Oklahoma Politics: September 2014 Archives

Despite the outcry over the passage of SB 906 in the Oklahoma State Senate, a bill that would have subscribed the Reddest State in the Nation to a plan to undermine the constitutional method of electing presidents, advocates of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact haven't given up on putting Oklahoma's scalp on their trophy wall.

Earlier this year, an outcry from grassroots activists and Republican party leaders stopped SB 906 from advancing any further, notwithstanding the money NPV spent flying legislators to tropical junkets. A number of senators who voted in favor recanted their support.

The bill died in a State House committee, but it wasn't killed. Ignoring pleas from activists, Gov. Mary Fallin refused to take a stand on the issue.

The out-of-state liberals pushing for NPV now appear to have adopted a new strategy: Meet with conservative activists and, if they can't persuade the activists to change their minds, at least confuse them enough to mute their criticism the next time the bill comes before the legislature.

Earlier this week I received word from some local conservative volunteers that former California Assemblyman and State Senator Ray Haynes is meeting with activists and asking for introductions to others. The twice-divorced Haynes, now a paid consultant for National Popular Vote, met with them at a local chain restaurant. They said he seemed quite sincere and even prayed with them at the beginning of their meeting. Haynes had a conservative voting record in California, which gives him some credibility with conservatives that someone like Saul Anuzis didn't have. NPV backers were smart to hire someone like him, even though internet and newspaper database searches turn up questions about the circumstances under which his marriages ended and the timeliness of child support payments.

Haynes was a candidate for Congress this year in California's 36th District. He finished third in the all-party primary, behind a Democrat and another Republican. He loaned his campaign $14,761 and only raised $3,150 from contributors. The contributions allowed his campaign to repay Haynes $1065.50.

Haynes's top contributor, maxing out at $2,600, was John Koza, the Chairman of National Popular Vote. Koza, a generous political donor and an elector for Al Gore in 2000, normally gives his money to the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($32,400 this cycle), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($30,800 this cycle), and "super PACs" supporting Democrats (e.g., $50,000 to the Senate Majority PAC). About a month before his contribution to Haynes, Koza gave $5000 to EMILY's List, the pro-abortion PAC.

In fact, an OpenSecrets.org search seems to show that Haynes is the only Republican federal candidate in over 20 years that Koza has supported with a donation.

Anyone cooperating with NPV or its lobbyists is no friend of the Constitution. The NPV compact takes a backdoor approach to changing the Constitutional method of electing our president.

For the full rundown on what's wrong with National Popular Vote, see my article from February, and follow the links to read critiques of NPV from the OCPA, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and others, and learn more about the left-wingers who head up the national effort to ram this idea through. I won't repeat all those points, but I will repeat one argument and expand upon it:

Under the electoral college system, state boundaries serve as firewalls limiting the effect of voter fraud. Right now, it doesn't matter how many cemetery residents vote in Chicago, at worst it means the Democrats win Illinois by a wider margin. NPV would demolish the firewalls between the states, allowing fraudulent votes in liberal states with weak election integrity measures (no voter ID, all-electronic voting) to cancel legitimate votes in conservative states like Oklahoma with strong election integrity measures like voter ID and paper ballots.

Many years ago, Haynes favored an idea that would have created more firewalls against voter fraud: Awarding one of California's electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district, and two to the statewide winner, following the practice of Maine and Nebraska, rather than winner-take-all. That plan would give more of a voice to conservative sections of states dominated by a few big, left-wing cities. (This plan has its own flaws, given the tendency of politicians to gerrymander congressional district boundaries.)

But the NPV plan Haynes now backs would allow a candidate to run up the score in a handful of high-population left-leaning metro areas with the assistance of clueless or possibly corrupt local election officials. Why Haynes would do a 180 on this issue is an interesting question.

Fair warning: Anyone who assists NPV or its lobbyists in making connections so they can sell this diabolical plan to conservative activists is going on a BatesLine-maintained list, and it's not a good one. Naivete is no longer an excuse.

Friday, at Americans for Prosperity's Defending the American Dream Summit in Dallas, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt sat down with the BatesLine team for a wide-ranging conversation about the issues that his office is pursuing on behalf of Oklahomans. Pruitt discussed the EPA's proposed expansion of the definition of "waters of the United States" which would put vast new territories under EPA regulation, the role and responsibilities of a state attorney general, and recent events affecting school choice and curriculum in Oklahoma. Pruitt also spoke at a panel discussion on the legal status of Obamacare and addressed a dinner for Oklahoma's 200 conferees, in which he also discussed the IRS's settlement of a lawsuit with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, affecting church tax exemptions and freedom of religion.

This entry is the first in a series. Many thanks to Americans for Prosperity Oklahoma and AFPOK Executive Director John Tidwell for the opportunity to attend and for arranging the interview with Attorney General Pruitt.

Earlier in the day, Pruitt addressed a well-attended panel session on Obamacare, its effects, and its legal status. His fellow panel members included Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute, Christina Herrera of the Foundation for Government Accountability, and Simon Conway, British refugee and talk show host at WHO in Des Moines, who told us how the UK's National Health Service killed his father.

Pruitt spoke about Oklahoma's lawsuit, Oklahoma v. Burwell and Lew, which George Will has called the most consequential Obamacare case still pending. Oklahoma contends that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize IRS and HHS to grant subsidies or impose mandates in states that have not set up an exchange. Pruitt reviewed the timeline of Obamacare's passage and the importance of the "four little words" in Section 1311 -- "established by the state" -- to corralling the votes necessary to get Obamacare through the U. S. Senate. The four words were intended to give states the incentive to set up exchanges, but 34 states have refused.

Pruitt noted that, because Oklahoma's challenge was still at the District Court level when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in NFIB v. Sibelius, Oklahoma was able to amend its suit. The focus of Oklahoma's case is not constitutional, but rather that the Federal Government's implementation of the law is in violation of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

At the moment, the case sits in the Eastern District of Oklahoma before Judge Ronald A. White. Asked by OCPAC's Charlie Meadows about the delay, Pruitt said it may be because the judge was waiting to see what the District of Columbia Circuit Court would do with Halbig v. Burwell. A panel of three judges in the DC Circuit Court ruled 2-1 that the plain language of the law authorized the subsidies and mandates only in states that established exchanges, in accord with Oklahoma's arguments. The ruling is stayed pending further appeals.

If Oklahoma's case is successful, Pruitt said that the very fines that Hobby Lobby had been facing had it lost its case ($1.2 million a day) would be overturned. The employer mandate is invalid in Oklahoma because Oklahoma has not set up an exchange.

MORE from my notes: During his morning presentation, Pruitt harked back to his service as a policymaker in the State Senate and pointed out that "health insurance does not equate to health care." Politicians like to brag about expanding coverage and eligibility, but "at the end of the day, you have to have a physician... willing to be paid for the service to deliver the care that's needed for that patient." Politicians can expand eligibility, but if reimbursement rates are too low, you have the kind of access problems we see in the UK. "We as conservatives need to remind the left that just by expanding health insurance doesn't mean that you've actually solved health outcomes." Pruitt said we also need to keep in mind that when the payor primarily becomes the government, medical inflation skyrockets.

During our interview, Pruitt elaborated on that point: The more government has become involved as payor, the system has become more bureaucratic, more costly, with a lower quality of care. He recalled Oklahoma's expansion of Medicaid eligibility under the Federal SCHIP program for families up to 200% of the poverty level, but at that time, as he remembers it, only two pediatricians in Tulsa were providing care under that program's reimbursement rates. More kids were eligible, but they couldn't get into see the doctor.

Pruitt asked why, if we had a system covering 85% of the public, we had to remake the system for 100%, rather than find a way that met the needs of the remaining 15%. The Obamacare system is moving us toward a two-tier system like that of the UK where your mandatory taxes and premiums pay for an insufficient service that limits access, but those who can afford to pay more can access higher-quality health care in a timely fashion. I pointed out that that's not unlike our two-tier education system, where parents who want better for their children pay twice -- tuition on top of the taxes they're forced to pay. That led into a discussion of Arne Duncan's revocation of Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind waiver and the court ruling against provisions of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Act -- more about that in a future installment.