Oklahoma Election 2018: June 2018 Archives

I'll be on with Pat Campbell on 1170 KFAQ at 7 a.m. Wednesday morning to discuss tonight's results.

We are headed for runoffs galore.

As I write this a bit after 11 p.m., Kevin Stitt is leading Todd Lamb for the second spot in the runoff by about 2400 votes. There are 11 precincts yet to report statewide in Tulsa, Cleveland, Canadian, Rogers, and Wagoner counties, where Kevin Stitt leads Todd Lamb among precincts already reporting by about 15,000 votes, so it appears that we will have a Cornett-Stitt runoff. Despite his name recognition and his home field advantage, Cornett failed to break 50% in Oklahoma county. Winner in August will face Ayatollah Drew Edmondson, who will spend the summer watching the Republicans do his opposition research for him.

The result sets up an OKC vs. Tulsa runoff in several races: In the Lt. Governor's race, Dana Murphy's strong showing in metro OKC outweighed Matt Pinnell's dominance in metro Tulsa, for a result of 46% to 36%. In the AG race, Mike Hunter came close to 50% in Oklahoma County; Gentner Drummond beat Hunter in Tulsa County 44%-40%. In the Corporation Commission's race, Bob Anthony won the two largest counties, but by a narrower margin in Tulsa County.

The results in the Republican Governor's and 1st Congressional District primaries demonstrate once again the hazards of top-two runoffs and the need for instant runoff voting (effectively, multiple layers of runoffs) to ensure that the will of the majority is accomplished. In the Governor's primary, about 22% of the vote went to the seven bottom candidates; five of those candidates had more votes than the margin between Lamb and Stitt. In CD 1, had either Andy Coleman or Nathan Dahm dropped out, the other candidate likely would have beaten Kevin Hern into a runoff with Tim Harris. Even last-place Danny Stockstill's votes could have re-arranged the order of finish.

In the absence of instant runoff voting, voting tactically is the wise thing to do, but it is impossible to cast a successful tactical vote without good polling information. You have to know which of your preferred candidates has the best shot at making the runoff. After the polls closed, and only then, I learned that there was polling showing that Coleman had the best chance of beating Hern in a runoff. Tim Harris's first-place finish was a complete surprise, as there seemed to be very little energy behind his campaign, despite the name recognition from his years as DA. I am surprised that neither the Coleman campaign or groups supporting him tried to make a tactical-voting pitch to Dahm supporters.

Likewise, I'm surprised that Todd Lamb's campaign failed to reach out to supporters of Fisher, Jones, and Richardson in the last week. Lamb would have been second choice for many of these voters.

As I write this, State Auditor candidate Cindy Byrd is 2,277 votes shy of an outright primary win.

Platform Caucus members, who voted against the tax increases, had a tough night. Voters in the highly-taxed and expensive Bixby and Jenks school districts voted for candidates promising even higher taxes to fund their plush schools. Looks like the Bixby Education Association's strategic list was successful in turning out the people they wanted to vote, as were the dark-money ads claiming that conservative incumbents were really liberals. Incumbents Scott McEachin and Chuck Strohm lost their primaries by wide margins. Mike Ritze made it to a runoff, but finished second to a challenger. They stood for the taxpayers, but we failed to stand by them. "Grassroots conservatives" is a meaningless phrase unless grassroots "activists" show up to knock doors and help their elected officials rebut slanderous, well-funded accusations from special interest groups.

Shelley Brumbaugh, who narrowly lost the special election primary to succeed her late husband, lost her second try against tax-hiker Ross Ford by a wide margin.

Other pro-taxpayer legislators did better. Mark Dean Allen and Tom Gann won their primaries by a wide margin. Jeff Coody, Travis Dunlap, Sean Roberts, and Tess Teague finished first in their primaries, but barely, and each faces a runoff. George Faught and Bobby Cleveland will also have runoffs, but they have a 16- or 17-point lead on their next nearest opponents.

I was happy to see Dan Hicks make it to his runoff for the open House 79 seat, but he finished second by 169 votes to tax-hiker Karen Gilbert.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister fail to win renomination outright. Linda Murphy has a long road to victory, but it's possible.

Big shock of the night: Osage/Pawnee DA Rex Duncan's 65%-35% defeat to challenger Mike Fisher.

Tulsa County DA Steve Kunzweiler will have to deal with a runoff, but he beat Ben Fu and Tammy Westcott by 13 points. Westcott missed the runoff by only 613 votes, despite Fu's FOP backing.

Each of the judicial races will have a runoff at the general election in November, and all but one of my picks survived:

District 14 Office 1: Caroline Wall vs. Tom Sawyer. Even though Wall topped 50%, the top two in the Tulsa County-only primary go to a runoff in November for both Tulsa County and Pawnee County voters.

District 14 Office 3: Incumbent Jim Caputo made the runoff but finished second to Tracy Priddy, who has a great deal of support from leftist-friendly donors. I expect that Jim Williamson's voters will support Caputo in November's runoff.

District 14, Office 12: Special Judge Martha Rupp Carter and former City Councilor Rick Westcott will be in the November runoff.

Tulsa County Associate District Judge: Special Judge Cliff Smith and former State Sen. Brian Crain won the top two slots in a close three-way race with Adam Weintraub.

Upset of the night goes to Joe Howell's 60-40 win over State Sen. Ervin Yen.

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. After 7, tune into 1170 KFAQ to listen to election night commentary from Pat Campbell, Dr. Everett Piper, Ronda Vuillemont-Smith, and myself.

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma primary elections on June 26, 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, 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 (e.g. 1st Congressional District), 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 Tuesday.

1st Congressional District: Nathan Dahm
2nd Congressional District: Jarrin Jackson

Governor: Dan Fisher
Lt. Governor: Matt Pinnell
Auditor and Inspector: Cindy Byrd
Attorney General: Mike Hunter
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Linda Murphy
Labor Commissioner: Cathy Costello
Insurance Commissioner: Donald Chasteen
Corporation Commissioner: Bob Anthony

District Attorney, District 14: Steve Kunzweiler

State Senate 4: Mark Dean Allen
State Senate 18: Eric Tomlinson
State Senate 20: Aiya Kelley
State Senate 22: Leslie Nessmith
State Senate 36: Dana Prieto
State Senate 40: NOT Erwin Yen

State House 5: NOT Josh West
State House 8: Tom Gann
State House 10: Travis Dunlap
State House 12: NOT Kevin McDugle
State House 14: George Faught
State House 20: Bobby Cleveland
State House 36: Sean Roberts
State House 61: Colton Buckley
State House 63: Jeff Coody
State House 66: Emily DeLozier
State House 67: Scott McEachin
State House 68: Nicole Nixon
State House 69: Chuck Strohm
State House 71: Mark Kosinski
State House 74: Bradley Peixotto
State House 76: Shelley Brumbaugh
State House 79: Dan Hicks
State House 80: Mike Ritze
State House 83: Jason Reese
State House 98: Wesley Pratt
State House 101: Tess Teague

Tulsa County Assessor: John Wright

County Commissioner District 1: Tracey J. Wilson
County Commissioner District 3: Donny Tiemann

Tracey Wilson is running against Stan Sallee in District 1 for an open seat. In District 3, Donny Tiemann and Richie Stewart are running against incumbent Ron Peters. We need reform and transparency at the County Courthouse. Peters and Sallee are backed by the usual chambercrats and special interests. In District 3 Donny Tiemann, a solid social and fiscal conservative and a backer of Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, has been working hard to defeat the incumbent, and he would be a great ally of Tulsa County taxpayers, someone who won't be led astray. Other conservative friends are supporting Bixby City Councilor Richie Stewart, saying that he's shown himself to be a fiscal conservative and a defender of the interests of ordinary taxpayers against special interests.

In District 1 (north and east Tulsa County) Tracey Wilson's focus on basic county services would be a welcome change from the expensive pursuits of his predecessors, and it's time that rural north Tulsa County had representation at the courthouse.

District 14 District Judge, Office 1: Tom Sawyer
District 14 District Judge, Office 3: Jim Williamson
District 14 District Judge, Office 12: Rick Westcott
Tulsa County Associate Judge: Brian Crain

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. That has led me to support the least-funded candidates in two races, more by process of elimination than as a positive endorsement: Tom Sawyer for Office 1 and Brian Crain for Associate District Judge. I wasn't a fan of Crain's service as State Senator, but I know that he is pro-life, and I'm worried by some of the names I see on his opponents' donor lists. Tom Sawyer says that he supports Crisis Pregnancy Outreach, which is a hopeful indication of his world view.

For Office 3, I supported Jim Williamson's runs for State Senate and Governor, and I supported Jim Caputo in his earlier runs for a judgeship. I consider them both good men, and I wish that Williamson had run against a different incumbent. I'm leaning toward Williamson because I have a clearer sense of his political philosophy and world view.

SQ 788: Just say no to a badly written bill that permits recreational use and protects it as if it were medicinal.

MORE INFORMATION:

Tulsa Bible Church pastor Phil Martin has put together a comprehensive collection of links to candidate websites.

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

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

• 1170 KFAQ Pat Campbell candidate interviews
• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis -- and here are Jamison Faught's endorsements
• Oklahoma Republican Assembly / Tulsa Area Republican Assembly endorsements
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC endorsements
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Tulsa 9/12 Project leader Ronda Vuillemont-Smith shares her selections
• Jenni White, one of the leaders of the defeat of Common Core, Mayor of Luther, and a writer for The Federalist, shares her picks
• NRA-PVF endorsements

There are three candidates for the Republican nomination for Oklahoma Attorney General. One of them, Mike Hunter, was appointed Attorney General to fill the unexpired term of Scott Pruitt following his appointment as EPA Administrator. I will be voting to elect him to a full term.

Hunter has had a long and varied career dealing with many aspects of Oklahoma's constitution and statutes. He served as a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Secretary of State, secretary of the Commissioners of the Land Office, general counsel of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and Gov. Frank Keating's liaison to the legislature and our congressional delegation. During Keating's tenures heading the American Banking Association and the American Council of Life Insurers, Hunter served as chief operating officer. Hunter has been endorsed by the NRA.

One of the most important roles the AG plays is to defend our state against federal overreach. When the legislature passes a law, we need an AG who will vigorously defend the decisions of our elected representatives in the event of a court challenge. In other states, the AG has effectively exercised a veto by refusing to defend a law enacted by the people or their representatives.

We also need an AG who will push back when federal agencies overreach their statutory bounds. One of the best legacies of Pruitt's tenure was the establishment of a "Federalism Unit" in the AG's office. While the change in control of the White House should reduce the need for state AGs to push back against Washington, the nature of the beast means it will never go away entirely.

While I disagreed with the basis of the Oklahoma State Election Board's ruling on Hunter's eligibility to run -- if years in residence is going to be a meaningful requirement, residence needs to mean where you lay your head at night -- I'm glad Hunter is still on the ballot.

His well-funded opponent, Gentner Drummond, is running as a Republican, but he was a major contributor to Democrat Brad Carson's 2004 run for U. S. Senate and Democrat Dan Boren's campaigns for U. S. House. However "moderate" those two candidates may have been, Drummond's support for their candidacies was support for Democrat majorities in Washington and for leftist Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to run the committees and set the legislative agenda.

Drummond's unwillingness to be interviewed by Tulsa conservative talk show host Pat Campbell suggests that the veneer of conservatism conjured up by his campaign consultants wouldn't stand up to even 20 minutes of careful questioning.

And what does Drummond's support for a 2018 candidate for district judge say about his ideological leanings? Drummond contributed $1,000 to Chris Brecht, a candidate for District 14 (Tulsa & Pawnee counties) Office 9, and the Drummonds are named as members of Brecht's campaign committee. (The race has only two candidates and will not be on the ballot until November. The linked report shows that DA candidate Ben Fu is a $200 donor to Brecht's campaign.)

Christopher Uric Brecht-Smith, as he calls himself on his Facebook profile, is "married" to another man, and he supports the use of government force to compel Christian adoption agencies to pretend that a "gay marriage" is equivalent in every respect to a natural marriage between a man and a woman, referring to SB1140, which protects the rights of adoption agencies to make decisions in the best interests of the child and in accordance with their values, as "hateful, discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional on its face." I think it's fair to assume that, as a judge, Mr. Brecht would be hateful and discriminatory to people who uphold natural understandings of marriage and sexuality and would twist the federal and state constitutions and statutes to use government power to impose his twisted opinions on those issues on the people of Oklahoma.

Whether or not Drummond recruited Brecht to run, as he has been accused of doing, Drummond is enthusiastically backing Brecht's campaign, and it says something worrying about Drummond's own judgment. If Gentner Drummond thinks that Brecht would make a good judge, I don't think we can count on Drummond, as AG, to defend vigorously our state's religious liberty protections. When asked by the Enid News for his opinion of SB1140, Drummond used the possibility of future litigation (and any issue could potentially be the subject of litigation) as an excuse not to comment.

One other candidate in the race, Angela Bonilla, is running a low-budget campaign. Bonilla is opposed to capital punishment and SB1140's protections for adoption agencies, which are both show-stoppers for me. Oklahoma's use of the death penalty for murder is under threat from anti-capital-punishment activists who are employing a combination of commercial and legal pressure to accomplish an effective repeal. Attorney General Mike Hunter has already been working to defend Oklahoma's laws against these attacks.

Time is short, but here is a brief explanation of my choice in this race, a reiteration of what I said on KFAQ last week.

I thought at the time that Steve Kunzweiler made the right, but uncomfortable, decision in the Shelby case, and I still feel that way, given the factual questions about the actions of Terence Crutcher and the reactions of Officer Shelby. Many of my legal friends who have both prosecuted and defended criminal cases feel the same way. Kunzweiler defended his decision on KFAQ last year, on June 21, 2017.

Compare that to Ben Fu's decision to drop a client he was defending in a criminal case once his involvement, a matter of public record, came to public attention. This client was Darius Padillow, who, it is alleged, shot at police officers, admitted it, and said it was to "send a message." Notwithstanding the appalling nature of the allegations, every defendant deserves a competent, vigorous defense, and to this layman's mind, it seems weak-kneed and unjust to undertake to provide that defense, but then drop it like a hot potato when the public becomes aware. We need steadiness and resolution from our DA.

I am certain that Tammy Westcott has the intelligence and integrity to serve as DA, but as I listened to her interview with Pat Campbell, I simply found myself disagreeing with the platform she outlined, particularly her focus on reducing incarceration rates.

You can hear all three DA candidates in Monday's debate on the Pat Campbell Show.

Steve Kunzweiler has made some tough calls in his four years as DA, but he has made those calls with fairness and professionalism. I am glad to have endorsed him four years ago, and I am happy to endorse Steve Kunzweiler for re-election as District Attorney.

After sitting through the Tulsa 9/12 congressional candidate forum (my live-tweet thread is here), I came to the conclusion that I would be happy to have either Andy Coleman, former District Attorney Tim Harris, or State Senator Nathan Dahm representing us in Washington. All three appear to be men of principle and character and to have a proper understanding of the limits on the role of the federal government.

(Of the other two: Kevin Hern was a no-show. Danny Stockstill had a few impressive moments, but he seemed vague on the issues and ill-prepared.)

Of the three acceptable possibilities, I've decided to vote for Nathan Dahm. Sen. Dahm is the only candidate with legislative experience -- six years in the Oklahoma State Senate. He is respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle for his careful study of the rules and process and of the legislation he is asked to vote on. In a high-pressure environment, especially during this past session, Dahm has stuck to his principles. He has also demonstrated a great deal of maturity and self-control in making the case in the media for the policies he has pursued.

Andy Coleman has a very impressive record including both his military service and his work on behalf of Voice of the Martyrs. He has won the support of many members of the House Freedom Caucus and thoughtful conservative voices like Oklahoma Wesleyan University president Everett Piper.

Tim Harris is well-respected for his service as District Attorney, particularly by those who have worked with him in the legal community.

You often see the words "proven" and "tested" in campaign material. Those words are true of Nathan Dahm. He has been tested during his time in the State Senate, and he has proven his mettle in the same sort of role and environment he would encounter in Washington. While Harris and Coleman have been tested in many ways in their careers, the temptations that Dahm has faced as a legislator are less direct but more insidious.

I've heard people say, "I like Nathan, but we need him at the State Capitol." Happily, even if he loses this race, he will remain a state senator, as his seat does not expire until 2020. While we are blessed to have Nathan Dahm in the State Senate, he could make an even greater difference in Washington, and his electoral success would encourage legislators to pursue principled conservatism as the best way to climb the electoral ladder.

Nathan Dahm is the sole candidate to receive an A+ and an endorsement from the NRA. Other candidates received an AQ for giving pro-Second Amendment answers to the questionnaire; Dahm received an A+ because he has had legislative success promoting and protecting our Second Amendment rights at the State Capitol.

RELATED:

Kevin Hern got a public rebuke from former Congressman Jim Bridenstine regarding the use of his name and image. Here's the statement from last week:

Kevin Hern has been using my name and image in his campaign ads for Oklahoma's First Congressional District. Voters should know that Kevin Hern initiated a run against me in 2016 and poll tested messages that included terrible lies about me. I learned of this when the pollster called my home. Now he uses my name and image in ads as if we are close. Kevin Hern's later support of me was opportunistic and based on self interest knowing I had limited my terms.

Given Hern's current relationship with the Republican Main Street Partnership, it's not surprising that he was working to defeat Bridenstine in 2016. Targeting tea partiers, fiscal and social conservatives is what RMSP does. They want malleable squishes who will make good crony capitalist. We're blessed to have three good choices in the congressional race. Kevin Hern is NOT one of those good choices.

Here's the podcast of the 1st Congressional District debate.

Can you tell I'm not excited about the race to succeed Mary Fallin? It's taken a long time to make up my mind, and it's still not as firm a decision as I'd like. As with many of the judical races, my current inclination to vote for Dan Fisher in the Republican primary for Oklahoma governor is more by process of elimination than enthusiasm.

So let me walk you through that process step-by-step, in order of elimination.

Mick Cornett:

A reader emailed to ask why I was not supporting Cornett, since her OKC relatives raved about him and he balanced 14 city budgets. I called her attention to Mick Cornett's evasive interview with Pat Campbell back in January, and the article I wrote about it at the time.

Oklahoma City's government is different than Tulsa's. The Mayor is just a citywide city councilor, one of nine votes. The Chief Executive Officer of OKC's city government is the city manager, hired by the council and responsible for running all the city departments.

By touting OKC's balanced budgets in his ads, Cornett is hoping that voters are ignorant of Oklahoma's constitutional requirement to balance the budget every year, which is binding on the state and on each county and city and school district in the state. So it's nothing special to balance a budget -- it's the law -- and even then, credit belongs to the city manager and the city finance department for making it happen. He's insulting your intelligence by using balanced budgets as a selling point.

Cornett's interview (and his refusal to do any since, or even to answer a simple questionnaire) reveals him to be weak, cowardly, and indecisive. We need leadership from the next governor, something we haven't had since 2002.

Gary Richardson:

Speaking of 2002, that's when Gary Richardson lost my vote. Rather than compete in the Republican primary to succeed his old law partner, he ran as an independent, splitting the right-of-center vote and allowing Democrat Brad Henry to win with a narrow 7,000-vote plurality over Republican nominee Steve Largent. Had the had the courage to run against Largent in the Republican primary, Richardson might well have prevailed; Largent had never faced a tough election, and he won the primary with 87% of the vote. (Mary Fallin also chickened out, running for a third term as Lt. Governor instead.) Even if Largent had prevailed over Richardson in a primary, Largent would have been a better candidate for the challenge and better prepared to defeat Henry. Richardson's decision to run as an independent looked more like a spoiler move than a serious effort to win.

Richardson's run and Henry's victory opened the door for a lottery, which, under federal law, allowed the tribes to offer Class III gaming for the first time. Great for the tribes and their business partners, not so great for Oklahoma families damaged by gambling addictions or the non-tribal businesses that have to compete against the casinos for local entertainment dollars or against tribal enterprises capitalized by casino winnings.

I'm sure Richardson is on to something with his main issue, auditing the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. But it's too narrow a focus, and he's had 16 years to think of some new issues. All of Oklahoma's quasi-governmental trusts, authorities, boards, and commissions need investigation and to be brought back under public control.

Gary Jones:

At the start of this race, I thought I would end up supporting State Auditor Gary Jones for Governor. I met him during his first run back in 2002, endorsed him in each of his elections, worked with him during his time as GOP state chairman. I knew that he would be able to ferret out state government waste.

I also knew that Jones's blunt manner could be abrasive and off-putting, and he might have trouble making the allies he would need to do something about whatever waste he identified. Governor of Oklahoma is a constitutionally weak office, and he can't accomplish anything without building alliances and support in the legislature and the other executive departments.

During this years' budget hullaballoo, Jones thought he was being politically courageous and innovative in reaching across the aisle, standing with Democrats to announce a plan to increase taxes. There he was, like Charlie Brown lining up to kick the football, thinking he had successfully appeased the teachers and would avert a messy walkout. Then Lucy pulled the ball away, as she always does. Despite the biggest tax increase in state history and a massive salary increase for teachers, they still walked out and demanded more, more, more.

You might think a smart man like Gary Jones would learn his lesson and say never again, but instead he directed his anger at the conservative Republicans who warned that this would happen and who had been trying to find a solution to fund teacher salaries without raising taxes. While the Platform Caucus were thinking outside the box, looking at ways to change the laws to allow money to flow where it is most needed, Jones followed the path of least resistance to tax increases.

Gary Jones's heated discussion with Pat Campbell on the April 11 program encapsulates all that I've written above, all of Jones's flaws in one podcast. He thought he made a brilliant move, but he got played, and he doesn't seem to realize it. Governor Jones would give up tax increases now for reform never. He would inherit the title that was given to moderate Republicans in Congress: "tax collectors for the welfare state." He would be driven by the tax-eaters to continue to dig the state into a deeper fiscal hole, in the interests of "bipartisanship" and "progress." No thanks. Not the leadership we need. Gary Jones shouldn't be governor, but the next governor should hire him as budget director.

Do I sound disappointed? I am.

Kevin Stitt:

A friend recently gave me a strong sales pitch in support of Stitt. He regarded Stitt's lack of experience, or even interest, in state politics as an asset, and thought Stitt would be excellent as a recruiter bringing businesses and jobs to Oklahoma.

I was tired, didn't feel like debating the point, but that is absolutely not what Oklahoma needs. Successful states grow their own businesses. They have laws that allow people with ideas and energy the freedom to build a company and enjoy the fruits of their success. The governor needs to focus inward on simplifying and streamlining state government and eliminating barriers to economic growth, and leave the rest to the private sector.

(That includes protecting our state's educational freedom and promoting Oklahoma as a destination to homeschoolers frustrated with their home states' restrictions; parents who are entrepreneurial and intentional about their children's education are often entrepreneurial in the business sense as well. We could grow our population and our economy.)

Stitt's failure to vote didn't impress me either. In our system, the citizens are the rulers. We exercise that rule by voting for those who will write, execute, and enforce our laws. As sovereign electors, we are responsible before God to exercise our franchise and to do so with wisdom. When you exercise your God-given responsibility and opportunity to cast a prudent vote for a wise official, you love your neighbor. When you neglect that responsibility to pursue your own selfish interests, well....

Stitt sends his kids to a good classical Christian school in Tulsa, Regent, which I applaud, but he ought to have taken the same good sense that led him to enroll his children there and used it to influence his fellow citizens as they (and he) cast their votes for state officials.

(One more thing that indicates Kevin Stitt is not ready for political prime time -- Stitt's nervous giggle fit when Pat Campbell asked him if he would vote to repeal HB1010XX, the tax increase, was followed by a platitude about looking to the future, not the past.)

Watch this space: At this point I'm about to slide off the chair with exhaustion, but I hope to complete this with a discussion of Lamb and Fisher sometime Saturday night. In the meantime, go read the gubernatorial candidate responses to the Muskogee Politico questionnaire. That link will take you to the first response, from Gary Jones, and it has links to the rest, including Mick Cornett's non-answers.

CONTINUING WHERE I LEFT OFF:

Todd Lamb:

From his own description of the times he's shown political courage, it seems like Todd Lamb left his courage at the capitol coat check in January 2011 and only picked it up again when it was time for him to run for governor. (He mentions one tie-breaking vote as Lt. Governor in his role as President of the State Senate, but I don't think it took too much courage to join half of the State Senate in not raising taxes on the oil industry.) Some friends believe that he is the most electable conservative, and his stated preference for growing local small businesses over special tax deals to relocate big businesses is welcome. I'm just wondering where his leadership and initiative was hiding when we needed it these last eight years.

Dan Fisher:

Fisher was a consistent conservative during his four years in the state house. He was quick to state his opposition to the tax increases and his willingness to repeal them. I like nearly all of his answers to Muskogee Politico's questionnaire, and his legislative record suggests that he'll be true to the positions he stakes out. Fisher wants to decentralize education and move back to local control. He understands the problem of funding "silos" -- laws that hinder moving our tax dollars where they're most needed and will work to eliminate them. I especially agree with his answer on economic development:

The state should not hurt our homegrown businesses by using their tax dollars against them to pick winners and losers. I will veto unfair "economic development" schemes in favor of creating a truly free market that will entice investment from all over America. Additionally, I will be an ambassador to herald the news that OK does not penalize businesses with burdensome taxes and regulations.

My main beef with Fisher is his stand on abortion legislation, and this has been my greatest reluctance in supporting him. I agree with his end goal: Abolish abortion except when necessary to save the mother's life. I disagree with the implicit and explicit dismissal coming from Fisher and his supporters of the incremental gains made by the pro-life movement in the quarter century since the Casey decision. I object to the implicit and explicit denigration of pro-life activists and pro-life legislators, whose measures have saved lives. Apart from the substance of the issue, kicking potential allies in the teeth is a bad political move.

Fisher and friends seem to believe that Oklahoma can pretend that Roe v. Wade doesn't exist just like California pretends that Federal immigration laws don't exist and Colorado pretends that Federal marijuana laws don't exist. In the latter cases however, states are declining to cooperate with and assist federal prosecutors. In the case of abortion abolition, however, Oklahoma would be enforcing a law that the feds have said is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Trump Administration would decline to act, but it's easy to imagine a future pro-abortion administration sending in the National Guard, a la Little Rock, to ensure that abortionists and their customers would not be hindered by local law enforcement from killing children.

I understand that the only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is for the Supreme Court to revisit it. I understand that some state will have to pass an abolition law and attempt to enforce it before the Supreme Court will get involved. As things currently stand, our State Supreme Court would invalidate the bill as unconstitutional before it even gets to the U. S. Supreme Court. (Tony Lauinger of Oklahomans for Life understands this problem and is pushing for reforms to the way State Supreme Court justices are chosen.)

Even if we passed a law and got it to the US Supreme Court, do you believe the current bunch, headed by John "Obamacare is a tax" Roberts would use the occasion to overturn the Roe v. Wade precident? Or is it more likely that the socially liberal majority on the court would use the occasion to overturn the gains resulting from Casey?

Despite that, I agree with Fisher much more than I disagree. That and his record of being true to his word makes Dan Fisher my pick.

MORE:

Muskogee Politico observed many of the same issues with the big six candidates, but cam e to a different conclusion.

In 2014, Joy Hofmeister (mugshot below) defeated incumbent Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi by a wide margin in the Republican primary. In 2018, she has drawn two primary opponents, newcomer Will Farrell and former State Secretary of Education Linda Murphy.

Linda Murphy is a graduate of Cheyenne High School in western Oklahoma and a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Southwestern Oklahoma State University, with a Bachelor's in Special Education and Elementary Education. From her website, here is a synopsis of her classroom experience:

Linda taught special education in Caddo County in Lookeba-Sickles Public School K-8 grades and in Hinton 6-12 grades. Later she taught in Osage County in Avant Public Schools K-8, where she also served as director of testing. She has taught adults who were illiterate to read and taught braille to students who were legally blind. Linda taught children and adults in all subject areas and with a wide range of exceptional needs including students with Learning Disabilities, Developmental Delay, Autism and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Linda received a statewide award from the State Optometric Association for her work in directing a program in a clinic for students with visually related learning problems. She consulted as a specialist for IEP-Individualized Education Plan teams. She provided hundreds of training presentations for teachers and for Vision Therapists to help them identify visual interference to learning and how to help these students.

In addition to directing the clinical program, she spoke across the U.S. as a liaison for the Optometric Extension Program Foundation dedicated to vision therapy and research. Measurable results in student performance were achieved and documented.

After her narrow 1994 loss to incumbent State Superintendent Sandy Garrett, Linda Murphy was appointed by Gov. Frank Keating as Secretary of Education in his cabinet and appointed by him to a number of state boards dealing with education and workforce development.

Murphy was a leader in the fight that led to Oklahoma's repeal of Outcomes Based Education (the Common Core of the 1990s) and more recently was active in the fight to repeal Oklahoma's adoption of Common Core. Murphy understands that it wasn't enough merely to repeal Common Core in name only, but to fight against efforts to dictate local schools policy from Washington and Oklahoma City.

Linda Murphy is a passionate advocate for public schools, grounded in her personal experience of what they meant to the Cheyenne neighbors of her youth and to the rural communities where she served as a teacher. She believes that the school system should help each child to become an educated citizen and to reach his or her full potential, rather than being used by the Left for social engineering and proselytizing or by Big Business to churn out docile drones or by the unions as places to park the unqualified. Over her quarter-century of involvement with the intersection of education and politics, Murphy understands the forces at the State Capitol that are working to bend the public education system to serve their own selfish interests and what it will take to make the system serve the people of Oklahoma.

Murphy is running her campaign on a tight budget. As of Monday, Murphy raised $13,505 to Hofmeister's $278,000.

Hofmeister's heavily-funded campaign has the backing of the teachers' unions and an intriguing number of companies that sell products and services to public schools. Hofmeister was charged by the Oklahoma County District Attorney with several felonies involving the financing of her 2014 campaign: accepting campaign contributions in excess of legal limits, accepting corporate campaign contributions, and conspiring with campaign consultants and lobbyists. The DA later dropped charges "pending further investigation." Click the link and read the indictment, which includes the emails and messages that were exchanged between Hofmeister and the other alleged conspirators leading to the felony indictments.

One other candidate is running on a shoe-string budget: Will Farrell, a 2004 Cascia Hall graduate, Eagle Scout, and legal assistant for the Titus Hillis Reynolds Love law firm in Tulsa, currently working on his bachelor's degree from OSU.

If you want public schools to be the cornerstone of community and the foundation of an educated citizenry as they once were, Linda Murphy is your candidate.

The Bixby Education Association (BEA), local branch of the National Education Association, the left-wing teachers' union, is using Bixby Public Schools facilities, specifically the Media Center at Bixby North Intermediate High School for phone banking to get out the vote for next Tuesday's primary elections.

A message announcing the GOTV effort was posted to the BEA's Facebook page on June 15, 2018, at 11:25 am. Here is the original text of the message:

In 2016 in Tulsa County, 23% of registered voters determined the outcome of the primary elections. Let's ALL use our voice and GET OUT THE VOTE for a better Oklahoma on 6/26. From phone banking, to local canvassing, to March on Memorial, there's a spot for everyone to help! We will be focusing our efforts on HD's 67, 69, and 80.

Sign-up links below each activity will have specific dates/times for you to view.

Phone Banking:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-phone
When: June 20th, 21st, 24th, 25th; Various Times
Where: North Intermediate Media Center
What: We will be calling a strategic list reminding voters to head to the polls first for early voting and then on 6/26. Script will be provided. There will be no need to discuss issues or candidates, just a simple reminder to VOTE!

Literature Drop/Door Hangers:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-literature
When: June 23rd; 9AM-12PM
Where: Bixby North Intermediate/Local Neighborhoods
What: We will be using a strategic list to canvass locally and hang "Remember to Vote!" literature on door knobs! Don't worry, it's not like door knocking, no conversing necessary, just grab a buddy (we will go in pairs)! We will meet at the Bixby North Intermediate parking lot at 9AM to organize and divide up lists. You and your buddy will proceed from there and we will meet back up for lunch at noon, location TBD.

March on Memorial VOTE Edition:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-march
When: June 26th; Various Times
Where: 121st & Memorial
What: We will gather back at our favorite spot to remind our community to VOTE! There are three available "shifts," remember to bring your signs!

Bixby North Intermediate PTO Bixby Northeast Elementary and Intermediate PTO Bixby Central Intermediate PTO Bixby North Elementary School PTO

The post was edited on June 18 at 5:30 pm to read as shown below. The earlier version can be viewed in Facebook by clicking the three dots at the upper right of the post and

In 2016 in Tulsa County, 23% of registered voters determined the outcome of the primary elections. Let's ALL use our voice and GET OUT THE VOTE for a better Oklahoma on 6/26. From phone banking, to local canvassing, to March on Memorial, there's a spot for everyone to help! We will be focusing our efforts on HD's 67, 69, and 80.

Sign-up links below each activity will have specific dates/times for you to view.

Phone Banking:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-phone
When: June 20th, 21st, 24th, 25th; Various Times
Where: North Intermediate Media Center
What: We will be making calls to remind voters to head to the polls first for early voting and then on 6/26. Script will be provided. There will be no need to discuss issues or candidates, just a simple reminder to VOTE!

Literature Drop/Door Hangers:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-literature
When: June 23rd; 9AM-12PM
Where: Bixby North Intermediate/Local Neighborhoods
What: We will be canvassing locally and hanging "Remember to Vote!" literature on door knobs! Don't worry, it's not like door knocking, no conversing necessary, just grab a buddy (we will go in pairs)! We will meet at the Bixby North Intermediate parking lot at 9AM to organize and divide up lists. You and your buddy will proceed from there and we will meet back up for lunch at noon, location TBD.

March on Memorial VOTE Edition:
Sign Up: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/5080f4aacab22a1fc1-march
When: June 26th; Various Times
Where: 121st & Memorial
What: We will gather back at our favorite spot to remind our community to VOTE! There are three available "shifts," remember to bring your signs!

Bixby North Intermediate PTO Bixby Northeast Elementary and Intermediate PTO Bixby Central Intermediate PTO Bixby North Elementary School PTO

I've sent a message through the BEA Facebook page asking some questions:

I'm writing an article about your phone banking effort and have several questions:

1. What is the source of your calling list?

2. An earlier version of your post described your list as "strategic." Which voters have been selected to receive a reminder to vote? What is the purpose of the strategy behind the list?

3. Would you provide a copy of your calling script?

4. Would you provide a copy of your calling list (names and addresses would be sufficient -- phone numbers could be redacted) for the purpose of comparison to the full list of voters?

Thank you for your assistance in obtaining the information needed to produce a comprehensive and fair story on your phone banking effort at public school facilities.

I will post any answers I receive as soon as I get them.

ANALYSIS:

Is this legal? Is it ethical? It would depend on the answers to the questions above.

The now-deleted phrase "strategic list" suggests more than a neutral call to all voters to remind everyone to vote. Reading between the lines, the word "strategic" suggests that the aim is to target specific voters who have been identified as supporters of BEA's preferred candidates. Simply by reminding these selected voters to go to the polls, the phone bank can assist their preferred candidates without expressly stating an endorsement.

The Republican incumbents in House Districts 67, 69, and 80, Scott McEachin, Chuck Strohm, and Mike Ritze, respectively all voted for the teachers' pay raise, but all three voted against the union's demand for tax increases to fund it, and all three oppose the Left's assaults on Oklahoma's constitutional protections against tax increases without a vote of the people. All three have been targeted for defeat by the teachers' unions and other groups that want Oklahomans to pay higher taxes.

While state law encourages the use of public school facilities by outside groups, including political organizations, allowing those facilities to be used to advance a particular set of candidates would violate the political neutrality we expect from taxpayer funded institutions.

Screenshots showing the original and final versions of the post, after the jump. Click any screenshot to expand to full size.

The State Auditor's office has made great strides under the current incumbent, Gary Jones; if I could re-elect him to that office, I would, but he's term-limited. The next best thing is to elect his deputy, Cindy Byrd, to build on that solid foundation. Byrd, a CPA for 15 years and part of the auditor's office for 20 years, currently oversees county and local government audits, which make up the bulk of the audits performed (304 of a total of 411 last year). In that position, she cleared a five-year backlog of audits, and her work has led to the indictment and resignation of six elected officials and the uncovering of fraud and waste totalling over $10 million. Jones has endorsed Byrd, as has former Governor Frank Keating, along with many more elected officials and citizens across the state.

Byrd's primary opponents are John Uzzo, who ran as a Democrat for State Senate in 2016, and Charlie Prater, who is involved in a court battle over his default on a business loan and who has engaged in deceptive push-polling attacking Byrd. Pat McGuigan has written an analysis of the auditor's race that goes into some detail about all this.

As we work to direct our tax dollars to where they are most needed, the legislature should give the State Auditor's office an even greater role than it currently has to identify waste, duplication, and inefficiencies in government. More than ever, Oklahoma needs an experienced, aggressive State Auditor. Cindy Byrd is the best prepared to fill that position.

Hang around political circles long enough and eventually you will have friends running against each other. I worked for Dana Murphy's first campaign for Corporation Commissioner in 2002, was thrilled when she won in 2008, and I've supported her for re-election ever since. She also served honorably as vice chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party from 2003 to 2007. But I was surprised that she decided to run for Lt. Governor. Given her soft-spoken and judicious manner and her expertise in law, geology, and the oil and gas industry, Corporation Commissioner seems to be the perfect place of service for her. Term limits will prevent Commissioner Murphy from running for re-election in 2022.

I've known Matt Pinnell going back to his successful leadership of the Oklahoma GOP's 2008 get-out-the-vote effort. He's intelligent, hard-working, and a principled conservative. He did a great job as Oklahoma GOP chairman during the 2012 campaign cycle, and he went on to serve the GOP at the national level, strengthening state party organizations across the country, laying the ground work for victory in 2016.

Although I'd be pleased with either Dana Murphy or Matt Pinnell as Lieutenant Governor, I'm voting for Pinnell. In addition to the constitutional roles of president of the State Senate and acting governor when the governor is out of state, Oklahoma's Lt. Governor has traditionally been the public face of our tourism and business recruitment efforts, and Matt Pinnell has the kind of personality and energy that best fits that role.

MORE: Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico analyzes the campaign finance reports and calculates that 84% of donations in Dana Murphy's pre-primary fundraising report came from donors associated with entities that are regulated by the Corporation Commission, which Faught says "doesn't pass the smell test."

Incumbent Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak has hit his term limit. I will be voting for Donald Chasteen to replace him.

Donald Chasteen is a Shelter Insurance agent based in Inola. He served as a Tulsa firefighter from 1988 to 2002. In 2006, he founded the Inola Wrecker Service, providing towing in an area that had lacked it for many years. In 2008, Chasteen saved the life of an Inola woman with respiratory disease, responding to an emergency dispatch about her situation by donating and personally installing a window unit air conditioner in her overheated home. In 2009, he was honored by the Inola Chamber as Service Entrepreneur of the Year and was commended by the Inola fire chief for donating mechanic and tow services to the town's volunteer fire department. Chasteen has served in recent years as President and on the board of the Inola Area Chamber of Commerce and the Inola Hay Day Association.

Chasteen says that Oklahoma has the 10th highest insurance rates in the nation, and that Oklahomans need more health insurance options. As an agent serving rural Oklahoma, he's seen how decisions at the State Capitol make living life and doing business more expensive for his neighbors because those decisions drive up the cost of insurance.

Chasteen has demonstrated not only understanding but initiative and leadership in solving insurance-related problems for his neighbors. On Chasteen's campaign website, there's a tribute from local business owner Scott Roy:

I first met Donald Chasteen as he was serving as the President of the Inola Chamber of Commerce. During that time, Donald brought to the attention of the Chamber an issue with how insurance databases looked at and scored the Inola Fire Department for serving the Inola town, Inola zip code, Southeast corner of Rogers County and spill over into Mayes and Wagoner counties. The problem, as Donald pointed out, is that the databases were not current or reflected incorrect information as to the capabilities of the Inola fire department and the coverage area that they were willing to serve. These inaccuracies were causing not only higher insurance costs for his direct customers but for the entire Inola and surrounding area. While this information is available, Donald seemed to be the only one with the knowledge and insight to see and understand the impact this was having on the area people.

The situation actually was that the insurance databases did not reflect that the Inola Fire Department had upgraded their equipment which should have changed the class or performance capability of the department for serving the area. The improved equipment meant that they could now put out fires faster and could address some fire types that they were not able to properly address previously. The database also said that the Inola Fire Department only served the town of Inola and Inola zip code areas. It did not show that Inola Fire Department would respond to fires in nearby Mayes or Wagoner counties (approximately 5 miles away from the Inola Fire Station). Often the Inola Fire Department was the closest to some fires in Mayes or Wagoner counties and was the fastest to respond to those needs because of proximity.

Donald took it upon himself as the local insurance expert to provide the details of the problem, provide what pieces of information needed update and guided the local fire department on how to address and fix this issue. He pointed out that making these changes to update these insurance databases for the city and fire department would improve the classification of the Inola Fire Department and ultimately lower everyone's insurance rates as a result. Keep in mind that most of these people that would benefit from these changes were not Donald's customers and the action was not publicized to help win new customers.

Now, here is what I want people to understand about this situation and why it helps prove that Donald Chasteen is a great candidate for Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner.

1. Donald had insurance and fire department expertise that no one else had to identify this problem.
2. Rather than tell or send an email to someone important asking them to fix this, Donald actually took personal ownership of this issue and provided guiding steps and information on how to make these changes. The information does have to be submitted officially from the fire department but Donald provided everything needed to allow them to submit for these changes.
3. Donald did not make any money for doing this and it did not help his career as an insurance agent for keeping or winning business. That folks is the definition of a public servant and is winning proof that his heart is in the right place.

There are a lot of insurance experts out there in the state of Oklahoma. There are a lot of politicians who know how the game is played at the state capitol. There are even a number of people who claim they are willing to represent the needs of the Oklahoma voter. However, I do not believe that there is a single person running for Oklahoma State Insurance Commissioner in 2018 that has the insurance expertise, the drive, the grit to face opposition, and the proven history of affecting positive change for insurance for the Oklahoma people as Donald Chasteen. If Donald can do this for the local area, imagine what he can do at the State level. I encourage everyone to vote for him in both the Primary and General Elections for 2018!

The favorite in this race is State House Floor Leader Glen Mulready. Mulready is part of the legislative leadership that failed to use its electoral mandate to pursue the state government reforms needed to avert the school funding crisis, instead pushing the problem off on Oklahoma's taxpayers. Mulready also voted this year to make it easier for the legislature to raise our taxes without putting the proposed increase to a vote of the people. Mulready is a pleasant person and his TV ads are clever, but I don't think his failure to use his leadership to push for the fiscal reform our state needed should be rewarded with higher office.

Instead, Republicans should choose a community leader and insurance professional who is a demonstrated servant leader, not part of Oklahoma's political swamp. Please join me in electing Donald Chasteen as Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner.

MORE: On his Facebook page, Donald Chasteen has a number of audio files and brief articles discussing issues in the campaign.

Oklahomans should re-elect Bob Anthony to what will be his sixth and final term as a member of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Anthony was first elected in 1988. Voters enacted a two-term limit on the office in 2010; this would be his second full term since the limit went into effect.

Back in 2006, I surveyed Anthony's first 18 years as a commissioner and explained the importance of the race. Here's some of what I had to say then, and I stand by it today:

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. 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.

In 1995, Bob Anthony received an award from the FBI for his involvement in the corruption investigation. (Click that link for the text of his commendation.)

During his campaign, an attorney who practiced before the Commission greeted him with a handshake that contained an envelope with ten $100 bills. Mr. Anthony contacted the United States Attorney's office and agreed to participate and work with the FBI as a cooperative and covert witness. He knew at that time that his role would certainly be revealed at trial, and that the eventual proceedings in court might damage his ability not only to be a public servant, but to work in any public service career in the state of Oklahoma. The investigation which he caused, supported and worked in lasted approximately six years. Evidence which he developed involved illegal payments of $10,000. He made over 150 tape recordings that helped broaden the scope of the case to include another fellow commissioner and a local telephone company. By 1992, word of the investigation and Mr. Anthony's cooperation had reached the news media. Determined to meet his duty as an elected public servant, he publicly commented on the case, explaining his part, but only to the extent required to fulfill his public duties. As a result of his inability to comment fully on the case, because he intended to protect the integrity of the investigation, the press had a field day with respect to him and his own reputation. For over two years he was featured as a "snitch" and a political opportunist, as well as being the subject of several leading cartoonists for the media. It wasn't until the case went to trial in 1994 that the full story was revealed and Mr. Anthony was vindicated when the full facts of his cooperation, dedication and sacrifice were announced in a public forum. In the interim, his campaign for a seat in the United States House of Representatives was defeated and he only narrowly won reelection to the Commission itself.

In the end, two subjects were convicted of bribery, and a clear message was sent to the leadership of both the business and political communities of Oklahoma that such conduct would not be tolerated. Mr. Anthony, by this award, joins a very select group of awardees who exemplify the tremendous courage and sacrifice that people have shown--particularly people who have put themselves and their families' welfare at jeopardy to do the right thing to support an investigation. That is a critically important commitment--when one puts his own life and welfare directly on the line. It is only with that premise and support and cooperation that the FBI, or any law enforcement organization, can do the job it is supposed to do, which is protect the people.

Bob Anthony continues to stand up for the ratepayers of Oklahoma, recently advocating that public utilities should be expected to pass the savings from the recent federal tax cut on to their customers in the form of lower rates. As Corporation Commissioner, he's one of three officials responsible for setting those rates.

Anthony has drawn two primary opponents. One of them, former State Sen. President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, was one of the most powerful officials in the state from 2010 to 2016, with a Republican supermajority in the Senate and a Republican governor. His failure to lead, to use that political capital to reform state government, brought us to this year's fiscal trainwreck. He brought $200,000 from his State Senate campaign account to spend on his run for Corporation Commissioner. Bingman shouldn't be rewarded by the voters for his failure to lead.

I'll be writing about each office in a separate entry, but here are a couple of preliminary notes.

Three of the candidates on the statewide ballot are current or recent members of legislative leadership: Former State Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, House Majority Floor Leader Glen Mulready, and former House Appropriations and Budget Committee Chairman Leslie Osborn. The failure of our Republican governor and Republican legislative "leaders" to use their supermajority mandate over the last eight years to reform state government led us to this year's education funding crisis, and we would be foolish to entrust them with higher office. Osborn and Mulready both supported the largest tax increase in Oklahoma history this year. Bingman was the most powerful man in the Oklahoma Senate for the first six years of Gov. Fallin's administration.

This election also features two blasts from the past: Mike Hunter and Linda Murphy were among the handful of Republican statewide nominees who lost narrowly in 1994, an otherwise banner year for the GOP both in Oklahoma and nationwide. Hunter lost the open Attorney General's race by 48%-52% to Drew Edmondson. Murphy lost the State Superintendent's race to incumbent Sandy Garrett by 9,239 votes, just 1% of the votes cast. (Republican Bob Keasler also narrowly lost the open State Treasurer's race to Democrat Robert Butkin; State Auditor Clifton Scott, running for his fourth term, was the only statewide Democrat to win by a comfortable margin.)

The Platform Caucus was right. The Platform Caucus, that small group of Oklahoma state representatives and state senators who support the conservative, grassroots-crafted, limited-government platform of the Oklahoma Republican Party, was right to insist that there is and always was enough money coming into the state treasury to fund a raise for teachers without raising taxes. Some rules might have to be changed in order to move the money to where it was most needed, but the State Capitol already had enough of our cash, if only the Legislature and the school boards would work to get that cash to the teachers.

Even the legislative leaders, who refused to work with the Platform Caucus, punished them for not going along with the tax increases, the legislative leaders who teamed with the lobbyists and bureaucrats to insist upon tax increases as the only way to fund teachers' raises, now acknowledge that if the tax increases are overturned by the voters, the money is there even at the old rates. They already have a plan to ensure that the salary increases are funded if the tax increases are repealed. State revenue is at record levels.

Those "pragmatic" legislative leaders got played. They thought if they agreed to tax increases, the teachers would be appeased and would stay in the classroom. But the teachers' groups (if not the individual teachers) always wanted a strike. They wanted chaos, they wanted drama that would focus negative public attention on the legislature, cultivating a "throw the bums out" attitude with the voters that would help elect more leftists, steering Oklahoma into a big left turn -- bigger and more intrusive government generally, hostile to Christianity and traditional values. In Oklahoma, as in Arizona, West Virginia, and many other states that have had teacher walkouts and protests, the Left is using teachers to regain the ground they've lost at the state level across the nation.

In this primary election season, Platform Caucus members are under attack by forces who want to be able to squeeze Oklahoma taxpayers at whim. Beneficiaries of Big Government want to break the constitutional protections that slow down state government's ability to grab more of your money. Well-funded independent expenditure campaigns are targeting these brave, grassroots-backed candidates, depicting them as anti-teacher, even though they all voted for the teacher pay raise.

Platform Caucus members don't play the capitol game. They read legislation before they agree to vote for it. They don't accept meals or game tickets or trinkets from lobbyists. They stand for the ordinary Oklahomans who don't have lobbyists or labor unions or corporate PACs standing for us.

The squishy compromisers hate the Platform Caucus, because the Platform Caucus stalwarts strip away their excuses for capitulating to the lobbyists. The Platform Caucus refusal to play the capitol game exposes the squishes as unprincipled and weak-kneed, and it infuriates them. The lobbyists and the labor unions want more squishes; they want legislators who can be seduced and manipulated.

These are the taxpayers' friends who are on next Tuesday's primary ballot. Some of them are on record as having joined the Platform Caucus; others are perhaps not caucus members, but have consistently the conservative grassroots principles the platform embodies. Every one of them voted in favor of the pay raise for teachers, and every one of them had the guts to vote against unnecessary tax increases. While those are only two votes, they happen to be very representative of the principled strength under pressure that they've displayed on many other issues, and because of that strength, they have been targeted for defeat in the primary by the tax-and-spenders.

House 8: Tom Gann
House 10: Travis Dunlap
House 14: George Faught
House 20: Bobby Cleveland
House 36: Sean Roberts
House 63: Jeff Coody
House 67: Scott McEachin
House 69: Chuck Strohm
House 80: Mike Ritze
House 101: Tess Teague

Senate 4: Mark Dean Allen

I wish I had time to write about each of them individually. They deserve your vote and your support.

As we've often discussed here, public choice theory -- concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs -- means that there will always be more campaign money coming from the special interests, because they stand to gain a significant return on that investment in the form of tax credits, union dues, contracts, regulatory burdens on potential competitors, etc., and less money available to support those who defend our interests as taxpayers and ordinary citizens.

A legislative district is small enough that grassroots activism can beat big money, but that take volunteers willing to give their time. Even if you don't live in one of their districts, I encourage you to show your appreciation for their courage by volunteering on this final weekend of the campaign -- make calls, knock doors on their behalf. Make contact through the links above and see what you can do to help.

NOTES:

HB 1010XX (tax increases): House votes, Senate votes.
HB1023XX (salary increase for teachers): House votes, Senate votes.

MORE:

George Faught, one of the legislators we should re-elect, is fighting against a last-minute smear campaign regarding his votes on teacher pay and benefits. I've added links to the bills he mentions, all of which passed by near-unanimous majorities.

FACT: George Faught voted for EVERY teacher pay raise since he was elected ( HB1134, 2008; HB1114, 2017; HB1023XX, 2018) FACT: George Faught voted for the budget that included the most money EVER for education (HB3705, 2018; SB1600, 2018) FACT: George Faught fought to make sure that local teachers received bonuses that they rightly deserved (HB1593, 2007) FACT: George Faught voted to stabilize the Teacher Retirement Fund that Democrats had raided and left in peril.

Faught didn't list a specific bill on the last point, but I believe he is referring to HB2132, 2011, the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act.

It has been interesting to learn that many of my medical friends who are advocates of alternative medicine and of the medical use of CBD oil (cannabidiol) and hemp are also opponents of SQ 788, the initiative petition that would, for all practical purposes, legalize recreational use of marijuana in Oklahoma while protecting recreational users as if they were taking prescribed medicine.

SQ 788 is statutory. It would not amend the state constitution but would instead create new law on Oklahoma's statute books. You can read the official and complete text of the legislation that would be enacted by SQ 788 here.

Many of the organizations opposing SQ 788 are groups that deal in heavy, dangerous machinery, such as the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Oklahoma Trucking Association, Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance, Associated Builders and Contractors of Oklahoma, and Oklahoma Railroad Association. Medical associations and law enforcement organizations also stand in opposition. SQ 788 would make it easy for anyone to acquire a two-year license to use marijuana, and then it would prohibit use of marijuana from being considered by employers, landlords, judges in child custody disputes, or government agencies issuing licenses.

SQ 788 is a license to be stoned all the time while being protected against any of the social consequences reasonably accruing to a stoner. From section six of the proposal:

A. No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for his status as a medical marijuana license holder, unless failing to do so would imminently cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to imminently lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person's status as a medical marijuana license holder; or

2. Employers may take action against a holder of a medical marijuana license holder if the holder uses or possesses marijuana while in the holder's place of employment or during the hours of employment. Employers may not take action against the holder of a medical marijuana license solely based upon the status of an employee as a medical marijuana license holder or the results of a drug test showing positive for marijuana or its components.

C. For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a medical marijuana license holder's authorized use of marijuana must be considered the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and does not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying patient from medical care.

D. No medical marijuana license holder may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this law, unless the person's behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor.

E. No person holding a medical marijuana license may unduly be withheld from holding a state issued license by virtue of their being a medical marijuana license holder. This would include such things as a concealed carry permit.

F. No city or local municipality may unduly change or restrict zoning laws to prevent the opening of a retail marijuana establishment.

G. The location of any retail marijuana establishment is specifically prohibited within one thousand (1,000) feet from any public or private school entrance.

H. Research will be provided under this law. A researcher may apply to the Oklahoma Department of Health for a special research license. That license will be granted, provided the applicant meet the criteria listed under Section 421. B. Research license holders will be required to file monthly consumption reports to the Oklahoma Department of Health with amounts of marijuana used for research.

Writing in the Journal Record last month, attorney Aaron Tifft of Tulsa's Hall Estill firm points out that the passage of SQ 788 "could pose more legal risks for employers than the full legalization of the drug."

It would become unlawful for an employer to discriminate in employment based on a person's status as a medical marijuana license holder or penalize a person for testing positive for marijuana. Although its use or possession on the job would be actionable, the law is silent on working under the influence of marijuana.

Because the initiative is silent on working under the influence of marijuana, it would be arguable that the person's medical condition should be considered a disability. If the person is disabled, the marijuana could be deemed a necessary medical intervention to treat the disability - much like any number of other powerful prescription drugs -carrying protections under the law....

Alternatively, legalization of marijuana for recreational use might somewhat increase its availability, but would not elevate it to the level and protections of a prescribed medical drug. Cannabis could take its place among the other prevalent recreational drugs in American culture - alcohol, tobacco, and (dare I say it) caffeine. Just as there is no doubt an employer could restrict the use of alcohol, there would be no doubt an employer could restrict the recreational use of marijuana.

With SQ 788, there is doubt. The scope of employers' rights regarding employees with a medical marijuana license is not currently evident. Employers should be aware of this risk if the measure is passed.

Here's another example of a vaguely worded attempt, from Section 1 of the legislation proposed by SQ 788, to eliminate social consequences relating to marijuana.

M. All applications for a medical license must be signed by an Oklahoma Board certified physician. There are no qualifying conditions. A medical marijuana license must be recommended according to the accepted standards a reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any medication. No physician may be unduly stigmatized or harassed for signing a medical marijuana license application.

Nothing in the bill explains what degree of stigmatization is undue, nor is there anything specifying whether stigmatization is a misdemeanor or a felony.

Typically, state laws allow local jurisdictions to be more restrictive, but not more permissive. Not SQ 788. Just in case the statewide allowances (3 oz. on you, 8 oz. at home, plus a Big Texan steak (72 oz.) of edible marijuana, six mature plants, six seedlings, and an ounce of concentrated marijuana) are deemed too stingy, cities and counties can raise those allowances locally without limit:

N. Counties and cities may enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing medical marijuana license holders or caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subsection A of this section.

The reality is that medicine from the cannabis plant has been legal in Oklahoma for a couple of years. In 2015, Gov. Fallin signed a law that legalized the use of CBD oil for children with certain medical conditions; in subsequent years legal applications of CBD oil were expanded and industrial (very low concentration of THC) hemp production was legalized. The 2014 federal farm bill authorized states to grow industrial hemp under pilot programs. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has introduced the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 to simplify rules and allow industrial hemp production on a permanent basis.

While many medicines are derived from plants, making a plant into medicine involves a process. The doctors at M. D. Anderson Center don't give their cancer patients pieces of Pacific yew bark to chew on. The active ingredients have to be isolated and purified so that precise doses can be measured and delivered, so as to maximize impact on the cancer while minimizing side effects on the patient.

Dr. David Asher, a Tulsa osteopathic physician with a focus on pain management, says that all of the health benefits of cannabis are currently available in full-spectrum hemp oil, without the side effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance found in marijuana.

Dr. Asher writes that the hemp and marijuana are the same species of plant, but cultivated in a different manner. With hemp, the plant is allowed to pollinate and grow, developing seeds and fiber-rich stalks. Marijuana is protected from pollination and so stays close to the ground, putting its energy into leaves and flowers. Marijuana growers selectively breed for higher concentrations of THC. The higher the concentration of THC, the lower the amount of CBD oil and the fewer the health benefits.

SQ 788 looks like something Cheech and Chong would have written after their van made of pot caught fire. Just say no.

I'll be on AM 1170 KFAQ with Pat Campbell at 8:00 am tomorrow morning, Tuesday, June 19, 2018, to talk about next week's primary. Pat has done a ton of interviews with candidates, and they're online on the Pat Campbell podcast page. Pat asks great questions, and these interviews are one of your best resources for getting a sense of the candidates in a friendly but challenging environment. For your convenience and mine, I thought I'd organize the podcasts by office and candidate, starting with the most recent.

I've included podcasts where the candidate is on to talk about an issue in his current official capacity, such as State Sen. Nathan Dahm discussing the veto of his constitutional carry law, or State Auditor Gary Jones discussing misuse of funds at the Health Department. If there's a candidate you don't see on the list, it's almost certainly because the candidate hasn't agreed to appear on the show.

This list is far from complete, and I will add to it as I come across earlier podcasts of interest. I hope to find at least one podcast for each candidate in the major races.

U. S. House, 1st District

Andy Coleman, 2018/01/29

Nathan Dahm, 2018/06/13
Nathan Dahm, 2018/06/04 (Constitutional Carry)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/05/16 (Constitutional Carry veto override)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/05/07 (Constitutional Carry, adoption agency protection bill)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/05/03 (gun license bill)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/05/01 (wind subsidy bill amendment)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/04/23 (legislative session review)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/04/10 (teacher walkout)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/04/06 (GOP disunity)
Nathan Dahm, 2018/03/29 (Senate passes tax increase)
Nathan Dahm (why he's running, SQ 788)

Kevin Hern, 2018/06/18

Danny Stockstill,

U. S. House, 2nd District

Jarrin Jackson, 2018/06/07
Jarrin Jackson, 2018/04/17

Markwayne Mullin, 2018/03/14

Governor

Dan Fisher, 2018/05/30
David Van Risseghem letter to Dan Fisher

Gary Jones, 2018/06/13
Gary Jones, 2018/05/25 (Tar Creek)
Gary Jones, 2018/05/23 (Health Department)
Gary Jones, 2018/04/11 (support for tax increase, rant against the Republican platform)
Gary Jones, 2018/02/19 (why his tax plan will work)
Gary Jones, 2018/02/01 (defends plan to raise taxes)

Todd Lamb, 2018/05/21 (Will he call special session for constitutional carry veto override?)

Gary Richardson, 2018/05/21

Kevin Stitt, 2018/05/02

Mick Cornett, 2018/01/12: Evasive interview, has not allowed Campbell to interview him since.

Lt. Governor

Matt Pinnell, 2018/05/31

Attorney General

Angela Bonilla, 2018/06/18

Mike Hunter, 2018/05/14

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Linda Murphy, 2018/05/29
Linda Murphy, 2018/04/17
Linda Murphy, 2018/04/09 (teacher walkouts)
Linda Murphy, 2018/03/15 (teacher pay raise)

Tulsa County District Attorney

Tulsa County District Attorney debate, 2018/06/25

Ben Fu, 2018/03/19
Tammy Westcott, 2018/04/26

Tulsa County Commissioner, District 1

Stan Sallee, 2018/06/07

State Senate District 36

David Dambroso, 2018/05/08

State House DIstrict 8

Tom Gann, 2018/02/19 (plan to raise teacher pay without raising taxes)

State House District 12

FOP letter about McDugle / Mahoney controversy, 2018/05/10
Kevin McDugle, Nick Mahoney controversy, 2018/05/09
Kevin McDugle, 2018/04/18 (ideas for teachers)

State Senate District 80

Mike Ritze, 2018/04/06
Mike Ritze, 2018 (proposal to remove judge in Falls Creek rape case

General:

Michael Bates on upcoming primaries, 2018/06/19
Michael Bates on governor's race, 2018/04/11
Michael Bates on tax proposals for teacher pay, 2018/03/28

Club for Growth Action, a political action committee that promotes tax cuts and reducing government waste and regulation in the interests of economic growth, is making major media buys in opposition to McDonald's franchisee Kevin Hern, a candidate to fill the Oklahoma 1st Congressional District seat held until recently by NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine.

CfGA is running TV and radio ads claiming that Hern has a "habit of backing Democrats," noting that "Hern gave seventeen thousand dollars to a political committee that supported liberal Democrats . . . including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee" and that "Hern even wrote personal check to make a campaign contribution to the Democrat Senator who cast the deciding vote for Obamacare."

It's all true, but here's some context:

According to data retrieved from the Federal Election Committee website, in 1998, Hern, then with an address in Maumelle, Arkansas, made two contributions totalling $850 to Nate Coulter, a Democratic candidate for the open U. S. Senate seat. Coulter finished last in the primary. On September 17, 1998, Hern then made a $500 contribution to the Democratic nominee, then-former U. S. Representative Blanche Lambert Lincoln, who went on to win the seat in November 1998, keeping the seat in the Democrat column.

Eleven years later, Sen. Lincoln did indeed vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The vote for cloture passed 60-39 on a strict party-line vote, and Lincoln voted in favor, ending the Republican filibuster and allowing Obamacare to be approved by the Democrat majority. Had she voted no or abstained on the cloture vote, Obamacare would have been stopped.

It's reasonable to say that Lincoln cast the deciding vote for Obamacare. Certainly she cast one of the deciding votes: Lincoln was one of several Democrats from conservative states who might have reasonably voted no in accord with her constituents, but instead voted with her party over their wishes. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson from Nebraska were another couple of potential no votes who also voted yes. Lincoln was duly punished by the voters the following year, losing her re-election bid by 58-37 to Republican John Boozman.

According to a report generated on OpenSecrets.org (which has some more effective ways to search FEC data), those three 1998 contributions are Kevin Hern's only direct donations to Democratic candidates for federal office. Beginning with his move to Muskogee, Hern began supporting Republican candidates: Andy Ewing ($1,250), the 2000 nominee to succeed Tom Coburn in the U. S. House; Tom Coburn's 2004 and 2010 campaigns for U. S. Senate ($6,800); 2nd District Congressman Markwayne Mullin ($10,200); James Lankford's campaigns for House and Senate ($6,300); Jim Bridenstine ($7,700); Marco Rubio's presidential campaign ($1,000); and Senators John Boozman, Bob Corker, and Pat Toomey, Oklahoma 5th District Congressman Steve Russell, and Florida 19th District Congressman Francis Rooney.

As for his support for PACs, Hern has given $16,055 to Oklahoma Leadership Council (whose major 2016 contributions were to state Republican Party organizations in Florida and Pennsylvania), $2,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, $1,000 each to LankPAC (affiliated with James Lankford) and Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC (associated with Scott Pruitt), and $250 to the Republican National Committee.

But what about this?

Hern has given $17,100 to McDonald's Corp PAC, which gave significantly more to Republicans to Democrats through the 2008 cycle, but since that time has evened things up considerably. In the 2016 cycle, for example, Hern gave $2,500 dollars to McDonald's Corp PAC, and the PAC supported Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Maxine Waters, but they also supported Republican House members like Bob Goodlatte, Mia Love, Steve Scalise, and Devin Nunes and Senators like Chuck Grassley and Tim Scott. In the 2012 cycle, Hern gave $4,000, and the PAC backed Democrats like Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee and Sen. Harry Reid, as well as Republicans like John Boehner, Tom Cole, and John Boozman.

Hern's contributions to McDonald's Corp PAC were as follows:

• 11/12/2004, $2,100.00
• 5/8/2006, $2,000.00
• 2/20/2009, $2,000.00
• 1/26/2010, $2,000.00
• 2/16/2011, $2,000.00
• 1/25/2012, $2,000.00
• 2/23/2016, $2,500.00
• 7/11/2017, $2,500.00

In the current election cycle, Hern has gotten most of his money back from McDonald's Corp PAC. Hern is one of two candidates to have received a $10,000 donation from the PAC; the other is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a leading candidate to succeed Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House.

It's understandable that McDonald's would want to spread money around Washington to protect its interests, but it's hard to understand why a conservative would continue to donate to a PAC that helps congressmen and senators who are working to undermine and overregulate the free market.

I'm not bothered by Kevin Hern's contributions to local Democrats 20 years ago when he was a young businessman in a state where Democrats were still influential. I am bothered by his ongoing contributions to a PAC that works for McDonald's best interests even when they're in conflict with America's best interests by keeping the likes of Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters in office. If Hern has a reasonable explanation, he needs to provide it.

Instead, Hern has complained of dirty campaigning and demanded that Andy Coleman (who is endorsed by Club for Growth Action) denounce the ad.

As a conservative, free market voter, I'm less concerned that Hern is a liberal and more worried that he's a Chamber of Commerce-type crony capitalist who will sell out American taxpayers and workers for the sake of sweetheart deals, pork barrel, and cheap illegal-immigrant labor. Hern has the endorsement of the Republican Main Street Partnership PAC, an organization that promotes Republicans who will compromise with the left in the name of pragmatism. Among its members, RMSP has Irish-terrorist booster Peter King, Bill Shuster of the central Pennsylvania pork-barrel dynasty, and Fred Upton, who led the charge to ban cheap and reliable light bulbs. Michelle Malkin has described the affilliated Republican Main Street Partnership as "statists in populist clothing... running a Washington incumbency protection racket." This is an organization that works to defend squishy Republican incumbents against principled conservative primary challengers. If they're backing Hern, I have to believe it's because they think Kevin Hern is malleable enough to become part of the Washington swamp, like the other politicians the group supports. Hern's failure to repudiate their endorsement ought to worry 1st District conservative voters.

Hern's ongoing donations to the McDonald's Corp PAC suggests poor judgment, Hern's decision to respond to the Club for Growth Action ads with attacks instead of explanations shows worse judgment, and Hern's endorsement by Republican Main Street Partnership PAC ought to alarm every conservative voter and send them in search of another candidate to support.

The June 2018 issue of Tulsa Lawyer Magazine, published by the Tulsa County Bar Association, is the special 2018-2019 election issue. It devotes seven pages to questionnaire responses from the candidates for District Judge and Associate District Judge who will be on the June 26, 2018, primary election ballot. (Two seats drew only two candidates each and will only be on the November ballot.) The issue is available to read online, but cannot be downloaded.

The questionnaire covers basic background information -- current occupation, law school, years in practice, judicial docket or legal specialization -- and asks about civic involvement and community service, management strengths, changes, and personal strengths that are important to service as a judge. There's a box for stats: Percentage of work devoted to civil litigation, criminal litigation, and arbitration / mediation, number of cases tried to verdict, tried to juries, and for current judges, number of bench trials conducted.

Of course, this is only each candidate's testimony about himself. There is no cross-examination. Keith McArtor doesn't mention that he used to be chairman of the Tulsa County Democratic Party. Martha Rupp Carter briefly mentions her service as City Attorney, but not the circumstances of her resignation from that office. Still the basic information preesented here is useful.

The same issue has profiles of candidates for Tulsa County Bar Association offices for the coming term, including delegates to the American Bar Association and Oklahoma Bar Association. The voting period ended yesterday.

Back on May 31, TCBA also jointly hosted, with the Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, a "Judicial Review" featuring 16 of the candidates for district judge and associate district judge. The videos are online here.

Three candidates have filed for Judicial District 14, Office 12, to replace retiring District Judge Doris Fransein. All three will be on the ballot in Tulsa County only on the June 26, 2018, primary, and then the top two will advance to the November 6, 2018, general election ballot in Tulsa and Pawnee counties, even if one candidate receives a majority of the primary vote. The candidates are Rick Westcott (Rick Dalton Westcott, Republican, 64), Martha Rupp Carter (independent, 63), and Stephen Clark (Stephen Robert Clark, Republican, 71)

I'll be voting for Rick Westcott. I got to know Rick principally through his civic involvement. Westcott served from 2006 to 2011 as a Tulsa City Councilor representing District 2, including a stint as Council Chairman. Prior to being a councilor, Westcott served on the City's Sales Tax Overview Committee, and when the city establishment (aka the Cockroach Caucus) used recall elections to target two city councilors who were not toeing the establishment line, Rick Westcott headed Tulsans for Election Integrity, the organization that successfully defeated the recall elections.

Westcott is a rare case of an attorney who has both a long career in law (nearly 25 years) as well as a breadth of experience in other professions. He served as a Tulsa Police officer, worked 20 years in radio, worked as a loan officer a bank, and taught government and pre-law courses at ORU, his undergraduate alma mater, for 14 years, writing the curriculum for the Pre-Law program, serving as Coordinator of the Government Department, teaching Criminal Procedure, American Constitutional Law, American Jurisprudence, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, American Government, and American History. He is a private pilot, and he has been actively involved in trying to secure regular passenger rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. He grew up along the Sand Springs Line, west of downtown Tulsa, graduating from Tulsa's Central High School.

On the council, Westcott was a stalwart looking out for the interests of his own often-neglected constituents and neighbors in West Tulsa, and the interests of homeowners and taxpayers generally, and holding the executive branch of city government accountable, through the mayoral terms of both Kathy Taylor and Dewey Bartlett Jr. Most impartial observers regarded Westcott as fair-minded and even-tempered, but no good deed goes unpunished in Tulsa politics, and he and the rest of the council were smeared and sued by allies of the Mayor and the Cockroach Caucus. Westcott would have been drawn out of his district by the 2011 Bartlett-Ahlgren gerrymander, but when he opted not to run for re-election, the old boundaries were restored.

During his council service, Westcott often wrote and published detailed rationales for his decisions. While I didn't always agree with his conclusions, his reasoning was always fact-based, thorough, and careful.

Back when Westcott was first running for office in 2006, I wrote a piece for Urban Tulsa Weekly about the connection between faith and political courage, and asked others to contribute their own thoughts on the subject. Rick Westcott had this to say on the subject:

I also think that a person's faith gives them a sense of identity which helps ground them in times of trouble. Because I know who I am in Christ, who God made me, because I know He has a plan for me, it gives me a sense of identity that isn't shaken by those who might attack me. I don't need the external validation that some seek from others.

A judge who knows his Creator and is secure in his relationship with God will not be swayed by power or money or political clout.

Westcott's two opponents for the open seat are both currently special judges. One of them, Martha Rupp Carter, was City Attorney, appointed by Democrat Mayor Susan Savage and continuing to serve under Republican Mayor Bill LaFortune, before resigning under a cloud of controversy over a number of decisions that were very costly to Tulsa taxpayers.

At the time of Rupp Carter's resignation in 2004, I wrote:

The list of [Martha Rupp Carter] decisions which either got the City sued or could have is a long one: handling of outside legal support in the Black Officers' lawsuit, the 71st & Harvard ruling against the neighborhood's protest petition, allowing ex-Councilor David Patrick to remain in office despite the fact that he had not been lawfully elected to a new term, speaking to the press about election allegations against Councilor Roscoe Turner. The City Attorney's office under her direction always seemed to be working in the interests of some person or persons other than the ordinary citizens of this city.

I also wrote that it would be a mistake to let Rupp Carter leave office quietly without holding her fully accountable for her poor decisions:

So many Tulsans were relieved to see Susan Savage apparently leave public life, only to be appalled by her resurrection as Secretary of State. It would be a shame if, by failing to drive a stake through the career of Savage's jogging buddy, city officials allow her to "fail up" into a more prominent and influential position, after her legal advice cost the city and its taxpayers so much.

Rupp Carter's campaign ethics reports shows support from a large number of left-wing
and powerful Tulsa establishment figures, including former Democrat Mayor Kathy Taylor, former Democrat Corporation Commissioner Norma Eagleton, former Tulsa County Democratic Party Chairman John Nicks (husband of District Judge Linda Morrissey), failed judicial candidate Jill Webb, and George Kaiser Family Foundation president Frederick Dorwart and members of his law firm, which represents GKFF, Bank of Oklahoma and its sister banks, and other branches of the far-reaching Kaiser network. While I've heard positive evaluations of her performance as a special judge, her history as city attorney and the list of her backers are not reassuring.

I have known Rick Westcott for over 15 years, and I've consistently observed his diligence to determine facts, his careful reasoning, his clarity of expression, and his fairness to all. It would be a blessing to have Rick Westcott serving as our District Judge. I urge you to join me in voting for Rick Westcott on June 26.

MORE:

Rick Westcott was profiled in the June 2015 issue of Tulsa People.

The 2018 filing period for Tulsa City Auditor and all nine Tulsa City Council seats has ended.

Thirteen Democrats, nine Republicans, one Libertarian, and one independent filed for the ten positions.

Incumbents Cathy Criswell (Auditor), Jeannie Cue (District 2), Anna America (District 7), and Phil Lakin (District 8) have been re-elected without opposition.

The remaining six city council seats will be on the August 28, 2018, ballot, with a top-two runoff on November 6, 2018, in races where no candidate received 50% of the vote. The new filing and election dates are the result of an ill-advised and whimsical charter change approved last year by the voters.

Three first-term incumbents drew opponents:

• District 1: Incumbent Vanessa Hall-Harper, challengers Lana Turner and Jerry Goodwin
• District 6: Incumbent Connie Dodson, challenger Dezeray Edwards
• District 9: Incumbent Ben Kimbro, challenger Paul Tay

Districts 3, 4, and 5 have open seats, and drew three, four, and four candidates, respectively.

Below is the full list as of the end of filing, complete with party affiliations, which were confirmed today through the Oklahoma State Election Board voter search tool. The first name on the line is the name that will appear on the ballot; the name in parentheses is the name under which the candidate is registered to vote. Order of names is order of filing.

CITY AUDITOR
Cathy Criswell (Cathy Ann Criswell), 4120 E 22nd Pl, Tulsa OK 74114, 07-10-54, Democrat

CITY COUNCILOR OFFICE NO. 9
Paul Tay (Paul C Tay), 4004 S Toledo, Tulsa OK 74135, 09-01-62, Libertarian
Ben Kimbro (Benjamin Wade Kimbro), 3207 South Evanston Avenue, Tulsa OK 74105, 07-03-72, Republican

My second endorsement this year is another easy call. I have known Dan Hicks for close to 20 years as a tireless volunteer for conservative candidates and causes. This year, Hicks has put his own name on the ballot for State Representative for District 79, an open seat because incumbent Weldon Watson is term-limited.

We need Dan Hicks and many more like him in the Oklahoma Legislature. Mention Dan Hicks and the words that spring to mind are principled, persistent, hard-working, and humble. As a campaign volunteer, he has offered his time only to those candidates who share his commitment to limited and efficient government and the protection of unborn human life. Once committed to a cause, Dan throws himself into it with his whole heart, willing to do whatever job needs to be done, without looking for credit or honor. But plenty of elected officials have honored Dan because of his hard work on their behalf. Former District Attorney Tim Harris, outgoing Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel, State Rep. George Faught, former State Rep. John Wright and former State Rep. Pam Peterson, who served in Republican House leadership, have all endorsed Hicks, as did State Rep. David Brumbaugh before his untimely death last year.

Dan and his wife are committed Bible-believing Christians, members of Journey Bible Church, teaching children's classes there as they did previously at Tulsa Bible Church for over 30 years.

Dan Hicks is lead designer at a Tulsa architectural firm. His work includes public school facilities such as the Robson Performing Arts Center at Claremore High School and Broken Arrow's Centennial Middle School, as well as private school and church facilities such as the Monte Cassino Childhood Center and South Tulsa Baptist Church. I'm not aware of anyone else with Hicks's professional background who has served in the Oklahoma Legislature. Given the amount of money spent on buildings by state agencies, colleges, CareerTech centers, and public schools, it would be a great asset to Oklahoma taxpayers to have someone like Dan Hicks in the legislature who understands the tradeoffs between cost, functionality, and appearance, someone who has a sense of how much a building should cost and what tends to drive costs higher.

I've written about how Republican candidates often "go native" when they become legislators. They forget the voters who elected them and begin to identify with the legislators, lobbyists, and staffers at the Capitol. To keep that from happening, we have to elect legislators who understand that dynamic and are prepared to resist it. I know that Dan Hicks has felt disappointment and betrayal in some of the candidates he worked tirelessly to elect. Because of that, I am confident that Dan Hicks will stay true to his principles and faithful to the voters who elected him and that he will arrive at the State Capitol immune to the blandishments of the Capitol crowd.

House District 79 is in southeast Tulsa, entirely within the city limits, extending from 41st Street to 81st Street, Yale Ave to Garnett Rd. Dan has been as hard-working on his own campaign as he has on his friends' campaigns, and you see the evidence in campaign signs supporting him in front of homes and businesses across the district.

Hicks faces two opponents in the June 26, 2018, primary: Tulsa city councilor Karen Gilbert and Matthew Lee. Ethics reports show that Gilbert is backed by the usual chambercrats who want to raise your taxes and boost their cronies at your expense. By contrast, Dan Hicks's campaign funds come from friends and family, as well as his own funds. There will be an August runoff if no one receives 50% of the vote in the primary. The winner will face the Democrat nominee and independent Teresa Marler in November.

I hope all my Republican friends in District 79 will turn out on June 26 to vote for my friend Dan Hicks, a stalwart, hard-working conservative.

Thanks to last year's ill-advised, whimsical change to the Tulsa City Charter, the 2018 City of Tulsa elections are even further out of sync with the rest of the political calendar. Today was the first day of the three-day filing period for City Auditor and all nine City Council seats. Filing requires a $50 deposit, refundable if you are unopposed or receive more than 15% of the vote.

The city "general" election will be held on August 28, 2018, coinciding with the state runoff primary. This year, the state runoff is likely to draw heavy Republican turnout for the governor's race and the First Congressional District race, neither of which are likely to be decided in the June primary, and this could very well skew the city results. If no one receives a majority in a given race in the August "general," the top two candidates in the race will advance to a "runoff" that falls on the November state and federal general election date, with a much higher turnout than the August election.

It's a mess, and it relegates city elections and city issues to the backburner.

On the first day of filing, at least one candidate filed for every seat. Nine Democrats, four Republicans, and one Libertarian filed. Incumbents Cathy Criswell (Auditor), Jeannie Cue (District 2), Connie Dodson (District 6), Anna America (District 7), Phil Lakin (District 8), and Ben Kimbro (District 9) have all filed for re-election. Of this group only Kimbro has drawn an opponent: Paul Tay.

Incumbent Vanessa Hall-Harper (District 1) has not yet filed, but two challengers have: Lana Turner and Jerry Goodwin.

Long-time District 3 councilor David Patrick is not running, but his daughter Cristin Patrick is, as is Justin Rolph. So far, only Barbara Kingsley has filed to replace District 4 councilor Blake Ewing. District 5 councilor Karen Gilbert is running for a seat in the State House; Mykey Arthrell and Eliah Misthaven are running to succeed her.

Below is the full list of the first day's filings, complete with party affiliations, which were confirmed today through the Oklahoma State Election Board voter search tool. The first name on the line is the name that will appear on the ballot; the name in parentheses is the name under which the candidate is registered to vote.

Although City of Tulsa elections are non-partisan, and nothing other than a name will appear on the ballot, party affiliation is at least some indication of governing philosophy, so I note it here. Also, party organizations will often make resources available to candidates of their party running in non-partisan school and municipal elections. Personally, I would love to see a full slate of candidates running on the principles espoused by Strong Towns.

CITY AUDITOR
Cathy Criswell (Cathy Ann Criswell), 4120 E 22nd Pl, Tulsa OK 74114, 07-10-54, Democrat

CITY COUNCILOR OFFICE NO. 9
Paul Tay (Paul C Tay), 4004 S Toledo, Tulsa OK 74135, 09-01-62, Libertarian
Ben Kimbro (Benjamin Wade Kimbro), 3207 South Evanston Avenue, Tulsa OK 74105, 07-03-72, Republican

This is an update of an entry from 2006 about the judicial offices in Judicial District 14. The structure and offices are the same, but some of the names are different for 2018.

If you appreciate the time and effort that goes into researching and producing articles like this, please consider a donation to keep this site up and running. If you'd like to run an ad on the site, contact me at blog at batesline dot com.

Judicial races are the trickiest part of the ballot. In Oklahoma, only district court races are contested, and all judicial elections are non-partisan. The Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, set by the State Supreme Court, tightly controls what judicial candidates can say and how they can campaign. This code grants a private club, the Oklahoma Bar Association, an official role in policing judicial candidates. Attorneys, who have first-hand experience with the capabilities and character of judicial candidates, are wary of speaking out against a judge before whom they may one day have to stand. If you're lucky, you may get some off-the-record scoop from friends at the courthouse. All this adds up to confusion and frustration for the voter.

In 2004, the Oklahoma Family Policy Council put together a questionnaire for Supreme Court and appellate judges focusing on judicial philosophy. They had their attorneys look at the questionnaire to ensure that judges would not violate Oklahoma's Code of Judicial Conduct by answering the questions. In the end, six of the eight judges sent a letter saying they couldn't respond to the questionnaire, the other two didn't respond at all.

Worldview matters. We are in the midst of a culture war. Like all movements grounded in unreality, the leftist fascist movement seeks totalitarian control of institutions and the destruction of any institution it can't control. Never has it been more important to know whether the men and women who seek to be our judges are in accord with the founding principles of American jurisprudence and Western Civilization or are in sympathy with the destructive forces arrayed against civilization.

While I know many fair-minded and good-hearted liberals, fair-minded enough to rule against their own ideological interests if the law points that way, many on the left have been influenced by the ideas of critical legal theory, which boils everything down to power and the use of any means to the end of establishing left-wing dogma as the state religion.

We need to see the hearts of these candidates. Sometimes we have rulings and written opinions that tell us whether a judge is with civilization or against it. At times we may only have indirect indications of a judge's character and worldview.

In the blog entries that follow, I'll do my best to set out my judgment of the judges and the basis for that judgment.

That's philosophy; here are the nuts and bolts of how we elect judges in Tulsa and Pawnee counties.

Oklahoma has 26 District Courts. Tulsa County and Pawnee County constitute Judicial District No. 14. State law says that District 14 has 14 district judge offices. (Why are Tulsa County and Pawnee County coupled together? Why not Pawnee with, say, Osage, and Tulsa on its own, as Oklahoma County is?)

One judge must reside in and be nominated from Pawnee County, eight must reside in and be nominated from Tulsa County. If there are more than two candidates for any of those nine offices, there is a non-partisan nominating primary in the appropriate county, and the top two vote-getters are on the general election ballot. (Even if one gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two still advance.)

In the general election, all voters in Pawnee and Tulsa Counties vote on those nine seats.

The remaining five district judges are selected by electoral division in Tulsa County. In order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Tulsa County is divided into five electoral divisions, one of which (Electoral Division 3) has a "minority-majority" population. (The minority-majority district is much smaller than the other four, as it must be in order to guarantee that the electorate is majority African-American.) For each of these five offices, if there are three or more candidates, there is a non-partisan nominating primary. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he is elected; otherwise, the top two advance to the general election. For each of these five offices, the candidates must reside in the corresponding electoral division, and only voters in that electoral division will vote for that office in the primary and general election. (Oklahoma County, Judicial District No. 7, is the only other county with judges elected by division.)

Despite the three different paths one can take to be elected, a Judge in Judicial District No. 14 can be assigned to try any case within the two counties.

Each county in the state also elects an Associate District Judge, nominated and elected countywide. Tulsa County Associate District Judge Dana Kuehn was appointed to the State Court of Civil Appeals last year, and three men have filed to replace her: Cliff Smith, Adam Weintraub, and Brian Crain. Pawnee County Associate District Judge Patrick Pickerell was re-elected without opposition.

In addition to the elected judges, the District has a certain number of Special Judges, who are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the District Judges. There is no correspondence between being a district judge, associate district judge, or special judge and the docket you may be assigned to handle.

All this I was able to puzzle out from prior knowledge and browsing through the relevant sections of the Oklahoma Statutes. What I still couldn't quite figure out is which of the 14 offices corresponded with the five electoral divisions, and which one was nominated from Pawnee County. Although electoral division 4 votes for office 4, I was pretty sure the pattern did not apply to the other offices. After a few phone calls, someone from the Tulsa County Election Board found the relevant info in the League of Women Voters handbook. So here it is, for your reference and mine.

Offices elected by Tulsa County Electoral Divisions in red.
Offices nominated by Pawnee County in blue.

¹ Not seeking re-election.

Eight of the incumbent district judges were re-elected without opposition.

Two incumbents did not seek re-election. Special Judge Dawn Moody was the sole candidate for the open seat (Office 10) being vacated by Mary Fitzgerald. Retiring judge Doris Fransein left the other vacancy in Office 12, which drew three candidates: former City Councilor Rick Westcott, controversial former city attorney Martha Rupp Carter, and Stephen Clark.

The other four incumbents face challengers in the general election:

Office 1: Caroline Wall v. Keith McArtor and Tom Sawyer
Office 2: Sharon Holmes v. Blake Shipley
Office 3: Jim Caputo v. James Williamson and Tracy Priddy
Office 9: Linda Morrissey v. Chris Brecht

The contested races will be decided by all voters in Tulsa and Pawnee counties, with the exception of Office 2 (decided by voters in Election District 3, mainly the north part of the City of Tulsa). The Tulsa County Election Board hosts a map of the Tulsa County judicial election districts. So everyone in Tulsa County will have four district judge races on the primary ballot -- Offices 1, 3, and 12, plus Tulsa County Associate DIstrict Judge -- while no one in Pawnee County will have a judicial race in the primary. In the general election, everyone in Tulsa and Pawnee counties will vote for Offices 1, 3, 9, and 12. Tulsa County will also have an associate judge race on the general election ballot, and Election District 3 will choose between Holmes and Shipley for Office 2.

Judges on the Court of Civil Appeals, Court of Criminal Appeals, and Oklahoma Supreme Court face retention every six years after their initial retention vote at the general election after their appointment. If there are more votes against retention than for retention, the judge is removed from office and the governor appoints a replacement.

This has been a busy spring, and that's a handy excuse for my lateness in writing about the upcoming 2018 Oklahoma primary, but the real reason has been a general disillusionment with politics and politicians and a dismay at cultural trends beyond politics. I'm having a hard time even wanting to care about elections; this from the guy who, as a 10-year-old, had the Tulsa Tribune's list of candidates for the 1974 Oklahoma elections pinned to his bedroom bulletin board. But as citizens in a republic, we are the sovereigns. We have the power to determine who will write our laws, who will carry them out, who will interpret them, and we have a divine obligation to exercise our sovereignty with wisdom.

To shake my political writer's block, I'm starting my 2018 Oklahoma primary coverage with those candidates whom I wholeheartedly support. First on the list is John Wright.

Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel is retiring after 16 years in the office. Tulsa County Republicans should elect John Wright, Yazel's chief deputy, to succeed him. No one is better prepared than John Wright, in both temperament and professional experience, to serve as our County Assessor.

During his 12-year service in the legislature, Wright was a consistent vote for conservative policies across the board. His voting record earned him a lifetime score of 91% on the Oklahoma Constitution Conservative Index. He was a leader in the Oklahoma House, serving as chairman of the Republican caucus and chairman of the House Administrative Rules and Agency Oversight Committee.

For the last seven years, John Wright has served in the Tulsa County Assessor's office on the executive staff. He has personally been involved with interviewing, selecting, and training over 40% of the County Assessor's office staff, is an Accredited Member of the International Association of Assessing Officials, and has over 500 hours of professional development education related to assessment of real property. As Chief Deputy Assessor, Wright has spoken to dozens of groups about property taxes, the assessment process, how to qualify for valuation freezes and homestead exemptions, the property owner's right to appeal an assessment, and other topics related to the County Assessor's office. John Wright is the only candidate with the depth of experience and knowledge to run the County Assessor's office from day one at a high standard of excellence and efficiency.

If by some fluke another candidate were to win the seat, they'd have to hire John Wright to actually run the assessor's office to have any hope of succeeding in the job.

Because of his careful attention to rules and his commitment to fair play and protecting the rights of all participants, John Wright has often been selected to preside over or serve as parliamentarian for state and county Republican conventions. GOP meetings can be emotionally fraught battles of faction against faction, but I've never heard anyone from any faction complain that John Wright played favorites.

And not playing favorites is one of the key responsibilities of the County Assessor. Under Ken Yazel's leadership, the Tulsa County Assessor's Office has led the state in professionalizing and systematizing the process of assigning a market value to every property in the county every four years. The Tulsa County Assessor's Office has consistently been at the top of the statewide table for compliance with the law. Sometimes that commitment to fairness and the law has meant angering powerful individuals and institutions by assessing their properties in accordance with state law. But if some don't pay the taxes they owe under the law, the rest of us have to pay higher property taxes for general obligation bond issues.

I have frequently expressed my appreciation for Ken Yazel's leadership on these pages. Yazel pioneered making his office's records of Tulsa County property accessible 24/7 online. Yazel has been a consistent voice against government waste and was often the lone county official to oppose tax increases. Yazel has been a consistent advocate for budgeting every penny under the control of county officials and agencies, despite the resistance of his fellow county elected officials. Despite their very different demeanors, John Wright and Ken Yazel share a commitment to budget transparency, efficiency, limited government, and public accessibility to public information. With John Wright replacing Ken Yazel, taxpayers will still have a strong and effective advocate on the Tulsa County Budget Board.

John Wright has been endorsed by outgoing Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel and by assessors in other counties who worked with Wright in the County Assessor's Association. Retired Woods County Assessor Monica Schmidt writes:

John Wright had just begun working in the Tulsa County Assessor's Office, while I was serving as the President of the County Assessors Association of Oklahoma. He had an immediate impact on our Association. His assistance and willingness to share his expertise, along with his ability to quickly learn the laws and procedures regarding the County Assessor's office, provided the Association and me an invaluable resource. Even though I was an assessor serving and representing a smaller county, I appreciated and benefited from Mr. Wright's wisdom and assistance by his sharing of his expertise.

I believe John Wright would make Tulsa County a great and respectable County Assessor.

Current Washington County Assessor Todd Mathes writes:

I met John Wright more than seven years ago and in the time since that first encounter, I have come to know a man who conducts his daily business with the utmost integrity and performs those duties with both humbleness and grace. His unwavering core beliefs guide him on his unparalleled path.

John has gone above and beyond the normal protocol to learn the "ins and outs" of the assessment industry, taking hours of advanced instruction to ready himself for this important calling. Since assuming his current role on the executive staff of the outgoing Tulsa County Assessor, John has positioned himself to become the next assessor for Tulsa County.

In my professional opinion, John Wright is the most qualified person to assume the duties of Tulsa County Assessor and will serve the constituents of Tulsa County in a fair and unwavering manner. As the long-time assessor of Tulsa's neighboring county to the north, I am confident that John Wright will uphold and more than fulfill the duties of the office of Tulsa County Assessor!

Wade Patterson, retired Garfield County Assessor who has known Wright since his time in the legislature, says, "I believe that John Wright is an unequaled and clear choice to serve as Tulsa County Assessor."

Only Republicans filed for the seat, so the next Tulsa County Assessor will be chosen in the June Republican primary or, if no one gets a majority in June, the August runoff. John Wright's opponents in the Republican primary are Byron Burke, who served in the county assessor's office under Democrat Assessor Wilson Glass for four years in the mid-1970s, Dominik Ting, a real estate appraiser in the County Assessor's office with a background in Information Technology, and political consultant and insurance salesman Darren Gantz.

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. Even if he had the requisite expertise to serve as County Assessor, I still wouldn't trust Darren Gantz with the office. (Click this link for more about why Gantz's efforts were so dangerous.)

Thankfully, Tulsa County Republicans don't have to compromise. We can elect a County Assessor who has the experience, integrity, and good judgment to serve us well. That man is John Wright.

State Rep. Jon Echols, floor leader of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, explains in this recent interview why passage of SQ 799 will not impede the teacher salary increases approved this session. In a nutshell, the money for raises is already in the state budget, and the improving economy has brought in enough additional revenue ("we just had the largest collections in the history of the State of Oklahoma last month") to fund the raises, without needing the revenue generated by the taxes in HB1010XX. If the initiative petition for SQ 799 receives sufficient signatures, the House leadership plans to call the Legislature back into special session and make the necessary appropriations to ensure that the teacher.

Note that Echols wants to get SQ 799 on the ballot as soon as possible. He claims that those circulating the petition are OK with a special election, as are the teachers' unions, but I suspect a special election would work in favor of the unions, who could turnout their voters to a low-turnout election, while a high-turnout general election date would benefit the anti-tax cause.