He was 89.

Some moving tributes have been published. The obituary on the Stanley's Funeral Home website speaks of Inhofe's devotion to his family, his love of flying, and his many years of work in and advocacy for African nations. The morning of July 4:

While Jim's accomplishments in Oklahoma, our country, and across the world speak for themselves, his favorite role was that of being Pop-I: husband of Mom-I, father to their four kids, and grandfather to twelve whom he loved beyond measure. Time spent with his grandkids focused solely on teaching, loving, and serving them. His countless acts to serve each of them were always followed with "That is what Pop-Is are for," a testament to the life he led. Our Pop-I loved cooking breakfast for everyone at the lake, teaching the kids to fish in the bay in South Texas and at the dock at Grand Lake, rides in the tractor and the Boston Whaler, bringing them on long morning walks, the Sunset Club, porpoise patrols, ice cream for breakfast, grandkids' sporting events, guitar playing throughout the year and guitar carols at Christmas, at the hangar watching planes take off and land, High Noon, chopping trees and splitting logs, and Pop-I's food traditions throughout. The morning of July 4, the day of his stroke, he read Day 186 of Bill Bright's Promises, walked Mutt, cooked breakfast for Mom-I, called his daughters and son, set up an umbrella at the dock for grandkids, visited with longtime neighbors, worked on several outdoor projects with his son Jimmy, and more. Indeed, for 89 years, he never stopped moving. In fact, we realize now that he was old for the first time during his last 4 ½ days. He instilled a love for Jesus, family, friends, and hard work in his family. He never asked anyone to do anything he would not do. He saw the best in people and always reminded us that you never know what someone else is going through. He cared about others more than himself and the world is a better place because of the love that he showed to everyone he met for more than 89 years.

The Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma wrote:

Our hearts are heavy as we mourn the loss of Senator Jim Inhofe. A lifelong supporter of Oklahoma's oil and natural gas industry, Senator Inhofe worked tirelessly to improve America's energy security and national defense.

Petroleum Alliance President Brook A. Simmons reminisced on one of his favorite memories: "When climate activists printed wanted posters featuring his image for COP 21 in Paris, Senator Inhofe proudly autographed them and handed them back to protestors."

He embraced the detractors and wore their scorn as a badge of honor! America truly needs more like him.

The legacy mainstream media made sure to refer to him as a "climate denier" in their obituary headlines.

For my tribute, I thought it would be interesting to look back to his early years before politics and his first election efforts.

For the first half of the 1960s, you'd be more likely to see society-page mentions of Mrs. James Inhofe, nee Kay Kirkpatrick, than her news-page mentions of her husband. In the run up to their December 1959 wedding, there were numerous stories of receptions and showers for Inhofe's "widely feted bride-elect," the "center of a pre-nuptial social whirl." The engagement announcement mentions that she was the grandchild of pioneer Tulsans (Mr. & Mrs. J. N. Kirkpatrick and Mr. & Mrs. Linden Wallace Crosbie), that both graduated from Central High School and both started college at University of Colorado but finished in Oklahoma (she at OSU in mathematics, he at TU in economics). Kay was teaching at Edison High School, while Jim was working with his father at Mid-Continent Casualty Co. The two of them both grew up in the Bren-Rose neighborhood; a few years after they were married, they moved to the address in that same neighborhood where they spent the rest of their lives together. The wedding also got an elaborate write-up in the newspaper.

In 1966, Jim Inhofe filed to run against incumbent Republican state representative Warren Green. Green, who owned an auto repair service in Brookside and was president of Southtulsans Inc., a suburban chamber of commerce, was the first elected to represent House District 71, after the federal-court-ordered redistricting of 1964. It was a close race, but Green won, defeating Inhofe 1,396 to 1,162.

(Green was a primary target many years later. Running for re-election as District 35 State Senator in 1988, Green finished third of three in the GOP primary, which was won by attorney Don Rubottom. Green served 12 years in the State House and 12 years in the State Senate.)

Later in 1966, Inhofe shows up as Tulsa County chairman and campaign coordinator for J. Robert Wootten, GOP nominee for Lt. Governor.

Jim Inhofe got a second chance in 1966: District 39 State Sen. Dewey Bartlett was elected governor, the second Republican in state history, succeeding the first, Henry Bellmon, who was limited to a single term. Bartlett resigned his State Senate seat, triggering a special election. District 70 State Rep. Joe McGraw resigned his seat to run for Bartlett's State Senate seat, and Jim Inhofe filed to succeed McGraw. (This article states that Inhofe ran for Bartlett's seat in 1964, but reports from 1964 show Bartlett unopposed for the Republican nomination that year.) A pre-primary endorsement ad featured well over a hundred names, many of them prominent.

Inhofe won the special primary, receiving 668 votes to attorney Richard Hancock's 544 votes, and 10 votes for J. C. Gibson.

A reader posed a question to the Tulsa World's Action Line: How could Jim Inhofe run in two different districts without moving? The answer: You don't have to live in the district to run, but you have to live in the district if elected.

Ads in the run-up to the special general election featured Inhofe with Gov.-elect Bartlett and Joe McGraw. "Back Bartlett! Vote Republican Tuesday, December 20." Inhofe defeated Democrat Patricia Anderson by 1,917 votes to 440, and McGraw also won handily. Just 9 days later, Inhofe took the oath of office as an elected official for the first time.

Vanity license plates was the topic of one of Inhofe's first legislative proposals to receive press attention. A $10 additional annual fee would be collected, of which $9.50 would go into the state's general fund.

FROM THE BATESLINE ARCHIVES:

Ten years ago, Sen. Inhofe eulogized long-time Republican activist Art Rubin, who persuaded him to run for office:

Art never asked you to do anything. He told you. So we sat down on these little round stools that they had at the Beacon Grill, and he says, "I want you to run for the vacancy that's been created because Dewey Bartlett's now the governor." And I said, "Art, I'm not going to do it.... First of all, I've got all these kids at home," and Art said, "It's a part-time job." And he's right, it was. And I said, "I don't have any organization," and he said, "You need an organizer." And he looked up, and there was a lady walking across the Beacon Grill, her name was Millie Thompson.... he said, "Millie, come over here. I want you to head up the 'Volunteers for Inhofe' -- he's going to run for the state legislature."

Now I know that there are people -- 'cause I'm kind of extreme and you know that -- there are people in here who don't like me. You won't raise your hand, you won't acknowledge it now, but I know you don't. So -- but if you don't like me, don't blame me, blame Art.

POLITICAL CONTEXT:

In 1967, when Jim Inhofe became a member of the State House of Representatives, the State House had 74 Democrats and 25 Republicans, the State Senate had 39 Democrats and 9 Republicans, both U. S. Senators were Democrats, the U. S. House delegation consisted of four Democrats and two Republicans; the Republicans (Districts 1 and 6) represented Tulsa County, the old Cherokee Outlet, the Panhandle, and Oklahoma west of the OKC metro area.

At the beginning of 1966, Oklahoma had 949,211 registered Democrats, 231,744 Republicans, and 4,270 independents. 509,539 voted in the 1966 Democrat primary, while only 94,002 votes were cast in the Republican primary. Early in 1967, a group of Democrat legislators (including the infamous Gene Stipe) proposed banning GOP nominees from the general election ballot unless they could muster at least 30% of the primary votes received by the Democrats.

But things were beginning to shift: In 1964, Oklahoma had chosen Democrat presidential electors for the first time since 1948, but it would turn out to be for the last time ever, down to the present. And in 1966, Oklahoma had not only elected its second Republican governor but its first-ever GOP attorney general and labor commissioner.

While I reserve the right to change my mind, here are the candidates I am currently inclined to support in the Tulsa general election and Oklahoma runoff election on August 27, 2024.

Between now and the election, I will be keeping an eye out on PAC donations and looking deeper into consulting companies. With so many establishment candidates having lost in the primaries, special-interest PAC money is going to be flowing somewhere, and we'll find out which candidates can resist their siren songs.

Political observers have a 40/5 rule of thumb: A candidate that gets over 40 percent in the primary and has at least a 5 point margin over the second-place candidate is almost certain to win the runoff. There have been exceptions, but it generally holds true. In Senate District 33 (Christi Gillespie 44%, Shelley Gwartney 25%), the first-place finisher could likely win just by turning out her voters in August, while the second-place finisher has to get her own people to the polls, plus those who supported the eliminated candidates, a big hill to climb. House District 32 (Jim Shaw 46%, Kevin Wallace 42%) could go either way by the 40/5 rule, but an incumbent who finishes second in a primary is unlikely to prevail in the runoff.

In Tulsa Council districts 5 and 6, there aren't any candidates I can get excited about, but differences over managing the police department and cooperation with ICE might tip the scales one way or another. In 2 and 9, there are multiple interesting possibilities. In 3, I don't know enough about the two candidates. (UPDATE 2024/07/25: I've added recommendations in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9. In 5 and 6, it came down to "better than the alternative." Where possible, I'd like to avoid having more councilors who have spent most of their career in the non-profit world.)

Only the Tulsa mayor's race and council districts 2, 7, and 9 will be on the August 27 ballot, because there are three or more candidates. The remaining council districts will be settled on November 5. CORRECTION: All of the council seats will be on the August 27 ballot, and any two-candidate race will be settled then. This is in contrast to school board seats, where the law was changed a few years ago so that a two-candidate race is settled on what used to be the school-board runoff date in April.

In District 4, I got to know Aaron Griffith many years ago in the Midtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. He's to my left politically, but he has a thick skin and is willing to endure the slings and arrows to stand up for what he believes is right. Aaron is strongly pro-neighborhood, has been a vocal critic of administrative shenanigans at Tulsa Public Schools, and he supports enforcing our immigration laws.

In District 7, I know Eddie Huff through his years as a conservative radio talk host at KFAQ. Margie Alfonso has been an important contributor to conservative politics over the years, but Eddie is better suited to winning a November runoff and serving, but he'll need enough GOP turnout to force a November runoff.

Chris Cone spoke to a Republican group about his vision for the job and his concerns about District 8. He was very impressive, and it will be good to have someone on the Council who is not beholden to the big foundations, knows something of the real world, and does more than pay lip service to his Christian faith. In District 1, I have not met Angela Chambers in person yet, but I see her very positive posts about life and entrepreneurship, and she seems like she will be a great improvement over the incumbent.

Brent VanNorman switched from the Council District 9 race to the mayor's race, and he looks like the best chance to get a conservative in the mayor's office for the first time since Dick Crawford and Jim Inhofe almost 40 years ago. He has the resources to run a strong race, but he needs to draw enough GOP turnout in the August 27 election to force a November runoff.

Tulsa City Elections:

Mayor: Brent VanNorman
Council District 1: Angela K. Chambers
Council District 2: Aaron Bisogno
Council District 3: Susan Frederick
Council District 4: Aaron Griffith
Council District 5: Karen Gilbert (very reluctantly)
Council District 6: Christian Bengel (unenthusiastically)
Council District 7: Eddie Huff
Council District 8: Chris Cone
Council District 9: Jayme Fowler

Oklahoma runoff:

Senate 3: Julie McIntosh
Senate 15: Lisa Standridge
Senate 33: Undecided
Senate 47: Undecided

House 20: Jonathan Wilk
House 32: Jim Shaw
House 50: Stacy Jo Adams
House 53: Undecided
House 60: Ron Lynch
House 98: Gabe Woolley

Tulsa County Commissioner District 2:

Republican runoff: Melissa Myers
Democrat runoff: Maria Barnes

Polls will be open for in-person voting on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries have changed significantly since the 2020 elections. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot.

UPDATE: Don't miss my final thoughts on the 2024 Oklahoma Republican Primary.

In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican primary elections on June 18, 2024. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

As I post this, I'm still unsure about several races, but time is short, people are soon to vote, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold; in other races, there may be one or two other candidates that would be acceptable, or I simply don't know the endorsed candidate as well as I would like. There are certain incumbents that I'd like to see defeated, but I don't feel comfortable endorsing an opponent at this point. I'll try to fill in TBDs and NOTs before the start of early voting.

One race in particular, SD 33, was a tough choice; I've endorsed each of the three candidates who have run in previous elections (Tim Brooks, Shelley Gwartney, Christi Gillespie), and I've known the fourth, Bill Bickerstaff, for many years and know him as a principled conservative who has been quick to volunteer for other candidates and who has been a key member of the Tulsa Beacon team. I watched the GOP forum, and I believe Brooks is best prepared to be an effective legislator who will follow in the footsteps of Nathan Dahm and Jason Murphey, who won't be lured into the capitol favor factory. But any of the four candidates should be very good legislators.

1st Congressional District: Kevin Hern.
2nd Congressional District: Josh Brecheen renominated without opposition.
3rd Congressional District: NOT Frank Lucas
4th Congressional District: NOT Tom Cole and NOT Paul Bondar
5th Congressional District: Stephanie Bice was renominated without opposition

Corporation Commissioner: Russell Ray

State Senate 1: Micheal Bergstrom
State Senate 17: Shane Jett
State Senate 25: Brian Guthrie
State Senate 29: Wendi Stearman
State Senate 33: Tim Brooks
State Senate 37: Cody Rogers

State House 2: Jim Olsen
State House 10: Chad McCarthy
State House 23: Derrick Hildebrant
State House 25: Robert Burch
State House 28: Danny Williams
State House 38: Marven Goodman
State House 41: Denise Crosswhite Hader
State House 67: Rob Hall
State House 68: Jonathan Grable
State House 79: Paul Hassink
State House 98: Gabe Woolley
State House 100: Marilyn Stark

Tulsa County Commissioner District 2: Melissa Myers

Tulsa County Court Clerk Don Newberry and Sheriff Vic Regalado have been re-elected without opposition. County Clerk Michael Willis was renominated without opposition but will face Democrat Don Nuam in the general election.

MORE INFORMATION:

CANDIDATE FORUMS:

The Republican Party of Tulsa County Facebook page has video of the candidate forums it sponsored:

• Tulsa County Commission District 2
• Senate District 25 (moderated by yours truly)
• Senate District 33
• Senate District 37
• House District 67
• House District 68
• House District 79

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico primary picks
• OCPA Legislative Scorecard
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some endorsement lists that are negative indicators:

• Oklahomans for Public Education: OPE advocates for higher taxes, opposes school choice, and opposes efforts to keep leftist advocacy out of the classroom. They work to defeat principled Republicans. A yellow warning mark from OPE is a badge of honor for a conservative candidate.
• Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition appears to be just another front for the leftist education establishment. The founder of the group, Erika Wright, opposed State Department of Education rules to keep obscene materials out of public school libraries and to keep parents informed of important mental health matters involving their children.

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

Some final thoughts in the wee small hours of election day. Don't forget to have a look at my main election day post with my list of endorsements and links to information from other reliable sources.

Fifty years ago, filing for office happened in early July, with the primary at the end of August and the runoff three weeks later. When the candidate filings for 1974 were printed in the Tulsa Tribune, I cut the list out and pinned it to my bulletin board.

Of 520 candidates statewide who filed for county office this year, 470 are Republican, 43 are Democrat, and 7 are independent. In the 9-county Tulsa-Bartlesville-Muskogee Combined Statistical Area, 62 of the 68 candidates for county office are Republicans. Three Democrats and one independent are running for Tulsa County Commission District 2, and there's one Democrat running for that seat in Pawnee County. I recall that the proportion on my 1974 list was the exact opposite. In July 1974, registered voters numbered 991,928 Democrats, 326,167 Republicans, 19,603 independents, and 3,511 with the American Party.

In 1974, the important electoral battles happened in the Democratic primaries. Today, the real battle for control of the state legislature happens in GOP primaries across the state.

While Oklahoma Republican legislators are generally reliably conservative on social issues, the majority departs from professed Republican platform principles anytime a lobbyist with access to campaign cash strolls past their offices. They may take strong stands on social issues with immediate impact, but they let themselves be rolled by lobbyists fighting the strategic measures that will ensure a conservative future in Oklahoma.

That's why a left-leaning private organization still has legal standing as a gatekeeper to the legal profession and judicial offices in Oklahoma. It's why we can't move public school board elections to a time of year when more voters are apt to be paying attention. It's why the legislative leadership keeps trying to undermine the first effective conservative serving as State Superintendent. These people are happy to use taxpayer dollars to lure businesses without regard to whether the people they bring may turn the state "blue" over time.

Chad McCarthy, who is challenging Judd Strom in House District 10, put together an 8-page newspaper detailing the incumbent's votes for cronyism, higher fees, more spending, more regulation, less transparency, more centralized control by legislative leaders. McCarthy provides bill numbers and a paragraph on each explaining why Strom's vote violates conservative principles. I suspect there's a strong correlation with the key votes tracked by the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper and OCPA Legislative Scorecard, and you'll probably find many of the incumbents who are backed by massive campaign warchests. McCarthy calls these people the Speaker's Lemmings and notes "their love of the Capitol nightlife."

They often wine and dine with lobbyists and other politicians at night, funded on the lobbyists' dime.

This allows the lobbyists to exert sway over the legislator, and it leaves the legislator much less time for actually reading the bills and knowing what they are voting on the next day....

State records show that Strom has attended more than 175 lobbyist-funded events, a sure indicator that he's likely a card-carrying lemming.

This lazy lawmaking results in the enactment of many bad laws, and that's why, as the reader reviews the audit on the following pages of this publication, they will see so many shocking votes that are complete betrayals of our Republican values.

In 2022, Tim Brooks, my pick of four good candidates in the Senate 33 primary this year, created a bullet-point summary of House District 76 incumbent Ross Ford's six years of bad votes at the State Capitol.

The incumbents who are part of the Favor Factory at the State Capitol (and the open-seat candidates seeking to join them) have plenty of PAC money to spend on big color postcards, billboards, robocalls and robotexts, and, more recently, radio and TV ads, telling you how wonderfully conservative they are. There was a time when there were trusted voices on local radio who could dissect these ads and evaluate their claims against the actual record. Those voices are all gone now. (As happy as I am to hear Michael DelGiorno's voice in the mornings on 1300, he doesn't fulfill the need for a local talk radio host; he isn't going to be giving air time to this year's Tulsa City Council elections.)

I have a few handy heuristics for evaluating the veracity of candidates and campaign materials. I'm willing to entertain proof of exceptions, but if any of the following are true, I assume the campaign flyer is shading the truth to mislead or deceive me:

• Has the acronym "CAMP" on the bulk mail permit.
• Was paid for by a dark-money group that has no online information about its founders, leaders, or funders.

And likewise, I make a rebuttable presumption that a candidate is not going to be looking out for our interests and may already be corrupt, or on a slippery slope to that condition, if his campaign finance reports show:

• Large sums of money paid to Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals (CAMP)
• Large contributions from large numbers of special-interest PACs
• Large contributions from tribal governments

As I said, there may be and have been exceptions, but the purpose of a heuristic is to give you a good starting point for further evaluation.

MORE: I've added a last-minute update to my Corporation Commission post, remembering Brian Bingman's betrayal of conservatives on the State Senate's 2014 passage for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

To quote myself from a few years back:

There's one statewide race that ought to matter more than any other to Oklahoma voters. That's the race for a seat on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). In addition to overseeing Oklahoma's oil and gas industry, the OCC regulates public utilities like PSO, ONG, and AT&T (formerly Southwestern Bell).

Considering the amount of money at stake in the OCC's decisions on utility rates, the commission is ripe for corruption. And indeed, in the late '80s and early '90s, the FBI investigated bribery allegations involving the OCC. Corporation Commissioner Bob Hopkins, a Democrat, was convicted of bribery and sent to jail, as was utility lobbyist Bill Anderson. The culture of corruption at the OCC was cracked open because, in 1989, a newly-elected commissioner went to Feds when Anderson offered him cash.

That commissioner was Bob Anthony, a man of honesty and fairness. In Anthony, Oklahoma's utility ratepayers have someone who is looking out for their interests. Regulated companies, whether large or small, get a fair shake from Bob Anthony.

Now Bob Anthony has been term-limited after 36 years looking our for the interests of Oklahoma residents and scrutinizing the claims of our monopoly utility companies on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Three Republicans, a Republican-turned-Democrat, and a Libertarian are running to replace him.

I'll refer you to Oklahoma Constitution's thorough story on the race and the candidates and add a few more links and comments.

Bob Anthony has endorsed Russell Ray, a journalist who spent decades covering the energy industry for newspapers and industry publications. He is currently director of communications for the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education. Ray shares Anthony's concerns over the way utilities passed costs related to 2021's winter storm on to consumers.

The front-runner in terms of fundraising is PAC-backed Brian Bingman, former State Senate President Pro-Tempore. Bingman ran against Bob Anthony in 2018. His failure (along with Gov. Mary Fallin and leadership in the State House) to use political capital to reform state government and abolish and consolidate obsolete agencies and cut wasteful spending brought the state to the fiscal crisis of 2018. Bingman's backers put up enough money to force Anthony into a runoff, which Anthony won handily. Oklahomans, sadly, must assume that, as a corporation commissioner, Bingman will do what he did in the State Senate -- take care of the lobbyists who got him elected and not the consumers who depend on the Corporation Commission to protect our interests from the monopoly utility companies. It's basic public-choice theory: Concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs. The companies that stand to make a financial killing from favorable Corporation Commission decisions have an incentive to pour money into the race to get their man elected.

As of the June 3, 2024, pre-primary contributions and expenditures report, Bingman had raised $399,096.21, of which $60,500.66 came from PACs. By contrast, Russell Ray has only raised $1,575.00, all from individuals, and covered another $1,127.50 from his own pocket.

The Oklahoma Constitution story notes that Bingman "was one of the more moderate Republicans in the Legislature with a cumulative average of 59% on the Oklahoma Conservative Index published by the Oklahoma Constitution. He scored only 40% in his final session in 2016." [Link added.] That's a polite way of saying that Bingman bent over backwards for corporate welfare.

OK Energy Today has an informative interview with Russell Ray from April, in which Ray discusses the problem with the OCC becoming an extension of legislative leadership (which, although Ray leaves it unsaid, is owned and operated by lobbyists).

"Quite frankly I think the credibility of the commission is at stake and I think adding another member of the political establishment to the commission will make things only worse."...

Some have suggested the Corporation Commission is becoming a retirement home for former legislative leaders. Chairman Todd Hiett is a former Speaker of the House and commissioner Kim David was the Oklahoma Senate Majority Floor Leader during her last years before being term limited. If Bingman were elected, it would mean three former legislative leaders would make up the commission.

"I am my own man," declared Ray in the interview with OK Energy Today. "I do think the balance between the concerns of consumers and the concerns of business is out of balance. I think right now, the balance favors the business over the consumer--that's not good."

He went on to indicate he believes the Corporation Commisson needs to do a better job of striking the right balance betwen those two concerns and be more fair to both sides.

Russell Ray's deep knowledge of the oil & gas and power industries means he'll be able to ask incisive questions of the businesses who come before the OCC.

Ray spent his career as a journalist who covered oil and gas for the Tulsa World for 8 years and was a business reporter for the Tampa Tribune and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He also spent 9 years as Chairman of POWER- GEN International, which is the sponsor of the largest trade show for the power sector in the world. He also served as Editor-in-Chief of Power Engineering magazine.

Power Engineering is the world's largest business-to-business magazine for the power sector, serving more than 70,000 readers. Ray was responsible for all editorial content, including a regular column he wrote on energy policy, pricing and technology.

Ray was also editor of the Journal Record in Oklahoma City.

"I've written about everything, I've covered everything. I understand the trends in technology, trends in pricing and trends in policy--my point is, I think someone with that kind of knowledge and skillset is more qualified than a career politician."

Ray addresses a threat to public transparency that is backed by the two ex-legislative leaders on the Commission:

"This bill would allow commissioners to meet behind closed doors to talk about public business--I've got a big, big problem with that and every Oklahoman should have a problem with that--the risk for abuse is great."

The candidate raised the question--if HB2367 becomes law, what will stop the legislature and others from doing the same thing for every city council or school board? As written, the bill only applies to the Corporation Commission, but questions have been raised that other three-member agencies might want the same power and lead to more legislative leniency.

"This would set a dangerous precedent for the entire state when it comes to open government."

County Commissions also have only three members. I'd rather see the number of commissioners increased than for them to be exempt from the Open Meetings Law.

You'll want to read the whole article for a discussion of 2021's Winter Storm Uri and the costs that utilities have palmed off on consumers, but here's the pull quote:

"The Commission has passed on billions of dollars in higher fuel costs and higher rate increases to consumers over the last three years I think with little or no scrutiny," he declared on the same day that Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony filed more objections to the one-page audit of PSO's storm costs.

A vote for Brian Bingman is a vote for total regulatory capture. A vote for Russell Ray is a vote for at least one voice on the OCC in favor of public accountability and transparency in the regulation of our utility rates and the oil and gas industry, with a hope for a majority on the side of accountability and transparency after the 2026 election.

UPDATE:

I had forgotten one very significant betrayal of conservative principles by Brian Bingman. In 2014, as Senate President Pro Tempore (leader of that chamber), Bingman allowed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to reach the floor of the State Senate, but he voted for it, and it passed with considerable Republican support. Under Brian Bingman's misleadership, the Oklahoma Senate was the first Red State legislative chamber to back the Left's plan to let Blue Cities (and their fraud-prone electoral practices) dominate presidential elections.

Justin Hornback, the other Republican in the race to replace Bob Anthony, reached out to me via Facebook, politely asking why I endorsed Russell Ray, despite Hornback receiving the endorsements of OK2A and OKHPR. He certainly would be preferable to Brian Bingman, and Hornback says that he has power generation industry experience as well as oil and gas experience, but I put a lot of stock in Bob Anthony's endorsement.

Karen Keith is running for Mayor of Tulsa, and seven candidates are running to replace her as Tulsa County Commissioner for District 2, three Republicans, three Democrats, and one independent.

The three Republicans are Tulsa District 2 City Councilor Jeannie Cue (sister of Keith's predecessor Randi Miller), District 68 State Representative Lonnie Sims, and small business owner Melissa Myers. The three Democrats are former Tulsa District 4 City Councilor Maria Barnes, Karen Keith's chief deputy Jim Rea, and public relations agent Sarah Gray. Josh Turley, who was the Republican nominee in 2016 and 2020, is running as an independent this year.

In the Republican primary, I'm voting for Melissa Myers. She is a graduate of Berryhill High School, married with two children, and with her husband and another couple owns Christ Centered Lawn and Landscape. The company provided Christmas lighting this year for the rooflines of Sand Springs' historic downtown buildings.

While all three GOP candidates live within some city's limits, Myers lives in the Prattville section of Sand Springs, the closest of the Republican candidates to the large unincorporated regions of the district, where residents are entirely dependent upon county government for road maintenance and law enforcement.

Myers has been endorsed by Oklahomans for the Second Amendment (OK2A) and Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights. KRMG's Russell Mills interviewed Melissa Myers in February after she announced her candidacy.

Myers got her political feet wet when she advocated for keeping at least part of the Gilcrease Turnpike free. While she wasn't successful in the effort, it gave her experience in the conflict between local needs and the priorities of government agencies. One of Myers's priorities is transparency in the county commissioner's office and the operations of the budget board.

As a city councilor, Jeannie Cue devotes a great deal of time to being attentive to the needs of the neighborhoods in her district, and I'm sure that would carry over to the County Commission. Where she falls short is as a watchdog.

(Here is Jeannie Cue's interview with KRMG.)

A prime example is when the Tulsa City Council approved federal COVID recovery grant money to fund a sex survey targeting teenagers as young as 15. When I raised the issue at a meeting of the Tulsa Area Republican Assembly where Cue was present, she was very concerned to hear that the survey was being promoted on the Tulsa Parks Facebook page, and she made some phone calls the following day, resulting in the deletion of the Tulsa Parks Facebook post. She was kind enough to follow up with me as well.

Here's the problem: Jeannie Cue was a member of the four-member council committee (with Phil Lakin, Lori Decter Wright, and Vanessa Hall Harper) that "vetted" the non-profit applications, including that of Amplify Tulsa. She had the opportunity to flag this grant as a misuse of public money, particularly money intended to help Tulsans recover from the COVID shutdowns, but there's no indication that she raised an objection. Her shocked reaction when I discussed the grant at the TARA meeting suggests that she didn't exercise due care and attention when it had been before the committee.

When we elect someone to a seat at the table in government, it's reasonable to expect her to use her position to investigate and scrutinize government on our behalf, through the lens of the priorities and values of the voters who elected her. Councilor Cue has demonstrated that she's not very good at that.

The third Republican candidate is State Rep. Lonnie Sims, whose House district covers much of the County Commission district west of the Arkansas River. Sims is the big-money candidate in the race, and he has an abysmal voting record at the State Capitol. In the Oklahoma Constitution's Conservative Index of 10 key votes for the 2023 legislative session, Sims scored 40%, a failing grade, and his career average was 61%, reflecting his support for corporate welfare. (Does a billionaire-owned NBA team really need special tax breaks?) Sims has a lifetime average of 59% on OCPA's Legislative Scorecard, which records Sims's support for the interests of tribal officials over the general public and his backing of bills to undermine Oklahoma's anti-SLAPP law. He's using the same campaign consultants that are supporting Democrat Karen Keith's bid for mayor.

I encourage Democrats in Commission District 2 to vote for Maria Barnes. As a city councilor for four years in my district, Barnes represented the interests of homeowners and neighborhoods over special interests; that's why she was targeted for defeat in 2008 and again in 2011, by means of big money and (in 2011) Dewey Bartlett Jr's gerrymander. I've described her as a neighborhood servant whose years in the trenches with the Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Association and the Midtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations shaped her into an effective elected official, a true public servant. Although we disagree on many national political issues, Maria and I share many concerns about the way local government bodies treat their citizens. I appreciate her frankness. She's willing to take a principled stand and not back down under pressure. As a county commissioner, she would not be anyone's fool.

Jim Rea, Karen Keith's chief deputy, bought a house in the district barely in time to meet the six-month residency requirement, and his candidacy was challenged by his Democrat opponents on the basis that ownership alone doesn't constitute residency. The state law defining residence is fairly loose, so the county election board had to allow him to remain on the ballot, but voters may and should take his short tenure in the district into account. Rea's LinkedIn profile indicates that he's only been back in Tulsa for about five years, serving for the last two as Keith's chief deputy.

Sarah Gray's website gives the impression that she's a caring person who doesn't understand the duties and powers of the office she seeks.

BatesLine endorsed Josh Turley during his two attempts to unseat Karen Keith. Turley has a doctorate in organizational leadership, had a distinguished 24-year career at the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, serving as the TCSO's first civilian crime scene investigator and developing the department's first Risk Management program, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts. Turley independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. As an independent candidate, Turley will not be on the ballot until November.

Here are the campaign finance reports filed by the candidates to date with the Tulsa County Election Board. Note that only Sims and Rea filed the pre-primary contributions and expenditures report that was due yesterday. Cue and Myers filed contributions and expenditures reports covering the first quarter of 2024. Barnes and Gray have yet to file a contributions and expenditures report.

• Jeannie Cue: Statement of Organization, Continuing Report of Contributions
• Melissa Myers: Statement of Organization, Contributions and Expenditures
• Lonnie Sims: Statement of Organization, Contributions and Expenditures
• Maria Barnes: Statement of Organization
• Sarah Gray: Statement of Organization
• Jim Rea: Statement of Organization, Contributions and Expenditures

MORE: Cheryl Wilburg recorded and posted most of the county commissioner debate sponsored by the Tulsa County GOP, after the live feed started having problems.

UPDATE 2024/05/29: Brent VanNorman has announced that he is running for mayor and will be holding a campaign kickoff Thursday evening, May 30, 2024. And see below for his comment regarding his business and ESG.

This past Wednesday, Jayme Fowler, 65, City Councilor for District 9, announced his withdrawal from the race for Mayor of Tulsa. Fowler is a registered Republican who entered the race last September. In an interview with KRMG, Fowler cited polling data and difficulty raising money and said that he didn't see a path to victory.

Fowler plans to complete his term but will not switch to running for re-election to his council seat. Former state representative Carol Bush and Julie Dunbar have both filed campaign contribution and expenditure reports for the District 9 seat with the Tulsa City Clerk. Dunbar is the wife of former Tulsa District 8 City Councilor Todd Huston. Both candidates are registered Republicans.

In his first quarter campaign filings, Fowler reported raising $126,865 through March 31, 2024, lending $119,500 to his own campaign, and carrying over $29,585 that he had lent his previous city council campaign, and spending $145,230 to that date on his mayoral campaign. Maximum donors in his latest report included Robert Zinke, Aaron Dillard of First Pryority Bank, Sanjay Meshri, Tom Bloomfield, and Robert Austin.

Unusually, Fowler had actually paid himself back $45,500 of his September 10, 2023, $50,000 loan to the campaign, making repayments through December 28, 2023. The typical pattern is that an unsuccessful candidate never gets paid back, while a successful candidate expects to raise money after the election from donors who hope to get into his good graces.

Fowler spent his campaign funds with Tomahawk Strategies ($61,141.92) for campaign management and consulting, Jacob Parra ($12,884.85) for campaign management, Zack Lissau ($6,000) for social media management, Patriot Reporting ($4,750) for campaign treasury services.

By contrast, Democrat County Commissioner Karen Keith raised $522,173 through March 31, but had only spent $137,043.96. Her major campaign vendors are James Martin Co ($43,997.59) for fundraising consulting, Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals LLC (CAMP) ($28,726.34) for strategic consulting, printing, website, and social media, CMA Strategies ($25,700.00) for polling, and Corey Abernathy ($16,000.00) as campaign manager.

Democrat state representative Monroe Nichols, 40, raised $318,097.19 through the 1st Quarter, and spent $278,381.83. Major vendors include Management Personnel Xchange LLC of Merrifield VA ($100,470.39) for campaign management, New Blue Interactive of Bethesda MD ($50,192.50) for digital fundraising, William H. Blanton, Jr., ($34,674.00) for fundraising consulting), Interak Corporation ($7,200.00) for office rent, Campaign Technology Professionals ($4,380.00) for bookkeeping & ethics compliance), HIT Strategies of Washington DC ($5,575.00) for polling services.

Two candidates have not been in the race long enough to have filed campaign contributions and expenditures reports.

Casey Bradford, 32, Army veteran and owner of Shady Keys Dueling Piano Bar,
entered the race in late April. He registered to vote in Tulsa County in May 2023 and is registered at an address in Sun Meadow that, according to Tulsa County Assessor records, is owned by Affluent Allianz Realty and does not have a homestead exemption.

Bradford is a member of PPE Supplies, LLC, which was formed on March 23, 2020, and contracted with the Oklahoma State Department of Health to supply N95 masks. In April 2021, the state sued Bradford and PPE Supplies. According to filings in the case, OSDH paid PPE Supplies a deposit of $2.125 million for purchase orders totaling 1.9 million masks; PPE Supplies only supplied 10,000 masks, and reimbursed the state $300,000, claiming that the remaining funds had been paid to vendors and was due to be reimbursed. Bradford and PPE Supplies filed a third-party petition against companies based in Kuwait, Cambodia, China, and Washington State, with documents showing that $1.74 million had been wired by PPE Supplies to these companies. Documents attached to the third-party suit indicate that PPE Supplies learned on May 6, 2020, that the promised masks had instead been sent to Mongolia, and PPE Supplies began to work through its attorney to recover the funds from the international suppliers. The COVID-19 March 2020 panic led many states to go outside of their normal purchasing processes to acquire N95 masks, ventilators, and other medical and protective equipment. An order by U. S. District Judge Claire Eagan in a related federal case contains a narrative of the controversy and sheds some light on the connections between the parties.

Brent VanNorman, 63, who had previously declared for District 2 City Council, is expected to announce a switch to run for mayor. Although he registered as a Republican voter in Tulsa County in September 2021, he is president of TriLinc Global, an investment company based in Manhattan Beach, California, which uses Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) screening for its investments. Leftists have used ESG investing to place financial pressure on oil and gas companies and manufacturers of personal firearms and ammunition and to force companies to adopt woke approaches to hiring and promotion. Where leftists have failed to get laws and regulations passed to enforce their agenda, they have had some success with pressure via large institutional investors pushing ESG. Basically, ESG is an indirect way for the Left to attack access to affordable energy and the freedom of movement that goes with it and our exercise of our Second Amendment rights.

UPDATE 2024/05/29: Brent VanNorman reached out with this information on his company: "I can assure you I am a solid conservative. The ESG that TriLinc uses is nothing similar to the likes of BlackRock. We simply use it as a negative screen to ensure that we are not investing in companies that are involved in pornography, gambling, illegal drugs, child labor, etc. TriLinc was founded and is run by people that are very conservative."

VanNorman's voter registration address as of 2022 was at an apartment at The Enclave at Brookside. His current address is near Tulsa Hills, which, according to Tulsa County Assessor records, was sold to the VanNorman Revocable Trust on March 1, 2023; no homestead exemption is shown.

Candidates for mayor, all 9 city council seats, and city auditor will formally file to be on the 2024 ballot Monday, June 10, through Wednesday, June 12, at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave. For races that draw more than two candidates, a primary will be held concurrent with the Oklahoma primary runoff election on August 2024; the city general election will coincide with the federal and state general election on November 5, 2024.

Several Tulsa County legislative seats are open because of term limits, so the Tulsa County Republican Party is hosting a series of debates for contested primaries for State House and State Senate. I will be moderating the Senate 25 debate on May 30th. (Debates for HD 67 and SD 33 have already taken place.) All debates will begin at 6 pm and end at 8 pm.

Tuesday, May 28, 2024, 6 pm - 8 pm
House District 79
Hicks Park Community Center

Candidates:

• Jenifer Stevens
• Paul Hassink

Thursday, May 30, 2024, 6 pm - 8 pm
Senate District 25
Hardesty Library

Candidates:

• Jeff Boatman
• Brian Guthrie

Monday, June 10, 2024, 6 pm - 8 pm
Senate District 37 & House District 68 (Separately)
The Hive (Jenks)

Candidates (SD37):

• Cody Rogers
• Aaron Reinhardt

Candidates (HD68):

• Mike Lay
• Jonathan Grable

The Oklahoma State House of Representatives is considering SJR 34, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to change Oklahoma's nominating process for state appeals courts to match the federal method: Nomination by the chief executive with the advice and consent of the legislature. This would put the entire process of choosing members of the Court of Civil Appeals, Court of Criminal Appeals, and State Supreme Court, and filling vacancies in district courts, into the hands of elected officials who are directly accountable to the voters.

The current system lacks this accountability: When a vacancy occurs, a 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission fields applications and gives the Governor three candidates to choose from. The JNC consists of six members appointed by the Governor (or the previous governor; the terms are staggered), six members elected by attorneys who are members of the Oklahoma Bar Association, one member each appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate and the Speaker of the State House, and the 15th member appointed by the other 14. The members chosen by the Governor and by the OBA come from the 1967 congressional district boundaries, notwithstanding the shifts in population (particularly the growth of the two main metro areas relative to the rest of the state) in the intervening 56 years.

Even in the selection of JNC members, the Governor's hands are tied: Only three of his six appointees may come from the same political party. No such restriction is placed on the members chosen by the private lawyers' club.

Those six members are:

District 1: Mary Quinn Cooper, McAfee & Taft, major donor to Democratic candidates such as State Rep. Suzanne Schrieber and congressional candidates Kendra Horn, Brad Carson, Kojo Asamoa-Caesar.

District 2: Weldon Stout, Jr., Muskogee, also principally a donor to Democrat candidates

District 3: James Bland, McAlester, does not show up as a political donor.

District 4: David Butler, Lawton, also principally a donor to Democrat candidates. (There is an Enid attorney with the same name, different middle initial, who is also a Democrat donor.)

District 5: Joel Hall, Oklahoma City, gave $500 20 years ago to a Republican running for Corporation Commissioner

District 6: David K. Petty, Guymon, is a consistent donor to state and national Democrat candidates, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the DCCC and DSCC.

You must be a member of the private lawyers' club to have a vote for the only 6 seats on the commission for attorneys. In fact, you have to be a member of the private lawyers' club to practice law in Oklahoma. You may recall that in 2017, the Oklahoma Bar Association sponsored a "President's Cruise" to the oppressive, Communist island prison known as Cuba, putting cash (ultimately coming from Oklahomans unfortunate enough to interact with the judicial system) into the hands of the brutal regime that tramples on human rights and jails its dissidents.

SJR 34 passed the Senate 32-14, passed out of the House Rules Committee with a 6-3 vote, and is now waiting for a vote on the floor of the State House. There is a hitch, however: The engrossed Senate version follows the federal pattern of advice and consent from the Senate only, while the House Rules Committee substitute would require a judicial nomination to pass the House as well as the Senate. If the current House floor version passes, either the Senate would have to agree to the House version, or there would be a conference committee followed by final votes on the compromise version in each chamber.

OCPA points out:

Unlike the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances, Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are not truly selected and vetted by your elected officials.

In reality, justices are selected and vetted by Oklahoma's unelected Judicial Nominating Commission, guided by a small network of lawyers from the state Bar Association.

The end result has been that Oklahoma's left-leaning Supreme Court keeps legislating from the bench and throwing out conservative reforms.

The OCPA is providing an online form to help you contact your State Representative to encourage support for SJR 34.

There may have been a day where partisan differences did not matter in the courtroom, but now partisan affiliation is predictive of differences in judicial philosophy. Republicans are the party of original intent and judicial restraint. An attorney who backs Democrats to control the Federal government is pushing for judges who will make up the rules and rewrite laws according to their ideological preferences; who will implement Lenin's "Who? Whom?" approach to justice, with a big dollop of DEI ladled on top.

If the proposed amendment is approved by the voters, the OBA could still voice their opinions of judges and justices nominated by the Governor, just as the ABA comments on Federal court nominees. While Kevin Stitt has managed some great appointments to the State Supreme Court, despite the JNC's leftist tilt, we need our elected Chief Executive to have a free hand to choose Oklahoma's version of a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, without the interference of a left-leaning private lawyers' club.

MORE: The application page has links to judicial district maps for State Supreme Court, State Court of Criminal Appeals, State Court of Civil Appeals, and District Courts.

STILL MORE: Back in January, OCPA's Ray Carter reported: "Oklahoma defies the trend noted of more conservative jurists being appointed in southern states. The median state supreme court PAJID score in Oklahoma has been between 70 and 75, reflecting a strong liberal slant, throughout almost the entirety of the 49-year period reviewed, only dipping slightly in recent years." The PAJID scores, a measure designed by researchers at Auburn University and the University of Georgia, were published in the December 2023 edition of the journal "State Politics & Policy Quarterly," a publication of the American Political Science Association.

That same OCPA report provided a more comprehensive analysis of the political contributions of JNC members since 2000:

Of the 32 individuals appointed to the JNC by the Oklahoma Bar Association from 2000 to today, 22 bar-association appointees (nearly 69 percent) have directed most of their campaign donations to Democrats, based on information obtained from public filings maintained by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, and Federal Election Commission filings and state records that are searchable on the nonprofit Open Secrets website.

Only one bar appointee to the JNC since 2000 has overwhelmingly donated to Republican candidates.

Furthermore, from 2000 to today, eight individuals who have chaired the JNC have been donors to Democratic campaigns.

In addition, Oklahoma's Judicial Nominating Commission operates without transparency. The group does not hold public meetings. The group does not interview candidates in public. And the commission does not reveal how members vote on judicial nominees. Research conducted by the 1889 Institute in 2019 found that Oklahoma's JNC is among the most secretive in the nation.

MORE: Oklahomans for Life has been calling for judicial nomination reform for many years, because leftist justices have been obstacles to the desire of a majority of Oklahomans to protect unborn children:

Please send an email to houserepub@okforlife.org to urge support for SJR 34.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has long been notoriously unsupportive of protecting the lives of unborn children. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court repeatedly struck down or blocked enforcement of pro-life laws which were widely viewed by others as constitutional under Roe v. Wade - laws providing reasonable regulation of abortion in ways that did not prevent abortion.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision ruled there is no so-called "right" to abortion under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has continued to strike down or block enforcement of newly enacted Oklahoma pro-life laws. To many observers, the actions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority have been arbitrary and capricious and reveal a deep pro-abortion bias.

The method of appointing Oklahoma's Supreme Court justices has been highly problematic in the eyes of pro-life Oklahomans. A committee over which the Oklahoma Bar Association exerts very heavy influence selects three nominees, and the Governor is required to pick one of the three. Given that the American Bar Association has adopted an official position in support of abortion, it is not surprising that laws protecting Oklahoma's unborn children have not found favor with our state Supreme Court.

Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 34, pending in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, would allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on a method of selecting our Supreme Court justices which closely mirrors the federal system - nomination of a justice whom the Governor believes to be highly qualified, with confirmation by the Oklahoma legislature.

Please send one email to houserepub@okforlife.org to reach members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and urge support for SJR 34. Ask Representatives to allow Oklahoma voters to adopt the U.S. Constitution's method of picking Supreme Court justices.

Published February 29, 2024. Postdated to keep it at the top of the page until the polls close.

Tuesday, March 5, 2024, is Oklahoma's presidential primary. On election day, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. You'll be able to cast an early ballot at one or more locations in each county at the following times, which includes Saturday as it's a federal election:

• Thursday, February 29, 2024: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Friday, March 1, 2024: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Saturday, March 2, 2024: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Tulsa County will have early voting at Fair Meadows, 4609 E. 21st Street. This is a brand new location for early voting. Wagoner County, which will be voting on eight propositions affecting a total of 1.8 cents in county sales tax as well as a 5% lodging tax, has two early-voting locations: NSU Broken Arrow Campus, 3100 E New Orleans St., and First Baptist Church, Wagoner, 401 NE 2nd Street.

If you need help finding your polling place, or if you'd like to study a sample ballot before you go, the Oklahoma State Election Board has a one-stop-shop online voter tool. Put in your name and date of birth, and they'll look you up in the database, find your polling place and show you a photo of it and a map, will let you see a printable sample ballot, and, if you're voting absentee, it will show you when your ballot arrived at your county election board. Many precinct boundaries have changed since the last presidential cycle, and precinct locations may have changed very recently, so double-check before you head for the polls, and don't forget to bring your photo ID.

The presidential preference primary is the only thing on the ballot in Tulsa County. Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians all have a presidential primary, and Democrats have invited independent voters to vote in their primary.

By party in order of filing:

Republican:

• Donald J. Trump, 77, Palm Beach, FL, former President
• Nikki Haley, 51, Kiawah Island, SC, former Governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the United Nations
• Ron DeSantis, 45, Tallahassee, FL, Governor of Florida and former congressman
• Chris Christie, 61, Mendham, NJ, former Governor of New Jersey
• Ryan L. Binkley, 56, Dallas, TX, pastor and entrepreneur
• David Stuckenberg, 42, Tampa, FL, founder and CEO of tech company
• Asa Hutchinson, 73, Rogers, AR, former Governor of Arkansas
• Vivek Ramaswamy, 38, Columbus, OH, pharmaceutical company founder

Democrat:

• Dean Phillips, 54, Wayzata, MN, congressman
• Joseph R Biden Jr, 81, Wilmington, DE, current resident of the White House
• Armando Mando Perez-Serrato, 47, Orange, CA. Mando doesn't say much about himself, but has strong opinions about his Democratic opponents.
• Marianne Williamson, 71, Washington, DC, novelist
• Stephen Lyons, 62, Damascus, MD, plumbing company owner
• Cenk Uygur, 53, Los Angeles, CA, blogger and podcaster

Libertarian:

Jacob Hornberger, 73, Broadlands, VA, lawyer, president of the Future of Freedom Foundation
Chase Oliver, 38, Atlanta, GA, self-described activist

Joseph "Joe Exotic Tiger King" Maldonado is running for president as a Democrat from federal prison in Texas, but he is not on the Oklahoma ballot.

The Green Papers has the nitty-gritty of delegate allocation rules for Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats. In a nutshell, Democrat delegates are allocated proportionally for each congressional district and statewide, but a candidate must have at least 15% of the vote to receive any delegates. Republicans use a semi-proportional method in each congressional district (3 delegates each): If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he gets all the delegates in that jurisdiction. If two candidates get more than 15%, the one with the most votes gets 2 delegates and 2nd place gets 1. If three candidates get more than 15% all three get a delegate. The 28 statewide at-large delegates are allocated proportionally among candidates who have at least 15% of the vote, but if any candidate gets more than 15% of the vote, he gets all 28. It's possible, if a big enough proportion of the vote goes to candidates with less than 15% of the vote, for some number of uncommitted delegates to be allocated.

I will be voting for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Republican presidential primary. More about that in another entry. I encourage Wagoner County voters to defeat the eight tax proposals on their ballot and demand that their county commissioners consult with the public before putting a massive tax increase on the ballot.

In my pre-presidential primary post, I provide a detailed explanation of the delegate allocation process for Oklahoma. As I mentioned in the same post, I am voting for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2024 Oklahoma Republican Primary.

A BatesLine reader asked me why the names of so many candidates are still going to be on the ballot, even though some dropped out weeks ago. The ballot was set in stone shortly after the end of the filing period in early December. It takes time to design and print ballots and to program ballot scanners to correctly tabulate that ballot design. Absentee ballots have to go out early, particularly for Oklahomans serving in the military. There's no time to reprint ballots. Ever year we've had a presidential primary, we've had no-longer active candidates on the ballot, and we often have barely- or never-active candidates running for city, county, and state offices. Even if a candidate isn't sending mail pieces or doing robocalls, you're still allowed to vote for him or her.

You might think that all this is moot. We appear to be headed for a Trump-Biden rematch. All but three of the Republican candidates (Trump, Haley, Stuckenburg) have suspended their campaigns. There hasn't been a serious primary challenge to an incumbent president since 1992, and only in the unusual circumstances of 1976, with an unelected incumbent, did a challenge have a real shot at succeeding. The Oklahoma County Republican Party is hosting an Official Trump Victory Party tomorrow night, a significant departure from the mandatory neutrality expected of party organizations during an active primary campaign.

But in the grand sweep of American history, the idea that you must actively campaign for president is a relative novelty. In 1952, within living memory, Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't give his first campaign speech until June 4, after the last primary had already been held. Eisenhower couldn't engage in partisan political activity until then; he was still on active duty as commander of NATO forces in Europe until May 31.

Democratic Party rule changes after 1968 began the movement toward binding primaries that put a premium on expensive mass media spending, but it wasn't until the advent of Super Tuesday in 1988 that the weight of the nominating process shifted definitively from caucuses and conventions to primaries. It was not unreasonable, as recently as 1968, for the incumbent president not to bother filing for primaries or to actively campaign.

Recently, Tara Ross wrote of the reluctance with which George Washington accepted his election to the presidency. Electors were elected in some states by popular vote and were appointed by the legislature in others, and each elector, at that time, cast two ballots. Every elector cast one of his ballots for Washington, with John Adams winning a majority of the remaining ballots, scattered among 11 candidates. None of the candidates actively campaigned for office. Electors cast their ballots for Washington not knowing if he would accept.

The vision of the Framers of the Constitution was that citizens would choose a trusted and knowledgeable neighbor from their city or region to represent them in the Electoral College, and that electors from each state would deliberate and cast ballots for the public servant best equipped to head serve as Chief Executive of the federal government. No campaigning would be necessary, because the electors would have the solemn obligation and privilege to research possible candidates, their successes and failures, their strengths and flaws. Ideally, ambition-driven campaigning would be viewed as unseemly and disqualifying.

But now presidential candidates must raise tens of millions of dollars and begin campaign efforts as soon as the midterm elections are over. To win the nomination, you must win primaries, which means you must reach a vast number of primary voters who are barely paying attention, and to get their attention you need money for TV ads, direct mail, robocalls and robotexts, and people to manage all of that, plus the ground game. Underperforming expectations in an early state means the money dries up; donors are no longer willing to invest in your future prospects.

In 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis managed to win re-election by 20 percentage points in what had been a purple state (remember 2000?), while the expected "Red Wave" failed to materialize anywhere else. DeSantis used his power as governor effectively to accomplish a conservative agenda, removing two Soros-backed district attorneys who refused to prosecute crimes, dismantling DEI bureaucracies at the state's universities, re-creating the state's New College as a classical liberal arts college with a governing board filled with conservative thinkers like anti-woke campaigner Christopher Rufo, and defied the mighty Disney Corporation. While Trump was celebrating the vaccine he fast-tracked, DeSantis's appointed state Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, issued a caution for young men because of a higher risk of heart-related adverse effects.

At the heart of all of these DeSantis successes was a focus on results: understanding and wielding the authority that the voters had granted him to accomplish the priorities that he had promised the voters, hiring and appointing people with the intelligence, diligence, and character to accomplish the goals he set. You do not hear DeSantis or his fans making excuses for failure, mainly because he hasn't had many failures; DeSantis just gets things done.

DeSantis's polling lead began to disappear as partisan prosecutors began filing case after case attempting to put former president Donald Trump in prison or at least off of the ballot. Understandably but mistakenly, many Republican voters felt that the only way to defy politically motivated misuses of the justice system was to rally behind Trump. Trump and his allies attacked DeSantis's admirable record, minimizing his achievements and even making wild and ridiculous false claims (e.g., the guy who ousted two Soros DAs is somehow Soros's puppet). Trump ran to DeSantis's left on abortion, transgenderism, and woke Disney.

Trump and his followers asserted that Trump did not need to earn the 2024 GOP nomination but was owed it. DeSantis was accused of what seems to be the greatest crime in the opinion of too many: Being disloyal to Trump. To these people, it doesn't matter who would be the most effective Republican nominee and conservative chief executive: Loyalty, not to principle, not even to a party, but to one man, is the supreme virtue and disloyalty the unforgivable sin.

I rarely take time to watch movies -- I tend to unwind with a classic sitcom episode -- but a couple of months ago during a business trip, I took the time to re-watch a film I had seen and enjoyed, The Death of Stalin, Armando Ianucci's dark comedy about the power struggle around the demise of the murderous Soviet leader, starring Jeffrey Tambour as Gyorgy Malenkov and Steve Buscemi as Nikita Khrushchev. I followed it up with Downfall, a German-language dramatization of the final days of Hitler in his Berlin bunker, based in part on the account of the young woman who was the genocidal dictator's personal secretary.

Shortly after the latter film was released, there was a frequently recurring video meme that repurposed the scene where Hitler has a conniption after the generals tell him that the remaining armies are unable to come to the rescue; new subtitles were added to adapt the scene to imagine various famous people reacting to bad news, for example, Hillary Clinton learning that she is about to lose the 2008 Democratic nomination for president to Barack Obama (language warning). Hilarious adaptations aside, Downfall is an enthralling, thought-provoking film.

The common element in the two movies is that, despite the terminal weakness of Dear Leader -- Stalin has had a stroke and lost control of his bladder and bowels, Hitler reigns over less than a square mile of territory and will soon kill himself -- his minions fall all over themselves to affirm their loyalty. These appear to be men of intelligence and leadership, they see that Dear Leader is leading the nation to disaster, there are enough of them to band together and push him out of power -- and yet they cannot break free. In Death of Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov (played by Michael Palin) loudly denounces his wife for crimes against the state and justifies dead Stalin's decision to imprison and presumably execute her, right until the moment she walks back through the door of their flat.

Now, Donald Trump is no genocidal autocrat, and he did a great deal of good during his term of office, but these movies brought to mind the cult of personality that has surrounded him and which he actively encourages. Nothing Trump does is ever a mistake. It may seem like a mistake that he appointed numerous cabinet members whom he now denounces as disloyal idiots, but really he is playing 10-dimensional chess and only seeming to fail in order to expose the swamp. Elected officials, hoping for a share of the public adulation Trump enjoys, fall all over themselves to praise Trump, to claim his endorsement, and to make excuses for him. Trump made many unforced errors, but he does not show any indication of having learned from his mistakes to become a more strategic, focused, and self-disciplined leader.

The November election may very well end up as a rematch between Trump and Biden (or more likely, the Democrats will replace Biden after Trump is officially nominated by the Republican National Convention), but for now we have a much better choice on tomorrow's primary ballot.

If enough of us who understand that Ron DeSantis is the best choice vote for him, he can win delegates to the national convention. Maybe God will bless us, as He has blessed Florida, with better leadership than we deserve.

In addition to Oklahoma's presidential preference primary on March 5, 2024, a small number of local jurisdictions will have propositions: Haskell, Norman, Oilton (2), Dewey County, Logan County (3), McIntosh County, Major County, and Sharon-Mutual Public Schools (Dewey & Woodward Counties). One school district, Mannsville in Carter & Johnston Counties, has a special election for an unexpired board seat.

The longest ballot will be in Wagoner County, which has eight propositions relating to county sales taxes:

• Proposition No. 1: Make permanent the temporary 0.80% for operations and road and bridge improvements, originally approved in 2017
• Proposition No. 2: Make permanent the temporary 0.10% for Sheriff Office capital outlay and operations, originally approved in 2017
• Proposition No. 3: Make permanent the temporary 0.10% for General Fund purposes, originally approved in 2017
• Proposition No. 4: Repurpose half of the permanent 0.30% fire tax approved in 2004 to establish and provide ambulance service.
• Proposition No. 5: 0.125% for 30 years for courthouse facilities
• Proposition No. 6: 0.25% permanent for jail facilities and operations
• Proposition No. 7: 0.125% for 30 years for fairgrounds facilities
• Proposition No. 8: 5% lodging tax in unincorporated areas for parks and recreational facilities

Proponents call the package "Half a Penny for Wagoner County," referring to the new taxes in propositions 5, 6, and 7, but not considering the increase in taxes resulting from making a penny in temporary taxes permanent. The Wagoner County website has a PowerPoint with details on each proposition "for educational purposes only... does not imply an endorsement."

Some opposition has arisen, pointing out that this amounts to a 38% increase in the county's sales tax rate, from 1.3 cents to 1.8 cents on the dollar. That's on top of the state 4.5% sales tax and any city sales taxes. A group called Taxed Enough Already (TEA) points out that this will push total sales tax rates in the cities of Coweta and Wagoner up to 10.3%. Compare that to the combined 8.417% we pay in the City of Tulsa. While Gov. Stitt just signed a bill eliminating the state sales taxes on groceries, to go into effect in August, city and county sales taxes will continue to be imposed on necessities.

John Dobberstein of the Broken Arrow Sentinel has a detailed report on the Wagoner County propositions, specifically on a presentation made by Wagoner County Engineer Rachael Cooper to the Broken Arrow City Council. "Cooper admitted no public hearings had been scheduled about the tax proposals but they would be forthcoming in the next 60 days." The same article has links to the ballot resolutions approved by the Wagoner County Commission and notes the haste with which the propositions were moved forward.

District 1 Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning said information was given to him about the propositions the morning of a recent County Commission meeting and he was asked to vote to whether approve the language with no prior knowledge.

Hanning said he didn't know how the numbers were created but he was unsure 0.8% would be satisfactory or even enough to maintain roads in the county.

"We all, as well as Broken Arrow see the destruction of our roads and how much more it's costing us to fix them. So I don't know where the numbers came from. I'm simply telling you they were never presented to me," he told the Broken Arrow City Council after Cooper's presentation to them.

Firefighters in rural fire districts are unhappy that their permanent earmarked revenue stream is going to be cut in half (emphasis added).

Everyone agrees Wagoner County needs an ambulance service, and service should be improved across the county, but firefighters say taking away funds their departments rely on would hurt their ability to maintain equipment, attend training, or recruit and retain firefighters.

On Monday night, firefighters asked County Commissioner Christina Edwards about what data supports the cut.

Edwards, who supports the ballot measure, was unable to answer the question.

The community also asked County Commissioner Tim Kelly, who also supports the proposal, the same question in a separate meeting.

His response was, "I get it. That's all you need to know."

Kelly was asked if he could provide the statistics and he said he could if he wanted to....

Another concern firefighters have is the county acknowledges never consulting any of the fire departments before proposing the idea.

I don't live in Wagoner County, but I would be reluctant to approve a permanent earmarked tax or any temporary tax longer than 5 years duration, as it eliminates opportunities for rebalancing revenues and priorities as costs and needs change. The need for Proposition No. 4 illustrates the hazard: Those who believe that the 0.30% fire district sales tax is generating more revenue than needed for that purpose now have to fight the holders of the concentrated benefit to repurpose the tax.

It's sketchy, to put it mildly, to schedule a sales tax election on a low-turnout date, with no hearings prior to the vote to put the propositions on the ballot and even one of the County Commissioners apparently kept in the dark. That kind of behavior by elected officials shouldn't be rewarded by the voters.

MORE:

KTUL: Wagoner County's 'half a penny campaign' draws debate over real cost of tax propositions
KOTV: Special Election In Wagoner County Could Impact Sales Tax
Group of Wagoner County residents holds rally against proposed sales tax increase

ELECTION RESULTS: Tulsa County school district bond issues all passed by a wide margin, each proposition exceeding 80% in favor. School bond issues fell short of the 60% threshold in Canute, Krebs, Silo, and Tupelo. In Boswell, Tuttle, and Weleetka school districts, a majority of voters voted against the bond propositions.

Worst turnout: Nobody -- zero of 21 registered voters -- in the Billings Public Schools district in Garfield County showed up to vote on adding themselves to the Garfield County 522 Ambulance Service District in the Billings Public Schools district. According to the Enid News, there were four propositions across the county relating to the ambulance service: Voters in the existing ambulance district cast two separate votes to annex into the district the parts of the Billings and Pond Creek-Hunter school districts in Garfield County, approving by 132-6 and 128-7, respectively. Voters in the affected part of Pond Creek-Hunter voted 11-5 in favor. Presumably annexation needed approval from both the existing district and the area to be annexed; with a tie 0-0 vote, it appears that the Billings annexation (about 32.25 sq. mi. in the northeast corner of the county) will not go forward.

In the entire state of Oklahoma, with over 400 school districts, each with at least one seat up for election this year, there were only 22 seats that required a primary because more than two candidates ran. In 13 of those 22 seats, a candidate received more than 50% of the vote and was elected; a runoff between the top two candidates will held for only 9 seats.

This coming Tuesday, February 13, 2024, is Oklahoma's annual school board primary election. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A list of all of Tuesday's elections across Oklahoma can be found on the Oklahoma State Election Board website. You can access your sample ballot on the election board's Oklahoma voter portal.

As one of 10 election days authorized by law this year, Tuesday is also host to some municipal elections and special elections, including several school district general-obligation bond issues. As in all non-Federal Oklahoma elections, early voting is available the Thursday and Friday before election day from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at designated locations; in Tulsa County and most counties, that's at the county election board headquarters.

Only a small percentage of Tulsa County voters will have a reason to go to the polls. The only school board races on the ballot this Tuesday are those that drew three or more candidates. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote this Tuesday, he or she will be elected; if not, the top two candidates will advance to the school board general election on April 2, 2024, which is where you will find school board elections that have only two candidates.

There are several contested school board seats in Tulsa County, including three in the Tulsa Public Schools district, but all of them drew only two candidates, so you will see them on the ballot in April.

In Tulsa County, there are general obligation bond issues in Bixby, Sand Springs, and Jenks school districts, and a single city council seat each in Collinsville and Sand Springs.

Bixby school bond issues:

• School district web page on the bond issue
• Bixby bond issue Bond Transparency Act disclosure: The district has $192,440,000 left to be paid off from the 2022 and 2016 bond issues.
• Proposition No. 1: $11,500,000 "for the purpose of constructing, equipping, repairing and remodeling school buildings, acquiring school furniture, fixtures and equipment and acquiring and improving school sites"
• Proposition No. 2: $500,000 "for the purpose of purchasing transportation equipment"

Jenks school bond issues:

• School district web page on the bond issue
• Jenks bond issue Bond Transparency Act disclosure: "The School District has 49,945,000 in unissued building bonds authorized at an election held on the 10th day of February 2015." The disclosure lists specific bond expenditures from each election going back to 2019.
• Proposition No. 1: $18,180,000 "for the purpose of constructing, equipping, repairing and remodeling school buildings, acquiring school furniture, fixtures and equipment and acquiring and improving school sites"
• Proposition No. 2: $820,000 "for the purpose of purchasing transportation equipment"

Sand Springs school bond issues:

• School district web page on the bond issue
• Sand Springs bond issue Bond Transparency Act disclosure: The disclosure lists specific bond expenditures from each election going back to 2009. Sand Springs district has $23,308,959 in outstanding bond debt, including principal and interest.
• Proposition No. 1: $111,875,000 "for the purpose of improving or acquiring school sites, constructing, repairing, remodeling and equipping school buildings, and acquiring school furniture, fixtures and equipment; or in the alternative to acquire all or a distinct portion of such property pursuant to a lease purchase arrangement"
• Proposition No. 2: $2,625,000 "for the purpose of acquiring transportation equipment and auxiliary transportation equipment; or in the alternative to acquire all or a distinct portion of such property pursuant to a lease purchase arrangement"

For each candidate, ballot name is followed by full voter registration name in parentheses, if different, then age, party of voter registration, social media profiles and websites.

Collinsville city council, Ward 1:

• Brad Francis (Orville Brad Francis), incumbent, 76, R. LinkedIn profile, Facebook profile.
• Gary Cole (Gary D Cole Sr), 68, R. Facebook profile.

(Larry Shafer was the only candidate for mayor and has been re-elected.)

Sand Springs city council, Ward 4:

• Brian Jackson (Brian Michael Jackson), incumbent, 41, I. LinkedIn, Facebook profile. Jackson ran in the Republican primary for State House District 66 in 2018. He finished 2nd in the primary then lost to Jadine Nollan in the runoff. He changed registration from Republican to Independent sometime between the primary and November 2.
• David B. Parker, 61, R. LinkedIn profile, real estate Facebook page, personal Facebook profile.

(Beau Wilson, Ward 5, and Jim Spoon, at-large, were the only candidates in their respective races and have been re-elected.)

Here's a brief introduction to the six candidates running for three seats Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education, drawing on public information, including filing information, voter registration records, and social media accounts. All addresses are in the City of Tulsa. Because there are only two candidates in each race, each seat will be decided on Tuesday, April 2, 2024. I will add links to this page as more social media accounts are discovered and campaign websites are stood up, and this page will have a link to detailed candidate profiles later in the campaign season.

A brief panic during the filing period suggests nervousness by Tulsa's educational establishment about the outcome of these elections, in the form of letters from Tulsa Mayor G. T. Bynum IV, City Councilors Vanessa Hall Harper and Lori Decter Wright, State Rep. Monroe Nichols, and others urging the school board to waive board policy requiring a national search and public input in hiring a replacement for ex-Superintendent Deborah Gist and to hire Interim Superintendent Ebony Johnson to fill the permanent position immediately. The letters claimed to be concerned about local control, which appears to mean foundation control, as opposed to control by a board where three members had been recently endorsed by the voting public.

Following the process set out in board policy would have placed the hiring of a new superintendent after the seating of two or three new board members, resulting in a board that could well have a majority of four or five members who are independent of the private foundations that steered TPS policy during Gist's tenure. As Tulsa Parents Voice has documented, nearly all of the alumni of the Broad (rhymes with "road") Center for the Management of School Systems that populated the upper levels of the TPS org chart have departed this year. (The Broad Center involvement in public education has received criticism across the political spectrum; see these two 2018 articles by Betty Casey in Tulsa Kids. Eli Broad's controlling approach to "venture philanthropy" strongly resembles that taken by certain Tulsa philanthropists.)

Those executive vacancies would have been filled by a new superintendent under a new board majority, but now they can be filled by a long-time TPS administrator with a board majority of four favorable to Gist's failed policies and private foundation direction. Letters from community leaders allowed the current board majority to pretend to be responding to public demand in discarding board policy, bypassing public input and a thorough search for a new district leader. The two elected African-American women on the board, Rev. Jennettie Marshall and E'lena Ashley, voted against making Johnson permanent superintendent. Ms. Ashley commented after the vote on Facebook:

As I commend and congratulate our Dr. Ebony Johnson for her new 'permanent role' as TPS Superintendent, I am conflicted. I consider Dr. Ebony an excellent communicator and she certainly appears to have what it takes to make change.

It also saddens me that we now as the Tulsa Public Schools board have...

• set precedent for Tulsa Public Schools by throwing away the rules in which the board established to ensure we performed our due diligence and ensured we in fact did all in our powers to find the best, most qualified person to lead TPS as Superintendent.
• set precedent to 'Circumvent the Rights' of the very students we are promising to Teach and Protect.

What we're teaching our young children is that when the rules don't fit our needs or agenda, we simply ignore them or find the best most expedient solution to get around them.

That's not how our students should expect their life's decisions to be made and they most certainly shouldn't see the leaders of their schools acting in such nefarious ways.

Here are brief profiles of each of the TPS school board candidates:

TPS Office No. 2:

This is a special election to fill the seat for the remaining year of an unexpired four-year term. Judith Barba Perez was elected to this seat in 2021, winning a three-way primary with 201 votes out of 379 cast. Barba Perez resigned in 2023 after she moved out of Oklahoma, and Diamond Marshall was appointed by the board to replace her until a special election could be held. Diamond Marshall declined to file for election.

Calvin Michael Moniz, 38, 2607 E. 6th St., Independent, Voter ID 720718072. Voted 11 times in the last four years. Did not vote in the February 2021 school board election. Social media: Campaign website, LinkedIn, personal Facebook profile, campaign Facebook page, campaign Instagram, personal Instagram (private, with 1,850 followers and 2,382 posts), campaign Twitter. A personal Twitter account @CalvinMoniz is no longer online. Moniz supported bypassing board policy to make Ebony Johnson permanent superintendent without the required nationwide search and public input.

KanDee N. Washington, 56, 2211 N. Xanthus Ave., Independent, Voter ID 720570162. Voted 5 times in the last four years. Did not vote in the February 2021 school board election. Social media: Campaign Facebook page.

TPS Office No. 5:

This is a regular election. John Croisant won the open seat in 2020, finishing first in the February primary with 44% in a field of five, then narrowly winning the postponed general election in June, 52% to 48% over Shane Saunders, thanks to an 834-vote advantage in absentee ballots and early voting.

John Thomas Croisant, 62 E. Woodward Blvd., Democrat, Voter ID 720699462. Voted 12 times in the last 4 years. Voted in the 2020 primary and general school board elections. Social media: Campaign website, LinkedIn profile, campaign Facebook page, personal Facebook profile, business Facebook page. Croisant voted to bypass board policy and make Ebony Johnson permanent superintendent without the required nationwide search and public input.

Teresa Ann Peña, 1127 S. College Ave., Republican, Voter ID 720206476. Voted 4 times in the last 4 years. Voted in the 2020 general school board election. Social media: Campaign website, LinkedIn profile, campaign Facebook page, personal Facebook profile.

TPS Office No. 6:

This race is for a full four-year term for the open seat currently held by Jerry Griffin, who is not running for re-election. He defeated long-time establishment incumbent Ruth Ann Fate in 2020.

Maria Mercedes Seidler, 7057 E. 52nd St., Republican, Voter ID 801571311. Voted 10 times in the last 4 years, including the 2020 general school board election. Social media: LinkedIn profile, personal Facebook profile, personal Twitter account. Seidler spoke at the December 11 TPS board meeting in favor of following board policy and conducting a nationwide search with public input for a new permanent superintendent.

Sarah Adrianne Smith, 5431 S. 67th East Pl., Democrat, Voter ID 720429536. Voted 9 times in the last 4 years, including the 2020 general school board election. Social media: Campaign website, LinkedIn profile, campaign Facebook page, personal Facebook profile, campaign Twitter account. Smith applauded the school board's decision to bypass board policy to make Ebony Johnson permanent superintendent without the required nationwide search and public input.

UPDATE: At the close of the filing period, we have three contested races for Tulsa school board, and contests for single seats in Berryhill, Owasso, and Union. The remaining 13 seats (including two each in Keystone and Liberty and the Tulsa Tech Center seat), are uncontested. Maria Mercedes Seidler filed for TPS Office No. 6, making that a two-woman contest for the open seat. Alan Staab filed but withdrew for TPS Office No. 5, so there are no Tulsa County contests with more than two candidates, and there will be no February 13 primary; all of these races will be settled on April 2, 2024. (Backup copy of candidate filings.candidatefilings_12082023.pdf)

Today, Wednesday, December 6, 2023, is the final day of filing for school board races in every public school district across Oklahoma. Candidates may file at the county election board until 5 p.m. today.

K-12 school districts will have a single seat, Office No. 4, up for election to a five-year term. K-8 dependent districts (Keystone is the only one in Tulsa County) have three seats that rotate through three-year terms, and also have a single seat on the ballot. Each year one of 7 Technology Center seats is on the ballot for a 7-year term; this year that is Office No. 1.

Tulsa, with 7 board members, has two seats up for a four-year term (No. 5 and No. 6) and the one-year unexpired term of Office No. 2.

After the second day of filing in Tulsa County, 13 seats have drawn only one candidate, 2 seats (Berryhill and Owasso) have drawn two candidates, and in Tulsa Office No. 5, incumbent John Croisant has drawn two challengers. No one has filed for Liberty Office No. 4.

Nor has any candidate filed for the Tulsa Technology Center Office No. 1, not even incumbent Rev. Dr. Ray Owens, pastor of Metropolitan Baptist Church and a board member of several non-profit organizations. This district mainly covers North Tulsa, from 11th Street South to 86th Street North, mainly west of Yale, plus Gilcrease Hills and neighborhoods just west of downtown.

Filing is also open for a number of municipalities; candidates have filed for city office in Collinsville, Owasso, and Sand Springs.

(Here is the a link to the latest list of candidates for Tulsa County school board and city council seats.)

School board filing always comes at a busy and distracted time of year. As I've written before, it's almost as if school board elections were deliberately scheduled to escape the notice of potential candidates and voters.

The school board primary election will be held on February 13, 2024, for those seats where there are three or more candidates. If no one wins a majority of the vote in the February election, a runoff will be held on April 2, 2024. If a seat draws only two candidates, the election will be held on April 2, 2024.

The Tulsa district, largest in the state, has two out of seven seats up for election to a four-year term, Offices No. 5 and 6, plus the remaining one-year term of Office No. 2, previously held by Judith Barba-Perez, who resigned earlier this year. As mentioned, incumbent John Croisant, first elected in 2020, is being challenged by retired TPS teacher Theresa Pena and Alan Staab. The Board appointed Diamond Marshall to serve District 2 until this year's school elections; the winner of this election will serve just one year. Marshall has not filed for election, but Calvin Michael Moniz has, and Candee Washington is expected to file as well.

Jerry Griffin, the incumbent in District 6, is not expected to run for re-election; he upset 24-year incumbent Ruth Ann Fate in 2020. So far Sarah Smith is the only candidate for that seat. Based on the age (45) listed on the filing, this is Democrat Sarah Adrienne Smith, registered to vote at 5431 S 67 E PL. (I don't know why the filing list omits addresses, which help to disambiguate names. There are 21 Sarah Smiths in Tulsa County, 9 in the Tulsa Public School District, 2 in Election District 6.) Her campaign kickoff was co-hosted by former Tulsa County Democratic Party chairman Keith McArtor. Here is Sarah Smith's personal Facebook profile. She is using the left-wing ActBlue platform for campaign donations.

You'll find a map of Tulsa Public Schools board districts here. District 2 is mainly between Admiral and Pine, with a bit of territory south to 11th Street around TU and Will Rogers High School. Booker T. Washington High School is also within District 2's boundaries. District 5 is mainly midtown west of Yale, around Edison High School, and District 6 is midtown from roughly Yale to Mingo.

Back during the 2019 filing period, I wrote at length about why school board races are so important, why they deserve much more attention than they receive, and why it's a shame that so few candidates run and so few voters turn out. During the pandemic school closures of 2020, parents and the general public began to learn more about what their children were being taught (and often how little they were being taught). More people are alert to what's at stake, and Tulsa has had some very contentious elections in recent years. We're hoping that trend will continue, but with more victories for school board members who will ask tough questions of the administration, who will represent the community's values and priorities, and who will stop the use of schools as missionary outposts for the Gramscian Left.

Originally posted on August 1, 2023. Post-dating to August 8 so it remains at the top of the page through election day. A previous entry has a just-the-facts discussion of the four August 8 bond issue and sales tax propositions.

Here are seven reasons to vote no on all four City of Tulsa ballot propositions at the special election next Tuesday, August 8, 2023:

1. Two-and-a-half years too early: The proposed sales tax may not go into effect until January 1, 2026.* A lot can change in two years and five months. Economic and global circumstances two years from now may be very different -- just think how different the world was two-and-a-half years ago -- and our priorities may change with those circumstances. We shouldn't commit nearly a billion dollars in spending so far in advance, nor should we start borrowing (and paying interest) on revenue that's two-and-a-half years in the future.

2. Hamstringing the next mayor and council: The proposals block the ability of new city officials to pursue capital improvements to implement their election platforms. A new mayor and city council will be elected in 2024, but the August 8 proposals lock up funding for capital improvements until 2030, after the end of the next mayor's term of office in 2028. It's selfish on the part of lame duck mayor GT Bynum IV, who is not running for re-election, to lock in spending priorities for his successor. There's plenty of time before the current tax runs out for the new mayor and council to decide on a new package. The new officials will have 10 months after taking office in December 2024 to put together a package and put it before the voters.

3. Too vague: $162 million is "itemized" for "citywide" but unspecified lists in broad categories -- streets, sidewalks, alleys, ADA implementation (whatever that means), bridge replacement. This list of vague citywide items includes traffic engineering, which is not a capital improvement but an operational responsibility, and project engineering inspection and testing, which in the past was always priced into individual projects as essential to any construction project. In the original 1980 "third-penny" sales tax vote and its early successors, specific intersections, bridges, widening projects, water and sewer lines, etc., were listed in the sales tax ordinance or general obligation bond issue, committing the city to specific projects with definable costs. It was possible to see whether or not funding was going to the most urgent needs and whether all parts of the city were given due consideration. These vague "citywide" line items don't give the voters anyway of telling whether we're being offered good value for money or whether contractor profits are being padded.

We also don't have specifics on nearly $80 million, divided between Proposition 1 and Proposition 4 for "Additional costs for completion of previously approved street projects listed in Improve Our Tulsa Proposition No 1 approved at an election held on November 12, 2019." Which projects overran? How much does each project require for completion?

Besides the "citywide" and "additional costs" items, many other line items are vague and undefined; some of them are outlined below.

4. $75 million for undefined "housing initiatives": When government sets out to solve a social problem, the money is wasted and the problem gets worse. $22 trillion was spent during the first 50 years of the War on Poverty, and there are more people dependent on government than ever before. The city wants $75 million to solve the homeless problem but they won't tell us how they will spend that money, not even why they think $75 million is the right amount to ask for.

The money will be spent in accordance with the recommendations of the Housing, Homelessness, and Mental Health Task Force, a group of the usual suspects and yacht guests that includes exactly one person who might have some direct experience dealing with homeless people.

The people in charge of our city government and the philanthropocrats** who control them see human beings as mere animals, automata that respond to stimuli in predictable ways. Their thinking goes that if you provide the proper environment and nutrients, people will thrive, just like plants do. That way of thinking leads to the arrogant belief that enough government money can fix anything: "If we can put a man on the moon" -- solve an engineering problem using the unchanging laws of physics and chemistry -- "we can end homelessness" -- a complex set of human tragedies that find their explanation in spiritual truths denied by the philanthropocrats and their minions.

The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, informed by a Biblical anthropology, understood that all human beings are created in the image of God and as such have inherent dignity and worth, but also that all human beings are marred by the Fall, and inclined by nature to selfishness and evil, which requires the internal restraint of the Holy Spirit, a conscience externally restrained by the social pressure of a moral society, or, as a last resort, the threat of state violence to prevent violent evil.

Christian ministries like City of Hope Outreach and John 3:16 Mission have helped homeless people successfully leave the streets and rebuild their lives, because they begin with a true understanding of human nature. Materialist philanthropists and social service agencies, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot hope to address the problem and will likely only enable more of the self-destructive and societally destructive behavior they claim to be able to stop, if only they had enough money to spend.

5. Gilcrease Museum held hostage: Bynum IV & Co. are demanding another $7 million in "matching funds for improvements." In 2016, Tulsans approved $65 million to renovate Gilcrease Museum. In 2020, we were told that it had to be demolished and rebuilt. (Bynum IV chief of staff Blake Ewing wrongly claimed at the Tulsa GOP forum that we didn't know until the museum was closed that demolition was necessary. In July 2021, the doors closed for what we were told would be three years. In March 2023 we were told that more money was required, and recently we were told that the museum won't be open to the public until 2026. Bynum IV & Co. will have deprived an entire generation of Tulsa students of the opportunity to visit Gilcrease Museum during their high school years.

Like the proverbial car dealer who throws your keys on the roof and won't get them down until you buy a new car, Tulsa mis-leaders are demanding more money before they'll let us enjoy the priceless collection of artwork, artifacts, and historical documents that we, the Citizens of Tulsa, own. They don't deserve any more trust when they've already betrayed us over and over again. To earn our trust, the first step is to reopen Gilcrease, and put our collection back on display, with the money they already have in hand.

6. PAC in danger: Now City Hall mis-leaders want $55,790,000 for "Tulsa Performing Arts Center - facility renovation, infrastructure, loading dock improvements, safety and ADA improvements." This is more than half of the money for specified projects in Proposition 2. Given our experience with Gilcrease Museum, I would expect a similar bait-and-switch:

1. Tulsans approve funding for PAC renovations
2. Mis-leaders "discover" "serious problems" requiring demolition (or gutting)
3. PAC closes with a promise to reopen in three years
4. Mis-leaders "discover" a need for more money to reopen
5. Construction delays keep PAC closed for two more years

I believe that Tulsa's mis-leaders wanted a new building for Gilcrease all along***, just like they wanted a new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge, and I strongly suspect they want a new PAC, but they know they cannot convince the voters to approve demolition of a beloved landmark or the full cost of the new facility. So they will deceive Tulsa voters, and if voters are stupid, they will fail to learn anything from past behavior and will let themselves be deceived once again.

Do we want to go for five or more years without a venue for Broadway theater, symphony, ballet, and opera? Until they deliver a new Gilcrease Museum to our satisfaction, we shouldn't trust Tulsa's mis-leaders with another precious cultural institution.

7. Millions more for a toxic lake: Work on the Zink Dam isn't complete yet, and the City wants another $3.5 million (per Proposition 2 in the bond issue resolution) or $5 million (per public statements) for "Zink Lake - infrastructure." Blake Ewing said during the Tulsa GOP forum that this was for parking lots, but when I asked where the document was that spells this out, I didn't get an answer. Meanwhile, Tulsa citizens have unanswered questions about toxic chemicals seeping into the lake from ground water under the refineries, past and present, along the river. Ewing dismissed these concerns as a "political, fun, fun hot button thing to get upset about."

In May 1979, Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one.

Thanks to Jesse Rodgers and City Elders for the logo at the top of the page.

The Tulsa County Republican Party has officially come out in opposition to the four City of Tulsa propositions for sales tax and general obligation bonds on the August 8, 2023, ballot ("Improve Our Tulsa 3"):

Republican Party of Tulsa County Takes Stance on
Improve Our Tulsa 3 Bond Package
Tulsa GOP is asking voters to Vote No on August 8th

TULSA, OK (08/02/2023)

On August 8th, the City of Tulsa is asking all residents to vote on the Improve Our Tulsa 3 bond package. We love Tulsa; however, Improve Our Tulsa is the wrong approach at this time. It is vague and unvetted by the citizens. This package is being rushed when we have over two years to renew the current tax. Our biggest concerns about this package are the $75MM for UNDEFINED housing initiatives in the housing package, additional funding for the Gilcrease Museum, and the uncertainty with Zink Lake. Should this package be passed, the next Mayor will be hamstrung with the responsibility of implementing something he or she had no part in creating. How is this fair for our next Mayor?

We should learn from our history, in May 1979 Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one. (batesline.com)

These are just a few reasons why the Republican Party of Tulsa County is asking you, the Tulsa voters, to VOTE NO on ALL FOUR propositions on August 8th because history tells us..... WE. CAN. DO. BETTER.

MORE: District 5 City Councilor Grant Miller explains why he voted against sending the package to the voters:

The mayor continues to dismiss the real and valid concerns of Tulsans claiming that people who don't like the idea of not having a plan for $75M of spending on homelessness or want answers regarding chemicals in the river before spending millions on a recreational area are "...just folks, like Councilor Miller, who object to things for the sake of objecting to them." (Link in comments). We can do better than the Mayor's package and come up with something that actually works for Tulsa, instead. And there is absolutely no reason to rush into this. We have more than enough time to go back to the drawing board according to Chief of Staff, Blake Ewing. Everything is and will be funded through 2025. So why did the Mayor say it would be a disaster?! He knows that's not true. Dismissing Tulsans' very serious concerns is terribly arrogant.

Here's the link to Councilor Miller's comments on KRMG.

UPDATE: The Tulsa County Republican Party hosted a forum on the August 8 vote on Thursday, July 27, 2023, at 6 p.m., at the Embassy Church, 7100 E. 31st Street. The panelists included City Councilors Christian Bengel and Grant Miller, Mayor's Chief of Staff Blake Ewing, and me, Michael Bates. Darryl Baskin moderated the discussion and provided a live stream, which is archived on his TulsaLiveEvents.com Vimeo channel.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023, on a day when there is nothing else on the ballot, on a day when only 14 jurisdictions across the entire State of Oklahoma have an election, City of Tulsa voters will be confronted with four ballot propositions, one to enact a new sales tax, and three for new general obligation bond issues. Combined, voters are being asked to approve $815,415,000 in new capital spending, not counting bond interest and fees.

The "temporary" 0.95% sales tax would go into effect when the current 2021 Miscellaneous Capital lmprovements Temporary Sales Tax (approved in 2019) expires on December 31, 2025, or earlier if that tax raises $193 million before that time. Based on my tally of sales tax revenues since the Improve Our Tulsa 2 tax went into effect, and assuming a 5% increase in revenues year-on-year (which is based on recent numbers), we might hit $193 million collected in October 2025, boosted by the increase in the Improve Our Tulsa 2 tax rate from 0.45% to 0.95% in July 2025. Even so, it means that we will vote on a tax and the list of projects to be funded more than two years before the tax goes into effect. Why so early? Why not wait at least until a new mayor and council take office in November 2024 and have had time to assess priorities and re-estimate project costs?

The new sales tax would expire on June 30, 2030, with no provision for an earlier expiration if receipts are better than forecast. If the new sales tax is defeated, Tulsa's overall city sales tax rate would be 2.7% and combined state, county, and city sales tax rate of 7.567%. If the new sales tax passes, the overall city sales tax rate would be 3.65%, an increase of 35.2%.

On the jump page, the ballot language for the four propositions, the ordinances and resolutions approved by the City Council for each, and the list of projects for each:

Monday, May 22, 2023, Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed HB 1236, a bill that, by the change of a single word, would have significantly neutered Oklahoma's deterrent against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Deep-pocketed and powerful public figures have used meritless lawsuits to punish critics and chill free speech. The process is the punishment: Without anti-SLAPP laws, someone trying to crush critical speech can simply file a lawsuit, without even making a prima facie case that actionable defamation occurred. Even if the defendant ultimately prevails, the defendant faces enormous costs to defend the suit, privacy-invading discovery requests, and time and costs to respond to interrogatories and attend depositions, just to get to the point where the court would be willing to consider a dismissal, to say nothing of the additional time, stress, and expense involved in getting to a jury trial.

Anti-SLAPP laws like the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) provide a bypass of the process-punishment by allowing for an early motion to dismiss, where the plaintiff has to put his cards on the table at the beginning of the process, and the defendant can move to dismiss on the basis of free-speech protecting precedents such as New York Times v. Sullivan.

Court of Civil Appeals Chief Judge Thomas Thornbrugh described the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws in Southwest Orthopaedic Specialists v. Allison:

Anti-SLAPP legislation appears to be the result of an increasing tendency by parties with substantial resources to file meritless lawsuits against critics or opponents, with the intent of discouraging or silencing those critics by burdening them with the time, stress, and cost of a legal action. To carry out this purpose, anti-SLAPP acts typically provide an accelerated dismissal procedure, available immediately after a suit is filed, in order to weed out meritless suits early in the litigation process.

Anti-SLAPP laws also protect speech by making falsely accused commentators and reporters whole for the funds they spent defending themselves, thus deterring meritless suits designed only to silence them. 12 O.S. 1438 states:

Section 1438. A. If the court orders dismissal of a legal action under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, the court shall award to the moving party:

1. Court costs, reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action as justice and equity may require; and

2. Sanctions against the party who brought the legal action as the court determines sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions described in the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act.

HB 1236, which was co-authored by House Speaker Charles McCall and Senate Majority Floor Leader Greg McCortney, simply changed the "shall" highlighted above to "may."

In his veto message, Gov. Stitt explained his reasons for rejecting the bill:

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution,I have vetoed Enrolled House Bill 1236.

Enrolled House Bill 1236 would amend the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, which is
designed to deter lawsuits intended to chill Oklahomans' right of free speech, right to petition and right of association. Currently, defendants who secure dismissal of lawsuits under the Act are entitled to mandatory costs, attorney fees, other expenses, and potential sanctions. The Bill would make discretionary what is now mandatory.

Such a change would undermine the Act's purpose, ensuring a greater frequency of frivolous lawsuits against Oklahomans exercising free speech. Although I would support an amendment providing for mandatory attorney fees only when a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is found to be frivolous, this amendment would go too far in relaxing a needed deterrent.

For these reasons, I have vetoed Enrolled House Bill 1236.

If awarding costs was a matter of discretion, a district judge might take note of a plaintiff's money, power, and connections, and decline to impose court costs after dismissing a SLAPP case for failing to make a prima facie case. A district judge might be worried that a wealthy, powerful, and connected plaintiff might recruit an opponent for his re-election.

We live in a time when mainstream media organizations, press outlets with the resources to fight a lengthy court battle, have chosen to become mouthpieces for the powerful, "to afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable," to invert Mr. Dooley's appraisal of the newspaper business. If the public is to hear about the evil deeds and corrupt practices of the powerful, it will fall to courageous outsiders who would be devastated by attritional lawfare waged by the deep-pocketed. The Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act provides essential protection to these truth tellers. One of my proudest accomplishments in a quarter-century of public involvement is my part in getting the OCPA through the legislature, with the essential help and leadership of Rep. John Trebilcock, Sen. Rick Brinkley, and Sen. Anthony Sykes. Thank you, Governor Stitt, for protecting the law's ability to protect us.

MORE: Over the weekend, Jonathan Small, president of the other OCPA (Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs) urged Gov. Stitt to veto HB 1236:

"Special interests who have for years tried to silence Oklahoma conservative voices have now asked lawmakers to make it easier to stifle conservative views," Small said.

Under current law, a defendant sued for defamation who wins a motion to dismiss asserting a First Amendment privilege is entitled to costs, attorney fees, and a sanction "sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action." ...

"The special interests lobbying for this bill are saying the quiet part out loud: they want to bully opposing voices with no accountability," Small said. "Governor Stitt has never been one to give in to bully tactics, and OCPA encourages him to veto this bill."

OCPA journalist Ray Carter quoted national organizations supporting press freedom on the importance of anti-SLAPP laws, with high praise for Oklahoma's law:

The Institute for Free Speech ranks Oklahoma's current anti-SLAPP law among the best in the nation, noting the law "protects the exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, and right to association."

"Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to address a structural problem within American law: namely, an unscrupulous litigant can use litigation strategically to suppress or punish speech he or she dislikes," the Institute for Free Speech notes. "Such a litigant would typically claim that the speech constituted defamation and then sue others to harass them, silence them, or force them to bear significant litigation costs. Those who are faced with such a lawsuit ... are often presented with a harsh choice - accede to the litigant's demand for settlement (which may include paying compensation, ceasing criticism, and apologizing) or continue to bear heavy legal fees as the suit progresses. Either choice may entail substantial losses of speech, reputation, time, and money. These are costs defendants must bear even when faced with lawsuits that plaintiffs have a minimal chance of winning."

The Institute says that strong anti-SLAPP laws like Oklahoma's current law "encourage potential plaintiffs to think twice before hauling speakers into court with weak or frivolous cases."

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press notes, "SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings."

The Reporters Committee notes that strong anti-SLAPP laws, such as the one that currently exists in Oklahoma, "are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story."

Writing for the Nieman Journalism Lab in 2021, Peter Coe, a lecturer in law at the University of Reading, noted that SLAPP lawsuits were "increasingly being used by powerful people to shut down criticism from activists, academics, whistleblowers, and journalists."

"SLAPPs are used to try to prevent the public from learning about matters of public interest that could harm the reputation of a company or government," Coe wrote. "They typically take the form of defamation lawsuits, but very often the companies or individuals who start these claims know they will never win. Rather, the aim of the claim (what makes it a SLAPP) is to dissuade journalists from reporting on a controversial story by making it as costly and time-consuming as possible."

UPDATE 2023/05/25: An attempt to override the veto this morning failed overwhelmingly, with only 36 House members voting to override and 61 voting to sustain. I'm told that House rules would allow another override attempt, perhaps after additional arm-twisting. Contact your state rep and encourage him or her to vote against any further attempts. OCPA's Jonathan Small announced that any vote in favor of override would be scored negatively in their ratings of legislators.

Tony Lauinger, State Chairman of Oklahomans for Life, who has tirelessly, for decades and at his own expense, lobbied on behalf of the unborn at the State Capitol, is calling on Oklahomans who oppose abortion to support SB 368. In his message below, Lauinger rightly points out the short-term thinking of those who insist on absolute abolition right now. The bill passed both houses overwhelmingly, but the Senate rejected the House's amendments, and the bill was referred to conference committee consisting of Senators Garvin, Rosino, Haste, Daniels, Treat, and Hicks and the standing House Conference Committee on Public Health, consisting of Representatives Roe, Hasenbeck, Newton, Randleman, Stark, and Ranson. (Sen. Hicks and Rep. Ranson are the only two Democrats on the conference committee.)

Oklahoma is a democracy, with a constitution that authorizes initiative and referendum. A law that is only supported by 4% of the population is vulnerable to a well-funded initiative petition campaign that would be cast as a choice between that "extreme" 4% position and a "moderate" position (abortion on demand) supported by 30% or more of the voters. SB 368, enacting restrictions supported by 71% of the population, offers a much more defensible position against counterattack. State courts are less likely to find an overwhelmingly popular law unconstitutional. Referendum backers will not see an easy target.

In 2017, the Kansas State Supreme Court struck down an anti-abortion law, finding a right to abortion in the Kansas state constitution's language stating that "all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights." When legislators sent a constitutional amendment to the voters, asserting that the Kansas state constitution should not be construed to grant a right to abortion, the voters defeated it, with 59% voting no.

I trust Tony Lauinger's judgment, grounded as it is in years of his successful efforts to inform, persuade, and change hearts and minds, over that of the "principled" "abolitionists" who insist on the strictest terms and the harshest punishments right now. The ringleaders of that movement are at best dupes of the abortion industry or at worst its paid influencers, using emotional manipulation and religious guilt on Christians of tender conscience to push for laws that will trigger a pro-abortion backlash and turn the mushy middle, the persuadables, against protecting unborn children at all.

In time, Oklahomans who have been persuaded to see the humanity of the unborn child, worthy of legal protection, will see the logic of extending that protection regardless of the circumstances of conception. I came to that conclusion decades ago, but it didn't happen overnight.

Here's the email from Oklahomans for Life:

One Last Chance to Defend Unborn Child Against Unlimited Abortion on Demand in Oklahoma:

URGENT: Email Senate & House to Pass SB 368

Due to the heroic efforts of Senator Julie Daniels, we have one last chance to fortify Oklahoma's ability to defeat the abortion industry's constitutional amendment imposing unlimited abortion on demand on our state. Please send an email to senaterepub@okforlife.org and a second email to houserepub@okforlife.org urging SUPPORT for SB 368. Your two emails could be identical, and brief. Please send even if you have done so previously.

This essential pro-life legislation, which did not get approved earlier in the session, has been revised and inserted in a different bill. The new bill, SB 368, must pass both chambers of the legislature this week, before adjournment Friday. It is urgent to contact Senators and House members with emails of Support for SB 368. The goal is to provide permanent protection for future generations of Oklahoma children.

Two ominous developments have occurred in recent weeks. The Oklahoma Supreme Court showed its hostility to unborn children by striking down a pro-life law enacted last year, and Wisconsin became the latest state in which the abortion industry won a statewide election that centered on abortion. Pro-abortion forces are now 7-0 in statewide votes since Roe v. Wade was overturned last June: seven pro-abortion victories, zero pro-abortion defeats.

A poll of Oklahoma voters' attitudes about abortion shows our current criminal law, abortion prohibited except to save a mother's life, is supported by just four percent (4%) of Oklahoma voters. SB 368, which would prohibit ninety-five percent (95%) of all abortions, reflects a pro-life position enacted last year in Oklahoma's civil abortion law, which includes rape reported to law enforcement and incest of a minor reported to law enforcement, and is supported by 71% of Oklahoma voters.

Those thinking SB 368 is not pro-life "enough" are thinking short-term rather than recognizing the reality of pro-abortion momentum since Roe v Wade was overturned last June. The abortion industry has huge advantages in money and pro-abortion media bias, and the initiative-petition process in our state leaves us totally dependent on "the consent of the governed," raw democracy, in defending a position supported by only 4% of voters.

We have two choices:

1. modify our current law to fortify our state against the pro-abortion onslaught that is coming by enacting SB 368 which would prohibit 95% of all abortions and represents a pro-life position supported by 71% of Oklahoma voters; or

2. take the short-term approach, refuse to act, and then lose the right to life for ALL unborn children in Oklahoma when the constitutional amendment is adopted next year bringing unlimited, unrestricted abortion on demand to our state.

No unborn child in Oklahoma will have a right to life under the constitutional amendment the abortion industry will propose. That's the pro-abortion option.

Will the pro-life option be one that is supported by 4% of Oklahoma voters, or one that is supported by 71% of Oklahoma voters? That is what's at stake. That is why SB 368 is absolutely essential.

Please send an email to senaterepub@okforlife.org and a second email to houserepub@okforlife.org urging SUPPORT for SB 368.

Thank you.

Tony Lauinger, State Chairman

Food for thought: The abolitionists are basically recycling Never-Trumper arguments.

THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE: State Rep. Jim Olsen (R-Roland) explains his opposition to SB 368.

UPDATE 2023/05/24: Today, the Senate rescinded its rejection of the House amendments to its bill and also rescinded its request for a conference committee. From page 2 of this morning's Senate Journal:

Senator Garvin asked unanimous consent, which was granted, that the Senate rescind the rejection of the House amendments and the request for conference for SB 368.

What this would seem to mean is that the same bill, the version with House Amendments, has now been approved by both House and Senate.

Some thoughts on the April 4, 2023, school board and municipal results, from my live-tweet thread. (ThreadReaderApp unroll here.)

At 7:36 pm, early results in the Tulsa school board election came from 4 of the 18 precincts in District 1, all east of the river (and thus incumbent Stacey Woolley's home turf). Woolley led Jared Buswell 366 to 67, also dominating absentee and early voting, 160-29. At that point in the Bixby election, only absentee/early votes were in, with incumbent Matt Dotson leading Julie Bentley, 79-42.

In Tulsa and Bixby, challengers Buswell and Bentley were running on platforms supporting transparency and parental rights and opposing obscene materials in school libraries.

At 7:50 pm, we were still waiting for three big west-of-the-river precincts to report, but Woolley's home precinct was also yet to come in. Woolley was leading 865-359. Buswell won the two working-class precincts on the west end of Chas Page Blvd, but not downtown-adjacent neighborhoods, like Owen Park, The [formerly Brady] Heights, and Crosbie Heights.

By 8:00 pm, Woolley had won her home precinct, North Maple Ridge & Swan Lake, 412 to 80. Buswell won the precinct encompassing Red Fork and Carbondale, including Webster HS, 132 to 61 -- dominating but by a smaller percentage and with a much lower turnout.
Buswell won his own precinct (720123), but only 100-72. Woolley won the old West Tulsa precinct, just across the river from downtown. That precinct includes the Westport Apartments and a great deal of public housing. The only precincts yet to report were the Gilcrease Hills precincts in Osage County; those also went to Woolley.

There were upsets, but not in the high-profile Tulsa and Bixby school board races. In Berryhill, challenger Danny Bean defeated incumbent Doc Geiger, 170-76. Tracy Hanlon defeated incumbent Rusty Gunn for a seat on the Sand Springs school board, 289-220. Jerald Freeman defeated Skiatook city councilor Joyce Jech, 98-77.

In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma's 4th largest city, Mayor Debra Wimpee had a good night, even though she wasn't on the ballot. Her endorsed candidates won in all three council races. Adding this election to the 2021 results, the entire council is composed of her allies. Vice Mayor Christi Gillespie won a rematch against longtime councilor Mike Lester, the incumbent she beat in 2019. Challenger Joe Franco beat incumbent Scott Eudey. In the at-large council seat, incumbent Johnnie Parks survived with 45% of the vote. William Vaughn improved his 2019 performance with 36%, but voters opposed to Parks split their votes with two other candidates once again. Some conservative organizations backed George Ghesquire, who finished third.

The award for the lowest turnout in any Oklahoma election went to the Town of Ochelata in Washington Co., which had only 10 voters. There were two propositions on the ballot that each tied 5 votes for, 5 against. The propositions were to decide whether the Town Clerk and Town Treasurer would become offices appointed by the Board of Trustees, rather than elected. Ochelata has 279 registered voters. The Town of Avant in Osage County also voted whether to appoint Town Clerk and Treasurer, and the votes also were tied 8 to 8 for both propositions, but there are only 186 voters, so they managed 8.6% turnout!

Biggest turnout was for a regular election was for a seat on the board of the Indian Capital Tech Center -- 8,029 votes over 4 counties and parts of 4 more. Challenger Mark Walters defeated incumbent Scott Chambers, 4,158 to 3,871. Ascend Action was the consulting team supporting Walters's campaign.

The biggest turnout of all was for the Oklahoma County special election for County Clerk. Republican Marissa Treat (wife of State Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat) won 52% to 48%, with a total vote of 42,410.

Last results of the night came from Washita County. All precincts in the state had reported by 9:35 pm.

As I was tweeting, I was periodically refreshing the Oklahoma State Election Board results page, which brought to mind a number of suggestions for improvements, which I tweeted out @OKElections (but with no response):

• A visible permalink for each race, so I don't go all the way back to Achille when I'm refreshing the Tulsa results. This would also make it easier to point people (via Twitter and elsewhere on social media) directly to a specific result of interest.
• Make it possible to look up sample ballots without needing the name and birthdate of a voter in that jurisdiction. Right now there is no simple way to see the ballot title for a proposition in another jurisdiction except to find a voter in that jurisdiction and plug his/her name and date of birth into the OK voter portal.
• Put geographical name first in the list of entities, e.g. "Broken Arrow, City of," "Ochelata, Town of," so that all municipal elections in the results list sort by geographical name, as is the case for school districts. I don't always remember whether a municipality is a city or a town.
• Group local results by type of jurisdiction. Right now, the city and town results are mixed in alphabetically with K-12 and technology center school districts. All results for cities are between Cimarron Public Schools and Colcord Public Schools, and all results for towns are between Tonkawa Public Schools and Tulsa Public Schools.

The day after the election, the Tulsa Whirled decided to report on a Tulsa Public Schools audit finding involving $364,000 in questionably legal contracts. Although the report had been discussed in the TPS board meeting on Monday night, the Whirled delayed reporting on it until it was too late to inform voters deciding whether the school board president deserved another term. TPS board and administration deserve some blame as well -- the open records request wasn't answered until Wednesday morning. The report from the audit firm is dated March 30, 2023, the Thursday before the election.

April 4, 2023, is general election day across Oklahoma for school board races and for municipalities that use the default forms of municipal government established by state statute. Many cities with city charters that define a customized government structure still use the default dates for city elections. As is all too typical for local elections, many races failed to draw more than one candidate.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. To find your polling place and take a look at sample ballots, visit the Oklahoma State Election Board's voter portal.

Four Tulsa County school districts have school board races on the ballot. For Tulsa Office No. 1, incumbent Democrat Stacey Woolley faces Republican challenger Jared Buswell. For Berryhill Office No. 3, Danny Bean vs. Doc Geiger. For Bixby Office No. 3, Julie Bentley vs. Matt Dotson. For Sand Springs Office No. 3, Tracy Hanlon vs. Rusty Gunn.

Three Broken Arrow city council seats are on the ballot: Mike Lester v. Christie Gillespie in District 3, Scott Eudey vs. Joe Franco in DIstrict 4, and four candidates for the at-large council seat: George Ghesquire, Sonjia J. Potter, William Vaughn, Johnnie D. Parks. One Bixby city council seat, Monica Rios v. Ken Hirshey. One Skiatook seat: Joyce Jech vs. Jerald Freeman.

Below is a list of candidates running in Tulsa County school board and municipal elections. The name as it appears on the ballot is followed by the name under which the candidate is registered to vote, the party of voter registration, age as of election day, and then a list of web pages and social media profiles related to each candidate:

School Board seats

Except in the Tulsa school district, voters anywhere in a school district can vote in the election for any school board seat, regardless of election district. In the Tulsa school district, only voters in Election District No. 1 may vote.

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 1:

• Jared Buswell (Jared David Buswell), R, 39, 1860 W. 58th St.: campaign website, personal FB, campaign FB.
• Stacey Woolley (Stacey Ryan Woolley), D, 47, 1110 E. 20th St., incumbent: campaign website, personal FB, campaign FB.

Berryhill Office No. 3:

• Danny Bean (Daniel Earle Bean), R, 42: personal FB
• Doc Geiger (James Conrad Geiger), R, 73, incumbent: personal FB

Bixby Office No. 3:

• Julie Bentley (Julie Lynn Bentley), R, 52: personal FB, campaign FB.
• Matt Dotson (Matthew Ray Dotson), R, 42, incumbent: personal FB.

Sand Springs Office No. 3:

• Tracy Hanlon (Tracy Anne Hanlon), R, 42: personal FB
• Rusty Gunn (Rusty Don Gunn), R, 45, incumbent since 2013: personal FB

City Council seats

Three Broken Arrow city council seats are on the ballot. Under the statutory charter, registered voters from anywhere in the city can vote in all races. In Bixby, only residents of Council District 3 may vote; incumbent councilor Paul Blair is not seeking re-election. Under Skiatook's city charter, registered voters from anywhere in the city can vote in all races.

Broken Arrow City Council Ward 3:

• Christi Gillespie, (Christi D. Gillespie), R, 53, incumbent, vice mayor: personal FB, campaign FB.
• Mike Lester (Michael Edward Lester), R, 75, former incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB

Broken Arrow City Council Ward 4:

• Scott Eudey (Scott Riley Eudey), R, 49, incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB
• Joe Franco (Joseph Dale Franco), R, 45: personal FB, campaign FB

Broken Arrow City Council At-Large:

• George Ghesquire (George Camiel Ghesquire III), R, 54: personal FB, campaign FB
• Johnnie D. Parks, R, 75, incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB
• Sonjia J. Potter (Sonjia Juanita Potter), R, 76: No social media or website found
• William Vaughn (William Daniel Vaughn), R, 49: personal FB, campaign FB

Bixby City Council, Ward 3:

• Ken Hirshey (Kenneth Loyd Hirshey, Jr.), R, 63: Oklahoma Environmental Quality Board website, company website
• Monica Rios (Monica Joi Rios), R, 48: personal FB, campaign FB

Skiatook, Ward 3:

• Jerald Freeman, R, 85: personal FB
• Joyce Jech (Joyce May Jech), R, 77, incumbent: campaign FB

Endorsements:

If I could vote in the TPS Office 1 race, I would vote for Republican challenger Jared Buswell. Buswell, a member of Asbury Church, serves as chairman of the board of Favor International, a Christian ministry working in war-affected areas of Africa -- specifically northern Uganda and South Sudan -- to relieve suffering, proclaim the gospel, build churches and Christian leadership, educate, build community infrastructure, and train to empower economic development. Buswell has been involved with Favor since 2012 and has helped to build Favor's donor base from $300,000 to $6 million per year. Buswell also has a business called Look Inside Tulsa, which uses 360-degree spherical photography to provide VR views of home and building interiors. Originally from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he came to Tulsa in 2001 to attend Oral Roberts University and has lived in west Tulsa since 2007.

His opponent, incumbent Democrat Stacey Woolley, has presided over the continued decline of Tulsa Public Schools, which badly underperforms the rest of the state by every measure. The Whirled's endorsement is inadvertently damning. The Whirled says that, "Among her top accomplishments is refocusing school meetings to student achievement and simplifying operational votes to a consent agenda." This was a move against public transparency and accountability: Last July, the consent agenda was used to hide the board's acceptance of a grant from a non-profit funded by the Chinese Communist Party; it was only exposed because board members E'Lena Ashley, Jerry Griffin, and Jennettie Marshall voted against the consent agenda as a whole.

The Whirled also applauds Woolley for "help[ing to] update the superintendent's evaluation, making it among the nation's few based almost entirely on student outcomes." If that's so, why does Deborah Gist still have a job, when student outcomes continue to be abysmal? And yet Woolley has repeatedly voted to extend Gist's contract.

Election District 1 includes all of the Tulsa school district west of the Arkansas River, plus downtown Tulsa, the neighborhoods along Charles Page Blvd west of downtown, the southern portion of Gilcrease Hills, Brady Heights, Pearl District south of 6th Street, Tracy Park, Swan Lake, North Maple Ridge, and Riverview. Like most of his prospective constituents, Buswell lives west of the river, in a modest home valued by the county assessor at $119,221, located in Woodview Heights near 61st and Union. Woolley lives in the wealthiest neighborhood in the ward, North Maple Ridge, in the extreme eastern extent of the district, in a home valued by the county assessor at $585,301. It is a sadly frequent redistricting technique to gerrymander a few exclusive neighborhoods into an otherwise working-class, middle-class district, so as to maximize the number of the connected and wealthy on an elected board or council.

In the Bixby school board race, I would vote for challenger Julie Bentley over incumbent Matt Dotson. Bentley is a certified teacher who has taught 13 years in the Bixby district and is the mom of a current Bixby High School student. Dotson appears to be a subservient rubber stamp for superintendent Rob Miller, who has expressed his contempt for concerned citizens who speak at board meetings. Dotson refused to take a firm stand against inappropriate books in the curriculum and the library, preferring to invest total confidence in the district employee he's supposed to be holding accountable. (Miller's blog View from the Edge, which he ended in 2017, shortly before he was hired as Bixby superintendent, reveals his hostility to public accountability for the performance of public schools.)

Endorsements from conservative groups:

• Tulsa County Republican Party: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Bixby Parents Voice: Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Moms for Liberty: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Oklahomans for the Second Amendment (OK2A): Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3); Christie Gillespie (Broken Arrow Council 3), Joe Franco (Broken Arrow Council 4), George Ghesquire (Broken Arrow Council At-Large). William Vaughn (Broken Arrow Council At-Large) also had an A-rated survey.
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3); Christie Gillespie (Broken Arrow Council 3), Joe Franco (Broken Arrow Council 4). George Ghesquire and William Vaughn in the Broken Arrow Council At-Large election each had an A-rated survey, but OKHPR did not endorse in that race.

The incumbent and challenger in the Tulsa School Board District 1 race have each raised over $50,000 according to campaign contribution and expenditures reports filed with the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk.

As of the March 20, 2023, close of the pre-election reporting period, Democrat incumbent Stacey Woolley had raised $51,798, while Republican challenger Jared Buswell had raised $58,643.

Woolley's donor list includes contributors connected with the foundations whose influence has propelled Tulsa Public Schools toward its abysmal academic performance. Maximum $2,900 donors include the Lynn Schusterman Revocable Trust, the Stacy Schusterman Revocable Trust, Frederic Dorwart (attorney for the George Kaiser Family Foundation and related entities), and Philip Kaiser (son of George Kaiser). George Kaiser made a personal donation of $500. Big Democrat donors George Krumme and Burt Holmes also gave maximum donations. Attorney Robert A. Curry gave $1,500 in aggregate, and Joseph Parker Jr. and Robert Thomas each gave $1,000. Employees of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, the George Kaiser Family Foundation, Tulsa Community Foundation, Zarrow Family Foundations also appear on Woolley's list of contributors. Other notable names include left-wing Democrat Tulsa City Councilors Laura Bellis and Lori Decter Wright, former Democrat Mayor M. Susan Savage and her ex-husband Grant Hall, Democrat State Reps. Melodye Blancett and Suzanne Schreiber (also a former school board member), and Democrat former school board member Cindy Decker, head of GKFF-backed Tulsa Educare. "Friends of Shawna Keller," the campaign committee of the east Tulsa school board incumbent defeated a year ago by E'Lena Ashley, gave $1,000 to Woolley.

Republican challenger Jared Buswell raised $57,643.55, including $6,573.55 in in-kind contributions. Buswell received maximum $2,900 contributions from H. Michael Krimbill, L. Avery Krimbill, Christie Glesener, Tom Culver, and Vivienne Culver. The latter two contributions were in-kind as office rent reductions. Buswell received several large PAC contributions: Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC), $2,350; Women Working for Oklahoma PAC, $2,000; Oklahoma Realtors PAC, $1,000. Other lare donors include Brian & Pauline Robinson, $2,500; Kent Glesener, $2,500; Rob Prulhiere, $2,000; Julia Sublett, $2,000; Suzanne Behr, $1,500; Frances Fleming, $1,500; Michael Phillips, $1,500 (including $250 in-kind for yard signs); Jody Tell, $1,200; Matthew Watson, $1,000; Ken Sellers, $1,000; Thomas Carruth, $1,000; Michael Ross, $1,000; Reed Downey Jr, $1,000; Alvin Loeffler, $1,000. Former District Attorney Tim Harris, who ran unsuccessfully for the District 7 board seat last year, contributed $250 to Buswell. Buswell reports giving $2,750 to his own campaign, plus another $349.48 in in-kind contributions, purchasing push cards, yard signs, and other printing for the campaign.

The initial set of documents sent by inquiries@tulsaschools.org in response to my Open Records request did not include the full list of Woolley's contributors. Melissa Remington of Tulsa Parents Voice observed that the sum of itemized contributions in Schedule A was over $30,000 less than the reported contribution total. Remington also noticed that the list of contributions abruptly ended on January 17, 2023, despite a well-publicized fundraiser hosted by Democrat former Mayor Kathy Taylor and Democrat State Rep. Monroe Nichols on February 16. Remington called the discrepancies to the attention of Woolley, the school board clerk, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, and others.

Remington and I subsequently received an update to our separate open records requests from Emma Garrett-Nelson, whose email signature gives "pronouns" "(she/her/hers)" and describes herself as Executive Director of Communications & Strategy, with the following statement: "We uncovered a glitch in our Adobe PDF reader that we've since addressed, so please use these rather than the files we sent you on March 28. This is everything responsive to your request." The attachment was an oddly-formatted report of contributions only, in which the page header appeared at different places on the page and contribution amounts appeared in a variety of font sizes, including unnecessarily small. The original version was clearly a scan of the filed hardcopy report, complete with the Tulsa Public Schools "RECEIVED" date stamp. The new contributions-only report has no scanning artifacts -- text is selectable and there are no date stamps.

The explanation of "a glitch in our Adobe PDF reader" doesn't fit the evidence. In the original version there are no indications that the reverse sides of pages were not scanned or that consecutive pages were missed by a scanner. An explanation more consistent with the evidence is that the Woolley campaign failed to submit a complete report by the deadline, whether or not accidentally.

This raises a concern with the current process. The "Executive Director of Communications & Strategy" is likely to depend on the goodwill of her boss, Superintendent Deborah Gist, for her continued employment. She would have some incentive to help cover over the mistakes of an incumbent candidate who has been an unquestioning supporter of her boss. It would be best for all concerned if all campaign ethics reporting, for every office and proposition in every political subdivision at every level, were through the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's Guardian system, rather than forcing citizens to make open records requests to access campaign filings that should be accessible to the public the instant they are submitted.

To its credit, for the first time in a long time the Tulsa Whirled reported on the pre-election ethics filings, but reporter Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton failed to notice the discrepancy in contributions and didn't find any significance in the maximum donations to Woolley. The Whirled reporter found it interesting that current school board member E'Lena Ashley contributed to Jared Buswell's campaign, but not that former board members Suzanne Schreiber, Cindy Decker, and Shawna Keller (via her campaign fund) did.

FILES: The following are the files provided by the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk in response to my open records request. I have run each through optical character recognition and changed file names to improve consistency and searchability.

• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Jared_Buswell-2022Q4.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Jared_Buswell-2023-PreElection.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2022Q4.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2023-PreElection-Original.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2023-PreElection-Contributions-Revised.pdf

More warnings from professionals who work with teenagers about the dangers of legalizing recreational marijuana by passing Oklahoma State Question 820 and the damage already caused by the dysfunctional medical marijuana regime approved through SQ 788 in 2018.

School Administrators Urge NO Vote on SQ 820

OKCPS Superintendent Sean McDaniel: "Legalizing recreational marijuana for adults will lead to more children having access and trying it"

School administrators from across the state gathered at the state capitol today to encourage a NO vote on SQ 820, the effort to legalize recreational marijuana in the state. All speakers iterated they were making these statements as individuals with experience in our schools and were not speaking on behalf of the entities where they are employed.

Muskogee Superintendent Dr. Jarod Mendenhall led off the event. "Under the cover of the state's medical marijuana program, we have seen an increase in students using marijuana. SQ 820 will increase that access and puts our schools in a very difficult situation because marijuana's use is so difficult to detect. As educators our goal is to maximize a student's ability to achieve, but marijuana strikes at that very core. Ingesting THC as the adolescent brain is actively developing has horrible consequences. Marijuana use among those under 25 harms brain development including difficulty in thinking, problem solving, and memory loss," Mendenhall stated.

Dr. Matt Posey, Superintendent of Bethel Public Schools a rural school district in Pottawatomie County serving approximately 400 students, was among the speakers.

"Speaking as an Oklahoma citizen, I'm deeply concerned about the possibility of legalizing recreational marijuana and its potential impact on Oklahoma students and education. Teen marijuana use is already a major concern, and I anticipate that recreational legalization will only exacerbate the current problems by dramatically increasing accessibility," Posey stated.

"Bethel Public Schools does not take a position for, or against, SQ820. However, I urge voters to further consider the potential impacts that legalizing recreational marijuana may have on Oklahoma students and the school environment. We must take steps to ensure that our students have access to safe and healthy academic environments with an emphasis on their overall health and well-being," Posey concluded.

Guthrie High School principal Chris LeGrande also expressed his concerns. "As a school administrator speaking as a private citizen, the legalization of recreational marijuana is very concerning. Marijuana in its simplest form is a gateway drug that leads to more serious drug addictions. Marijuana's use creates a carefree persona that is detrimental to learning and subsequent academic achievement," state LeGrande.

A few school leaders who could not attend also issued statements in opposition to State Question 820. One of these was Dr. Joe Siano who served as Superintendent for Norman Public Schools for 17 years.

"Schools across our state have seen an increase in marijuana usage under the medical marijuana system. Moving to legalizing recreational marijuana will make this worse. Our school leaders want the focus to be on academic achievement, but the proliferation of marijuana in our communities and the consequential increase in its usage among our students and in our schools takes us away from that central mission. Not only does recreational legalization lead to more individual lives being sidetracked by addiction, but it diverts the resources of our schools, ultimately hurting all of our children, our families, and our communities," stated Siano.

Oklahoma City Public Schools District 89 serves more student than any other in the state. Their leader, Superintendent Sean McDaniel also provided a statement.

"During my more than 30 years working to improve the lives of young people, it is still heart-breaking to see a child damage, or even destroy, a promising future by starting down the road of substance abuse which often begins with marijuana. The record is clear, legalizing recreational marijuana for adults will lead to more children having access and trying it out. With today's high THC, that means the more of our youth and young adults will have their addiction circuitry activated.. No amount of tax dollars is worth putting one life, one family, one community, through the pain that can cause.

The school administrators were joined and supported by state legislators and members of the law enforcement community as well as Protect Our Kids NO 820 Co-Chairs, former Governor Frank Keating and former Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Terri White.

Earlier coverage of SQ 820:

• NO on Oklahoma SQ 820 recreational marijuana legalization
• No on SQ 820 marijuana: More voices

More commentary opposed to SQ 820, on the ballot this Tuesday, March 7, 2023. (My earlier SQ 820 blog post covers campaign finances, the actual text of the proposition, and more voices against the proposition.)

Twitter user Chels (@ChesterTweet) has a link-rich thread "explaining why every Oklahoman should vote NO on SQ820." Chels is a returned Oklahoma who lived in Colorado during the vote on marijuana legalization there and its aftermath. You can find the full thread captured on ThreadReader and here as a PDF. Among the concerns:

3:In CO, we witnessed many ppl who relied on pot to function have to switch to hard drugs b/c they could no longer afford it legally or illegally. Many died. Legalizing will harm children who can no longer afford to experiment. They will also turn to hard drugs as an alternative.

8: Every state that has legalized marijuana deteriorated rapidly following legalization. This includes but certainly isn't limited to increased homelessness, increased crime, legalizing other drugs, fentanyl overdoses...etc. (Oregon, CA, Washington, MA, NY, Colorado, etc.)

9: Colorado got comfortable with cannabis, the stakes raised and now it's onto psilocybin and currently discussing safe places to do heroin. No end in sight.

10: In CO, there are numerous reports of violence at cannabis shops. Several security guards have been shot, one killed. Armed robberies are common b/c of the amount of cash on hand. Unfortunately, marijuana has proven to be a breeding ground for other illegal activities.

Chels backs those statements up with a long list of links to crime rates and criminal activity following the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Dispensaries themselves are significant targets for burglary and armed robbery because of the amounts of cash typically available. Chels then adds a string of links and screenshots from studies on the mental health effects of marijuana.

Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico has several recent reports on state leaders and elected officials opposing SQ 820, including U. S. Sen. James Lankford, Muskogee police chief Johnny Teehee, 39 of 48 members of the Oklahoma Senate, former Mental Health Commissioner Terri White, and the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association, Oklahoma District Attorneys' Association and the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police.

You can click the links above for full statements, but here are a few key points:

Sen. Lankford writes:

Drug cartels--from not just south of the border, but also Asia--are now deeply ingrained across Oklahoma, operating grow facilities that ship marijuana across the country. Oklahomans often now wake up to read the news about the latest execution-style murder, human trafficking, or prostitution at a grow facility in rural Oklahoma.... Oklahoma is now the top source for black market marijuana in the nation. So much for the argument that widening legal access to a drug gets rid of the illicit market.

Thousands of acres of land and buildings are being purchased across Oklahoma by foreign nationals and perhaps even governments to grow marijuana. In fact, two years after medical marijuana passed in Oklahoma, people in the state sold more land to foreign entities than any other state in America.

Chief Teehee:

When my father returned from serving in Vietnam, he turned to alcohol to cope. Marijuana was the gateway drug that entrapped my mother and held her until she finally got clean in prison. If not for my grandparents and the small town of Vian, there is no telling where I would be today. But they stuck with me, shepherded me, and led me on a better path. That was tough. I don't know that it would have been successful in a world with legal weed. It is already tough enough to evade the world of substance abuse, but if recreational marijuana is given legal status, it will be even more difficult....

Legalizing recreational marijuana tells Oklahomans - including those under the age of 21 - that marijuana must not be that bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today's marijuana has much higher concentration of THC, the component that creates the "high" and that is addictive. Consumption has been correlated with increased prevalence of suicidal ideation, psychoses, and schizophrenia. Addiction leads to poor decision-making as an addict looks to feed a habit.

The state senators echoed the above concerns about the health impacts of marijuana and the growth of organized crime and also pointed out that:

• The maximum $25 penalty for violating laws related to smoking marijuana in public is not a deterrent and will lead to more Oklahomans being exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke.
• This state question permits smoking and use of marijuana around toddlers and infants.
• This state question makes it more difficult for courts to address marijuana issues in custody and visitation cases.
• Our state's medical marijuana system is slowly improving and adding recreational will make it even more difficult to get that system to where Oklahomans think it should be.
• Because of the passage of SQ 780 in 2016, minor marijuana possession charges are no longer punishable by imprisonment, so SQ 820 is not needed for this purpose.

(The nine senators that did not sign the statement opposing SQ 820 are Kevin Matthews (D-11), Mary Boren (D-16), Julia Kirt (D-30), Nathan Dahm (R-33), Jo Anna Dossett (D-35) Carri Hicks (D-40), Michael Brooks (D-44), Kay Floyd (D-46), George Young (D-48) -- all 8 Democrat state senators, plus Republican Nathan Dahm.)

Sheriffs, DAs, and police chiefs have spoken out against Yes on 820's dishonest ads:

The Yes on 820 campaign commercials claim passage will "make our communities safer".

"SQ 820 throws a match into the middle of what already is a powder keg in rural Oklahoma," said Sheriff Damon Devereaux of Logan County who also serves as President of the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association. "Illegal grows, black market operations, organized crime, even execution style killings were all spawned by the poorly drafted initiative petition known as 788, and 820 builds on that flawed process," Devereaux continued.

Former Commissioner White, who is CEO of the Mental Health Association of Oklahoma, writes:

White has been a longtime advocate for strong brain health. Her opposition to 820 is based in science. Marijuana, particularly the high content THC marijuana of today, has health risks for all brains - particularly developing brains in youth and young adults and those vulnerable to addiction. "Oklahoma already has high rates of mental health and substance use issues and the door to get into treatment is too narrow. We cannot in good conscience exacerbate this problem; we must protect our youth and young adults," White said.

The science is clear that high content THC marijuana has been associated with an increase in suicidal ideation, the onset of psychosis, and the activation of addiction circuitry especially in brains under the age of 25 where the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed.

All of Oklahoma's voters have an election on Tuesday, March 7, 2023. The only thing on the ballot is State Question 820, which would enact a law to legalize marijuana for any purpose, over and above the "medical" marijuana law, SQ 788, approved by voters in June 2018.

I will be voting NO - AGAINST THE PROPOSITION, and I hope you will join me in turning out to cast a no vote and encouraging friends and family to do the same. Polls will be open on election day, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Early voting will be available on Thursday, March 2, and Friday, March 3, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. at at least one location in each county; Tulsa County will have early voting at the election board downtown and at the Hardesty Regional Library in south Tulsa.

In 2018, Oklahoma voters approved "medical" marijuana, perhaps imagining pharmacists in white coats measuring carefully calibrated doses of THC to relieve the pain of terminal cancer patients. Instead, dispensaries with punny names (e.g. "Dank of Oklahoma," "Oklahoma Natural Grass") filled every vacant storefront selling varieties with names that evoke lost weekends and Cheech and Chong albums, rather than pharmaceutical precision: "Maui Wowie," "Acapulco Gold," "Bad Parent," "Gary Satan," "Kingpin Kush OG," and "Terdz," which reportedly smells of "sweet diesel, fruit, and candy." According to an LA Times video report, Oklahoma has 2,301 dispensaries compared to 913 in California, and nearly as many licensed cultivators as the Golden State -- 8,014 in Oklahoma and 8,757 in California.

What SQ 788 made bad, SQ 820 would make worse. Among other provisions, SQ 820 would forbid taking marijuana use into consideration in child custody decisions. This goes beyond removing criminal sanctions for low-level use and treats the use of a mind-altering drug as inconsequential.

Unlike most state questions, SQ 820 is not a constitutional amendment. If approved by a majority of voters statewide, a new piece of legislation, 16 pages in length, will be enacted into law, adding Sections 431 through 446 to Title 63, Public Health & Safety, the same as if the legislature had passed a bill. The actual legislation is contained in pages 3-18 of the PDF for State Question 820 on the Oklahoma Secretary of State website. (The PDF also includes legal challenges concerning the validity of the proposal, petition tallies, and the legal battle over the summary that will appear on the ballot.) Because SQ 820 is statutory, the legislature could subsequently amend the law contained in this state question, but political considerations would deter a legislator from making changes to a question approved by a majority of voters in his own district.

Eighteen Oklahoma state questions legalizing marijuana in some form have been filed with the Secretary of State, beginning with SQ 501 in 1973, a single-page proposition that would have removed all "civil or criminal penalties for the use, possession, cultivation, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, of marihuana by persons eighteen years of age or older." Distributing to a minor would have been a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $100. The petition failed for an insufficient number of signatures, and that was the last attempt for until SQ 768 in 2014, a medical marijuana proposal which garnered less than half the signatures required. Of the 18 proposed state questions, six were withdrawn by their proponents, five failed to garner sufficient signatures, four were abandoned (no signatures ever filed), one (SQ 813) was stricken from the ballot by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2020 for lack of an accurate and sufficient gist to advise petition signers of the full scope of the proposed constitutional amendment; the remaining two are SQ 788 and SQ 820, both statutory proposals. The proponents of SQ 820 also proposed SQ 821 as a backup if the State Supreme Court had held that SQ 820 violated the single-subject requirement of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Yes on 820 - Oklahomans for Sensible Marijuana Laws raised $3,229,547.76 as of December 31, 2022, the last date they had to file a full contributions and expenditures report. They have spent $4,183,920.28 as of Friday, February 24, 2003. Major individual pro-pot contributors include Stacy Schusterman ($250,000), Harold Hamm's ex-wife Sue Ann Arnall ($100,000), and George Krumme ($25,000). The Charles & Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies gave $50,000, and the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union donated $30,000.

Most of the financial support for the "vote yes" cause has come from out-of-state leftist organizations. The Just Trust for Action of Asheville, NC, which is targeting Oklahoma for "criminal justice reform" (aka releasing dangerous criminals from prison) has contributed $1,171,400.00. The New Approach Advocacy Fund of Washington DC has contributed $750,319.95 some of which was in-kind "campaign advising." The ACLU has donated $570,476.00, including "staff time." Drug Policy Action of New York City gave $218,000.01.

It is disappointing to see the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs on the list of Just Trust for Action grant recipients, along with the ACLU of Oklahoma, the Terence Crutcher Foundation, the leftist Oklahoma Policy Institute, and the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma. OCPA is conservative on most issues but has been outspoken in support of "criminal justice reform" measures that have turned criminals loose to continue to prey on law-abiding Oklahomans. While OCPA published an critical article by Mike Brake on the impact of medical marijuana in 2021, I was unable to find any commentary on ocpathink.org regarding SQ 820.

Protect Our Kids No 820, chaired by former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, has spent $158,150.00 as of Friday. They have not yet been required to file a full campaign and expenditures report, which is due on a quarterly basis.

Organizational opponents of SQ 820 include the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Sheriff's Association, the Oklahoma State Chamber, and the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association. The Farm Bureau's press release cites "the effects the marijuana industry has on rural Oklahoma, including placing significant strain on rural utility providers and making common land management practices like herbicide application a greater challenge." The State Chamber states:

Oklahoma passed SQ 788 in 2018, making medical marijuana legal, but it failed to create a regulatory system needed for a true medical marijuana program. SQ 820 also lacks a sufficient regulatory scheme and implementation plan, both of which are essential for introducing recreational marijuana into the state.

SQ 820 adversely affects the state in a variety of ways, including its impact on children, workforce reliability and limited regulatory environment, as well as law enforcement concerns.

"Oklahoma is still trying to sort out the aftereffects of our hastily approved medical marijuana program. To this day, our state is suffering from serious regulatory and enforcement issues," said Chad Warmington, president and CEO of The State Chamber. "SQ 820 has many unforeseen consequences that will no doubt add to the overall marijuana crisis in Oklahoma. Approving SQ 820 makes the situation worse without solving the problems that persist. We encourage Oklahomans to say 'No' to SQ 820."

Even some pro-cannabis forces are opposed to SQ 820. Jed Green, director of Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action, and proponent of two proposals that failed to reach the ballot, filed petitions with the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the legal sufficiency and constitutionallity of SQ 820. A Reddit post raises concerns that SQ 820 will drive mom-and-pop dispensaries and growers out of business, in favor of big corporate growers and retailers.

MORE:

Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action, a pro-pot group that has not endorsed SQ 820, has a matter-of-fact SQ 820 FAQ sheet.

Parents Opposed to Pot: Bursting the Bubble of Marijuana Hype (poppot.org) is a cornucopia of information on the medical and social damage done by marijuana use. This article on the upcoming Oklahoma vote reports on 10 marijuana-related deaths last year -- 6 due to a teen driver who tested positive for cannabis, 4 involving a farm operated by Chinese nationals under an illegally obtained grow license.

Tulsa constitutional attorney Leah Farish has done two interviews on marijuana, health, and the law on her Conversation Balloons podcast:

• Ken Finn, MD, a board-certified pain management physician in Colorado
• Jordan Davidson, a former teen marijuana addict who now, at age 22, works for Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization but advocates for treatment, rather than incarceration, for low-level users.

League of Women Voters forum on SQ 820 features Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler and Tulsa Health Department director Bruce Dart speaking in opposition to the proposal and speaking of the dangers in terms of public health and law enforcement. Paid proponent Michelle Tilley's rebuttal avoided the issues raised by Kunzweiler and Dart with vague claims of "scare tactics" and by saying that the legislature could fix problems later. We are still trying to fix problems caused by SQ 788. While there is value in the initiative and referendum process, as a bypass for a legislature that has lost its way, it is a lousy way to enact complex legislation, which needs the scrutiny that the legislative process can provide.

Marijuana Moment coverage of Oklahoma propositions

Above: 75 years ago today, a newspaper advertisement from the February 27, 1948, Washington Countian of Dewey, Oklahoma, for the movie "Marihuana: The Weed with Its Roots in Hell"

Tuesday, Februrary 14, 2023, is the annual school primary for all Oklahoma public school districts. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. You can view your sample ballot and find the address of your polling place at the Oklahoma Voter Portal.

At least one school board seat in every district is up for re-election every year, but this year as always few are contested. Up through the 2018 election, any contested school board seat would be on the ballot for the 2nd Tuesday in February, with a runoff on the 1st Tuesday in April if no one won a majority of the vote. Now, the February election is regarded as a primary and the April election as a general, so any race with only two candidates automatically occurs in April, and the April election serves as a runoff for races with three or more candidates where none wins more than 50% of the vote.

Tulsa County has only one school board race on Tuesday's ballot: Owasso Office No. 3. Incumbent Neal Kessler, a 47-year-old registered Republican, is being challenged by Republican Vincent Donaldson, 67, and Democrat Kristy Moon, 41. Donaldson is a retired Tulsa Public School teacher with 21 years of service, 18 of which were in special education, and is now a Realtor. The Tulsa County Republican Party Candidate Committee interviewed and recommended Vincent Donaldson.

Here are their social media and web pages.

Vincent Donaldson: Campaign website, campaign FB page, personal FB profile.
Neal Kessler: Campaign website, campaign FB page, personal FB profile.
Kristy Moon: Campaign FB page.

Owasso schools have been in the news, and not in a good way, several times in the past year, garnering the attention of Libs of TikTok as well as traditional media. In October, Owasso superintendent Margaret Coates banned a student's father from school grounds; the father had confronted his board member after a board meeting over pornographic materials in the school library. A federal judge slapped down the school's ban. During the previous school year, Owasso middle school teacher Tyler Wrynn posted a TikTok video telling his students, "F--- your parents! I'm your parents now!" While Wrynn left Owasso (and wound up at Tulsa Will Rogers High School), Owasso parents reasonably want to know how a self-proclaimed anarchist hostile to parental authority over their middle-school children gets hired by their allegedly conservative district.

Three other Tulsa County districts each have two bond issues on the ballot. School bond issues result in a property tax increase, as the annual debt service for each bond is divided across the district's total assessed property value, resulting in the tax rate increase. The increase in property taxes from a bond issue approval may be offset by a decrease as previous bond issues are paid off, but approving any bond issue will result in higher property taxes than if the bond issue were defeated. Unlike most propositions in Oklahoma, school bond issues must pass by 60% of those voting. The 2017 School Bond Transparency Act, requires school districts to publish details of their proposed and past bond issue expenditures; see below to links for those districts with bond issues on the ballot. Except where noted, Proposition No. 1 is always for "constructing, equipping, repairing and remodeling school buildings, acquiring school furniture, fixtures and equipment and acquiring and improving school sites" (building and equipment) and Proposition No. 2 is for "purchasing transportation equipment."

Jenks Public Schools:

• Jenks 2023 bond transparency act statement
• Proposition No. 1 (building & equipment): $16,255,000
• Proposition No. 2 (transportation equipment): $945,000 for

Skiatook Public Schools:

• Skiatook 2023 bond transparency act statement
• Proposition No. 1 (building & equipment): $13,470,000
• Proposition No. 2 (transportation equipment): $730,000

Union Public Schools:

• Union 2023 bond transparency act statement
• Proposition No. 1 (building & equipment): $146,540,000
• Proposition No. 2 (transportation equipment): $5,460,000

In our neighboring counties, there are contested elections for school board Office No. 3 in Chouteau-Mazie, Claremore, and Wagoner, and school bond issue propositions (links go to the Bond Transparency Act notice for each district). Prop 1 is for buildings & equipment, Prop 2 for transportation equipment unless otherwise noted.

• Bartlesville: Prop 1, $37,400,000; Prop 2, $600,000.
• Catoosa: Prop for buildings & equipment, $9,000,000 to cover elementary school cost overruns
• Coweta: Prop for buildings & equipment, $50,200,000
• Fort Gibson: Prop 1, $6,400,000; Prop 2, $600,000.
• Inola: Prop 1, $2,075,000; Prop 2, $510,000.
• Olive: Prop 1, $830,000; Prop 2, $285,000.
• Osage Hills: Prop 1, $195,100; Prop 2, $100,000.
• Sequoyah (Rogers Co.): Prop 1, $18,385,000; Prop 2, $400,000.
• Woodland (Osage Co.): Proposition (transportation equipment) $460,000.

Some municipalities also have elections. Broken Arrow has a 25-year electric franchise vote on the ballot for Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Bristow has a mayor's race, and there is one city council race each in Okmulgee and Pawhuska.

MORE: A couple of images from a promotional flyer for Sequoyah's bond issue illustrate the ugliness that modern school governance and finance produces. Here is the Rogers County Model School (later Sequoyah School), 1914-1915, a dignified two-story brick schoolhouse:

And here is "the vision of the future" -- a massive, mostly empty parking lot surrounded by metal buildings with a bit of decorative brickwork:

UPDATE: An election day morning email from the Tulsa County Republican Party adds some perspective:

Happy Valentine's Day

Nothing says, "I LOVE YOU" quite like higher taxes and fees

In select areas of Tulsa County there are elections today. On the day when we should be thinking of flowers and chocolates and romantic dinners, we must take a brief moment out of our time and VOTE!

School bonds affect your property taxes. I'm sure they are telling you that your property tax won't increase if you pass their Bond Package, but what they fail to tell you is that if the bond FAILS, your property taxes WILL go down.

Fun fact:

One of the reasons the schools fight so hard to keep our School Board and bond package elections when you least expect an election (like Valentine's Day) is because of low voter turnout which gives them the advantage on getting the bond passed or their candidate elected.

City of Broken Arrow Residents ONLY Special PSO Utility Franchise Election

This is to vote on the 25-year renewal - PSO currently pays the City of Broken Arrow a 2% franchise fee on gross receipts that goes into the general fund. Under the new agreement, an additional 1% fee is to be used for improvements like street lighting, underground utilities, etc.

Going from 2% to 3% is a 50% increase on the fees we pay as consumers. You don't think PSO is absorbing the cost of the increase now do you?

Because this is a "fee" (fancy word for tax), it only requires a simple majority vote.

Tulsa County Republican Chairman Ronda Vuillemont-Smith is seeking a second two-year term in that office. During her first term, Ronda built a record of success in advancing Republican principles and Republican candidates.

I first met Ronda sometime around 2010, as she became active in local politics through the Tea Party movement, founding the Tulsa 9/12 Project to help promote the restoration of America's founding principles to government at every level. In 2012, Ronda and I were part of the coalition that defeated the county "Vision 2" tax increase. I proudly endorsed her in her first run for Tulsa County GOP chairman back in 2015, a race she lost by a slim margin.

In my 2015 endorsement, I wrote this, which I feel even more strongly today than I did then.

In a state where Republicans are overwhelmingly dominant, Democrats are not the chief threat to the implementation of Republican policies. The biggest threat comes from Republicans who wear the name but don't understand or adhere to the principles the party professes. They may simply be corrupt or self-dealing, or they may be liberals who have realized that registering Republican is their only hope of winning.

From Capitol Hill to City Hall, the actions and inactions of elected Republican officials have made the activists who helped them get elected wonder what, exactly, was the point of their exertions.

In such an environment, the role of party leadership must shift. When a party is a minority or just beginning to dream of majority status, you will gladly take any elected official who will bear the (R) after their name. But in our current environment, we need party leaders who will protect the Republican brand, who will be a voice for the grassroots party activists to counterbalance well-heeled lobbyists.

Ronda Vuillemont-Smith has shown herself willing to confront Republican elected officials when they need it. She's also shown herself to be a skilled and experienced organizer. That's why, if I were at this morning's Tulsa County GOP Convention, Ronda would have my vote.

Ronda has had numerous successes in her first term as chairman, but she knows that there is more to be done to build a party organization that successfully turns out the Republican vote and that builds our bench and at the same time improves local government by helping conservative Republicans win non-partisan races for city council and school board.

A leader, even a highly skilled organizer like Ronda, can only take on a handful of projects of reform and improvement at one time while still successfully executing the routine duties of the office -- running precinct meetings and county conventions three out of every four years, rallying volunteers for voter turnout, fielding questions from the media, providing resources to Republican candidates, keeping the office staffed, running county conventions, and raising money to keep all of these activities going. Tulsa County Republicans would serve themselves and their cause best by reelecting Ronda Vuillemont-Smith as Tulsa County GOP chairman.

In-person absentee voting will be available at in every county on Wednesday through Friday, November 2 - 4, 2022 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Saturday, November 5, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. In most counties, this will be at the County Election Board office or county courthouse; here is the full list of absentee-in-person voting sites. Seven counties have two absentee-in-person sites, including these four in the Tulsa metro area:

• Osage County: Fairgrounds Ag Building, Pawhuska; First Baptist Church, Skiatook (West Rogers Campus)
• Rogers County: Election Board; Central Baptist Church in Owasso
• Tulsa County: Election Board, 555 N. Denver; Hardesty Regional Library
• Wagoner County: First Baptist Church, Wagoner; NSU-BA, Broken Arrow

Polls will be open Tuesday, November 8, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. In addition to the general election for federal, statewide, legislative, county, and judicial elections, runoffs for Tulsa City Council will be held in three seats. Unusually, there are no state questions on the ballot. Here is the complete list of ballot items, sorted by county.

NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries have changed, in some cases dramatically. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot.

In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a
downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma general election and City of Tulsa runoff election on November 8, 2022. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

As I post this, I'm still unsure about several races, and there are other races I had planned to write about in detail, but time is short, people are voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations.

Tulsa City Council:

District 5: Grant Miller (L)
District 6: Christian Bengel (R)
District 7: Ken Reddick (R)

Council races are officially non-partisan, and marking a straight-party vote doesn't cover these races. We need east and southeast Tulsa voters to elect all three of these conservative challengers, to defeat the left-wing incumbents, in order to have even the beginnings of a conservative voice at City Hall.

Statewide:

Governor: Kevin Stitt (R)
Lt. Governor: Matt Pinnell (R)
Attorney General: Lynda Steele (L)
Treasurer: Todd Russ (R)
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Ryan Walters (R)
Commissioner of Labor: Will Daugherty (L)
Corporation Commissioner: Kim David (R)

Why not straight-ticket GOP? A phony conservative and Biden donor, Gentner Drummond, won the GOP nomination for Attorney General with the help of massive amounts of dark money. The incumbent Labor Commissioner, Leslie Osborn, has expressed her loathing for conservatives and their values, despite the R by her name; I wouldn't be surprised if she follows Hofmeister and switches parties to run for governor as a Democrat in 4 years. Libertarian candidates are running in both elections, available for a protest vote.

Federal:

Whatever our disappointments with some of the Republican candidates this year, winning control of Congress requires us to elect as many Republicans as possible. Better still, we have the opportunity to re-elect a solid conservative in Kevin Hern and to add Josh Brecheen, a conservative with a solid legislative record.

US Senate (unexpired term): Markwayne Mullin (R)
US Senate (full term): James Lankford (R)
1st Congressional District: Kevin Hern (R)
2nd Congressional District: Josh Brecheen (R)
3rd Congressional District: Frank Lucas (R)
4th Congressional District: Tom Cole (R)
5th Congressional District: Stephanie Bice (R)

District Court:

District 14 District Judge, Office 12: Kevin Gray (R)

State Legislature:

State Senate 34: Dana Prieto (R)

State House 9: Mark Lepak (R)
State House 41: Denise Crosswhite Hader (R)
State House 66: Clay Staires (R)
State House 70: Brad Banks (R)
State House 71: Mike Masters (R)
State House 79: Paul Hassink (R)

County:

Tulsa County Assessor: John Wright (R)
Osage County Commissioner District 1: Everett Piper (R)
District Attorney, District 7 (Oklahoma County): Kevin Calvey (R)

Supreme Court retention:

Dustin P. Rowe: YES
James R. Winchester: NO
Dana Kuehn: YES
Douglas L. Combs: NO

Court of Civil Appeals retention:

Stacie L. Hixon: YES
Gregory C. Blackwell: YES
John F. Fischer: NO
Barbara G. Swinton: NO
Thomas E. Prince: YES

MORE INFORMATION:

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico on the judicial retention ballot
• Steve Fair and Georgia Williams on the judicial retention ballot
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) general election voter guide

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some endorsement lists that are negative indicators:

• Oklahomans for Public Education: OPE advocates for higher taxes, opposes school choice, and opposes efforts to keep leftist advocacy out of the classroom. They work to defeat principled Republicans. A yellow warning mark from OPE is a badge of honor for a conservative candidate. Here is the OPE voter guide for 2022 (backup copy).
• Oklahoma Education Association, state affiliate of the leftist NEA teachers' union, has endorsed nine Republicans in contested primaries. The list was leaked to Corey DeAngelis.

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

An election eve assortment of thoughts:

Last week, I attended and live-tweeted the Tuesday, November 1, 2022, Red Wave rally in Oklahoma City featuring Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Kevin Stitt, and State Superintendent nominee Ryan Walters; the Wednesday Tulsa rally with Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and a Wednesday lunch-time forum with Ryan Walters. In between the latter two events, I went for a walk in McClure Park.

On Saturday, I helped with a literature drop for Brad Banks, Republican nominee for the open House District 70 seat, going to almost every house. The area I covered was only 80 acres, an 1/8th of a square mile, but I walked 22,977 steps (10.8 miles), and it took me about 4 hours. It was a beautiful day for walking. I cheated a bit: We were supposed to hit every house, but I went home, downloaded the latest voter registration file, filtered down to the streets and blocks of the precinct section I volunteered to cover, did a unique sort on street and house number, put the list of house numbers in columns by street on a single workbook page, and used it to guide my walking. Making the list took me about 30 minutes. As it turned out, I probably didn't save much time, as this area had a registered voter at nearly every address. I didn't filter by frequency of past votes or party or change of address, which might have saved me a few steps.

More dark-money attacks in Monday's mail. One is from Imagine This Oklahoma (one of a raft of dark-money groups funded by Oklahoma Forward) targeting Stitt over inflation, complaining about the state's $3 billion rainy-day fund ("hoarding our tax dollars"), and subsidies that the legislature passed to try to attract Panasonic, Canoo, and Hollywood filmmakers. Of course, if Stitt had stopped any of these initiatives, they would have attacked him for killing job opportunities and smashing our state piggy bank.

The issues presented in the dark-money ads are never the real issues motivating the donors to attack their targets. If you knew who the donors were, you'd know their motivation, and you'd realize that the donors are seeking their own benefit at the expense of you, the taxpayer. So they stay hidden.

The City of Tulsa's odd and oft-changed election process comes to its 2022 conclusion Tuesday with runoffs in three of nine Tulsa City Council seats. Three incumbents, all registered to vote as Democrats, failed to reach the 50% threshold in the August general election and so face a runoff. The same three seats, Districts 5, 6, and 7, went to a runoff in the 2020 election as well.

Tulsa City Council races are on a separate printed ballot. Because they are nominally non-partisan (no party label appears on the city ballot), voting straight party on the main ballot for state, county, legislative, and judicial items will count for nothing on the city ballot.

In each of the three races, I urge you to vote for the conservative challenger. The Democrat incumbents are all embedded in the non-profit realm, with little or no exposure to the private sector where producing results for the customer determines your survival. The Council's unanimous allocation of $112,000 in federal COVID-19 relief funds to a sex survey targeting teens (with approval by Mayor GT Bynum IV) ought to be enough to convince you we need to throw all the bums out.

Currently there are no conservative leaders in Tulsa city government. Electing Grant Miller in District 5, Christian Bengel in District 6, and Ken Reddick in District 7 is an important first step toward ensuring that common-sense Tulsans have a voice at City Hall.

Thursday evening brought the news that AHHA, the Arts and Humanities Hardesty Arts Center in the "Tulsa Arts District," was closing its doors permanently on Friday.

At ahha, we've been dedicated to bringing arts to the Tulsa community since 1961. Over the years, we've expanded our partnerships to work collaboratively with at least eight area school districts, a local healthcare system, state and regional government agencies, and over 100 member arts and humanities organizations.

During the past few years, our community has seen some of the most challenging economic and social times in recent history. It is with great sadness that we announce the permanent closure of ahha Tulsa's Hardesty Center on Friday, November 4.

We will continue to pursue avenues to secure a long-term future for some of our programs and look to achieve that mission as quickly as possible.

We also learned this week that OKPOP is $30 million and a couple of years away from opening to the public; the first $30 million only paid for "skin and bones."

Two State Senate districts and six State House districts that overlap with Tulsa County have general elections on November 8, 2022. Neighboring counties add in four additional State House seats. Here's an overview with my recommendations in six of the races; details after the jump, and more to be added.

Senate 2: No recommendation
Senate 34: Dana Prieto (R)
House 9: Mark Lepak (R)
House 66: Clay Staires (R)
House 70: Brad Banks (R)
House 71: Mike Masters (R)
House 79: Paul Hassink (R)

Do Republican legislative leaders want so badly for Gov. Kevin Stitt to lose his bid for re-election that they're willing to accept half-measures on child mutilation in the name of "gender confirmation"? That's the question posed by a recent report by Harry Scherer in The American Conservative, "The Fight Over Child Mutilation in Oklahoma." Scherer asks why Oklahoma, with a Republican governor and Republican supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, has not seen a comprehensive law against gender reassignment surgeries on minors in Oklahoma.

Scherer notes that State Sen. Warren Hamilton (R-McCurtain) filed such a bill, HB 676, in early 2021, cosponsored by Senators Shane Jett (R-Shawnee) and David Bullard (R-Durant). The bill was assigned to the Health and Human Services and Appropriations committees, chaired by Paul Rosino (R-Oklahoma City) and Greg McCortney (R-Ada) respectively, never heard the bill.

The legislature did address the issue in a limited way during a recent special session to allocate federal funds:

On October 4, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed Senate Bill 3XX into law, which grants approximately $109 million to the state's University Hospital Authority. Some $39 million of those funds were appropriated for "behavioral health care for the children" of Oklahoma under the condition that the health system's facilities refuse to perform gender reassignment surgeries for minors.

Four conservative Republican State Senators voted no: Nathan Dahm, Hamilton, Jett, and Merrick.

Hamilton said he thinks Bill 3XX doesn't go far enough in some places and is wrong-headed in others. The law, which does nothing to regulate gender reassignment surgeries for minors at hospitals outside of the University Hospitals Authority and Trust, earmarks funds for the continuation of the health system's behavioral health care services and mental health counseling. These services are delivered through what Oklahoma Children's Hospital calls the Adolescent Medicine Roy G. Biv Program, which provides an "interdisciplinary team of highly trained specialists who serve the mental health, nutritional and medical needs of all LGBTQ youth." The program's "gender-affirming treatment & services" includes "discussing concerns or questions about gender" and "assisting with legal name or gender marker changes."

Oklahoma taxpayers shouldn't be funding any "gender-affirming" or "LGBTQ-affirming" care, which is grounded in unscientific and dangerous concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." We've elected Republican legislative supermajorities with the expectation that our tax dollars won't be paying for that garbage.

Dahm speculates on the reluctance of legislative leaders to take aggressive action:

"For them to promise that we'll do something next year when we've had the opportunity to do it for three years, and having served with them, with most promises that have never actually come to fruition, I don't put any credence behind their word that they'll get it done next year."

The senator was part of a failed effort to extend the special session of the legislature so that the more aggressive legislation could be taken up before this year's gubernatorial election. Dahm had a noteworthy theory for why his party's leadership has been kicking the can down the road: "I think that Senate leadership actually is trying not to give [Stitt] any more wins, because they'd rather have a Democrat that they can do veto overrides on so that they get the victory and they get the publicity, rather than having a strong governor lead the charge that steals their thunder and steals their potential media spotlight."

A spokesman for Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat denied Dahm's theory.

If legislative leaders want Stitt to lose, my guess is that it has more to do with the forces that are spreading political money around Oklahoma, working against conservative values and undermining the Republican platform. Groups with plenty of money and well-known grievances against Gov. Stitt include the teachers' unions, Big Pot, and tribal governments, all of whom have governmental priorities at odds with conservatives.

The chamberpots and RINOs have had no problem backing Democrats against Republicans they fear may be too principled to be manipulated. For a couple of examples, see Melissa Provenzano vs. Dan Hicks in HD 79 in 2018; Jo Anna Dossett vs. Cheryl Baber in SD 35 in 2020. It happened in my own race for Tulsa City Council in 2002; RINOs were angry at the successful defeat of a city sales tax increase by a shoestring campaign that Jim Hewgley, Mike Slankard, and I led, and they raised money for my Democrat opponent.

It may be time for conservative voters to purify the caucus by dumping the most compromised Republican legislators. Eight years ago, I encouraged Republican voters not to give a supporter and enabler of National Popular Vote a seat at the table in the majority Republican caucus.

Of course, we don't want to give the legislature to Democratic control, but if a few of the worst Republicans lost because conservatives didn't vote for them, it might have a salutary effect on the rest of the caucus. Probably too late to have an effect in this election, but worth considering for the future. A comparison of the campaign contribution and expenditure filings of the Republican and the Democrat in your district would give you a pretty clear picture of whether your GOP nominee is likely to vote with the lobbyists and the RINOs. (Go to the Candidate Search page on the Oklahoma Ethics Committee Guardian website, then select Committee Status Active, 2022 Election, State Representative or State Senator, and then the district. You can also visit this page and search for expenditure information for specific PACs.)

Warning signs would include a low conservative rating by the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper, funding by tribal governments, funding by donors in George Kaiser's network, endorsement and funding by teachers' unions and their allies. I've been noticing contributions from PACs associated with pharmaceutical firms Johnson & Johnson and Merck, which could be an attempt to buy support for future vaccine mandates.

If the local GOP candidate has CAMP on his mailer's bulk mail permit or "CAMPAIGN ADVOCACY MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS, LLC" on his expenditures report, remember that CAMP's principal, Fount Holland, helped Joy Hofmeister convince Republican voters that she was a pro-life conservative instead of a teachers' union tool ("can [the OEA] be quiet and stomach our right wing rhetoric long enough to get what they really want"), which got her the 2014 GOP nomination as State Superintendent and ultimately the platform to run for governor this year as a pro-abortion Democrat.

With new polls from Emerson College and WPA Intelligence showing Stitt leading Hofmeister by 9 points and 15 points, some legislators may wish they had been more vocal and generous in support of the governor's re-election effort.

District 4 Tulsa City Councilor-elect Laura Bellis, speaking at a recent fundraiser for incumbent District 7 Councilor and Council Chairman Lori Decter Wright, called the three challengers in the November 8, 2022, runoff, "actual fascists," called Decter Wright's opponent a "Nazi," and said that she has reported him to the FBI multiple times. Decter Wright embraces Bellis's words, saying, "I thank Laura for saying all the things I can't say, as chairwoman of the Tulsa City Council -- at least not publicly!"

I first saw this video here, but it had already been in circulation. The fundraiser appears to have been recent. I don't recognize the venue.

The Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police- FOP Public Page posted the video, but edited down to key sections (omitting Bellis's fundraising pitch for Decter Wright) and with captions.

Here is my attempt at transcribing. Bellis's grating "uptalk" sometimes makes it hard to distinguish questions from statements.

...reliant on sales taxes to fund big services for people? So it's really scary to watch people who are complete actual fascists? Running for office. It's actually -- it's every runoff that is happening right now there's an incumbent city councilor? Who is like a common sense person? Who is up against what I would say is a literal fascist? And it's scary. And we've seen it in recent, in the past several months, what it looks like when one of Those People gets a seat on our school board. They vote no on things like, just approving the agenda. They actually sow chaos. And we can't have that.

So it's never been more critical to be engaged on the local level, which is why I'm so amazed that you all are here? It's so important to pay attention to these things, because again These People are trying to infiltrate -- They don't have an interest in policy work. They don't have a vision for what they hope to see in our community. They're not interested in making people's lives better. They're too busy, saying the word "woke" a lot and being scared about critical race theory. It's ridiculous. You know, that's not a conversation for the City Council? We can of course talk about inequities and so much more and dig into policy there, but that's not what they're doing.

And again, this person, I don't think should be legally be allowed to run, but here we are. I've reported him to the FBI several times, and nothing has -- I'm not kidding -- like, I have all this [inaudible] and I keep sending them the pectures [sic] of -- and -- if you don't donate now into Lori Decter Wright, I am going to be asking you all to help foot my therapy bill, 'cause I'm gonna have to work with him. Don't do that to me. [Inaudible] doesn't deserve that.

Anyway it's never been more critical to support at a local level. It's never been more critical, especially given what has happened to reproductive rights to have women at decision-making tables. Please, please, please, tell all of your friends they have to keep Lori Decter Wright on the Council. She's been a phenomenal leader, and again, we cannot have someone who's actively a Nazi on our City Council. Our city deserves better.

So please donate to Lori, not just because her opponent is a complete f[---]ing nightmare, but because she's an incredibly competent, compassionate, courageous person who [sic] I really wanna get to work with and our city really needs at this [inaudible]. So thank you all so much. Um, I think we just, like, we need to clap for Lori and all the work she accomplished.

In case you're got lost on your way in, the fundraising envelopes are over here. I'll just stand here, if you start walking by, [inaudible] just grab one to go with you. I'll know. Please, please, please, just donate.

Decter Wright then responded:

Thank you, thank you so much. I thank Laura for saying all the things I can't say as chairwoman of the Tulsa City Council -- at least not publicly!

Decter Wright thus approved Bellis calling an elected African-American female school board member, E'Lena Ashley, an "actual fascist," a label that was also applied to the three conservative challengers (Grant Miller, Christian Bengel, Ken Reddick) running for city council. Decter Wright cheered someone calling Reddick, her conservative Republican opponent, "actively a Nazi" and "a f---ing nightmare." Decter Wright put her stamp of approval on Bellis's opinion that disagreement and debate in public meetings is "sowing chaos" and to the idea that when people who are not approved by the city establishment run for public office, "they're trying to infiltrate." She made no objection to Bellis reporting Reddick to the FBI for daring to run against her.

Bellis, Decter Wright, and their ilk claim to be defenders of democracy, but the theme running through these remarks is that governing needs to be left to the "experts," and we should only elect people who will rubber-stamp everything that comes before them. When three school board members voted against the "consent agenda," they were saying that some of the items on that list, such as accepting Chinese Communist Party money for a program in our public schools, deserved further scrutiny and debate in front of the voting public. If you think full and open debate is "sowing chaos," you have the wrong idea about democracy.

Note how Bellis and Decter Wright narrow the scope of acceptable, legitimate debate. When conservatives and libertarians seek office to stop the government from imposing mask mandates, vaccine mandates, or business closures, "they don't have an interest in policy work," according to Leftist fascists like Bellis and Decter Wright. Apparently, it's only legitimate policy work in their minds if you're debating which businesses to force to shut down, but not legitimate to debate whether the shut down is any use at all. "Making people's lives better" to them always means government action, never government restraint.

Conservative and libertarian Tulsans have a chance on November 8 to elect three city councilors who will stand against the truly fascist attitudes of Laura Bellis, Lori Decter Wright, MyKey Arthrell-Knezek, and Connie Dodson.

Vote for Grant Miller in District 5, Christian Bengel in District 6, and Ken Reddick in District 7. That won't give common sense a majority on the Tulsa City Council, but it will once again have a foothold.

MORE: Don't forget: Lori Decter Wright was on the committee that allocated $112,784 in federal COVID-19 relief funds to a non-profit to conduct a sex survey targeting teenagers. All nine incumbent city councilors, including Decter Wright, Connie Dodson, and Mykey Arthrell-Knezek, approved it.

A few notes on the four Oklahoma Supreme Court justices and five Court of Civil Appeals judges on the retention ballot this year. None of the five members of the Court of Criminal Appeals are up for retention this year.

Judges in Oklahoma's appellate system are up for retention every six years. I am voting to retain Gov. Stitt's recent appointees on both courts, against retention not only of judges appointed by Democrats, but also of two Republican appointees who have shown questionable judgment, whether on the bench or in a public role away from the courtroom. As originalists now have a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and are restoring state freedom to legislate on a number of issues, we can expect progressive judicial activists to move their focus to state courts as a means to overturn legislation grounded conservative public sentiment. Now more than ever, conservative voters need to ensure that our state courts are safely in the hands of impartial, originalist judges.

Two of the Supreme Court justices, Dana Kuehn and Dustin Rowe, are recent appointees by Gov. Stitt. Justice Rowe has written several careful dissents indicating a willingness to take a stand on principle and reason, even if it puts him in the minority. It makes sense to give both of Stitt's appointees the opportunity to continue.

Justice James R. Winchester was in the majority that unjustly tossed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) initiative petition. Pro-life activists remember that Winchester, a Keating appointee, consistently voted to strike down pro-life laws and initiative petitions that might have been used to give the U. S. Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade; instead that honor fell to the State of Mississippi. This year, Winchester voted in favor of putting recreational marijuana on the ballot, despite the same issue of supremacy of federal law (in this case, an actual law banning marijuana, rather than a fatally flawed SCOTUS decision resting on emanations and penumbras).

I recommended against retaining Justices Winchester and Combs in 2016. They should both be retired by the voters, giving a re-elected Gov. Stitt the chance to add to his list of excellent court appointments.

For the Court of Civil Appeals, I'm voting to retain Stacie L. Hixon, Gregory C. Blackwell, and Thomas E. Prince, all recent appointments by Gov. Stitt. Judge Prince served for many years as a member of the Oklahoma State Election Board. I am voting NO on retaining John F. Fischer, appointed by Brad Henry, and Barbara G. Swinton, appointed by Mary Fallin.

Civil Appeals Court Judge Barbara Swinton was serving as a district judge in Oklahoma County when she was appointed to the Civil Appeals court in 2016 by Gov. Mary Fallin.

Swinton was a long-time board member of the Justice Alma Wilson Seeworth Academy, a school chartered by Oklahoma City Public Schools. Swinton served on the board from around 2002 until the school's closure in 2019, serving at various times as board president, vice president, and treasurer, according to Swinton's 2021 interview with Brenda Holt of the State Auditor's office. Seeworth closed its doors in May 2019 . Last month, the school's superintendent, Janice Grigg, was arrested and charged with embezzlement:

Annual school audits as early as 2009 warned the board of possible law violations and a troubling lack of internal controls meant to prevent fraud, state auditors said.

A 2012 lawsuit from a former Seeworth principal and auditors' letters in 2017 and 2019 communicated concerns over possible abuse of school funds. Finally in March 2019, a longtime Seeworth contractor sent a whistleblower letter to Swinton, the school board president at the time, alleging financial wrongdoing by Grigg, according to the state audit.

Auditors found an email in which Swinton appeared to dismiss the allegations.

"Thank you for your concerns about the financial health of Seeworth," she wrote to the whistleblower in a March 10, 2019, email. "These concerns were addressed by our board with our accountants and you should not have any concerns that the funds are being mishandled."

NonDoc's reporting from 2019 about the mistreatment of whistleblowers by the Seeworth board puts Judge Swinton in an especially bad light.

Oklahoma hasn't elected a Democrat to statewide office since 2006. Since 2004, every county in Oklahoma has given a plurality of its vote in every presidential election to the Republican nominee. Voter registration, a lagging indicator, continues to trend toward the GOP across the state, most strongly in southeastern Oklahoma, aka Little Dixie, which was Yellow Dog Democrat country for most of Oklahoma's first century. Republicans have super-majorities of 82-19 in the State House and 39-9 in the State Senate.

So it's astounding to see a poll a month before the election giving a Democrat the lead over an incumbent Republican governor. The latest Sooner Poll of 300 likely voters has Democrat Joy Hofmeister leading incumbent Republican Kevin Stitt by 46.8% to 43.0%. Crosstabs have not yet been published, but those polled would support Donald Trump over Joe Biden in a 2024 rematch by only 52.7% to 40.8%, which may indicate that the universe of those polled leans far more strongly to the left than the actual Oklahoma electorate. The actual vote in 2020 was Trump 65.4%, Biden 32.3%; Trump managed 55% of the vote or better in every county except Oklahoma County. It is hard to believe that Oklahoma voters have a more favorable opinion of Brain-Dead Biden after 20 disastrous months.

Dark money has funded dozens of mailers, TV ads, and social media posts misrepresenting the facts in order to hang the false label of "corrupt" around the governor's neck. Even if these ads fail to persuade Republicans to vote for the Democrat, it may succeed in discouraging GOP voters from filling the box next to Stitt's name.

In truth, Republican voters who want the party's platform enacted ought to be stampeding to the polls to give him another term in office, overflowing with gratitude for Stitt's record and filling their social media feeds with calls for his re-election.

Kevin Stitt promised to sign every pro-life bill that crossed his desk. Stitt kept that promise and earned the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. Because Kevin Stitt is in office instead of his Democrat opponent, Oklahoma has the strongest pro-life laws in the nation.

In February 2019, Kevin Stitt signed constitutional carry into law, one of the first bills approved during his term, affirming the right of Oklahomans to keep and bear arms without needing government pre-approval. This would not have happened had his Democrat opponent won the 2018 election. Stitt has been endorsed both by Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, which gave Gov. Stitt an A+. Hofmeister earned an F.

While many parts of our country were undercutting the efforts of their police forces to protect the law-abiding citizens against criminal predators, Kevin Stitt backed the blue and earned the endorsement of the Oklahoma Fraternal Order of Police. Gov. Stitt signed pay raises for law enforcement officers in the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and other state public safety employees, funded three academies to train new OHP officers, and established a mental wellness program to support all Oklahoma public safety officers and their families.

Gov. Stitt has appointed three excellent jurists to the State Supreme Court: John Kane, Dustin Rowe, and Dana Kuehn. For the first time in history, a majority of the justices were appointed by Republican governors. Five of the nine justices are 70 or older, including one justice, Yvonne Kauger, who has been serving since her appointment in 1984 by Gov. George Nigh. Three justices were appointed by the previous Democrat governor, Brad Henry. There will be vacancies, and recent events in Kansas demonstrate the importance of installing strict constructionist justice in a post-Roe world. Activist justices in our neighbor to the north struck down pro-life legislation on specious constitutional grounds, and an attempt to fix the problem with a constitutional state question went down in flames with the help of a well-funded disinformation campaign. Now that SCOTUS will no longer interfere with state regulation or prohibition of abortion, leftists will use state judiciaries to thwart protections for the unborn. Stitt has shown good judgment in his judicial appointments, and we'd be wise to allow him to continue rather than allow Oklahoma's version of Kathy Hochul to appoint activist leftists.

Stitt has also appointed 4 of the 12 members of the Court of Civil Appeals, which has a majority of judges appointed by Republican governors in only two of the four divisions. One Democrat appointee, W. Keith Rapp, died in August at the age of 88; a Stitt appointment to fill that vacancy would mean one more division with a majority of Republican, strict-constructionist appointees.

Kevin Stitt streamlined state government, signing legislation to consolidate state agencies and making agency leadership accountable to the voters through their elected officials. He modernized the state civil service system, helping state agencies recruit, retain, and reward the most dedicated employees, and he gave public employee retirees, including teachers and firefighters, the first cost-of-living adjustment in more than a decade. Making state agencies a better place to work means better people working on behalf of the people of Oklahoma, and Stitt's efforts won him the endorsement of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.

Kevin Stitt used the power of the purse -- allocation of new federal COVID relief funds -- to force the University of Oklahoma's Oklahoma Children's Hospital to cease performing surgical "gender confirmation" mutilations on children. The scope of the bill was limited by the stated call for this special session, but if re-elected, Gov. Stitt will sign broader legislation to ban the practice in Oklahoma. Earlier this year, Gov. Stitt signed legislation protecting girls' private spaces from men claiming to be women; SB 615 requires multiple-occupancy restrooms and changing rooms in our public schools to be reserved exclusively for one biological sex or the other.

Kevin Stitt signed HB 1775, which bans specific elements of "woke," racist indoctrination from Oklahoma's public schools and universities. The bill is succeeding in flushing out radical teachers and administrators who see public schools as a missionary endeavor to convert children to their anti-civilizational ideology.

Unlike his counterparts across the country, Gov. Kevin Stitt kept COVID-19 pandemic restrictions to a minimum, resisting calls for a statewide lockdown and mask mandate. Gov. Stitt was the third governor, after Doug Burgum in North Dakota and Mike Dunleavy in Alaska, to end the statewide COVID-19 state of emergency. (Emergency declarations in Wisconsin and Michigan were terminated earlier by court order, over the objections of Democrat governors.) Within a few months of that early reopening, Oklahoma's unemployment rate reached record lows, among the lowest in the nation.

Under Kevin Stitt's leadership, Oklahoma has improved election security, guaranteed patients the right to have a loved one with them in the hospital, protected schoolchildren from obscene materials, prohibited biologically impossible non-binary birth certificates, and reformed the state funding formula to ensure school funds follow students to their new school district. Kevin Stitt has enthusiastically supported school choice. Gov. Stitt has been endorsed for re-election by former President Donald Trump.

As state superintendent, Hofmeister supported ineffective mask mandates. Gov. Stitt moved to reopen Oklahoma as soon as it was safe to do so, while Hofmeister's plan for school closures would have kept Oklahoma's public schools shut for more than half of the time between September 2020 and March 2022.

Hofmeister said in announcing her candidacy that Stitt's pro-freedom approach to the pandemic is why she switched parties to run against him. Hofmeister wanted to subject Oklahoma to the same sort of never-ending restrictions that Michigan Gov. Christine Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and NY Governors Andrew Cuomo and Cathy Hochul imposed on their states.

If Hofmeister becomes governor, all of the progress we've made under Stitt and his Republican predecessors will come to a screeching halt. Hofmeister opposes parental choice in education. Hofmeister opposes legal protections for the unborn. Hofmeister, indebted to the Democrats who elected her, will veto conservative reforms of state government and will fill her staff, cabinet, state courts, and state boards with her leftist allies.

Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico has documented Joy Hofmeister's "long con." Hofmeister claims that her values have not changed since her first campaign for office as a Republican, but she has taken positions this year that would have killed her 2014 Republican primary campaign against incumbent State Superintendent Janet Barresi.

Just days after announcing her newfound party, Hofmeister attacked Governor Kevin Stitt over transgender birth certificates. Gov. Stitt recognizes the scientific fact of male and female, while the 'Newly-Improved-and-Woke' Joy Hofmeister apparently feels like pandering to flaming leftists. By the way, she accuses Gov. Stitt of pandering to extremism, which is highly ironic given her apparent disregard for science.

In a recent article from TheFrontier, Hofmeister criticized Gov. Stitt for signing pro-life bills, giving the lame excuse that "[abortion] is a decision that is personal and one between a woman, her doctor and her faith." Right. Do you think she would have said this during her campaigns as a Republican? I think not.

Joy Hofmeister was indicted and arrested (that's her mugshot above) for campaign ethics violations, colluding illegally with the dark-money campaign attacking her opponent. Despite overwhelming evidence clearly documenting violations of the law, Oklahoma County Democrat DA David Prater dropped charges shortly before her 2018 re-election. You can read the indictment of Joy Hofmeister and the documentation on which it was based at this link.

Earlier in this article I mentioned the dark-money attacks labeling Stitt "corrupt." They rest on a handful of "scandals" that aren't scandalous at all.

The so-called Swadley's "scandal" was driven by Gov. Stitt's desire to make our state parks a top-10 experience by offering high-quality regional cuisine from an Oklahoma based restaurant chain. The usual government contract process results in boring bistros run by multinational institutional food service conglomerates who fill their menus with the bland and barely edible. Swadley's had built a popular chain of barbecues with 8 locations, starting from their hometown of El Reno. I've eaten at a Swadley's Barbecue a few times and always enjoyed it, and I was looking forward to visiting a state park and eating at a Swadley's Foggy Bottom Cafe. Stitt didn't profit, nor did any of his friends or business associates. At worst, Swadley's put more money into the renovation of these restaurants than was strictly necessary to build a more enjoyable dining experience. But political opportunists labeled this, without justification, as corruption and got it shutdown. One of the negative consequences of this destructive political maneuver by Hofmeister's supporters was the Western Swing Music Society of the Southwest's cancellation of the annual Western Swing Weekend at the Lodge at Sequoyah State Park (formerly known as Western Hills) because the Lodge had no food service available after Swadley's was evicted.

When school doors were shut because of the pandemic, parents who had been reliant on public schools suddenly had to find ways to continue their children's education. The switch to online instruction meant that many low-income families urgently needed to upgrade electronics and internet access and purchase software and books. Federal aid was made available to meet that need, and Gov. Stitt and Secretary of Education Ryan Walters made it their aim to get the money into the hands of Oklahoma families as quickly as possible with as little red tape as possible. Rather than incur the delay involved in competitive bidding, Oklahoma's Chief Information Officer hired ClassWallet, a national company with experience handling educational grants, to manage the funds.

Eligible families had access to a digital wallet that could be used with 36 approved vendors, most of them specializing in classroom materials and supplies, but also including Office Depot and Staples, sources for general office supplies and computing equipment, and Tracfone, a source for high-speed internet hotspots for families without their own high-speed internet access. The digital wallet system meant that families could simply purchase items from the approved vendors, without the red tape of submitting a purchase request and waiting for approval or submitting an expense report and waiting for reimbursement.

As our students face disruptions from COVID-19 and schools turn to distance learning, we must ensure all Oklahoma students have the supplies and materials necessary to meet their individual education needs. By giving families these funds, we are empowering them to choose what materials are most necessary to make their children successful academically.

Some parents took unfair advantage of the streamlined system to buy non-educational equipment for their own enjoyment. They figured out that they could buy anything that Office Depot or Staples had available for sale online, and that includes many items without educational value that are offered online only, never in stores, like Christmas trees and grills. One estimate, compiled by a partisan news outlet, puts the total wasted on such items at about $650,000 out of the program's $18,000,000 total. Their analysis has large amounts in broad categories that are likely to include legitimate educational purchases, but even accepting their numbers, the amount wasted is less than 4%. Any waste is regrettable, but the cost of pre-screening every purchase would have been to delay the 96% of legitimate purchases made by honest parents.

The latest attack involves a privately-funded proposal to build a new governor's mansion at the State Capitol complex. The proposal pre-dates Gov. Stitt's time in office, and the project could not possibly be completed before the end of his second turn. Stitt's family did not move to Oklahoma City until the end of the school year during which his inauguration occurred. A $2 million renovation of the mansion's electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems was already underway, and when the family moved from Oklahoma City, they moved to the Centennial House at 6500 N. Kelley Ave., owned by the Oklahoma National Guard. The Stitt family was able to move in to the governor's mansion in the spring of 2021, but in an October 2021 interview about the renovations, First Lady Sarah Stitt said, "We have lived here for a while, but we do want to protect our family life, so we are looking for a house probably just for our family." The Stitt family, using their own funds, acquired a home in Edmond about a year ago. None of this has been done in secret, but irresponsible news media outlets have created a false impression of the sequence of events designed to tar the reputation of Gov. Stitt and his family for the sake of helping a leftist Democrat win the governor's office in America's most Republican state.

Hidden special interests, some of them led by nominal Republicans, have spent millions to get rid of Gov. Kevin Stitt. Although much of the dark money is untraceable, Stitt has faced hostility from tribal governments, from the marijuana industry, and from leftist teachers' unions. Leftists in mainstream media have helped to amplify and distort the dark-money accusations.

Kevin Stitt defends the interests of all Oklahomans, which offends tribal officials who want to accumulate power and wealth at the expense of the well-being of their own citizens as well as the non-citizens who live on so-called "sovereign land" -- the former territories that were allotted and sold over a century ago under tribal agreements with the US government. These tribal officials supported a child molester's court appeal in the pursuit of their own power. Stitt understands that lightly-regulated, highly-potent marijuana will produce a generation of schizophrenics, dangerous to themselves and others, and stands in the way of the cannabis industry that wants to warp Oklahomans minds to fill their own pockets. Stitt believes that Oklahoma children should not be stuck in underperforming schools that inflict woke dogma and trans madness in place of true education, frustrating the leftists who see public schools as their publicly funded cathedrals for converting the children of conservative Oklahomans.

Gov. Kevin Stitt is defending Oklahomans, particularly Oklahoma families and children, against the special interests who want their power and money no matter how many Oklahomans it hurts. Oklahomans should enthusiastically re-elect Kevin Stitt as governor.

MORE:

Jamison Faught, the Muskogee Politico, writes that Oklahoma Republicans must not fall asleep on the governor's race, reminding us, "Liberals win when conservatives take things for granted. Brad Henry was governor of Oklahoma for eight years, vetoing important legislation and styming conservative policies - because conservatives took things for granted in 2002."

OK2A's Don Spencer explains why it's crucial for 2nd Amendment rights supporters to turn out to re-elect Kevin Stitt.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats have a partisan primary runoff election in a number of statewide, federal, legislative, and county races, and the City of Tulsa will conduct a non-partisan citywide general election, including races in all nine council districts as well as three charter-change propositions. There are a smattering of other school, municipal, and county propositions across Oklahoma. Here is the Oklahoma State Election Board's list of all races and propositions on the August 23, 2022, ballot.

In-person absentee voting will be available on Thursday, August 18, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on Friday, August 19, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and (because there are federal races on the ballot) on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. For most counties, in-person absentee voting takes place at the county election board, but there are a few exceptions; click here for the full list of early-voting locations. Osage County will have an extra early voting location at First Baptist Church of Skiatook, W. Rogers campus, and Wagoner County will have an extra location at NSU-BA. Polls will be open Tuesday, August 23, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries were changed, in some cases dramatically, earlier this year. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot.

In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican runoff election and City of Tulsa general election on August 23, 2022. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

As I post this, I'm still unsure about several races, and there are other races I had planned to write about in detail, but time is short, people are voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold; in other races, there may be one or two other candidates that would be acceptable, or I simply don't know the endorsed candidate as well as I would like. There are certain incumbents that I'd like to see defeated, but I don't feel comfortable endorsing an opponent at this point. I'll try to fill in TBDs and NOTs before the start of early voting.

US Senate (unexpired term): TW Shannon
2nd Congressional District: Josh Brecheen

Treasurer: Todd Russ
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Ryan Walters
Labor Commissioner: Sean Roberts
Corporation Commissioner: Todd Thomsen

State Senate 2: Jarrin Jackson
State Senate 26: Brady Butler

State House 66: Clay Staires

For City of Tulsa races, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff coincident with the state/federal general election in November.

Tulsa City Council District 1: Francetta Mays
Tulsa City Council District 2: Aaron Bisogno
Tulsa City Council District 3: Daniel Grove
Tulsa City Council District 4: Michael Birkes
Tulsa City Council District 5: Ty Walker
Tulsa City Council District 6: Christian Bengel
Tulsa City Council District 7: Ken Reddick
Tulsa City Council District 8: Scott Houston
Tulsa City Council District 9: TBD

Tulsa Proposition 1: YES
Tulsa Proposition 2: NO
Tulsa Proposition 3: NO

Tulsa County Commissioner District 3: Bob Jack

Osage County Commissioner District 1: Everett Piper

District Attorney, District 7 (Oklahoma County): Kevin Calvey

MORE INFORMATION:

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico runoff picks
• Muskogee Politico legislator tax votes, 2016-2018
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting videos, including candidate speeches
• OCPAC 2022 Runoff Voter Guide
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements
• Endorsements from David Van Risseghem at Sooner Politics

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some endorsement lists that are negative indicators:

• Oklahoma Public Employees Association: State government employees union can be counted on to support bigger, less-efficient government and higher taxes
• Oklahomans for Public Education: OPE advocates for higher taxes, opposes school choice, and opposes efforts to keep leftist advocacy out of the classroom. They work to defeat principled Republicans. A yellow warning mark from OPE is a badge of honor for a conservative candidate. Here is the OPE voter guide for 2022.
• Oklahoma Education Association, state affiliate of the leftist NEA teachers' union, has endorsed nine Republicans in contested primaries. The list was leaked to Corey DeAngelis.
• TulsaBizPac is the political arm of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, a contractor to the City of Tulsa. They have not issued a list of endorsements, but David Harris in District 1, Michael Feamster in District 4, and Jayme Fowler in District 9 have all proudly announced their endorsement, when they really ought to be embarassed. Please read my 2016 article "Chambers of Horrors" to understand why social and fiscal conservatives, opponents of cronyism, and supporters of historic preservation should use TulsaBizPac endorsements as an indication to look for someone else to support.

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

There are six candidates on the ballot for Tulsa City Council District 4, an open seat. As was the case two years ago, I'm not enthusiastic about any of them. This is my district, so I've had to make a choice.

A sex survey targeting teenagers was funded by the City of Tulsa using federal COVID relief funding. The survey was one of 70 non-profit projects selected for funding by a working group of four city councilors who are on next Tuesday's ballot -- Phil Lakin (District 8), Jeannie Cue (2), Lori Decter Wright (7), and Vanessa Hall-Harper (1) -- and approved by the full Council and Mayor GT Bynum IV. The survey, which remains online as of August 16, 2022, asks detailed questions of minors and concludes with links promoting websites for "tweens" and teens containing explicit sex ed materials.

Tulsa city officials routed $112,784 in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds to Amplify Youth Health Collective, a group that "coordinate[s] collective efforts within our community to expand access to sex education, promote healthy relationships, and engage the public in this conversation."

Two Oklahoma State University departments cooperated with the survey: The OSU Diversity and Rural Advocacy Group, and the OSU Center for Family Resilience of the OSU College of Education and Human Sciences.

The survey on "teen sexual health & well-being" targets children ages 15-17. A separate survey is aimed at adults, and versions of both teen and adult surveys exist in Spanish. A caption on online posters advertising the survey notes the city's support as a conduit of federal funds: "This project is supported, in whole or in part, by federal award number SLT-1498 awarded to the City of Tulsa by the U. S. Department of the Treasury."

The survey asks teenagers for their sexual orientation, "sex assigned when you were born," and gender identity (with "agender," "non-binary," and "gender fluid" as options), and to rate their current sexual health as outstanding, good, neutral, poor, or terrible, and defined "sexual health" as:

...a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being related to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination, and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected, and fulfilled. (World Health Organization, 2002)

The survey later asks these minor children "questions about sexual health access," "about your own access to sexual health care [and] what you think and believe about access to sexual health care for other people," with "sexual health access" defined as:

The ability to get all of the resources you need to stay sexually healthy such as: (a) condoms (b) contraceptives (c) sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing & STI treatment (d) medically-accurate sexual health education (e) identity affirming communities/resources and (f) trusted adults.

A few questions near the end of the survey ask about COVID-19 impact on romantic relationships and access to sexual health services, presumably to justify the use of COVID-19 relief funds. The final page of the survey links to explicit websites with age-inappropriate discussions of sexual matters for pre-pubescent children and teens.

Here is a PDF of screenshots of the Amplify Tulsa / City of Tulsa-funded teen sex survey, including screenshots of the Tulsa Parks and Amplify Tulsa Facebook posts and the home pages of the sex ed websites linked at the end of the survey. These screenshots show the course of the survey after the respondent identifies his/her age as 15.

On Monday, July 18, 2022, the survey was promoted briefly on the Tulsa Parks Facebook page. An update was posted at 12:39PM CDT to the official Facebook account for the City of Tulsa Parks Department urging children as young as 15 years old to fill out an online survey about "teen sexual health & well-being." The post (at this link until sometime the morning of the 20th, when it appears to have been deleted) read as follows:

Attention, Tulsa! Our partners over at Amplify Tulsa need you to help them help Tulsa!

They are conducting a community needs assessment this summer to help identify how Tulsa can better support teen sexual health & well-being, as well as what parents, schools, healthcare providers, youth-serving organizations, & other community members need to support the young people in their lives.

There are two different surveys, one for teens 15-17 (to complete with permission from their parents) & one for adults. And, both are translated into Spanish. So, we hope you'll consider filling out this completely anonymous survey and/or sharing it with your community before August 15. Please & TY!

Here is a direct link to the surveys: https://okstateches.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_e2QBApTNODkN1Cm

#tulsaparks #amplifytulsa #communityhealthneeds #surveys

Yesterday, August 15, 2022, at 5 p.m., was the deadline for campaign contribution and expenditure reports for candidates in any August 23 election. This includes the City of Tulsa general election as well as runoff elections for statewide office, county office, and the legislature.

The legislature has created a mess of disparate filing offices and methods. Rather than making it convenient for candidates to file and citizens to search from a single ethics database for every election in the state, county candidates file paperwork at the county election board (at a time when election boards are scrambling to prepare for early voting and election day itself), school board candidates file with the school district clerk (who is hired by the incumbents and might have an incentive to make it very inconvenient for challengers to find out where the incumbents are getting their funds), and municipal candidates file with the city or town clerk. The legislature has just made things worse this session, opening the door to suppression of information and biased enforcement by larger cities.

Meanwhile, legislative, statewide, and judicial candidates file electronically with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. For a few brief shining years, candidates for large municipalities and counties were also filing electronically through the same system, but apparently some public information can be too public for the comfort of some local officials, and their friends in the legislature reversed course.

The Tulsa County Election Board is always very prompt in responding to email requests for filings, sending scans in reply. The Tulsa Public Schools clerk demands an Open Records request, which she may or may not get around to processing before the election.

Of all the local-government ethics filing repositories I've dealt with, the City of Tulsa clerk's office is the best at making information promptly available to everyone. Here is the City of Tulsa campaign contribution report home page. When a filing comes in, it is physically time-stamped, scanned, and immediately posted to the website, with filings sorted to different webpages by office, and then within each page by candidate. Filings from previous elections are retained at the bottom of the page in an archive section. I appreciate this. There are some improvements that could be made: A standard naming template for PDFs and links, a way to download the entire collection of files, original electronic files (more searchable than scanned and OCRed paper reports).

If you are a candidate on the ballot, and your campaign committee has raised OR spent more than $1,000, you're required to file a Statement of Organization within 10 days and then you're required to file a Contributions and Expenditures report between 14 and 8 days before the election, covering all of your contributions and expenditures through the 15th day before the election. There are also quarterly filing requirements for the rest of the year. PACs who give to municipal campaigns are also required to file quarterly reports.

Based on the scans available on the City Clerk's website, here are the City of Tulsa candidates on the August 23 ballot who have filed timely reports:

• District 1: NONE
• District 2: NONE
• District 3: NONE
• District 4: Laura Bellis, Michael Birkes, Michael Feamster, Matthew Fransein
• District 5: Ty Walker
• District 6: Christian Bengel, Connie Dodson
• District 7: Lori Decter Wright
• District 8: Phil Lakin
• District 9: Lee Ann Crosby*, Chad Hotvedt

Some other candidates kinda-sorta made a half-hearted attempt at complying:

• District 1: Only David Harris has filed a Statement of Organization for the 2022 election cycle, but no candidate has filed any Campaign and Expenditures report for this cycle.
• District 2: Incumbent Jeannie Cue filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and quarterly reports up to and including the period ending June 30, but no candidate has filed the required pre-election report.
• District 3: Crista Patrick filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and filed a supplemental report for the $1,000 she received from the Home Builders Association, but no candidate has filed the required pre-election report.
• District 4: Bobby Dean Orcutt filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and a report for the period ending June 30, but has not filed the required pre-election report. Kathryn Lyons, a 2020 candidate who considered a 2022 race, and incumbent Kara Joy McKee, who made a late decision not to run for re-election, both filed reports earlier in the cycle.
• District 5: Incumbent Mykey Arthrell-Knezek did not file a Statement of Organization for the 2020 cycle, filed a contributions and expenditures report for the period ending June 30, but has not filed the required pre-election report. Adam "Grant" Miller filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 6: Lewana Harris filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 7: Jerry Griffin filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report. Ken Reddick filed a 2022 Statement of Organization but has not filed any contributions and expenditures reports.
• District 8: Scott Houston filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 9: Incumbent Jayme Fowler filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report. Lee Ann Crosby filed a Statement of Organization, a June 30 report, and a "continuing report of contributions" including late July contributions, which suggests a confused but good-faith effort to comply.

In addition to candidates, two political action committees filed reports with the City Clerk.

Greater Tulsa PAC (GTPAC) had $14,346.35 in the bank as of June 30, but had not spent any money other than for administrative and fundraising costs. The PAC's chairman is Jacob Heisten, treasurer is Toni Garrison of Kellyville. This is presumably the PAC established to help Mayor GT Bynum IV re-elect rubber-stamp councilors.

Tulsa Biz Political Action Committee (TulsaBizPAC), an arm of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, filed a 2022 Statement of Organization, but has not filed the required quarterly report since 2018. TulsaBizPAC helps to ensure the election of councilors who will keep shoveling city tax dollars to the Tulsa Regional Chamber. Three candidates (David Harris in District 1, Michael Feamster in District 4, and Jayme Fowler in District 9) have announced their endorsement by TulsaBizPAC.

Voters in the City of Tulsa will be issued a separate ballot at the Tuesday, August 23, 2022, general election, which is also the runoff election for partisan races for federal and state office. The ballot will include the city council election for that district, plus propositions for three amendments to the Tulsa City Charter. Here is the sample ballot for Tulsa District 4, including the three citywide propositions.

My recommendations in summary:

• Proposition 1 (mayoral salary process clarified): YES
• Proposition 2 (one-year residence requirement for city office): NO
• Proposition 3 (increase auditor's term from 2 to 4 years): NO

Kudos to the council for including the actual language to be inserted in the charter as part of the ballot title, rather than just a summary that may or may not be accurate. That said, it doesn't show you exactly what's changing, so I will do that below, with strikethrough to show you what's being deleted and underscore to show what would be added if the proposition passes.

Proposition No. 1 would change Article III, Section 1.2:

During the first term of office under this amended Charter, tThe Mayor shall receive a salary of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) per year payable as employees of the city are paid. Thereafter, tThe annual salary to be received by the Mayor may be changed shall be as provided by ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council; provided, no change in salary shall become effective prior to the commencement of the term of office next succeeding the term in which the change is made and then only in the event such change was approved prior to the general election for the next succeeding term.

It's healthy to be skeptical when something is called a "housekeeping amendment" as substantive changes are often smuggled in under that description, but this seems to be exactly that. It is useful to clarify that the vote to modify the salary involves the passage of an ordinance, as opposed to a Council resolution or some other sort of vote. As an ordinance, it would require not only passage by a majority of the full membership (five affirmative votes, even if some councilors are absent or abstaining) but also the mayor's signature. I will vote YES on Proposition 1. I hate to see the historical information deleted, because it's useful for comparing mayoral compensation to the cost of living increase since the charter came into effect in 1990. The amendment would be even better if it required approval of a salary increase at least 30 days prior to the general election -- enough time for the electorate to hear and consider before casting a ballot.

Proposition No. 2 would affect the residency requirements for city officers in Article VI, Section 7. As this is a wholesale replacement of text, it's going to be clearer to show old and new language side by side, rather than show insertions and deletions. Here's the current language, which includes some transitional language relating to an amendment to Article IV, setting the qualifications for City Auditor.

No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Mayor or City Auditor unless such person shall be a qualified elector and resident of the city at the time of filing for the office. In addition, no person shall be eligible to hold the office of City Auditor unless such person is a Certified Public Accountant or Certified Internal Auditor and maintains such certification during their term of office. The person elected City Auditor in the election held November 10, 2009, shall be eligible to hold that office and perform his or her duties, even if that person does not have the required certification, during the term of office beginning the first Monday in December of 2009. Thereafter, or in the event that person elected in November 2009 does not serve a full term, the person holding the office of City Auditor shall be required to comply with the certification requirements set forth herein. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Councilor for an election district unless such person shall have been a qualified elector and resident of the election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district. The requirement that a person shall have been a qualified elector of an election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district shall not apply to the election district held immediately following the adoption of an Election District Plan; provided, persons desiring to become a candidate for the office of Councilor for an election district shall be qualified electors of the election district at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that district.

Here is the proposed new language:

A candidate for Mayor or City Auditor must have been a qualified elector and resident of the City for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident of that election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. This requirement shall not apply to an adjusted election district which changed a candidate's residency to a different election district; provided, a candidate must have been a qualified elector and resident within their preexisting election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing.

The significant changes here are changing the residency requirement to file for city office from 90 days to a full year -- no parachuting into the district at the last minute to run for office. The term "qualified elector" is defined in Article III, Section 1, of the Oklahoma Constitution:

Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe, all citizens of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years, who are bona fide residents of this state, are qualified electors of this state.

The only exceptions I can find are in 26 O.S. 4-101, which excludes felons who have not completed their sentence and the incapacitated from registering to vote.

The language dealing with adjustments to election district boundaries could be clearer. "Preexisting" is an odd word to use; "previous" would make more sense. Does "adjustment" apply to decennial redistricting, or does it only apply to the minor adjustments the Council is authorized to make to account for changes in precinct boundaries? I would drop the third sentence entirely and change the second sentence: "A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident within the boundaries of the election district as defined at the time of filing for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing." Alternatively, you could make a person in such a situation eligible to run either in his old district or his new district, which would work against a spiteful Mayor or City Council "adjusting" boundaries to forestall a challenge to one of their council buddies. In 2011, for example, such a provision would have allowed John Eagleton to run for re-election to his District 7 seat, even after Dewey Bartlett Jr's allies on the Election District Commission gerrymandered him into District 9.

While I like the longer residency requirement in principle, I'm inclined to vote NO on Proposition 2 and ask the council to try again with more precise language dealing with changes caused by moving district boundaries.

By the way, despite the deletion of City Auditor qualifications in this section, passage would not eliminate those qualifications, as they are also present in Article IV, Section 1.

Proposition 3 changes the term of office for City Auditor in Article VI, Section 1.2.B:

City Auditor. The terms of office of and the City Auditor elected in the year 2009 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2009, and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2011; thereafter, tThe City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with the following exception: the term of office of the City Auditor elected in the year 2013 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2013 and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2014. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Thereafter Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

Here's the proposed new text on its own:

City Auditor. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

In a nutshell, the City Auditor's term will double from 2 to 4 years. The current auditor, Cathy Champion Carter, who was just re-elected because no one filed against her, will be up for re-election in 2024. One final two-year term will commence in 2024 and end in 2026, and then every term thereafter will be four years in length, elected in the cycle opposite the mayor. While we have yet to have a City Auditor play the adversarial role expected by the framers of the 1989 charter, and auditors have routinely won re-election with minimal or no opposition, citizens should not relinquish the ability to get rid of a bad city official promptly without having to go through a recall process. I will vote NO on Proposition 3.

Tulsa County Commission District 3 candidate Kelly Dunkerley has been falsely claiming an endorsement from a former Trump campaign official in mailings to voters. Stuart Jolly, who was national field director for the 2016 Trump campaign, denies ever having met Dunkerley and denies endorsing him.

Three mail pieces, sent before the June 28, 2022, primary, falsely tout an endorsement from Jolly. One mailer shows a photo of Jolly and the words "Endorsed by Lt. Col. Stuart Jolly, President Trump's National Field Director, Trump for President 2016 Campaign." Another contains a fabricated quote accompanied by a photo and what purports to be a signature: "Dear Tulsa, Please vote this Tuesday, June 28 for Conservative Businessman Kelly Dunkerley for Tulsa County Commissioner. Like President Trump, Kelly is the real deal!" A fake newspaper called "The Tulsa Times" featured an article that stated, "Jolly, who has endorsed Dunkerley in the GOP primary race for Tulsa County Commissioner is no stranger to political dynamics."

In response to a query from BatesLine, Stuart Jolly stated: "It's unfortunate that Tomahawk Strategies didn't ask or consult with me first. I don't know and have never met Kelly. He may be a great guy, but I never gave my permission to endorse him over Bob Jack. Someone there jumped the gun." Tomahawk Strategies is a paid consultant for Dunkerley's campaign.

Dunkerley (listed in voter rolls as John Kelly Dunkerley) is a graduate of David H. Hickman High School in Columbia, Missouri, and the University of Missouri. He is a former City of Jenks elected official, worked for State Farm in public affairs and government relations, and is currently an agent for Tedford Insurance. The Tulsa County check register shows Tedford Insurance as the only vendor appearing in the register for the Property Insurance account since FY2012, with the county spending $854,479.52 with Tedford in FY2022.

In the August 23, 2022, runoff, Dunkerley faces Bob Jack (in the voter rolls as Robert Ernest Jack), a retired construction executive with Manhattan Construction who has served in volunteer positions in the Tulsa County Republican Party and John 3:16 Mission. Bob Jack has been a Tulsa County resident for 44 years.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Jolly retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after more than two decades in the U. S. Army. He then served as executive state director for Oklahoma of Americans for Prosperity from 2006 to 2012, as executive director of Education Freedom Alliance, national field director for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and national political director of Great America PAC (a supporting PAC for the 2016 campaign). Jolly is now based in the Nashville area and is managing director of Cool Springs Financial.

Polls will be open Tuesday, June 28, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries have changed, in some cases dramatically. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot.

In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican primary elections on June 28, 2022. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

As I post this, I'm still unsure about several races, and there are other races I had planned to write about in detail, but time is short, people are voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold; in other races, there may be one or two other candidates that would be acceptable, or I simply don't know the endorsed candidate as well as I would like. There are certain incumbents that I'd like to see defeated, but I don't feel comfortable endorsing an opponent at this point. I'll try to fill in TBDs and NOTs before the start of early voting.

US Senate (unexpired term): Nathan Dahm
US Senate (full term): Joan Farr
1st Congressional District: Kevin Hern renominated without opposition
2nd Congressional District: Josh Brecheen
3rd Congressional District: Wade Burleson
4th Congressional District: James Taylor
5th Congressional District: Subrina Banks

Governor: Kevin Stitt
Lt. Governor: Matt Pinnell renominated without opposition
Auditor and Inspector: Cindy Byrd
Attorney General: John O'Connor
Treasurer: Todd Russ
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Ryan Walters
Labor Commissioner: Sean Roberts
Insurance Commissioner: Glen Mulready re-elected without opposition
Corporation Commissioner: Todd Thomsen

District Attorney, District 14: Steve Kunzweiler was re-elected without opposition

District 14 District Judge, Office 12: Kevin Gray

State Senate 2: Jarrin Jackson
State Senate 10: Emily DeLozier
State Senate 12: Rob Ford
State Senate 22: Jake Merrick
State Senate 26: Brady Butler
State Senate 34: Dana Prieto
State Senate 36: David Dambroso

State House 5: Tamara Bryan
State House 11: Wendi Stearman
State House 13: Brian Jackson
State House 24: Chris Banning
State House 66: Wayne Hill
State House 76: Timothy Brooks
State House 79: Paul Hassink

Tulsa County Assessor: John Wright
Tulsa County Treasurer: John Fothergill re-elected without opposition
Tulsa County Commissioner District 1: Stan Sallee renominated without opposition
Tulsa County Commissioner District 3: Bob Jack

Osage County Commissioner District 1: Everett Piper

District Attorney, District 7 (Oklahoma County): Kevin Calvey

MORE INFORMATION:

POLLING:

Amber Integrated surveyed all of the statewide races June 6-9.
KOTV/KWTV/Sooner Poll survey of the race to replace Inhofe, June 13-21

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico primary picks
• Muskogee Politico legislator tax votes, 2016-2018
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting videos, including candidate speeches
• OCPAC 2022 Primary Voter Guide
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements
• Endorsements from David Van Risseghem at Sooner Politics

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some endorsement lists that are negative indicators:

• Oklahoma Public Employees Association: State government employees union can be counted on to support bigger, less-efficient government and higher taxes
• Oklahomans for Public Education: OPE advocates for higher taxes, opposes school choice, and opposes efforts to keep leftist advocacy out of the classroom. They work to defeat principled Republicans. A yellow warning mark from OPE is a badge of honor for a conservative candidate. Here is the OPE voter guide for 2022.
• Oklahoma Education Association, state affiliate of the leftist NEA teachers' union, has endorsed nine Republicans in contested primaries. The list was leaked to Corey DeAngelis.

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

It's now 7 hours until polls open, but there are a couple of things that came up in the last couple of days worth noting:

In the full-term Senate race, I changed my pick from Jackson Lahmeyer to Joan Farr. My vote for Lahmeyer was a protest against incumbent James Lankford's squishiness and opposition to fixing McGirt, but now I feel we need to protest against Lahmeyer's creepy and misleading ads. The most recent example is Lahmeyer's use of an Associated Press story about a deposition Lankford gave in a 2010 lawsuit in which the family of a 13-year-old girl sued the family of a 15-year-old boy who had had sex with her, presumably at Falls Creek Baptist Assembly, of which Lankford was director prior to winning the 5th Congressional District seat.

The specific question by the attorney is not provided as a direct quote in the story, nor is the case number provided, which would allow independent analysis, but there seems to be a gap between the question the lawyer is asking -- Can a 13-year-old legally consent to sex? -- and the question Lankford appears to be answering -- Is it possible that a 13-year-old would willingly agree to participate in sex? The answer to the latter question is sadly, yes, a 13-year-old could be groomed by an older child or adult or warped by online filth. This is why we have age of consent laws. From the story:

Under additional questioning about whether he would allow his two daughters to consent to sex at the age of 13, Lankford gave a more expansive answer.

"No, I would not encourage that at all," he said. "Could she make that choice? I hope she would not, but I would not encourage that in any way with my own daughter."

Lahmeyer has turned Lankford's answer into a scandal: "Senator Lankford said under oath in a deposition that a 13 year old is old enough to consent for sex." But that isn't what Lankford said, and Lahmeyer is intelligent enough to know it. Lankford was quite clear that he doesn't approve of teenagers engaging in sexual activity; I suspect he would disapprove of anyone having sex before or outside of marriage. I've never heard anything to the contrary.

So how to teach Lankford a lesson without rewarding Lahmayer's mendacity? A vote for Joan Farr. Farr has managed to put herself on the ballot simultaneously in Oklahoma and Kansas for U. S. Senate seats in both states. She has no chance of prevailing in either state. But a vote for her is one more non-Lankford vote, and if there are more votes for other candidates than for Lankford, there would be a runoff. My hope is that winding up in a runoff as an incumbent would be a wake-up call for Lankford and an occasion for repentance and reform. If forcing Lankford into a runoff happens largely because of Farr, this ought to be a humbling outcome for Lahmeyer.

In the other Senate election, the race for Jim Inhofe's unexpired term, allies of Cushing physician Randy Grellner are claiming that it's Grellner that has a shot at the runoff. One of his followers recently called me a liar for pointing out that the most recent public poll of the race has Grellner at 1% but Nathan Dahm at 8%, within 5 points of passing T. W. Shannon and making a runoff with Mullin if conservatives close ranks behind Dahm. The Amber Integrated survey, also from the month of June, also put Grellner at 1%.

This follower claimed that Grellner got 15% in a recent poll. When I asked for proof, I was sent a screenshot of a push-poll question:

With a field of 13 candidates running for U. S. Senate, the race will go to a runoff. As of today, the frontrunner is Markwayne Mullin, but in a close second are several candidates with a variety of backgrounds. They are: Dr. Randy Grellner, a Republican Businessman who started from humble beginnings working on a ranch; Former Speaker of the House and CEO of Chickasaw Bank TW Shannon; and former EPA Administrator under President Trump, Scott Pruitt. if the election for those three were held today, who would you vote for?

The screenshot did not include results, but it's apparent that this was a push poll ("started from humble beginnings") designed to frame Grellner as the conservative outsider alternative, not a scientific poll, and it does not provide useful information to a conservative voter wanting to vote strategically for the like-minded candidate with the best shot of reaching a runoff. If you can only manage 15% of the vote in a poll that excludes the front runner (Mullin) and two well-funded conservative alternatives (Dahm and Holland), that is not at all impressive. I am suspicious that, because the number of respondents was small, this survey was designed to generate a number that Grellner could report favorably. It was certainly not designed to produce an honest result, and it will mislead Grellner's supporters to a disappointing outcome, one in which their votes could have, but didn't, help boost a conservative into the runoff.

More short takes on races for county offices, Tulsa area legislative seats, and judicial races.

There isn't a primary in two of the Tulsa County races up this year: County Treasurer John Fothergill did not draw an opponent at all, and District 1 County Commissoner Stan Sallee is unopposed for the Republican nomination, but will face Democrat Sean Johnson in the general election. (County Clerk, Court Clerk, Sheriff, and Commissioner District 2 are up in presidential election years.)

Tulsa County Assessor: John Wright. In 2018, John Wright succeeded his boss, Ken Yazel, and has continued to work to improve the office's professionalism and public access. A new assessor's office website is due to come online next week.

Tulsa County Commission District 3: Bob Jack. When he ran for State Senate 6 years ago, I was skeptical of Jack's conservative bona fides because of his past involvement with the Chamber, but I have had occasion over the intervening years to watch his service as a volunteer and elected official in the Tulsa County Republican Party. I have observed Bob Jack's solid commitment and willingness to advocate clearly for conservative principles, even in the face of public flack, as well as his increased wariness of forces that work under the GOP label but against the GOP platform. As a long-time but now retired leader in the construction industry, he is well equipped to scrutinize public works expenditures for waste.

Judicial District 14, Office 12: Kevin Gray. Gray, registered to vote as a Republican, has served as a prosecutor under District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler. Gray led the prosecution of the criminal who shot two Tulsa police officers, killing one. Incumbent Judge Martha Rupp Carter, first elected in 2018, did not seek re-election. The other candidates in the race are Tanya N. Wilson, a Democrat, and Todd Tucker, a Republican. Wilson has the financial backing of Kaiser System lawyer Frederic Dorwart and several other attorneys from his firm. Regardless of the winning percentage, the top two vote-getters in the Tulsa County-only primary will advance to the November general election for voters in both Tulsa and Pawnee Counties.

Only one other judgeship in District 14 was contested this year. There will be a November election for Office 13 between R. Kyle Alderson and David A. Guten. Both candidates are registered Republicans. The office was held by Judge William Musseman, Jr., who has been appointed by Gov. Stitt to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Legislative seats:

We've seen that we can generally count on Oklahoma Republicans to advance the pro-life cause and laws that carry out the Second Amendment, among other culturally sensitive issues. Where many Republicans have tended to fail those who elected them is in letting themselves be lead around by special-interest lobbyists either directly, or via legislative leadership. Republican legislators who demonstrate independence of mind and determination to eliminate waste and protect taxpayers are routinely targeted for defeat in the primaries by their Republican colleagues. There are too many legislative races to evaluate in detail as I would like to do if I had time, but you can go to the Ethics Commission website to see who gave the candidates money, you can see how incumbents did in the Oklahoma Constitution index, and you can see who is endorsed or condemned by anti-taxpayer groups like OPEA, OPE, and the State Chamber PAC. Notes on a few races that touch Tulsa and surrounding counties:

State Senate 2: Jarrin Jackson was an infantry officer in Afghanistan and Bronze Star recipient. Jackson received Tom Coburn's endorsement when challenging incumbent congressman Markwayne Mullin in 2016 for the seat Coburn once held. Jackson was a frequent guest on KFAQ's Pat Campbell Show, which gave a wide audience opportunity to observe his intelligent analysis and commitment to America's founding principles. Ally Seifried has some endorsements from conservative organizations, but her donors (including the State Chamber PAC and Democrat donor Burt Holmes) and consultants point to her being the last candidate conservatives should want in office.

State Senate 10: Emily DeLozier. Her opponent, incumbent Bill Coleman, has been endorsed by the leftist Oklahoma Education Association and by OPE.

State Senate 12: Rob Ford has served as a town official in Mounds and for many years as a leader in the Creek County Republican Party, which is how I got to know him. Both candidates in the race got an A rating from OKHPR. Anti-taxpayer organization OPE gave a poisoned apple to Ford's opponent.

State Senate 34: Dana Prieto has been endorsed by OKHPR and OCPAC. Prieto is a long-time small business owner who was endorsed by Tom Coburn in his previous run for State Senate. Peixotto also got an A rating on his OKHPR survey. Either Republican would be preferable to incumbent Democrat J. J. Dossett, but from campaign filings Prieto seems to have a better organized campaign.

State Senate 36: David Dambroso is endorsed by OK2A, OKHPR, and OCPAC. Incumbent John Haste got a C from OKHPR for his voting record on matters of health and parental rights, and he has been endorsed by the leftists at OPE and OPEA.

House District 24: Chris Banning, an Air Force veteran who founded Banning Investment Group and Banning Contracting Services, two service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses that provide services to the U. S. Department of Defense and Department of Veteran Affairs. According to his LinkedIn profile, Banning also serves as a director of the Oklahoma Defense Industry Association. Banning has been endorsed by OKHPR, OK2A, and OCPAC. Incumbent Logan Phillips has been endorsed by leftists at OEA, OPE, and OPEA, and his voting record earned a D from OKHPR.

House District 29: No recommendation. Kyle Hilbert, the incumbent, has been endorsed by OCPAC and OK2A, has a B (but not an endorsement) from OKHPR for his voting record, but is also endorsed by OPE and OPEA. Hlibert's rating from the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper is a mere 58 over his career, although he managed an 80 in the 2021 session. His opponent, Rick Parris, ran for the seat as a Democrat in 2016.

House District 66: Wayne Hill, Osage County GOP chairman, OK2A chapter director, and board member of Mend Pregnancy Resource Center, has been endorsed by OK2A, OKHPR, and OCPAC. Gabe Renfrow has the support of OPE and OPEA, plus lots of money from PACs. Clay Staires, brother-in-law of State Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready and son of the founders of Shepherd's Fold Ranch near Avant, and Sand Springs city councilor Mike Burdge are also running. Incumbent Jadine Nollan is term limited.

House District 76: Timothy Brooks is an agency partner with Flippo Insurance and volunteers as a Trail Life leader. Brooks was endorsed by OCPAC. Incumbent Ross Ford has been endorsed by OKHPR and OK2A, but also endorsed by leftists at OEA, OPE, and OPEA. Brooks's website has a long list of examples by date and bill number of Ross Ford's liberal voting record.

House District 79: Paul Hassink is an electrical engineer with degrees from Georgia Tech and Purdue and has special concern for the security and resilience of Oklahoma's power grid. Hassink was the consensus choice of the Tulsa 9/12 project, Tulsa Area Republican Assembly, and Tulsa County Republican Men's Club. Other Republican candidates are former Tulsa City Councilor Karen Gilbert and former Washington County Treasurer Stan Stevens, who left office in 2008, after pleading guilty to drug felonies involving charges of possession of opioids with intent to distribute. Gilbert is backed by the State Chamber PAC and numerous establishment types, including Democrat donor and Council-suer Burt Holmes. The incumbent is Democrat Melissa Provenzano.

Beyond Tulsa County boundaries:

Nationally renowned conservative commentator Everett Piper is running for the 1st District seat on the Osage County Commission. Piper, who served as president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, wrote the book Not a Day Care, decrying the trend toward safe spaces and trigger warnings on American college campuses.

Kevin Calvey had a sterling conservative record as state representative. He is running for District Attorney in Oklahoma County and would be excellent in that role.

I was pleased to see that my friend Jason Carini was re-elected Rogers County Treasurer without opposition.

State Sen. Nathan Dahm is within striking distance of making it into the runoff for U. S. Senator Jim Inhofe's unexpired term, according to a new Sooner Poll of the Oklahoma Republican primary. Oklahoma conservatives are beginning to coalesce behind the Broken Arrow legislator.

The poll shows U. S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin with 38.7%, Chickasaw Nation bank CEO T. W. Shannon with 13%, Nathan Dahm with 8.1%, Inhofe chief of staff Luke Holland at 5%, Scott Pruitt at 2.4, Alex Gray at 1.8%, and Dr. Randy Grellner at 1%.

Mullin has protected his lead with the Joe Biden strategy of hiding and avoiding questions. He has skipped two televised debates, claiming congressional business and refusing even to participate remotely from Washington.

Dahm, Pruitt, and Gray have all expressed support for a clear and effective remedy for the legal chaos created by the U. S. Supreme Court's McGirt decision, namely disestablishment of the "reservations" that Justice Neil Gorsuch claims were never abolished. Gray has suspended his campaign, and Pruitt came into the race at the last minute and has struggled to build a following or campaign funds. If supporters of Pruitt, Gray, and Grellner were to back Dahm instead, a supporter of disestablishment would make the runoff. Mullin and Shannon are both publicly committed to endless legal ambiguity to the detriment of ordinary Oklahomans (both tribal members and not) and to the benefit of casino-fueled petty fiefdoms.

(Under disestablishment, tribal governments would return to their role prior to McGirt -- managing revenue generated by casinos and other businesses for the benefit of tribal citizens and overseeing land held in trust. Disestablishment would eliminate the ambiguous sovereignty status created by McGirt, in which the territorial sovereign of a place depends on the ancestry of the people present and the activities in which they are engaged.)

More short takes, this time on the races for Federal office on the June 28, 2022, Oklahoma Republican primary ballot: Both Senate seats, an open race in the 2nd Congressional District, and challenges to incumbents in Districts 3, 4, and 5. If you're on the home page, click the "Continue Reading" link to... continue reading and see the whole post.

U. S. Senate, unexpired term: Nathan Dahm. Dahm is by far the most capable legislator on the ballot. As a state senator, Dahm has been effective in writing and passing legislation that advance conservative priorities. My only reservation has been concern about dividing the conservative vote and winding up with two candidates in the runoff (Mullin and Shannon) who are willing tools of gambling-fueled petty fiefdoms and hostile to the interests of ordinary Oklahomans. While Scott Pruitt, like Dahm, is a supporter of disestablishing the purported reservations created by the McGirt ruling, and while Pruitt has previously won a statewide election, Pruitt's self-destruction as EPA administrator, the result of his arrogant indifference to boundaries and appearances, makes me doubt his ability to prevail in a runoff with Mullin or Shannon. Fundraising and social media impact indicate that Dahm has a larger and more committed following than Pruitt. In the Amber Integrated poll, Dahm and Pruitt were neck and neck, but well behind Mullin and Shannon. If the large proportion of undecided voters are conservatives put off by the front runners, but waiting to see who has a shot at the runoff, Dahm could pass Shannon.

(UPDATE: The latest Sooner Poll shows conservative support beginning to consolidate around Dahm, putting him within reach of passing Shannon for the second slot in the runoff.)

The 2022 Republican primary for Oklahoma Attorney General pits appointed conservative incumbent John O'Connor against 2018 loser Gentner Drummond. The nominee will face a Libertarian in November.

I endorse John O'Connor for Attorney General, a conservative Oklahomans can trust to defend our laws and our rights.

John O'Connor was appointed to the position by Gov. Stitt in early 2021 and is running for a full term. O'Connor has been vigorous in defending Oklahoma citizens and their laws against federal encroachment and assertive in advancing Oklahoma's position as we clean up the mess created by the erroneous McGirt decision. O'Connor has been endorsed by Oklahomans for Health and Parental Responsibility, National Right to Life, Oklahomans for the Second Amendment (OK2A), National Rifle Association PVF, Susan B. Anthony Fund, Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, Parent Voice Tulsa, Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee, among other conservative groups.

His opponent, Gentner Drummond, ran and lost in the 2018 Republican primary. As noted at the time, Drummond has been a major donor to Democrat campaigns, such as Brad Carson's run for Senate in 2004 and Dan Boren's campaigns for the U. S. House, at a time when Republican control of both bodies was on the line. In 2018, Drummond was an enthusiastic supporter of and donor to district judge candidate Christopher Uric Brecht-Smith, a homosexual leftist who expressed support for using the law to force adoption agencies to pretend "gay marriage" was no different than genuine marriage. More recently, Drummond donated $1,000 on August 31, 2020, to elect braindead Joe Biden president.

A large number of Drummond's donors are also donors to Democrat Joy Hofmeister's campaign for governor and many are connected to leftist billionaire George Kaiser's network including BOK Financial PAC, Frederic Dorwart and other attorneys from his law firm, Ruth Kaiser Nelson (George's sister, and long-time Planned Parenthood board member), Janet Levit (former TU provost and wife of GKFF executive director Ken Levit), Joey Wignarajah (Kaiser's Argonaut Private Equity).

Drummond has also taken money from tribal government officials. In a recent debate, Drummond echoed tribal bank executive T. W. Shannon's highly dubious and likely disingenuous claim that the McGirt ruling will have no precedential impact beyond criminal prosecution. Drummond also stated that he opposes congressional disestablishment of the purported reservations. Clearly, Oklahomans cannot rely on Drummond to work proactively to protect our rights against encroachment in the name of "tribal sovereignty."

In that same debate, John O'Connor showed clarity about the crisis facing Oklahomans:

"It's not just me who supports that," O'Connor said. "For 113 years, the federal government and the state of Oklahoma all treated this as there were no reservations. In 2016, one of our tribal leaders testified to the Congress that there were no reservations in the state of Oklahoma."

O'Connor said statehood effectively ended reservations in Oklahoma before pivoting to the rights of home owners.

"The promise we need to look at is the promise to eastern Oklahomans who bought their homes who have paid 20 years on a 30-year mortgage," he said. "The promise to them is that they can own their land and their homes under the circumstances that they understood when they bought their homes, and that is that the state of Oklahoma is their sovereign."

Somewhat short takes on the races for Oklahoma statewide office on the June 28, 2022, Republican primary ballot. Lt. Governor Matt Pinnell did not draw a primary opponent, and Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready has been re-elected without opposition. I've endorsed John O'Connor for Attorney General in a separate entry.

During the recent U. S. Senate debate on KOTV/KWTV, there wasn't much distance between the four participating candidates on economic matters and social issues. There were a few differences on how the U. S. should respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the wisdom of unrestricted aid to the Ukrainian government. Conservatives would find any of the candidates would be preferable to unopposed Democrat nominee Kendra Horn and losing the chance to regain Republican control of the Senate.

There were major differences on what is the most consequential issue for Oklahomans in this election: The response to the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court's 5-4 declaration, contrary to over a century of settled law, that the Creek "Reservation" was never disestablished and still exists for the purposes of the Federal Major Crimes Act, and therefore a child molester's conviction in state court was invalid. Whether it would serve as a precedent affecting land title, regulation, oil and gas exploration, and taxation is a matter that Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, chose to leave unresolved for future litigation.

The implications of a ruling in favor of tribal government territorial sovereignty were serious enough to prompt amicus briefs supporting the State of Oklahoma from the City of Tulsa, the Federal Government, the National Sheriff Association, and several states.

The situation directly created by Gorsuch's McGirt opinion is bad enough: Eastern Oklahoma crime victims who are tribal citizens and non-tribal citizens who are victimized by tribal-citizen criminals must look to a Biden-appointed U. S. Attorney and overcrowded federal courts (and Clinton/Obama/Biden federal judges) for justice, rather than the district attorneys and district judges that are directly accountable to Oklahoma voters.

Candidate Alex Gray, National Security Council chief of staff in the Trump administration, was not invited to the debate, but he has been prominent in calling for the most straightforward solution: Congress must act formally to disestablish the reservations that no one believed or claimed existed until a few years ago. This will not happen, however, unless Oklahoma senators and congressmen lead the way. It is therefore crucial for Oklahoma voters to choose candidates at every level who will actively work for disestablishment of reservations.

Nathan Dahm and Scott Pruitt spoke strongly in favor of disestablishment in the debate. Pruitt called the McGirt decision "an existential threat to the sovereignty of the state of Oklahoma," and said, "Congress has every right and every authority to disestablish reservations in the State of Oklahoma and restore the sovereign boundaries of Oklahoma." Dahm noted the verbal sleight of hand used by Gorsuch to "create" a reservation that Gorsuch admitted was never formally established. Dahm committed to introducing legislation to disestablish reservations in Oklahoma.

(The question was discussed in the KOTV/KWTV debate beginning at about 25:30.)

Luke Holland, Jim Inhofe's former chief of staff, wants to let all those pending cases based on the McGirt precedent work their way through the Federal courts and after that have the state and the Federal government and the tribal governments negotiate a crazy quilt of compacts and agreements to deal with the problems that the court rulings create.

T. W. Shannon, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation and CEO of the bank owned by the Chickasaw Nation government, tried to minimize the impact of the McGirt ruling, as if the court's manufacture of a reservation would have no impact on other cases. He spoke against any federal action on the matter, attempting to frighten voters that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would be in control of Oklahoma's destiny. That's strange thing to say, considering that he's running for Senate in hopes of being part of an expected Republican majority in both houses of Congress with Republican leaders replacing Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Schumer as Senate Majority Leader.

Later in the debate (about 37 minutes in), Shannon was asked about the amicus curiae brief he signed in support of child molester McGirt. In reply, Shannon claimed that McGirt "is now doing more time and serving a longer sentence" after being convicted in Federal court. Shannon's answer is misleading: McGirt's sentence in state court was 500 years; now he's serving life without parole. Either way, McGirt would have spent the remainder of his life in prison, but Shannon's way was to require McGirt's victim, now an adult, to relive the abuse she suffered at Jimcy McGirt's hands so that he could be convicted a second time.

Congressman Markwayne Mullin, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, skipped the debate, but a statement Mullin made jointly with four tribal governments when the ruling was announced makes clear where he stands, with the "sovereign nations" and against Oklahoma citizens who need legal clarity and stability.

Indeed, any candidate that talks about the importance of respecting the "sovereign nations" (which went out of the sovereignty business after negotiating the sale of their territory in the run-up to statehood) has already demonstrated that he or she isn't going to be working assertively to protect the rights of ordinary Oklahomans.

The quarrel here is not with the hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans who also have citizenship in a tribe and enjoy the benefits that citizenship confers. The argument is with the tribal government leaders who have suddenly become much more important despite the tiny numbers of voters involved in electing them. In a recent column, OCPA President Jonathan Small wrote:

David Hill was elected Muscogee principal chief with 3,399 votes. Kevin Stitt was elected Oklahoma governor with 644,579 votes....

Few Cherokees are directly involved in tribal government. The tribe reports over 400,000 individuals are Cherokee citizens, but less than 14,000 voted in the last election for tribal chief. (Similar trends are also notable for the Muscogee Nation, which claims 86,100 citizens.)

Tribal governments, despite the low level of voter accountability, were already gaining influence and power thanks to tribal gambling revenues and special carveouts for tribally owned businesses. Now that court rulings may give them control over land use regulation and oil and gas exploration in half of the state, expect tribal governments to become favor factories, as businesses go through tribal officials to get the favors they want if the decisions of city or state authorities don't go their way.

Pro-abortion forces are already discussing ways to subvert the expected ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, such as a Biden executive order to make military bases sanctuaries for legal abortion, regardless of the laws of the state where a base is located. It's not a stretch to imagine a tribal government being financially induced by Planned Parenthood and abortionists to allow killing centers to open under tribal protection, even if it ran counter to the moral convictions of their tribal citizens.

In that same column, Jonathan Small commented on Cherokee Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr's executive order to ban the Oklahoma flag from flying over Cherokee property. The chief quickly reversed course when a majority of the response from Cherokee citizens opposed the band.

If reservations remain established in SCOTUS's view and courts build on the McGirt precedent, these officials will have substantial and growing control over the everyday lives of Oklahomans, but only a small percentage of Oklahomans will have any say in their election. People can come to Oklahoma from Burma and Cuba and Ghana and Iraq and, in due time, follow the process to become citizens of Oklahoma and the U. S. A. with full rights. But even though my children were born here in Tulsa and have lived here their whole lives, because they don't have the right ancestry, they can never, ever be accepted as citizens of the Muscogee Nation. When South Africa allowed only a small minority ethnic group to participate in the democratic process, there was a global outcry and decades of pressure to overthrow that apartheid regime. We recognize the injustice of the situation in wealthy oil sheikdoms where the vast majority of residents are guest workers with no rights and no say in who rules them and how. Why would we want to replicate those injustices here?

The historical record makes it clear that Congress was intent on fully integrating Indian Territory and its residents into the United States of America as full citizens of a state like all the others. Tribal citizens in Indian Territory were granted U. S. citizenship in 1901. The U. S. reached negotiated settlements with each of the tribes to allot communal lands to individual Indians and to distribute the proceeds of the sale of any surplus lands for the benefit of tribal members. As of 1907, tribal governments no longer had any territory to govern.

The uncertainty and lack of accountability generated by the McGirt ruling is a problem for all Oklahomans, tribal citizens or not. At the 2022 primary, Oklahomans need to reject candidates who want to play footsie with tribal governments and elect candidates who will restore Oklahoma's sovereignty and protect the rights of all Oklahomans, not just the minority with special ancestry.

The three-day filing period for the 2022 City of Tulsa election for City Council and City Auditor has concluded. All nine council seats are contested, but City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter has been reelected without opposition.

Here is the complete list of candidates who filed. Names, ages, and addresses are from the official county election board filing list, which has not yet been posted to the website. I've added party registration, incumbent status, other affiliations, and the candidate's name in the voter rolls in parentheses where it differs from the name that will be on the ballot. (UPDATE: Here is the official list of City of Tulsa 2022 election filings.)

The 31 candidates by party registration: 17 Democrats, 10 Republicans, 2 Libertarians, 2 independents.

Councilmember - Council District 1

• Vanessa Hall-Harper (Vanessa Dee Hall-Harper), incumbent Dem, 50, 2020 W. Newton St., Tulsa, OK 74127


• David Harris (David Jeremy Harris), Dem, 48, 1780 E 51st St N, Tulsa, OK 74130


• Francetta L. Mays (Francetta Lajuana Mays), Dem, 58, 1740 W. Haskell Pl., Tulsa, OK 74127

Councilmember - Council District 2

• Aaron L Bisogno (Aaron Louis Bisogno), Rep, 35, 7722 South Saint Louis Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74136


• Jeannie Cue, incumbent Rep, 68, 5313 S 32 Pl W, Tulsa, OK 74107

Councilmember - Council District 3

• Daniel Joseph Grove, Lib, 22, 1407 N. Evanston Ave., Tulsa, OK 74110


• Crista Patrick (Crista Caye Patrick), incumbent Dem, 48, 1918 N. Joplin Ave., Tulsa, OK 74115

Councilmember - Council District 4

• Laura Bellis (Laura Simon Bellis), Dem, 33, 224 N. Rosedale Ave., Tulsa, OK 74127


• Michael Birkes (Michael Bruce Birkes), Ind, 72, 1021 E 7th St., Tulsa, OK 74120 (registration address is 702 S Owasso Ave)


• Scott Carter (Martin Scott Carter), Dem, 56, 208 East 19th St, Tulsa, OK 74119 WITHDRAWN


• Michael Feamster (Michael James Feamster), Bynum-Chamber-Rep, 39, 2259 South Rockford Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74114


• Weydan Flax (Weydan Shawn Flax), Dem, 60, 1234 S Birmingham Ave, Tulsa, OK 74104


• Matthew Fransein (Matthew James Fransein), Dem, 34, 727 S. Louisville Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112


• Bobby Dean Orcutt (Robert Dean Orcutt), Dem, 39, 1630 S. St Louis Ave, Tulsa, OK 74120

Councilmember - Council District 5

• Mykey Arthrell (Michael William Arthrell-Knezek), incumbent Dem, 37, 1747 S Erie Pl, Tulsa, OK 74112


• Latasha Jim (Latasha Earlene Jim), Ind, 29, 11035 E 16th St, Tulsa, OK 74128


• Adil Khan (Adil Khalid Khan), Dem, 38, 9815 E. 21st Pl Apt C, Tulsa, OK 74129


• Grant Miller (Adam Grant Miller), Lib, 35, 1139 S. Canton Ave., Tulsa, OK 74112


• Ty Walker (Tyron Vincent Walker), Rep, 56, 8538 E. 24th St., Tulsa, OK 74129

Councilmember - Council District 6

• Christian Bengel (Christian D. Bengel), Rep, 54, 13173 E 29th St., Tulsa, OK 74134


• Connie Dodson (Connie L Dodson), Dem, 55, 13302 E. 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74134


• Lewana Harris (Lewana Michelle Harris), Dem, 45, 1505 S. 117th E. Ave, Tulsa, OK 74128

Councilmember - Council District 7

• Jerry Griffin (Gerald Ray Griffin), Rep, 78, 6552 E. 60th, Tulsa, OK 74145


• Ken Reddick (Kenneth Andrew Reddick), Rep, 39, 5008 S 85th East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74133


• Lori Decter Wright (Lori Marie Decter-Wright), Dem, 47, 8706 East 86th Street, Tulsa, OK 74133

Councilmember - Council District 8

• Scott Houston (Jon Scott Houston), Rep, 66, 8534 S. 70th E Ave, Tulsa, OK 74133


• Phil Lakin (Phillip Lawrence Lakin, Jr.), incumbent GKFF-Rep, 54, 9808 S. Knoxville Ave, Tulsa, OK 74137

Councilmember - Council District 9

• Lee Ann Crosby (Bobbie Leeann Crosby), Dem, 38, 3845 South Madison Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105


• Jayme Fowler (Jayme Don Fowler), incumbent Rep, 63, 5601 S. Gary Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105


• Chad Hotvedt (Chad Edward Hotvedt), Dem, 38, 1515 E 60th St, Tulsa, OK 74105

City Auditor

• Cathy Champion Carter, Dem, 67, 4120 E 22nd Pl, Tulsa, OK 74114

CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this entry, I had erroneously transcribed Ken Reddick's date of birth and the address on his declaration, and I incorrectly identified the full registration name for Christian Bengel in District 6 as Riley Christian Bengel (his son).

UPDATE 2022/06/17: Scott Carter withdrew his candidacy for District 4 by the Friday deadline.

At the end of the second day (June 14, 2022) of the three-day filing period for the 2022 City of Tulsa election for City Council and City Auditor, only two incumbents remain unopposed: District 3 Councilor Crista Patrick (D) and City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter (D).

All nine City Council seats and the City Auditor position will be on the ballot. The filing period continues through 5 p.m. Wednesday. The City of Tulsa filing packet is here. A candidate must turn in a notarized declaration of candidacy to the Tulsa County Election Board at 555 N. Denver, along with a $50 cashier's check as a deposit or a nominating petition signed by at least 300 registered voters in the district in lieu of a deposit.

In Tuesday's filings, incumbent District 8/GKFF Councilor Phil Lakin now has a challenger in Republican Scott Houston, an insurance company VP who is also an author and motivational speaker. On his campaign website, Houston emphasizes conservative values, limiting government overreach (specifically mentioning mask mandates and business shutdowns), and roads and infrastructure. Houston's filing means there are now conservatives running in four of the nine council races.

Incumbents Vanessa Hall-Harper (D, District 1) and Mykey Arthrell (D, District 5) filed for re-election, along with two more candidates in District 5, Latasha Jim (I) and Grant Miller (D). Lee Ann Crosby (D) filed in District 9; incumbent Jayme Fowler has yet to file for re-election.

The race for the open seat in District 4 added two candidates, Scott Carter (D) and Bobby Dean Orcutt (D). Carter is registered to vote as Martin Scott Carter; the publications list on the webpage of Scott Carter, Professor of Economics at the University of Tulsa, has Martin Carter listed as author for most of the articles listed.

Bobby Dean Orcutt is owner of the Mercury Lounge. He was planning a run for District 4, held off with the intention of backing Emeka Nnaka, but now that the district boundary modification in April has moved Nnaka into District 1, Orcutt has evidently decided to jump back in.

Party registration of the 24 candidates who have filed thus far: 14 Democrats, 8 Republicans, 1 Libertarians, and 1 independent.

Here is the complete list of candidates who filed as of Tuesday evening Names, ages, and addresses are from the official county election board filing list. I've added party registration, incumbent status, other affiliations, and the candidate's name in the voter rolls in parentheses where it differs from the name that will be on the ballot.

Today (June 13, 2022) was the first day of the three-day filing period for the 2022 City of Tulsa election for City Council and City Auditor. All nine City Council races will be on the ballot. The filing period continues through 5 p.m. Wednesday. The City of Tulsa filing packet is here. A candidate must turn in a notarized declaration of candidacy to the Tulsa County Election Board at 555 N. Denver, along with a $50 cashier's check as a deposit or a nominating petition signed by at least 300 registered voters in the district in lieu of a deposit.

This will be the first election using the Tulsa city council district lines drawn after the 2020 census. Precinct boundaries and numbers have changed as well. On April 6, 2022, the council adopted significant changes to the final redistricting plan produced by the Election District Commission in December 2021. The map below (click to see the full size version) shows the originally adopted 2021 plan in blue-and-white lines and the current districts as colored areas. A consequence of that change is that Emeka Nnaka, who came to the election board today to file for the open District 4 seat, learned that his Kendall-Whittier home was now in District 1. He left without filing.

As of the end of the first day, incumbents have filed for re-election in the auditor's race and five of the nine council districts. District 4 Councilor Kara Joy McKee announced earlier this year that she would not seek re-election. All other incumbent councilors are reported to be running for re-election, but incumbents in Districts 1, 5, and 9 have yet to file.

So far incumbents Crista Patrick and Phil Lakin (District 8) are unchallenged. Patrick is the latest member of the family dynasty to sit in the District 3 seat. Lakin is chairman of the George Kaiser Family Foundation and CEO of the Tulsa Community Foundation, and as such represents the stranglehold that billionaire George Kaiser has on Tulsa city government and the non-profit sector, pushing the city leftward. Challenging and defeating Lakin would be a good start on making Tulsa where community organizations once again represent the city's diversity.

Conservatives have filed for only three of the seats. Ty Walker, a restaurateur who ran for Mayor in 2020, has filed in District 5, a seat he sought in 2018 when no incumbent was running. In District 7, Tulsa school board member Jerry Griffin has filed to challenge incumbent Democrat Lori Decter Wright. In District 6, Christian Bengel is seeking a rematch with incumbent Democrat Connie Dodson -- two years ago, he advanced to a runoff but lost in November.

The open seat in District 4 has so far drawn only two candidates. Michael Feamster, an executive at Nabholz Construction Corporation, and Laura Bellis, a Planned Parenthood Great Plains advisory board member. Bellis has pronouns in her LinkedIn bio. In April 2020, Bellis made news for urging Gov. Stitt to lock down Oklahoma. Feamster's LinkedIn feed is full of cheerleading for the Chamber and G. T. Bynum, and raised over $28,000 as of March 31, from many of the usual establishment funders, including $5,000 from QuikTrip PAC and a maximum $2,900 donation from the Osage Nation. Michael Junk, Bynum's former deputy mayor and campaign manager, hosted a fundraiser for Feamster last fall, prompting questions about Bynum's support for Feamster's candidacy. Clearly, conservative voters and supporters of midtown neighborhood preservation don't yet have a candidate to vote for in the District 4 race; hopefully one will emerge by Wednesday.

While city elections have been officially non-partisan since 2016, all of the 16 candidates who have filed thus far are registered to vote with a political party: 9 Democrats and 7 Republicans. Republicans are a plurality of registered voters in Tulsa, at 86,796, compared to 84,320 registered Democrats, 43,460 independent voters, and 2,063 registered Libertarians. While party registration doesn't say everything that needs to be said about a candidate's views, particularly on city issues, and while RINOs abound, it is one more piece of information that a voter may find useful.

Here is the complete list of candidates who filed on Monday. Names, ages, and addresses are from the official county election board filing list. I've added party registration, incumbent status, other affiliations, and the candidate's name in the voter rolls in parentheses where it differs from the name that will be on the ballot.

U. S. Senator Jim Inhofe is retiring after a long political career that includes service in the Oklahoma State Senate, 6 years as Mayor of Tulsa, 8 years in the U. S. House, and 28 years in the Senate. 13 Republican candidates have filed for the seat.

This article is an overview of the field, with links to candidate websites, social media profiles, and campaign finance information. The candidate's name will be hyperlinked to his or her campaign website, if it exists. The Wagoner County Republican Party asked each of the candidates to complete a lengthy questionnaire, but only four candidates responded. These are linked in the list below as WCRP.

The winner of the primary (after a likely August runoff) will face former Democrat congresswoman Kendra Horn, Libertarian perennial candidate Robert Murphy, and 86-year-old independent candidate Ray Woods on the general election ballot.

Only five candidates reported receiving campaign contributions to the Federal Election Commission as of March 31, 2022. Former Attorney General and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt entered the race during the filing period and has presumably raised money. The next FEC filing deadline is June 16, which will cover pre-primary contributions through June 8. Additionally, the final filer in the race, Dr. Randy Grellner, has announced an expenditure of $786,000 to produce and run a TV commercial, so I've included him in the tier of candidates making a serious run.

Because only two candidates can advance to the August runoff, conservative voters will need to consolidate around a single champion in the primary to have any hope of having someone worth voting for in the runoff. Polling and spending will be important factors for casting a strategic vote in June. I've been encouraging absentee voters to hold off voting until we have a clearer picture of the battlefield. The pre-election FEC reports will be telling. Sooner Poll polled this race and other statewide and congressional races, but they only managed a sample of 306 voters over a 17-day period, and 31.4% of voters were undecided.

Nathan Dahm, Broken Arrow, 39, State Senator, District 33. FEC, campaign FB page, personal FB profile, @NathanDahm on Twitter.

Alex Gray, Nichols Hills, 32, former National Security Council Chief of Staff in the Trump administration: FEC, campaign FB page, @AlexGrayForOK on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube channel.

Randy J. Grellner, Cushing, 56, family practice physician: FEC, campaign FB page, medical practice website.

Luke Holland, Tulsa, 35, former chief of staff to Sen. Jim Inhofe: FEC, personal FB profile, @LukeHollandOK on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube channel.

Markwayne Mullin, Westville, 44, U. S. Representative, 2nd District: FEC, @MarkwayneMullin on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube channel.

Scott Pruitt, Tulsa, 54, former Oklahoma Attorney General, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator: FEC, campaign FB page, @ScottPruitt_OK on Twitter, YouTube channel, WCRP.

T.W. Shannon, Oklahoma City, 44, CEO of Chickasaw Community Bank, former Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives: FEC, campaign FB page, @TWShannon on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube channel.

There are six more candidates who filed for the unexpired four-year Senate term:

Michael Coibion, Bartlesville, 67: personal FB profile, WCRP.

Jessica Jean Garrison, Owasso, 47: FEC, personal FB page, campaign FB page, WCRP.

Adam Holley, Bixby, 41: FEC, personal FB page, @adamforoklahoma on Twitter, YouTube channel, WCRP.

Laura Moreno, Edmond, 37, nurse practitioner: personal FB profile, medical practice website.

Paul Royse, Tulsa, 52, : campaign FB page, personal FB profile.

John F. Tompkins, Oklahoma City, 65, orthopedic surgeon: FEC, personal FB profile, book page.

SB962, which would move school board general elections to November, has cleared the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee and is awaiting action by the whole house.

The bill does not alter terms of office and does not make the elections partisan. The bill does not change the date for school millage elections, which will still fall on the 2nd Tuesday in February, but these elections are rare (if not non-existent) as legislation has made most mill levies permanent.

Currently, the school board filing period begins on the 1st Monday in December, with a primary election on the 2nd Tuesday in February and a general election on the 1st Tuesday in April. As I have often written, the filing period, falling right after Thanksgiving at the beginning of the run-up to Christmas, is easy to overlook, there is worse weather and less daylight available for door-to-door campaigning in the winter months, and it's easy for voters to forget the dates of the school board election when their district only has a chance to vote once every five years (in all but a few school districts). The situation is well-suited for incumbent board members to minimize turnout to those voters likely to vote their way.

Here is the schedule of school board elections proposed by SB962, as approved by the Senate and the House Rules Committee:

In odd-numbered years:

• Three-day filing period begins: April, 2nd Wednesday
• Primary election: September, 2nd Tuesday
• General election: November, 2nd Tuesday

In even-numbered years:

• Three-day filing period begins: April, 2nd Wednesday
• Primary election: August, 4th Tuesday (state/federal runoff)
• General election: November, Tuesday after 1st Monday (state/federal general)

Ray Carter's OCPA story on the bill links to an Annenberg Institute analysis of the demographics of voters in school board elections in Oklahoma, California, Illinois, and Ohio. From the study's conclusion:

America's system of deference to local school boards in making essential educational governance decisions is premised on the assumption that the objectives of voters who elect these boards will be aligned with the educational interests of public school students. Our analysis points to several reasons for doubting the validity of this assumption in many contexts. As we show, most of those who cast ballots in school board elections do not have children enrolled in local schools and these voters do not resemble the students who attend the public schools. The disconnect is especially pronounced on the dimension of race, and the gap is particularly large in majority-nonwhite districts and in places with the most worrying racial achievement gaps.

While it is beyond the scope of our research to identify the root causes of these disparities in political participation,16 we should note there is evidence suggesting that institutional reforms have the potential to narrow them considerably. For example, moving school board elections on-cycle, to coincide with higher-turnout national elections, is likely to significantly boost the political representation of households with children and increase the racial diversity of the electorate (Kogan, Lavertu and Peskowitz 2018).

The bill is on the House floor agenda for today with an amendment from Speaker McCall which would shift the filing period to the 1st Monday in April for odd-numbered years, but leave even-numbered year filing period to line up with filing period for federal and state offices. The effective date is also changed -- November 1, 2022, rather than January 1, 2023, which would bring it into effect for the next school board cycle. This also means if the bill passes the House, it will have to go back to the Senate for final approval.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is not the ideal end state. At the very least we ought to harmonize election dates between odd- and even-numbered years. Better yet, move all school (and municipal) elections to the fall of odd-numbered years, so that voters are in the habit of going to the polls every year in November. Odd-numbered year elections could be reserved for local offices and issues (municipal and school board), to insure that they aren't overshadowed by who's running for president or governor. Change school board terms to two years (everyone on the ballot every odd-numbered year) or four (roughly half of the members up for election every odd-numbered year). Require school and municipal ballot propositions to be held only on the November election in odd years. It may be, however, if this SB962 goes through, the value of these other reforms will be more apparent and easier for the legislature to contemplate.

UNOFFICIAL RESULTS UPDATE, with all precincts counted: The conservative, pro-parent school board candidates have either won outright (Debbie Taylor in Broken Arrow) or made it into a runoff (conservative Tim Harris against Susan Lamkin, who had the endorsement of the GKFF-connected incumbent and the support of the TPS establishment; conservative Shelley Gwartney against Union incumbent Chris McNeil). The top two candidates in both races were just a tiny margin apart -- 62 votes in Tulsa and 12 votes in Union. So the pro-parent candidates and supporters will have a busy eight weeks between now and the April 5, 2022, runoff. In addition to trying to help Tim Harris in Tulsa district 7 and Shelley Gwartney in Union district 2, there will also be a race in Tulsa district 4 (East Central area) between pro-parent candidate E'Lena Ashley and the Democrat incumbent, as well as two-candidate races for Jenks, Skiatook (2 seats), Owasso, and Sand Springs school boards, and Tulsa Tech Center board seat 3.

Smallest election in the state: 21 voters turned out in the Town of Tushka (just south of Atoka) and all of them voted for renewing their franchise with PSO. The Town of East Duke (in Jackson County near Altus) had 36 unanimous voters on their PSO franchise vote. East Duke appears on maps as just plain Duke, another situation, like New Cordell and Pryor Creek, where there's a mismatch between corporate and common name. In Tulsa, 11,314 turned out to vote for the PSO franchise, which passed by a 76-24 split, but I suspect that number was boosted a bit by the school board and bond issue elections happening in some areas.

Polls will be open today, Tuesday from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote (and if you have a reason to go to the polls) and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see. Here's the complete list of elections today across Oklahoma.

Below are my thoughts on some of the races in the Oklahoma school board and municipal primary election on February 8, 2022.

This is last-minute and thrown-together, I am sorry to say. Someone decided to foment a crisis, which landed atop an intense work load, plus the final push of a busy MIT admissions interview season, which ended yesterday.

Serious challengers to the status quo have emerged in several school board races in the Tulsa metro area. These candidates are committed to serving the best interests of students and their parents, rather than the agendas of administrators or unions or overly-influential, control-freakish "philanthropic" organizations. Parent Voice of Tulsa has identified the strongest pro-parent and pro-student candidates in each race, listed below.

Tulsa School Board, Office No. 7: Tim Harris. The retired district attorney, a conservative Republican, is running for an open seat. He has been endorsed by Parent Voice of Tulsa, the Republican Party of Tulsa County, former Congressman Jim Bridenstine, Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell, retired college president Everett Piper, and many other conservative voices.

His principal competitor is a registered Democrat who has no history of voting in school board elections and has the backing for prominent left-wing institutions and donors, including the outgoing GKFF-connected board member, along with a number of other GKFF-affiliated donors, former Democrat Mayor Kathy Taylor, and the Tulsa County Democratic Party. Voting for her would be to vote for keeping failed Superintendent Deborah Gist, for accepting more strings-attached "grants" from foundations, for keeping kids in masks or out of the classroom, failing to learn via Zoom.

Union School Board Office No. 2: Shelley Gwartney. Gwartney has four children in Union schools and has been very involved as a volunteer in the district and the community. Her website goes into detail on the issues that matter to conservative parents and taxpayers. Gwartney has also been endorsed by the Republican Party of Tulsa County and Parent Voice of Tulsa.

Broken Arrow School Board Office No. 2: Debbie Taylor. Taylor is mother to four BA graduates and grandmother to 9 current students in the Broken Arrow Public Schools. Taylor is also supported by Parent Voice and the Republican Party of Tulsa County in her race for the open seat.

City of Tulsa franchise election for PSO: NO. While most Tulsa voters will not have the opportunity to vote for school board, there is a citywide election. Voters will decide whether to continue to grant PSO a franchise to use its right-of-way -- including the right-of-way along your back fence -- for the next 15 years. Here is the description on the ballot:

Do you approve the City of Tulsa's Ordinance No. 24695, granting an electric franchise to Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO), so that PSO may use and occupy the streets, public ways and public places of the City for installing, operating and maintaining poles, wires and other equipment, for the purpose of furnishing electricity to the public? PSO will charge its consumers a reasonable, regulated fee for the electricity furnished. PSO must abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the Franchise Ordinance. PSO will pay fees to the City of Tulsa for the use of the public ways, as calculated in the Ordinance. This franchise will last for fifteen (15) years.

You will not find any reference to this election on the CityOfTulsa.org homepage, but Ordinance No. 24695 can be found on Municode, which hosts the city charter and ordinances. Here is a copy of the proposed City of Tulsa PSO franchise, which was approved by the City Council on November 17, 2021, and signed by Mayor G. T. Bynum IV the following day. Included in that PDF is a "redline" version showing how the new franchise differs from the one that has been in force since 1997, a quarter-century ago. The new franchise has a shorter term, only 15 years; it raises the franchise fee from 2% to 3% of gross receipts, a cost that will undoubtedly be passed on to Tulsa residents and businesses; it does not provide a way to revisit the franchise fee during the 15-year term; and it has a provision that would allow the City to order burying lines below ground, but the City (read: Tulsa taxpayers) would have to cover the extra cost.

As a rule, I think that voters ought to punish attempts by public officials to sneak something past them by putting it on a special ballot, and at the same time incurring the cost of of a special election and the burden on the election board and its volunteers. Whatever the positive or negative aspects, it ought to be on the same general election ballot we use to elect city councilors and the mayor. So I recommend a NO vote on the PSO franchise.

Catoosa Public Schools bond issue: NO. The bond issue would replace the current Cherokee Elementary School building (on the west side of Cherokee Street, built circa 1960 and formerly served as the junior high, middle school, and upper elementary) with a new building, which would also eliminate the district's use of the Helen Paul Learning Center, which was built by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s and is just about the only historic building left in all of Catoosa. The administration is silent on what will happen to the Helen Paul building. I confess a personal interest: All but one of my classrooms from kindergarten to 8th grade have been demolished. The only one left is the classroom on the southeast corner of the intersection of the main corridor and the original entrance, where I was in Mrs. Helen Paul's 2nd grade class. This is also the only one of my mother's kindergarten classrooms remaining in Oklahoma. New facilities may be nice, but some of us recall the sparkling new J. W. Sam Elementary building from about 25 years ago, which was closed because of shoddy construction. I would vote no and demand some answers about historic preservation and construction quality. There is also an open school board seat on the ballot.

Also on today's ballot across the Tulsa metro area:

• Sand Springs: Two City Council races
• Bixby: $43 million bond issue for a performing arts center
• Coweta: A revote, due to failure to comply with public notice requirements, of last September's one-cent sales tax election
• Sapulpa: Vote to make the "temporary" 2% sales tax permanent
• Bixby Public Schools: Two bond issues, Prop No. 1 for $110 million to include a new high school building; Prop No. 2 for $4.5 million for student transportation
• Jenks Public Schools: Two bond issues totalling $14,025,000.

Remember that voting "no" on a bond issue is a way to send a vote of no confidence in your school's board and administration, even if you don't have the opportunity to vote directly for a board member.

Down the turnpike, Oklahoma City at-large city councilor David Holt (he has the ceremonial title of "mayor"), who has made his living as a professional schmoozer and never had a real job (as far as I can tell), is running for re-election. He is opposed by Carol Hefner, who is running as a conservative, pro-free-market, pro-public-safety candidate; Frank Urbanic, a lawyer who successfully challenged Holt's attempts to shut down city businesses during the pandemic; and Jimmy Lawson, an activist pushing for criminal justice "reform" and "equity." Carol Hefner has the endorsement of the Oklahoma County Republican Party, the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) and Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (OK2A). If no one gets 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff in April.

Holt refused to debate his challengers.

Unless conservative voters in Oklahoma's cities eject progressive mayors and councilors from office, these progressive mayors will continue to prioritize policies aimed at turning these cities "blue," moving Oklahoma toward a future where, like Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, and many other states, corrupt "progressive" urban centers will control elections for the whole state. We need mayors and councilors in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman (we already have them in Broken Arrow!) who will make their cities attractive to conservatives who are refugees from other states.

POST-ELECTION UPDATE: While the winning percentage was lower than 2015, it was still 3-to-1 in favor. Turnout was only 17,599, a tiny increase over the 17,125 that voted in March 2015. That's about 11.5%. Most organizations require a quorum of the membership to be present to take any action; why shouldn't we require a quorum of 50% of eligible voters to cast a ballot in order for a proposition to be enacted into law?

The two municipal propositions in Lahoma and Spavinaw were franchise renewals for OG+E and PSO, respectively, and passed unanimously. Navajo Public Schools bond issue passed by 5 votes.

There's yet another election this Tuesday, June 8, 2021. The Tulsa Public School board scheduled a special election for four general obligation bond issue propositions totaling $414 million. TPS residents can express their lack of confidence in the TPS administration's stewardship of our tax dollars and our children's education by voting NO on all four propositions. Opponents of the bond issue will hold an Accountability Matters Rally Opposing TPS School Bond at 5:30 pm, Monday, June 7, 2021, at the Education Service Center, 3027 S. New Haven Ave.

Never mind that we had an annual school general election back on April 6. TPS decided to hold the bond election at a time when nothing else would be on the ballot, when most Oklahomans' minds would be on summer activities. In all of Oklahoma, only four places are having an election on June 8, 2021: The Town of Lahoma (Garfield County), the Town of Spavinaw (Mayes County), Navajo Public Schools (Jackson & Greer Counties), and Tulsa Public Schools, which requires four county election boards (Creek, Osage, Tulsa, Wagoner) to staff precincts.

A school bond issue requires a corresponding increase in property taxes in the district to repay the borrowed money. Even property owners (e.g., senior citizens) who enjoy a valuation freeze will see their taxes go up, because the bond issue increases the millage rate, not the valuation of the property.

Governmental taxing authorities like scheduling special elections, because it offers a great deal of control over who turns out to vote. School officials will be sure to remind teachers and administrative staff that there's an election, and they might target parents with an interest in a particular project slated to be funded by bond money. Otherwise they keep it as quiet as possible. There's unlikely to be an organized campaign against the bonds, because concentrated benefits motivate funding for the "vote yes" side, while diffuse costs mean that opponents don't have as strong a motivation to contribute financially to its defeat. The last bond election in March 2015 drew only 17,125 voters. As of March 29, there were 152,453 eligible voters in the TPS district. Under Oklahoma law, school bond issues require approval of 60% of those voting.

But such an election also is an unusual opportunity for parents and taxpayers to issue a vote of no confidence in TPS leadership. School board elections are seemingly set up to defeat democracy. In most districts, it is only possible to replace one of the five board members every year. As a large district, TPS has a seven-member board and four year terms, but in either situation, there is no way to "throw the bums out," to clean house, to elect a new slate of board members that will take the district in a different direction. Making matters worse, filing period is held in early December when everyone is thinking about Christmas, and the school board elections are often the only item on the ballot during the February primary and April general election.

A school bond issue offers every voter in the district a chance to vote at the same time. It is the perfect opportunity to let the school board know that you're unhappy with the superintendent, the board, curriculum, the COVID-19 response, school closures, and the district's too-cozy relationship with progressive philanthropic organizations.

None of a school district's operational funds come from bond issues, so defeating a bond issue does not jeopardize teachers' salaries or the day-to-day running of the schools. Defeating a bond issue just means that TPS will have to wait a bit longer to build another monstrosity like the new Clinton West Elementary (formerly Clinton Middle School), which was James Howard Kunstler's "Eyesore of the Month" in March of 2010.

Clinton West Elementary (formerly Middle School), Eyesore of the Month, March 2010.
James Howard Kunstler described the building as "a building that expresses to perfection our current social consensus about the meaning of education. It stares balefully at the street with the blank-faced demeanor of an autistic child preparing to explode in violent rage. It summarizes our collective aspirations about school as the unidentifiable contents of an inscrutable set of boxes."

This time around, there is an active campaign against the bond issue propositions. Both Tulsa Parent Voice and the Tulsa County Republican Party have announced their opposition to the bonds.

There are plenty of reasons that the administration and board of Tulsa Public Schools deserve a vote of no confidence. Here are just a few that come readily to mind:

1. Scheduling a bond issue election for the summer, when nothing else is on the ballot, is designed to discourage voter participation. A solid defeat of the bonds will discourage such anti-democratic behavior in the future.

2. TPS schools are failing. Out of 73 campuses receiving a State Department of Education report card in 2019, 57 received Ds or Fs (29 and 28, respectively). Only one school, Booker T. Washington High School, managed an A. (You can download grades and stats for every school in Oklahoma here.)

3. TPS is shrinking, but the demand for funds is unchanged. Since the 2015 bond, TPS enrollment has decreased by 6,500 students, but TPS is asking for as much as it did then, including money for new facilities. Ten schools that were promised 2015 bond money were closed instead: Jones, Park, Penn, Remington, Academy Central, Greeley, Grimes, ECDC Porter, Mark Twain & Gilcrease. Gilcrease was closed despite a petition signed by 2,500 residents.

3. The school board's 2020 decision to extend Superintendent Deborah Gist's contract through 2023 was timed to prevent newly elected school board members from participating in the decision, which shows profound disrespect for the voters.

4. TPS pushes progressive politics. Superintendent Gist's May 2021 personal statement about "equity" is filled with leftist jargon from the Critical Race Theory glossary, but the rot is by no means limited to Gist. The district's "Who We Are" page states that "living our values requires working actively to dismantle systems of racial oppression."

5. The information about the bond issue propositions on the TPS website is supportive marketing material, not neutral, just-the-facts information. This is in violation of state law.

6. TPS requires a formal request under the Open Records Act to release campaign contribution reports that, by state law, must be filed with the school district clerk. TPS does not respond to these requests in a timely fashion -- another anti-democratic policy.

7. TPS has a bloated administrative structure and spends millions on consultants.

8. TPS has continued to force children to wear masks and never returned to full-time in-person learning.

There are plenty of other reasons to revolt against the current TPS administration, many of which you'll see documented on the sos-tps.org website, which also has the specifics on the four propositions. A vote against the bond propositions is the simplest way to express a demand for change at Tulsa Public Schools.

House Bill 1775 (2021), signed into law earlier this week by Gov. Kevin Stitt, takes up a grand total of four sheets of paper. The substance of the bill occupies a mere page and a third, 282 words by my count. So it's frustrating, if not surprising, that the Tulsa Whirled and broadcast media outlets should mischaracterize the bill, when they could easily quote the entire text. (Here's all the info on HB 1775, including earlier versions, amendments, and legislative votes.)

Although HB 1775 targets the infiltration of Critical Race Theory (CRT) into our taxpayer-funded schools and universities, it does not use that phrase. Instead, it prohibits specific racist and sexist ideas from being taught. There are two subsections of what will become 70 O. S. 24-157. Subsection A deals with state universities, requiring the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to promulgate rules, subject to legislative approval, to enforce the following law:

No enrolled student of an institution of higher education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex shall be prohibited.

Subsection B deals with K-12 schools, and the State Board of Education is assigned to enforce it:

The provisions of this subsection shall not prohibit the teaching of concepts that align to the Oklahoma Academic Standards.

1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

1. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,
2. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,
3. an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,
4. members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,
5. an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,
6. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,
7. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or
8. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Who would defend any of the ideas listed above? And yet these very ideas are being incorporated into school curricula (as well as corporate training) across America and throughout the Anglosphere. If we had a mainstream media worthy of our attention, they would be asking critics of HB 1775 to read the above list and indicate which of the ideas they endorse teaching to school children.

(Christopher Rufo has been tireless in documenting the spread of "woke" education and now is turning his attention to "woke" corporate indoctrination with an exposé of Disney's racist diversity and inclusion program. Rufo's coverage of CRT in the Federal Government led to President Trump's executive order banning racist dogma.)

Many critics of HB 1775 selectively quote subparagraph B.1.g. as prohibiting the teaching of any historical event that might make a student feel uncomfortable, for example, the Trail of Tears, the Tulsa Race Massacre, lynching, or Jim Crow laws. A change in wording ("ought to feel" or "is obliged to feel" instead of "should feel") might have avoided the easy distortion, but the language is clear enough to the careful reader. The bill bans teaching that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex" (emphasis added). That last phrase has been utterly ignored by the mainstream media. A student ought to feel sad or angry when learning that a mob of white people descended on a black community, shot people and looted and burned their homes and businesses, but a person in academic authority over them, funded by Oklahoma taxpayers, should not tell the student that he should feel personally guilty because he has skin color in common with those responsible for these evil deeds.

Note the reference to Oklahoma Academic Standards, which I have hyperlinked above. The current Social Studies standards, last updated in 2019. HB 1775 explicitly allows the topics in these standards to be taught, notwithstanding anything else in the bill. All of the historical subjects that critics have claimed will be suppressed are in fact included, for example:

OKH.1.3 Compare the goals and significance of early Spanish, French, and American interactions with American Indians, including trade,the impact of disease, the arrival of the horse,and new technologies.

OKH.1.4 Compare cultural perspectives of American Indians and European Americans regarding land ownership, structure of self-government, religion, and trading practices.

OKH.2.3 Analyze the motivations for removal of American Indians and the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830; trace the forced removal of American Indian nations, including the impact on the tribal nations removed to present-day Oklahoma and tribal resistance to the forced relocation

OKH.3.1 Summarize the impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction Treaties on American Indian peoples, territories, and tribal sovereignty including:

1. required enrollment of the Freedmen
2. Second Indian Removal
3. significance of the Massacre at the Washita
4. reasons for the reservation system and the controversy regarding the reservation system as opposed to tribal lands.
5. establishment of the western military posts including the role of the Buffalo Soldiers
6. construction of railroads through Indian Territory

OKH.3.4 Compare multiple points of view to evaluate the impact of the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) which resulted in the loss of tribal communal lands through a transfer to individual property and the redistribution of lands, including the Unassigned Lands and the Cherokee Outlet, by various means.

OKH.3.5 Explain how American Indian nations lost control over tribal identity and citizenship through congressional action, including the Indian Reorganization Act.

OKH.5.1 Examine the policies of the United States and their effects on American Indian identity, culture, economy, tribal government and sovereignty including:

1. passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
2. effects of the federal policy of assimilation including Indian boarding schools (1880s-1940s)
3. authority to select tribal leaders as opposed to appointment by the federal government
4. exploitation of American Indian resources, lands, trust accounts, head rights, and guardianship as required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

OKH.5.2 Examine multiple points of view regarding the evolution of race relations in Oklahoma, including:

1. growth of all-black towns (1865-1920)
2. passage of Senate Bill 1 establishing Jim Crow Laws
3. rise of the Ku Klux Klan
4. emergence of "Black Wall Street" in the Greenwood District
5. causes of the Tulsa Race Riot and its continued social and economic impact
6. the role labels play in understanding historic events, for example "riot" versus "massacre"

Those are just the Oklahoma History standards. The standards for U. S. History demand more depth and nationwide scope on slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Indian removal, and other topics that don't paint the United States in a positive light. (In fact, the U. S. History standards as a whole seem unbalanced to the negative; the State Board of Education ought to undertake a review.)

The hair-on-fire reactions to HB 1775 from educrats and leftist politicians fail to engage the substance of the bill, setting up strawmen that are easily demolished.

Now Phil Armstrong, the Project Director for the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, has sent a letter to Governor Kevin Stitt claiming that his signing of HB 1775 amounts to submitting his resignation from the commission. (Gov. Mary Fallin was given an ex officio seat when the commission was created, as was Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb; these were handed down to the present incumbents when Fallin and Lamb left office in January 2019.) Despite the official sounding name, I can't find any statute or ordinance creating the commission, which appears, from the cast of characters, to be a cog in what Michael Mason has dubbed "the Kaiser System" -- the network of organizations and initiatives tied to billionaire philanthropist George Kaiser.

The Governor's office responded:

Governor Stitt and the First Lady both strongly support reconciliation, healing and the rebirth of Tulsa's Greenwood District, and have worked with the 1921 Race Massacre Centennial Commission on multiple productive events.

While it has become clear that Mr. Armstrong does not speak for the entire Centennial Commission, it is disappointing that some commission members feel that a common-sense law preventing students from being taught that one race or sex is superior to another is contrary to the mission of reconciliation and restoration.

Governor Stitt issued Executive Order 2021-12 as a signing statement to expressly direct that the Tulsa Race Massacre, and all historical events included in the Oklahoma Academic Standards, must still be taught in our schools. The governor believes that any other interpretation of this legislation is misguided and fundamentally inaccurate, and that position was expressed to the Centennial Commission before the bill was signed into law.

America has made great progress over the last century toward an America in which a person's race and sex are no impediment to the full enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever racism or sexism may lurk in stony human hearts, laws and regulations enforcing racism and sexism have been swept away. And yet the Left continues to seek access to our children to sow mutual suspicion and division. Despite massive Republican supermajorities in the legislature, Leftists claim the right to run our taxpayer-funded schools and universities. HB 1775 is a welcome first step in ordinary Oklahomans reasserting democratic control of state institutions of cultural formation.

MORE: Don't miss BatesLine's collection of stories, maps, and images on the history of Tulsa's Greenwood District, Black Wall Street, after the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.

POST-CONVENTION UPDATE: John Bennett was elected chairman, Shane Jemison was elected vice chairman. The convention reverted to paper ballots, a likelihood that outgoing Tulsa County Chairman Bob Jack, serving as convention credentials committee chairman, had anticipated and had prepared for.

Four candidates have filed to become the next chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party. Incumbent chairman David McLain of Skiatook is not running for re-election. The candidates on tomorrow's ballot at the Oklahoma State GOP Convention are:

• John Bennett from Sallisaw (personal Facebook profile)
• Christine Leeviraphan from Catoosa (personal Facebook profile)
• Charles Ortega from Altus (personal Facebook profile)
• Jenni White from Luther (personal Facebook profile)

Bennett and Ortega are former state representatives, Leeviraphan is chairman of the Rogers County Republican Party.

Personal obligations won't permit me to attend tomorrow's Oklahoma Republican State Convention, but if I could be there, I would cast my ballot for Jenni White. Jenni is a principled conservative, an excellent communicator, and someone with a record of getting things done. Her signature accomplishment was as a leader of the successful effort to end Common Core in Oklahoma, in the face of opposition from the state's education and business establishment.

After the Common Core battle ended, White won a seat on her town's board of trustees in 2017 and was immediately chosen by her colleagues to serve as mayor. In that unpaid role, she provided leadership for a number of town improvements and won praise from Luther officials.

Town Manager Scherrie Pidcock wrote, "She is a problem solver and has worked tirelessly on grants, committees and numerous projects as Mayor of Luther. She is decisive, a person of action, and in my experience, always keeps her word." Kasey Wood, chairman of the Luther Parks Commission, said that White's "accomplishments in 4 years changed the trajectory of the Town of Luther" and that she has "been such a pleasure to work with and always willing to do whatever is needed."

Two of the candidates are former state representatives. Charles Ortega was term-limited this last election; he had a 55% lifetime conservative score from the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper. John Bennett decided not to run for re-election in 2018; he had a 69% cumulative conservative score. Some of my conservative friends are backing Bennett rather than White. I don't doubt his conservative credentials, but he didn't have a record of accomplishment at the State Capitol. It's great to make bold conservative statements on policy, but you also have to be able to persuade your colleagues to vote for your ideas. Jenni White has demonstrated the ability to get legislators to vote for her cause, even though she didn't have the access that a legislator would have.

I anticipate three knocks by supporters of Jenni's opponents: She lost her race for re-election as town trustee earlier this week; she wasn't an enthusiastic Trump supporter from the beginning; and she attended the January 6th rally in Washington in support of election integrity.

Tuesday's Luther town election drew only 80 voters, 37 of whom voted to re-elect Jenni White as trustee. (Four years ago, over 200 voters went to the polls.) Four candidates were on the ballot, and voters could cast a vote for up to three. Jenni made her decision to run for state party chairman after it was too late to take her name off the ballot, and she opted to put her resources into running for state chairman rather than her re-election effort. (If she had been re-elected and then elected state chairman, she would have had to resign her seat as a town trustee.)

Some Lutherites professed to have been offended by her attendance at the January 6th rally in Washington. In this column for The Federalist published before the rally, she recounted her years of political involvement, trying to accomplish change by playing by the rules of the game; the lack of response by judges and state officials to clear evidence of fraud and significant irregularities undercut her belief in the system, and she wanted to stand with her fellow Americans to call for Congress to investigate. After the march, she wrote her first-hand account of the day, far from the violent incidents at the Capitol.

White has been criticized from some Trump fanatics because she was a Ted Cruz supporter in 2016. I don't know of any serious, thoughtful conservative activist who did back Trump during the 2016 primary season. There were plenty of other candidates with a track record of conservative action from which to choose, and there was plenty of reason at that point to doubt the sincerity of Trump's commitment to conservatism and his ability to carry out an effective program of conservative action.

Jenni White has the intelligence, organizational skills, and powers of persuasion to be a successful Oklahoma Republican Party chairman, and I ask my friends at the convention to give her their support.

FOR VICE CHAIRMAN:

Shane Jemison from Wapanucka and David Van Risseghem from Tulsa are the two candidates seeking the vice chairman's office. Jemison is currently serving as State GOP Vice Chairman, having been elected last June to fill the vacancy by the Republican State Committee; he was previously elected by county party officials across eastern Oklahoma to serve as 2nd Congressional District Republican Chairman. Van Risseghem has the soonerpolitics.org website and has served in a number of party offices at the county level. I know David personally, and I know he has great familiarity with the nuts and bolts of the party organization.

MORE:

Jamison Faught expresses his concerns about the plan to use all-electronic voting at the state convention, despite the fact that, unlike last year's conventions, delegates must attend and vote in person.

Post-election update: My municipal picks did better than my school board picks. Mask mandates and issues related to the CCP Bat Virus (COVID-19) response had salience with the voters, who turfed out pro-mask candidates in Oklahoma City, Broken Arrow, Jenks, and elsewhere. The outsiders beat the insiders in BA, despite attack mailers and deceptive "Vote Republican!" signs backing Thurmond and Kelly; their victorious opponents are also Republicans.

TPS board member Jennettie Marshall won re-election by 25 votes. Out of 18,152 eligible voters, only 1,027 bothered to vote. In Union seat 1, Joey Reyes won by 24 votes; only 434 of 8,213 eligible voters voted. 35,176 eligible voters in the Owasso Public School district, only 1,766 voters turned out.

Polls will be open today, Tuesday from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote (and if you have a reason to go to the polls) and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

I don't get to vote, which will be the case for large numbers of Oklahomans, perhaps the vast majority. Here's the complete list of elections today across Oklahoma.

Below are my thoughts on some of the races in the Oklahoma school board and municipal general election on April 6, 2021, along with links to candidate websites, social media profiles, and candidate forums for elections and bond issues on Tuesday's ballot in Tulsa County.

I was asked whether it should be reckoned as significant if a candidate is a friend of mine on social media. Short answer: No, don't read anything into that. I got on social media back when it was a fairly new thing and when I was a columnist for an alt-weekly and a frequent guest on the top local talk radio show, and I was more liberal in accepting friend requests than I am today.

How do I evaluate city council and school board candidates? A person's party registration can be a useful clue, but in many of these non-partisan races both candidates are of the same party. I look for some indication of political courage, a willingness to take a public stand and explain a position on a controversial issue. A commitment to accountability and transparency is crucial. A school board full of cheerleaders for the superintendent is superfluous. A city council that rubber-stamps the city manager's recommendations is not doing its job.

Candidates are very careful nowadays to scrub social media of anything controversial -- or even anything interesting. Campaign websites have turned into the online equivalent of the photo that came with the picture frame -- pleasantly generic. Nevertheless, you may yet find clues to a candidate's character and philosophy.

Tulsa School Board, Office No. 3: Jennettie P. Marshall

• Jennettie P. Marshall (D), 62, incumbent. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• David J. Harris (D), 46. (Registered to vote as David Jeremy Harris.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Pastor Jennettie Marshall was the lone, brave school board member who voted against extending controversial and unsuccessful Superintendent Deborah Gist's contract last year; the rest of the board pushed through the extension before new school board members might jeopardize the extension. David Harris's campaign contribution report 20210329-David_Harris-Tulsa_School_Board-Campaign_Contributions.pdf is full of Midtown Money Belt types like former Mayor Kathy Taylor, Sharon King Davis, Gary Watts, Burt Holmes, George Krumme, Stacy Schusterman, Educare Director and former school board member Cynthia Decker, and defeated school board member Ruth Ann Fate. All the money is against her, but I'm rooting for Jennettie Marshall.

On February 2, 2021, Tulsa Classroom Teachers' Association held a forum for
candidates for Office 2, which was decided in February, and Office 3, on this Tuesday's ballot.

Union School Board Office No. 1: Kasey Magness

• Joey Reyes (D), 43. (Registered as Joey Gabriel Reyes.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook page.
• Kasey Magness (R), 35. (Registered as Kasey Beth Magness.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

This is an open seat, currently held by Jeff Bennett. Magness is a Union graduate and home-health nurse who has also served as a Trauma ER nurse. She is an officer in her school's PTA and the district-wide PTA and served on the district committee to plan re-entry following the CCP Bat Virus pandemic. In response to the League of Women Voters questionnaire, Reyes uses the term "Latinx," a silly word invented by people who are offended by the fact that there are two sexes, male and female. While 98% of Latino and Latina people reject this ridiculous, unpronounceable term, its use is a reliable marker for the sort of progressive who is eager to signal his or her virtue by adopting the latest politically correct jargon, not someone a reasonable voter would want in charge of the education of children.

Owasso School Board Office No. 1: Rick Lang

• Rick Lang (I), 42. (Registered as Richard Joseph Lang.) Campaign Twitter account. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook page.
• Stephanie Ruttman (D), 42. (Registered as Stephanie Kenkaye Ruttman.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Incumbent school board member Pat Vanatta is not running for re-election. Lang is the outsider candidate, running to bring accountability to the school board; Ruttman appears to be running for Student Council, judging from the vapidity of her Facebook posts. More information on this race from Owasso Chapter of Parent Voice Oklahoma, Compilation of Owasso School Board Candidates, and Owasso Rams Hand in Hand.

Berryhill School Board Office No. 1: Allisha Phillips Craig

• Allisha Phillips Craig (D), 40. (Registered as Allisha Marie Craig.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook page.
• Jack Lollis (R), 63. (Registered as Jack D. Lollis.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Last year, Craig ran unsuccessfully for the Office 5 seat against an incumbent. At the time, I wrote that Craig, a public school teacher with Epic, with children in the Berryhill system, would bring a critical eye to "the way things have always been done," and experience in remote instruction that may be crucial in the coming years. Her campaign Facebook posts offer constructive ideas about specific problems that the district faces. The incumbent, Jack Lollis, has been a board member for 45 years. Lollis has posted a supportive statement from current, outgoing superintendent Mike Campbell which walks right up to the line of an endorsement. It may not be illegal, but it is surely unethical for a public employee to issue a near-endorsement of one of the people who controls his employment. It suggests a too-cozy relationship between the administration and the board, another good reason to defeat the incumbent and elect an outsider.

Tulsa Technology Center, Board Member, Office No. 6:

• Paul J. Kroutter, Jr. (R), 67. (Registered as Paul Joseph Kroutter, Jr.) Held the seat from 2004-2014. Archived board member page. Personal Facebook profile. Faculty page at University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. LinkedIn profile.
• Sharon A. Whelpley (R), 76. (Registered as Sharon Ann Whelpley.) Incumbent, first elected 2014. Campaign website. Board member page. Personal Facebook profile.

It puzzles me that there should be so little noise about a rematch between the incumbent board member and the previous incumbent, in a board district where 70,000 voters live across eastern Tulsa County and western Wagoner County, for a seat on a board that controls hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and annual budget (good luck finding the budget or CAFR; here's the most recent audit, from 2018). Perhaps Whelpley (the current incumbent) and Kroutter (the former incumbent) each have their small platoons of voters that they will quietly turn out via phone, without arousing the interest of the rest of the electorate. The term of office is 7 years, which is ridiculous.

City of Broken Arrow

Despite being the fourth largest city in Oklahoma, Broken Arrow still is running on the "statutory charter," a default form of municipal government defined in state statutes. Accordingly, Broken Arrow has five city councilors, all elected at-large (so all BA registered voters can vote for all seats on the ballot), the council hires a city manager to run city government, and the mayor is not an executive position, but rather chairman of the council and figurehead, chosen by the city council, rather than directly by the voters.

Know Your Candidate BA conducted 20-30 minute interviews with all of the BA council candidates.

City of Broken Arrow: Council Ward 1: Debra Wimpee

• Debra Wimpee (R), 48. Incumbent councilor. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. Profile page on BA Buzz.
• Cathy Smythe (D), 66. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• Jonathan Kelly (R), 31. (Registered to vote as Jonathon Michael Kelly.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Incumbent Debra Wimpee was a leader in the effort to keep the city from mandating masks on Broken Arrow residents and visitors. She created the website BA Buzz to promote the city and its businesses. Cathy Smythe, a relative newcomer to the city (2012), is running specifically because she supports imposing a mask mandate. A mysterious PAC is sending out attack mailers against Wimpee, presumably to help Kelly, who seems to be attempting to run to Wimpee's right. Wimpee has the endorsement of Congressman Kevin Hern. (I consider it a point in a candidate's favor if she's under attack by a mysterious PAC.)

City of Broken Arrow: Council Ward 2: Lisa Ford

• Craig Thurmond (R), 67. Incumbent. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• Lisa Ford (R), 59. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Thurmond has been on the city council for 19 years and has served for 8 of those years as mayor. Ford is retired from 20 years as an employee of the Broken Arrow Police Department, who organized a auxiliary organization to provide volunteer support the BAPD. She has also served on the Union school board. Ford, like Wimpee, was also targeted by an attack mailer from a mysterious PAC.

City of Jenks

Jenks has an at-large seat and a ward seat up for election. Incumbent councilor Dawn Dyke, who voted for a citywide mask mandate and to extend it for another 100 days, and Planning Commissioner David Randolph, who led a petition effort in favor of the mask mandate, are running as a ticket, as are Republican challengers Rodney Cline and Kevin Short, who opposed any mask mandate for the city.

City of Jenks: Council Ward 4: Rodney Cline

• Dawn Dyke (R), 49. Incumbent. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• Rodney Cline (R), 47. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

City of Jenks: Council member At-Large: Kevin Short

• Krista Monk (D), 35. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• David Randolph (D), 39. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.
• Kevin Short (R), 49. Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

City of Bixby

No council races on the ballot, but Bixby citizens will vote on four general obligation bond issue propositions:

1. $8,500,000 for public safety buildings and equipment
2. $16,300,000 for streets and bridges
3. $1,700,000 for park, cultural, and recreational facilities
4. $2,000,000 for stormwater drainage

AT THE FAR END OF THE TURNPIKE: Oklahoma City, Edmond, and Norman have city and school district races on the ballot, and there's a special State Senate election.

The group Unite Norman, which emerged to oppose radical anti-police sentiment on the City Council, has endorsed Kelly Lynn ; incumbent Alison Petrone considers Oklahoma a backwards state.

Oklahoma City Ward 3, the southwestern part of the city, has an open seat, with a race between Barbara Young, who has been endorsed by the Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association, and Jessica Martinez-Brooks.

Also in the Edmond area, there is a special general election between Republican Jake Merrick and Democrat Molly Ooten to fill the State Senate District 22 seat vacated by U. S. Rep. Stephanie Bice. Merrick, interviewed here, has the backing of my conservative friends in central Oklahoma.

My friend Jenni White, who led the successful fight against Common Core at the State Capitol, is Mayor of Luther and is up for re-election as a town trustee. There are four candidates for three seats; each voter gets to pick three of the four. (She is also running to be Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party this Saturday and has my full support.)

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

You can find all of the results from Oklahoma's February 9, 2021, elections here.

Acting Tulsa County Treasurer John Fothergill became treasurer in his own right with a 71%-29% Republican primary victory over Joe Hart. Turnout was 5,294 voters out of 186,076 eligible voters, or 4%.

Only 379 out of 15,770 eligible voters cast a ballot in the Tulsa School Board District 2 race. Judith Barba, who needed a translator to cope with a candidate forum but was able to raise $10,000 from Tulsa big-shots, won the election with 201 votes. If Theresa Hinman and Marsha Francine Campbell had received another 12 votes each, Barba would have been held short of a majority, and there would have been an April runoff.

The 2018 change to 26 O.S. § 13A-103 that moved two-candidate school board elections to April also applied the term General Election to the April vote and labeled the February election as a primary. Since the electorate for a primary is always smaller than a general election -- many voters prefer to wait until the candidates have been filtered down to a manageable number -- there ought to be a general election between the top two candidates, even if one candidate receives more than 50% in the primary. We already do this for some non-partisan district judge elections. The same rule ought to apply to school and municipal races.

By the way, that 2018 law also affected technology center (vo-tech) districts, which would explain why the Tulsa Technology Center Office 6 campaign has been quiet so far -- they won't be on the ballot until April. (I could swear I saw that race on the list for this election on the State Election Board website, but it's not there now.)

Collinsville school board: Pharmacy owner Ryan Flanary defeated incumbent Tim Reed, with 64% of the vote in a three-way race. (432 votes cast out of 9,378 eligible voters.)

Owasso school board: There will be an April runoff between Stephanie Ruttman (30.94%) and Rick Lang (24.30%). Kristin Vivar missed the runoff by 15 votes. This is a good case study for the value of instant runoff voting -- the 397 votes of the 4th and 5th place candidates were more than enough to produce any order of finish among the top three.

Owasso city council: Alvin Fruga defeated Kyle Davis, 63% to 37%, for the open seat:

Norman city council: Among the pro-police-funding Unite Norman candidates, Rarchar Tortorello won outright in Ward 5, Kelly Lynn survived to a runoff in Ward 3; Unite Norman candidates finished a close second in Wards 1 (losing in an open seat), 2 (a special election), and 7 (losing to an incumbent). At least they will have a seat at the table.

Oklahoma City city council: Incumbent Todd Stone was re-elected in Ward 4 with 64%. Stone opposes a mask mandate and lockdowns. Bradley Carter and Shay Varnell will face off in a runoff for Ward 1, receiving 26% and 19% respectively (with 7 candidates in the race, another good case study for instant runoff voting). Varnell is opposed to mask mandates; Carter did not respond to the Oklahoman's survey, but had support from conservatives in the Canadian County part of the far-northwest ward. In Ward 3, Jessica Martinez-Brooks and Barbara Young will advance to a runoff; both support restoring funding for police.

There were 29 school and municipal propositions statewide:

The two Jenks bond issues passed with 78% and 77% of the vote, respectively.

Town of Wapanucka voters approved a question unanimously, 33-0. A proposition in the City of Broken Bow passed 105-1. Crutcho Schools passed an issue by 15-1.

Only four propositions were defeated statewide: Leach Public Schools voters turned down a proposition, 35-64. Gotebo voters rejected two questions, 12-18. A Quinton Schools proposition fell short of the 60% margin; 15 more yes voters would have made the difference.

I wish I could tell you what these propositions were about, but after election day, there is no way to get to the sample ballots. Before election day, you can use a voter's name and date of birth to pull up his or her sample ballot for an upcoming election. There needs to be a more direct way. It would also be useful to have a central repository for election resolutions and public notices related to elections in Oklahoma. I should be able to go online and see the details of what Wapanuckans unanimously approved and what Gotebites (Goteboans?) rejected.

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Below are my thoughts on some of the races in the Oklahoma school board primary election and Tulsa County special election on February 9, 2021. (The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) This isn't the usual ballot card, mainly because I don't feel I can make strong recommendations in any of these races. Part of my reluctance stems from the apparent reluctance of most candidates to offer a specific platform or even to offer specific criticisms of the governmental entities they seek to govern.

In an earlier entry, I provided links to candidate websites, social media profiles, and candidate forums for elections and bond issues on the February 9, 2021, ballot in Tulsa County. Candidates are very careful nowadays to scrub social media of anything controversial -- or even anything interesting. Campaign websites have turned into the online equivalent of the photo that came with the picture frame -- pleasantly generic.

At the other end of the turnpike, Oklahoma City, Edmond, and Norman have city council races on the ballot, and there is a special primary (both Democrat and Republican) to fill the State Senate District 22 seat vacated by U. S. Rep. Stephanie Bice. The group Unite Norman, which emerged to oppose radical anti-police sentiment on the City Council, has endorsed a slate of five candidates. The Daily Oklahoman asked the 18 candidates running in 3 Oklahoma City wards about police funding, crisis counselors, and mask mandates. Jake Merrick, interviewed here, has the backing of my conservative friends in central Oklahoma and is part of a "Liberty Ticket" running for legislative, school, and city office in Edmond.

Campaign contributions often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. Campaign expenditures can be telling, too. Unfortunately, our state legislators have made this harder for us to find than it should be. While statewide, legislative, and judicial candidates file their required ethics reports electronically with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, school board candidates file their reports with the school district clerk, county candidates file theirs with the county election board, and municipal candidates with the town or city clerk. Ideally, all of the recipients of ethics reports would immediately scan and post them on the website, but usually one has to file an Open Records request, and which may or may not receive an answer between the ethics report due date and the election a week later. The Tulsa County Election Board is always very quick to respond to my email requests. The Tulsa City Clerk's office is usually prompt about posting all reports online shortly after they are received. I submitted an Open Records request through the Tulsa Public Schools website on Thursday -- three days after the reporting deadline. (I was able to obtain a copy of Judith Barba's report from someone who had requested that report only from TPS a few days earlier.)

Tulsa County Treasurer: Three candidates filed for the seat, but the only Democrat dropped out, so the vacancy left by the sudden retirement of long-time County Treasurer Dennis Semler will be filled in today's special Republican primary.

When former County Assessor Ken Yazel retired, he didn't run for re-election, and four Republicans filed to replace him, which made for a vigorous contest and a meaningful choice for the voters. Semler arranged his departure to benefit his handpicked successor.

John Fothergill has been serving as acting treasurer since Semler's resignation in September. Fothergill had been Chief Deputy to Democrat County Commissioner Karen Keith, was hired by Semler as First Deputy (behind the Chief Deputy) on January 1, 2020, then became Chief Deputy on May 1, 2020, when the previous Chief Deputy, Steve Blue retired, then became acting treasurer when Semler retired. During the Tulsa 912 Forum, Fothergill related that he had planned to run for County Commission District 2, but had become burned out on constituent service, and decided to accept Semler's offer to succeed him. (Fothergill discussed this at the Tulsa County Treasurer forum, about 15 minutes in to the recording.)

Fothergill's rise as Semler's chosen heir is worrisome to me. Semler was not a friend of transparency in his role as a member of the county budget board. When then-County Assessor Ken Yazel pushed to account for all county funds, including earmarked funds that were exempt from the budget process, Semler was on the other side of the issue. Based on Fothergill's comments, Semler had plans to retire going back at least into 2019, just a few months after taking office for his seventh term, but Semler kept his plans hidden from the public. A press release announcing Semler's retirement was issued on September 29, 2020, just a day before his resignation was effective. Fothergill filed his statement of organization on September 8.

Joe Hart, on the ballot as Francis Joseph Hart II, has been active in the Tulsa County Republican Men's Club and as a volunteer for Republican candidates. He is an Eagle Scout. Hart seems like a sincere and decent person, motivated in part by the admirable sentiment that no one should run unopposed. But he doesn't appear to have had a plan to fund and run a campaign with a chance of winning.

Last Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the morning after pre-primary campaign finance reports were due, I checked with the Tulsa County Election Board, and only Fothergill's statement of organization had been filed the previous September. I contacted both candidates shortly before 2 p.m.: Hart told me he did not raise or spend enough money to be required to file. Fothergill told me that he "was out of town at a conference as the Treasurer and just got back. I drove straight to the election board and filed the documents." He sent me cell phone pictures of the filings; according to election board timestamps these were filed at 2:58 pm on February 2, 2021.

Here are all of Fothergill's campaign finance reports for the campaign. Fothergill received a $500 contribution from the Bank of Oklahoma Finance (BOKF) PAC; the "vast majority" of Tulsa County deposits, according to Fothergill, are held by Bank of Oklahoma.

Friends who have worked closely with Fothergill when he was on staff at the City Council speak very highly of him. He has plans in mind to increase transparency and efficiency, plans that he thought should wait until he had been elected to the office in his own right, rather than as a caretaker. He supports televising the Tulsa County Budget Board meetings. At the Tulsa County Treasurer forum, Fothergill professed support for competitive bidding for bond issues for county entities, which is routinely waived, although he noted that bond issues are under the control of the Board of County Commissioners; presumably he was referring to their role as the board of the Tulsa County Industrial Authority. As he is almost certain to win, my hope is that Fothergill will use the relationships and good will he has already built at the county courthouse to follow through on his stated commitment to transparency, particularly with regard to the county budget.

Tulsa School Board, Office No. 2: This is an open seat. If no one gets 50% today, there will be a runoff between the top two candidates in April. All three candidates are registered Democrats. None of the candidates are conservative.

Judith Barba, Community Leadership & Mobilization Manager for Growing Together, a non-profit supported by the George Kaiser Family Foundation, has the financial backing of many Tulsa establishment figures, including former Mayor Kathy Taylor ($1,000) and her husband Bill Lobeck ($1,000), former board member and Educare director Cindy Decker, Stacy Schusterman ($1,000) and Lynn Schusterman ($1,000), and GKFF Executive Director Ken Levit ($250), which leads me to believe she will be a rubber stamp for the foundations and Superintendent Gist. Departing board member Jania Wester's campaign account contributed $ 2,304.85. (Here is a PDF of Judith Barba's campaign contributions and expenditures reports.) During last week's TCTA candidate forum, Barba had to have several questions translated for her and was unable to reply in English to several questions, which raises doubts about Barba's ability to participate fully in board meetings.

From her social media posts, it seems that Theresa Hinman and I are far apart on national political issues. Her conversation is full of identity politics lingo, which is worrisome. At the same time, it's apparent that Hinman is a devout Christian, a member of First Baptist Church, and a founder of Circle of Nations, a ministry to Native Americans in Oklahoma. I admire Hinman's willingness to challenge the school administration over the past year for their use (or misuse) of Federal funds earmarked for Indian education. She demonstrates an energetically skeptical mindset and pledges to building a kitchen cabinet of advisors who will help her analyze specific issues; for example, she mentioned a district resident who would help her analyze issues involving district real estate and facilities. She wants to bring accountability measures to bear on the expensive consultants that TPS hires (often with foundation grants). Her drive and initiative would be a welcome addition to the board, and I could imagine her working closely with Jerry Griffin to ask salient questions at board meetings and to develop a strategic plan for the district.

Marsha Francine Campbell is a 17-year veteran teacher in Tulsa Public Schools. She is probably the best equipped of the three to speak to how best to attract, respect, and retain teachers, and her answers seemed reasonable. Campbell would be a better choice than Barba, but Hinman's positive but critically inquisitive attitude is what district taxpayers, parents, and students need most at the moment.

Owasso City Council, Ward 2: There are two candidates for the open seat. Pastor Alvin Fruga is to be commended for his willingness to answer questions on his Facebook page, but it's clear from this Q&A session that Fruga would be a rubber stamp for the current city administration. Fruga offered no criticism of the current councilors and defended the city's long-term subsidy of the Bailey Ranch golf course. Likewise, Kyle Davis, a loan officer for Community Bank, offered only vague replies to some specific questions about his views on city policies and no criticism of the current council or city manager. Owasso used to have a couple of city councilors who would ask tough questions and push for accountability. That no longer appears to be the case and doesn't look to change, no matter who wins this seat.

Owasso School Board Office No. 2: Kristin Vivar has been endorsed by Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman David McLain and by Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights.

Tulsa Technology Center Board Office No. 6: It puzzles me that there should be so little noise about a rematch between the incumbent board member and the previous incumbent, in a board district where 70,000 voters live across eastern Tulsa County and western Wagoner County, for a seat on a board that controls hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and annual budget (good luck finding the budget or CAFR; here's the most recent audit, from 2018). Perhaps Whelpley (the current incumbent) and Kroutter (the former incumbent) each have their small platoons of voters that they will quietly turn out via phone, without arousing the interest of the rest of the electorate.

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.

This coming Tuesday, February 9, 2021, Oklahoma voters will vote in school board primaries, some municipal primaries, school bond issues, and special elections.

Early voting will be available tomorrow, Thursday, February 4, and Friday, February 5, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Because there are no state or federal offices on the ballot, there won't be any early voting hours on Saturday. Early voting sites are typically at the county election board, which is the case in Tulsa and surrounding counties, but there are a few exceptions.

Tulsa County Republican voters will choose a new County Treasurer to replace Dennis Semler, who retired last fall. (One Democrat filed for the seat, but withdrew, so the winner of the two-man primary will be elected.)

School board seats will only be on this Tuesday's non-partisan primary ballot if three or more candidates filed for the office. Seats that drew only two candidates will be on the April 6 general election ballot, along with any runoffs from this Tuesday. In Tulsa County, there are primaries for Tulsa Schools Office 2, and Collinsville and Owasso Office 1. Tulsa Tech Center Office 6 has a two-candidate election -- Tech Centers weren't included in the legislation that moved two-candidate elections to the general.

Jenks Public Schools patrons will vote on two bond issues, and there is a two-man race for Owasso Ward 2 councilor.

Here are some links and info about the candidates:

Tulsa County Treasurer:

• John M. Fothergill (R), 47, Sand Springs. (Registered to vote as John Marion Fothergill.) Served as Tulsa City Council Director of Constituent Services, chief deputy to Democrat County Commissioner Karen Keith, chief deputy to Republican County Treasurer Dennis Semler. Became acting County Treasurer after Semler's resignation last fall. Website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. LinkedIn profile.
• Francis Joseph Hart III (R), 39, Broken Arrow. Better known as Joe Hart. Active as a volunteer for Republican candidates and the county GOP. Website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. Photography business website. Photography business Facebook page. LinkedIn profile.

On February 1, 2021, Tulsa 912 Project held a forum for the candidates for Tulsa County Treasurer.

Tulsa Public Schools, Board Member - Office No. 2:

• Marsha Francine Campbell (D), 65. Campaign Facebook group. Personal Facebook profile. Earlier Facebook profile. Still earlier Facebook profile. LinkedIn profile.
• Theresa Hinman (D), 52. (Registered to vote as Theresa Marie Hinman.) Twitter account. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. Business Facebook page. LinkedIn profile. TalkJive.org intervew
• Judith Barba (D), 30. (Registered to vote as Judith Barba Perez.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

On February 2, 2021, Tulsa Classroom Teachers' Association held a forum for
candidates for Office 2, on Tuesday's ballot, and Office 3, which will not be on the ballot until April.

City Of Owasso, Council Member, Ward 2:

• Alvin D. Fruga (R), 58. (Registered as Alvin Darryl Fruga.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal ministry website. Church website. Personal Facebook profile. Personal Twitter account. LinkedIn profile.
• Kyle Davis (R), 39. (Registered as Kyle Andrew Davis.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. LinkedIn profile.

Incumbent Owasso City Councilor Chris Kelley is not running for re-election.

Collinsville Public Schools, Board Member, Office No. 1:

• James R. Roderick (R), 62. (Registered as James Randall Roderick.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile. LinkedIn profile. Archived business website. Archived consulting website.
• Tim Reed (R), 63. (Registered as Timothy N. Reed.) Incumbent since 2013. Campaign Facebook page. LinkedIn profile.
• Ryan Flanary (R), 40. (Registered as Ryan Dean Flanary.) Personal Facebook profile. Business website.

Owasso Public Schools, Board Member, Office No. 1:

• Rick Lang (I), 42. (Registered as Richard Joseph Lang.) Campaign Twitter account. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook page.
• Kristin Vivar (R), 42. (Registered as Kristin A. Vivar.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook Page. Personal Facebook profile.
• Lisa M. Anderson (R), 48. (Registered as Lisa Marie Anderson.) Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook page.
• Lynn Cagle (D), 70. (Registered as Marguerita Lynn Cagle.) Campaign Facebook page.
• Stephanie Ruttman (D), 42. (Registered as Stephanie Kenkaye Ruttman.) Campaign website. Campaign Facebook page. Personal Facebook profile.

Incumbent school board member Pat Vanatta is not running for re-election. More information on this race from Owasso Chapter of Parent Voice Oklahoma, Compilation of Owasso School Board Candidates, and Owasso Rams Hand in Hand.

Tulsa Technology Center, Board Member, Office No. 6:

• Paul J. Kroutter, Jr. (R), 67. (Registered as Paul Joseph Kroutter, Jr.) Held the seat from 2004-2014. Archived board member page. Personal Facebook profile. Faculty page at University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. LinkedIn profile.
• Sharon A. Whelpley (R), 76. (Registered as Sharon Ann Whelpley.) Incumbent, first elected 2014. Board member page. Personal Facebook profile.

Jenks Public Schools bond issues:

• Proposition No. 1: $15,060,000 general obligation bond issue for school facilities.
• Proposition No. 2: $1,045,000 general obligation bond issue for transportation equipment.

Here is a PDF sample ballot for the Jenks Public Schools bond issues, and the disclosure of currently outstanding Jenks Public Schools bond issues required by the Bond Transparency Act. Jenks currently has five outstanding general obligation bond issues, with $96,885,000 in outstanding principal, and another $97,100,000 in "unissued building bonds authorized at an election held on the 10th day of February 2015." (Original link to BTA disclosure on JPS website.)

This is not what democracy looks like.

Sixteen Oklahoma jurisdictions -- Sapulpa, Pawhuska, other cities and towns, two school districts, a technology (vo-tech) district, and a county -- had propositions on the ballot today. Mostly bond issues, I suspect.

State law allows for 11 election dates in odd-numbered years, and that allows officials a degree of control over turnout by scheduling a vote on an unexpected day and minimizing publicity, notifying only likely Yes voters, so as to sneak a proposition past their constituents.

There ought to be a law to require proposition elections to be held on the corresponding general election day for the political subdivision. Until there is such a law, voters can deter this behavior by turning out en masse to vote against whatever happens to be on the ballot today. Here's the list from the Oklahoma State Election Board:

1. Hammon Public Schools (Beckham, Custer & Roger Mills Counties)
2. City of Piedmont (Canadian & Kingfisher Counties)
3. City of Sapulpa (Creek & Tulsa Counties)
4. City of Town of Arapaho (Custer County)
5. Town of Fairmont (Garfield County)
6. Kremlin-Hillsdale Schools (Garfield & Grant Counties)
7. Hughes County
8. Town of Terral (Jefferson County)
9. Eastern Oklahoma Tech Center (Lincoln, Logan, Oklahoma, Pottawatomie Counties)
10. Town of Kingston (Marshall County)
11. Town of Webbers Falls (Muskogee County)
12. City of Pawhuska (Osage County)
13. City of Shawnee (Pottawatomie County)
14. City of Wewoka (Seminole County)
15. Town of Muldrow (Sequoyah County)
16. Town of Burns Flat (Washita County)

And here are the results for the January 12, 2021 special elections. 125 precincts were open for business (about 5% of the statewide total), requiring three precinct officials at each precinct, plus county election board officials in 21 counties. Those 21 counties had to offer early in-person voting, but only 159 voters availed themselves of the opportunity.

Each precinct had exactly one proposition on the ballot. In 20 precincts, no one voted, nor were there any absentee or early votes cast by residents of the tiny sliver of Sapulpa in Tulsa County (two Tulsa County Sapulpans voted in person on election day). A grand total of 4,740 votes were cast.

Kingfisher County Election Board had to open up to support one election (City of Piedmont road tax) in one precinct (370103) in which there were no eligible voters (all voters in the precinct live outside the city limits, which are mainly in Canadian County).

All the propositions passed, except one: Voters in the City of Piedmont turned down a $28/month road tax by 81% to 19%. 1,213 voters turned out, about 25% of the number of eligible voters.

Piedmont's raw vote totals were exceeded only by the Eastern Oklahoma County Technology Center, with 1,228 votes cast, but that was accomplished in a district covering parts of four counties, with about 10 times the number of registered voters.

The smallest turnout was in Webbers Falls: 20 votes for and no votes against the renewal of OG+E's utility franchise.

Hughes County only managed 557 votes on a bond issue for funding $950,000 for the Hughes County Emergency Medical Services District, a cost to the average taxpayer of $1 per month.

It's hard to find out exactly what was being voted on, but so far, none of the issues appear to be emergent, or even urgent. 445 citizens of Sapulpa voted on extending a half-penny sales tax until March 31, 2044, but there's no mention of the election on the city website or Facebook page. In order to find out what was on the ballot, I had to pick a Sapulpa voter from the voter file, go to the Oklahoma voter tool, and then input the name and birthdate so that it would show me a sample ballot.

372 voters in the City of Pawhuska approved a 20-year one-cent sales tax to fund the local hospital. No mention of the election on the city's website or Facebook page, but at least the local paper ran a short news story.

No doubt every town published the required legal notices, but they don't seem to have bothered to publish in a way that would attract the notice of all eligible voters.

I return to my proposed schedule for Oklahoma elections: Every year a June primary, August runoff, and November general election. In odd-numbered years, school, municipal, county, and other local elections; in even-numbered years, federal and state elections. Propositions would only be permitted on the November election; if held on another date (because of a genuine emergency) they would require the approval of 50% of registered voters, which would give the locality an incentive to call attention to the election. Whether a shortened election calendar is passed or not, a quorum requirement seems like a reasonable innovation.

I voted in person yesterday at 9:35. The line was out the door, but not very far, and I slid my ballot into the scanner and was finished in 20 minutes. The other, larger precinct that votes at the same church had a line across the parking lot, but I suspect that many of those people were from my precinct but had just joined the first line they saw. When I drove back by mid-afternoon and toward the end of the day, there were no lines at all, and that was true of other precincts I passed.

We opted for a home watch party -- me, my wife, our younger two kids (the oldest is away in grad school). We started out scanning local stations at 6 pm, as states began to report results, but they were all in local-news mode, and only PBS was covering national results. We couldn't tolerate that for long, so we switched the screen to the computer, and pulled up Fox News on one size and DecisionDeskHQ.com on the other. We had carryout chicken tikka masala from Desi Wok and later snacked on some Plymouth East Meadow Cheddar I'd brought back from a recent visit to Calvin Coolidge's home town and the cheese factory founded by his father and revived by his son.

I did go out at about 8:30 to take pictures of posted results from nearby precincts. Our precinct officials posted the tape in the window, as required, but they allowed enough overlap with a notice posted next to it so that the results for the presidential and U. S. Senate races were hidden by the other piece of paper.

What I could see was encouraging. Although the midtown precincts I checked were fairly evenly divided between Democrat and Republican candidates, State Question 805 was losing by a substantial margin.

While driving around I flipped through the radio stations. KRMG's Dan Potter had current Mayor GT Bynum IV and former Mayor Susan Savage. I wondered on Facebook why KRMG didn't include a Republican in their coverage, but Democrat allies on past city tax and zoning battles reminded me that they didn't include a Democrat either. Both mayors are proud members of the Money Belt Uniparty who may have only a vague idea where the three eastside seats on the ballot are located. Bynum and Savage were both gleeful about the defeat of District 5 Councilor Cass Fahler, the strongest council ally for Tulsa police officers and the strongest opponent of mask mandates. Bynum called Fahler's campaign "lazy," contrasting it with Mykey Arthrell's tireless pursuit of votes. They also sounded thrilled about the re-election of Connie Dodson in District 6 and Lori Decter Wright in District 7.

I thought that Republicans had a good chance at taking two of the three City Council races on the ballot; Dodson had forged a moderate path on police and masks and seemed likely to win re-election. Fahler's re-election was killed by another 2-to-1 early vote advantage; he won election day but lost the total by 347 votes. I have heard that neighborhood social media pages in the northwestern part of the district were extremely hostile to Fahler, particularly over his stance on mask mandates. These seem to be popular areas for progressives who want to live near the city center but can't afford to live any nearer than Yale Ave. District 6 wasn't close; challenger Christian Bengel was badly underfunded, and the FOP had endorsed incumbent Dodson very early in the race. Wright's challenger Justin Van Kirk poured a ton of his own money into the race, narrowly won among election day voters, but lost by about 1600 votes because of Decter Wright's 3-1 early voting ratio.

Here is a problem with non-partisan city elections on the same ballot as highly partisan races like President and Senate: Voters mark the straight-party line (as Republicans were encouraging voters to do), but that doesn't cast a vote for allegedly non-partisan council races. On such a long ballot, with as many as 18 items for some voters, a non-partisan race at the very end is easy to ignore, and it's easy to vote for the familiar name.

It's apparent that the Tulsa County Democratic Party has been taking local elections seriously and helping Democrats seeking local non-partisan office. The Tulsa County Republican Party needs to follow suit, to work on local races throughout the election cycle, identifying and recruiting potential candidates who support the GOP's values and policy aims, clearing the path for good candidates (perhaps by conducting an endorsing convention to decide among multiple Republican contenders), and connecting them with money and volunteers. The Tulsa GOP needs to be monitoring the performance of our city, county, and school officials, with reporters at every meeting, recording and highlighting examples of bad judgment and favoritism. It's not enough to get busy in the last few months before an election. The Oklahoma GOP's dominance in the legislature was built by party officials back in the late '90s and early 2000s by men like 1st Congressional District Chairman Don O'Nesky, 2nd District Chairman Bob Hudspeth, 4th District Chairman Steve Fair, and State Chairman Gary Jones, who identified candidates from among local leaders, respected by their communities, not necessarily active in politics, but who had a conservative outlook on public policy. The candidates who will put themselves forward aren't always the best positioned to run a serious race or to govern well; a party's job is to identify good candidates, encourage them to run, and facilitate their efforts with resources.

Back at the house: Fox's reluctance to call states that were obviously in Trump's column and out of reach for Biden (like Texas and Florida) got frustrating after a while, and we switched to Newsmax, then eventually to the Daily Wire for their running commentary.

The four of us were doing our own results reporting, each digging into county-by-county results on DecisionDeskHQ.com on our own computers and sharing interesting finds, while listening for commentary or breaking news. I enjoyed using the map results on the Oklahoma State Election Board results page to drill down to the precinct level to see which precincts were still outstanding and the patterns of support for each candidate. The only big flaw is that it doesn't show different colors in the non-partisan races, so there's no easy way to tell where 805 won and lost or which Tulsa City Council candidates won which precinct.

We stayed up long enough to see Trump apparently about to win Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, and suddenly the numbers stopped updating. There were reports that vote counting would stop in Philadelphia and in Atlanta, an obvious move to wait for downstate votes to finish coming in so corrupt big-city machine officials could manufacture enough ballots to tip the states to Biden, the same way Kennedy won Illinois in 1960. We all headed to bed shortly thereafter.

Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico has a map-filled post on the Oklahoma results. Trump and Inhofe won all 77 counties. This is the fifth presidential election in a row that the Republican nominee has swept the state, although the margin in Oklahoma County was only 3400 votes. Democrats lost their last three rural seats in the State House, plus two in Oklahoma County. Republicans now control the House by 82-19 and the Senate by 39-9, and all of the Democrat seats are in the two biggest cities (OKC and Tulsa) and college towns (Norman and Stillwater). This is almost a complete reversal from the situation in the early 1990s, when rural districts (except northwest Oklahoma's wheat country) were solidly Democrat and nearly all Republican seats were in Tulsa and OKC and their suburbs.

I was disappointed to see the defeat of Republican Cheryl Baber in Senate District 35, a seat that had been held for 32 years by conservative Republicans (Don Rubottom, Jim Williamson, Gary Stanislawski), and before that by long-serving moderate Republican Warren Green. Baber had survived a bruising primary and runoff with establishment-backed Kyden Creekpaum. Although Creekpaum endorsed Baber in the general election (wisely so if he hopes to have a future in Oklahoma Republican politics), the endorsement came late in the game, and Democrat Jo Ann Dossett had racked up a two-to-one advantage in absentee-by-mail ballots, 7402 to 3723. Baber dominated election day voting, but fell short by 638 votes. The same pattern can be seen in the Tulsa County Commission race and in several vulnerable Democrat seats. Republicans are going to have to match and surpass the Democrats efforts in early voting, and to plan for targeting voters soon after the ballot is set.

Massive early voting allows well-funded candidates to target and influence voters and lock in their votes before the candidate with fewer dollars, who delays mailers until closer to election day to make her money stretch as far as possible, has put any information in front of the voters. One of the saddest news items in this election season was a surge of searches on the question "Can I change my vote?" after the second presidential debate.

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma general election and City of Tulsa runoff on November 3, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) Please note that the rows on the chart are alternately shaded and unshaded for readability. The presence or absence of shading has no other significance.

This is an unusually early version of the BatesLine ballot card in response to many requests from people who are voting absentee by mail and want to be sure their ballot has plenty of time to arrive. Below is a summary of my recommendations; I will elaborate on them in later entries. I hope to have a formatted printable ballot card in the near future.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

When in doubt, I look at campaign contributions, which often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. Campaign expenditures can be telling, too: Certain consulting firms have strong associations with the pay-to-play culture that makes our Republican supermajority legislature more crony-infested than conservative. Then there are principled conservative consultants; their presence on a campaign team is always a hopeful indication that the candidate is also a principled conservative.

The presidential election leads the ballot, and Oklahomans have six choices this year -- Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, and three independents -- more than in all the years I've been voting. U. S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is up for re-election against a teleprompter reader, a perennial Libertarian candidate, and two independents. All five congressmen have challengers; the race to watch is District 5, where State Sen. Stephanie Bice hopes to reclaim the traditionally Republican seat from Pelosi Democrat Kendra Horn, the surprise winner in 2018. (Before Horn's win, the seat had been in GOP hands since John Jarman's party switch in 1975.)

The only statewide state office on the ballot in presidential years is a seat on the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, which has six year terms. This year, Republican incumbent and former House Speaker Todd Hiett is being challenged by Libertarian Todd Hagopian; no Democrat filed for the seat. All 101 State House seats and the odd-numbered State Senate seats are up for election in presidential years, but many of these races have already been settled in the primary or runoff.

There are two state questions, 805 and 814. SQ 805 is a constitutional amendment that would help career criminals get back to work by reducing the amount of time these repeat offenders could spend in prison and releasing some currently incarcerated career criminals early. SQ 814 is also a constitutional amendment that would divert revenue from the tobacco lawsuit settlement to pay for the unwise Obamacare Medicaid expansion (SQ 802) that was narrowly approved in June.

All 77 counties have four offices up for reelection in presidential years: District 2 County Commissioner, County Clerk, County Court Clerk, County Sheriff. In Tulsa County, Sheriff Vince Regalado and County Clerk Michael Willis were re-elected without opposition. County Court Clerk Don Newberry won a primary rematch in June and has no general election opponent. Republican Josh Turley, Ph.D., is challenging longtime incumbent Democratic County Commissioner Karen Keith.

There are retention votes for three state supreme court justices, two judges on the court of criminal appeals, and three judges on the court of civil appeals. These are yes-no votes, unlike the district judge elections that occur in gubernatorial election years. If "no" prevails -- and it never has -- a vacancy would be created that would be filled by the governor's selection via the judicial nomination process.

The City of Tulsa has runoff elections for three of the nine city council seats. (The auditor and councilors in Districts 2 and 8 won re-election unopposed; the mayor and councilors in Districts 1, 2, 4, and 9 were re-elected by receiving greater than 50% of the vote in the August 25 election, which is a shame.)

MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

As a general rule, I support the Republican candidate, and I'm not aware of any race in which I would counsel otherwise. The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court demonstrates one critical reason for retaining Republican control of the White House. In foreign policy, we want to keep an administration that has brought Arab states into normal, peaceful relations with Israel, acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital, brokered peace between Serbia and Kosovo, pushed our NATO partners to shoulder their fair share of the financial burden of protecting Europe, and stood firm for better trade deals between the US and the world.

Re-electing Jim Inhofe and the four GOP congressmen, and taking back the 5th Congressional District are essential for regaining Republican control of the House (and booting Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker's chair) and retaining Republican control of the Senate, which in turn is crucial for ongoing efforts to appoint constitutionalists to the Federal courts.

In the Oklahoma Legislature, notwithstanding my disappointment at the Republican RINO leadership, it still is better, generally, to choose Republicans over Democrats. Electing Democrats only seems to encourage the RINOs to raise our taxes. Here in Tulsa County, all of the Republicans deserve your support, particularly:

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber (R)
Senate 37: Cody Rogers (R)
Senate 39: Dave Rader (R)
House 11: Wendi Stearman (R)
House 30: Mark Lawson (R)
House 71: Mark Masters (R)
House 79: Margie Alfonso (R)

Tulsa County Commission District 2: Josh Turley (R). Turley served as a crime scene investigator for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and then creating the first risk management program for TCSO, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts, and independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request. Turley would be an advocate for transparency in Tulsa County government. Incumbent Karen Keith's consistent votes to waive competitive bidding on bond issues is bad for Tulsa County taxpayers, as is her neglect of rural county roads. More detail here.

State Questions:

SQ 805: No. This constitutional amendment would make it easier for career criminals, including those currently incarcerated, to get out of prison and resume their careers.
SQ 814: Yes (with hesitation). This would mitigate the narrow, foolish approval of SQ 802 by dedicating tobacco settlement money (currently spent very poorly) to cover the cost of Medicaid expansion. My hesitation is that Sen. Nathan Dahm opposed this when it was before the legislature.

On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.

Judicial retention:

Appointing governors and party affiliation are noted in parentheses. An asterisk indicates that trustworthy conservative commentators disagree with me on those judges.

Supreme Court Justice Matthew John Kane IV (Stitt, R, 2019): Yes (enthusiastically)
Supreme Court Justice Tom Colbert (Henry, D, 2004): No
Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Darby (Fallin, R, 2018): Yes (cautiously)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Robert L. Hudson (Fallin, R, 2015): No*
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Gary L. Lumpkin (Bellmon, R, 1989): No*
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Jane P. Wiseman (Henry, D, 2005): No (emphatically)
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Deborah B. Barnes (Henry, D, 2008): No
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Keith Rapp (Nigh, D, 1984): No

UPDATE 2020/10/28: I've moved my detailed analysis of 2020 judicial retention questions to a separate page and expanded it. I've also modified my stance regarding Justice Darby.

Tulsa City Council:

I support replacing all of the City Councilors, except Cass Fahler in District 5. In each race on the November ballot, a registered Republican is running against a registered Democrat.

Tulsa Council District 5: Cass Fahler (R). At a time when law enforcement is under attack, we need a strong advocate for law and order on the council.
Tulsa Council District 6: Christian Bengel (R).
Tulsa Council District 7: Justin Van Kirk (R).

MORE INFORMATION:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
• Sheridan Church's Tulsa Town Hall candidate forum (includes several council candidates in the runoff
• iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Steve Fair and Georgia Wiliams, longtime SW Oklahoma conservative activists, weigh in on judicial retention and state questions
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
• NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
• Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow warning triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks.

Published on 2020/10/08, postdated to stay at the top through election day. Printable ballot card published on 2020/10/17. Updated to reflect a change in my views on Supreme Court Justice Richard Darby.

Pat Campbell with Daryl Simmons and Jarrin Jackson, on Election Day 2020. Photo from TalkRadio1170.com

Introduced by Aerosmith's "Back in the Saddle," Pat Campbell, long-time morning host on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, was back on the air this morning after a four-week absence. He was in studio for the full three hours with regular guests Jarrin Jackson and Darryl Simmons, discussing today's election and taking calls.

Pat reported that his absence was the result of voice problems caused by being intubated following a seizure. The intubation left him sounding, he said, like Carol Channing. He went through weeks of physical therapy to restore his vocal performance and allow him to return to the airwaves. He is still clear of cancer; earlier this year, a seizure revealed three cancerous brain tumors, which were surgically removed and followed with a course of chemotherapy and radiation.

Pat expressed his gratitude for the prayers and encouragement of his listeners. He was strongly motivated to come back this morning both to reconnect with his audience and to voice his strong opposition to State Question 805, the pro-career-criminal amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution backed with millions of dollars from out-of-state leftist organizations.

Pat is a great friend of BatesLine, and it was wonderful to be able to speak with him during today's 8 o'clock hour. His voice has been sorely missed, particularly during these critical weeks before the election, but we're blessed to have him back in the saddle again to guide us through whatever its aftermath brings.

Two out-of-state Leftist organizations contributed a total of $6,336,852.36 in support of State Question 805, the proposed constitutional amendment that will allow temporarily inconvenienced career criminals to return more rapidly to their vocation of victimizing their neighbors. The two organizations, the ACLU and FWD.US, combined to provide 87% of the the contribution totals, which include both cash and in-kind contributions; in-kind contributions include both staffing support and direct payments to campaign consultants. Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform also provided $54,629.01 in in-kind support. The Yes on 805 Committee raised a total of $7,281,215.29, of which $666,014.52 was in-kind, as of September 30, 2020.

The breakdown by organization:

• ACLU $2,970,044.46
• FWD.US $3,366,807.90

Keep in mind that these numbers are as of September 30, 2020, and have no doubt grown significantly.

The largest individual contribution was $500,000 from Tulsa heiress Stacy Schusterman. (Her last name is misspelled on the report, without the C.)

$200,000 came from a New York City financial exec named Robert Granieri, who lists his employer as a controversial trading company called Jane Street.

Financial activity for this campaign began in October 2019, with FWD.US paying substantial sums to consultant Brian Elderbloom, Oklahoma PR firm Saxum Communications, and Tulsa law firm Crowe & Dunleavy, Cash contributions began in December 2019, but the required reports for the 4th quarter of 2019 and the first two quarters of 2020 do not appear in the Oklahoma Ethics Commission database.

The grand total raised in the same period by No on 805 is $133,400. That's a 55:1 ratio in favor of the Yes side. The principal donors are Mo Anderson, Robert Funk, and Robert Funk, Jr., each giving $25,000; Mathis Brothers Furniture, the National Police Support Fund, Frank Robson, and RT Development each gave $10,000; and Frank Keating, Kirk Humphreys, and the Oklahoma Farm Bureau gave $5,000 each.

The ACLU's Communist roots in the Stalinist period are well-known. The organization's support for toleration of dissent is typically one-sided, working to facilitate groups hostile to America's founding principles while standing aside when defenders of the American constitutional order are under attack. It's fair to say that the ACLU planted many of the seeds that led to 2020's Antifa riots.

FWD.US is a newer organization founded in 2013 by Silicon Valley tycoons to support amnesty for illegal immigrants, more visas for foreign tech workers, and mass release of criminal predators. (One of the founders of FWD.US, Mark Zuckerberg, has unleashed an additional, massive attack on trust and social cohesion. It's known as Facebook.) The group has a history of "partnerships" with useful, nominally conservative groups like Americans for Tax Reform.

Why are these national organizations so willing to dump millions of dollars into an allegedly grass-roots Oklahoma referendum? I think it's for the same reason that so much has been invested into trying to get Oklahoma to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: If a solid red state like Oklahoma approves such a radical change, it becomes easier to persuade other conservative states to follow Oklahoma's example. At the state level, the presence of OCPA on the list of supporters gives a veneer of bipartisanship to this leftist constitutional amendment, while the presence of a long-ago police chief (squishy Drew Diamond, renowned for his refusal to deal honestly with the presence of gangs in Tulsa) and a lone district attorney (who won in 2018 with financial backing from many contributors who are now backing 805) allows all that pro-805 money to craft the appearance that law enforcement is ambivalent, despite the opposition of 96% of Oklahoma's district attorneys, the FOP, both candidates for Oklahoma County sheriff, and countless law enforcement officers.

The bulk of the names on the banner ad running on various websites in support of 805 include left-wing names like former Democrat Gov. Brad Henry, disgraced former Democrat Gov. David Walters, former Democrat Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor, and liberal ex-judge William Kellough (who lost re-election to a poorly funded challenger because of his egregious record).

On Thursday, October 29, 2020, a large group of state officials, law enforcement leaders, domestic violence survivors, and community leaders gathered for a press conference to urge Oklahomans to vote NO on SQ805. Speakers included Lt. Governor Matt Pinnell, Attorney General Mike Hunter, former First Lady Cathy Keating, Oklahoma FOP president Mark Nelson, Kim Garrett, CEO & Founder, Palomar Domestic Violence Resource Center, criminal justice reformer Tricia Everest, Oklahoma Farm Bureau president Rodd Moesel, Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado, and attorney Marc Nuttle.

Lt. Gov. Pinnell noted the progress that has already been made under existing, legislative reform efforts. "There is an Oklahoma brand of criminal justice reform that takes a common sense approach. We've already reduced the prison population 20% with common sense reforms. 805 is the wrong solution."

Oklahoma FOP president Mark Nelson spoke to the commonplace situation of repeat domestic violence, "You hear the address come across the radio, and you know the offenses that have already been committed in that house.... State Question 805 is about keeping violent career criminals out of jail."

Deb Stanaland, a survivor of domestic violence who now serves as a domestic violence responder, pointed out that the early release of repeat domestic violence offenders would send victims the signal that the wrongs they suffered are unimportant. "Trust is important to Domestic Violence victims. That trust will be broken if you break those promises to victims."

Kim Garrett, the founder and CEO of Palomar Domestic Violence Resource Center in Oklahoma City, spoke of the unanimous opposition to SQ805 among domestic violence victims, and the peace and gratitude that victims feel knowing that their imprisoned abusers cannot get to them. "A victim I've spoken with is grateful for her husband's prison sentence, so that her daughter could turn 18 and be out of the house and not risk being killed by him.... I have no doubt that women and children will be the victims of this sloppy and careless reform.... Victims strongly oppose it, and their very lives may depend you voting against it."

Greg Mashburn, the district attorney for Cleveland, Garvin, and McClain counties in southern central Oklahoma, points out that by reducing sentences, SQ 805 will reduce the incentives repeat offenders have to agree to drug courts and diversion programs that would give them a chance to reform.

The full press conference is available for viewing on Facebook.

The only contested Tulsa County office on the ballot is a rematch for Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2. Republican Josh Turley seeks to defeat 12-year incumbent Democrat Commissioner Karen Keith.

Dr. Turley, whose doctorate is in organizational leadership, had a distinguished 24-year career at the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, serving as the TCSO's first civilian crime scene investigator and developing the department's first Risk Management program, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts. Turley independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley has since built a private company, Everything Behind the Badge, which develops custom policy and procedure manuals to help local law enforcement agencies improve their professionalism at an affordable price. Turley has been endorsed by the Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff's local, the Tulsa Police local of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (OK2A), and State Sen. Nathan Dahm, among many other endorsements displayed on the Dr. Josh Turley for Commissioner Facebook page.

Turley is an advocate for genuine transparency in Tulsa County government. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials (except for personal data restricted by law) would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request.

A county commissioner is responsible for maintenance of all public roads in the district that are not state highways or within city limits. District 2, which covers the western arm of Tulsa County, includes a great deal of unincorporated territory where the only roads are county-maintained roads. Turley has called attention to the terrible state of roads like West 41st Street, the main east-west artery in western Tulsa County south of the Arkansas River, and Old Highway 51, which is popular for cycling and access to fishing on the river below Keystone Dam. He says that incumbent Karen Keith hasn't fulfilled her road responsibilities during her 12 years in office. Rural roads are perhaps out-of-sight and out-of-mind for a midtowner like Keith.

Democrat incumbent Karen Keith, a former television reporter and anchor, was first elected in 2008. She has been very visible this year representing Tulsa County at daily COVID-19 press conferences. She was also very visible in her opposition to President Trump's visit to Tulsa in June, calling for city officials to say no to Trump in order to "preserve our image and save our downtown and arena." Turley ran a strong race against Keith in 2016, but fell short against Keith's name recognition and fundraising advantage.

Keith is unquestionably likeable, and her likeability seems to have tempted many Republicans to consider voting for her as their one gesture toward bipartisanship. That would be a mistake. We need new county commissioners, regardless of party, because the current commissioners aren't being good stewards of taxpayer resources. Electing Josh Turley to District 2, the only seat on the ballot this year, would be a great first step.

Tulsa County Commissioners, acting as the board of the Tulsa County Industrial Authority (TCIA), have authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds. Some of these are revenue bonds, borrowing money now to fund projects, and pledging future sales tax revenues to pay the debt. As of June 30, 2019, according to the TCIA's 2019 annual audit, TCIA had $111,729,421 in outstanding revenue bonds. Counties, like cities and school districts can also issue general obligation bonds which are repaid by higher property tax rates. According to Tulsa County's 2019 CAFR, the county has no general obligation debt.

TCIA also issues bonds known as conduit debt to finance construction projects for businesses (e.g. nursing homes, apartment complexes) and non-profits (e.g. schools, hospitals) that "promote the development of industry and culture and industrial, manufacturing, cultural and educational activities... [to] benefit and strengthen culture and the economy." Tulsa County taxpayers are not on the hook for these bonds; they are repaid by the end user. The end user benefits in that the bonds are typically tax-exempt, making them more attractive for investors. As of June 30, 2019, TCIA had $604,545,944 in outstanding conduit debt, an increase of $73.6 million from the previous year, "the result of a $53.7 million lease revenue note and a $66.9 million revenue bond being issued during the fiscal year, offset by debt repayments."

MunicipalBonds.com has a couple of examples of how conduit bonds can be controversial when they are issued to finance private companies that were rejected by banks. Back in 2003, BatesLine called attention to conduit debt TCIA issued to finance the purchase of apartment complexes for low-income housing by company run by a "dear friend" and bond adviser of one of the county commissioners; TCIA then issued bonds for double the original amount to a non-profit that purchased the complexes from the first company.

2003 was before Karen Keith was a commissioner, but just yesterday I was made aware of a case of securities fraud that involved numerous conduit bond issues from various local authorities, including $5,700,000 in bonds issued by Keith and her fellow TCIA board members on March 21, 2014, to an entity controlled by Atlanta nursing home developer Christopher Brogdon. I am just learning about this, so I don't know all the details, but at the very least it looks like Keith and the TCIA should have done more due diligence before issuing the bonds, given that this deal was the last in a long string of questionable deals cited by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In any event, it's clear that we need analytical, skeptical county commissioners on the TCIA who will carefully scrutinize every entity that seeks to borrow against our county's reputation.

What revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, and conduit bonds have in common is that the three county commissioners (acting as TCIA board members) decide whether to waive competitive bidding in deciding which law firm will serve as bond adviser and which financial institution will issue the bonds. I have yet to find an instance when the TCIA opted for competitive bidding for a bond issue, or even an instance when any one of the three commissioners voted for competitive bidding.

During the 2016 campaign, I called attention to a contemporaneous news item relevant to this topic: Then-state bond adviser Jim Joseph and then-State Auditor and Inspector Gary Jones spoke out against the widespread practice of school districts waiving competitive bids for bond issues.

Oklahoma school districts are spending millions of taxpayers' dollars every year by paying high fees for financial advisers, bond counsel and underwriters, says Jim Joseph, the state's bond adviser.

Many school districts continue to do the same thing year after year, while stubbornly refusing to use cost-saving competitive selection measures, he said.

"It's like picking a roofer right after a storm because he's the first guy who came to your door," Joseph said. "You're not going to get a deal, that's for sure."

State Auditor Gary Jones agreed school boards could save Oklahoma taxpayers money by obtaining competitive quotes.

"There could be tens of millions of dollars saved over a short period of time," Jones said.

Joseph went on to compare the massive fees paid by school districts to bond counsel and financial advisers, often a percentage of the bond issue, with the smaller amounts state agencies paid for much larger bond issue. Several were listed; here's one example:

For example, Midwest City-Del City Public Schools did a $72.62 million bond issue in 2012 without competitive bids. It paid the Floyd Law Firm of Norman $363,100 for serving as bond counsel and allowed Stephen H. McDonald & Associates and BOSC Inc., a subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation, to equally split $508,340 for serving as co-financial advisers, records show.

Compare that with a $310.48 million bond issue by the Grand River Dam Authority that was done in 2014 through a competitive process. The state paid a $114,000 bond counsel fee and a $133,448 financial adviser fee.

Although the Grand River Dam Authority bond issue was more than four times as large as the Midwest City-Del City school bond issue, the school district paid more than triple the amount in bond counsel and financial adviser fees, records show.

Joseph pointed out that bond counsel, underwriter, and financial advisers often each take 1% of the bond issue as their fee, which Joseph says "makes no sense at all. It doesn't take any more work to do a $20 million issue than a $10 million issue for the bond counsel and financial adviser, but the fee is twice as high, if payment is on a percentage basis."

What does this have to do with Tulsa County? Joseph noted that the firm of Hilborne & Weidman was frequently listed as bond counsel for these competition-waived bond issues. Hilborne & Weidman was also one of two bond counsel firms selected in 2003 by the Tulsa County commissioners (acting as the Tulsa County Industrial Authority) for the Vision 2025 revenue bonds, a massive bond issue against up to all 13 years of the new sales tax. I urged at the time that Tulsa County put all Vision 2025 bond-related contracts up for competitive bid, as commissioners haggled publicly over which firms would get a piece of the action, but they waived competitive bidding and split the baby, giving each favored firm half of the business.

Over the last 17 years, there's been a complete turnover on the County Commission, but the tradition of waiving competitive bidding has persisted. Here's one example from May 26, 2009, in Karen Keith's first year as a commissioner ($110 million in bonds), another from February 1, 2010, and yet another unanimous vote to waive competitive bidding from this year, from the September 21, 2020, meeting of the Tulsa County Industrial Authority.

On May 23, 2016, the commissioners, including Karen Keith, voted unanimously to waive competitive bidding on indebtedness, but neither the minutes nor the agenda explain the amount or nature of the indebtedness. Given the proximity to the April 2016 Vision Tulsa vote, my guess is that the vote was on the revenue bonds pledged against that new 15-year sales tax stream.

How many more projects might have been built if Vision 2025 bonds had been competitively bid? Could we have had a new juvenile justice facility without being asked for more tax dollars in two separate elections (2005 and 2012)?

Given the size of these bond issues, even a 1% fee would be a huge amount for a small firm. The temptation to corruption would be immense. Think of the money the former Skiatook superintendent got in kickbacks from the janitorial supply company. That would be chump change compared to even a small cut of 1% of a $500 million bond issue.

Oklahoma taxpayers need legislation to require competitive bidding on bonds and to require counties, school districts, and cities -- and their associated Title 60 trusts -- to use the state bond adviser rather than hiring their own favored exclusive firms.

Until we get that legislation, we need county officials who will support transparency and fiscal prudence. We need more than mere niceness; we need intelligence, initiative, and analytical skill. Dr. Josh Turley, a good man with many years' experience as a county employee, can provide that kind of leadership, and I hope Tulsa County District 2 voters elect him as their new county commissioner.

Oklahoma state statute and Oklahoma Ethics Commission rules require campaign committees for city elections to file a campaign contributions and expenditures report with the City Clerk's office 10 days prior to an election (effectively 8 days, since the clerk's office is closed on the weekend, so the report is due that Monday at 4:30 pm), as well as last-minute contribution reports within 24 hours of receiving donations larger than $1,000 within the last two weeks. Reports are also due one month after the end of each quarter.

For the six candidates for Tulsa City Council on the November 3, 2020, ballot, that means their pre-election report was due to the Tulsa City Clerk at 4:30 pm on Monday, October 26. So far District 5 incumbent Cass Fahler (R) and challenger Mikey Arthrell (D), District 6 incumbent Connie Dodson (D), District 7 incumbent Lori Decter-Wright (D) and challenger Justin Van Kirk (R) have filed their reports. District 6 challenger Christian Bengel's (R) pre-election report is the only one of the six that does not appear on the City Clerk website, but he has provided me his report directly, and it is available below.

There are several important omissions from the reports that were available online. This may be an error in the City Clerk's uploading of the reports, rather than an omission by the candidate. Connie Dodson's pre-runoff Schedule A, a list of itemized contributions, is missing; the cover page of the report indicates that it includes $4,250 in PAC contributions which would be quite interesting. Likewise, there is no itemization of Mykey Arthrell's $3,545.83 pre-general election expenditures.

Several PACs are shown on individual candidate reports to have made contributions, but none of them filed reports: Tulsa Biz PAC (affiliated with the Tulsa Regional Chamber), Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

For the candidates who were on the August 25, 2020, city general election ballot, but not on next Tuesday's runoff ballot either because they won without a runoff or lost, their post-election quarterly report will be officially due Saturday, October 31, will be effectively due Monday, November 2, 2020, at 4:30 pm, but those reports could have been filed at any time since the beginning of this month, since they only cover contributions through September 30. Many of the candidates failed to file reports prior to the August election; we're looking forward to learning how much they raised and spent.

Here are the aggregate totals for the candidates in Tuesday's Tulsa runoff election, with a list of notable contributions. The name of the seat has a link leading to the Tulsa City Clerk's ethics report webpage for the district; the candidate name has a link to a PDF compiling all of the candidate's reports for this election cycle, which I have compiled, bookmarked, and OCRed.

Putting this together is a very tedious process -- clicking dozens of links, merging PDFs in the right order, then combing through the reports for contributors, double-checking sloppy reporting, and summarizing all of it below -- but BatesLine is the only place you can find organized campaign finance information for the 2020 City of Tulsa runoff. If you appreciate the hours that I've put into this, hit the tip jar and help cover the costs of keeping BatesLine going, which include web hosting, database access, domain registration, and computer equipment. If you'd like to support the site with advertising, contact me at blog@batesline.com.

In the past, when all the records were on paper only, the daily paper would have a City Hall reporter compile the list of contributions (back then $200 and under did not have to be reported). They don't bother nowadays. I find one recent story about campaign finance, focused on an out-of-state organization called the Accountability Project Institute, which is making independent expenditures against Mykey Arthrell and Lori Decter Wright; these candidates support an Office of Independent Monitor for the Tulsa Police Department, which the FOP opposes. No stories at all about the candidate's campaign finance reports. Perhaps they feel that now that the information is online, there's no need to bother. But busy voters need someone to curate the massive amounts of public information now available.

In most cases (every candidate except Cass Fahler), the totals on the most recent report don't match the sum of the amounts reported on each report to date. Candidates (or their treasurers) seem confused on the meaning of the Aggregate Total column. I've put my figures in square brackets. I have not double-checked that the reporting period totals are correct; in some cases this is impossible because key pages are missing from the online records. Most of the mistakes in calculating aggregates for the campaign and for individual contributors would be avoided if candidates were required to use the Oklahoma Ethics Commission system, as they were for a few years in the late 2000s and early 2010s, where individual transactions are uploaded, and the system calculates the totals.

District 5:

Cass Fahler (R): Carryover, $0.96, individual contributions, $15,785.00; PAC contributions, $9,500; total $25,285.96. Expenditures, $20,491.71. Notable contributions: Tulsa FOP, $5,000; Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors, $2,500; Tulsa Biz PAC; International Association of Fire Fighters, $1,000; Robert Zoellner, $2,700; Kurt Dodd, $2,000; Justin Van Kirk, $1,000; Bobby Van Holt, $1,000; John Stava, $1,000; Martha Blackburn, $750; CeCe Siegfried, $750; Meyer Siegfried, $750; Cord Charvat, $500; Jay Helm, $500; Steve Edwards, $500; Warren Ross, $250; Lou Reynolds, $200; Dewey Bartlett, Jr., $200;

Mykey Arthrell (D): Individual contributions, $13,255.00 [$13,355]; in-kind contributions, $1,000; total $14,255.00 [$14,355.00]. Expenditures, $11,094.38 [$12,094.38]. Notable contributions: Robin Flint Ballenger, $2,800; RE UP Dispensary, $1,000; Justin Schuffert, $1,000; George Krumme, $1,000; Kathy Taylor, $500.

District 6:

Christian Bengel (R): Individual contributions, $2,086.64 [$2,196.94]; PAC contributions, $1,000; loans (all from self), [$7,573.37]; total $3,086.64 [$10,670.31]. Expenditures, $3,086.64. Notable contributions: IBEW PAC, $1,000.

Connie Dodson (D): Carryover, $1,546.69; Individual contributions, [$10,435.00]; PAC contributions, $9,750 [$13,750]; total $18,561 [$25,731.69]. Expenditures, [$14,525.77]. Officeholder expenses, [$1,158.70]. Notable contributions: FOP 93 PAC, $3,500; IBEW Local 584, $3,000; Realtors PAC, $2,000; Tulsa Firefighters Local 176, $1,000; Lloyd Robson, $2,800; Cindy Robson, $2,800; Joe Robson, $1,000; Joe Chadwick, $1,000; Amulfo Murillo, $1,000; Sharon King Davis, $150; Lou Reynolds, $200.

District 7:

Justin Van Kirk (R): Individual contributions, $32,885.00 [$25,085.00]; PAC contributions, $7,500; loans (all from self), $10,300.00 [$10,500.00]; total $50,685.00 [$43,085.00]. Expenditures, [$40,135.21]. Notable contributors: FOP PAC, $7,500; Cord Charvat, $3,300; Robert Zoellner, $2,800; Justin Van Kirk, $2,800; Mike Case, $2,700; Albert Reynolds, $2,000; Jim Taylor, $1,105.

Lori Decter Wright (D): Carryover, $148.12; individual contributions, $17,689.50; PAC contributions, $3,500; political party contributions, $550; in-kind contributions, $3,328,49; total, $21,739.50 [$25,216.11]. Expenditures, $20,556.69 [$20,786.08]. Notable contributors: Tulsa Biz PAC [Tulsa Regional Chamber], $1,000; Tulsa Firefighters IAFF PAC, $2,500; Heart of the Party Tulsa County Federation of Democratic Women, $550; Cheryl Roberts, $1,400; Friends of Crista Patrick [District 3 Councilor], $500; Kathy Taylor, $800; Bill Lobeck, $500; Vanessa Hall-Harper [District 1 Councilor], $50; Ken Levit, GKFF executive director, $150; Teresa Burkett, $250; Sharon King Davis, $150.

The 2020 Oklahoma general election ballot has retention votes for three State Supreme Court justices, two judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and three judges on the Court of Civil Appeals. These are yes-no votes, unlike the district judge elections that occur in gubernatorial election years. If "no" prevails -- and it never has -- a vacancy would be created that would be filled by the governor's selection via the judicial nomination process.

Oklahoma has a dual-path court system: The Court of Criminal Appeals is the supreme arbiter in criminal cases. Civil cases are appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, and can then be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court does not handle criminal cases.

My recommendation is to retain Justices Kane and Darby and vote no on the rest. I've put an asterisk next to two of my no votes, to note that other conservative political analysts disagree with me.

Here are the judges on the ballot. Appointing governors and party affiliation are noted in parentheses:

Supreme Court Justice Matthew John Kane IV (Stitt, R, 2019): Yes (enthusiastically)
Supreme Court Justice Tom Colbert (Henry, D, 2004): No
Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Darby (Fallin, R, 2018): Yes (cautiously)

Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Robert L. Hudson (Fallin, R, 2015): No*
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Gary L. Lumpkin (Bellmon, R, 1989): No*

Court of Civil Appeals Judge Jane P. Wiseman (Henry, D, 2005): No (emphatically)
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Deborah B. Barnes (Henry, D, 2008): No
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Keith Rapp (elected, 1984): No

(Judge Rapp first won election in 1984 when civil appeals judges were elected in competitive non-partisan elections. Beginning with the 1988 election, these judges were moved to the retention ballot (SB 22, effective April 20, 1987), which already applied to the State Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. As far as I can determine, Rapp and the other judges who had won elections under the old system continued in their elected six-year term and then faced a retention ballot when their term expired, without needing a gubernatorial appointment.)

Other conservative voices, including Georgia Williams and Steve Fair, Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico, and Charlie Meadows, longtime head of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee, have published their opinions on the judicial retention questions, and Faught has provided biographical detail on each judge. They would retain a couple of judges that I would reject, for reasons noted briefly below.

Oklahoma Supreme Court:

You can read through this year's Supreme Court decisions here; many of them had to do with pending initiative petitions, and many divided the court.

One key 2020 ruling addressed the requirement to notarize an absentee ballot; the court majority made a novel interpretation of the law, claiming that permission to substitute a signed, but unsworn statement for a notarized, sworn affidavit as evidence in a civil proceeding (Title 12) also eliminated the requirement for notarizing an absentee ballot (Title 26). The Legislature had to act quickly, passing SB210 to close the loophole that the Supreme Court majority created. Gov. Stitt's two appointees were among the three justices (Winchester was the third) to object to the bad judgment of the majority. Stitt has made two excellent, insightful, and independent picks in John Kane (on this ballot) and Dustin Rowe (not on this ballot), and voting "no" on Colbert will give Stitt opportunities to continue his winning streak, while eliminating a justice that has shown poor judgment in this critical case and others.

Kane and Rowe were dissenters on a ruling that forced the Secretary of State's office to count SQ 805 petition signatures, despite the pandemic; Darby voted with the majority. Kane wrote the near-unanimous opinion (Darby concurred, Rowe dissented on one minor point) striking down SQ 809 because the gist, presented to potential petition signers, did not honestly reflect the substance of the proposal.

Our family has known the Kane family for over a decade through our homeschooling community, which turned out in large numbers to attend his 2019 swearing-in. We have first-hand experience of John's integrity, character, and values. While still an Osage County District Judge, John opened his courtroom every spring to preside over a mock trial competition, which gave eighth graders an opportunity to see the inner workings of criminal court. COVID-19 prevented that tradition from continuing this year, but Justice Kane generously hosted a Zoom session with the students to answer their questions about the Oklahoma judicial system and legal careers. (He gracefully praised and sidestepped a question from my son about the implications of the McGirt ruling.)

Georgia Williams and Steve Fair disagree with me on Justice Darby, on the grounds that he is a recent appointment by a Republican governor (Fallin). Faught points to two unspecified cases on abortion as a reason to retain Justice Darby, and notes that his wife is recently retired as the head of Altus Christian School. Meadows says, "Some of [Darby's] opinions/dissents have shown flashes of an originalist and he appears to be pro-life."

I've changed my mind and decided to support Darby, partly on the strength of his dissent in a 2019 case, Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, a case involving legislation that regulated the off-label use of medications to induce abortion. Darby was the lone justice (Kane and Rowe were not yet on the court) to argue against the majority's ruling that summary judgment was appropriate. His reasoning was straightforward and sensible: There were contested facts in the case, therefore summary judgment is not permitted. The majority in the case cites Roe v. Wade, but they seem anxious to prevent any case from advancing that might open the door to a reversal of Roe v. Wade. This case illustrates why Oklahomans for Life has been focused in recent years on reform of the judicial nominating process.

The ruling on SQ 807, a petition to add a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana for any purpose, is interesting in that Darby concurred in dissents by Stitt's two appointees, Rowe and Kane, which argued that the Federal Controlled Substances Act and the doctrine of supremacy means that the proposition is preempted by federal law and cannot move forward. The majority disagreed; the deadline for 807 signatures was Monday.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:

If you believe the treatment of Oklahoma City Police officer Daniel Holtzclaw is unjust, you will want to vote against both Court of Criminal Appeals judges up for retention, Hudson and Lumpkin; both voted to reject Holtzclaw's appeal. HoltzclawTrial.com and freedanielholtzclaw.com present the case from Holtzclaw's perspective; here is the Court of Criminal Appeals ruling. Holtzclaw appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the petition for certiorari was denied.

On the other hand, Faught quotes an acquaintance who worked for Lumpkin as saying that he is "to the right of Scalia," and he notes that Hudson is a Baptist deacon, Sunday School teacher, and a wheat farmer and cattle rancher. Meadows says that Hudson was "appointed by Governor Keating to replace a corrupt Democrat District Attorney out of Stillwater" and served as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Williams and Fair support Hudson as a recent Republican appointee, but recommend a no vote on Lumpkin on the basis of his 31 years of service.

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals:

We still haven't forgotten or forgiven Judge Wiseman's 2003 reversal of her 1995 application of the state constitution's logrolling provision, seemingly in order to appease Tulsa elites who could help her career. (She was appointed to the appeals court soon thereafter.)

All of the conservative commentators recommend voting NO on all three Court of Civil Appeals judges, two of whom were appointed by Democrat Governor Brad Henry; the third, Keith Rapp, was elected in a competitive election in 1984, defeating an incumbent.

Oklahoma State Question 805 would insert a new article into the Oklahoma Constitution to ban longer sentences for repeat felony offenders. The question arises from an initiative petition.

(UPDATE: On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.)

SQ 805 is opposed by the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (and by both candidates for Oklahoma County Sheriff), the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, and former Governor Frank Keating, who served as a U. S. Attorney and oversaw law enforcement agencies of the Departments of Treasury and Justice.

The principal opposition group, Oklahomans United Against 805 (no805.org), states that "State Question 805 (SQ805) will create a culture where crime is okay in Oklahoma by reducing penalties for career criminals. With SQ805, habitual offenders of serious crimes will spend less time in prison. These crimes range from domestic violence in the presence of a child, home burglary, to child trafficking, soliciting sex from a minor using technology, animal cruelty and more."

Here is the full text that would be inserted into the constitution if 805 were to receive a majority of the vote:

CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA, ARTICLE II-A CRIMINAL HISTORY IN SENTENCING

SECTION 1. Definitions

As used in this Article:

A. "Community supervision" shall be defined as a specified period of supervision with conditions, including but not limited to parole, probation, and post-imprisonment supervision.

B. "Statutorily allowable base range of punishment" shall be defined as the range of punishment prescribed for the offense or offenses for which an individual is convicted, without the application of a statutory sentencing enhancement based on one or more former convictions.

C. "Violent felony" shall be defined as any felony offense specified in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes as of January 1, 2020.

SECTION 2. Exclusions

This Article does not apply to, and nothing in this Article shall be construed as applying to, changing, or affecting sentences for a person who has ever been convicted of a violent felony, no matter when convicted.

SECTION 3. Range of punishment after former felony convictions

Except as provided in section 2 of this Article, a former conviction for one or more felonies shall not be used to enhance the statutorily allowable base range of punishment, including but not limited to minimum and maximum terms, for a person convicted, whether by trial or plea of guilty or nolo contendere, of a felony.

SECTION 4. Sentence modification - eligibility

Except as provided in section 2 of this Article, a person serving a sentence of incarceration or a person incarcerated pending an acceleration or revocation for a felony offense shall be eligible for sentence modification under this Article if the sentence, including any period of community supervision, for which the person is currently incarcerated satisfies the following criteria:

A. Was imposed based on a statutorily allowable base range of punishment that was enhanced based on one or more former felony convictions; and

B. Is greater than the current maximum sentence which may be imposed on a person convicted of the same felony or felonies who has not been formerly convicted of a felony.

SECTION 5. Sentence modification - initiation of proceeding

A. To initiate a proceeding for sentence modification under this Article, a person who believes that they satisfy the criteria in section 4 of this Article, henceforth known as the "petitioner," shall file a verified "application for modification" with the clerk of the court that imposed the sentence of incarceration. The Court of Criminal Appeals may prescribe the format of the application. If the court that imposed the sentence is not available, the presiding judge shall designate another judge or magistrate to rule on the application. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application, a period which may be extended if the court has good cause, the court shall dismiss the application pursuant to subsection B of this section or proceed pursuant to subsection C of this section.

B. If the court determines, on the basis of the application, that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria in section 4 of this Article or has not adhered to the format of the prescribed application, it may deny the application, citing reasons for the denial, or allow the petitioner to file an amended application. Denial of the application due to technical errors shall not abridge the right of the petitioner to file a subsequent application.

C. If the court determines, on the basis of the application, that the petitioner satisfies the criteria in section 4 of this Article, then the court shall conduct a sentence modification hearing and modify the sentence in accordance with section 6 of this Article. In advance of such hearing, the court shall appoint counsel for petitioners who are indigent and notify the state. If the petitioner has a victim registered with the Department of Corrections for the sentence for which the petitioner is applying for modification, the state shall notify the victim of the sentence modification hearing.

D. The Department of Corrections shall provide support as necessary to ensure this section is implemented, including but not limited to posting information in facility common areas regarding the rights set forth under section 4 of this Article and providing timely and adequate assistance for the preparation of applications pursuant to subsection A of this section.

SECTION 6. Sentence modification - hearing

A. The sentencing modification hearing shall be held in open court. The court must accord the state, any registered victim, and the counsel for the petitioner an opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter relevant to the question of sentence. The petitioner has the right to make a statement on his or her own behalf before the court pronounces a modified sentence.

B. During the sentencing modification hearing, the court shall reconsider the sentence for which the petitioner is currently incarcerated, without any consideration or reference to an enhancement based on one or more former felony convictions, consistent with section 3 of this Article. In reaching this determination, the court shall consider the estimated cost of the petitioner's continued incarceration to the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma.

C. At the conclusion of the sentencing modification hearing, the court shall be empowered to modify any aspect of the original sentence. At minimum, the court shall modify the sentence to be no greater than the current maximum sentence which may be imposed on a person convicted of the same felony or felonies with no former felony convictions. The court shall not modify the sentence so that the portion of the sentence to be served in prison is greater than the remainder of the original sentence to be served in prison.

SECTION 7. Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals

A denial pursuant to subsection B of section 5 or a final order entered under subsection C of section 6 of this Article may be appealed by the petitioner to the Court of Criminal Appeals within sixty (60) days from the entry of the denial or final order. The appeal shall be taken in accordance with procedures implemented by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

SECTION 8. Implementation

This Article shall become effective on the January 1 immediately following its passage.

SECTION 9. Severability

The provisions of this Article are severable, and if any part or provision shall be void, invalid, or unconstitutional, the decision of the court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions of this Article, and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

Let's walk through this. The first problem is that this is statutory language that would be enshrined in the constitution. Section 1 has a list of definitions, very common in statutes, but a signal that the text is far too specific for a constitution, which ought to address the basic structure of government, its powers and constraints, and the reserved rights of the people. The only reason this is being added to the state constitution is to prevent the legislature from easily fixing its problems and unintended consequences.

One definition in particular is problematic: "Violent felony" is not spelled out with a specific list of crimes, or left to the legislature to define and adjust as appropriate, but with a reference to a statute at a particular moment in time. The aim is to prevent the legislature from recategorizing heinous "non-violent" felonies as "violent felonies" so as to exempt them from the ban on sentence enhancements.

Here is a link to the version 57 O.S. 571 as of January 1, 2020. This list is Title 57, Prisons and Reformatories, in Chapter 8A, Although this list of crimes has already been superseded with the passage of HB3251 this year, the obsolescent list will be forever enshrined in the constitution if 805 passes.

HB3251 added the following item to the list of violent felonies in 57 O.S. 571:

aaa. domestic abuse by strangulation, domestic assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, or domestic assault and battery with a deadly weapon, as provided for in Section 644 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

The Legislature can add dozens of violent felonies to that section of law over the years, but none of them would ever be considered violent felonies for the purpose of sentence enhancements if SQ 805 passes. Every time a wife-beater commits, for example, domestic abuse by strangulation, his previous convictions for that crime cannot be considered in sentencing him for his latest conviction. The only way to incorporate newly added crimes would be to amend the constitution in a future state question either to update "as of January 1, 2020" to a more recent date or to strike that date phrase from the constitution entirely, which would undermine the intent of SQ 805.

As you'll notice, 57 O. S. 571 is a long list of crimes with cross-references to the title and section where each crime is defined. What happens if the sections of statute mentioned in 57 O.S. 571 as of January 1, 2020 are amended by a future legislature? Are those definitions in these other statutes also frozen in time? What if a future legislature changed the definition of, say, "burglary in the first degree, as provided for in Section 1431 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes," by removing the phrase "in which there is at the time some human being," so that any act of burglary is considered violent, even if no one is at home? Would that change the definition of violent felony in new Article II-A or not?

That question would end up in the courts, which illustrates the trouble with amending the constitution with statutory language via initiative petition. However imperfect, the legislative process gives an opportunity for structural defects in legislation to be aired and remedied in committee, on the floor, and in conference between the two chambers. An initiative petition is written by the proponents, with no vetting process beyond nods from "yes men," and then it's an up-or-down vote, with no opportunity to fix problems, short of another proposed constitutional amendment.

Another problem with this hard-coded reference to statute: If you scroll down to the bottom of the most recent version of 57 O.S. 571, you'll see a list of citations, which includes court decisions which refer to the section, and it also includes other laws in other titles that refer to this list of violent felonies. I count seven references, dealing with electronic monitoring, appeals of out-of-school suspensions, criminal record expungement, and sentence enhancements. As this section of law is expanded to include additional crimes, a gap will grow between the definition of violent felony used by these other statutes and the definition, frozen in amber, used by SQ 805's new section of the state constitution.

To continue:

Section 2 uses the definition of violent felony in section 1 to exclude someone who has ever been convicted of one of those crimes from all the protections that follow.

Section 3 is the heart of the proposed constitutional change: Previous convictions "shall not be used to enhance the statutorily allowable base range of punishment." That phrase, "statutorily allowable base range of punishment," has a circular definition in Section 1: "the range of punishment prescribed for the offense or offenses for which an individual is convicted, without the application of a statutory sentencing enhancement based on one or more former convictions." This is a mess.

Sections 4 through 7 establish a procedure by which people currently in prison can have any sentence cut to what would be allowed for new convictions of first-time offenders under 805. This is the "get out of jail early" provision which would allow a career criminal to get back to work victimizing the public sooner than he would have under his original sentence.

If the sentence a career criminal is serving is longer than a sentence for a conviction today for a first time offender, the career criminal can apply for a hearing to get that sentence reduced. The judge can modify the sentence, but only downward, so the process bears no risk to the career criminal. The sentence has to be cut at least to the length of sentence for a first-time offender, but could be cut further. The career criminal is entitled to a state-paid attorney. The same court that imposed the original sentence is responsible to hear the sentence-modification request. The prosecutor, the career criminal's attorney, the career criminal himself, and the registered victim, if any, are all entitled to speak.

Once again, this is statutory language being locked into the constitution where it can't be adjusted if the procedure proves impractical. Ordinarily, a constitutional provision would establish a right or an obligation and then would direct the legislature to make laws enforcing the provision. The only nod to practicality is authorizing the Court of Criminal Appeals to design the application form.

In Section 6.B. there is this little bombshell, which hasn't received any attention:

In reaching this determination, the court shall consider the estimated cost of the petitioner's continued incarceration to the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma.

I assume that courts may consider other factors as well, but the only factor they are mandated to consider is the cost to the taxpayer, and of course a shorter sentence will always cost the taxpayer less than a longer sentence, but there is no mandate to weigh that cost against the cost borne by the future victims of the career criminal as he returns to his life's work.

There are two reasons we lock people up: To punish the criminal and to protect the public. Shoplifting, burglary, car theft -- all these property crimes impose a tax on the public. (There are many more crimes that are affected by 805; see below for a longer list.) This tax manifests itself as higher prices, higher insurance rates, alarm monitoring fees, the cost of stronger locks and higher fences.

A more targeted tax is paid by families and small businesses that are existing on the margins: Families on the edge of poverty can't afford the protections available to wealthier Oklahomans, which makes them targets of opportunity for career criminals to take what little they have. Likewise, small retailers pay a greater price for theft, and are less able than the big chains to afford surveillance or pass on losses to consumers.

There's a social tax, too: The knowledge that career criminals are living among us and that the legal system no longer cares about protecting us from them, will only make Oklahomans more suspicious and less trusting of one another.

The proponents of 805 care nothing about these impacts. They care only that predators are allowed to roam free. In one social media exchange, a vocal proponent of 805 stated that, rather than protect women by imposing long sentences for domestic abusers, women should be taught how to hide money and escape from their abusers. With wild animals, we know we should avoid certain wild areas, should carry repellent sprays if we have to venture into those areas. The mindset behind 805 says that some people are just predatory, and because we live in their habitat, we must expect them to victimize us. It's nature's way, as Steve Irwin used to say about snakes and crocodiles.

Some may object to the term "career criminal," but many of the serious crimes that will be affected by SQ 805 are the sorts of crimes that people pursue as a way to make a dishonest living. 805 would reduce the consequences for their choice of a career.

Section 8 allows a career criminal who didn't to get the sentence reduction he wanted to appeal the decision to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in Oklahoma that deals with criminal cases. This remedy isn't available to prosecutors acting on behalf of the public or to victims, just to the career criminal.

Section 9 has a severability clause, which anticipates the possibility that the court might strike down part or all of this new constitutional language as unconstitutional, which is through-the-looking-glass weird. Severability is normal in a statute, completely inappropriate in constitutional language. It's particularly inappropriate in this case: If Section 1 or 2 were declared unconstitutional, the remainder of this new constitutional amendment would be meaningless.

I am voting no. There may well be a strong case regarding specific crimes for reducing sentences, or expanding diversion programs, or substituting restitution for incarceration, but the right way to address those questions is through the legislative process, where many voices can weigh in, as proposals are filtered through committees and the floor of each house, with public hearings and amendments, not through a poorly crafted, unvetted bit of legislation embedded permanently in our constitution.

Government's first responsibility is to protect citizens, particularly those who lack the resources to protect themselves, from evildoers who choose to victimize others as a way to make a living.

UPDATE 2020/10/30: I'm told that 805 proponents claim that the legislature could, if they choose, expand the sentence range for crimes not on the list in 57 O. S. 571 and thus impose the same sentences that are currently possible. If that's so, what's the point of 805? This is another example of the sloppy thoughtlessness behind 805, and why criminal justice reform needs to be a legislative process involving consultation with law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections officials, and criminologists. The RESTORE Task Force established by Gov. Stitt needs time to finish its work, but 805 threatens to undo this careful approach.

MORE ON SQ 805:

On Facebook, No805 has been posting the rap sheets of criminals who would get out of jail much sooner if 805 passes.

The Repeal SQ780 Facebook page provides frequent examples of the failures of Oklahoma's previous attempts at "criminal justice reform."

Other advocates provide more detail on the long list of serious crimes that are left off of the "violent felony" list that SQ 805 establishes and the likely effects:

Association of Oklahoma Narcotics Enforcers:

Incredibly, the advocates of State Question 805 would have our citizens believe that those currently sentenced to these crimes actually serve out their sentences despite the fact that every one of these criminals are eligible for parole after serving 25% of their sentence. In fact, habitual criminals know very well that they will only serve a small fraction of their sentence, with even a smaller portion spent behind bars. A significant segment of our "inmates" in Oklahoma are actually living at home attached to a GPS monitor or residing at a halfway house. It is important to note that in the last two years Oklahoma's prison population has actually decreased 17.7 percent and the prison overcrowding narrative is a manufactured crisis not based in reality. Promises of purported savings to fund benevolent programs are of the oldest, and most oft used, propaganda techniques that appear when promoting a questionable legislative effort.

What crime we do experience is committed by a small number of individuals. For instance, when a community experiences 100 burglaries, that does not in any way represent 100 separate burglars, but a very small number of thieves stealing over and over again. It is this repetitive and habitual offender that police and prosecutors should focus their efforts and resources, but State Question 805 does nothing more than provide a legal sanctuary for these habitual defendants who cause so much havoc in our communities.

These theories urging the reduction of law enforcement did not originate around here, but are part of spurious intellectual ideas offered by special interest groups with no experience dealing with criminals who victimize citizens. To illustrate the horrendous impact State Question 805 would have, simply pick a city where the law is not being enforced and evaluate just how that city is doing. If police and prosecutors are stripped of their ability to target habitual offenders, Oklahoma would experience the public safety chaos currently seen in America's coasts. Our citizens, our children, and our victims deserve better.

Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association:

With SQ805, habitual offenders of serious crimes will spend less time in prison, and put them back on the streets where they can continue committing crimes like home burglaries, child trafficking, soliciting sex from minors using technology, animal cruelty and domestic violence; just to name a few.

While proponents of 805 claim it only applies to non-violent offences, many horrible crimes against people and animals are classified as non-violent, creating a pass for the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, because each crime has the same sentence range as a first time offense....

As Oklahoma's constitutionally duly elected Sheriffs, we urge all Oklahomans to Vote "NO" on SQ 805 and protect Oklahoma children from super predators. We ask citizens to vote "NO" on SQ 805 and keep our homes and private property safe from repeat career criminals who would break into our homes, and steal our property; who would steal our identities and cause us financial hardship, and who would commit acts of Indecent Exposure, hate crimes based on Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation; and those who would commit acts of Negligent Homicide.

SQ 805 would also be retroactive, and would mandate the reduction of sentences of convicted criminals currently serving time in prison, disregarding the decisions of the juries and judges who handed out those sentences.

Oklahoma Farm Bureau:

With longstanding policy that calls for strong penalties on agricultural crimes, OKFB opposes the measure due to concerns over its potential impact in rural communities, specifically with the theft of livestock and farm or ranch equipment.

"For decades, Farm Bureau members have stood for protecting property rights and promoting public safety," said OKFB President Rodd Moesel. "Unfortunately, those of us in agriculture are all too familiar with cattle theft and other property crimes that can cost our farm families thousands of dollars. A no vote on State Question 805 will protect the safety of our treasured rural communities by ensuring habitual offenders continue to be punished appropriately."

OKFB is joined in the coalition by other statewide agricultural organizations including Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association.

Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police:

The OACP believes that SQ805 actually does not do anything to protect our citizens from being victimized of crimes, but gives credit to people who commit those crimes to say that there are no consequences to recommitting multiple crimes. When the proponents of SQ805 talk about non-violent offenses, take time to understand what is meant. Please hear the warning from our membership that treating career criminals as first-time offenders will do nothing but embolden those who seek to take property and safety away from our hardworking and honest citizens. Our members do not profit by having people in jail, but we do see the effects of allowing people to reoffend without fear of serious penalties.

We are also very leery of yet another change to the State Constitution. By making changes such as this, we take away the ability of our duly elected representatives to make corrections and to minimize unintended consequences. If the proposition of SQ805 is good and the will of the people, so be it; but leave the option of mitigating damage to our criminal justice system if it is found to be a faulty concept after we have all had time to see the short and long-term effects.

Oklahoma District Attorneys Association:

"Painting longtime criminal offenders as if they are first-time offenders is not only dishonest, it is a disservice to Oklahomans who are trying to decipher just how bad the policy behind SQ 805 is going to be," said Marsee. "Today, we challenge the proponents to release the FULL records of the criminals featured in their ad, so Oklahomans can decide for themselves how many crimes are too many before a judge or jury determines they are a menace to society."

Former Governor Frank Keating, who served as a U. S. Attorney and oversaw law enforcement agencies of the Departments of Treasury and Justice:

Let's look at examples. Repeat drunk drivers who have caused injury. Incest. Trafficking in children. Hate crimes. Stalking and violation of protective orders. Drug distribution.

How many times can a criminal do these? As many as they wish. Each time, they will be treated as a first offender.

I have been an FBI agent, a state prosecutor and U.S. attorney in Tulsa. I supervised the federal criminal prosecutions in the U.S. as well as all of the U.S. attorneys and most of the federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. prison system. Proposed State Question 805 is a stay-out-of-jail free card.

There is always room for reform but not SQ 805. It will result in more criminal activity and more victims. We must not add to the girth of our constitution with this one-size-fits-all experiment. If 805 passes, it cannot be amended by any Legislature at any time.

State Question 805 is terrible public policy.

Only two state questions are on the ballot in November, which seems like a record low. Of the 12 attempts this year at putting a question on a ballot via initiative petitions, two made it two the ballot (802 and 805), two (involving marijuana) are in process, and the remainder failed for lack of signatures or were stricken by the State Supreme Court. (One more petition, SQ 803, seeking a referendum on HB 2597, also failed for insufficient signatures.)

State Question 814 is a legislative referendum. It began as Senate Joint Resolution 27 and was passed by large majorities (81-17 in the House, 34-11 in the Senate). Because it modifies the State Constitution, final approval requires a vote of the people. Sen. Nathan Dahm appears to have been the only Republican vote against it, but I haven't been able to find his rationale.

(UPDATE: On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.)

Here is the video of debate on SJR 27 in the State Senate on March 12, 2020, and here is the State House debate on SJR 27 from May 14, 2020.

The proposal would modify Article X, Section 40, repurposing money that currently goes into the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund to pay the state's share of the Medicaid expansion that voters foolishly approved with SQ 802 in June.

Article X, Section 40 is a provision that was added to the Oklahoma Constitution by SQ 692 at the November 2000 election, initiated by the legislature, creating a Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) Fund to contain a portion of the settlement payments from the tobacco companies. The percentage of payments dedicated to the fund began at 50% and increased by 5% a year to 75%, where it has remained since 2007. A special trust with separate board of directors and board of investors handles the funds; the remainder is available for appropriation by the legislature as part of the normal budget process. SQ 814 would reduce that percentage to 25%

TSET's spending has been controversial. TSET is supposed to be using the fund (worth $1.4 billion at the end of FY2019, the most recent year that has been audited) to help people quit smoking and to deal with the medical consequences. The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) documented many examples of poor judgment and management, such as the "Free the Night" program that seems to promote drinking in bars.

Oklahoma has a problem with funding silos. Too many of the dollars received by state and local government are earmarked for one purpose or another, and many of those earmarks are constitutional. No matter how desperate the need may be in one department (say, schools), and no matter how overfunded the agencies receiving earmarked funds may be, there's no legal way to move money to where it's needed most. Legislators would rather raise taxes on all of us regular Oklahomans than risk unleashing the wrath of the lobbyists protecting their earmarks.

SQ 814 would not reallocate any of the money currently in the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund; it would only change how new money is allocated as it is received from the tobacco companies. (UPDATE: The TSET 2019 annual report states that the total receipts from the tobacco companies for the four fiscal years from 2016 through 2019 were, respectively, $76,009,297, $77,953,045, $71,663,337, and $69,766,823. Passage of SQ814 would mean that about $35 million that currently gets added each year to the $1.4 billion TSET endowment would instead be set aside for state Medicaid matching funds. TSET would still receive roughly $17.5 to $19.5 million each year, based on the last four years' income.)

SQ 814 doesn't come anywhere near fixing the problem of funding earmarks, but at least it redirects earmarked money where to fill part of what could be a massive fiscal hole. I'm voting yes.

Former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating has written an op-ed for the Daily Oklahoman opposing State Question 805, a ballot proposition that would add an amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma forbidding sentence enhancements for repeat offenders for many heinous albeit technically non-violent crime. SQ 805 will be on the November ballot.

Keating also served as an FBI agent, Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney, U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma in the Reagan administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Associate Attorney General. In the latter two roles he oversaw law enforcement agencies of the Departments of Treasury and Justice.

After taking a well-deserved swipe at a proposition that would make our ridiculously lengthy state constitution even longer, Keating focuses on the harm SQ 805 would do to crime deterrence:

This constitutional amendment is the ultimate gift to the career criminal and the insect crime wave of the lifetime repeat offender. The language says that if you commit a "violent crime," and there are 52 listed, you can have the book thrown at you. However, if you commit any other of the hundreds of criminal acts, including many that are very serious and dangerous, a second offense remains a first offense for punishment. No matter how many times you offend. There is no "enhancement" permitted. "After Former Conviction of a Felony" will become a useless phrase. A person's selfish and destructive long life of crime will be handled as one first offense after another. The fifteenth offense is the first offense as far as punishment goes.

Let's look at examples. Repeat drunk drivers who have caused injury. Incest. Trafficking in children. Hate crimes. Stalking and violation of protective orders. Drug distribution.

How many times can a criminal do these? As many as they wish. Each time, they will be treated as a first offender.

I have been an FBI agent, a state prosecutor and U.S. attorney in Tulsa. I supervised the federal criminal prosecutions in the U.S. as well as all of the U.S. attorneys and most of the federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. prison system. Proposed State Question 805 is a stay-out-of-jail free card.

There is always room for reform but not SQ 805. It will result in more criminal activity and more victims. We must not add to the girth of our constitution with this one-size-fits-all experiment. If 805 passes, it cannot be amended by any Legislature at any time.

State Question 805 is terrible public policy.

Tulsa Mayor GT Bynum IV narrowly avoided a November runoff, winning re-election outright with 51.9% in this first round of City of Tulsa voting. 30-year-old Greg Robinson II, running to Bynum's left, garnered 28.8% of the vote. Ken Reddick, running to Bynum's right, finished third with 13.8%, followed by Ty Walker at 2.8% and Craig Immel at 1.9%, the remaining candidates were below 1%. Turnout was 70,745, with 23.0% voting early. Had another 2,637 voters turned out to vote for candidates other than Bynum, he would have faced a November runoff with Robinson.

I'll be on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ at 7:30 am Wednesday morning to talk about the results with Pat Campbell.

I had an enjoyable time as a member of a panel of commentators for KJRH's election night coverage, talking about the results and their significance. One of the striking things about the conversation was hearing about the Democratic Party's endorsement of Robinson, setting a precedent that Republicans would do well to follow. The Tulsa County Democratic Party chairman said something about flipping a council seat, which was humorously revealing. We all know that political philosophy matters, even in city government, and that people have party affiliations, despite the lack of a partisan primary. About 15 years ago, I proposed an idea I called multi-partisan elections, in which candidates of all parties would run on the same ballot, but with party labels, which might include words and phrases other than the names of national parties. The label next to a candidate's name might be that of a local coalition formed around local issues.

I started playing around with maps. I have QGIS, an open-source graphical information system suite, precinct and municipal boundary shapefiles from OK Maps, and precinct-by-precinct results from the Oklahoma State Election Board. I used Microsoft Access (I know, I know) to process the election board data before linking it to the precinct map. Here's my first, clumsy effort: A map showing the "swing" between Bynum's June 2016 vote and his vote today. The deepest purple shows precincts where Bynum's share of the vote fell by at least 25 percentage points; darkest green shows where Bynum's share of the vote went up by at least 25 points; in precincts with no color, his 2020 share of the vote was within 5% either side of his 2016 share.

Recall that in 2016, Bynum was effectively the Democratic nominee, the progressive candidate, as no prominent Democrat sought the office. Bynum won with support from Democrats along with those Republicans who were disappointed with Dewey Bartlett Jr's service as mayor. This year, Greg Robinson captured those left-wing voters, while there was no well-funded or well-organized candidate to Bynum's right. Bynum's vote slid most dramatically in north Tulsa and midtown, while his vote improved in south Tulsa.

Now, there are all sorts of problems with the map above. I haven't figured out how to tweak the projection so that a line drawn north through the center of Tulsa points straight up (the shapefiles I'm using are based on Oklahoma as a whole). I haven't figured out how to add a legend, and I didn't bother adding precinct numbers as labels. I haven't done an intersection between the precinct shapefile and the municipal shapefile so that I only show the portions of precincts that are within the city limits. There's no proprietary watermark. All that said, it does give you a picture of how votes shifted, and I hope to put together additional (and more attractive) maps in the near future.

Here's one more: The percentage voting yes or no for Proposition 2, which involved changing a handful of references in the City Charter from he/him to they/them to be "inclusive." Darkest blues are yes > 70%, darkest reds are yes < 30%. Overall, the proposition passed by the narrowest margin of the five on the ballot, with 54.7% support.

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma runoff and City of Tulsa general election on August 25, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) Please note that the rows on the chart are alternately shaded and unshaded for readability. The presence or absence of shading has no other significance.

As I posted this late Thursday night, there were races I had planned to write about in detail, but time was short, people were voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations, so I've started by posting my printable ballot card and will fill in some details as I have opportunity between now and Tuesday.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

When in doubt, I look at campaign contributions, which often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. Campaign expenditures can be telling, too: Certain consulting firms have strong associations with the pay-to-play culture that makes our Republican supermajority legislature more crony-infested than conservative. Then there are principled conservative consultants; their presence on a campaign team is always a hopeful indication that the candidate is also a principled conservative.

In addition to runoffs in federal, state, and county primary elections, the City of Tulsa has an election for mayor and seven of the nine city councilors. (The auditor and the other two councilors won re-election unopposed.)

State law requires City of Tulsa campaign contributions and expenditures to be submitted to the City Clerk's office; the City Clerk posts them on the City's website. Sadly, many city candidates don't seem to have noticed that their pre-election reports were due on Monday, August 17, 2020, even though that information was included in the election packet that was provided to each city candidate who filed for office and which was also posted on the county election board website.

NOTES ON SPECIFIC BALLOT ITEMS:

U. S. House, District 5: Terry Neese. Winner of this runoff will go on to try to win back the seat taken two years ago by Kendra Horn, Oklahoma's lone congressional Democrat. The other runoff candidate, State Sen. Stephanie Bice, voted to raise taxes on Oklahomans in 2018, bypassing a vote of the people. I should note that there are controversies surrounding Neese's business practices and claims of Native American roots. (My primary pick, David Hill, would have been a much better choice than either Neese or Bice.)

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber. Baber is a known quantity among conservatives in state and local conservative circles. Creekpaum's strong backing from "the Kaiser System" should worry conservatives. Baber is the only candidate in the race who was wise enough to oppose SQ802. Baber has been endorsed by Governor Stitt, Senator Lankford, former Governor Keating, and the current and previous senators for District 35, Gary Stanislawski and Jim Williamson, both solid conservatives. I'm hoping this year will be an echo of Stanislawski's first race in 2008: City Councilor Cason Carter, a favorite of the Money Belt establishment, ran first in the primary, 44.5% to 40.6%, but fell short of a majority and lost the runoff to Stanislawski.

City of Tulsa proposed charter amendments: Yes on 1, 3, 5 (the odds are good), No on 2, 4. Click the link to read the actual charter changes that each proposition would enact, and why I support or oppose each.

Mayor of Tulsa: Ty Walker (R). Walker is a small businessman and a political conservative who deals with Tulsans from all walks of life on a daily basis. As someone who has lived on both sides of the tracks, as he puts it, Walker can be a bridge to link the disparate communities of our city, with a focus on encouraging home-grown businesses. This was a tough call, but I believe that Walker is the better candidate of the two conservatives running. You can read his response to the BatesLine questionnaire here. You can read my comments on each of the candidates in my article endorsing Walker.

The incumbent mayor is blind to the needs of the city beyond his little Midtown Money Belt world, indecisive, two-faced, and in thrall to progressive philanthropy. His disastrous handling of COVID-19 and of the George Floyd protests managed to make everyone angry at him, inspiring seven candidates from across the political spectrum to run against him.

In the council races, I support replacing all of the City Councilors, except Cass Fahler in District 5.

Tulsa Council District 1: Jerry Goodwin (D).
Tulsa Council District 3: Paul Eicher (D).
Tulsa Council District 4: Kathryn Lyons (R). Lyons was the only District 4 candidate to respond to the BatesLine questionnaire, and she gave solid answers. (The incumbent councilor, Kara Joy McKee, allowed constituents' homes to be condemned without investigating the situation, and she made a promise she didn't keep about initiating the revocation condemnation promptly at the beginning of 2020.)
Tulsa Council District 5: Cass Fahler (R). At a time when law enforcement is under attack, we need a strong advocate for law and order on the council.
Tulsa Council District 6: Christian Bengel (R).
Tulsa Council District 7: Justin Van Kirk (R).
Tulsa Council District 9: Jayme Fowler (R).

MORE INFORMATION:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
• Sheridan Church's Tulsa Town Hall candidate forum
• 918 Vote / League of Women Voters mayoral forum
• iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico 2020 runoff election tips and picks
• Charlie Meadows's picks
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
• Endorsements from Tulsa Area Republican Assembly and other Tulsa conservative groups
• NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
• Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks.

UPDATE 2020/08/25, 12:46pm: I have updated the printable sheet to change my recommendation in Senate District 7, based on recent information from Jamison Faught.

What looked like a sleepy re-election run, for Tulsa Mayor GT Bynum IV as recently as the beginning of May, with one declared opponent and a perennial candidate in jail, turned into a free-for-all. As soon as he had some tough decisions to make, the smiley guy that everyone liked was suddenly the weak-kneed wimp whom everyone despised. COVID-19 (aka the Chinese Communist Bat Virus) and Black Lives Matter protests, and the Trump rally which linked the two, left GT unable to find decisions that would make the vast majority of Tulsans happy. Instead, his vacillation managed to anger Tulsans left, right, and center, and the peak of the first wave of dissatisfaction fell just as filing opened for city office. Seven opponents filed to challenge his re-election.

The Bynum administration has reaffirmed my belief that executive experience in a mayor is not necessary for keeping the city running. (It may be that having a pulse is not necessary for keeping the city's basic functions running.) We've never had a mayor under the current charter with previous experience running a business the size of city government. The various departments that manage basic city functions continue to run regardless of who's mayor. Every mayor since 1990 has had someone either serving as a city manager in all but name (with a title like Chief Administrative Officer or Chief Operating Officer) or with the title City Manager, even though Tulsa's charter calls for a strong mayor, unlike the "weak mayor / council / city manager" government that Oklahoma City has and which is established under the default charter in the state statutes, used by cities like Broken Arrow. Even under a wishy-washy schmoozer like GT Bynum IV, the machinery of city government chugs along. The trash is picked up, clean water flows through our faucets, street projects move forward, police officers and firefighters do their essential work. It's a bit like the body's autonomous nervous system, keeping the heart pumping, the lungs going, and the guts digesting regardless of what is or is not happening in the brain.

What we do need in a mayor is a functioning moral compass, an ability to make sound decisions and stick with them, and a vision that encompasses all of Tulsa. He needs to understand government's proper sphere in the functioning of society alongside families, churches, businesses, voluntary organizations, and other non-governmental mediating institutions, as well as the practical limits on government's ability to fix problems without creating others. We don't have that right now, and I only see one candidate that comes close to meeting that set of criteria: Ty Walker. I have voted for Walker, and I encourage you to do the same.

If you make decisions based on your billionaire backers' priorities or what you see your buddy in Oklahoma City doing, if what you mean by "data-driven" is really just following the conventional wisdom that will make you look smart in the eyes of New York Times reporters or among your homies in the Midtown Money Belt, you're going to have a tough time when difficult dilemmas come your way, and you won't be serving the best interests of the citizens.

A few examples of Bynum IV's bad judgment and lack of vision (from memory, so no links):

• Supporting a tax package (as a councilor and mayoral candidate) that included unnecessary low-water dams, then failing (as mayor) to use the Muscogee Creek Nation lack of interest in funding as an opportunity to repurpose taxpayer dollars in more useful ways.
• Decreeing by executive order that the City of Tulsa will officially pretend that there is no valid distinction to be drawn between real women and autogynephiliacs, thus endangering private spaces for females and separate female athletic competition.
• Allowing the condemnation of a historic neighborhood where young families have been reclaiming old homes in order to protect an office building that was built in a 100-year flood plain, rather than finding a solution that would mitigate stormwater issues while saving the neighborhood.
• Allowing other historic neighborhoods, like Crutchfield and Crosbie Heights, to live under the threat of blight declarations.
• Pushing restriping of city streets to the confusion of the vast majority of street users (drivers).
• Being a tough guy for Pat Campbell's conservative audience, vowing not to cave to protestors, and then a few hours later, caving to protestors, cancelling Tulsa's participation in a show (LivePD) which seemed to offend the protestors because it showed Tulsa Police officers ably handling difficult challenges.
• Waffling on President Trump's appearance in Tulsa -- neither asking him to stay away out of concern for the spread of COVID-19 and civil unrest, nor taking advantage of Trump's visit to show off Tulsa to our nation's leaders or to call the President's attention to opportunities for city/federal cooperation.
• Choosing not to institute a curfew. Other cities used curfews to allow peaceful protests to continue, while halting after-dark gatherings that often led to the smashing of store windows and dangerous obstruction of major streets.
• Shutting down Tulsa's small retailers while allowing big-box stores which sell the same products to stay open during the pandemic. Bynum followed the herd, rather than creatively adapting lessons from places like Hong Kong, which combined moderate closures (schools and large gatherings), voluntary mask wearing, and reduced business capacity to allow businesses to stay open.
• Pushing for an Office of Independent Monitor that would subject police officers to the oversight of a board without any law enforcement experience and without direct accountability to the public.
• Pushing to raise the permanent sales tax level to pay for a basic function of government.

I could go on, but I need to finish this and get some sleep.

Bynum needs to go, but who should replace him? Can a challenger beat an incumbent who has raised over $600,000 for re-election? Let's go through our list of options, starting with a few easy discards.

Ricco Wright is on the ballot but ended his campaign after attempting to handle an accusation of sexual assault by stating his belief in the woman's account (Believe All Women!) but implausibly blaming his actions on being "roofied." (Rohypnol -- "hypno" is in the name -- causes "loss of muscle control, confusion, drowsiness and amnesia," not uninhibited sexual aggression.)

I discussed perennial candidate Paul Tay during the filing period. Someone who filed for office the day he finished a five-month jail sentence for outraging public decency doesn't deserve further consideration.

Zackri Whitlow seems to be running on a whim. He did not show up in the voter registration database in Tulsa prior to filing for office. He has not filed any campaign finance reports with the City Clerk, not even a Statement of Organization, indicating that he has not raised or spent any significant money to reach and persuade voters. He has appeared in a few online forums to promote a few pet ideas.

Craig Immel has impressed me with his willingness to respond to voters' questions on various platforms, including the BatesLine mayoral questionnaire. Even when I can't agree with him, I respect his thoughtfulness. I also admire his willingness to serve as the lead plaintiff against the plan (supported by Bynum) to convert riverfront park land to a basic shopping center. Of all the candidates, he has the best grasp of urban planning and development issues. If it were a head-to-head matchup between Immel and Bynum, I'd vote for Immel. But on other issues, he is left of center. His support for SQ 805 and SQ 780 points to a naive view of crime and its causes that would jeopardize the lives and property of Tulsa citizens. His stated disdain for the State of Oklahoma reflects an unbecoming elitism and sends a signal to small-town and rural Oklahomans who come to the metro area for jobs that they'll feel more at home in the suburbs.

Greg Robinson II has done an impressive job of organizing a substantial last-minute challenge to a well-funded incumbent mayor. His fundraising has unofficially surpassed $200,000 (but his campaign is one of several that has neglected to file the required pre-election report of contributions and expenditures). I've received almost as many mailers from Robinson as I have from Bynum, which points to a well-organized effort to reach and energize voters. In 2016, Bynum was helped by the fact that no Democrat bothered to file; instead, Bynum was effectively the Democrat nominee in the officially non-partisan mayor's race. Now Robinson may scoop up the base of Bynum's 2016 support.

Robinson's rhetoric and resume point to him being a doctrinaire leftist, but there are a couple of facts about him that are intriguing for the conservative voter: First, Robinson's father, Greg Robinson, Sr., was a Republican who came within 900 votes of unseating incumbent Democrat county commissioner Wilbert Collins in 2002. (Milton Goodwin, the Republican nominee in 1998, ran as an independent in 2002 and acted as a spoiler.) Tragically, Greg Sr. died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 48, just 10 weeks after the election. Greg Jr. was a young teenager at the time. Second, Robinson (Jr.) is a founder of Greenwood Leadership Academy, a charter school, so there may be some openness to school choice that the incumbent (whose parents could afford an educational alternative) doesn't share.

A conservative case could be made for preferring Robinson over Bynum. It would be refreshing to have a mayor, for the first time in almost three decades, with a clue about life outside the Money Belt. And I've noticed that it's easier to mobilize certain Republican officials to oppose bad ideas when they've been proposed by Democrats; if a RINO backs the idea, they fall in line.

To the alarmists out there: No one can win on Tuesday unless they get 50% of the vote. If a majority of voters don't vote for Robinson, he won't win. If a majority of voters don't vote for Bynum, he won't win on Tuesday. A November runoff, even if it's between Bynum and Robinson, the two best-funded candidates, would be a better result than if either candidate succeeded in getting 50% on Tuesday. Both would have to find ways to reach out to the conservatives they've spurned if they want to win. But I'd rather see a conservative in the runoff.

A conservative with political experience was unlikely to risk running against a well-funded, well-heeled incumbent who was (until a few months ago) quite popular and a registered Republican, albeit a RINO. So the two conservative claimants in the race are not well-funded, are still working their day jobs, don't have the background in city policy that you might hope for, and do have some things in their past that aren't very attractive.

Ken Reddick was the first to step up to challenge Bynum. He ran a credible race for City Council District 7 in 2018. But despite the early start, he failed to lay the groundwork necessary for a successful challenge, a task that involves fundraising, garnering endorsements (or at least persuading people not to line up behind the incumbent) Reddick has filed no campaign contribution and expenditure reports at all beyond the Statement of Organization for his campaign committee.

Restaurateur Ty Walker joined the race on the final day of filing. He had been thinking about preparing for a 2024 run, but he was persuaded by some regular customers to go ahead and file this time around. He also ran for City Council in 2018, in the race for the open seat in District 5.

I reached out to both candidates shortly after filing closed and encouraged them to meet and discuss if either of them would be willing to drop out and support the other. As far as I know that never happened. This would have been an ideal situation for state or county Republican leadership to intervene, perhaps by holding an endorsing convention to take the place of the primary that was eliminated by the move to non-partisan elections. But despite my private encouragement, nothing was done.

Because of CCP Bat Virus (which is real, which can kill and maim people, and which spreads through droplets) I have minimized my person-to-person interactions and have been grateful that I can work, for the most part, from home. But I did attend one meet-and-greet each for Reddick and for Walker. At the Reddick meet-and-greet at the Interurban Restaurant, I watched Reddick passively listen to various attendees vent their spleens about their pet issues. I waited around for close to an hour in hopes that the candidate would stand up and talk about his priorities and plans and take questions, but I got tired of waiting and went home.

A few weeks later I attended Ty Walker's meet-and-greet in a supporter's home. Walker had been out knocking doors in neighborhoods around Tulsa. His campaign team seemed sharp and focused (although they failed to get his pre-election contribution filing in as of this time). He held forth for a couple of hours, talking about his priorities and answering questions from the audience. I didn't agree with all of his answers, but his principles and his heart were clearly in the right place. Many of those differences reflect a perspective formed by growing up in Tulsa's North Community. As he points out often, he has lived on both sides of the track and uniquely among the options on our ballot can be a bridge across that track.

A BatesLine reader writes:

I believe that Ty Walker has the skills, temperament, and ethics needed for the job as mayor of Tulsa.

• I believe him to be the most free of political influence. With several activists running for the position, and a mayor with a track record of heavy outside influence, Walker leads the pack.
• I believe he's best equipped to guide the city through the economic recovery necessary from Covid. As a small business owner, specifically in the food service industry, he's well aware of the hardships small businesses face. I believe he's capable of not only seeing the current economic recovery, but he can help underserved communities grow their currently limited economic infrastructure.
• I believe he's an inspiration to everyone on the personal struggles needed to be successful, and I believe that will help him be a positive agent for growth and helping the city mend it's current socio and economic divides.
• I believe he's the most practical candidate, in terms of wanting to achieve practical goals. He's a crawl - walk - run type of candidate who won't be overly fixated with trying to fix everything with one singular action.

Walker isn't beholden to local or national philanthropists or interest groups. As someone actively involved in owning and running a restaurant, he's understands what our small businesses need as we try to recover from the COVID-19 shutdowns. He also understands the specific challenges that exist in the parts of the city where businesses have had difficulty taking root. He understands what it is to try and fail and try again. His vision is practical consisting of modest, incremental steps.

Something I noticed when watching the Sheridan Church Tulsa Town Hall forum (which was very well done) is that Ty Walker was one of the few candidates actually settled and involved in a church. (The question about church involvement is asked at about 58 minutes into the video.) Walker is an associate pastor at New Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Okmulgee. At the beginning of this video from a few weeks ago, Ty Walker is giving some remarks (the video comes in after he has started) prior to the sermon, reminding the congregation that we will all meet death, none of us know when, and that we should all seek to be ready, walking in God's will.

Ty Walker is the candidate for Tulsans who want to bridge the cultural and ethnic divides in our city (without the kind of radical policies that are tearing other American cities apart), who want a conservative mayor who values the free market, economic opportunity, and growing local business (rather than lavishing incentives on billionaires trying to land the big fish).

I voted (at the election board Friday) for Ty Walker for Mayor, and I urge you to do the same. If he wins against all odds, Tulsa would be blessed. If Walker falls short, a large vote for him would signal that the remaining candidates need to reach out to conservatives in the November runoff.

A postscript: A few weeks ago, I was made aware of some accusations about Ken Reddick's marital history. I've been to the county court clerk's archive, looked at his divorce file, asked him some questions. I want to be careful about how I talk about these things for the sake of all involved, and I hope to post something this evening for the many people who are asking about it. Bottom line is that in my opinion there are internal inconsistencies in Ken Reddick's own account of his past and between his account and the official records, and that reinforces my doubts about his qualities as a candidate and a leader.

Back on August 12, I sent the three eligible candidates for City Council District 4 a questionnaire using the email addresses provided in their declarations of candidacy or on their websites. The questionnaire included the 18 questions I asked the mayoral candidates, plus a question about neighborhood conservation districts and a question about the candidates for mayor.

I received only one reply, from Kathryn Lyons.

Kathryn Lyons:

Age: 53
Employment: Community volunteer, former property manager
Neighborhood: Lakewood Heights
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: kathryn4tulsa.com
Campaign Facebook page: Kathryn Lyons for Tulsa City Council

The detailed responses to the questionnaire, if you're viewing this on the home page, are after the jump.

Last Wednesday, BatesLine sent a questionnaire to the six serious candidates for Mayor of Tulsa, using the email addresses provided in their declarations of candidacy or on their websites. We sent two reminders. We received replies from three candidates: Craig Immel, Ken Reddick, and Ty Walker.

The survey consists of 18 questions, selected and adapted from over 60 questions suggested by BatesLine readers. I tried to cover a wide range of topics while keeping the number of questions at a reasonable level for candidates busy in the final stages of the campaign.

Rather than split the answers up in separate entries by candidate, I'm presenting them side-by-side, which runs the risk of someone reading an answer and connecting it with the wrong candidate. To help you mentally associate the answer with the candidate who gave it, I've added social-media-type icons in front of each response.

Here is a brief overview of the candidates who responded to the questionnaire:

Craig Immel:

Age: 44
Employment: Construction manager
Neighborhood: near Gilcrease Hills (Council District 1)
Voter registration: independent
Campaign web page: movetulsaforward.com
Campaign Facebook page: Craig Immel - Independent for Tulsa Mayor
Twitter account: @MoveTulsaFwd
Immel hosted a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) session.

Ken Reddick:

Age: 37
Employment: Owner, Clean Slate Contracting LLC and Tulsa Fence & Roofing Company
Neighborhood: Regency Park (Council District 7)
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: kenreddick4mayor.com
Campaign Facebook page: Ken Reddick for Tulsa Mayor 2020

Ty Walker:

Age: 54
Employment: Owner, Wanda J's Next Generation Restaurant
Neighborhood: Virginia Lee Addition (Council District 5)
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: tywalkerfortulsa.com
Campaign Facebook page: Ty Walker for Tulsa Mayor

The detailed responses to the questionnaire, if you're viewing this on the home page, are after the jump.

Five amendments to Tulsa's city charter -- our city's constitution -- will be on the August 25, 2020, ballot. As usual, the summaries you will see on the ballot paper only tell part of the story.

For the TL;DR folks, here are my recommendations:

Proposition No. 1: Yes
Proposition No. 2: No
Proposition No. 3: Yes
Proposition No. 4: No
Proposition No. 5: Yes

Or to put it even more briefly, vote YES on the ODD numbered propositions, NO on the EVEN numbered propositions. ODD is GOOD, EVEN is BAD.

Now the details, after the jump. Strikethroughs show language that would be deleted if the proposition passes, underlines show language that would be added.

I'm hearing that minions of Mayor Bynum IV are putting the word out that voting for one of his conservative opponents in the August 25, 2020, election will help elect someone further to the Left than the left-of-center Bynum. The rumor is self-serving garbage, preying on ignorance of the confusing new election process that Bynum IV and friends quietly slid into the charter three years ago, the sixth change to the city election process in 11 years.

Here's the truth: Unless one candidate has the support of 50% of the voters on August 25th, there will be a runoff in November with at least two candidates. Putting it another way: If a majority of voters vote against incumbent Bynum IV, and if a majority of voters also vote against Greg Robinson, the leading registered-Democrat candidate, neither will win the election outright on August 25.

The crucial task for conservative Tulsans who want a conservative mayor is to unite on August 25 behind one of the two conservative alternatives to Bynum (Ty Walker or Ken Reddick) so that we have a real conservative to vote for in November and Bynum can retire from being a failed mayor and resume his career as a schmoozer.

2020 is the first Tulsa mayoral election that will use the new election procedure approved by voters in a low-turnout November 2017 special election. (Only charter amendments on the ballot; only 10,425 votes were cast on this ballot item compared to 58,848 in the June 2016 mayoral primary. There ought to be a state law limiting city charter changes to high-turnout elections, or perhaps setting the threshold as 50% of the votes in the previous presidential election.)

Here is a direct link to the current charter language, Article VI, Section 2.2. Here's the key language:

If a candidate for office is unopposed at the election or becomes unopposed by death, disqualification or withdrawal, such candidate shall be deemed elected. If a candidate for an office receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast for that office at the election, such candidate shall be deemed elected. If more than two (2) candidates file for an office and no candidate receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast at the election for that office, the names of the several candidates for the office receiving the greatest number of votes totaling fifty percent (50%) at such elections shall be placed on the ballot at a run-off election in November, on the day specified by the laws of Oklahoma, and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast at said run-off election shall be deemed elected. In the event of a tied vote among the said candidates, the election shall be decided by lot.

The same process applies to election for any Tulsa city office, including city councilors and the city auditor.

Note that the runoff may involve only two candidates, but if votes are split evenly enough between the candidates, it may involve more. Here are a few possible scenarios. Note that the numbers are entirely made up -- I have no polling data -- used simply to illustrate how different spreads of votes among candidates will lead to different runoff possibilities.

Scenario 1 is simple: If a majority of the August 25 voters support one candidate, he is elected to a four-year term as mayor. This is what happened in June 2016.

In Scenario 2, no one gets a majority of the votes on August 25, but the total of the top two is greater than 50%. In the illustrated scenario, Robinson and Bynum are the top two ranking candidates, and the sum of their percentage is 60%, so those two candidates advance to the November runoff. Note that in this hypothetical scenario, the two conservative candidates, Walker and Reddick, have enough votes that if they had all coalesced behind one of the two, the conservative candidate would have beaten out Bynum for the 2nd spot in the November runoff.

Scenario 3 illustrates what happens if the top two candidates fall short of a combined 50% total. In this case, Robinson and Walker would combine for 49% of the vote, so the third-place candidate, Immel, also would advance to the November runoff. Since those three combine for 68% of the vote, the condition would be satisfied, and no more candidates would advance to the runoff.

Scenario 4 is an extreme example to illustrate what would happen if the voters were very evenly spread among all seven of the active candidates. The top three candidates combine for only 46%, so one more candidate would have to be added to the November runoff ballot to reach the 50% threshold.

Scenario 5 is the most extreme hypothetical of all. Supposing all eight candidates got exactly the same number of votes -- 12.5% each. In this case, four candidates would advance (because the language says "totaling 50%," not exceeding 50%), and which four candidates advance would be decided by lot.

Note that there is no runoff after the November runoff. If more than two candidates advance to the November runoff, the election becomes a first-past-the-post race -- the candidate with the greatest number of votes, even if well short of a majority, is elected.

I'll be on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ Wednesday morning at 8:35 with Pat Campbell to discuss the primary election results. Tune in on your AM dial, listen live online, or catch up later with the Pat Campbell podcast. UPDATE: Here's a direct link to the podcast.

A few notes, now that all the results are in.

The passage of SQ802 by such a slim margin -- 6,518 votes out of 674,040 cast -- is amazing, given that there was no organized opposition until about a week ago.

In Tulsa County races, Josh Turley will get a second chance against Democrat County Commissioner Karen Keith in November. By winning the GOP primary, Don Newberry was re-elected County Court Clerk in a rematch with Ron Phillips; no Democrat filed. Sheriff Vic Regalado and County Clerk Michael Willis, both Republicans, won reelection with out drawing an opponent.

Two candidates who pledged to replace Tulsa Public Schools Superintendent Deborah Gist won seats on the board: John Croisant won the open Office 5 seat and Jerry Griffin defeated 24-year-incumbent Ruth Ann Fate. Last week, the incumbent board, perhaps knowing this result was likely, voted to give Gist a three-year contract extension, which gives the establishment time to shore up their majority on the board. Accountant Jeromy Burwell defeated incumbent Memory Ostrander in Collinsville. Challengers in Union and Berryhill ran strong races but fell short.

There were several upsets by conservative challengers of Republican incumbents who had accumulated a RINO voting record: In House 11 in Bartlesville, Derrill Fincher was defeated by homeschool mom Wendi Stearman. Lundy Kiger lost to Randy West in House 3. In Senate 3, incumbent Wayne Shaw, who announced support for the idea of social impact bonds, was beaten by Blake "Cowboy" Stephens. Former State Rep. Shane Jett will have a runoff in Senate 17 with incumbent Ron Sharp.

Conservatives had some success in open seats, too. Gerrid Kendrix won House 52 in southwestern Oklahoma, winning the seat. Max Wolfley defeated former Oklahoma County Republican Chairman Daren Ward. 85-year-old Margie Alfonso, a conservative activist since the 1970s, made it into the House 79 runoff with Clay IIams.

Conservative names tarred by the big-money special interests two years ago didn't have any success coming back this year. George Faught was defeated in his rematch with Chris Sneed in House 2014, and Angela Strohm lost her House 69 battle with Sheila Dills, who defeated her husband Chuck Strohm in 2018.

Fair-deal conservatives continue to have an organizational and fundraising disadvantage to wheeler-dealer RINOS. It's the classic problem of concentrated benefit and diffuse costs: Those who want special deals from government have a greater interest in fundraising and organizing than those who simply want good government for all.

August 25th is going to be an interesting day for the Kaiser System. Despite massive fundraising from Tulsa's establishment, Kyden Creekpaum, fell well short of an outright primary win in the open Senate 35 seat. He will have a runoff against conservative grassroots Republican Cheryl Baber. The same day will see former GKFF lobbyist GT Bynum IV trying to hold on as mayor, despite seven challengers from across the political spectrum.

MORE:

Big partisan difference in the use of absentee ballots this year.

In 2018, SQ 788, medical marijuana, was on the primary ballot, along with competitive races for governor in both major parties. 3.28% voted absentee by mail, 5.31% voted early at the election board, 91.41% voted at their precincts. Partisan variation was miniscule: 3.39% of Republicans voted absentee by mail vs. 3.14% of Democrats, while 5.07% of Republicans voted early at the election board vs. 5.71% of Democrats.

In 2020, SQ 802, Obamacare expansion, was on the primary ballot. There were statewide primaries for U. S. Senator, but not competitive for either party. Overall, 13.84% voted absentee by mail, 6.45% voted early at the election board, 79.71% voted in person at their precincts. The partisan breakdown of mail-in ballots is striking: 9.01% of Republicans voted absentee by mail vs. 21.00% of Democrats. There wasn't much difference in early voting at the election board: 4.93% of Republicans vs. 5.47% of Democrats. 86.03% of Republicans voted in person at their precincts, vs. 73.53% of Democrats.

Does this simply represent a partisan difference in fear of CCP Bat Virus? A push by the Oklahoma Democratic Party to get people used to voting by mail? Or a push by the Yes on 802 forces to lock in votes before voters had the chance to hear both sides of the issue?

For what it's worth, John Tidwell of Americans for Prosperity Oklahoma filed a Statement of Organization for the VOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATION with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission on June 5, 2020; the organization was incorporated on the same day. OKLAHOMA DECIDES, INC., the "vote yes" organization, filed its paperwork as a PAC on April 20, 2020. It was incorporated on May 22, 2019. The domain YesOn802.org was registered on April 19, 2019, and was online by September 4, 2019. I am not aware of a "vote no" website or social media presence.

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma primary elections on June 30, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) The ballot card is now at Revision 2, as I have added recommendations in three suburban school district races and modified my recommendation in Senate 37.

As I posted this late Thursday night, there were races I had planned to write about in detail, but time was short, people were voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations, so I've started by posting my printable ballot card, filling in some details as I have had opportunity.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

When in doubt, I look at campaign contributions, which often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. Campaign expenditures can be telling, too: Certain consulting firms have strong associations with the pay-to-play culture that makes our Republican supermajority legislature more crony-infested than conservative. Then there are principled conservative consultants; their presence on a campaign team is always a hopeful indication that the candidate is also a principled conservative.

In addition to the usual federal, statewide, legislative, and county races on the ballot, many school districts will hold the general elections for school board that were postponed from April. Two of the seven seats on the Tulsa school board will be filled: I'm supporting Shane Saunders in the open Office 5 seat and challenger Jerry Griffin in Office 6. I'm recommending challengers in the suburban school board races as well (see below).

There are a large number of legislative races this year with Republican primaries. In 2018, lobbyist groups working with the leftist Oklahoma Education Association succeeded in ousting a number of principled conservative legislators. These senators and representatives were guilty only of insisting that the state's voters should have the final say on tax increases, in accordance with Oklahoma's constitution. Many were defeated by RINOs in the primary, a few were defeated by Democrats in the general election.

In 2020 many of those RINOs are being challenged by conservatives in the primary. In districts that were won by Democrats, we have a Republican primary to pick a challenger. A few races are for open seats. All told, 33 of 101 House seats and 11 of the 25 Senate seats up for election this year have a Republican primary, so the outcome will have a massive impact on the character and quality of the Republican supermajority for the next two years. I discuss a few of the Tulsa-area races below.

Oklahoma Democrats also have a primary election on Tuesday, with fewer offices on the ballot. I'm not making any recommendations in those primaries, but I have to give a special mention to Maria Barnes, who is challenging the incumbent Democrat Monroe Nichols in State House District 72. Maria and I served together in the Midtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations for many years, and she served honorably as a Tulsa City Councilor for District 4. We disagree on many state and national issues, but we found common cause on local matters of neighborhood conservation and public transparency, and I'm proud to call her a friend. One Republican filed in the heavily Democrat district: Ismail A. Shan, on the ballot simply as "Shan," who was not on the voter registration list as of the beginning of this month. He was disqualified, and the Democratic primary will decide the election.

NOTES ON SPECIFIC BALLOT ITEMS:

SQ 802: NO. This would place the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, an unfunded entitlement mandate, permanently into Oklahoma's state constitution. It is a fiscal time bomb and will starve other state responsibilities for funds while squeezing taxpayers tighter every year, while making no real improvement in access to healthcare.

Corporation Commissioner: Todd Hiett. The incumbent, who was the first Republican State House Speaker since the 1920s, is opposed by an 85-year-old perennial candidate.

U. S. Senate: Jim Inhofe. Inhofe's position as Senate Armed Services Committee chairman is important for Oklahoma's four military bases, and he can be counted on to vote as a conservative, even when many of his fellow Republicans stray.

U. S. House, District 2: Markwayne Mullin. Mullin has become a conservative stalwart, to the point that even his erstwhile opponent, Jarrin Jackson, has endorsed him.

U. S. House, District 4: James Taylor. Taylor, a conservative African-American pastor and public school history teacher, is once again challenging longtime incumbent Tom Cole, who was cited as an example of the legal "pay-to-play" system in the "Congressional Favor Factory" report by American Transparency (OpenTheBooks.com).

U. S. House, District 5: David Hill. Winner of this primary will go on to try to win back the seat taken two years ago by Kendra Horn, Oklahoma's lone congressional Democrat. Hill, owner of an auto parts manufacturing company and founder of the Academy of Classical Christian Studies, has been endorsed by the Family Research Council PAC. One of the other leading GOP candidates, State Sen. Stephanie Bice, voted to raise taxes on Oklahomans in 2018, bypassing a vote of the people.

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber. Baber is a known quantity among conservatives in state and local conservative circles. Creekpaum's strong backing from "the Kaiser System" should worry conservatives, and former Judge Morrissey's conversion to conservatism is dubious. Baber is the only candidate in the race who is wise enough to oppose SQ802.

Senate 37: No endorsement. This is a change. I have trustworthy conservative friends supporting each of the candidates. Both candidates have foolishly endorsed SQ802, even though both have indicated it would hurt Oklahoma's budget if it passes. Some of the names on Chris Emerson's list of donors give me pause, as do some of the names on his campaign team, and that's why I initially recommended voting for Cody Rogers. Both campaigns have presented misleading information to voters. (UPDATE: I'm hearing claims that both candidates really oppose 802 but were misquoted. Here's a tip: If the newspaper inaccurately ascribes to you a view on a controversial issue, don't just quietly tell people. Make a public correction on your website and Facebook page and push the paper into issuing a correction. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to have it both ways and can't be trusted.)

House 11: Wendi Stearman, a mom who organized her own homeschool coop in Bartlesville, is a solid conservative challenging an incumbent with a weak voting record.

House 12: Justin Dine. Dine has the universal support of conservative groups and commentators. Charlie Meadows writes that he was blown away by Dine's moral principles, well-developed thought on political principles and communication skills. Incumbent Kevin McDugle has been hanging out with National Popular Vote lobbyists, and his divorce trial hinted at some strange proclivities.

House 14: George Faught is seeking to return to the State House, where his principled refusal to cave to lobbyist pressure put a big target on his back two years ago. We need him back in the Legislature.

House 69: Angela Strohm. Strohm is a conservative challenging the special-interest backed RINO incumbent. Strohm's husband Chuck held the seat previously, but was targeted for his principled opposition to raising taxes without a vote of the people.

House 70: Taylor Woodrum is a conservative, pro-life, pro-2nd-Amendment college student challenging Carol Bush, one of the most liberal members of the Republican House caucus. Woodrum has the support of conservative groups. Bush showed her true colors in an interview with old friend Barry Friedman, then threw him under the bus when her remarks got her in hot water with her Republican colleagues.

House 71: Beverly Atteberry. The candidates in this race to challenge Democrat incumbent Denise Brewer have been very reluctant to share their opinions in candidate surveys, but Atteberry did earn an AQ for her response to the NRA's candidate questionnaire.

House 74: Brad Peixotto. Peixotto owns a medical marijuana dispensary. This is a rematch from two years ago. The incumbent, a Republican, gets poor ratings from conservative groups for his voting record on fiscal issues.

House 79: Margie Alfonso has a long history of conservative activism on behalf of the unborn, serving as president of the Tulsa Eagle Forum and delegate to the Republican National Convention.

Tulsa County Court Clerk: Don Newberry. Newberry is running for re-election four years after defeating the outgoing clerk's preferred successor. He is credited with improving customer service and efficiency in the Court Clerk's office.

Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2: Josh Turley. Turley ran a strong race against incumbent Democrat Karen Keith four years ago, and he had the endorsement of County Assessor Ken Yazel, who saw Turley as someone who could provide much-needed transparency in the county budget process. Turley served as a crime scene investigator for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and then creating the first risk management program for TCSO, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts, and independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request. Turley's primary opponent, Eddy Barclay, is currently Director of Road Operations for Tulsa County. While either would be preferable to Keith, Turley looks like he would be the most effective at making needed moves toward transparency in Tulsa County government.

Tulsa School Board, Office 5: Shane Saunders. Saunders is a Republican businessman with two daughters in the TPS system, running for an open board seat.

Tulsa School Board, Office 6: Jerry Griffin. Griffin is a professor in higher education with an earned doctorate, a Republican with some ideas for improving the district running against a 24-year Democrat incumbent who is a rubber stamp for the administration.

(Here's the video of the League of Women Voters virtual candidate forum for TPS Offices 5 and 6, held on June 17, 2020.)

Berryhill School Board, Office 5: Allisha Craig, a public school teacher with Epic, with children in the Berryhill system, would bring a critical eye to "the way things have always been done," and experience in remote instruction that may be crucial in the coming years.

Collinsville School Board, Office 5: Jeromy Burwell is a corporate finance controller with children in the upper elementary and middle school and experience in accounting for government contracting.

Union School Board, Office 5: Brandon Swearengin has a master's in accounting and is pursuing a law degree. He wants to stop the undemocratic practice of rushing through important financial and policy decisions on the board's consent agenda without debate. The incumbent, Ken Kinnear, is VP and treasurer of George Kaiser's Kaiser-Francis Oil Company. During a February 10, 2020, board meeting, Kinnear delivered a cringe-inducing speech that was effectively a campaign commercial, which was recorded in the minutes (see page 10).

MORE INFORMATION:

Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
• iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico 2020 primary election tips and picks
• Charlie Meadows's picks
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
• Endorsements from Tulsa Area Republican Assembly and other Tulsa conservative groups
• NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
• Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal.

State Sen. Gary Stanislawski is term-limited, and there are three Republicans and three Democrats who have filed to replace him as District 35 State Senator. Sen. Stanislawski, and his predecessor, former Sen. Jim Williamson, have endorsed Cheryl Baber to be their successor, and I concur.

Cheryl Baber is semi-retired as an attorney, volunteering with Tulsa Lawyers for Children. She served from 1998 to 2009 as a Law Clerk for Federal judges in the U. S. Northern District (based in Tulsa). In 2001, Baber published a law review article on Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal courts; at the time she was law clerk to Federal Magistrate Judge Claire Eagan, who was appointed as a Federal District Judge by George W. Bush. She then served about five years as an Assistant U. S. Attorney here in Tulsa; OSCN records show her representing the IRS in many foreclosure cases. She is a graduate of Columbia Law School, has a master's degree in international history and politics from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and her bachelor's degree is from Midwestern State in Wichita Falls, Texas, not far from her hometown of Walters, Oklahoma. She has been in Tulsa since completing her law degree in 1993.

In 2015, Baber was chosen by Republican activists to represent Tulsa County on the Oklahoma Republican State Committee for a two-year term, during which she was also elected as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. In 2018, she ran for the open House District 71 seat, winning the Republican nomination in a runoff, but lost to former TV personality Denise Brewer in the general election. She has the joint endorsement of several local conservative groups, including the Tulsa Area Republican Assembly.

Baber is active in the First Baptist Church of Tulsa. I encourage you to read Cheryl Baber's eloquent responses to the iVoterGuide survey.

Baber is opposed by retired District Judge Linda Morrissey and attorney Kyden Creekpaum.

Cheryl Baber is the only candidate in the race with the good sense to oppose SQ802, while Morrissey supports embedding Obamacare in the state constitution, and Creekpaum gave a non-committal answer.

Morrissey was a registered independent until re-registering as a Republican sometime in 2011 or 2012 (according to voter registration records available to me), but her husband, John Nicks, was chairman of the Tulsa County Democratic Party and a Democratic canddate for Attorney General and Tulsa County Commissioner. Everyone else registered to vote at her address was registered as a Democrat as of June 9, 2020. In 1992, Morrissey and her husband were listed by the political director of the Oklahoma Democratic Party as expected guests at Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural gala, an honor typically given to the most fervent supporters of Slick Willie.

As a district judge, Morrissey had a history of being reversed on appeal. Morrissey answered only four questions of the dozens in the iVoterGuide questionnaire. (Their summary rating of "somewhat conservative" is puzzling and without any apparent basis. Should you get credit because you avoided giving a liberal answer by not answering at all?)

Morrissey has the smallest bankroll of the three Republicans, has no history of involvement in the Republican Party or conservative causes, and I suspect she will not survive the primary. Morrissey's major donors include Stuart Price, an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress in the 1990s, and Clark Brewster, a Tulsa attorney who is a generous donor to Democrat candidates and the lawyer for "adult entertainer" Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Trump.

Kyden Creekpaum is an attorney who grew up in Tulsa and moved back to Tulsa in 2017 after eight years in Paris and Washington with Hughes, Hubbard & Reed. His parents were public school teachers; his father Eddie Creekpaum ran for City Council as a Democrat in 2000 and is a prolific writer of letters to the editor.

Kyden Creekpaum has an impressive educational background: Double major in political science and piano at OU, master's in public health from Johns Hopkins, law degree from Georgetown, master's in law from Sciences Po (the Paris Institute of Political Studies).

When I was introduced to Creekpaum at the Tulsa County Republican Convention, I said, "Ah, the Kaiser candidate!" which elicited a sheepish response. Creekpaum is an attorney with the Frederic Dorwart law firm. Dorwart is president of the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF) and, until Tuesday, chairman of the University of Tulsa Board of Trustees. (Dorwart is stepping down as chairman as of June 30, but will remain on the board's executive committee.) The Dorwart firm handles legal matters for many branches of what Michael Mason has labeled "the Kaiser System," including Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, GKFF, the Tulsa Community Foundation (TCF), and the Bank of Oklahoma.

For religious conservatives, the involvement of the Kaiser System in a Republican primary is worrisome, as donations may be used as leverage to get elected officials to devote taxpayer dollars to Kaiser's preferred policy prescriptions. Kaiser's "giving statement" reveals him to be a materialist: Given enough money applied scientifically to education, nutrition, and health care, poverty and misery will vanish. Moral and spiritual aspects are absent from his analysis of the cause of societal problems. However pure his intentions, Kaiser's approach is bound to fail because it fails to address the fundamental problem facing humanity: fallen human nature.

As Mason documents, the Kaiser System's approach to charitable giving is one of control and "strings attached." Mayor G. T. Bynum IV, who posed as a conservative when he first ran for City Council in 2008, and who served as a federal lobbyist for GKFF, began working to impose leftist views of sexuality on Tulsans shortly after his first re-election in 2009 -- right about the time he became a GKFF lobbyist.

Creekpaum has the biggest warchest of any candidate in the race, $145,750.00 in contributions, plus $5,398.48 in in-kind expenditures. He filed his statement of organization with the ethics committee on March 19, 2019, and within 12 days had amassed $50,100. Baber has raised about $35,000, a decent amount for a State Senate campaign, and she has loaned her campaign $100,000 to try to keep up with Creekpaum.

A good chunk of Creekpaum's money has come from people in the George Kaiser orbit, including $1,000 from Kaiser himself, $1,000 from Kaiser-Francis CFO Don Millican, $1,500 from GKFF board member Phil Frohlich, and maximum $2,800 donations from Frederic Dorwart, his wife Nanu Dorwart, and several of the firm's partners. Elizabeth Frame, daughter of former Mayor Kathy Taylor and CEO of the Taylor Lobeck Family Foundation, and former Democratic Congressman Dan Boren, now president of corporate development for the Chickasaw Nation, have each contributed $1,000 to Creekpaum.

Creekpaum has used his money to run television ads attacking Cheryl Baber because her service as an Assistant U. S. Attorney fell during the Obama administration. Baber has responded:

One of my opponents is misleading voters by calling me a hypocrite because I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney during the time that Obama was President and Holder was the Attorney General. EVERY person who works for a federal administrative agency works for whomever is President or Commander-in-Chief at the time! That includes postal workers, park rangers, ALL military, and about 2 million employees throughout the world! There are 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices, employing thousands of people who are from every political party or none. Further, I actually worked as a federal law clerk when President George W. Bush was President! And I chose to leave the U.S. Attorney's Office, in part, because Obama won re-election in 2012.

Kyden Creekpaum is the candidate spreading lies, not me. He is the one supported by donors who gave $404,000 to Obama, Biden, and Hillary. He is the one whose current law firm sued to block President Trump's voters from rallying at the BOK Center. Those are documented, verifiable facts which informed voters deserve to know if they do not want a legislator who will likely vote to advance a liberal agenda. I am the one who has been active in, and endorsed by, Tulsa area conservative Republican organizations.

I haven't verified Baber's math, but I do recognize many names on the Creekpaum campaign reports whom I know to be generous donors to Democrats.

Creekpaum claims to be a conservative, pro-life Christian, and he may well regard himself as such. I can't find any indication online that he has ever taken a public stand on any political issue prior to running for office. Creekpaum did not complete the iVoterGuide survey. He did give "yes" answers to all the questions on the Oklahomans for Life survey.

Baber answered four of the 12 Oklahomans for Life survey questions with a "no": She would allow rape and incest exceptions to a ban on abortion, disagrees with Oklahomans for Life's proposal for $1 million in annual funding for a state-funded guardianship system "to advocate for vulnerable persons at risk for denial of life-preserving care," disagrees on assisted suicide, and disagrees with a proposal for a mandatory retirement age for Oklahoma Supreme Court justices. She does however support Oklahoma's existing strong legal protections against the imposition of euthanasia on the elderly and disabled. I disagree with her on those "no" answers, but her answers to the iVoterGuide survey suggest she would be persuadable to a more consistent pro-life position.

It may well be that these wealthy progressives who give consistently to Democrat candidates for President are backing Creekpaum because they think he's a wonderful, smart guy who would serve the State of Oklahoma well, and they don't mind that he will apply his intelligence and energy to advancing a socially conservative, anti-abortion, free-market agenda. I doubt it. To me, he looks like a politically ambitious young man who has come home to start his climb, and he has found the people who can fund that ascent. My bet is that his loyalties, if elected, would incline to the Kaiser System, not to the conservative voters of Senate District 35.

RESEARCH:

I went through the very tedious process of downloading each of the campaign reports filed by each of the Republican candidates from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's Guardian website, and I have compiled all the reports into a single file for each candidate:

• Cheryl Baber campaign ethics reports
• Kyden Creekpaum campaign ethics reports
• Linda Morrissey campaign ethics reports

Before Oklahomans foolishly enshrine a new, unfunded and unlimited entitlement into our state constitution (SQ802), we ought to heed the experience of our neighbors to the east.

On May 13, 2020, when the Oklahoma legislature was debating a Medicaid expansion bill, Arkansas State Representative Josh Miller, a Republican, wrote a letter to Oklahoma leaders urging them to reject Medicaid expansion. Arkansas adopted a "private option" program in 2013, using new federal funds to purchase private medical coverage for the newly eligible (able-bodied and below income limits). Arkansas requires recipients in the expansion pool to work if able in order to receive these benefits, but Federal courts have stayed that requirement. Oklahoma SQ802, the Obamacare Medicaid expansion on the ballot next Tuesday, would prohibit the state from requiring that able-bodied recipients work or pursue education and training to receive benefits -- that ban would be written into the state constitution.

Miller writes that Arkansas is worse off because of its decision to expand Medicaid: "Greater costs are being shifted to the remaining Arkansans who pay higher private insurance premiums. More Arkansans are trapped in welfare dependency. And the truly needy--like those with physical and developmental disabilities who require home-based care--face long waiting lists and reduced services while able-bodied, working-age adults move to the front of the line."

Here's the complete letter:

Dear Leader David, Speaker McCall, Leader Echols, and other Republican Members of the Oklahoma Legislature,

In light of Oklahoma's consideration of Medicaid expansion, I write to briefly share Arkansas' experience. I will be candid--and hope to convey my sense of urgency. I cannot stress enough my primary takeaway from Arkansas' Medicaid program in recent years: expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults is a raw deal. Let me explain.

Those who supported Medicaid expansion made lots of promises: increased federal funding to support our state budget, greater access to care for the needy, and relief for rural hospitals. But Arkansas is in a worse position today than before because these grand promises were built on the broken foundation of ObamaCare.

Instead, enrollment and costs shattered projections. Waste and fraud is more difficult to detect. Some of our rural hospitals are still struggling and a few have even closed. Greater costs are being shifted to the remaining Arkansans who pay higher private insurance premiums. More Arkansans are trapped in welfare dependency. And the truly needy--like those with physical and developmental disabilities who require home-based care--face long waiting lists and reduced services while able-bodied, working-age adults move to the front of the line.

In short, expansion was a big mistake for Arkansas.

In times of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge is power. And I know the experiences of neighbors, who have had to learn from their mistakes, can provide the most useful knowledge. Arkansas and Oklahoma share more than a border. Our cultures, economies, and enduring public policy challenges have much in common. If you want to avoid the mistakes of our state, I urge you to reject Medicaid expansion.

Sincerely,

Josh Miller
AR State Representative Dist. 66

Hat tip to OCPA President Jonathan Small for Rep. Miller's letter.

MORE: Former Governor Frank Keating urges Oklahomans to vote no on 802. Here's an excerpt:

What about all that "free" federal money? Here's the truth: State taxpayers must also come up with hundreds of millions in extra funding for Medicaid expansion--up to $374 million based on the estimated 628,000 able-bodied who will be made eligible. Not only that, but those able-bodied adults would take priority over the truly needy--such as the elderly and disabled--forcing them onto long waiting lists to get the care they need.

Last year Governing Magazine found 13 states had to raise taxes, fees, or cut provider rates to cover the state portion of expansion costs. More are expected to follow suit.

Here's another fact. Medicaid is already diverting resources from areas like education--without expansion. Since 1998, when I was governor, Oklahoma's population has increased 18 percent. But our Medicaid enrollment has increased 126 percent and the taxpayer cost of Oklahoma's Medicaid program has increased 254 percent.

Paying for Medicaid is already a financial challenge for Oklahoma. Expanding Medicaid doesn't solve that financial challenge; it puts it on steroids.

In addition to all the usual federal, statewide, legislative, and county races on the Oklahoma ballot next Tuesday, June 30, 2020, this is also the school board general election, which was postponed from April due to the CCP Bat Virus. Two of Tulsa's seven school board offices are on the ballot -- Office 5 is an open seat, and Office 6 features a challenge to a 24-year-incumbent.

Last time I posted campaign contributions and expenditures for school board races, before the February primary, I had to go to the Education Service Center, to the school district clerk's office, and take photos of the reports. This time, that wasn't going to be possible or advisable, given everyone's desire to minimize contact, so I filed an open records request through the Tulsa Schools website and sent an email directly to district clerk Sarah Bozone. I have yet to receive a reply.

UPDATE 2020/06/29: At 9 a.m. the day before the election, TPS has responded to my open records request. I will not have time to turn these PDFs into a tabulated account of campaign contributions, so you will have to look at them yourselves. I have taken the files provided, given them more meaningful file names, and run them through OCR, but that's it. Each file contains all of the ethics reports filed by the candidate during this campaign.

*Pendleton finished third in the primary. He was the only candidate not advancing to the general who managed to raise and spend enough money to be required to file ethics reports.

I shouldn't even have to ask: When the clerk receives a report, it ought to be immediately scanned in and posted on the district website. Better yet, let's fix the law so that all candidates and campaign committees in the state use the Oklahoma Ethics Commissions's electronic filing system. Currently, county candidates file ethics reports with their county election board, school board candidates file with the district clerk, municipal candidates file with the city clerk. Having one system with a consistent interface and electronic records would serve everyone better -- except perhaps for candidates with something to hide.

Which brings me back to the topic. Knowing that I was unlikely to get a timely reply from the district clerk, I emailed the candidates directly on Tuesday, requesting their ethics reports, asking who had endorsed their campaigns, and asking for their opinion on the plan to extend Superintendent Deborah Gist's contract for an additional three years in a snap vote one week before new school board members would be elected.

All four candidates responded, but only two, Shane Saunders, candidate for Office 5, and Jerry Griffin, the Office 6 challenger, both Republicans, sent me their campaign contribution reports. Office 5 candidate John Croisant and 24-year Office 6 incumbent Ruth Ann Fate, both Democrats, said that they had filed their reports with the district clerks -- a very passive-aggressive response.

Three of the four objected to the school board voting to extend Gist's contract right before the election; Fate, the incumbent, wrote, "I will be making my decision tonight." Only two of the seven school board members, Jennettie Marshall and Stacey Woolley, voted against the contract extension. Next week that vote might have been 4-3 against extension.

Endorsements reported to me by the candidates:

• Tulsa World: Croisant, Fate
• Tulsa Regional Chamber: Saunders, Fate
• Tulsa County Republican Party: Griffin
• American Federation of Teachers: Griffin

Griffin has also been endorsed by John Remington, the third-place candidate in February's primary.

Notable contributors during this reporting period: Shane Saunders received contributions from his erstwhile boss, former Congressman John Sullivan (Saunders served as Sullivan's press secretary), and from former Tulsa Mayor Robert J. LaFortune. Jerry Griffin received a contribution from the Tulsa County Republican Party; parties are allowed to help candidates running in non-partisan elections. Griffin also received a donation from the American Federation of Teachers.

Please read my previous report on the pre-primary contributors to all of the Tulsa School Board candidates, including the two who are refusing to provide BatesLine with copies of their pre-general reports.

Contributors and vendors are from Tulsa unless otherwise noted. If you're reading this on the home page, the lists for each candidate are after the jump.

The only state question on the June 30, 2020, primary ballot is Oklahoma State Question 802. This would create a new Constitutional Amendment, Article XXV-A, requiring the State of Oklahoma to offer Obamacare Medicaid expansion coverage to anyone below a certain income, regardless of the person's work or family status. While expansion brings in some additional federal funds, it also brings in heavy long-term liabilities that the state must meet, which would result in higher taxes, cuts in other state-funded services (e.g. education), or both.

Oklahoma's governor and legislature have rightly rejected Obamacare Medicaid Expansion until now because of the fiscal time bomb it would create. SQ802 was an initiative petition backed by supporters of greater government control and by those who expect to profit from the mandated increases in government payments to healthcare providers. The proposal will drive up medical costs without providing real access to quality care.

OCPA has a Quick Facts on Medicaid Expansion that notes that "Expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma could divert state resources away from Oklahoma's traditional Medicaid population--children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled--and instead favor the newly eligible population of 628,000 able-bodied, working age adults." The second page of the handout offers 10 suggestions for how to expand access to health care without installing a budgetary doomsday machine in Oklahoma's State Constitution.

Oklahomans should also reject SQ802 because a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate vehicle for this type of legislation. A constitution is deliberately difficult to change, and its content ought to be limited to fundamental rules and rights. (I raised this issue in 2016 with regard to SQ792.) This proposed constitutional language is tied to specific sub-sub-subsections of Federal law and regulations, which could change and render this state constitutional amendment a confusing mess. If this language were in state statutes, the legislature could quickly respond to federal changes that might affect Medicaid; SQ802 doesn't permit that flexibility. In all likelihood, courts would step in to reinterpret the amendment, virtually rewriting it to make the mess make some sort of sense. (The severability clause in Section 4 is practically an engraved invitation for judicial interference.)

Currently children, adults with children in the home, the blind and disabled, and senior citizens are eligible for Medicaid in Oklahoma if their income is below a certain level. SQ802 would make anyone below the income threshold eligible for Medicaid, even able-bodied adults who refuse to work. As you'll see below, Section 2(B) doesn't allow Oklahoma to impose more stringent requirements, such as a requirement for able-bodied, young recipients to be working or studying in order to receive this benefit.

Here is the language that would be added to the Constitution of Oklahoma if SQ802 passes.

SECTION 1. Definitions

As used in this Article:

A. "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" or "CMS" refers to the agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program at the federal level, including review and approval of State Plan Amendments.

B. "Low Income Adults" refers to those individuals over age 18 and under 65 whose income does not exceed one-hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level, as described by and using the income methodology provided in the federal Medicaid statute at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII), and who meet applicable non-financial eligibility conditions for Medicaid under 42 CFR Part 435, Subpart E.

C. "Medical assistance" means payment of part or all of the cost of the care and services, or the care and services themselves, or both, as provided in the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.

D. "Oklahoma Health Care Authority" refers to the single State agency responsible for administering the Oklahoma Medicaid program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a)(5).

E. "State Plan Amendment" refers to the document(s) the State submits to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for review and approval before making a change to the program policies, including setting forth the groups of individuals to be eligible for medical assistance.

Section 2. Medicaid Expansion

A. In addition to those otherwise eligible for medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program, the State shall provide medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program to Low Income Adults.

B. No greater or additional burdens or restrictions on eligibility or enrollment shall be imposed on persons eligible for medical assistance pursuant to this Article than on any other population eligible for medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program.

Section 3. Implementation

A. Within 90 days of approval of this Article, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority shall submit a State Plan Amendment and all other necessary documents to seek required approvals from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to include Low Income Adults as a coverage group in Oklahoma's Medicaid program beginning no later than July 1, 2021.

B. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority shall take all actions necessary to maximize federal financial particpation in funding medical assistance purusant to this Article.

Section 4. Severability

The provisions of this Article are severable, and if any part or provision hereof shall be void, invalid, unconstitutional, the decision of the court so holding shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions hereof, and the remaining provisions hereof shall continue in full force and effect.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has a great deal of research and analysis on the fiscal hazards of Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. Most recently, OCPA policy research fellow Kaitlyn Finley points to tax increases in 13 other states to fund Medicaid expansion:

According to a tally by Governing Magazine last year, 13 states have had to raise taxes, fees, or cut provider rates to fund their state portion of expansion costs. North Dakota cut payment rates to Medicaid providers. California passed a provider tax on hospitals and cigarette sales. Oregon put another tax on health insurance plans and hospitals. Other states like Kentucky and Arkansas have pursued charging premiums and implementing work requirements to make up for program shortfalls.

Although these states' plans to tax hospitals to pay for expansion may seem like an additional financial drain on emergency care providers, in reality, many "nonprofit" hospitals have jumped at the chance to take on this financial "burden" because hospitals may increase their profits thanks to the tax.

Note that while some states have "pursued... implementing work requirements" to reduce the fiscal damage of Obamacare Medicaid Expansion, the authors of SQ802 want to cut off that possibility for Oklahoma.

MORE: State Rep. Mark Lepak sets out the fiscal dangers that Medicaid Expansion would bring, increasing the burden on a budget already strained to its limits by CCP Bat Virus:

Proponents point out that we will bring our federal dollars home with a 9-to-1 federal-to-state match. True statement. However, they also claim the expansion population will be about 200,000 people, costing about $200 million. Actually, up to 628,000 will be eligible, with a price tag over $370 million. When "free health care" is advertised, what should we anticipate from the eligible? And those numbers are just first-year expenses that don't contemplate the rising costs of health care, nor the federal government's habit of shifting costs to the states.

Consider our experience with the existing Medicaid program. From 2003 to 2018, Oklahoma's share of Medicaid expenses grew from $715 million to $2.2 billion. At the same time, we went from 649,000 enrollees to more than a million. We're spending three times as much for less than twice the people. Furthermore, in 2003, Oklahoma was responsible for 29.9% of its Medicaid costs. In 2018, that number was 41.8%. With that track record, the 9:1 match from the feds will become 8:2, then 7:3, and so on. With an increasing federal debt and deficit spending, does anyone think they won't continue to shift more and more costs to the states in the future?

MORE: Both Republican candidates for Senate District 37 are saying they'll vote yes, but SQ 802 will damage budgets for both the Federal Government and the State of Oklahoma. Wish they could both lose:

Emerson, who is married with nine children, is voting for State Question 802, Medicaid expansion, which also appears on the June 30 ballot.

But he said it is important to note that it will increase the federal deficit.

Rogers, who is married with five children, also is supporting SQ 802, but said he doesn't see how the state will be able to afford it, especially given the current budget situation in which state revenues are on the decline.

RELATED: Ray Carter of the Center for Independent Journalism reports that some voters are receiving mailers with a subtext that the voter will be named and shamed if they don't vote in the upcoming election. I have read comments on social media that so far only Democrats and Independents have received these mailers. I surmise that backers of SQ802 are afraid that, with few interesting Democrat primaries on the June 30 ballot, pro-big-government voters who would be inclined to vote yes on 802 won't bother to go to the polls.

I will be updating this entry as new information becomes available.

MIDDAY UPDATE:

Two more candidates have filed for mayor this morning: Gregory Robinson II, a Democrat, who was introduced at his Election Board press conference by Dr. Tiffany Crutcher, and Craig Immel, an Independent, who was the lead plaintiff in the battle to keep park land on Riverside Drive from being turned into a shopping center that might possibly someday have an REI-type store in it.

As previously announced, incumbent Democrat District 1 City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper has filed for re-election. She has one opponent so far, Jerry Goodwin, also a registered Democrat.

Auditor Cathy Champion Carter and City Councilors Jeannie Cue, Crista Patrick, Cass Fahler, and Phil Lakin remain unopposed as of noon Wednesday.

No other new filings as of noon today. Candidates must file a notarized declaration of candidacy along with a $50 cashier's check or 300-signature petition at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave., by 5 pm, today, Wednesday, June 10, 2020.

CLOSE OF FILING:

Two more candidates, Republican Ty Walker and Democrat Ricco Wright, filed for Mayor Wednesday afternoon, bringing the total number of candidates to eight.

City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter and two city councilors, Jeannie Cue (District 2) and Phil Lakin (District 8), failed to draw an opponent and have been reelected to another two-year term.

Two previously unopposed incumbents now have opposition. Paul Eicher, a Democrat, will face District 3 councilor Crista Patrick. Republican District 5 councilor Cass Fahler drew four opponents during the final hours of filing, all of them Democrats in their 30s, including 2018's second-place finisher Michael William Arthrell-Knezek aka Mykey Arthrell.

Kathryn Lyons, a Republican, filed in District 4, and Cheyenna Morgan, a Democrat, filed in District 6. Both districts have Democrat incumbents.

The names, ages, and addresses below are from the Tulsa County Election Board's official list of Monday filings. I've added incumbent status, registered voter name in brackets if it differs from the name used for filing, and party affiliation, which I checked against the current voter registration database.

Mayor
GT Bynum, 42, 3607 S. Florence Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, incumbent, Republican
Paul Tay, 57, 415 W Archer, Tulsa, OK 74103, Independent
Ken Reddick, 37, 5008 S 85th East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74145, Republican
Zackri Leon Whitlow, 39, 2951 W 66th St, Tulsa, OK 74132, Democrat
Craig Immel, 44, 1739 West Newton Street, Tulsa, OK 74127, Independent
Gregory C. Robinson II, 30, 2307 E 29th Pl N, Tulsa, OK 74110, Democrat
Ty [Tyron Vincent] Walker, 54, 8538 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, Republican
Ricco Wright, 38, 1913 N Santa Fe Place, Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat

Council District 1
Jerry [James G] Goodwin, 57, 2406 W. Pine Pl., Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat
Vanessa Hall-Harper, 48, 2020 West Newton Street, Tulsa, OK 74127, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 2
Jeannie Cue, 5313 S 32 Pl W, Tulsa, OK 74107, incumbent, Republican

Council District 3
Crista Patrick, 46, 1918 N. Joplin Ave., Tulsa, OK 74115, incumbent, Democrat
Paul Eicher, 31, 509 S 76 East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat

Council District 4
Kara Joy McKee, 41, 1119 S Quebec Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, incumbent, Democrat
Landry Miller, 26, 221 N Union Ave, Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat
Casey Robinson, 38, 1260 E 29th Pl, Tulsa, OK 74114, Republican
Kathryn Lyons, 53, 2831 E 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74114, Republican

Council District 5
Cass [Cassidy G] Fahler, 47, 7383 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, incumbent, Republican
Mykey Arthrell [Michael William Arthrell-Knezek], 35, 1747 S Erie Pl, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat
Justin Schuffert, 35, 2216 S. 78th E. Ave, Tulsa, OK 74129, Democrat
Rachel Shepherd, 30, 5719 E. 30th St, Tulsa, OK 74114, Democrat
Nat Wachowski-Estes, 34, 1213 S 87th E Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat

Council District 6
Christian Bengel, 52, 13173 E. 29th Street, Tulsa, OK 74134, Republican
Connie Dodson, 53, 13302 E. 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74134, incumbent, Democrat
Cheyenna Morgan, 29, 9 South 185th East Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74108, Democrat

Council District 7
Chad Ferguson, 40, 6751 S. 71st East Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Justin Van Kirk, 29, 10709 E 100 Pl, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Lori Decter Wright, 45, 8706 E 86th St, Tulsa, OK 74133, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 8
Phil [Philip Lawrence] Lakin Jr., 52, 9808 S. Knoxville Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74137, incumbent, Republican

Council District 9
[Bobbie] Leeann Crosby, 36, 3845 South Madison Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Democrat
Jayme Fowler, 61, 5601 S Gary Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Republican

City Auditor
Cathy Champion Carter, 65, 4120 E 22nd Place, Tulsa, OK 74114, incumbent, Democrat

UPDATED to include Justin Van Kirk and Jayme Fowler, whose names I overlooked when initially composing this report. UPDATED again to include information from Zackri Leon Whitlow and Landry Miller about their voter registration.

I've made this plea repeatedly on social media, on Pat Campbell's show on 1170 KFAQ, and here on this blog. And yet I look at the list of candidates after two of the three days of the filing period, and I am amazed to see so many unopposed candidates. Four of the city councilors do not have opponents, nor does the city auditor.

It's especially surprising after a fortnight that has put the spotlight on the importance of city government. Questions of law and order, police protocols and accountability are at the top of everyone's minds, and these questions are answered by our city council and mayor. Providentially, while we're all thinking about the importance of municipal policy, we have the greatest opportunity to make a difference, because it's filing period for city offices.

We only get to choose a new mayor once every four years, and now is the time to make sure there's someone on the ballot that you'd be happy to vote for. We only get to choose a new auditor and councilors every two years. There seems to be a lot of discontent, from across the political spectrum, with Tulsa City Hall, and I'd have thought that that discontent would burst forth this week in an outpouring of candidates for city office.

Do people still believe in elections? It looks like the protesters that blocked interstates and arterial streets don't. Instead of trying to elect a new mayor and councilors who are in agreement with their aims, to have a real seat at the table, it appears that the protesters' plan is to continue to protest, presumably in hopes that the existing mayor and council, whatever they may personally believe, will be inspired or intimidated by the protests into adopting the protesters' platform.

Perhaps because the news media loves the drama of protest and civil (or uncivil) disobedience more than the slog of legislation and debate, mass protests caught the public imagination as the way to effect change. Even the venerable Atlantic magazine is talking about "toppling" President Trump, as if we didn't have a presidential election in five months. Protesters in the US and the UK are defacing monuments and demolishing statues, as if it were impossible to enact the removal of offensive monuments through the ordinary processes of representative government.

You've heard the marchers' chants: "This is what democracy looks like!" No, this is what ochlocracy looks like. Democracy looks like people knocking doors for candidates, casting ballots, and sitting around committee tables poring over budget books.

In February 2020, the City Council voted 5-3 against putting a charter amendment on the ballot to create an Office of Independent Monitor (OIM) to review use of force cases by the police. Councilors Vanessa Hall-Harper (District 1), Kara Joy McKee (District 4), and Lori Decter Wright (District 7) were the only votes in support of putting Mayor Bynum's proposal on the ballot. All three have drawn opponents.

Councilors Jeannie Cue (District 2), Crista Patrick (District 3), Connie Dodson (District 6), Phil Lakin (District 8), and Ben Kimbro (District 9) voted against the OIM charter change, and Cass Fahler (District 5), who was absent, had voiced opposition to the proposal. Kimbro isn't running again, but only one of the other five (Dodson) has drawn an opponent. Only two candidates have bothered to file for the open District 9 seat.

Marlin Lavanhar, senior pastor of All Souls Unitarian Church, has drawn a couple of scathing cartoons critical of Mayor Bynum's response to the protests. So where is the challenger to Bynum from the left side of the spectrum?

I've checked a few names prominent in the protests and found that some of them are registered to vote in these districts whose councilors are opposed to their goals. If I dug further, I suspect I'd find that there's a leading protester in each one of these council districts. Why aren't they using their youth, enthusiasm, and energy to run for a real seat at the table, instead of being satisfied with scraps?

So who are the candidates who have already filed? Let's start with a look at the mayoral candidates.

GT Bynum is running for a second term. A professional schmoozer in one form or another for his entire career (Senate staff assistant, public relations, corporate communications, governmental affairs, lobbyist), Bynum IV is clearly in over his head, particularly now that the job demands tough decisions, not just ribbon-cutting and pious virtue signalling. Michael Mason has documented Bynum's deep ties to billionaire George Kaiser. In the words of New York Times writer Cassidy McDonald, "Kaiser has turned Tulsa into 'beta city,' U.S.A," a guinea pig for his social experiments, which are grounded in the materialistic worldview set out in his "Giving Pledge." However noble, Mr. Kaiser's intentions, Tulsans should not give him carte blanche to direct city resources to carry out his private philanthropic aims. Tulsans need elected officials who are not beholden to a billionaire who seems to see us as lab rats.

Ken Reddick is running as a conservative Republican and has already been campaigning for a few months. After many years as a manager for an electrical utility contractor and as an electrician, Reddick now has his own business managing projects for contractors in the utility and electrical fields, helping them to streamline processes and find efficiencies. Reddick ran a credible special election race for District 7 City Councilor in November 2018, but conservative support was divided among several candidates.

Paul Tay, who has run many times for mayor and city council, and made an infamous cameo appearance at the 2016 RSU-TV mayoral debate between incumbent Mayor Dewey Bartlett and challenger GT Bynum, was released Monday after five months in the Tulsa County Jail for outraging public decency. I won't repeat the specifics of his crime, for which he was convicted in a jury trial in January, but the state's witness list and the judge's instructions to the jury will tell you more than you wanted to know. Tay also has felony charges pending for possession of a stolen vehicle and violation of a protective order. When I first met him, way back in 1998, he had some cogent thoughts on urban planning and bicycles, but there's nothing cogent about his increasingly bizarre behavior. On his declaration of candidacy, Tay listed the Day Center for the Homeless as his place of residence, contrary to his voter registration address.

The fourth candidate, Zackri Leon Whitlow, doesn't appear in the voter registration database at all. Whitlow shows up on LinkedIn, Facebook, and IMDb. It appears that he is an insurance agent and broker, and that his agency may have been located in California, in Langley, Oklahoma, and now in Tulsa. It appears that he served as a butler at the Playboy Mansion, credited with an appearance on the reality series based there, "The Girls Next Door." I haven't found anything indicating his views on city issues.

City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter (formerly Cathy Criswell) is still unopposed. She has held the post without a challenger since her first election in 2013, when she defeated appointed incumbent Clift Richards and Josh Lewis. If the listing of internal audit reports on her City Auditor website is complete, Tulsa hasn't had a sensitive payments audit since FY 2017, and the pace of internal audits in general has slowed considerably over the past few years. It was the intention of the framers of our City Charter that the city auditor should be an "anti-mayor," acting as a whistleblower on abuse and corruption. Instead, Carter continues to follow the pattern set by Phil Wood, the first city auditor under the 1989 charter, quietly churning out reports but doing little or nothing to call attention to her team's findings, findings that might uncover inefficiency, waste, or even corruption.

If you're wondering whether or not to file, go for it. Every councilor should have a challenger. After filing closes at 5 pm Wednesday afternoon, you've got two days to investigate and speak with the other candidates who have filed, and if you'd rather back one of the other candidates you can withdraw by 5 pm Friday and take your name on the ballot. But let's at least make sure that every voter has good choices in every office and district.

At the end of the second of three days of candidate filing for the 2020 City of Tulsa elections, the incumbent mayor, auditor, and seven of the nine incumbent city councilors have filed for re-election, with Mayor GT Bynum IV drawing three opponents and incumbent Democratic Councilors Kara Joy McKee (District 4) and Councilor Lori Decter Wright (District 7) each drawing two opponents. Five council seats and the auditor's office have only one candidate each. Incumbent Democrat councilors Connie Dodson (District 6) has also drawn a Republican opponent. Republican District 9 councilor Ben Kimbro is not running for re-election; two candidates have filed thus far for that seat. Democrat District 1 Councilor Vanessa Hall Harper has confirmed to BatesLine that she will file tomorrow; Jerry Goodwin has already filed as a challenger for the seat.

Three candidates may have issues with their voter registrations, or lack thereof. District 4 candidate Landry Miller is not in the current state election board voter registration database as of noon today. Perennial mayoral candidate Paul Tay is registered to vote at 6104 N. Boulder, which does not match the residential or mailing address (both 415 W. Archer St., the Day Center for the Homeless) he supplied on his declaration of candidacy. The voter registration database also does not have a record for mayoral candidate Zackri Leon Whitlow; there is someone with a similar name and age registered to vote at a different address.

(UPDATE 2020/06/10: Zackri Whitlow responded to my inquiry about his voter registration: "I just submitted my Tulsa Voter Registration on Friday. I am an Oklahoma Native but had moved to California back in 2006. I was last registered in Riverside County and that should be in the process of them transitioning my new Voter Registration to Tulsa County." Whitlow says he has registered in Oklahoma as a Democrat. Landry Miller responded to my inquiry: "I am registered in District 4, under my current address. This was only recently changed because I hopped around Tulsa for a while trying to find the perfect spot to live. So therefore my previous registration was in Rogers County, where I waited to update my registration until March, so I could still vote in the presidential primaries (in Rogers County).")

In addition, four candidates -- Jerry Goodwin, Cass Fahler, Phil Lakin, and Leeann Crosby -- have filed under names that do not match their voter registration records. While state law permits a candidate to specify a ballot name that differs from their legal name, both of which are specified on a declaration of candidacy for state office, the Tulsa City Charter does not. In the past, I can recall a number of occasions where a city candidate's full name (including middle name and suffix) appeared on the ballot, even if it differed from the name by which the candidate was popularly known. This 2009 City of Tulsa primary ballot for Mayor and Council District 8 has middle names for almost all of the candidates.

This name-matching requirement seems to have motivated candidates to change their voter registration. For example, the mayor is registered as last name "Bynum," first name "G T," which allows his name to appear as "G T Bynum" on the city ballot, even though that would appear to be in violation of the section of law (26 O.S. 4-112) that requires each voter to register with his full name, in his case, George Theron Bynum IV.

The Tulsa City Charter, Article VI, Section 3.1, requires, "Any person who desires to be a candidate for a City office shall file with the Election Board of Tulsa County or its successor a Declaration of Candidacy which shall contain: A. The name and residence street address of the person as it appears on the voter registration records;...." A candidate who has provided a name and address combination that doesn't match a voter registration record for an address in the City of Tulsa would be in violation of that charter provision.

A candidate with an invalid declaration of candidacy could have his candidacy contested by an opposing candidate or, if no other candidate has filed, by any eligible voter registered to vote for the candidate. Contests must be filed by 5 p.m. Friday with a $250 deposit. Contests are governed by Title 26, Chapter A1, Article V of Oklahoma Statutes, sections 118 to 131. Section 117 states that the relevant election board can reject a Declaration of Candidacy "which on its face shows that the candidate does not meet the qualifications to become a candidate for the office set forth as contained in the Oklahoma Constitution, statutes or resolution calling the election."

Filing continues for one final day, tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave., Tulsa, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. More about the filing and election process here.

The names, ages, and addresses below are from the Tulsa County Election Board's official list of Monday filings. I've added incumbent status, registered voter name in brackets if it differs from the name used for filing, and party affiliation, which I checked against the current voter registration database.

Mayor
GT Bynum, 42, 3607 S. Florence Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, incumbent, Republican
Paul Tay, 57, 415 W Archer, Tulsa, OK 74103, Independent
Ken Reddick, 37, 5008 S 85th East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74145, Republican
Zackri Leon Whitlow, 39, 2951 W 66th St, Tulsa, OK 74132, Democrat

Council District 1
Jerry [James G] Goodwin, 57, 2406 W. Pine Pl., Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat

Council District 2
Jeannie Cue, 5313 S 32 Pl W, Tulsa, OK 74107, incumbent, Republican

Council District 3
Crista Patrick, 46, 1918 N. Joplin Ave., Tulsa, OK 74115, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 4
Kara Joy McKee, 41, 1119 S Quebec Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, incumbent, Democrat
Landry Miller, 26, 221 N Union Ave, Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat
Casey Robinson, 38, 1260 E 29th Pl, Tulsa, OK 74114, Republican

Council District 5
Cass [Cassidy G] Fahler, 47, 7383 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, incumbent, Republican

Council District 6
Christian Bengel, 52, 13173 E. 29th Street, Tulsa, OK 74134, Republican
Connie Dodson, 53, 13302 E. 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74134, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 7
Chad Ferguson, 40, 6751 S. 71st East Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Justin Van Kirk, 29, 10709 E 100 Pl, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Lori Decter Wright, 45, 8706 E 86th St, Tulsa, OK 74133, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 8
Phil [Philip Lawrence] Lakin Jr., 52, 9808 S. Knoxville Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74137, incumbent, Republican

Council District 9
[Bobbie] Leeann Crosby, 36, 3845 South Madison Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Democrat
Jayme Fowler, 61, 5601 S Gary Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Republican

City Auditor
Cathy Champion Carter, 65, 4120 E 22nd Place, Tulsa, OK 74114, incumbent, Democrat

UPDATED to include Justin Van Kirk and Jayme Fowler, whose names I overlooked when initially composing this report. UPDATED again to include information from Zackri Leon Whitlow and Landry Miller about their voter registration.

In addition to the high-stakes presidential race, the City of Tulsa has its own high-stakes elections this year. All nine Tulsa City Councilors and the Tulsa City Auditor are on the ballot every two years, but in presidential years, the Mayor's office is also up for grabs. Filing period begins Monday, June 8, 2020, and ends Wednesday, June 10, 2020. Candidates file in-person at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver (in the old Marina-style Safeway building), between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily.

I'll stick to the nuts and bolts in this item; later I hope to explain why Tulsans should want to run for office and change the personnel running our city government.

Filing involves filling out a declaration of candidacy, getting it notarized, and presenting it at the county election board with a cashier's check for $50 for the filing fee. The filing fee is really a deposit, intended to deter frivolous candidates: If you get more than 15% of the vote when your name first appears on the ballot, or if you're unopposed, you get the cashier's check back. In lieu of the filing fee, you have the option of filing a petition signed by 300 registered voters in your election district if you're running for council, or city-wide if running for Mayor or Auditor. The information packet with all the forms, including the declaration of candidacy and all ethics disclosure forms, is on the Tulsa County Election Board website.

City elections are governed by Article VI of the City Charter. Council races are run by district. Our council districts were gerrymandered in 2012 evidently with the intent of eliminating then-Mayor Dewey Bartlett's harshest critics. The lines will be redrawn next year following the publication of the 2020 census results by a five-person committee appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. If the next council consists of the mayor's yes men, the mayor will be able to redraw the district lines to benefit his most loyal councilors.

To find your district, consult the Oklahoma Voter Tool, or use the city's interactive map, or consult this set of static maps, showing the precincts contained within each council district.

Tulsa's municipal elections are non-partisan, and the process has changed since the last mayor's election in 2016, going from three stages to two. The August 25, 2020, election is considered a general election. (The same date is used for runoffs for candidates for Federal and State Legislative offices.)

If two candidates are running for an office, the candidate receiving the most votes at the August election wins. If more than two candidates are running, the number of top candidates whose votes total at least 50% advance to a runoff on November 3, 2020, the same date as the general election for U. S. President, Senator, Congressmen, and state legislators.

To give you an idea of how this would work, suppose the top two candidates for Mayor fell short of 50% of the vote combined in a very evenly divided race.

Candidate A 25%
Candidate B 23%
Candidate C 14%
Candidate D 11%
Candidate E 10%
Candidate F 9%
Candidate G 8%

If these were a regular Oklahoma primary, only Candidates A and B would advance to the November runoff, but because their combined total falls short of 50%, one more candidate, C, would advance. Because A, B, and C's vote share exceeds 50% (62%) only those candidates will advance to November. This is a highly unlikely spread, except perhaps in a race for an open seat; in most cases, it will simply be the top two candidates advancing to the November runoff.

If you're unhappy with a mayor who makes concessions without consulting all stakeholders involved in a decision, if you're unhappy with a mayor who refuses to enact a curfew to protect Tulsa residents and businesses, if you're unhappy with a council that fails to hold the mayor accountable, if you're unhappy with councilors who break their promises to constituents who are facing the destruction of their homes by eminent domain, if you're unhappy that most of our elected officials are beholden to a billionaire who sees Tulsa as a lab rat for social experimentation, you ought to consider running for office. We can't have change unless we have different candidates to choose from.

The Oklahoma Retail Crime Association issued its annual retail theft survey today, noting "massive spikes in both the numbers of losses due to theft and the amounts taken" for Oklahoma retailers.

Already hard-hit by the growth of online sales and the (hopefully temporary) impact of coronavirus, retailers don't need the state legislature to add insult to injury by discarding the tools to deter systematic theft.

We aren't talking about Javert relentlessly pursuing Jean Valjean for stealing a crust of bread to feed his starving family. We're talking about organized crime gangs who consider fines and brief imprisonments just the cost of doing business, and who are taking the bread out of the mouths of retail workers and their families.

The Facebook page Repeal SQ780 is a good source for stories on the impact of reducing penalties for so-called "non-violent crimes," such as shoplifting, burglary, and car break-ins. The page recently linked to a infographic showing that the loss amount from the average "pushout" theft -- when someone simply pushes a cart out the door without paying -- for our region doubled last year, from $778 in 2018 to $1544 in 2019. 59.5% of pushout robberies involved organized retail crime, and 10% involved violence against store personnel.

Here is the press release from the OKRCA:

The Oklahoma Retail Crime Association (OKRCA) has completed the 2020 Oklahoma Retail Theft Survey - which draws on retailer's internal theft data, as opposed to just numbers reported to law enforcement.

Once again, Oklahoma retailers saw massive spikes in both the numbers of losses due to theft and the amounts taken.

Oklahoma retailers are also reporting increased violence against store personnel.

According to OKRCA President, Norm Smaligo, "Retailers from around the country want to know why their theft rates in Oklahoma are so much higher than other states they operate in. I have to point to our laws and the permissive attitude the courts take towards retail theft."

"Organized Retail Crime (stealing for profit) has exploded here in recent years, because of our loosening of penalties for theft and our failure of our laws to address the people who steal for a living and those that sell it for them."

According to the most recent National Retail Federation (NRF) Organized Retail Crime survey, states that have raised felony theft limits have seen increases in theft activity. [Here is the complete National Retail Federation Organized Retail Crime Survey.]

In Oklahoma this effect is amplified by the fact that Oklahoma law allows cities to prosecute these 'misdemeanor crimes' as a municipal infraction similar to a speeding ticket. This hardly serves as a deterrent to criminal activity.

Smaligo said: "This year's survey just builds on the bad numbers we saw last year. We're seeing increased thefts, increased amounts and increased violence against our people. Retailers are begging for help. Our legislators at some point are going to have to decide: Do they want to help tax producing businesses lose less, or do they want to help criminals steal more?"

Smaligo said there are currently three bills pending before the Oklahoma legislature that they hope will help curtail some of the theft activity: Senate Bill 1587 would allow law enforcement to aggregate multiple larcenies over a one year period as opposed to the current 90 days - which Smaligo said is less time than it takes for an arrest warrant to be issued in many cases.

Senate bills 1689 and 1691 would prohibit Pawn Shops from buying fraudulently obtained gift cards and new-in-box items stolen from stores without some proof of purchase, such as a receipt.

According to Smaligo - the easy cash that criminals receive for selling these items is what is driving most of the theft activity. "They're not stealing four power tool kits for personal use! They're selling them within minutes of stealing them".

Norm Smaligo is the President of the Oklahoma Retail Crime Association - a group of retailers and law enforcement working together to identify and prosecute Organized Retail Crime offenders in this state.

Smaligo can be reached for comment at:

nsmaligo@gmail.com
or
(918)698-2626

After the jump, the text of the report itself.

Mark McBride, a Republican Oklahoma state representative from Moore who touts himself as a "lifelong conservative Republican" and founder and president of a mission organization, has been accused of directing a fusillade of obscene verbal abuse at a think-tank president who was walking through the State Capitol.

In a recent news release promoting the OCPA's new legislative scorecard, Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, reports that McBride "flipped him off" as Small passed by a committee room. Small says that McBride then summoned Small into the committee room and proceeded to unleash a barrage of obscenities at Small in front of several other people.

At the beginning of the 2020 legislative session, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs announced that we would produce a legislative scorecard to be updated throughout the session.

The OCPA board of trustees and staff came to realize that there wasn't an easy-to-use guide for constituents to understand just how their lawmakers are voting on issues related to free markets, limited government, individual initiative, and personal responsibility. So we decided to change that.

At the beginning of the legislative session, we launched our new Legislative Scorecard, which can be found at scorecard.ocpathink.org. In addition to the scorecard itself, we released a watch list of bills that are eligible to be included on the scorecard. You can view the watch list at ocpa.co/WatchList.

Check out the live scorecard and share it with your family and friends, it even has an easy-to-use locator so anyone can easily find their lawmaker.

The scorecard has already had major impact.

Early this session, a horrific bill popped up on the House Calendar, House Bill 1230 (HB1230). In short, while touted as a "transparency bill" it actually commands government bureaucrats to violate the privacy of families and students who use the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship, including students with special needs and disabilities. The bill easily can be interpreted to require students and families to waive rights to privacy, normally afforded to most other students, in order to participate in the program in the future.

OCPA sent repeated notices to lawmakers that HB1230 would be scored negatively.

You need to know about something. Just a little over two weeks ago, the day after the vote on HB1230, I was at the state capitol building. As I was walking on the 4th floor of the Capitol, I passed a committee room. In the room were several people and a lawmaker who was sitting in a chair facing the doorway. The lawmaker was State Representative Mark McBride, author of HB1230.

As I walked by the door, I was surprised when I saw that State Representative Mark McBride slightly raised his hand from his lap and flipped me off.

After being flipped off by State Representative Mark McBride, it appeared State Representative Mark McBride motioned for me to go in the room to talk to him. As I got close to his chair, with others sitting around and in a voice so others could hear, State Representative Mark McBride then began to cuss at me profusely. His words included saying I was the "F..." word at least twice, calling me a piece of "S..." twice, saying I was worthless twice, referring to me as a derogatory word for male genitalia twice, and twice telling me to "scat" like I was some sort of animal. Also included in his personal, verbal, and public attack on me was his criticism of OCPA for opposing HB1230.

Our hope is that Oklahomans will utilize the scorecard to remain informed and involved in the legislative process, while also holding politicians accountable.

Thank you,

Jonathan Small
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
President

McBride currently has a score of 35 on the OCPA scorecard out of a possible 100. The lowest score for any Republican is 29.

Rep. McBride boasts on his House web page that he is "the Founder and President of Thousand Hills Mission - a non-profit organization dedicated to providing agricultural and veterinary assistance to the people of developing and Third World countries." Guidestar shows the most recent IRS Form 990 as filed for the 2013 tax year, and that the IRS non-profit ruling was issued in 2012. The earliest 990 that Guidestar has is from 2011, and it shows fundraising back to 2007. Here are the annual fundraising totals shown on the 2011-2013 IRS Form 990s.

2007: $24,409
2008: $50,343
2009: $27,019
2010: $24,409
2011: $72,814
2012: $10,730
2013: $8,030

The expenses for the 990s provided seem to cover travel for one or two people and veterinary supplies. The organization reported no paid employees.

I'm reminded of an experience I had back in March 2004, when I took a camcorder to capture the Tulsa City Council "pre-meeting" which was held in the library of the council offices an hour before the official meeting and which dealt with the agenda for the main meeting. My presence there triggered an obscene outburst against me from a City Council staffer.

In the future, I suggest that Mr. Small and his OCPA colleagues wear GoPro cameras when they walk through the Capitol. They may capture some insights into the character of our legislators that aren't fully evident in voting records and campaign websites.

Postdated to remain at the top of the blog until the polls close at 7 p.m.

Today, March 3, 2020, is the Oklahoma presidential preference primary. Oklahoma is one of 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia (Democrats only), and Vermont) holding a presidential primary on "Super Tuesday." American Samoa Democrats will also hold a territorial caucus on Tuesday.

Super Tuesday came into existence in 1988, driven by southern Democrats. After a win in the post-Watergate election of 1976, with a ticket headed by former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, Democrats were wiped out in 1980, as Reagan beat Carter, and again in 1984, as Reagan won 49 states against former VP Walter Mondale. The worry was that the early states (Iowa and New Hampshire) tilted the playing field in the liberal direction, resulting in a liberal nominee.

The Democrats' practice of "superdelegates" was another reform aimed at the electability problem that traces back to the reforms prior to the 1972 convention. The idea was that Democrats who had actually been elected office would help shift the convention and the selected nominee in a more centrist direction than Democrat primary voters left to their own devices.

The hope was that a Southern regional primary early in the process would encourage the nomination of a Southern moderate who could win in November. Oklahoma's Democratic governor and legislative majorities went along with the plan; previously, both major parties used the caucus and convention system to elect national delegates from Oklahoma. As it happened, of the 13 Southern states voting, Jesse Jackson won the four Deep South states (LA, MS, AL, GA) plus Virginia, Al Gore won five border states (OK, AR, TN, KY, NC), Michael Dukakis won Florida and Texas, and Dick Gephardt won his home state of Missouri. Dukakis's wins in the south, plus success in his home region of New England, killed Gore's electability argument.

(Virginia Republicans will not hold a primary but will use the caucus and convention process: County and Independent City Republican parties will elect delegates to the Congressional District and State GOP Conventions, and the CD and State Conventions will elect delegates to the Republican National Convention. All of Virginia's 48 delegates will be pledged to the candidate winning the presidential preference vote of delegates at the Virginia State Republican Convention.)

In Oklahoma, each political party may opt to allow voters not registered with a party to vote in their primary. For 2020 the Oklahoma Democratic Party is allowing independents to vote in their primaries; the Republican and Libertarian party primaries will be open only to voters registered with the respective party.

Oklahoma Democrats will have 15 candidates to choose from, all mainstream enough to earn a spot on a debate stage at some point. They're shown below in the order in which they filed for the primary back in December.

• Tulsi Gabbard
• Amy Klobuchar
• Elizabeth Warren
• Bernie Sanders
• Kamala Harris
• Pete Buttigieg
• Andrew Yang
• Deval Patrick
• Michael R. Bloomberg
• Tom Steyer
• Joseph R. Biden
• Michael Bennet
• Marianne Williamson
• Julián Castro
• Cory Booker

Only five are still actively campaigning: Gabbard, Warren, Sanders, Bloomberg, and Biden. (Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer dropped out after poor showings in South Carolina last Saturday.) All of the Democratic candidates take an extreme position in support of abortion. They all support greater intrusion of the federal government into every aspect of life. Each of the Democratic candidates wants Christians either to bow down before the gods of the Sexual Revolution, or have the Federal Government destroy their businesses, their professional careers, their schools, their churches, their private organizations. None of them are "moderate." Given the number of conservative rural Oklahomans who are still registered as Democrats, a candidate that, say, supported private spaces and protected athletic opportunities for women, opposed late term abortion, supported robust protections for religious liberty, and sensible policies on immigration and trade -- someone like Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards -- would do very well in the Oklahoma Democratic primary.

Although you can still vote for any of the candidates on the ballot, a candidate needs at least 15% of the vote in a congressional district or statewide to get any delegates at all. In South Carolina, Biden got 49% and Sanders 20%, but split all of the delegates between them because the rest of the candidates split the remaining 31% of the vote, with none of them topping the threshold. Steyer's 11.3% was the best of the rest. Very little polling has been done in Oklahoma. A Sooner Poll taken from 2/17 to 2/21 put Biden at 21.2%, Bloomberg at 19.8%, undecided at 19.3%. Buttigieg and Klobuchar, both now out of the race, combined for 17%.

For Oklahoma Democrats, each congressional district has a different number of delegates: CD 2 and CD 3 have four each, CD 1 and CD 4 have five each, and CD 5, with a Democrat congressman, has six. There are 13 seats pledged based on statewide results: 8 statewide at-large delegate seats and 5 seats belonging to Party Leader and Elected Officials (PLEOs). Five more PLEOs go as superdelegates -- the Oklahoma Democrat chairman and vice-chairman and the national committeeman and national committeewoman, plus Congressman Kendra Horn. The "superdelegates" aren't pledged to any candidate, but they won't be able to vote unless no candidate receives a majority of the delegate vote on the first ballot at the National Convention. (I am still trying to find out who the pledged PLEOs are and why we have five. In other states, the number of unpledged PLEOs is different from the number of pledged.)

Oklahoma will have 43 delegates to the Republican National Convention, three from each congressional district, plus 28 statewide, including the state party chairman, the national committeeman, and the national committeewoman. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in a CD or statewide, he gets all the delegates for that jurisdiction, even if another candidate breaks 15%, which seems unlikely.

Five Republicans are challenging President Trump on the Oklahoma ballot.

Zoltan G. Istvan, 46, of Mill Valley, CA: Istvan is a transhumanist who wants Republicans to embrace the unfettered use of technology to modify humanity. He believes science and technology can solve all problems. He writes, "The fate of fiscally conservative Republicans rests in embracing transhumanism and become more open-minded to cultural and technological change--or the far-left will own the future, just like they already own the environmental movement. The GOP must embrace radical innovation in the human being and be the caretakers of humanity's brave future." Istvan also wants to "improv[e] the Constitution to make it more malleable and ready to adjust every few years to radically changing times and accelerating technology." Call him the "Brave New World" candidate.

Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente, 65, San Diego, CA: He ran as a Democrat on the 2016 Oklahoma ballot, and his son ran as a Democrat in New Hampshire this year, but he's on the GOP ballot in Oklahoma in 2020. In 2016, he was also the presidential nominee of the American Delta Party and the Reform Party, which was founded by Ross Perot. De La Fuente tends toward an open-borders view: "We need comprehensive immigration reform that views undocumented workers as assets rather than liabilities. It is not logical to suggest that we can deport 13 million immigrants in a way that would be deemed fair. It is just as illogical to suggest that we could deport the small percentage of undocumented immigrants who have committed felonies." He wants to raise the retirement age and the contributions cap to keep Social Security solvent.

Matthew John Matern, 54, Manhattan Beach, CA: Matern is an attorney. He wants to solve homelessness by giving people a $10,000 tax credit for taking in a homeless person. He wants to raise the threshold for taxable income to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for families. Matern wants to focus on the environment, including a tax credit for reducing carbon footprint and tariffs to penalize goods from major polluters like India and China. He wants a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Bob Ely, 61, Vernon Hills, IL: Ely is running as a something of a tongue-in-cheek, satirical candidate, "your least-worst alternative." He calls himself partyfluid, says he has no experience and the charisma of a doorknob. His political pronouncements are the sort of thing your opinionated uncle might shout at the TV while watching the news after a few beers. Ely claims he would be a "better" (and scarier) Trump:

A federal judge I know decried how Trump was subverting the rule of law. I told him I could do much worse. He said that was impossible. How about this, I said:

• In some random speech or tweet I would state: "A human virtue I admire most is loyalty. I am loyal to those who are loyal to me." An unimpeachable statement.
• My sleezy [sic] friends would understand Omertà.
• I would let those who cooperated with Mueller rot in prison; I would pardon those that stayed silent. My smarter sleezy friends would figure out that the easiest strategy would be say nothing; plead guilty; get pardoned.

The judge conceded that would be worse.

On foreign policy, Ely believes that sanctions against international bad guys are ineffective, and that instead, on a case by case basis, America should choose between resigned acceptance and putting a Tomahawk through a dictator's bedroom window, pour encourages les autres. On illegal immigration, Ely supports amnesty and guest worker visas for low-income jobs. Ely doesn't want you to follow him on Twitter or friend him on Facebook.

Joe Walsh, 57, Washington, D.C.: Walsh is a former congressman who suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination after a poor showing in Iowa and is now begging his supporters to vote for Democrats in order to unseat Trump. He won a seat in Congress by a slim margin in 2010, then lost it in 2012, after making light of the war injuries of his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth. He spent much of his presidential campaign apologizing for outrageous things he said as a radio host.

Also on tomorrow's ballot: Seven counties in Oklahoma -- Creek, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Washington -- will vote whether to allow liquor stores to open on Sundays. Since supermarkets can now sell strong beer and wine, and they can sell on Sundays, and since people can buy liquor by the drink at bars and restaurants, it seems only fair that liquor stores should be able to compete on a somewhat level playing field. It seems to me that it's safer for everyone if people buy alcohol at the store and take it home to consume, rather than drinking at a bar or restaurant and then having to get home somehow.

Unofficial RESULTS from the Oklahoma State Election Board:

• Tulsa School Board, Office 5: John Croisant 1,063, Shane Saunders 633, Scott Pendleton 400, Kelsey Royce 313, Ben Croff 17. Croisant and Saunders advance to the April 7 runoff.


• Tulsa School Board, Office 6: Jerry Griffin 377, Ruth Ann Fate 335, Stephen Remington 311. Griffin and Fate advance to the April 7 runoff.


• Bixby School Board, Office 5: Tristy Fryer 681, Jason Prideaux 43, Todd Hagopian 41. Fryer exceeds 50%, wins outright.


• Owasso School Board, Office 5: Frosty Turpen 799, Beth Medford 306, John H. Haning 115. Turpen exceeds 50%, wins outright.


• Collinsville, Mayor: Larry Shafer 298, Jerry Garrett 289. Shafer wins.


• Sand Springs, Commissioner, Ward 3: Mike Burdge 42, Justin Sean Tockey 32. Burdge wins.


• Jenks school bonds: Prop. 1 passes with 83.23% of 1,884 votes, Prop. 2 with 83.52% of 1,887 votes


• Liberty school bonds: Props. 1 and 2 pass with 86.39% of 169 votes.


• Owasso school bonds: Prop. 1 passes with 76.27% of 1,298 votes, Prop. 2 with 77.18% of 1,297 votes

Postdated to remain at the top through the end of the election.

Polls are open in selected precincts across Oklahoma in the February 11, 2020, school board primary election from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some municipalities also have elections today. The Oklahoma State Election Board's new Oklahoma Voter Portal will tell you where to vote and let you view sample ballots before you go to the polls. Here is the complete and official list of elections in Oklahoma today, February 11, 2020, sorted by county.

Yesterday I was on 1170 KFAQ to discuss today's election with Pat Campbell; here's the audio.

School elections

Only school board races with three or more candidates will have a contest today. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote today, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020, between the top two candidates. Races for which only two candidates filed will also be held on April 7.

Four school board seats are on the ballot in Tulsa County:

Bixby Public Schools, Office No. 5

• Tristy Fryer, Republican (Facebook)
• Todd Hagopian, Libertarian (Facebook)
• Jason Prideaux, Republican (Facebook)

Candidate forum for Bixby school board, Office 5

Owasso Public Schools, Office No. 5

• John H. Haning, Republican (no online presence found)
• Beth Medford, Democrat (Facebook)
• Frosty Turpen, Democrat, incumbent since 1995 (Facebook)

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 5: BatesLine endorses Scott Pendleton

• Ben Croff (withdrew from race but still on ballot)
• John Croisant, Democrat (questionnaire, website, Facebook)
• Scott Pendleton, Republican (endorsement, questionnaire, website, Facebook)
• Kelsey Royce, Democrat (questionnaire, Facebook)
• Shane Saunders, Republican (questionnaire, website, Facebook)

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 6: BatesLine endorses Jerry Griffin.

• Ruth Ann Fate, Democrat, incumbent since 1996 (questionnaire, website, Facebook)
• Jerry Griffin, Republican (endorsement, questionnaire, website, Facebook)
• Stephen Remington, Democrat (questionnaire, Facebook)

Note: Remington and Fate did not respond to the questionnaire.

Campaign finance reports for Tulsa school board candidates.

Three Tulsa County districts each have two general obligation bond issues on the ballot. These require passage by 60% of the vote. Links go to the official bond disclosures required by the Bond Transparency Act of 2017, for each. Each disclosure provides detailed purposes for each bond proposition and lists all previous bonds that remain outstanding:

• Jenks Public Schools: Proposition 1, $11.4 million for Freshman Academy expansion, textbooks, technology, classroom equipment; Proposition 2, $870,000 for student transportation equipment.
• Liberty Public Schools: Proposition 1, $780,000 for asphalt resurfacing, fencing, and other repairs; Proposition 2, $320,000 for vehicles for pupil transportation.
• Owasso Public Schools: Proposition 1, $9,805,000 for district-wide facility upgrades (air conditioning, roofs, parking lots, paint, lighting, etc.), technology, instructional materials, weight room, fine arts and athletic uniforms and equipment; Proposition 2, $1,570,000 for vehicles for pupil transportation.

Municipal elections

City Of Collinsville, Mayor

• Jerry Garrett, Democrat, former city commissioner (Facebook)
• Larry Shafer, Republican, incumbent city commissioner for Ward 3 (website, Facebook)

City Of Sand Springs, City Councilmember, Ward 3

• Mike Burdge, Republican, incumbent (Facebook)
• Justin Sean Tockey, Independent (no campaign internet presence)

The Tulsa school district needs drastic reform. Enrollment and attendance are dropping, teachers are fleeing, and more and more schools are closing. In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2016, the Tulsa district had an Average Daily Membership of 39,167. Four years later, ADM for the first quarter of FY2020 was 35,403. (Here's the State Department of Education page with Average Daily Membership and Average Daily Attendance statistics.)

Parents and taxpayers from across the political spectrum want to see Superintendent Deborah Gist gone. Tulsans were outraged by her handling of the recent round of school closings, which seemed to treat board approval as a mere formality, and the controversial handling of federal funds for Indian Education.

We need board members that will treat the superintendent as a hired hand and who will take seriously their responsibility to set policy and monitor spending. We need board members who see the voting public as their bosses, not the philanthrocapitalists that are pushing for experimental curricula in the schools.

After reviewing the questionnaires from the four active candidates for Office 5 and their campaign contribution reports, my choice is clear. I'll be voting for Scott Pendleton in the Tuesday, February 11, 2020, election.

For all the reasons described in my previous post, Tulsa's students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers need an upheaval on the Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education. Only two seats, at most, out of seven are up for election in any given year, but good candidates in both races will allow us to begin the process.

Ruth Ann Fate, a Democrat who was first elected in 1996, is seeking her seventh term on the school board. Fate has been an unapologetic cheerleader and rubber-stamp for Superintendent Deborah Gist. If we want accountability and reform in Oklahoma's largest school system, step 1 is to replace Ruth Ann Fate.

Democrat Stephen Remington refused to submit a response to the BatesLine candidate questionnaire, writing in response to my reminder: "I apologize but I am not filling out your questionnaire. Endorsements are fine but I am not looking to get any. My campaign is not asking for donations either. Ruth Ann has not filled one out either which indicates we will not have a fair assessment of this race." So Mr. Remington's views must remain a mystery. He has also not filed any of the campaign finance reports; his wife has stated on Facebook that he has not raised nor spent more than $200. I find it hard to believe that you can run a competitive race for this district without spending at least $500. Printing alone, even if you're taking photocopied flyers door-to-door, is likely to take you over the reporting limit. (CORRECTION: The threshold requiring a candidate committee to file reports is now $1,000, whether in contributions or expenditures. It's somewhat more plausible that a candidate could manage without spending more than $1,000, but it doesn't seem very probable. )

Dr. Jerry Griffin, a registered Republican, was the first candidate in either district to respond to my questionnaire, and he gave detailed and intelligent answers.

Griffin is committed to exercising real oversight over the superintendent and school administration, which he calls the "primary duty of the school board." He notes the lack of public discussion or pushback from the current board on any administration proposal. "Generally, the votes are 7-0 to approve any proposal with little to no discussion or open debate." As a college professor for the past 20 years, he has seen in his students the damage done by a "fad-of-the-year" K-12 curriculum that has left them unprepared for work at the collegiate level; the board needs to take an active role in setting the educational philosophy and curriculum for the district. The board should openly and publicly scrutinize every grant from federal, state, or philanthropic sources, weighing the costs and benefits before accepting and auditing for compliance with the terms of any accepted grants.

In his response to my question about schools and American patriotism, Griffin wrote:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door." These masses came seeking a better life and a country in which they could experience freedom and achieve their dream. Being an American means, it does not matter your race, class, religion or ethnic heritage - you are first and foremost an American. The schools have a definite role in teaching and developing a sense of patriotism in our youth. This does not mean teaching an ideological or party focus but a pure love for America - that is celebrated daily.

Concerning transgender issues at TPS, Griffin details the changes in Federal Title IX guidance between the Obama and Trump administrations, but notes that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reaffirmed her department's commitment to a learning environment free from bullying and harassment. Griffin wants TPS to return to the pre-Obama policy of limiting private female spaces to females, while having single-stall facilities available.

Griffin is a graduate of Tulsa's Edison High School, has his bachelor's degree from University of Tulsa, an MBA from Southern Methodist University, and a Doctorate of Education from TU. He is an adjunct professor at a number of universities, including the University of Oklahoma and the University of Phoenix, with a focus on criminal justice. In Fall 2016, for example, he taught an upper-level course for University of Oklahoma, "Comparative Justice Systems," and a graduate-level course, "Mediation and Conflict Resolution in the Criminal Justice System."

If I lived in Election District 6, I would vote for Jerry Griffin to bring fresh perspective and careful oversight to the Tulsa school board.

UPDATE: Jerry Griffin emails with his complete report, which includes itemized expenditures, and which he says he filed. Either the district clerk's copy got lost, or I overlooked it. I've added the information below.

Below are the campaign ethics reports filed with the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk as of this morning for candidates running for Tulsa school board offices 5 and 6. No paperwork was on file for Kelsey Royce or John Remington. (Ben Croff filed for Office 5, but has announced that he is not running an active campaign, although is name is still on the ballot.) No school district political committees filed a report, and none of the candidate reports showed donations by political action committees.

Because Oklahoma state law is designed to make it as difficult as possible to track campaign donations for local candidates, Friday morning I went to the Education Service Center, where newly appointed district clerk Sarah Bozone provided me with a folder of all the campaign filings received to that time. I photographed each page, and then this evening, when most of you were relaxing, I transcribed and organized the reports by candidate, and by donor in decreasing order of contributions. I'm happy to be notified of corrections. If you'd like to thank me, there's a PayPal Donate button on the home page. You're welcome.

Electronic filing would make this process easier for all concerned. A computerized web app would ensure consistency and would prompt candidates to provide all required information. John Croisant provided occupation and employer for his contributors, but not their addresses, which are also required, and yet he provided addresses for his vendors. Shane Saunders provided contributor addresses, but for many of the donors occupation and employer are "Requested," i.e., not provided. Scott Pendleton and Jerry Griffin managed to get addresses and occupations from all of their donors. Ruth Ann Fate's reports are handwritten and have addresses but not occupations or employers. Jerry Griffin was the only candidate who neglected to itemize his expenditures. [CORRECTION: Griffin says he provided itemized expenditures with his report; these are now listed below.]

The totals below are as reported on the forms. I attempted to double-check a few, but gave up, because candidates differed in how things were supposed to be totaled. John Croisant's forms misused the "Aggregate Total" column, using it for the campaign as a whole, rather than for the total for a particular contributor or vendor over the course of the campaign, and he put campaign totals in the "$50 or less boxes" at the top of the page.

Some observations, based on my many years of looking at campaign contributor lists:

John Croisant is clearly the establishment's pick in Office 5. Croisant's contributors include a who's who of Yacht Owners and Yacht Guests: former Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor; two former school board members, Cathy Newsome and Cindy Decker (Decker is now executive director of George Kaiser Family Foundation's Educare); former Cherokee Principal Chief Ross Swimmer; former Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner and Tulsa Finance Commissioner Norma Eagleton; former Oklahoma Policy Institute head David Blatt; retired oilman and major Democrat donor George Krumme; developer and Democrat donor Sharon King Davis; QuikTrip spokesman Mike Thornbrugh; donors associated with BOK Financial and with the Frederick Dorwart law firm; former Tulsa County Superintendent of Schools Kara Gae Neal, wife of retired Tulsa World editor Ken Neal; and former City Councilor Gary Watts, who now serves as the attorney for Sand Springs Public Schools.

Former school board member and GKFF Educare executive director Cindy Decker gave $100 each to John Croisant and Shane Saunders.

One small expenditure caught my eye: Croisant paid for the Democratic Party's canvassing app, which, I assume, would give his campaign access to the party's voter database.

Shane Saunders has the biggest war chest, but fewer donors. Two-thirds of his funds came from two couples: Frank and Diane Murphy of Dallas and Charles and Krista Bendana of Tulsa. Mindy Taylor, Saunders's successor as chairman of Iron Gate ministry, is one of his donors.

Scott Pendleton seems to be funded mainly by family and friends around the country, which is a typical pattern for a candidate who is running on their own initiative, rather than as the minion of the local power structure.

Ruth Ann Fate and Jerry Griffin are both the biggest donors to their own campaigns.

Contributors and vendors are from Tulsa unless otherwise noted. If you're reading this on the home page, the lists for each candidate are after the jump.

BatesLine sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for Tulsa school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The eight questions dealt with the board's authority with respect to the administration, curriculum, music, history and patriotism, the role of philanthropists, and the practical implications of transgenderism.

All four candidates running in the open Office 5 seat submitted a response, but only one of the challengers for Office 6 took the time. (Ben Croff filed for Office 5 but has withdrawn from the race, although his name will appear on the ballot.) The election district for Office 5 is shown in the map above in Harvest Gold, while Office 6 appears as Avocado Green -- very '70s colors.

The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Here is a list of the candidates, with age, address, party registration, and links to their responses, if provided. (While school board races are non-partisan, a candidate's party registration is a publicly available piece of information that I consider informative.)

Office No. 5:

• John Croisant, 42, 62 Woodward Blvd., Tulsa, OK, 74114, Democrat
• Scott Pendleton, 64, 2534 E. 45th St., Tulsa, OK, 74105, Republican
• Kelsey Royce, 37, 336 E. 45th Ct., Tulsa, OK, 74105, Democrat
• Shane Saunders, 39, 4117 S. Birmingham Ave., Tulsa, OK, 74105, Republican

Office No. 6:

• Ruth Ann Fate, 83, 7014 E. 60th St., Tulsa, OK, 74145, Democrat (Did not respond)
• Jerry Griffin, 75, 6552 E. 60th St., Tulsa, OK, 74145, Republican
• Stephen Remington, 42, 4909 E. 2nd St., Tulsa, OK, 74112, Democrat (Did not respond)

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded.

Tulsa Election District 5 is midtown Tulsa, bounded by Riverside Drive, Yale Avenue, 11th Street, and 51st Street, minus the area NW of 21st and Peoria, minus the area SE of 41st and Harvard, and plus a few streets south of I-44 between Riverside and Peoria. This is an open seat. Brian Hosmer, the appointed incumbent who replaced the winner of the 2016 election, Cindy Decker, is not running for the seat. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Scott Pendleton sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.scottpendleton.us and he has a Facebook page.

Pendleton welcomes questions from voters via email at scott@scottpendleton.us or by phone at 918-688-7318.

My questions are in bold and italics; Pendleton's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded.

Tulsa Election District 5 is midtown Tulsa, bounded by Riverside Drive, Yale Avenue, 11th Street, and 51st Street, minus the area NW of 21st and Peoria, minus the area SE of 41st and Harvard, and plus a few streets south of I-44 between Riverside and Peoria. This is an open seat. Brian Hosmer, the appointed incumbent who replaced the winner of the 2016 election, Cindy Decker, is not running for the seat. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Shane Saunders sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is shanesaunders.org and he has a Facebook page.

Saunders welcomes questions from voters via email at shane.saunders@gmail.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Saunders's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded.

Tulsa Election District 5 is midtown Tulsa, bounded by Riverside Drive, Yale Avenue, 11th Street, and 51st Street, minus the area NW of 21st and Peoria, minus the area SE of 41st and Harvard, and plus a few streets south of I-44 between Riverside and Peoria. This is an open seat. Brian Hosmer, the appointed incumbent who replaced the winner of the 2016 election, Cindy Decker, is not running for the seat. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Kelsey Royce sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. She has a campaign Facebook page.

Royce welcomes questions from voters via email at kelseyroycefordistrict5@gmail.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Royce's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in her answer.

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded.

Tulsa Election District 5 is midtown Tulsa, bounded by Riverside Drive, Yale Avenue, 11th Street, and 51st Street, minus the area NW of 21st and Peoria, minus the area SE of 41st and Harvard, and plus a few streets south of I-44 between Riverside and Peoria. This is an open seat. Brian Hosmer, the appointed incumbent who replaced the winner of the 2016 election, Cindy Decker, is not running for the seat. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

John Croisant sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.johncroisant.com, and he has a Facebook page.

Croisant welcomes questions from voters via email at john@johncroisant.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Croisant's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. Three candidates are running for Office No. 6: The incumbent of 24 years, Ruth Ann Fate, a Democrat, and two challengers, Stephen Remington, a Democrat, and Jerry Griffin, a Republican. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded. These will be posted as soon as possible.

Tulsa Election District 6 is bounded roughly by I-244, 61st Street, Yale Avenue, and 89th East Avenue, minus wedges of land NE of I-44 & 31st (around Skelly Elementary) and SW of I-44 and 41st Street (around Promenade Mall), and minus the section SW of 51st and Sheridan.

Mrs. Fate did not respond to attempts to contact her via her district email address, and she did not appear to have a web presence at the time the questionnaire was sent. Mr. Remington acknowledged the questionnaire, but refused to respond: "I apologize but I am not filling out your questionnaire. Endorsements are fine but I am not looking to get any. My campaign is not asking for donations either. Ruth Ann has not filled one out either which indicates we will not have a fair assessment of this race."

Dr. Jerry Griffin sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.drgriffinforschoolboard.com and he has a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

Griffin welcomes questions from voters via email at drgriffinforschoolboard@gmail.com or by phone at 918-521-2623.

My questions are in bold and italics; Griffin's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

This Thursday night, January 30, 2020, starting at 6 pm, the Tulsa County Republican Party will hold precinct meetings, the first stage in the process for selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention and developing a party platform. The meetings are open to all registered Republicans.

To simplify the logistics, all but four precincts will gather at twelve regional meetings, mostly at public libraries. Here is the complete list of Tulsa County Republican Party 2020 precinct meeting locations.

The Oklahoma Republican Party hold precinct meetings in every odd-numbered year for the election of precinct party officials and as the first stage in the process for electing county and state party officials, but in presidential years, the focus is on the road to the Republican National Convention.

Precinct meetings have two main orders of business:

(1) Elect delegates to the 2020 Tulsa County Republican Convention. Each precinct is allocated a number of seats to the convention based on the vote for the Republican nominee for governor in the previous election. The county convention will elect delegates to the 1st Congressional District Republican Convention and the Oklahoma State Republican Convention. The Congressional District conventions each elect three delegates and three alternates to the national convention; the remainder of our delegation is elected by the state convention, which also elects a man and a woman to represent Oklahoma for the next four years on the Republican National Committee, the party's permanent governing body.

(2) Debate and approve resolutions for inclusion in the party platform. Interested Republicans can join the Tulsa County platform committee, which takes platform planks proposed by the precincts, crafts them into a county party platform which is then debated and voted on at the county convention. County platforms are used to develop a state platform, and state platforms are used as a basis for the development of the national platform.

A precinct meeting's duration depends on the number of people who show up for a particular precinct and how many issues they want to discuss, but typically you'll be done within an hour or so.

For more information, contact the Tulsa GOP headquarters at 918-627-5702.

Governor Kevin Stitt wants to renegotiate Oklahoma's exclusivity agreement with the state's tribal governments and to increase the state's percentage of gambling revenue from tribal casinos. The original compacts, established starting in 2004, expire at the end of this year. The exclusivity fee starts at 4% for lower levels of income but maxes out at 6%. Originally covering only card games and electronic slot machines (aka one-armed bandits), the compacts were amended to permit ball and dice games, such as roulette and craps.

Here are some links to source material on the topic. I'll be on KFAQ at 8:00 Thursday morning to discuss the issue with Pat Campbell.

• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA): This is the Federal law that enables tribal casinos if a state permits the same class of gambling, provided that a compact is agreed between the tribe and the state. Here's the text of the IGRA, Public Law 100-497.
• National Indian Gaming Commission: Federal agency that administers the IGRA.
• State-Tribal Gaming Act (STGA): Oklahoma Statutes, Title 3A, Sections 261 through 282, which was passed in the 2004 Legislative Session as SB 1252 and ratified by referendum in November 2004 as SQ 712. Sections were amended in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2017, and 2018.
• Title 3A, Section 280: This section of the State-Tribal Gaming Act offers the Model Tribal Gaming Compact to all federally recognized Indian tribes and earmarks the state revenues to the general fund (12%), the Educational Reform Revolving Fund (88%), and the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for treatment of compulsive gambling ($250,000 per year).
• Title 3A, Section 280.1: Contains the supplement to the Model Tribal Gaming Compact allowing for "non-house-banked table games" that involve a wheel, ball, or dice. This was approved in 2018 as HB 3375.
• Title 3A, Section 281: This section contains the Model Tribal Gaming Compact.
• Gaming Compliance Unit (GCU): Department of the state Office of Management & Enterprise Services (OMES) responsible for enforcing the terms of the STGA
• GCU Oklahoma Indian Gaming FAQ: Useful Q&A summary of the law
• GCU list of compacted tribes: 34 federally recognized tribes currently have compacts with the state
• Oklahoma Gaming Compliance Unit FY 2018 Annual Report: Revenues with breakdowns by tribe and type of game for the year ending June 30, 2018
• data.ok.gov: Tribal Gaming Exclusivity Fees: In the first three months of FY2020, Oklahoma has collected $39,366,737 from the tribes.

The language at issue is in Part 15, Subsection B of the model compact:

B. This Compact shall have a term which will expire on January 1, 2020, and at that time, if organization licensees or others are authorized to conduct electronic gaming in any form other than pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing pursuant to any governmental action of the state or court order following the effective date of this Compact, the Compact shall automatically renew for successive additional fifteen-year terms; provided that, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of this Compact or any renewal thereof, either the tribe or the state, acting through its Governor, may request to renegotiate the terms of subsections A and E of Part 11 of this Compact.

Subsection A of Part 11 deals with exclusivity fees to be paid to the state; Subsection E of Part 11 deals with penalties that would apply to the state if the state were to allow operation of gaming machines in excess of those permitted by the STGA.

Organization licensee appears to be defined in Section 262, which refers back to Title 3A, Section 205.2, part of the Oklahoma Horse Racing Act. Here are the current Rules for Racetrack Gaming from the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission.

MORE:

Pat Campbell discusses the issue with State Sen. Nathan Dahm (starting about 4:15 before the end of the segment).
Pat Campbell discusses tribal casinos with former State Rep. Wayne Pettigrew, who was one of a handful of Republican legislators to break with their party colleagues to put gambling on the ballot in 2004.
I opposed all three gambling measures on the 2004 ballot. Click to find out why.

A 1988 episode of the BBC political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister provides an humor-laden insight into the motivations and methods of the forces that seek to squelch educational reform. Last December, EdChoice CEO Robert Enlow and Director of Policy Jason Bedrick commented on key clips from the episode and how the same motivations and methods are in use today to get between children and educational opportunity.

A full transcript of the podcast, including the Yes, Prime Minister excerpts, is available on the EdChoice website.

One of the treasures I brought home from a recent trip to England was the DVD box set of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, and we have been watching the episodes as a family. This show ought to be part of everyone's civics education, and ought to be mandatory viewing for newly elected or appointed public officials.

Antony Jay, who wrote the program with Jonathan Lynn, said that the long production schedule for each episode meant that they couldn't use topical humor as a crutch, so they opted instead for timeless themes of the inner workings of government.

"I'll tell you why it still works," says Jay. "The BBC paid us so little we couldn't afford to take an expanse of time to write the episodes. We had to fit writing in when we weren't too busy. That meant we often had to write months ahead of transmission. If you're doing that, it means you can't put in little topical jokes, like Drop the Dead Donkey did, jokes that will be funny tomorrow but meaningless months later. It meant that all our jokes were about the permanent things rather than the temporary things and they stayed relevant."

The show is centered on the relationship between Minister Jim Hacker, the elected representative of the people and nominally in charge, and Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby, the chief bureaucrat, who sees his job as placating the minister while ensuring that the experts in the civil service, insulated from the meddling of the politicians, are really running the show.

Some highlights from the episode as excerpted by EdChoice. In this scene, Prime Minister Hacker, with the help of his political adviser, Dorothy, is pitching the idea of school choice to Sir Humphrey.

Prime Minister: I've realized how to reform the education system.

Humphrey: Excellent, Prime Minister.

Prime Minister: I'm going to let parents take their children away from school, and move them to any school they want.

Humphrey: Well you mean, after application, scrutiny, tribunal hearing and appeals procedures ...

Prime Minister: No, Humphrey, just move them. Whenever they want to.

Humphrey: I'm sorry, I don't quite follow.

Dorothy: This government is going to let parents decide which schools to send their children to.

Humphrey: Prime Minister, you can't be serious.

Dorothy: Why?

Humphrey: Well, you can't expect parents to make these choices. I mean how on earth would parents know which schools are best?

Prime Minister: Which school did you go to Humphrey?

Humphrey: Winchester.

Prime Minister: Was it good?

Humphrey: Oh, excellent, of course.

Prime Minister: Who chose it?

Humphrey: My parents, naturally. Now that's different, Prime Minister. My parents were discerning people. You can't expect ordinary people to know where to send their children.

Dorothy: Why not?

Humphrey: Well, how could they tell?

Dorothy: Well, they could tell if their kids could read, write and do sums, they could tell if their neighbors were happy with the school, and they could tell if the exam results were good.

Humphrey: Exam results aren't everything, Prime Minister.

Dorothy: That's true. And those parents who don't want an academic education for their children can choose progressive schools.

Humphrey: But ... parents have no qualifications to make these choices. I mean, teachers are the professionals. Parents are the worst people to bring up children. They have no qualifications, no training. You don't expect untrained teachers to teach. The same should apply to parents....

Later Sir Humphrey, in a discussion with a fellow high-ranking bureaucrat, concludes that the school choice needs to be blocked, and they discuss the tactics they'll use.

Humphrey: But it's hard to get the Prime Minister to see that it's a bad idea.

Civil Servant: Of course. It's actually a very good idea, it just mustn't happen.

Humphrey: I wonder whether we oughtn't to play along with it. In the interests of the nation's children.

Civil Servant: Nevermind the nation's children. What about our colleagues at the Department of Education?

Humphrey: Yes of course. Sorry.

Civil Servant: Humphrey, let's be clear about this. The only people who will like this idea are the parents and the children. Everyone who counts will be against it.

Humphrey: Teacher's unions ...

Civil Servant: The local authorities ...

Humphrey: Educational press ...

Civil Servant: And of course, the DES [Department of Educational Services]. So ... what's the strategy?

Humphrey: Well the unions can be counted on to disrupt the schools ...

Civil Servant: And go on television saying it's the government who are causing the disruption.

Humphrey: Good, yes ... And the local councils will threaten to turn the constituency parties against the government.

Civil Servant: Fine ... or the Department of Education will delay every stage of the process, and leak anything that embarrasses the government.

Yes, Minister communicates public choice economics in an intuitive way that no op-ed or textbook ever can:

The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest - that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.

MORE:

The Telegraph offers the ten funniest ever Yes, Minister moments.

In 1972, Antony Jay wrote The Householder's Guide to Community Defence Against Bureaucratic Aggression. The Reason Magazine review at that link calls it "a practical well written little handbook which suggests an organizational structure and the tactics to use against planners and their projects.... Jay's brief is studded with sound advice. For example: 'hit first and hit hard,' because, he explains, you have your best chance at the very beginning of a project. Jay states the first rule of protest as: 'know precisely who your true enemies are.' While the organization charts are overly complex, this is a manual for protesters who mean business. Jay suggests 'cells' for grass roots action, funds, legal, influential allies, experts (for the attack on the concept), publicity and campaign headquarters. There is an excellent section called the 'attack on the facts'; inaccurate facts--the author claims--are the weak point of all planners' documents."

Twenty-five years later, Antony Jay updated and rebranded his advice in the book How to Beat Sir Humphrey: Every Citizen's Guide to Fighting Officialdom. The audio book is read by Derek Fowlds, who played Bernard Woolley in the series, the civil servant usually caught in the middle between the minister and Sir Humphrey.

Maybe the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and the Tulsa Police Department should have a more formal basis for making enforcement decisions than viral news stories.

This September 19, 2019, NBC News story about the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, dropping appeals to a challenge to their public nudity ordinance seems to have prompted legal discussions at Tulsa City Hall and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office.

On September 25, 2019, KOTV's Lori Fullbright posted a preview of a story that declared that Tulsa officials had decided not to enforce our state and local public nudity laws and that fairgoers could be topless as well.

Tonight, Fullbright had conflicting statements from Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado, who decided that he won't be enforcing Oklahoma's public nudity laws and the City of Tulsa, first announcing that public nudity laws would not be enforced, and then reversing course.

I saw several reports on social media of topless women near the Fairgrounds, and I had a sighting myself, around 7 pm tonight -- a woman in jean shorts and flip flops, and nothing else, walking down Yale Avenue past Memorial Baptist Church.

All of the confusion might have been averted if our city and county officials had bothered to consult the actual court records, which took me a few minutes to locate online. (Tenth Circuit opinions are here. Eighth Circuit opinions are here. Dockets and filings in federal district and appeals court cases can be found at the US Courts PACER website, for which registration is required.) It would also help if our local officials had the courage to recognize and resist federal rulings that amount to legislation from the bench.

No final ruling has been issued by any federal judge on the constitutionality of the Fort Collins city ordinance, and no ruling will be issued. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent Fort Collins from enforcing the law while the case was pending, and Federal District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, a Harvard Law grad and Obama appointee, granted it. The City of Fort Collins appealed the injunction, but a bare 2-1 majority of a three-judge 10th Circuit panel upheld the injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court. The City of Fort Collins entered a stipulation that made the District Judge's injunction permanent, and the case was terminated.

Here is the case summary from the panel's majority opinion (emphasis added):

The city of Fort Collins, Colorado, enacted a public-nudity ordinance that imposes no restrictions on male toplessness but prohibits women from baring their breasts below the areola. See Fort Collins, Colo., Mun. Code § 17-142 (2015). In response, Free the Nipple, an unincorporated association, and two individuals, Brittiany Hoagland and Samantha Six (collectively, "the Plaintiffs"), sued the City in federal district court. They alleged (among other things) that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and they asked for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the ordinance. The district court agreed. It enjoined the City, pending the resolution of the case's merits, from implementing the ordinance "to the extent that it prohibits women, but not men, from knowingly exposing their breasts in public." Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1135 (D. Colo. 2017). The City then brought this interlocutory appeal to challenge the injunction.

The appeal presents a narrow question: Did the district court reversibly err in issuing the preliminary injunction? We answer no. Exercising interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we affirm the district court's judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The majority opinion was written by Gregory Phillips, an Obama appointee. He was joined in his opinion by a Clinton appointee, Mary Beck Briscoe.

Harris Hartz, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a dissenting opinion, attacking the plaintiff's objection that the law enshrines culturally-conditioned stereotypes that have no scientific basis.

Further, even if notions of the erotic are purely culturally based, it is unclear why that is relevant to the validity of indecency laws. The purpose of those laws is to reduce antisocial behavior. Such laws must deal with the real world. Legislation itself is rational even if the behavior it attempts to control is irrational (such as sexual assault purportedly caused by objectification of the female body). What would be the state of society if legislation could control only rational behavior? A regulation designed to reduce the antisocial effects of irrational thinking does not constitute an endorsement of that irrational thinking. Are laws regulating pornography and obscenity invalid if the societal harms they are intended to prevent are caused by cultural influences rather than purely biological ones? The only assumption about men and women underlying the Ordinance is that because of the erotic potential of female breasts, their public exposure will induce misconduct.

Earlier today, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter weighed in on the matter, pointing out that other Federal courts had upheld similar laws:

"The Tenth Circuit's preliminary decision in the Fort Collins case - a case that has now ended without a full adjudication - does not change local and state laws in Oklahoma on the subject," Hunter said in a statement.

The city of Fort Collins declined to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court....

Hunter said the 10th Circuit's ruling is out of line with most court rulings on the topic.

"The majority of courts around the country that have examined this issue have upheld traditional public decency and public nudity laws," Hunter said. "These courts have recognized that states and political subdivisions have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public nudity as traditionally defined."...

Oklahoma City's public indecency rules ban women from going topless in public.

A spokeswoman for Oklahoma City police said the appellate court's ruling is specific to Fort Collins, Colorado and does not apply in Oklahoma. City police will continue to enforce public indecency laws as outlined by state law and city ordinance, said police Sgt. Megan Morgan.

"Someone in OKC who is in violation of the law could be cited and/or jailed as this is a misdemeanor crime," she said.

One contemporaneous example is a case (Case No. 15-3467-CV-S-B) brought against Springfield, Missouri, by the local chapter of Free the Nipple, with the help of the state chapter of the ACLU. The case was heard by Beth Phillips, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, an Obama appointee. Springfield tightened its public nudity ordinance in September 2015. FTN filed a suit the following month. Springfield modified its ordinance in March 2016. FTN amended its complaint to challenge the revised ordinance. The 2016 ordinance was upheld by Judge Phillips, then upheld on appeal in July 2019 by a unanimous three-judge panel in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: Chief Judge Lavenski Smith and William Duane Benton, appointed by George W. Bush, and David Stras, appointed by Donald Trump. You can read the appeals court ruling in Free the Nipple v. Springfield here. The court cited Ways v. City of Lincoln, issued in 2003, as precedent and wrote:

Springfield's ordinance is substantially related to its important governmental interests in promoting public decency and proscribing public nudity to protect morals, public order, health, and safety.

The injunction of the 10th Circuit panel is an attack on the right of American communities to govern themselves. It is an effort to impose San Francisco's perverted moral notions on Sallisaw.

I am reminded that this is the sort of outcome that Phyllis Schlafly warned would occur if we ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. ERA opponents warned that ratifying the ERA would abolish the right of the American people, through their elected representatives, to draw distinctions between men and women where appropriate. And so the ERA fell short of the required number of states for ratification, despite Congress extending the original ratification period. Nevertheless, the unaccountable federal courts have chosen to impose their moral vision on the people of the United States, implementing the ERA through the back door of judicial activism.

The Eighth Circuit now has 11 judges appointed by Republicans and only one appointed by a Democrat, Barack Obama. The Tenth Circuit has seven Democrat-appointed judges and five Republican-appointed judges. I can think of two Tenth Circuit judges and a Colorado federal district judge that need to be impeached.

You'd think they'd give up, at long last, but advocates of the National Popular Vote compact continue to lobby Oklahoma legislators to agree to enslave our electoral vote to that of higher-population states on the coasts.

Jamison Faught, the Muskogee Politico, recently dug through the legislators' financial disclosure statements for 2017 and 2018 and found that the NPV lobbyists continue to fund junkets for Oklahoma legislators to attend "seminars" for the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections (IRPE), a front group for NPV.

All told, since December 2017, IRPE and the National Popular Vote effort have doled out at least $47,017.53 to bring 8 GOP Senators, 7 GOP Representatives, 7 Democratic Senators, 5 Democratic Representatives, and one Democratic legislative staff member to their conferences in Utah, California, Colorado, and Massachusetts, and New York.

That's 20% of the Senate GOP caucus, and almost a full third of the entire Senate.

At the link you'll find the full list of legislators and the amounts they received from IRPE/NPV.

Faught also has statements from Greg Treat, President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate, and Lieutenant Governor Matt Pinnell, who serves ex officio as President of the State Senate, both expressing firm opposition to NPV. Treat was one of a minority of sensible "no" votes when NPV passed the State Senate in 2014. As State Party Director for the Republican National Committee since 2013, and not long after his stint as OKGOP chairman, Pinnell expressed strong opposition to NPV in this January 2015 piece in The Okie. (Faught is still awaiting comments from Gov. Kevin Stitt and House Speaker Charles McCall.)

From Faught's list, it may be that NPV advocates hope that a near-unanimous vote from Democrats plus a sufficient number of squishy Republicans will put them over the top. If our Republican legislative supermajorities were filled with principled, intelligent legislators, I wouldn't worry. Unfortunately, establishment RINOs teamed with public-sector unions to drive many of our principled, intelligent legislators out of office in last year's elections.

Keep your eye on the Muskogee Politico blog for further developments.

BACKGROUND:

BatesLine has been following NPV for over six years. On February 20, 2013, the Oklahoma State Senate Rules Committee forwarded SB 906 with a "Do Pass" recommendation. The bill sat dormant for a full year, when it was hastily taken up on February 12, 2014, and passed by a 28-18 vote, including 16 Republicans. The subsequent outcry caused several state senators to recant their support. We learned soon after that legislators had been taken on junkets to south Florida, Scottsdale, Arizona, Las Vegas, Puerto Rico, and St. Croix. The bill died in the State House committee, but Gov. Mary Fallin refused to take a firm stand in opposition. That autumn, an NPV lobbyist, Ray Haynes, began meeting with grassroots activists prior to the 2015 legislative session, in order to neutralize opposition prior to the bill's reintroduction in the following session. Perhaps because of public outcry, the 2015 bills never made it out of committee. Although every county in Oklahoma voted for the Republican nominee for the fourth straight election in 2016, NPV pushers have resumed their efforts with Oklahoma legislators, including a 2017 Christmastime junket to New York City.

MORE:

OCPA Executive VP Trent England, director of the Save Our States project, participated in a recent debate over the Electoral College and National Popular Vote at the Cooper Union in New York City. One of his debate opponents is John Koza, the inventor of the lottery scratch-off ticket who has bankrolled much of the NPV push. Here's the video:

UPDATE: Generally a good outcome. David McLain was elected chairman. Former State Rep. Mike Turner was elected vice chairman. All of the rule changes were thrown out because outgoing state chairman Pam Pollard failed to provide the proposals to delegates by the 10-day deadline. Platform was on the agenda and approved without debate prior to the election of chairman and vice chairman. Hat tip to Katrina Crumbacher of the newly launched Oklahoma City Journal for covering the convention on Twitter. The usual GOP convention tweeps (myself and Muskogee Politico Jamison Faught) weren't there this year.

Saturday morning, April 6, 2019, Oklahoma Republicans will assemble in Moore to select a new state chairman and vice chairman and to vote on a platform and changes to the permanent state party rules. Unusually, the rules changes are the most important items on the agenda, as several proposals would further weaken an organization that is already ineffective in promoting a conservative governing agenda at the State Capitol.

I'm a delegate to the 2019 Oklahoma Republican State Convention, but because of a family obligation, I won't be in attendance. Nevertheless, as a few friends have asked for my thoughts about the chairman's election and other issues before the convention, here they are in summary, with details below. In the interest of time, I'm releasing brief recommendations now and will add details as I have time.

• State Chairman: David McLain
• State Vice Chairman: No recommendation
• Rule Change #1: YES. Dec 31 registration requirement for party officers:
• Rule Change #2: NO. Binds RNC members to Oklahoma primary winner at national convention
• Rule Change #3: NO. Allows budget committee to long-term contracts with consultants and other vendors.
• Rule Change #4: NO. Allows state executive committee to hire an executive director.
• Rule Change #5: NO. Makes state executive committee the supreme governing body of the state party, and changes its membership. Changes authority of budget committee.
• Rule Change #6: YES. Requires platform committee report to be taken up as first order of business at the state convention.
• Rule Change #7: Undecided. Blocks defeated platform floor amendments from being considered at subsequent conventions.
• Rule Change #8: YES. No quorum call allowed at convention.
• Rule Change #9: YES. Codifies rule that independents not permitted to vote in Republican primaries.
• Rule Change #10, #11, #12: YES, but amended. Candidates must mark up copy of state platform.

Of the three announced candidates for State Chairman, I would support recent Tulsa County Chairman David McLain. I appreciate his emphasis on shining a light on local, elections and facilitating the efforts of conservative Republicans to win seats on school boards and city councils. In a candidate forum before the Tulsa Area Republican Assembly (click to watch the video on Facebook), McLain was the only candidate to discuss the role of State Chairman as an advocate for the party platform with elected officials. He spoke of going to the State Capitol during last year's tax-increase debate to speak with legislators and remind them of their promises to Republican voters back home. He was able to get a hearing with them, because he had already built relationships with Tulsa County legislators. McLain strikes me as someone who can handle both the practicalities of running a party organization while not forgetting platform and principles, without which there is no motivation to give or get involved in the party.

McLain's opponents are recent Oklahoma County Chairman Daren Ward and Darren Gantz. In the TARA forum, both Ward and Gantz focused solely on electing anyone who happened to have an R after his name on the ballot. Yes, the party leadership needs to win elections, but winning elections should ultimately be in the service of enacting a platform of policies.

Regarding Gantz, I'll repeat what I wrote last year, when he ran for Tulsa County Assessor:

Gantz disappointed me in recent years and lost my trust as he assisted the efforts of the Leftist-founded and Leftist-funded National Popular Vote movement to make inroads among grassroots conservative activists. You may recall that NPV (which would have given Oklahoma's electoral votes to Hillary Clinton, had it passed) passed the State Senate in 2014, but was blocked in the House after an outcry by grassroots activists. Several state senators later recanted their support. Gantz's efforts were aimed at undermining grassroots opposition to this scheme to bypass the Constitution's Electoral College, so that the next time lobbyists tried to push NPV through the Legislature, legislators wouldn't be deterred by constituent backlash. If Oklahoma were to fall to NPV, NPV lobbyists could point to our example to persuade other conservative states to follow suit with this plan to undermine our constitutional method of electing a president. (Click this link for more about why Gantz's efforts were so dangerous.)

I don't have an opinion on the vice chairman's race. I've received mailers from two candidates.

Several changes to the permanent state party rules have been forwarded from the counties for consideration at by the state convention. Three proposals, numbers 3, 4, and 5, are intended to strip

Rule Change #1, from Harmon County: YES.Require party officers and committee members to have been registered as Republicans by December 31 of the year preceding the election or appointment. Currently, you could theoretically be a registered Democrat one day and Republican State Chairman the next. I would vote YES.

Rule Change #2, from Harmon County: NO. Bind the three Republican National Committee members, who serve as ex officio delegates to the Republican National Convention, to vote for the majority-winner in the Oklahoma Presidential Primary, and increase the threshold for allocation from 15 to 20 percent. I would vote NO.

Rule Change #3, from Harmon County: NO. Authorize the Budget Committee of the state party to enter into long-term contracts with vendors, contracts that a later state chairman would be unable to end. This change would also require hiring of an Executive Director. This provision would allow certain connected political consultants to be locked in to state GOP contracts, and grassroots Republicans would be stuck with them, even if they are incompetent or working against Republican interests. I would vote NO.

Rule Change #4, from Noble County: NO. Authorizes the State Executive Committee to hire an Executive Director to run the party day-to-day. This, in combination with proposed Rule Change #5, would effectively sideline the grassroots-elected State Chairman and the State Committee, which is dominated by grassroots-elected county party officials, in favor of an Executive Committee dominated by elected officials.

Rule Change #5, from Noble County: NO. Changes the composition of the State Executive Committee to be more heavily weighted toward elected officials and makes the State Executive Committee the supreme governing body of the party, ousting the State Committee from that role. Again, this rule change sidelines the chairman, vice chairman, and the county party officials who are elected by the ordinary Republican voters who attend precinct caucuses and county conventions. Currently the executive committee serves as an advisory board to the state chairman, and the chairman and vice chairman nominate 10 at-large members. These at-large positions would be given instead to any Republican members of the congressional delegation -- six at the moment -- with the remainder left to the chairman and vice chairman. The two Republican legislative caucus leaders would be added to the Executive Committee; the highest-ranking Republican in each house is already a member. The rule change also changes the powers of the State Budget Committee. This proposed amendment is a move to diminish the influence of grassroots Republicans on the party organization.

Rule Change #6, from Tulsa County: YES. Moves the platform committee report, typically the last item considered at the state convention, to the top of the agenda. This is in response to parliamentary shenanigans by Republican operatives and elected officials who would rather the party didn't have any principles at all. In years past, the platform committee's hard work has been tossed in the trash when a quorum call is made after many delegates start to leave for home at the end of a long day. The hope is that, by making this the first order of business, the platform will receive the attention it deserves.

Rule Change #7, from Oklahoma County: Undecided. Would prohibit a platform amendment from being brought to the floor if it had been considered and defeated at the two immediately previous state conventions. This would not prohibit the resolution from reaching the platform via the platform committee. I was opposed at first blush, but there may be some merit. I would want to hear debate on this issue before deciding.

Rule Change #8, from Tulsa County: YES. This would prohibit the use of a quorum call as a parliamentary maneuver to avoid taking up business on the agenda. Once the convention is convened, the agenda goes forward to completion, even if delegates begin to leave after their agenda items of interest are complete. The motivation is the same as Rule Change #6, to thwart a ploy that has been used in years past to block consideration of the proposed state platform.

Rule Change #9, from Tulsa County: YES. Prohibits independents from voting in Republican primaries, runoffs, or party elections. State law recently changed to allow parties to permit voters registered as independent to vote in their primaries. The Oklahoma Democratic Party now permits independents to vote in Democrat primaries. The Oklahoma Republican Party has not allowed this, and this change would codify that position in state party rules. A party's representative in an election should be chosen by voters who have at least made the very minimal commitment to register as a member of the party.

Rule Changes #10, #11, #12, from Cimarron, Choctaw, and Tulsa Counties: YES, but amended. Three counties passed an identical proposed amendment to the rules:

Rule 19 (i) Disclosure of Agreement of Candidates with Our Platform: For a Republican candidate for elective office to receive the endorsement and support of the Oklahoma Republican Party, he must read and mark up a copy of the current Oklahoma Republican Platform, indicating his agreement or disagreement with each plank with explanation as necessary, and make it available for review at the state Party office.

Legislators hate this idea. It would put them on the record on every issue in the platform, giving campaign fodder to Democratic opponents. Grassroots activists love this idea, because helps them figure out which primary candidates are worthy of their support. In this time when it's politically advantageous to run as a Republican, we need a tool to discern which candidates are committed to the party's philosophy and which are merely opportunists.

In order for this proposal to help weed out the RINOs without hurting good Republican candidates, the platform needs to be much more concise. I would propose amending the proposal with the requirement that the platform be no more than eight letter-size pages, in 10-point font with one-inch margins. This year's proposed platform is 35 pages long! Without a length constraint, the platform committee is susceptible to logrolling: I won't object to a plank on your obscure pet issue if you don't object to mine. The remedy is a page limitation, with page budgets for each section. This gives subcommittees and the committee as a whole an incentive to weed out obscurities and focus on those planks which speak to broad principles and which enjoy broad agreement. When I served as Tulsa County platform chairman in 2003, we used page limitations to reduce a 40+ page document (if I recall correctly) to 8 pages, and everyone in the committee felt that their issues had been heard and were pleased with the outcome. So yes, let's require candidates who want party support to tell us where they stand, but let's give them a more carefully crafted and concise platform to respond to.

Mollie Z. Hemingway asks, regarding the unraveling of the mainstream media narrative about activist Nathan Phillips and his confrontation last weekend with the young men of Covington Catholic School:

The thing I keep thinking about: if many media types are dishonest about reporting contradicted and shown to be dangerously false by hours of extensive video evidence, how astronomically much are they misreporting their claims based on absolutely nothing but anonymous sources?

To which Just Tom replied:

Tom's Test: Pick a subject you absolutely are an expert in. Review the media coverage of that subject. Ask yourself, if the media has that record in something you know about, what is their probable record in subjects you aren't an expert in?

Which is another way of phrasing the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, as defined by bestselling author Michael Crichton:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray [Gell-Mann]'s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

You can extend the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect beyond one's area of expertise to events one has personally witnessed. Some of us who have attended a public hearing have read or watched news reports of the hearing and wondered whether the reporter was even present. Or perhaps the reporter was just so ignorant of the relevant laws and procedures that he didn't understand which parts of the hearing mattered and why.

But after you've encountered a number of these disconnects between what you know to be true and how it's being reported, you notice a pattern: The "mistakes" always seem to run in one direction. The reporters and editors choose to publish stories and to report only those elements of a story advance a particular narrative. Like any good fiction writer, they choose adjectives and adverbs that will induce a particular emotional reaction to the characters in the story and the issues at stake.

If subject-matter experts and engaged citizens are susceptible to Gell-Mann Amnesia as they read and watch the news, how much more are the bulk of voters who don't have an area of personal knowledge or expertise that might tip them off to the possible inaccuracy of what they see in the news?

The classic example here in Tulsa was the years-long effort to portray Tulsa City Councilors as useless, bickering wretches. Those of us who attended City Hall hearings and townhall meetings knew that in fact the councilors targeted by the Whirled and other outlets were heroically fighting for the interests of homeowners and taxpayers against entrenched special interests. But engaged citizens are always a minority in any election, and the proportion of voters with first-hand knowledge of City Hall and their city councilor was diluted by the 2011 gerrymander and further diluted by the move of city elections to the same date as state and federal elections. The voters without that first-hand knowledge of City Hall knew only the "bickering" narrative promoted by the local media and reinforced by campaign material funded by those same special interests.

When I was researching my article on the brief existence of Swanson County, I was struck by the open partisanship displayed by the newspapers of 1910. The Kiowa County Democrat in Snyder carried lengthy front page articles arguing for the creation of the new county and attacking the arguments of the naysayers. As the Swanson County Democrat, the paper was unabashed in taking Snyder's side in the dispute over the location of the county seat. If you wanted to read anything positive about Mountain Park or about the sheriff (the lone elected official who stayed put in Mountain Park), you weren't going to read it in the Democrat. The reader was better served by the blatant and unabashed bias on display than the veneer of neutrality adopted by modern media outlets to hide the narrative they seek to push; the reader of a century ago would have been under no illusion that the paper would give him both sides of the story and would have known to look to other sources to round out his view of an issue.

The Covington Catholic / Nathan Phillips story is helpful in reminding a broader swath of news consumers to be skeptical of what media outlets are trying to feed them. The existence of multiple video sources, longer than the original viral video, uncut, and from multiple vantage points, shifted the question from "Aren't these MAGA-hat kids horrible?" to "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" Let's hope that the experience overcomes the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect and inspires a skepticism that extends even to stories for which there is no video and to news outlets of every medium from the global to the local.

RELATED:

In 2017, a former Oklahoman researching a story for the Guardian contacted me, claiming to want an informed conservative perspective on Oklahoma's budget problems. My answers didn't fit his preferred narrative, so he reduced my hundreds of words of analysis, offered in good faith, to a dismissive phrase set in a misleading context. Lesson learned.

Dan Levin from the New York Times got severely "ratioed" when he posted the following Tweet:

I'm a New York Times reporter writing about #exposechristianschools. Are you in your 20s or younger who went to a Christian school? I'd like to hear about your experience and its impact on your life. Please DM me.

Alumni of evangelical and Catholic schools and from the Christian homeschooling movement quickly responded to say positive things about their educational experience and at the same time cast doubt on Levin's good faith, based on his Twitter timeline to that point. The assumption was that he would minimize or exclude positive testimonies in favor of those that could be used to paint Christian education in a negative light, in an attempt to build popular support for legal attacks on Christian education. I paged through Levin's previous retweets from the #exposechristianschools hashtag and all that I found were negative about Christian education. Since the above tweet appeared and received an overwhelmingly negative reaction, Levin has retweeted at least as many positive testimonies of Christian education as negative.

(In Twitter parlance, ratioed refers to the ratio of the number of replies to the number of likes and retweets, with the assumption that replies are generally negative reaction, while likes are positive, as, generally, are retweets, although Twitter users may retweet an item accompanied by a negative comment. In this case, as I write this, there were 9.2K replies to 2,002 likes, and 1,192 retweets, or roughly a 3:1 negative ratio.)

The #ExposeChristianSchools hashtag started to trend after news that Karen Pence, wife of the Vice President, was returning to teach at a Christian school which upholds Biblical views on marriage and sex, something regarded as a scandal by the Left. At 12:39 a.m. on January 20, I noticed that the "Top" 20 tweets for that hashtag had likes and retweets in the single and low-double digits, while responses favorable to Christian schools had been pushed down. The maximum number likes of any tweet in the "Top" 20 was 57, while the tweet ranked 21st had over 17000 likes, followed by more favorable tweets with thousands of likes. It appeared that someone at Twitter was manually tweaking the algorithm to favor opinions condemning Christian schools.

Rod Dreher points out that Levin had been tweeting such articles as an attack on the Home School Legal Defense Alliance. Dreher writes, "The New York Times is trying to gin up anti-Christian hatred," and notes that this sort of thing may push more Trump-hostile or -ambivalent Christians into supporting his re-election in 2020:

A Christian friend who has been a very strong opponent of Trump, but publicly and privately, these past few years, texted to say that the Levin tweet, and what it represents, has forced him to think that he might have to vote for Trump in 2020 simply because the hatred of the Left is so frightening.

MORE:

This recent New Yorker story by Jill Lepore traces the evolution of American journalism from the strongly partisan press of the 19th century, the shift to just-the-facts reporting for a mass audience in the early 20th century, the move to a more adversarial and interpretive role beginning in the 1960s, the failures of newspapers to recognize the business opportunities and dangers of the Internet, and the influence of Facebook, Google, and click-tracking on editorial judgment. She bookends the historical sketch with homey reminiscences of helping with her family's paper route delivering the Worcester Telegraph and Gazette in the 1970s. About the current state of play, Lepore writes:

All kinds of editorial decisions are now outsourced to Facebook's News Feed, Chartbeat, or other forms of editorial automation, while the hands of many flesh-and-blood editors are tied to so many algorithms. For one reason and another, including twenty-first-century journalism's breakneck pace, stories now routinely appear that might not have been published a generation ago, prompting contention within the reportorial ranks....

There's plenty of room to argue over these matters of editorial judgment. Reasonable people disagree. Occasionally, those disagreements fall along a generational divide. Younger journalists often chafe against editorial restraint.... Sometimes younger people are courageous and sometimes they are heedless and sometimes those two things are the same....

In the age of Facebook, Chartbeat, and Trump, legacy news organizations, hardly less than startups, have violated or changed their editorial standards in ways that have contributed to political chaos and epistemological mayhem.

At NiemanLab, Brian Moritz warns that the "subscriptionpocalypse" is about to hit, and that's bad news for local newspapers.

Eventually, consumers' subscription budgets hit a wall. We can't assume people are going to subscribe to everything. You can't expect people to subscribe to their local paper (which is vital to democracy, we tell them) AND The New York Times and the Washington Post (because Democracy Dies in the Dark) AND Netflix AND Hulu AND HBO Go AND The Athletic AND ESPN Plus AND their favorite podcast on Patreon AND ...

I found that item from this thread by journalism professor Jeremy Littau, tracing the financial decline of newspapers to the 1970s, as subscription rates year over year began to drop, and as chains began to gobble up local newspapers and take on massive debt in the process. Also discussed: The insane profit margins once enjoyed by local papers, the advent of free online classifieds, hedge funds buying and stripping papers for assets, the demographic time bomb -- newspaper readers are dying off and not being replaced, non-profit journalism as a possible way to sustain local accountability. Littau's conclusion: "The seeds were planted long ago by greedy, short-sighted owners."

Littau linked to the Trusting News project, which is researching why readers don't trust journalists and working with newspapers to develop and test strategies for rebuilding trust.

In his thread, Littau also wrote:

What I'd implore you to do, though, is look for ways to invest in local news because that is where it matters most. Good god, you think Washington is corrupt? Try City Hall. Some of the worst stuff I saw as a reporter happened there.

But if local paper ownership is involved with local corruption, what then? A bit later, KTUL tweeted the stub of an AP piece on a new documentary lionizing New York City columnists Jimmy Breslin and Pete Hamill:

The two men embodied a time when New York was a rollicking and complicated place, and each lived for the streets and stories of the little guys who made the city run. Every city had their own Breslins or Hamills, who made the powerful tremble and shake their fists. Their newspapers were required reading.

Yet a string of layoffs at media companies this week illustrates the peril faced by local journalism today that has made "truth to power" newspaper columnists an endangered species.

This may not have been the case in New York with Breslin and Hamill, but how often, in smaller cities, were "truth to power" columnists in the local paper really attack dogs used to tear down activists, reformer elected officials, and whistleblowers who threatened taxpayer-funded gravy trains for the publisher and his cronies?

In the summer of 1983, I was in Manila,and the English language newspapers were filled with op-eds and news analysis pieces about this corrupt murderer named Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, who was threatening to return to the Philippines. Some columnists treated him as a danger to the republic, some treated him as a laughing stock, but if you had taken them at face value, you wouldn't have known that Ninoy's real problem was that his popularity posed a threat to Ferdinand Marcos's hold on power.

UPDATE:

One of Nick Sandmann's lawyers has assembled a 15 minute video montage showing what happened at the Lincoln Memorial:

Polls are open Tuesday, November 6, 2018, until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see. Here is the complete list of offices and issues on Tuesday's ballot across Oklahoma.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma general election on November 6, 2018. Click the hyperlink on the office to see detailed information on that race and its candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

As I post this, there are other races I had planned to write about in detail, but time is short, people are voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold.

1st Congressional District: Kevin Hern. For all my misgivings about Hern and the depth of his conservative convictions, there's no doubt that he's more conservative than his Democrat opponent. I don't want Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House, but that will happen if Republicans can't hang onto Oklahoma's 1st District.

Governor: Kevin Stitt. As a successful business owner, Stitt has had to make decisions, pick a course amidst uncertainty and commit to it. Drew Edmondson abused his power as Attorney General to persecute people who were working to defend the interests of Oklahoma taxpayers and property owners.

Attorney General: Mike Hunter. I'm aware of the concerns about Mike Hunter's performance as acting AG. But in a time when freedom of conscience is under attack, particularly with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, we need an Attorney General who will stand up for our rights.

Auditor and Inspector: Cindy Byrd. Byrd is a solid professional auditor who has served under and been endorsed by Gary Jones, the most efficient and aggressive State Auditor Oklahoma has ever had.

Lt. Governor: Matt Pinnell
Superintendent of Public Instruction: John Cox
Labor Commissioner: No recommendation
Corporation Commissioner: Bob Anthony