Oklahoma Election 2020 Category

Election Day 2020: Notes

By Michael Bates on November 4, 2020 11:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I voted in person yesterday at 9:35. The line was out the door, but not very far, and I slid my ballot into the scanner and was finished in 20 minutes. The other, larger precinct that votes at the same church had a line across the parking lot, but I suspect that many of those people were from my precinct but had just joined the first line they saw. When I drove back by mid-afternoon and toward the end of the day, there were no lines at all, and that was true of other precincts I passed.

We opted for a home watch party -- me, my wife, our younger two kids (the oldest is away in grad school). We started out scanning local stations at 6 pm, as states began to report results, but they were all in local-news mode, and only PBS was covering national results. We couldn't tolerate that for long, so we switched the screen to the computer, and pulled up Fox News on one size and DecisionDeskHQ.com on the other. We had carryout chicken tikka masala from Desi Wok and later snacked on some Plymouth East Meadow Cheddar I'd brought back from a recent visit to Calvin Coolidge's home town and the cheese factory founded by his father and revived by his son.

I did go out at about 8:30 to take pictures of posted results from nearby precincts. Our precinct officials posted the tape in the window, as required, but they allowed enough overlap with a notice posted next to it so that the results for the presidential and U. S. Senate races were hidden by the other piece of paper.

What I could see was encouraging. Although the midtown precincts I checked were fairly evenly divided between Democrat and Republican candidates, State Question 805 was losing by a substantial margin.

While driving around I flipped through the radio stations. KRMG's Dan Potter had current Mayor GT Bynum IV and former Mayor Susan Savage. I wondered on Facebook why KRMG didn't include a Republican in their coverage, but Democrat allies on past city tax and zoning battles reminded me that they didn't include a Democrat either. Both mayors are proud members of the Money Belt Uniparty who may have only a vague idea where the three eastside seats on the ballot are located. Bynum and Savage were both gleeful about the defeat of District 5 Councilor Cass Fahler, the strongest council ally for Tulsa police officers and the strongest opponent of mask mandates. Bynum called Fahler's campaign "lazy," contrasting it with Mykey Arthrell's tireless pursuit of votes. They also sounded thrilled about the re-election of Connie Dodson in District 6 and Lori Decter Wright in District 7.

I thought that Republicans had a good chance at taking two of the three City Council races on the ballot; Dodson had forged a moderate path on police and masks and seemed likely to win re-election. Fahler's re-election was killed by another 2-to-1 early vote advantage; he won election day but lost the total by 347 votes. I have heard that neighborhood social media pages in the northwestern part of the district were extremely hostile to Fahler, particularly over his stance on mask mandates. These seem to be popular areas for progressives who want to live near the city center but can't afford to live any nearer than Yale Ave. District 6 wasn't close; challenger Christian Bengel was badly underfunded, and the FOP had endorsed incumbent Dodson very early in the race. Wright's challenger Justin Van Kirk poured a ton of his own money into the race, narrowly won among election day voters, but lost by about 1600 votes because of Decter Wright's 3-1 early voting ratio.

Here is a problem with non-partisan city elections on the same ballot as highly partisan races like President and Senate: Voters mark the straight-party line (as Republicans were encouraging voters to do), but that doesn't cast a vote for allegedly non-partisan council races. On such a long ballot, with as many as 18 items for some voters, a non-partisan race at the very end is easy to ignore, and it's easy to vote for the familiar name.

It's apparent that the Tulsa County Democratic Party has been taking local elections seriously and helping Democrats seeking local non-partisan office. The Tulsa County Republican Party needs to follow suit, to work on local races throughout the election cycle, identifying and recruiting potential candidates who support the GOP's values and policy aims, clearing the path for good candidates (perhaps by conducting an endorsing convention to decide among multiple Republican contenders), and connecting them with money and volunteers. The Tulsa GOP needs to be monitoring the performance of our city, county, and school officials, with reporters at every meeting, recording and highlighting examples of bad judgment and favoritism. It's not enough to get busy in the last few months before an election. The Oklahoma GOP's dominance in the legislature was built by party officials back in the late '90s and early 2000s by men like 1st Congressional District Chairman Don O'Nesky, 2nd District Chairman Bob Hudspeth, 4th District Chairman Steve Fair, and State Chairman Gary Jones, who identified candidates from among local leaders, respected by their communities, not necessarily active in politics, but who had a conservative outlook on public policy. The candidates who will put themselves forward aren't always the best positioned to run a serious race or to govern well; a party's job is to identify good candidates, encourage them to run, and facilitate their efforts with resources.

Back at the house: Fox's reluctance to call states that were obviously in Trump's column and out of reach for Biden (like Texas and Florida) got frustrating after a while, and we switched to Newsmax, then eventually to the Daily Wire for their running commentary.

The four of us were doing our own results reporting, each digging into county-by-county results on DecisionDeskHQ.com on our own computers and sharing interesting finds, while listening for commentary or breaking news. I enjoyed using the map results on the Oklahoma State Election Board results page to drill down to the precinct level to see which precincts were still outstanding and the patterns of support for each candidate. The only big flaw is that it doesn't show different colors in the non-partisan races, so there's no easy way to tell where 805 won and lost or which Tulsa City Council candidates won which precinct.

We stayed up long enough to see Trump apparently about to win Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, and suddenly the numbers stopped updating. There were reports that vote counting would stop in Philadelphia and in Atlanta, an obvious move to wait for downstate votes to finish coming in so corrupt big-city machine officials could manufacture enough ballots to tip the states to Biden, the same way Kennedy won Illinois in 1960. We all headed to bed shortly thereafter.

Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico has a map-filled post on the Oklahoma results. Trump and Inhofe won all 77 counties. This is the fifth presidential election in a row that the Republican nominee has swept the state, although the margin in Oklahoma County was only 3400 votes. Democrats lost their last three rural seats in the State House, plus two in Oklahoma County. Republicans now control the House by 82-19 and the Senate by 39-9, and all of the Democrat seats are in the two biggest cities (OKC and Tulsa) and college towns (Norman and Stillwater). This is almost a complete reversal from the situation in the early 1990s, when rural districts (except northwest Oklahoma's wheat country) were solidly Democrat and nearly all Republican seats were in Tulsa and OKC and their suburbs.

I was disappointed to see the defeat of Republican Cheryl Baber in Senate District 35, a seat that had been held for 32 years by conservative Republicans (Don Rubottom, Jim Williamson, Gary Stanislawski), and before that by long-serving moderate Republican Warren Green. Baber had survived a bruising primary and runoff with establishment-backed Kyden Creekpaum. Although Creekpaum endorsed Baber in the general election (wisely so if he hopes to have a future in Oklahoma Republican politics), the endorsement came late in the game, and Democrat Jo Ann Dossett had racked up a two-to-one advantage in absentee-by-mail ballots, 7402 to 3723. Baber dominated election day voting, but fell short by 638 votes. The same pattern can be seen in the Tulsa County Commission race and in several vulnerable Democrat seats. Republicans are going to have to match and surpass the Democrats efforts in early voting, and to plan for targeting voters soon after the ballot is set.

Massive early voting allows well-funded candidates to target and influence voters and lock in their votes before the candidate with fewer dollars, who delays mailers until closer to election day to make her money stretch as far as possible, has put any information in front of the voters. One of the saddest news items in this election season was a surge of searches on the question "Can I change my vote?" after the second presidential debate.

Election 2020: BatesLine ballot card

By Michael Bates on November 3, 2020 9:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click to download a printable version of the BatesLine ballot card

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma general election and City of Tulsa runoff on November 3, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) Please note that the rows on the chart are alternately shaded and unshaded for readability. The presence or absence of shading has no other significance.

This is an unusually early version of the BatesLine ballot card in response to many requests from people who are voting absentee by mail and want to be sure their ballot has plenty of time to arrive. Below is a summary of my recommendations; I will elaborate on them in later entries. I hope to have a formatted printable ballot card in the near future.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

When in doubt, I look at campaign contributions, which often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. Campaign expenditures can be telling, too: Certain consulting firms have strong associations with the pay-to-play culture that makes our Republican supermajority legislature more crony-infested than conservative. Then there are principled conservative consultants; their presence on a campaign team is always a hopeful indication that the candidate is also a principled conservative.

The presidential election leads the ballot, and Oklahomans have six choices this year -- Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, and three independents -- more than in all the years I've been voting. U. S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is up for re-election against a teleprompter reader, a perennial Libertarian candidate, and two independents. All five congressmen have challengers; the race to watch is District 5, where State Sen. Stephanie Bice hopes to reclaim the traditionally Republican seat from Pelosi Democrat Kendra Horn, the surprise winner in 2018. (Before Horn's win, the seat had been in GOP hands since John Jarman's party switch in 1975.)

The only statewide state office on the ballot in presidential years is a seat on the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, which has six year terms. This year, Republican incumbent and former House Speaker Todd Hiett is being challenged by Libertarian Todd Hagopian; no Democrat filed for the seat. All 101 State House seats and the odd-numbered State Senate seats are up for election in presidential years, but many of these races have already been settled in the primary or runoff.

There are two state questions, 805 and 814. SQ 805 is a constitutional amendment that would help career criminals get back to work by reducing the amount of time these repeat offenders could spend in prison and releasing some currently incarcerated career criminals early. SQ 814 is also a constitutional amendment that would divert revenue from the tobacco lawsuit settlement to pay for the unwise Obamacare Medicaid expansion (SQ 802) that was narrowly approved in June.

All 77 counties have four offices up for reelection in presidential years: District 2 County Commissioner, County Clerk, County Court Clerk, County Sheriff. In Tulsa County, Sheriff Vince Regalado and County Clerk Michael Willis were re-elected without opposition. County Court Clerk Don Newberry won a primary rematch in June and has no general election opponent. Republican Josh Turley, Ph.D., is challenging longtime incumbent Democratic County Commissioner Karen Keith.

There are retention votes for three state supreme court justices, two judges on the court of criminal appeals, and three judges on the court of civil appeals. These are yes-no votes, unlike the district judge elections that occur in gubernatorial election years. If "no" prevails -- and it never has -- a vacancy would be created that would be filled by the governor's selection via the judicial nomination process.

The City of Tulsa has runoff elections for three of the nine city council seats. (The auditor and councilors in Districts 2 and 8 won re-election unopposed; the mayor and councilors in Districts 1, 2, 4, and 9 were re-elected by receiving greater than 50% of the vote in the August 25 election, which is a shame.)

MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

As a general rule, I support the Republican candidate, and I'm not aware of any race in which I would counsel otherwise. The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court demonstrates one critical reason for retaining Republican control of the White House. In foreign policy, we want to keep an administration that has brought Arab states into normal, peaceful relations with Israel, acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital, brokered peace between Serbia and Kosovo, pushed our NATO partners to shoulder their fair share of the financial burden of protecting Europe, and stood firm for better trade deals between the US and the world.

Re-electing Jim Inhofe and the four GOP congressmen, and taking back the 5th Congressional District are essential for regaining Republican control of the House (and booting Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker's chair) and retaining Republican control of the Senate, which in turn is crucial for ongoing efforts to appoint constitutionalists to the Federal courts.

In the Oklahoma Legislature, notwithstanding my disappointment at the Republican RINO leadership, it still is better, generally, to choose Republicans over Democrats. Electing Democrats only seems to encourage the RINOs to raise our taxes. Here in Tulsa County, all of the Republicans deserve your support, particularly:

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber (R)
Senate 37: Cody Rogers (R)
Senate 39: Dave Rader (R)
House 11: Wendi Stearman (R)
House 30: Mark Lawson (R)
House 71: Mark Masters (R)
House 79: Margie Alfonso (R)

Tulsa County Commission District 2: Josh Turley (R). Turley served as a crime scene investigator for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and then creating the first risk management program for TCSO, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts, and independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request. Turley would be an advocate for transparency in Tulsa County government. Incumbent Karen Keith's consistent votes to waive competitive bidding on bond issues is bad for Tulsa County taxpayers, as is her neglect of rural county roads. More detail here.

State Questions:

SQ 805: No. This constitutional amendment would make it easier for career criminals, including those currently incarcerated, to get out of prison and resume their careers.
SQ 814: Yes (with hesitation). This would mitigate the narrow, foolish approval of SQ 802 by dedicating tobacco settlement money (currently spent very poorly) to cover the cost of Medicaid expansion. My hesitation is that Sen. Nathan Dahm opposed this when it was before the legislature.

On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.

Judicial retention:

Appointing governors and party affiliation are noted in parentheses. An asterisk indicates that trustworthy conservative commentators disagree with me on those judges.

Supreme Court Justice Matthew John Kane IV (Stitt, R, 2019): Yes (enthusiastically)
Supreme Court Justice Tom Colbert (Henry, D, 2004): No
Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Darby (Fallin, R, 2018): Yes (cautiously)
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Robert L. Hudson (Fallin, R, 2015): No*
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Gary L. Lumpkin (Bellmon, R, 1989): No*
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Jane P. Wiseman (Henry, D, 2005): No (emphatically)
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Deborah B. Barnes (Henry, D, 2008): No
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Keith Rapp (Nigh, D, 1984): No

UPDATE 2020/10/28: I've moved my detailed analysis of 2020 judicial retention questions to a separate page and expanded it. I've also modified my stance regarding Justice Darby.

Tulsa City Council:

I support replacing all of the City Councilors, except Cass Fahler in District 5. In each race on the November ballot, a registered Republican is running against a registered Democrat.

Tulsa Council District 5: Cass Fahler (R). At a time when law enforcement is under attack, we need a strong advocate for law and order on the council.
Tulsa Council District 6: Christian Bengel (R).
Tulsa Council District 7: Justin Van Kirk (R).

MORE INFORMATION:

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

Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
Sheridan Church's Tulsa Town Hall candidate forum (includes several council candidates in the runoff
iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
Steve Fair and Georgia Wiliams, longtime SW Oklahoma conservative activists, weigh in on judicial retention and state questions
Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow warning triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

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

Published on 2020/10/08, postdated to stay at the top through election day. Printable ballot card published on 2020/10/17. Updated to reflect a change in my views on Supreme Court Justice Richard Darby.

Pat is back

By Michael Bates on November 3, 2020 11:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Pat Campbell with Daryl Simmons and Jarrin Jackson, on Election Day 2020. Photo from TalkRadio1170.com

Introduced by Aerosmith's "Back in the Saddle," Pat Campbell, long-time morning host on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, was back on the air this morning after a four-week absence. He was in studio for the full three hours with regular guests Jarrin Jackson and Darryl Simmons, discussing today's election and taking calls.

Pat reported that his absence was the result of voice problems caused by being intubated following a seizure. The intubation left him sounding, he said, like Carol Channing. He went through weeks of physical therapy to restore his vocal performance and allow him to return to the airwaves. He is still clear of cancer; earlier this year, a seizure revealed three cancerous brain tumors, which were surgically removed and followed with a course of chemotherapy and radiation.

Pat expressed his gratitude for the prayers and encouragement of his listeners. He was strongly motivated to come back this morning both to reconnect with his audience and to voice his strong opposition to State Question 805, the pro-career-criminal amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution backed with millions of dollars from out-of-state leftist organizations.

Pat is a great friend of BatesLine, and it was wonderful to be able to speak with him during today's 8 o'clock hour. His voice has been sorely missed, particularly during these critical weeks before the election, but we're blessed to have him back in the saddle again to guide us through whatever its aftermath brings.

Leftist groups donate $6.3 million to SQ 805

By Michael Bates on November 2, 2020 12:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Two out-of-state Leftist organizations contributed a total of $6,336,852.36 in support of State Question 805, the proposed constitutional amendment that will allow temporarily inconvenienced career criminals to return more rapidly to their vocation of victimizing their neighbors. The two organizations, the ACLU and FWD.US, combined to provide 87% of the the contribution totals, which include both cash and in-kind contributions; in-kind contributions include both staffing support and direct payments to campaign consultants. Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform also provided $54,629.01 in in-kind support. The Yes on 805 Committee raised a total of $7,281,215.29, of which $666,014.52 was in-kind, as of September 30, 2020.

The breakdown by organization:

ACLU $2,970,044.46
FWD.US $3,366,807.90

Keep in mind that these numbers are as of September 30, 2020, and have no doubt grown significantly.

The largest individual contribution was $500,000 from Tulsa heiress Stacy Schusterman. (Her last name is misspelled on the report, without the C.)

$200,000 came from a New York City financial exec named Robert Granieri, who lists his employer as a controversial trading company called Jane Street.

Financial activity for this campaign began in October 2019, with FWD.US paying substantial sums to consultant Brian Elderbloom, Oklahoma PR firm Saxum Communications, and Tulsa law firm Crowe & Dunleavy, Cash contributions began in December 2019, but the required reports for the 4th quarter of 2019 and the first two quarters of 2020 do not appear in the Oklahoma Ethics Commission database.

The grand total raised in the same period by No on 805 is $133,400. That's a 55:1 ratio in favor of the Yes side. The principal donors are Mo Anderson, Robert Funk, and Robert Funk, Jr., each giving $25,000; Mathis Brothers Furniture, the National Police Support Fund, Frank Robson, and RT Development each gave $10,000; and Frank Keating, Kirk Humphreys, and the Oklahoma Farm Bureau gave $5,000 each.

The ACLU's Communist roots in the Stalinist period are well-known. The organization's support for toleration of dissent is typically one-sided, working to facilitate groups hostile to America's founding principles while standing aside when defenders of the American constitutional order are under attack. It's fair to say that the ACLU planted many of the seeds that led to 2020's Antifa riots.

FWD.US is a newer organization founded in 2013 by Silicon Valley tycoons to support amnesty for illegal immigrants, more visas for foreign tech workers, and mass release of criminal predators. (One of the founders of FWD.US, Mark Zuckerberg, has unleashed an additional, massive attack on trust and social cohesion. It's known as Facebook.) The group has a history of "partnerships" with useful, nominally conservative groups like Americans for Tax Reform.

Why are these national organizations so willing to dump millions of dollars into an allegedly grass-roots Oklahoma referendum? I think it's for the same reason that so much has been invested into trying to get Oklahoma to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: If a solid red state like Oklahoma approves such a radical change, it becomes easier to persuade other conservative states to follow Oklahoma's example. At the state level, the presence of OCPA on the list of supporters gives a veneer of bipartisanship to this leftist constitutional amendment, while the presence of a long-ago police chief (squishy Drew Diamond, renowned for his refusal to deal honestly with the presence of gangs in Tulsa) and a lone district attorney (who won in 2018 with financial backing from many contributors who are now backing 805) allows all that pro-805 money to craft the appearance that law enforcement is ambivalent, despite the opposition of 96% of Oklahoma's district attorneys, the FOP, both candidates for Oklahoma County sheriff, and countless law enforcement officers.

The bulk of the names on the banner ad running on various websites in support of 805 include left-wing names like former Democrat Gov. Brad Henry, disgraced former Democrat Gov. David Walters, former Democrat Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor, and liberal ex-judge William Kellough (who lost re-election to a poorly funded challenger because of his egregious record).

State leaders oppose SQ 805

By Michael Bates on October 30, 2020 11:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Logo for No on SQ805 On Thursday, October 29, 2020, a large group of state officials, law enforcement leaders, domestic violence survivors, and community leaders gathered for a press conference to urge Oklahomans to vote NO on SQ805. Speakers included Lt. Governor Matt Pinnell, Attorney General Mike Hunter, former First Lady Cathy Keating, Oklahoma FOP president Mark Nelson, Kim Garrett, CEO & Founder, Palomar Domestic Violence Resource Center, criminal justice reformer Tricia Everest, Oklahoma Farm Bureau president Rodd Moesel, Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado, and attorney Marc Nuttle.

Lt. Gov. Pinnell noted the progress that has already been made under existing, legislative reform efforts. "There is an Oklahoma brand of criminal justice reform that takes a common sense approach. We've already reduced the prison population 20% with common sense reforms. 805 is the wrong solution."

Oklahoma FOP president Mark Nelson spoke to the commonplace situation of repeat domestic violence, "You hear the address come across the radio, and you know the offenses that have already been committed in that house.... State Question 805 is about keeping violent career criminals out of jail."

Deb Stanaland, a survivor of domestic violence who now serves as a domestic violence responder, pointed out that the early release of repeat domestic violence offenders would send victims the signal that the wrongs they suffered are unimportant. "Trust is important to Domestic Violence victims. That trust will be broken if you break those promises to victims."

Kim Garrett, the founder and CEO of Palomar Domestic Violence Resource Center in Oklahoma City, spoke of the unanimous opposition to SQ805 among domestic violence victims, and the peace and gratitude that victims feel knowing that their imprisoned abusers cannot get to them. "A victim I've spoken with is grateful for her husband's prison sentence, so that her daughter could turn 18 and be out of the house and not risk being killed by him.... I have no doubt that women and children will be the victims of this sloppy and careless reform.... Victims strongly oppose it, and their very lives may depend you voting against it."

Greg Mashburn, the district attorney for Cleveland, Garvin, and McClain counties in southern central Oklahoma, points out that by reducing sentences, SQ 805 will reduce the incentives repeat offenders have to agree to drug courts and diversion programs that would give them a chance to reform.

The full press conference is available for viewing on Facebook.

Josh Turley for Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2

By Michael Bates on October 30, 2020 12:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The only contested Tulsa County office on the ballot is a rematch for Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2. Republican Josh Turley seeks to defeat 12-year incumbent Democrat Commissioner Karen Keith.

Dr. Turley, whose doctorate is in organizational leadership, had a distinguished 24-year career at the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, serving as the TCSO's first civilian crime scene investigator and developing the department's first Risk Management program, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts. Turley independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley has since built a private company, Everything Behind the Badge, which develops custom policy and procedure manuals to help local law enforcement agencies improve their professionalism at an affordable price. Turley has been endorsed by the Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff's local, the Tulsa Police local of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (OK2A), and State Sen. Nathan Dahm, among many other endorsements displayed on the Dr. Josh Turley for Commissioner Facebook page.

Turley is an advocate for genuine transparency in Tulsa County government. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials (except for personal data restricted by law) would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request.

A county commissioner is responsible for maintenance of all public roads in the district that are not state highways or within city limits. District 2, which covers the western arm of Tulsa County, includes a great deal of unincorporated territory where the only roads are county-maintained roads. Turley has called attention to the terrible state of roads like West 41st Street, the main east-west artery in western Tulsa County south of the Arkansas River, and Old Highway 51, which is popular for cycling and access to fishing on the river below Keystone Dam. He says that incumbent Karen Keith hasn't fulfilled her road responsibilities during her 12 years in office. Rural roads are perhaps out-of-sight and out-of-mind for a midtowner like Keith.

Democrat incumbent Karen Keith, a former television reporter and anchor, was first elected in 2008. She has been very visible this year representing Tulsa County at daily COVID-19 press conferences. She was also very visible in her opposition to President Trump's visit to Tulsa in June, calling for city officials to say no to Trump in order to "preserve our image and save our downtown and arena." Turley ran a strong race against Keith in 2016, but fell short against Keith's name recognition and fundraising advantage.

Keith is unquestionably likeable, and her likeability seems to have tempted many Republicans to consider voting for her as their one gesture toward bipartisanship. That would be a mistake. We need new county commissioners, regardless of party, because the current commissioners aren't being good stewards of taxpayer resources. Electing Josh Turley to District 2, the only seat on the ballot this year, would be a great first step.

Tulsa County Commissioners, acting as the board of the Tulsa County Industrial Authority (TCIA), have authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds. Some of these are revenue bonds, borrowing money now to fund projects, and pledging future sales tax revenues to pay the debt. As of June 30, 2019, according to the TCIA's 2019 annual audit, TCIA had $111,729,421 in outstanding revenue bonds. Counties, like cities and school districts can also issue general obligation bonds which are repaid by higher property tax rates. According to Tulsa County's 2019 CAFR, the county has no general obligation debt.

TCIA also issues bonds known as conduit debt to finance construction projects for businesses (e.g. nursing homes, apartment complexes) and non-profits (e.g. schools, hospitals) that "promote the development of industry and culture and industrial, manufacturing, cultural and educational activities... [to] benefit and strengthen culture and the economy." Tulsa County taxpayers are not on the hook for these bonds; they are repaid by the end user. The end user benefits in that the bonds are typically tax-exempt, making them more attractive for investors. As of June 30, 2019, TCIA had $604,545,944 in outstanding conduit debt, an increase of $73.6 million from the previous year, "the result of a $53.7 million lease revenue note and a $66.9 million revenue bond being issued during the fiscal year, offset by debt repayments."

MunicipalBonds.com has a couple of examples of how conduit bonds can be controversial when they are issued to finance private companies that were rejected by banks. Back in 2003, BatesLine called attention to conduit debt TCIA issued to finance the purchase of apartment complexes for low-income housing by company run by a "dear friend" and bond adviser of one of the county commissioners; TCIA then issued bonds for double the original amount to a non-profit that purchased the complexes from the first company.

2003 was before Karen Keith was a commissioner, but just yesterday I was made aware of a case of securities fraud that involved numerous conduit bond issues from various local authorities, including $5,700,000 in bonds issued by Keith and her fellow TCIA board members on March 21, 2014, to an entity controlled by Atlanta nursing home developer Christopher Brogdon. I am just learning about this, so I don't know all the details, but at the very least it looks like Keith and the TCIA should have done more due diligence before issuing the bonds, given that this deal was the last in a long string of questionable deals cited by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In any event, it's clear that we need analytical, skeptical county commissioners on the TCIA who will carefully scrutinize every entity that seeks to borrow against our county's reputation.

What revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, and conduit bonds have in common is that the three county commissioners (acting as TCIA board members) decide whether to waive competitive bidding in deciding which law firm will serve as bond adviser and which financial institution will issue the bonds. I have yet to find an instance when the TCIA opted for competitive bidding for a bond issue, or even an instance when any one of the three commissioners voted for competitive bidding.

During the 2016 campaign, I called attention to a contemporaneous news item relevant to this topic: Then-state bond adviser Jim Joseph and then-State Auditor and Inspector Gary Jones spoke out against the widespread practice of school districts waiving competitive bids for bond issues.

Oklahoma school districts are spending millions of taxpayers' dollars every year by paying high fees for financial advisers, bond counsel and underwriters, says Jim Joseph, the state's bond adviser.
Many school districts continue to do the same thing year after year, while stubbornly refusing to use cost-saving competitive selection measures, he said.

"It's like picking a roofer right after a storm because he's the first guy who came to your door," Joseph said. "You're not going to get a deal, that's for sure."

State Auditor Gary Jones agreed school boards could save Oklahoma taxpayers money by obtaining competitive quotes.

"There could be tens of millions of dollars saved over a short period of time," Jones said.

Joseph went on to compare the massive fees paid by school districts to bond counsel and financial advisers, often a percentage of the bond issue, with the smaller amounts state agencies paid for much larger bond issue. Several were listed; here's one example:

For example, Midwest City-Del City Public Schools did a $72.62 million bond issue in 2012 without competitive bids. It paid the Floyd Law Firm of Norman $363,100 for serving as bond counsel and allowed Stephen H. McDonald & Associates and BOSC Inc., a subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation, to equally split $508,340 for serving as co-financial advisers, records show.
Compare that with a $310.48 million bond issue by the Grand River Dam Authority that was done in 2014 through a competitive process. The state paid a $114,000 bond counsel fee and a $133,448 financial adviser fee.

Although the Grand River Dam Authority bond issue was more than four times as large as the Midwest City-Del City school bond issue, the school district paid more than triple the amount in bond counsel and financial adviser fees, records show.

Joseph pointed out that bond counsel, underwriter, and financial advisers often each take 1% of the bond issue as their fee, which Joseph says "makes no sense at all. It doesn't take any more work to do a $20 million issue than a $10 million issue for the bond counsel and financial adviser, but the fee is twice as high, if payment is on a percentage basis."

What does this have to do with Tulsa County? Joseph noted that the firm of Hilborne & Weidman was frequently listed as bond counsel for these competition-waived bond issues. Hilborne & Weidman was also one of two bond counsel firms selected in 2003 by the Tulsa County commissioners (acting as the Tulsa County Industrial Authority) for the Vision 2025 revenue bonds, a massive bond issue against up to all 13 years of the new sales tax. I urged at the time that Tulsa County put all Vision 2025 bond-related contracts up for competitive bid, as commissioners haggled publicly over which firms would get a piece of the action, but they waived competitive bidding and split the baby, giving each favored firm half of the business.

Over the last 17 years, there's been a complete turnover on the County Commission, but the tradition of waiving competitive bidding has persisted. Here's one example from May 26, 2009, in Karen Keith's first year as a commissioner ($110 million in bonds), another from February 1, 2010, and yet another unanimous vote to waive competitive bidding from this year, from the September 21, 2020, meeting of the Tulsa County Industrial Authority.

On May 23, 2016, the commissioners, including Karen Keith, voted unanimously to waive competitive bidding on indebtedness, but neither the minutes nor the agenda explain the amount or nature of the indebtedness. Given the proximity to the April 2016 Vision Tulsa vote, my guess is that the vote was on the revenue bonds pledged against that new 15-year sales tax stream.

How many more projects might have been built if Vision 2025 bonds had been competitively bid? Could we have had a new juvenile justice facility without being asked for more tax dollars in two separate elections (2005 and 2012)?

Given the size of these bond issues, even a 1% fee would be a huge amount for a small firm. The temptation to corruption would be immense. Think of the money the former Skiatook superintendent got in kickbacks from the janitorial supply company. That would be chump change compared to even a small cut of 1% of a $500 million bond issue.

Oklahoma taxpayers need legislation to require competitive bidding on bonds and to require counties, school districts, and cities -- and their associated Title 60 trusts -- to use the state bond adviser rather than hiring their own favored exclusive firms.

Until we get that legislation, we need county officials who will support transparency and fiscal prudence. We need more than mere niceness; we need intelligence, initiative, and analytical skill. Dr. Josh Turley, a good man with many years' experience as a county employee, can provide that kind of leadership, and I hope Tulsa County District 2 voters elect him as their new county commissioner.

Tulsa Election 2020: City Council contributions

By Michael Bates on October 29, 2020 12:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Oklahoma state statute and Oklahoma Ethics Commission rules require campaign committees for city elections to file a campaign contributions and expenditures report with the City Clerk's office 10 days prior to an election (effectively 8 days, since the clerk's office is closed on the weekend, so the report is due that Monday at 4:30 pm), as well as last-minute contribution reports within 24 hours of receiving donations larger than $1,000 within the last two weeks. Reports are also due one month after the end of each quarter.

For the six candidates for Tulsa City Council on the November 3, 2020, ballot, that means their pre-election report was due to the Tulsa City Clerk at 4:30 pm on Monday, October 26. So far District 5 incumbent Cass Fahler (R) and challenger Mikey Arthrell (D), District 6 incumbent Connie Dodson (D), District 7 incumbent Lori Decter-Wright (D) and challenger Justin Van Kirk (R) have filed their reports. District 6 challenger Christian Bengel's (R) pre-election report is the only one of the six that does not appear on the City Clerk website, but he has provided me his report directly, and it is available below.

There are several important omissions from the reports that were available online. This may be an error in the City Clerk's uploading of the reports, rather than an omission by the candidate. Connie Dodson's pre-runoff Schedule A, a list of itemized contributions, is missing; the cover page of the report indicates that it includes $4,250 in PAC contributions which would be quite interesting. Likewise, there is no itemization of Mykey Arthrell's $3,545.83 pre-general election expenditures.

Several PACs are shown on individual candidate reports to have made contributions, but none of them filed reports: Tulsa Biz PAC (affiliated with the Tulsa Regional Chamber), Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

For the candidates who were on the August 25, 2020, city general election ballot, but not on next Tuesday's runoff ballot either because they won without a runoff or lost, their post-election quarterly report will be officially due Saturday, October 31, will be effectively due Monday, November 2, 2020, at 4:30 pm, but those reports could have been filed at any time since the beginning of this month, since they only cover contributions through September 30. Many of the candidates failed to file reports prior to the August election; we're looking forward to learning how much they raised and spent.

Here are the aggregate totals for the candidates in Tuesday's Tulsa runoff election, with a list of notable contributions. The name of the seat has a link leading to the Tulsa City Clerk's ethics report webpage for the district; the candidate name has a link to a PDF compiling all of the candidate's reports for this election cycle, which I have compiled, bookmarked, and OCRed.

Putting this together is a very tedious process -- clicking dozens of links, merging PDFs in the right order, then combing through the reports for contributors, double-checking sloppy reporting, and summarizing all of it below -- but BatesLine is the only place you can find organized campaign finance information for the 2020 City of Tulsa runoff. If you appreciate the hours that I've put into this, hit the tip jar and help cover the costs of keeping BatesLine going, which include web hosting, database access, domain registration, and computer equipment. If you'd like to support the site with advertising, contact me at blog@batesline.com.

In the past, when all the records were on paper only, the daily paper would have a City Hall reporter compile the list of contributions (back then $200 and under did not have to be reported). They don't bother nowadays. I find one recent story about campaign finance, focused on an out-of-state organization called the Accountability Project Institute, which is making independent expenditures against Mykey Arthrell and Lori Decter Wright; these candidates support an Office of Independent Monitor for the Tulsa Police Department, which the FOP opposes. No stories at all about the candidate's campaign finance reports. Perhaps they feel that now that the information is online, there's no need to bother. But busy voters need someone to curate the massive amounts of public information now available.

In most cases (every candidate except Cass Fahler), the totals on the most recent report don't match the sum of the amounts reported on each report to date. Candidates (or their treasurers) seem confused on the meaning of the Aggregate Total column. I've put my figures in square brackets. I have not double-checked that the reporting period totals are correct; in some cases this is impossible because key pages are missing from the online records. Most of the mistakes in calculating aggregates for the campaign and for individual contributors would be avoided if candidates were required to use the Oklahoma Ethics Commission system, as they were for a few years in the late 2000s and early 2010s, where individual transactions are uploaded, and the system calculates the totals.

District 5:

Cass Fahler (R): Carryover, $0.96, individual contributions, $15,785.00; PAC contributions, $9,500; total $25,285.96. Expenditures, $20,491.71. Notable contributions: Tulsa FOP, $5,000; Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors, $2,500; Tulsa Biz PAC; International Association of Fire Fighters, $1,000; Robert Zoellner, $2,700; Kurt Dodd, $2,000; Justin Van Kirk, $1,000; Bobby Van Holt, $1,000; John Stava, $1,000; Martha Blackburn, $750; CeCe Siegfried, $750; Meyer Siegfried, $750; Cord Charvat, $500; Jay Helm, $500; Steve Edwards, $500; Warren Ross, $250; Lou Reynolds, $200; Dewey Bartlett, Jr., $200;

Mykey Arthrell (D): Individual contributions, $13,255.00 [$13,355]; in-kind contributions, $1,000; total $14,255.00 [$14,355.00]. Expenditures, $11,094.38 [$12,094.38]. Notable contributions: Robin Flint Ballenger, $2,800; RE UP Dispensary, $1,000; Justin Schuffert, $1,000; George Krumme, $1,000; Kathy Taylor, $500.

District 6:

Christian Bengel (R): Individual contributions, $2,086.64 [$2,196.94]; PAC contributions, $1,000; loans (all from self), [$7,573.37]; total $3,086.64 [$10,670.31]. Expenditures, $3,086.64. Notable contributions: IBEW PAC, $1,000.

Connie Dodson (D): Carryover, $1,546.69; Individual contributions, [$10,435.00]; PAC contributions, $9,750 [$13,750]; total $18,561 [$25,731.69]. Expenditures, [$14,525.77]. Officeholder expenses, [$1,158.70]. Notable contributions: FOP 93 PAC, $3,500; IBEW Local 584, $3,000; Realtors PAC, $2,000; Tulsa Firefighters Local 176, $1,000; Lloyd Robson, $2,800; Cindy Robson, $2,800; Joe Robson, $1,000; Joe Chadwick, $1,000; Amulfo Murillo, $1,000; Sharon King Davis, $150; Lou Reynolds, $200.

District 7:

Justin Van Kirk (R): Individual contributions, $32,885.00 [$25,085.00]; PAC contributions, $7,500; loans (all from self), $10,300.00 [$10,500.00]; total $50,685.00 [$43,085.00]. Expenditures, [$40,135.21]. Notable contributors: FOP PAC, $7,500; Cord Charvat, $3,300; Robert Zoellner, $2,800; Justin Van Kirk, $2,800; Mike Case, $2,700; Albert Reynolds, $2,000; Jim Taylor, $1,105.

Lori Decter Wright (D): Carryover, $148.12; individual contributions, $17,689.50; PAC contributions, $3,500; political party contributions, $550; in-kind contributions, $3,328,49; total, $21,739.50 [$25,216.11]. Expenditures, $20,556.69 [$20,786.08]. Notable contributors: Tulsa Biz PAC [Tulsa Regional Chamber], $1,000; Tulsa Firefighters IAFF PAC, $2,500; Heart of the Party Tulsa County Federation of Democratic Women, $550; Cheryl Roberts, $1,400; Friends of Crista Patrick [District 3 Councilor], $500; Kathy Taylor, $800; Bill Lobeck, $500; Vanessa Hall-Harper [District 1 Councilor], $50; Ken Levit, GKFF executive director, $150; Teresa Burkett, $250; Sharon King Davis, $150.

Oklahoma Election 2020: Judges

By Michael Bates on October 28, 2020 8:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The 2020 Oklahoma general election ballot has retention votes for three State Supreme Court justices, two judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and three judges on the Court of Civil Appeals. These are yes-no votes, unlike the district judge elections that occur in gubernatorial election years. If "no" prevails -- and it never has -- a vacancy would be created that would be filled by the governor's selection via the judicial nomination process.

Oklahoma has a dual-path court system: The Court of Criminal Appeals is the supreme arbiter in criminal cases. Civil cases are appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, and can then be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court does not handle criminal cases.

My recommendation is to retain Justices Kane and Darby and vote no on the rest. I've put an asterisk next to two of my no votes, to note that other conservative political analysts disagree with me.

Here are the judges on the ballot. Appointing governors and party affiliation are noted in parentheses:

Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Robert L. Hudson (Fallin, R, 2015): No*
Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Gary L. Lumpkin (Bellmon, R, 1989): No*

Court of Civil Appeals Judge Jane P. Wiseman (Henry, D, 2005): No (emphatically)
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Deborah B. Barnes (Henry, D, 2008): No
Court of Civil Appeals Judge Keith Rapp (elected, 1984): No

(Judge Rapp first won election in 1984 when civil appeals judges were elected in competitive non-partisan elections. Beginning with the 1988 election, these judges were moved to the retention ballot (SB 22, effective April 20, 1987), which already applied to the State Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. As far as I can determine, Rapp and the other judges who had won elections under the old system continued in their elected six-year term and then faced a retention ballot when their term expired, without needing a gubernatorial appointment.)

Other conservative voices, including Georgia Williams and Steve Fair, Jamison Faught at Muskogee Politico, and Charlie Meadows, longtime head of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee, have published their opinions on the judicial retention questions, and Faught has provided biographical detail on each judge. They would retain a couple of judges that I would reject, for reasons noted briefly below.

Oklahoma Supreme Court:

You can read through this year's Supreme Court decisions here; many of them had to do with pending initiative petitions, and many divided the court.

One key 2020 ruling addressed the requirement to notarize an absentee ballot; the court majority made a novel interpretation of the law, claiming that permission to substitute a signed, but unsworn statement for a notarized, sworn affidavit as evidence in a civil proceeding (Title 12) also eliminated the requirement for notarizing an absentee ballot (Title 26). The Legislature had to act quickly, passing SB210 to close the loophole that the Supreme Court majority created. Gov. Stitt's two appointees were among the three justices (Winchester was the third) to object to the bad judgment of the majority. Stitt has made two excellent, insightful, and independent picks in John Kane (on this ballot) and Dustin Rowe (not on this ballot), and voting "no" on Colbert will give Stitt opportunities to continue his winning streak, while eliminating a justice that has shown poor judgment in this critical case and others.

Kane and Rowe were dissenters on a ruling that forced the Secretary of State's office to count SQ 805 petition signatures, despite the pandemic; Darby voted with the majority. Kane wrote the near-unanimous opinion (Darby concurred, Rowe dissented on one minor point) striking down SQ 809 because the gist, presented to potential petition signers, did not honestly reflect the substance of the proposal.

Our family has known the Kane family for over a decade through our homeschooling community, which turned out in large numbers to attend his 2019 swearing-in. We have first-hand experience of John's integrity, character, and values. While still an Osage County District Judge, John opened his courtroom every spring to preside over a mock trial competition, which gave eighth graders an opportunity to see the inner workings of criminal court. COVID-19 prevented that tradition from continuing this year, but Justice Kane generously hosted a Zoom session with the students to answer their questions about the Oklahoma judicial system and legal careers. (He gracefully praised and sidestepped a question from my son about the implications of the McGirt ruling.)

Georgia Williams and Steve Fair disagree with me on Justice Darby, on the grounds that he is a recent appointment by a Republican governor (Fallin). Faught points to two unspecified cases on abortion as a reason to retain Justice Darby, and notes that his wife is recently retired as the head of Altus Christian School. Meadows says, "Some of [Darby's] opinions/dissents have shown flashes of an originalist and he appears to be pro-life."

I've changed my mind and decided to support Darby, partly on the strength of his dissent in a 2019 case, Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, a case involving legislation that regulated the off-label use of medications to induce abortion. Darby was the lone justice (Kane and Rowe were not yet on the court) to argue against the majority's ruling that summary judgment was appropriate. His reasoning was straightforward and sensible: There were contested facts in the case, therefore summary judgment is not permitted. The majority in the case cites Roe v. Wade, but they seem anxious to prevent any case from advancing that might open the door to a reversal of Roe v. Wade. This case illustrates why Oklahomans for Life has been focused in recent years on reform of the judicial nominating process.

The ruling on SQ 807, a petition to add a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana for any purpose, is interesting in that Darby concurred in dissents by Stitt's two appointees, Rowe and Kane, which argued that the Federal Controlled Substances Act and the doctrine of supremacy means that the proposition is preempted by federal law and cannot move forward. The majority disagreed; the deadline for 807 signatures was Monday.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:

If you believe the treatment of Oklahoma City Police officer Daniel Holtzclaw is unjust, you will want to vote against both Court of Criminal Appeals judges up for retention, Hudson and Lumpkin; both voted to reject Holtzclaw's appeal. HoltzclawTrial.com and freedanielholtzclaw.com present the case from Holtzclaw's perspective; here is the Court of Criminal Appeals ruling. Holtzclaw appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the petition for certiorari was denied.

On the other hand, Faught quotes an acquaintance who worked for Lumpkin as saying that he is "to the right of Scalia," and he notes that Hudson is a Baptist deacon, Sunday School teacher, and a wheat farmer and cattle rancher. Meadows says that Hudson was "appointed by Governor Keating to replace a corrupt Democrat District Attorney out of Stillwater" and served as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Williams and Fair support Hudson as a recent Republican appointee, but recommend a no vote on Lumpkin on the basis of his 31 years of service.

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals:

We still haven't forgotten or forgiven Judge Wiseman's 2003 reversal of her 1995 application of the state constitution's logrolling provision, seemingly in order to appease Tulsa elites who could help her career. (She was appointed to the appeals court soon thereafter.)

All of the conservative commentators recommend voting NO on all three Court of Civil Appeals judges, two of whom were appointed by Democrat Governor Brad Henry; the third, Keith Rapp, was elected in a competitive election in 1984, defeating an incumbent.

Oklahoma SQ 805: Lighter sentences for career criminals

By Michael Bates on October 20, 2020 9:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Oklahoma State Question 805 would insert a new article into the Oklahoma Constitution to ban longer sentences for repeat felony offenders. The question arises from an initiative petition.

(UPDATE: On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.)

SQ 805 is opposed by the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (and by both candidates for Oklahoma County Sheriff), the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, and former Governor Frank Keating, who served as a U. S. Attorney and oversaw law enforcement agencies of the Departments of Treasury and Justice.

The principal opposition group, Oklahomans United Against 805 (no805.org), states that "State Question 805 (SQ805) will create a culture where crime is okay in Oklahoma by reducing penalties for career criminals. With SQ805, habitual offenders of serious crimes will spend less time in prison. These crimes range from domestic violence in the presence of a child, home burglary, to child trafficking, soliciting sex from a minor using technology, animal cruelty and more."

Here is the full text that would be inserted into the constitution if 805 were to receive a majority of the vote:

CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA, ARTICLE II-A CRIMINAL HISTORY IN SENTENCING
SECTION 1. Definitions

As used in this Article:

A. "Community supervision" shall be defined as a specified period of supervision with conditions, including but not limited to parole, probation, and post-imprisonment supervision.

B. "Statutorily allowable base range of punishment" shall be defined as the range of punishment prescribed for the offense or offenses for which an individual is convicted, without the application of a statutory sentencing enhancement based on one or more former convictions.

C. "Violent felony" shall be defined as any felony offense specified in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes as of January 1, 2020.

SECTION 2. Exclusions

This Article does not apply to, and nothing in this Article shall be construed as applying to, changing, or affecting sentences for a person who has ever been convicted of a violent felony, no matter when convicted.

SECTION 3. Range of punishment after former felony convictions

Except as provided in section 2 of this Article, a former conviction for one or more felonies shall not be used to enhance the statutorily allowable base range of punishment, including but not limited to minimum and maximum terms, for a person convicted, whether by trial or plea of guilty or nolo contendere, of a felony.

SECTION 4. Sentence modification - eligibility

Except as provided in section 2 of this Article, a person serving a sentence of incarceration or a person incarcerated pending an acceleration or revocation for a felony offense shall be eligible for sentence modification under this Article if the sentence, including any period of community supervision, for which the person is currently incarcerated satisfies the following criteria:

A. Was imposed based on a statutorily allowable base range of punishment that was enhanced based on one or more former felony convictions; and

B. Is greater than the current maximum sentence which may be imposed on a person convicted of the same felony or felonies who has not been formerly convicted of a felony.

SECTION 5. Sentence modification - initiation of proceeding

A. To initiate a proceeding for sentence modification under this Article, a person who believes that they satisfy the criteria in section 4 of this Article, henceforth known as the "petitioner," shall file a verified "application for modification" with the clerk of the court that imposed the sentence of incarceration. The Court of Criminal Appeals may prescribe the format of the application. If the court that imposed the sentence is not available, the presiding judge shall designate another judge or magistrate to rule on the application. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application, a period which may be extended if the court has good cause, the court shall dismiss the application pursuant to subsection B of this section or proceed pursuant to subsection C of this section.

B. If the court determines, on the basis of the application, that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria in section 4 of this Article or has not adhered to the format of the prescribed application, it may deny the application, citing reasons for the denial, or allow the petitioner to file an amended application. Denial of the application due to technical errors shall not abridge the right of the petitioner to file a subsequent application.

C. If the court determines, on the basis of the application, that the petitioner satisfies the criteria in section 4 of this Article, then the court shall conduct a sentence modification hearing and modify the sentence in accordance with section 6 of this Article. In advance of such hearing, the court shall appoint counsel for petitioners who are indigent and notify the state. If the petitioner has a victim registered with the Department of Corrections for the sentence for which the petitioner is applying for modification, the state shall notify the victim of the sentence modification hearing.

D. The Department of Corrections shall provide support as necessary to ensure this section is implemented, including but not limited to posting information in facility common areas regarding the rights set forth under section 4 of this Article and providing timely and adequate assistance for the preparation of applications pursuant to subsection A of this section.

SECTION 6. Sentence modification - hearing

A. The sentencing modification hearing shall be held in open court. The court must accord the state, any registered victim, and the counsel for the petitioner an opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter relevant to the question of sentence. The petitioner has the right to make a statement on his or her own behalf before the court pronounces a modified sentence.

B. During the sentencing modification hearing, the court shall reconsider the sentence for which the petitioner is currently incarcerated, without any consideration or reference to an enhancement based on one or more former felony convictions, consistent with section 3 of this Article. In reaching this determination, the court shall consider the estimated cost of the petitioner's continued incarceration to the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma.

C. At the conclusion of the sentencing modification hearing, the court shall be empowered to modify any aspect of the original sentence. At minimum, the court shall modify the sentence to be no greater than the current maximum sentence which may be imposed on a person convicted of the same felony or felonies with no former felony convictions. The court shall not modify the sentence so that the portion of the sentence to be served in prison is greater than the remainder of the original sentence to be served in prison.

SECTION 7. Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals

A denial pursuant to subsection B of section 5 or a final order entered under subsection C of section 6 of this Article may be appealed by the petitioner to the Court of Criminal Appeals within sixty (60) days from the entry of the denial or final order. The appeal shall be taken in accordance with procedures implemented by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

SECTION 8. Implementation

This Article shall become effective on the January 1 immediately following its passage.

SECTION 9. Severability

The provisions of this Article are severable, and if any part or provision shall be void, invalid, or unconstitutional, the decision of the court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions of this Article, and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

Let's walk through this. The first problem is that this is statutory language that would be enshrined in the constitution. Section 1 has a list of definitions, very common in statutes, but a signal that the text is far too specific for a constitution, which ought to address the basic structure of government, its powers and constraints, and the reserved rights of the people. The only reason this is being added to the state constitution is to prevent the legislature from easily fixing its problems and unintended consequences.

One definition in particular is problematic: "Violent felony" is not spelled out with a specific list of crimes, or left to the legislature to define and adjust as appropriate, but with a reference to a statute at a particular moment in time. The aim is to prevent the legislature from recategorizing heinous "non-violent" felonies as "violent felonies" so as to exempt them from the ban on sentence enhancements.

Here is a link to the version 57 O.S. 571 as of January 1, 2020. This list is Title 57, Prisons and Reformatories, in Chapter 8A, Although this list of crimes has already been superseded with the passage of HB3251 this year, the obsolescent list will be forever enshrined in the constitution if 805 passes.

HB3251 added the following item to the list of violent felonies in 57 O.S. 571:

aaa. domestic abuse by strangulation, domestic assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, or domestic assault and battery with a deadly weapon, as provided for in Section 644 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

The Legislature can add dozens of violent felonies to that section of law over the years, but none of them would ever be considered violent felonies for the purpose of sentence enhancements if SQ 805 passes. Every time a wife-beater commits, for example, domestic abuse by strangulation, his previous convictions for that crime cannot be considered in sentencing him for his latest conviction. The only way to incorporate newly added crimes would be to amend the constitution in a future state question either to update "as of January 1, 2020" to a more recent date or to strike that date phrase from the constitution entirely, which would undermine the intent of SQ 805.

As you'll notice, 57 O. S. 571 is a long list of crimes with cross-references to the title and section where each crime is defined. What happens if the sections of statute mentioned in 57 O.S. 571 as of January 1, 2020 are amended by a future legislature? Are those definitions in these other statutes also frozen in time? What if a future legislature changed the definition of, say, "burglary in the first degree, as provided for in Section 1431 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes," by removing the phrase "in which there is at the time some human being," so that any act of burglary is considered violent, even if no one is at home? Would that change the definition of violent felony in new Article II-A or not?

That question would end up in the courts, which illustrates the trouble with amending the constitution with statutory language via initiative petition. However imperfect, the legislative process gives an opportunity for structural defects in legislation to be aired and remedied in committee, on the floor, and in conference between the two chambers. An initiative petition is written by the proponents, with no vetting process beyond nods from "yes men," and then it's an up-or-down vote, with no opportunity to fix problems, short of another proposed constitutional amendment.

Another problem with this hard-coded reference to statute: If you scroll down to the bottom of the most recent version of 57 O.S. 571, you'll see a list of citations, which includes court decisions which refer to the section, and it also includes other laws in other titles that refer to this list of violent felonies. I count seven references, dealing with electronic monitoring, appeals of out-of-school suspensions, criminal record expungement, and sentence enhancements. As this section of law is expanded to include additional crimes, a gap will grow between the definition of violent felony used by these other statutes and the definition, frozen in amber, used by SQ 805's new section of the state constitution.

To continue:

Section 2 uses the definition of violent felony in section 1 to exclude someone who has ever been convicted of one of those crimes from all the protections that follow.

Section 3 is the heart of the proposed constitutional change: Previous convictions "shall not be used to enhance the statutorily allowable base range of punishment." That phrase, "statutorily allowable base range of punishment," has a circular definition in Section 1: "the range of punishment prescribed for the offense or offenses for which an individual is convicted, without the application of a statutory sentencing enhancement based on one or more former convictions." This is a mess.

Sections 4 through 7 establish a procedure by which people currently in prison can have any sentence cut to what would be allowed for new convictions of first-time offenders under 805. This is the "get out of jail early" provision which would allow a career criminal to get back to work victimizing the public sooner than he would have under his original sentence.

If the sentence a career criminal is serving is longer than a sentence for a conviction today for a first time offender, the career criminal can apply for a hearing to get that sentence reduced. The judge can modify the sentence, but only downward, so the process bears no risk to the career criminal. The sentence has to be cut at least to the length of sentence for a first-time offender, but could be cut further. The career criminal is entitled to a state-paid attorney. The same court that imposed the original sentence is responsible to hear the sentence-modification request. The prosecutor, the career criminal's attorney, the career criminal himself, and the registered victim, if any, are all entitled to speak.

Once again, this is statutory language being locked into the constitution where it can't be adjusted if the procedure proves impractical. Ordinarily, a constitutional provision would establish a right or an obligation and then would direct the legislature to make laws enforcing the provision. The only nod to practicality is authorizing the Court of Criminal Appeals to design the application form.

In Section 6.B. there is this little bombshell, which hasn't received any attention:

In reaching this determination, the court shall consider the estimated cost of the petitioner's continued incarceration to the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma.

I assume that courts may consider other factors as well, but the only factor they are mandated to consider is the cost to the taxpayer, and of course a shorter sentence will always cost the taxpayer less than a longer sentence, but there is no mandate to weigh that cost against the cost borne by the future victims of the career criminal as he returns to his life's work.

There are two reasons we lock people up: To punish the criminal and to protect the public. Shoplifting, burglary, car theft -- all these property crimes impose a tax on the public. (There are many more crimes that are affected by 805; see below for a longer list.) This tax manifests itself as higher prices, higher insurance rates, alarm monitoring fees, the cost of stronger locks and higher fences.

A more targeted tax is paid by families and small businesses that are existing on the margins: Families on the edge of poverty can't afford the protections available to wealthier Oklahomans, which makes them targets of opportunity for career criminals to take what little they have. Likewise, small retailers pay a greater price for theft, and are less able than the big chains to afford surveillance or pass on losses to consumers.

There's a social tax, too: The knowledge that career criminals are living among us and that the legal system no longer cares about protecting us from them, will only make Oklahomans more suspicious and less trusting of one another.

The proponents of 805 care nothing about these impacts. They care only that predators are allowed to roam free. In one social media exchange, a vocal proponent of 805 stated that, rather than protect women by imposing long sentences for domestic abusers, women should be taught how to hide money and escape from their abusers. With wild animals, we know we should avoid certain wild areas, should carry repellent sprays if we have to venture into those areas. The mindset behind 805 says that some people are just predatory, and because we live in their habitat, we must expect them to victimize us. It's nature's way, as Steve Irwin used to say about snakes and crocodiles.

Some may object to the term "career criminal," but many of the serious crimes that will be affected by SQ 805 are the sorts of crimes that people pursue as a way to make a dishonest living. 805 would reduce the consequences for their choice of a career.

Section 8 allows a career criminal who didn't to get the sentence reduction he wanted to appeal the decision to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in Oklahoma that deals with criminal cases. This remedy isn't available to prosecutors acting on behalf of the public or to victims, just to the career criminal.

Section 9 has a severability clause, which anticipates the possibility that the court might strike down part or all of this new constitutional language as unconstitutional, which is through-the-looking-glass weird. Severability is normal in a statute, completely inappropriate in constitutional language. It's particularly inappropriate in this case: If Section 1 or 2 were declared unconstitutional, the remainder of this new constitutional amendment would be meaningless.

I am voting no. There may well be a strong case regarding specific crimes for reducing sentences, or expanding diversion programs, or substituting restitution for incarceration, but the right way to address those questions is through the legislative process, where many voices can weigh in, as proposals are filtered through committees and the floor of each house, with public hearings and amendments, not through a poorly crafted, unvetted bit of legislation embedded permanently in our constitution.

Government's first responsibility is to protect citizens, particularly those who lack the resources to protect themselves, from evildoers who choose to victimize others as a way to make a living.

UPDATE 2020/10/30: I'm told that 805 proponents claim that the legislature could, if they choose, expand the sentence range for crimes not on the list in 57 O. S. 571 and thus impose the same sentences that are currently possible. If that's so, what's the point of 805? This is another example of the sloppy thoughtlessness behind 805, and why criminal justice reform needs to be a legislative process involving consultation with law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections officials, and criminologists. The RESTORE Task Force established by Gov. Stitt needs time to finish its work, but 805 threatens to undo this careful approach.

Oklahoma SQ 814: Using tobacco money to pay for Medicaid expansion

By Michael Bates on October 10, 2020 9:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Only two state questions are on the ballot in November, which seems like a record low. Of the 12 attempts this year at putting a question on a ballot via initiative petitions, two made it two the ballot (802 and 805), two (involving marijuana) are in process, and the remainder failed for lack of signatures or were stricken by the State Supreme Court. (One more petition, SQ 803, seeking a referendum on HB 2597, also failed for insufficient signatures.)

State Question 814 is a legislative referendum. It began as Senate Joint Resolution 27 and was passed by large majorities (81-17 in the House, 34-11 in the Senate). Because it modifies the State Constitution, final approval requires a vote of the people. Sen. Nathan Dahm appears to have been the only Republican vote against it, but I haven't been able to find his rationale.

(UPDATE: On October 30, 2020, I spoke with Jeremie Poplin, filling in for Pat Campbell on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ, about both State Questions. Click the link to listen.)

Here is the video of debate on SJR 27 in the State Senate on March 12, 2020, and here is the State House debate on SJR 27 from May 14, 2020.

The proposal would modify Article X, Section 40, repurposing money that currently goes into the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund to pay the state's share of the Medicaid expansion that voters foolishly approved with SQ 802 in June.

Article X, Section 40 is a provision that was added to the Oklahoma Constitution by SQ 692 at the November 2000 election, initiated by the legislature, creating a Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) Fund to contain a portion of the settlement payments from the tobacco companies. The percentage of payments dedicated to the fund began at 50% and increased by 5% a year to 75%, where it has remained since 2007. A special trust with separate board of directors and board of investors handles the funds; the remainder is available for appropriation by the legislature as part of the normal budget process. SQ 814 would reduce that percentage to 25%

TSET's spending has been controversial. TSET is supposed to be using the fund (worth $1.4 billion at the end of FY2019, the most recent year that has been audited) to help people quit smoking and to deal with the medical consequences. The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) documented many examples of poor judgment and management, such as the "Free the Night" program that seems to promote drinking in bars.

Oklahoma has a problem with funding silos. Too many of the dollars received by state and local government are earmarked for one purpose or another, and many of those earmarks are constitutional. No matter how desperate the need may be in one department (say, schools), and no matter how overfunded the agencies receiving earmarked funds may be, there's no legal way to move money to where it's needed most. Legislators would rather raise taxes on all of us regular Oklahomans than risk unleashing the wrath of the lobbyists protecting their earmarks.

SQ 814 would not reallocate any of the money currently in the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund; it would only change how new money is allocated as it is received from the tobacco companies. (UPDATE: The TSET 2019 annual report states that the total receipts from the tobacco companies for the four fiscal years from 2016 through 2019 were, respectively, $76,009,297, $77,953,045, $71,663,337, and $69,766,823. Passage of SQ814 would mean that about $35 million that currently gets added each year to the $1.4 billion TSET endowment would instead be set aside for state Medicaid matching funds. TSET would still receive roughly $17.5 to $19.5 million each year, based on the last four years' income.)

SQ 814 doesn't come anywhere near fixing the problem of funding earmarks, but at least it redirects earmarked money where to fill part of what could be a massive fiscal hole. I'm voting yes.

Frank Keating: No on SQ805

By Michael Bates on September 7, 2020 8:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating has written an op-ed for the Daily Oklahoman opposing State Question 805, a ballot proposition that would add an amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma forbidding sentence enhancements for repeat offenders for many heinous albeit technically non-violent crime. SQ 805 will be on the November ballot.

Keating also served as an FBI agent, Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney, U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma in the Reagan administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Associate Attorney General. In the latter two roles he oversaw law enforcement agencies of the Departments of Treasury and Justice.

After taking a well-deserved swipe at a proposition that would make our ridiculously lengthy state constitution even longer, Keating focuses on the harm SQ 805 would do to crime deterrence:

This constitutional amendment is the ultimate gift to the career criminal and the insect crime wave of the lifetime repeat offender. The language says that if you commit a "violent crime," and there are 52 listed, you can have the book thrown at you. However, if you commit any other of the hundreds of criminal acts, including many that are very serious and dangerous, a second offense remains a first offense for punishment. No matter how many times you offend. There is no "enhancement" permitted. "After Former Conviction of a Felony" will become a useless phrase. A person's selfish and destructive long life of crime will be handled as one first offense after another. The fifteenth offense is the first offense as far as punishment goes.
Let's look at examples. Repeat drunk drivers who have caused injury. Incest. Trafficking in children. Hate crimes. Stalking and violation of protective orders. Drug distribution.

How many times can a criminal do these? As many as they wish. Each time, they will be treated as a first offender.

I have been an FBI agent, a state prosecutor and U.S. attorney in Tulsa. I supervised the federal criminal prosecutions in the U.S. as well as all of the U.S. attorneys and most of the federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. prison system. Proposed State Question 805 is a stay-out-of-jail free card.

There is always room for reform but not SQ 805. It will result in more criminal activity and more victims. We must not add to the girth of our constitution with this one-size-fits-all experiment. If 805 passes, it cannot be amended by any Legislature at any time.

State Question 805 is terrible public policy.

Tulsa Election 2020: Bynum's narrow win

By Michael Bates on August 25, 2020 11:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tulsa Mayor GT Bynum IV narrowly avoided a November runoff, winning re-election outright with 51.9% in this first round of City of Tulsa voting. 30-year-old Greg Robinson II, running to Bynum's left, garnered 28.8% of the vote. Ken Reddick, running to Bynum's right, finished third with 13.8%, followed by Ty Walker at 2.8% and Craig Immel at 1.9%, the remaining candidates were below 1%. Turnout was 70,745, with 23.0% voting early. Had another 2,637 voters turned out to vote for candidates other than Bynum, he would have faced a November runoff with Robinson.

I'll be on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ at 7:30 am Wednesday morning to talk about the results with Pat Campbell.

I had an enjoyable time as a member of a panel of commentators for KJRH's election night coverage, talking about the results and their significance. One of the striking things about the conversation was hearing about the Democratic Party's endorsement of Robinson, setting a precedent that Republicans would do well to follow. The Tulsa County Democratic Party chairman said something about flipping a council seat, which was humorously revealing. We all know that political philosophy matters, even in city government, and that people have party affiliations, despite the lack of a partisan primary. About 15 years ago, I proposed an idea I called multi-partisan elections, in which candidates of all parties would run on the same ballot, but with party labels, which might include words and phrases other than the names of national parties. The label next to a candidate's name might be that of a local coalition formed around local issues.

I started playing around with maps. I have QGIS, an open-source graphical information system suite, precinct and municipal boundary shapefiles from OK Maps, and precinct-by-precinct results from the Oklahoma State Election Board. I used Microsoft Access (I know, I know) to process the election board data before linking it to the precinct map. Here's my first, clumsy effort: A map showing the "swing" between Bynum's June 2016 vote and his vote today. The deepest purple shows precincts where Bynum's share of the vote fell by at least 25 percentage points; darkest green shows where Bynum's share of the vote went up by at least 25 points; in precincts with no color, his 2020 share of the vote was within 5% either side of his 2016 share.

Recall that in 2016, Bynum was effectively the Democratic nominee, the progressive candidate, as no prominent Democrat sought the office. Bynum won with support from Democrats along with those Republicans who were disappointed with Dewey Bartlett Jr's service as mayor. This year, Greg Robinson captured those left-wing voters, while there was no well-funded or well-organized candidate to Bynum's right. Bynum's vote slid most dramatically in north Tulsa and midtown, while his vote improved in south Tulsa.

Now, there are all sorts of problems with the map above. I haven't figured out how to tweak the projection so that a line drawn north through the center of Tulsa points straight up (the shapefiles I'm using are based on Oklahoma as a whole). I haven't figured out how to add a legend, and I didn't bother adding precinct numbers as labels. I haven't done an intersection between the precinct shapefile and the municipal shapefile so that I only show the portions of precincts that are within the city limits. There's no proprietary watermark. All that said, it does give you a picture of how votes shifted, and I hope to put together additional (and more attractive) maps in the near future.

Here's one more: The percentage voting yes or no for Proposition 2, which involved changing a handful of references in the City Charter from he/him to they/them to be "inclusive." Darkest blues are yes > 70%, darkest reds are yes < 30%. Overall, the proposition passed by the narrowest margin of the five on the ballot, with 54.7% support.

Tulsa election, Oklahoma runoff 2020: BatesLine ballot card

By Michael Bates on August 25, 2020 7:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click to download a printable version of the BatesLine ballot card

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma runoff and City of Tulsa general election on August 25, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) Please note that the rows on the chart are alternately shaded and unshaded for readability. The presence or absence of shading has no other significance.

As I posted this late Thursday night, there were races I had planned to write about in detail, but time was short, people were voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations, so I've started by posting my printable ballot card and will fill in some details as I have opportunity between now and Tuesday.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

In addition to runoffs in federal, state, and county primary elections, the City of Tulsa has an election for mayor and seven of the nine city councilors. (The auditor and the other two councilors won re-election unopposed.)

State law requires City of Tulsa campaign contributions and expenditures to be submitted to the City Clerk's office; the City Clerk posts them on the City's website. Sadly, many city candidates don't seem to have noticed that their pre-election reports were due on Monday, August 17, 2020, even though that information was included in the election packet that was provided to each city candidate who filed for office and which was also posted on the county election board website.

NOTES ON SPECIFIC BALLOT ITEMS:

U. S. House, District 5: Terry Neese. Winner of this runoff will go on to try to win back the seat taken two years ago by Kendra Horn, Oklahoma's lone congressional Democrat. The other runoff candidate, State Sen. Stephanie Bice, voted to raise taxes on Oklahomans in 2018, bypassing a vote of the people. I should note that there are controversies surrounding Neese's business practices and claims of Native American roots. (My primary pick, David Hill, would have been a much better choice than either Neese or Bice.)

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber. Baber is a known quantity among conservatives in state and local conservative circles. Creekpaum's strong backing from "the Kaiser System" should worry conservatives. Baber is the only candidate in the race who was wise enough to oppose SQ802. Baber has been endorsed by Governor Stitt, Senator Lankford, former Governor Keating, and the current and previous senators for District 35, Gary Stanislawski and Jim Williamson, both solid conservatives. I'm hoping this year will be an echo of Stanislawski's first race in 2008: City Councilor Cason Carter, a favorite of the Money Belt establishment, ran first in the primary, 44.5% to 40.6%, but fell short of a majority and lost the runoff to Stanislawski.

City of Tulsa proposed charter amendments: Yes on 1, 3, 5 (the odds are good), No on 2, 4. Click the link to read the actual charter changes that each proposition would enact, and why I support or oppose each.

Mayor of Tulsa: Ty Walker (R). Walker is a small businessman and a political conservative who deals with Tulsans from all walks of life on a daily basis. As someone who has lived on both sides of the tracks, as he puts it, Walker can be a bridge to link the disparate communities of our city, with a focus on encouraging home-grown businesses. This was a tough call, but I believe that Walker is the better candidate of the two conservatives running. You can read his response to the BatesLine questionnaire here. You can read my comments on each of the candidates in my article endorsing Walker.

The incumbent mayor is blind to the needs of the city beyond his little Midtown Money Belt world, indecisive, two-faced, and in thrall to progressive philanthropy. His disastrous handling of COVID-19 and of the George Floyd protests managed to make everyone angry at him, inspiring seven candidates from across the political spectrum to run against him.

In the council races, I support replacing all of the City Councilors, except Cass Fahler in District 5.

Tulsa Council District 1: Jerry Goodwin (D).
Tulsa Council District 3: Paul Eicher (D).
Tulsa Council District 4: Kathryn Lyons (R). Lyons was the only District 4 candidate to respond to the BatesLine questionnaire, and she gave solid answers. (The incumbent councilor, Kara Joy McKee, allowed constituents' homes to be condemned without investigating the situation, and she made a promise she didn't keep about initiating the revocation condemnation promptly at the beginning of 2020.)
Tulsa Council District 5: Cass Fahler (R). At a time when law enforcement is under attack, we need a strong advocate for law and order on the council.
Tulsa Council District 6: Christian Bengel (R).
Tulsa Council District 7: Justin Van Kirk (R).
Tulsa Council District 9: Jayme Fowler (R).

MORE INFORMATION:

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

Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
Sheridan Church's Tulsa Town Hall candidate forum
918 Vote / League of Women Voters mayoral forum
iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
Muskogee Politico 2020 runoff election tips and picks
Charlie Meadows's picks
Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
Endorsements from Tulsa Area Republican Assembly and other Tulsa conservative groups
NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

UPDATE 2020/08/25, 12:46pm: I have updated the printable sheet to change my recommendation in Senate District 7, based on recent information from Jamison Faught.

Tulsa Election 2020: Ty Walker for Mayor

By Michael Bates on August 23, 2020 9:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ty Walker, candidate for Mayor of Tulsa, 2020

What looked like a sleepy re-election run, for Tulsa Mayor GT Bynum IV as recently as the beginning of May, with one declared opponent and a perennial candidate in jail, turned into a free-for-all. As soon as he had some tough decisions to make, the smiley guy that everyone liked was suddenly the weak-kneed wimp whom everyone despised. COVID-19 (aka the Chinese Communist Bat Virus) and Black Lives Matter protests, and the Trump rally which linked the two, left GT unable to find decisions that would make the vast majority of Tulsans happy. Instead, his vacillation managed to anger Tulsans left, right, and center, and the peak of the first wave of dissatisfaction fell just as filing opened for city office. Seven opponents filed to challenge his re-election.

The Bynum administration has reaffirmed my belief that executive experience in a mayor is not necessary for keeping the city running. (It may be that having a pulse is not necessary for keeping the city's basic functions running.) We've never had a mayor under the current charter with previous experience running a business the size of city government. The various departments that manage basic city functions continue to run regardless of who's mayor. Every mayor since 1990 has had someone either serving as a city manager in all but name (with a title like Chief Administrative Officer or Chief Operating Officer) or with the title City Manager, even though Tulsa's charter calls for a strong mayor, unlike the "weak mayor / council / city manager" government that Oklahoma City has and which is established under the default charter in the state statutes, used by cities like Broken Arrow. Even under a wishy-washy schmoozer like GT Bynum IV, the machinery of city government chugs along. The trash is picked up, clean water flows through our faucets, street projects move forward, police officers and firefighters do their essential work. It's a bit like the body's autonomous nervous system, keeping the heart pumping, the lungs going, and the guts digesting regardless of what is or is not happening in the brain.

What we do need in a mayor is a functioning moral compass, an ability to make sound decisions and stick with them, and a vision that encompasses all of Tulsa. He needs to understand government's proper sphere in the functioning of society alongside families, churches, businesses, voluntary organizations, and other non-governmental mediating institutions, as well as the practical limits on government's ability to fix problems without creating others. We don't have that right now, and I only see one candidate that comes close to meeting that set of criteria: Ty Walker. I have voted for Walker, and I encourage you to do the same.

If you make decisions based on your billionaire backers' priorities or what you see your buddy in Oklahoma City doing, if what you mean by "data-driven" is really just following the conventional wisdom that will make you look smart in the eyes of New York Times reporters or among your homies in the Midtown Money Belt, you're going to have a tough time when difficult dilemmas come your way, and you won't be serving the best interests of the citizens.

A few examples of Bynum IV's bad judgment and lack of vision (from memory, so no links):

Supporting a tax package (as a councilor and mayoral candidate) that included unnecessary low-water dams, then failing (as mayor) to use the Muscogee Creek Nation lack of interest in funding as an opportunity to repurpose taxpayer dollars in more useful ways.
Decreeing by executive order that the City of Tulsa will officially pretend that there is no valid distinction to be drawn between real women and autogynephiliacs, thus endangering private spaces for females and separate female athletic competition.
Allowing the condemnation of a historic neighborhood where young families have been reclaiming old homes in order to protect an office building that was built in a 100-year flood plain, rather than finding a solution that would mitigate stormwater issues while saving the neighborhood.
Allowing other historic neighborhoods, like Crutchfield and Crosbie Heights, to live under the threat of blight declarations.
Pushing restriping of city streets to the confusion of the vast majority of street users (drivers).
Being a tough guy for Pat Campbell's conservative audience, vowing not to cave to protestors, and then a few hours later, caving to protestors, cancelling Tulsa's participation in a show (LivePD) which seemed to offend the protestors because it showed Tulsa Police officers ably handling difficult challenges.
Waffling on President Trump's appearance in Tulsa -- neither asking him to stay away out of concern for the spread of COVID-19 and civil unrest, nor taking advantage of Trump's visit to show off Tulsa to our nation's leaders or to call the President's attention to opportunities for city/federal cooperation.
Choosing not to institute a curfew. Other cities used curfews to allow peaceful protests to continue, while halting after-dark gatherings that often led to the smashing of store windows and dangerous obstruction of major streets.
Shutting down Tulsa's small retailers while allowing big-box stores which sell the same products to stay open during the pandemic. Bynum followed the herd, rather than creatively adapting lessons from places like Hong Kong, which combined moderate closures (schools and large gatherings), voluntary mask wearing, and reduced business capacity to allow businesses to stay open.
Pushing for an Office of Independent Monitor that would subject police officers to the oversight of a board without any law enforcement experience and without direct accountability to the public.
Pushing to raise the permanent sales tax level to pay for a basic function of government.

I could go on, but I need to finish this and get some sleep.

Bynum needs to go, but who should replace him? Can a challenger beat an incumbent who has raised over $600,000 for re-election? Let's go through our list of options, starting with a few easy discards.

Ricco Wright is on the ballot but ended his campaign after attempting to handle an accusation of sexual assault by stating his belief in the woman's account (Believe All Women!) but implausibly blaming his actions on being "roofied." (Rohypnol -- "hypno" is in the name -- causes "loss of muscle control, confusion, drowsiness and amnesia," not uninhibited sexual aggression.)

I discussed perennial candidate Paul Tay during the filing period. Someone who filed for office the day he finished a five-month jail sentence for outraging public decency doesn't deserve further consideration.

Zackri Whitlow seems to be running on a whim. He did not show up in the voter registration database in Tulsa prior to filing for office. He has not filed any campaign finance reports with the City Clerk, not even a Statement of Organization, indicating that he has not raised or spent any significant money to reach and persuade voters. He has appeared in a few online forums to promote a few pet ideas.

Craig Immel has impressed me with his willingness to respond to voters' questions on various platforms, including the BatesLine mayoral questionnaire. Even when I can't agree with him, I respect his thoughtfulness. I also admire his willingness to serve as the lead plaintiff against the plan (supported by Bynum) to convert riverfront park land to a basic shopping center. Of all the candidates, he has the best grasp of urban planning and development issues. If it were a head-to-head matchup between Immel and Bynum, I'd vote for Immel. But on other issues, he is left of center. His support for SQ 805 and SQ 780 points to a naive view of crime and its causes that would jeopardize the lives and property of Tulsa citizens. His stated disdain for the State of Oklahoma reflects an unbecoming elitism and sends a signal to small-town and rural Oklahomans who come to the metro area for jobs that they'll feel more at home in the suburbs.

Greg Robinson II has done an impressive job of organizing a substantial last-minute challenge to a well-funded incumbent mayor. His fundraising has unofficially surpassed $200,000 (but his campaign is one of several that has neglected to file the required pre-election report of contributions and expenditures). I've received almost as many mailers from Robinson as I have from Bynum, which points to a well-organized effort to reach and energize voters. In 2016, Bynum was helped by the fact that no Democrat bothered to file; instead, Bynum was effectively the Democrat nominee in the officially non-partisan mayor's race. Now Robinson may scoop up the base of Bynum's 2016 support.

Robinson's rhetoric and resume point to him being a doctrinaire leftist, but there are a couple of facts about him that are intriguing for the conservative voter: First, Robinson's father, Greg Robinson, Sr., was a Republican who came within 900 votes of unseating incumbent Democrat county commissioner Wilbert Collins in 2002. (Milton Goodwin, the Republican nominee in 1998, ran as an independent in 2002 and acted as a spoiler.) Tragically, Greg Sr. died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 48, just 10 weeks after the election. Greg Jr. was a young teenager at the time. Second, Robinson (Jr.) is a founder of Greenwood Leadership Academy, a charter school, so there may be some openness to school choice that the incumbent (whose parents could afford an educational alternative) doesn't share.

A conservative case could be made for preferring Robinson over Bynum. It would be refreshing to have a mayor, for the first time in almost three decades, with a clue about life outside the Money Belt. And I've noticed that it's easier to mobilize certain Republican officials to oppose bad ideas when they've been proposed by Democrats; if a RINO backs the idea, they fall in line.

To the alarmists out there: No one can win on Tuesday unless they get 50% of the vote. If a majority of voters don't vote for Robinson, he won't win. If a majority of voters don't vote for Bynum, he won't win on Tuesday. A November runoff, even if it's between Bynum and Robinson, the two best-funded candidates, would be a better result than if either candidate succeeded in getting 50% on Tuesday. Both would have to find ways to reach out to the conservatives they've spurned if they want to win. But I'd rather see a conservative in the runoff.

A conservative with political experience was unlikely to risk running against a well-funded, well-heeled incumbent who was (until a few months ago) quite popular and a registered Republican, albeit a RINO. So the two conservative claimants in the race are not well-funded, are still working their day jobs, don't have the background in city policy that you might hope for, and do have some things in their past that aren't very attractive.

Ken Reddick was the first to step up to challenge Bynum. He ran a credible race for City Council District 7 in 2018. But despite the early start, he failed to lay the groundwork necessary for a successful challenge, a task that involves fundraising, garnering endorsements (or at least persuading people not to line up behind the incumbent) Reddick has filed no campaign contribution and expenditure reports at all beyond the Statement of Organization for his campaign committee.

Restaurateur Ty Walker joined the race on the final day of filing. He had been thinking about preparing for a 2024 run, but he was persuaded by some regular customers to go ahead and file this time around. He also ran for City Council in 2018, in the race for the open seat in District 5.

I reached out to both candidates shortly after filing closed and encouraged them to meet and discuss if either of them would be willing to drop out and support the other. As far as I know that never happened. This would have been an ideal situation for state or county Republican leadership to intervene, perhaps by holding an endorsing convention to take the place of the primary that was eliminated by the move to non-partisan elections. But despite my private encouragement, nothing was done.

Because of CCP Bat Virus (which is real, which can kill and maim people, and which spreads through droplets) I have minimized my person-to-person interactions and have been grateful that I can work, for the most part, from home. But I did attend one meet-and-greet each for Reddick and for Walker. At the Reddick meet-and-greet at the Interurban Restaurant, I watched Reddick passively listen to various attendees vent their spleens about their pet issues. I waited around for close to an hour in hopes that the candidate would stand up and talk about his priorities and plans and take questions, but I got tired of waiting and went home.

A few weeks later I attended Ty Walker's meet-and-greet in a supporter's home. Walker had been out knocking doors in neighborhoods around Tulsa. His campaign team seemed sharp and focused (although they failed to get his pre-election contribution filing in as of this time). He held forth for a couple of hours, talking about his priorities and answering questions from the audience. I didn't agree with all of his answers, but his principles and his heart were clearly in the right place. Many of those differences reflect a perspective formed by growing up in Tulsa's North Community. As he points out often, he has lived on both sides of the track and uniquely among the options on our ballot can be a bridge across that track.

A BatesLine reader writes:

I believe that Ty Walker has the skills, temperament, and ethics needed for the job as mayor of Tulsa.

I believe him to be the most free of political influence. With several activists running for the position, and a mayor with a track record of heavy outside influence, Walker leads the pack.

I believe he's best equipped to guide the city through the economic recovery necessary from Covid. As a small business owner, specifically in the food service industry, he's well aware of the hardships small businesses face. I believe he's capable of not only seeing the current economic recovery, but he can help underserved communities grow their currently limited economic infrastructure.

I believe he's an inspiration to everyone on the personal struggles needed to be successful, and I believe that will help him be a positive agent for growth and helping the city mend it's current socio and economic divides.

I believe he's the most practical candidate, in terms of wanting to achieve practical goals. He's a crawl - walk - run type of candidate who won't be overly fixated with trying to fix everything with one singular action.

Walker isn't beholden to local or national philanthropists or interest groups. As someone actively involved in owning and running a restaurant, he's understands what our small businesses need as we try to recover from the COVID-19 shutdowns. He also understands the specific challenges that exist in the parts of the city where businesses have had difficulty taking root. He understands what it is to try and fail and try again. His vision is practical consisting of modest, incremental steps.

Something I noticed when watching the Sheridan Church Tulsa Town Hall forum (which was very well done) is that Ty Walker was one of the few candidates actually settled and involved in a church. (The question about church involvement is asked at about 58 minutes into the video.) Walker is an associate pastor at New Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Okmulgee. At the beginning of this video from a few weeks ago, Ty Walker is giving some remarks (the video comes in after he has started) prior to the sermon, reminding the congregation that we will all meet death, none of us know when, and that we should all seek to be ready, walking in God's will.

Ty Walker is the candidate for Tulsans who want to bridge the cultural and ethnic divides in our city (without the kind of radical policies that are tearing other American cities apart), who want a conservative mayor who values the free market, economic opportunity, and growing local business (rather than lavishing incentives on billionaires trying to land the big fish).

I voted (at the election board Friday) for Ty Walker for Mayor, and I urge you to do the same. If he wins against all odds, Tulsa would be blessed. If Walker falls short, a large vote for him would signal that the remaining candidates need to reach out to conservatives in the November runoff.

A postscript: A few weeks ago, I was made aware of some accusations about Ken Reddick's marital history. I've been to the county court clerk's archive, looked at his divorce file, asked him some questions. I want to be careful about how I talk about these things for the sake of all involved, and I hope to post something this evening for the many people who are asking about it. Bottom line is that in my opinion there are internal inconsistencies in Ken Reddick's own account of his past and between his account and the official records, and that reinforces my doubts about his qualities as a candidate and a leader.

Tulsa Election 2020, District 4: Kathryn Lyons questionnaire

By Michael Bates on August 19, 2020 7:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Back on August 12, I sent the three eligible candidates for City Council District 4 a questionnaire using the email addresses provided in their declarations of candidacy or on their websites. The questionnaire included the 18 questions I asked the mayoral candidates, plus a question about neighborhood conservation districts and a question about the candidates for mayor.

I received only one reply, from Kathryn Lyons.

Kathryn Lyons:

Age: 53
Employment: Community volunteer, former property manager
Neighborhood: Lakewood Heights
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: kathryn4tulsa.com
Campaign Facebook page: Kathryn Lyons for Tulsa City Council

The detailed responses to the questionnaire, if you're viewing this on the home page, are after the jump.

Continue reading Tulsa Election 2020, District 4: Kathryn Lyons questionnaire.

Tulsa Election 2020: Mayoral candidate questionnaire

By Michael Bates on August 18, 2020 8:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last Wednesday, BatesLine sent a questionnaire to the six serious candidates for Mayor of Tulsa, using the email addresses provided in their declarations of candidacy or on their websites. We sent two reminders. We received replies from three candidates: Craig Immel, Ken Reddick, and Ty Walker.

Craig Immel, Ken Reddick, Ty Walker, candidates for Mayor of Tulsa, 2020

The survey consists of 18 questions, selected and adapted from over 60 questions suggested by BatesLine readers. I tried to cover a wide range of topics while keeping the number of questions at a reasonable level for candidates busy in the final stages of the campaign.

Rather than split the answers up in separate entries by candidate, I'm presenting them side-by-side, which runs the risk of someone reading an answer and connecting it with the wrong candidate. To help you mentally associate the answer with the candidate who gave it, I've added social-media-type icons in front of each response.

Here is a brief overview of the candidates who responded to the questionnaire:

Craig Immel:

Age: 44
Employment: Construction manager
Neighborhood: near Gilcrease Hills (Council District 1)
Voter registration: independent
Campaign web page: movetulsaforward.com
Campaign Facebook page: Craig Immel - Independent for Tulsa Mayor
Twitter account: @MoveTulsaFwd
Immel hosted a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) session.

Ken Reddick:

Age: 37
Employment: Owner, Clean Slate Contracting LLC and Tulsa Fence & Roofing Company
Neighborhood: Regency Park (Council District 7)
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: kenreddick4mayor.com
Campaign Facebook page: Ken Reddick for Tulsa Mayor 2020

Ty Walker:

Age: 54
Employment: Owner, Wanda J's Next Generation Restaurant
Neighborhood: Virginia Lee Addition (Council District 5)
Voter registration: Republican
Campaign web page: tywalkerfortulsa.com
Campaign Facebook page: Ty Walker for Tulsa Mayor

The detailed responses to the questionnaire, if you're viewing this on the home page, are after the jump.

Continue reading Tulsa Election 2020: Mayoral candidate questionnaire.

Tulsa 2020 charter amendments

By Michael Bates on August 10, 2020 11:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Five amendments to Tulsa's city charter -- our city's constitution -- will be on the August 25, 2020, ballot. As usual, the summaries you will see on the ballot paper only tell part of the story.

For the TL;DR folks, here are my recommendations:

Proposition No. 1: Yes
Proposition No. 2: No
Proposition No. 3: Yes
Proposition No. 4: No
Proposition No. 5: Yes

Or to put it even more briefly, vote YES on the ODD numbered propositions, NO on the EVEN numbered propositions. ODD is GOOD, EVEN is BAD.

Now the details, after the jump. Strikethroughs show language that would be deleted if the proposition passes, underlines show language that would be added.

Continue reading Tulsa 2020 charter amendments.

Illustrating Tulsa's new city election procedure

By Michael Bates on August 3, 2020 9:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'm hearing that minions of Mayor Bynum IV are putting the word out that voting for one of his conservative opponents in the August 25, 2020, election will help elect someone further to the Left than the left-of-center Bynum. The rumor is self-serving garbage, preying on ignorance of the confusing new election process that Bynum IV and friends quietly slid into the charter three years ago, the sixth change to the city election process in 11 years.

Here's the truth: Unless one candidate has the support of 50% of the voters on August 25th, there will be a runoff in November with at least two candidates. Putting it another way: If a majority of voters vote against incumbent Bynum IV, and if a majority of voters also vote against Greg Robinson, the leading registered-Democrat candidate, neither will win the election outright on August 25.

The crucial task for conservative Tulsans who want a conservative mayor is to unite on August 25 behind one of the two conservative alternatives to Bynum (Ty Walker or Ken Reddick) so that we have a real conservative to vote for in November and Bynum can retire from being a failed mayor and resume his career as a schmoozer.

2020 is the first Tulsa mayoral election that will use the new election procedure approved by voters in a low-turnout November 2017 special election. (Only charter amendments on the ballot; only 10,425 votes were cast on this ballot item compared to 58,848 in the June 2016 mayoral primary. There ought to be a state law limiting city charter changes to high-turnout elections, or perhaps setting the threshold as 50% of the votes in the previous presidential election.)

Here is a direct link to the current charter language, Article VI, Section 2.2. Here's the key language:

If a candidate for office is unopposed at the election or becomes unopposed by death, disqualification or withdrawal, such candidate shall be deemed elected. If a candidate for an office receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast for that office at the election, such candidate shall be deemed elected. If more than two (2) candidates file for an office and no candidate receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast at the election for that office, the names of the several candidates for the office receiving the greatest number of votes totaling fifty percent (50%) at such elections shall be placed on the ballot at a run-off election in November, on the day specified by the laws of Oklahoma, and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast at said run-off election shall be deemed elected. In the event of a tied vote among the said candidates, the election shall be decided by lot.

The same process applies to election for any Tulsa city office, including city councilors and the city auditor.

Note that the runoff may involve only two candidates, but if votes are split evenly enough between the candidates, it may involve more. Here are a few possible scenarios. Note that the numbers are entirely made up -- I have no polling data -- used simply to illustrate how different spreads of votes among candidates will lead to different runoff possibilities.

Scenario 1 is simple: If a majority of the August 25 voters support one candidate, he is elected to a four-year term as mayor. This is what happened in June 2016.

In Scenario 2, no one gets a majority of the votes on August 25, but the total of the top two is greater than 50%. In the illustrated scenario, Robinson and Bynum are the top two ranking candidates, and the sum of their percentage is 60%, so those two candidates advance to the November runoff. Note that in this hypothetical scenario, the two conservative candidates, Walker and Reddick, have enough votes that if they had all coalesced behind one of the two, the conservative candidate would have beaten out Bynum for the 2nd spot in the November runoff.

Scenario 3 illustrates what happens if the top two candidates fall short of a combined 50% total. In this case, Robinson and Walker would combine for 49% of the vote, so the third-place candidate, Immel, also would advance to the November runoff. Since those three combine for 68% of the vote, the condition would be satisfied, and no more candidates would advance to the runoff.

Scenario 4 is an extreme example to illustrate what would happen if the voters were very evenly spread among all seven of the active candidates. The top three candidates combine for only 46%, so one more candidate would have to be added to the November runoff ballot to reach the 50% threshold.

Scenario 5 is the most extreme hypothetical of all. Supposing all eight candidates got exactly the same number of votes -- 12.5% each. In this case, four candidates would advance (because the language says "totaling 50%," not exceeding 50%), and which four candidates advance would be decided by lot.

Note that there is no runoff after the November runoff. If more than two candidates advance to the November runoff, the election becomes a first-past-the-post race -- the candidate with the greatest number of votes, even if well short of a majority, is elected.

Oklahoma Primary 2020 results

By Michael Bates on June 30, 2020 11:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'll be on Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ Wednesday morning at 8:35 with Pat Campbell to discuss the primary election results. Tune in on your AM dial, listen live online, or catch up later with the Pat Campbell podcast. UPDATE: Here's a direct link to the podcast.

A few notes, now that all the results are in.

The passage of SQ802 by such a slim margin -- 6,518 votes out of 674,040 cast -- is amazing, given that there was no organized opposition until about a week ago.

In Tulsa County races, Josh Turley will get a second chance against Democrat County Commissioner Karen Keith in November. By winning the GOP primary, Don Newberry was re-elected County Court Clerk in a rematch with Ron Phillips; no Democrat filed. Sheriff Vic Regalado and County Clerk Michael Willis, both Republicans, won reelection with out drawing an opponent.

Two candidates who pledged to replace Tulsa Public Schools Superintendent Deborah Gist won seats on the board: John Croisant won the open Office 5 seat and Jerry Griffin defeated 24-year-incumbent Ruth Ann Fate. Last week, the incumbent board, perhaps knowing this result was likely, voted to give Gist a three-year contract extension, which gives the establishment time to shore up their majority on the board. Accountant Jeromy Burwell defeated incumbent Memory Ostrander in Collinsville. Challengers in Union and Berryhill ran strong races but fell short.

There were several upsets by conservative challengers of Republican incumbents who had accumulated a RINO voting record: In House 11 in Bartlesville, Derrill Fincher was defeated by homeschool mom Wendi Stearman. Lundy Kiger lost to Randy West in House 3. In Senate 3, incumbent Wayne Shaw, who announced support for the idea of social impact bonds, was beaten by Blake "Cowboy" Stephens. Former State Rep. Shane Jett will have a runoff in Senate 17 with incumbent Ron Sharp.

Conservatives had some success in open seats, too. Gerrid Kendrix won House 52 in southwestern Oklahoma, winning the seat. Max Wolfley defeated former Oklahoma County Republican Chairman Daren Ward. 85-year-old Margie Alfonso, a conservative activist since the 1970s, made it into the House 79 runoff with Clay IIams.

Conservative names tarred by the big-money special interests two years ago didn't have any success coming back this year. George Faught was defeated in his rematch with Chris Sneed in House 2014, and Angela Strohm lost her House 69 battle with Sheila Dills, who defeated her husband Chuck Strohm in 2018.

Fair-deal conservatives continue to have an organizational and fundraising disadvantage to wheeler-dealer RINOS. It's the classic problem of concentrated benefit and diffuse costs: Those who want special deals from government have a greater interest in fundraising and organizing than those who simply want good government for all.

August 25th is going to be an interesting day for the Kaiser System. Despite massive fundraising from Tulsa's establishment, Kyden Creekpaum, fell well short of an outright primary win in the open Senate 35 seat. He will have a runoff against conservative grassroots Republican Cheryl Baber. The same day will see former GKFF lobbyist GT Bynum IV trying to hold on as mayor, despite seven challengers from across the political spectrum.

Big partisan difference in the use of absentee ballots this year.

In 2018, SQ 788, medical marijuana, was on the primary ballot, along with competitive races for governor in both major parties. 3.28% voted absentee by mail, 5.31% voted early at the election board, 91.41% voted at their precincts. Partisan variation was miniscule: 3.39% of Republicans voted absentee by mail vs. 3.14% of Democrats, while 5.07% of Republicans voted early at the election board vs. 5.71% of Democrats.

In 2020, SQ 802, Obamacare expansion, was on the primary ballot. There were statewide primaries for U. S. Senator, but not competitive for either party. Overall, 13.84% voted absentee by mail, 6.45% voted early at the election board, 79.71% voted in person at their precincts. The partisan breakdown of mail-in ballots is striking: 9.01% of Republicans voted absentee by mail vs. 21.00% of Democrats. There wasn't much difference in early voting at the election board: 4.93% of Republicans vs. 5.47% of Democrats. 86.03% of Republicans voted in person at their precincts, vs. 73.53% of Democrats.

Does this simply represent a partisan difference in fear of CCP Bat Virus? A push by the Oklahoma Democratic Party to get people used to voting by mail? Or a push by the Yes on 802 forces to lock in votes before voters had the chance to hear both sides of the issue?

For what it's worth, John Tidwell of Americans for Prosperity Oklahoma filed a Statement of Organization for the VOTE NO ON 802 ASSOCIATION with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission on June 5, 2020; the organization was incorporated on the same day. OKLAHOMA DECIDES, INC., the "vote yes" organization, filed its paperwork as a PAC on April 20, 2020. It was incorporated on May 22, 2019. The domain YesOn802.org was registered on April 19, 2019, and was online by September 4, 2019. I am not aware of a "vote no" website or social media presence.

Oklahoma Primary 2020: BatesLine ballot card

By Michael Bates on June 30, 2020 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Polls are open today until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see.

Click to download a printable version of the BatesLine ballot card

Click the link above to download a printable ballot card listing the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma primary elections on June 30, 2020. Below I'll add more detailed information on issues and candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) The ballot card is now at Revision 2, as I have added recommendations in three suburban school district races and modified my recommendation in Senate 37.

As I posted this late Thursday night, there were races I had planned to write about in detail, but time was short, people were voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations, so I've started by posting my printable ballot card, filling in some details as I have had opportunity.

Below you'll find some links to websites I found helpful in learning about candidates, their values, backgrounds, and political opinions.

In addition to the usual federal, statewide, legislative, and county races on the ballot, many school districts will hold the general elections for school board that were postponed from April. Two of the seven seats on the Tulsa school board will be filled: I'm supporting Shane Saunders in the open Office 5 seat and challenger Jerry Griffin in Office 6. I'm recommending challengers in the suburban school board races as well (see below).

There are a large number of legislative races this year with Republican primaries. In 2018, lobbyist groups working with the leftist Oklahoma Education Association succeeded in ousting a number of principled conservative legislators. These senators and representatives were guilty only of insisting that the state's voters should have the final say on tax increases, in accordance with Oklahoma's constitution. Many were defeated by RINOs in the primary, a few were defeated by Democrats in the general election.

In 2020 many of those RINOs are being challenged by conservatives in the primary. In districts that were won by Democrats, we have a Republican primary to pick a challenger. A few races are for open seats. All told, 33 of 101 House seats and 11 of the 25 Senate seats up for election this year have a Republican primary, so the outcome will have a massive impact on the character and quality of the Republican supermajority for the next two years. I discuss a few of the Tulsa-area races below.

Oklahoma Democrats also have a primary election on Tuesday, with fewer offices on the ballot. I'm not making any recommendations in those primaries, but I have to give a special mention to Maria Barnes, who is challenging the incumbent Democrat Monroe Nichols in State House District 72. Maria and I served together in the Midtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations for many years, and she served honorably as a Tulsa City Councilor for District 4. We disagree on many state and national issues, but we found common cause on local matters of neighborhood conservation and public transparency, and I'm proud to call her a friend. One Republican filed in the heavily Democrat district: Ismail A. Shan, on the ballot simply as "Shan," who was not on the voter registration list as of the beginning of this month. He was disqualified, and the Democratic primary will decide the election.

NOTES ON SPECIFIC BALLOT ITEMS:

SQ 802: NO. This would place the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, an unfunded entitlement mandate, permanently into Oklahoma's state constitution. It is a fiscal time bomb and will starve other state responsibilities for funds while squeezing taxpayers tighter every year, while making no real improvement in access to healthcare.

Corporation Commissioner: Todd Hiett. The incumbent, who was the first Republican State House Speaker since the 1920s, is opposed by an 85-year-old perennial candidate.

U. S. Senate: Jim Inhofe. Inhofe's position as Senate Armed Services Committee chairman is important for Oklahoma's four military bases, and he can be counted on to vote as a conservative, even when many of his fellow Republicans stray.

U. S. House, District 2: Markwayne Mullin. Mullin has become a conservative stalwart, to the point that even his erstwhile opponent, Jarrin Jackson, has endorsed him.

U. S. House, District 4: James Taylor. Taylor, a conservative African-American pastor and public school history teacher, is once again challenging longtime incumbent Tom Cole, who was cited as an example of the legal "pay-to-play" system in the "Congressional Favor Factory" report by American Transparency (OpenTheBooks.com).

U. S. House, District 5: David Hill. Winner of this primary will go on to try to win back the seat taken two years ago by Kendra Horn, Oklahoma's lone congressional Democrat. Hill, owner of an auto parts manufacturing company and founder of the Academy of Classical Christian Studies, has been endorsed by the Family Research Council PAC. One of the other leading GOP candidates, State Sen. Stephanie Bice, voted to raise taxes on Oklahomans in 2018, bypassing a vote of the people.

Senate 35: Cheryl Baber. Baber is a known quantity among conservatives in state and local conservative circles. Creekpaum's strong backing from "the Kaiser System" should worry conservatives, and former Judge Morrissey's conversion to conservatism is dubious. Baber is the only candidate in the race who is wise enough to oppose SQ802.

Senate 37: No endorsement. This is a change. I have trustworthy conservative friends supporting each of the candidates. Both candidates have foolishly endorsed SQ802, even though both have indicated it would hurt Oklahoma's budget if it passes. Some of the names on Chris Emerson's list of donors give me pause, as do some of the names on his campaign team, and that's why I initially recommended voting for Cody Rogers. Both campaigns have presented misleading information to voters. (UPDATE: I'm hearing claims that both candidates really oppose 802 but were misquoted. Here's a tip: If the newspaper inaccurately ascribes to you a view on a controversial issue, don't just quietly tell people. Make a public correction on your website and Facebook page and push the paper into issuing a correction. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to have it both ways and can't be trusted.)

House 11: Wendi Stearman, a mom who organized her own homeschool coop in Bartlesville, is a solid conservative challenging an incumbent with a weak voting record.

House 12: Justin Dine. Dine has the universal support of conservative groups and commentators. Charlie Meadows writes that he was blown away by Dine's moral principles, well-developed thought on political principles and communication skills. Incumbent Kevin McDugle has been hanging out with National Popular Vote lobbyists, and his divorce trial hinted at some strange proclivities.

House 14: George Faught is seeking to return to the State House, where his principled refusal to cave to lobbyist pressure put a big target on his back two years ago. We need him back in the Legislature.

House 69: Angela Strohm. Strohm is a conservative challenging the special-interest backed RINO incumbent. Strohm's husband Chuck held the seat previously, but was targeted for his principled opposition to raising taxes without a vote of the people.

House 70: Taylor Woodrum is a conservative, pro-life, pro-2nd-Amendment college student challenging Carol Bush, one of the most liberal members of the Republican House caucus. Woodrum has the support of conservative groups. Bush showed her true colors in an interview with old friend Barry Friedman, then threw him under the bus when her remarks got her in hot water with her Republican colleagues.

House 71: Beverly Atteberry. The candidates in this race to challenge Democrat incumbent Denise Brewer have been very reluctant to share their opinions in candidate surveys, but Atteberry did earn an AQ for her response to the NRA's candidate questionnaire.

House 74: Brad Peixotto. Peixotto owns a medical marijuana dispensary. This is a rematch from two years ago. The incumbent, a Republican, gets poor ratings from conservative groups for his voting record on fiscal issues.

House 79: Margie Alfonso has a long history of conservative activism on behalf of the unborn, serving as president of the Tulsa Eagle Forum and delegate to the Republican National Convention.

Tulsa County Court Clerk: Don Newberry. Newberry is running for re-election four years after defeating the outgoing clerk's preferred successor. He is credited with improving customer service and efficiency in the Court Clerk's office.

Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2: Josh Turley. Turley ran a strong race against incumbent Democrat Karen Keith four years ago, and he had the endorsement of County Assessor Ken Yazel, who saw Turley as someone who could provide much-needed transparency in the county budget process. Turley served as a crime scene investigator for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and then creating the first risk management program for TCSO, which succeeded in reducing car accidents involving deputies and tort claim payouts, and independently developed policies and procedures to be used by smaller sheriff's offices and county jails to improve performance and minimize risk. Turley wants Tulsa County to follow an open data policy -- by default, data used and generated by county officials would automatically be made available to the public, without the need for an open records request. Turley's primary opponent, Eddy Barclay, is currently Director of Road Operations for Tulsa County. While either would be preferable to Keith, Turley looks like he would be the most effective at making needed moves toward transparency in Tulsa County government.

Tulsa School Board, Office 5: Shane Saunders. Saunders is a Republican businessman with two daughters in the TPS system, running for an open board seat.

Tulsa School Board, Office 6: Jerry Griffin. Griffin is a professor in higher education with an earned doctorate, a Republican with some ideas for improving the district running against a 24-year Democrat incumbent who is a rubber stamp for the administration.

(Here's the video of the League of Women Voters virtual candidate forum for TPS Offices 5 and 6, held on June 17, 2020.)

Berryhill School Board, Office 5: Allisha Craig, a public school teacher with Epic, with children in the Berryhill system, would bring a critical eye to "the way things have always been done," and experience in remote instruction that may be crucial in the coming years.

Collinsville School Board, Office 5: Jeromy Burwell is a corporate finance controller with children in the upper elementary and middle school and experience in accounting for government contracting.

Union School Board, Office 5: Brandon Swearengin has a master's in accounting and is pursuing a law degree. He wants to stop the undemocratic practice of rushing through important financial and policy decisions on the board's consent agenda without debate. The incumbent, Ken Kinnear, is VP and treasurer of George Kaiser's Kaiser-Francis Oil Company. During a February 10, 2020, board meeting, Kinnear delivered a cringe-inducing speech that was effectively a campaign commercial, which was recorded in the minutes (see page 10).

MORE INFORMATION:

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

Talk Radio 1170 Pat Campbell podcast archive
iVoterGuide: Candidate responses to a detailed questionnaire written from a conservative Christian point-of-view
Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
Muskogee Politico 2020 primary election tips and picks
Charlie Meadows's picks
Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
Oklahoma Constitution newspaper's Oklahoma State Senate ratings and Oklahoma State House ratings.
Endorsements from Tulsa Area Republican Assembly and other Tulsa conservative groups
NRA-PVF endorsements and grades
Oklahomans for Public Education 2020 voter guide: This is a kind of reverse-psychology voter guide. The red apple next to a candidate's name probably means he or she supports higher taxes, no reduction in school administrative bloat, and no meaningful educational choice for our children and their parents. You should treat a yellow triangle as a gold medal -- this is likely a candidate who will defend taxpayers' interests and work for school choice and educational efficiency.

TIP JAR: If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal.

Cheryl Baber for State Senate District 35

By Michael Bates on June 28, 2020 11:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

State Sen. Gary Stanislawski is term-limited, and there are three Republicans and three Democrats who have filed to replace him as District 35 State Senator. Sen. Stanislawski, and his predecessor, former Sen. Jim Williamson, have endorsed Cheryl Baber to be their successor, and I concur.

Cheryl Baber is semi-retired as an attorney, volunteering with Tulsa Lawyers for Children. She served from 1998 to 2009 as a Law Clerk for Federal judges in the U. S. Northern District (based in Tulsa). In 2001, Baber published a law review article on Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal courts; at the time she was law clerk to Federal Magistrate Judge Claire Eagan, who was appointed as a Federal District Judge by George W. Bush. She then served about five years as an Assistant U. S. Attorney here in Tulsa; OSCN records show her representing the IRS in many foreclosure cases. She is a graduate of Columbia Law School, has a master's degree in international history and politics from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and her bachelor's degree is from Midwestern State in Wichita Falls, Texas, not far from her hometown of Walters, Oklahoma. She has been in Tulsa since completing her law degree in 1993.

In 2015, Baber was chosen by Republican activists to represent Tulsa County on the Oklahoma Republican State Committee for a two-year term, during which she was also elected as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. In 2018, she ran for the open House District 71 seat, winning the Republican nomination in a runoff, but lost to former TV personality Denise Brewer in the general election. She has the joint endorsement of several local conservative groups, including the Tulsa Area Republican Assembly.

Baber is active in the First Baptist Church of Tulsa. I encourage you to read Cheryl Baber's eloquent responses to the iVoterGuide survey.

Baber is opposed by retired District Judge Linda Morrissey and attorney Kyden Creekpaum.

Cheryl Baber is the only candidate in the race with the good sense to oppose SQ802, while Morrissey supports embedding Obamacare in the state constitution, and Creekpaum gave a non-committal answer.

Morrissey was a registered independent until re-registering as a Republican sometime in 2011 or 2012 (according to voter registration records available to me), but her husband, John Nicks, was chairman of the Tulsa County Democratic Party and a Democratic canddate for Attorney General and Tulsa County Commissioner. Everyone else registered to vote at her address was registered as a Democrat as of June 9, 2020. In 1992, Morrissey and her husband were listed by the political director of the Oklahoma Democratic Party as expected guests at Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural gala, an honor typically given to the most fervent supporters of Slick Willie.

As a district judge, Morrissey had a history of being reversed on appeal. Morrissey answered only four questions of the dozens in the iVoterGuide questionnaire. (Their summary rating of "somewhat conservative" is puzzling and without any apparent basis. Should you get credit because you avoided giving a liberal answer by not answering at all?)

Morrissey has the smallest bankroll of the three Republicans, has no history of involvement in the Republican Party or conservative causes, and I suspect she will not survive the primary. Morrissey's major donors include Stuart Price, an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress in the 1990s, and Clark Brewster, a Tulsa attorney who is a generous donor to Democrat candidates and the lawyer for "adult entertainer" Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Trump.

Kyden Creekpaum is an attorney who grew up in Tulsa and moved back to Tulsa in 2017 after eight years in Paris and Washington with Hughes, Hubbard & Reed. His parents were public school teachers; his father Eddie Creekpaum ran for City Council as a Democrat in 2000 and is a prolific writer of letters to the editor.

Kyden Creekpaum has an impressive educational background: Double major in political science and piano at OU, master's in public health from Johns Hopkins, law degree from Georgetown, master's in law from Sciences Po (the Paris Institute of Political Studies).

When I was introduced to Creekpaum at the Tulsa County Republican Convention, I said, "Ah, the Kaiser candidate!" which elicited a sheepish response. Creekpaum is an attorney with the Frederic Dorwart law firm. Dorwart is president of the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF) and, until Tuesday, chairman of the University of Tulsa Board of Trustees. (Dorwart is stepping down as chairman as of June 30, but will remain on the board's executive committee.) The Dorwart firm handles legal matters for many branches of what Michael Mason has labeled "the Kaiser System," including Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, GKFF, the Tulsa Community Foundation (TCF), and the Bank of Oklahoma.

For religious conservatives, the involvement of the Kaiser System in a Republican primary is worrisome, as donations may be used as leverage to get elected officials to devote taxpayer dollars to Kaiser's preferred policy prescriptions. Kaiser's "giving statement" reveals him to be a materialist: Given enough money applied scientifically to education, nutrition, and health care, poverty and misery will vanish. Moral and spiritual aspects are absent from his analysis of the cause of societal problems. However pure his intentions, Kaiser's approach is bound to fail because it fails to address the fundamental problem facing humanity: fallen human nature.

As Mason documents, the Kaiser System's approach to charitable giving is one of control and "strings attached." Mayor G. T. Bynum IV, who posed as a conservative when he first ran for City Council in 2008, and who served as a federal lobbyist for GKFF, began working to impose leftist views of sexuality on Tulsans shortly after his first re-election in 2009 -- right about the time he became a GKFF lobbyist.

Creekpaum has the biggest warchest of any candidate in the race, $145,750.00 in contributions, plus $5,398.48 in in-kind expenditures. He filed his statement of organization with the ethics committee on March 19, 2019, and within 12 days had amassed $50,100. Baber has raised about $35,000, a decent amount for a State Senate campaign, and she has loaned her campaign $100,000 to try to keep up with Creekpaum.

A good chunk of Creekpaum's money has come from people in the George Kaiser orbit, including $1,000 from Kaiser himself, $1,000 from Kaiser-Francis CFO Don Millican, $1,500 from GKFF board member Phil Frohlich, and maximum $2,800 donations from Frederic Dorwart, his wife Nanu Dorwart, and several of the firm's partners. Elizabeth Frame, daughter of former Mayor Kathy Taylor and CEO of the Taylor Lobeck Family Foundation, and former Democratic Congressman Dan Boren, now president of corporate development for the Chickasaw Nation, have each contributed $1,000 to Creekpaum.

Creekpaum has used his money to run television ads attacking Cheryl Baber because her service as an Assistant U. S. Attorney fell during the Obama administration. Baber has responded:

One of my opponents is misleading voters by calling me a hypocrite because I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney during the time that Obama was President and Holder was the Attorney General. EVERY person who works for a federal administrative agency works for whomever is President or Commander-in-Chief at the time! That includes postal workers, park rangers, ALL military, and about 2 million employees throughout the world! There are 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices, employing thousands of people who are from every political party or none. Further, I actually worked as a federal law clerk when President George W. Bush was President! And I chose to leave the U.S. Attorney's Office, in part, because Obama won re-election in 2012.
Kyden Creekpaum is the candidate spreading lies, not me. He is the one supported by donors who gave $404,000 to Obama, Biden, and Hillary. He is the one whose current law firm sued to block President Trump's voters from rallying at the BOK Center. Those are documented, verifiable facts which informed voters deserve to know if they do not want a legislator who will likely vote to advance a liberal agenda. I am the one who has been active in, and endorsed by, Tulsa area conservative Republican organizations.

I haven't verified Baber's math, but I do recognize many names on the Creekpaum campaign reports whom I know to be generous donors to Democrats.

Creekpaum claims to be a conservative, pro-life Christian, and he may well regard himself as such. I can't find any indication online that he has ever taken a public stand on any political issue prior to running for office. Creekpaum did not complete the iVoterGuide survey. He did give "yes" answers to all the questions on the Oklahomans for Life survey.

Baber answered four of the 12 Oklahomans for Life survey questions with a "no": She would allow rape and incest exceptions to a ban on abortion, disagrees with Oklahomans for Life's proposal for $1 million in annual funding for a state-funded guardianship system "to advocate for vulnerable persons at risk for denial of life-preserving care," disagrees on assisted suicide, and disagrees with a proposal for a mandatory retirement age for Oklahoma Supreme Court justices. She does however support Oklahoma's existing strong legal protections against the imposition of euthanasia on the elderly and disabled. I disagree with her on those "no" answers, but her answers to the iVoterGuide survey suggest she would be persuadable to a more consistent pro-life position.

It may well be that these wealthy progressives who give consistently to Democrat candidates for President are backing Creekpaum because they think he's a wonderful, smart guy who would serve the State of Oklahoma well, and they don't mind that he will apply his intelligence and energy to advancing a socially conservative, anti-abortion, free-market agenda. I doubt it. To me, he looks like a politically ambitious young man who has come home to start his climb, and he has found the people who can fund that ascent. My bet is that his loyalties, if elected, would incline to the Kaiser System, not to the conservative voters of Senate District 35.

RESEARCH:

I went through the very tedious process of downloading each of the campaign reports filed by each of the Republican candidates from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's Guardian website, and I have compiled all the reports into a single file for each candidate:

No on SQ802: Arkansas warning

By Michael Bates on June 27, 2020 11:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Before Oklahomans foolishly enshrine a new, unfunded and unlimited entitlement into our state constitution (SQ802), we ought to heed the experience of our neighbors to the east.

On May 13, 2020, when the Oklahoma legislature was debating a Medicaid expansion bill, Arkansas State Representative Josh Miller, a Republican, wrote a letter to Oklahoma leaders urging them to reject Medicaid expansion. Arkansas adopted a "private option" program in 2013, using new federal funds to purchase private medical coverage for the newly eligible (able-bodied and below income limits). Arkansas requires recipients in the expansion pool to work if able in order to receive these benefits, but Federal courts have stayed that requirement. Oklahoma SQ802, the Obamacare Medicaid expansion on the ballot next Tuesday, would prohibit the state from requiring that able-bodied recipients work or pursue education and training to receive benefits -- that ban would be written into the state constitution.

Miller writes that Arkansas is worse off because of its decision to expand Medicaid: "Greater costs are being shifted to the remaining Arkansans who pay higher private insurance premiums. More Arkansans are trapped in welfare dependency. And the truly needy--like those with physical and developmental disabilities who require home-based care--face long waiting lists and reduced services while able-bodied, working-age adults move to the front of the line."

Here's the complete letter:

Dear Leader David, Speaker McCall, Leader Echols, and other Republican Members of the Oklahoma Legislature,
In light of Oklahoma's consideration of Medicaid expansion, I write to briefly share Arkansas' experience. I will be candid--and hope to convey my sense of urgency. I cannot stress enough my primary takeaway from Arkansas' Medicaid program in recent years: expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults is a raw deal. Let me explain.

Those who supported Medicaid expansion made lots of promises: increased federal funding to support our state budget, greater access to care for the needy, and relief for rural hospitals. But Arkansas is in a worse position today than before because these grand promises were built on the broken foundation of ObamaCare.

Instead, enrollment and costs shattered projections. Waste and fraud is more difficult to detect. Some of our rural hospitals are still struggling and a few have even closed. Greater costs are being shifted to the remaining Arkansans who pay higher private insurance premiums. More Arkansans are trapped in welfare dependency. And the truly needy--like those with physical and developmental disabilities who require home-based care--face long waiting lists and reduced services while able-bodied, working-age adults move to the front of the line.

In short, expansion was a big mistake for Arkansas.

In times of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge is power. And I know the experiences of neighbors, who have had to learn from their mistakes, can provide the most useful knowledge. Arkansas and Oklahoma share more than a border. Our cultures, economies, and enduring public policy challenges have much in common. If you want to avoid the mistakes of our state, I urge you to reject Medicaid expansion.

Sincerely,

Josh Miller
AR State Representative Dist. 66

Hat tip to OCPA President Jonathan Small for Rep. Miller's letter.

MORE: Former Governor Frank Keating urges Oklahomans to vote no on 802. Here's an excerpt:

What about all that "free" federal money? Here's the truth: State taxpayers must also come up with hundreds of millions in extra funding for Medicaid expansion--up to $374 million based on the estimated 628,000 able-bodied who will be made eligible. Not only that, but those able-bodied adults would take priority over the truly needy--such as the elderly and disabled--forcing them onto long waiting lists to get the care they need.
Last year Governing Magazine found 13 states had to raise taxes, fees, or cut provider rates to cover the state portion of expansion costs. More are expected to follow suit.

Here's another fact. Medicaid is already diverting resources from areas like education--without expansion. Since 1998, when I was governor, Oklahoma's population has increased 18 percent. But our Medicaid enrollment has increased 126 percent and the taxpayer cost of Oklahoma's Medicaid program has increased 254 percent.

Paying for Medicaid is already a financial challenge for Oklahoma. Expanding Medicaid doesn't solve that financial challenge; it puts it on steroids.

Tulsa School Board 2020 general election contributions

By Michael Bates on June 26, 2020 12:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In addition to all the usual federal, statewide, legislative, and county races on the Oklahoma ballot next Tuesday, June 30, 2020, this is also the school board general election, which was postponed from April due to the CCP Bat Virus. Two of Tulsa's seven school board offices are on the ballot -- Office 5 is an open seat, and Office 6 features a challenge to a 24-year-incumbent.

Map of Tulsa School Board election districts for Office 5 and Office 6

Last time I posted campaign contributions and expenditures for school board races, before the February primary, I had to go to the Education Service Center, to the school district clerk's office, and take photos of the reports. This time, that wasn't going to be possible or advisable, given everyone's desire to minimize contact, so I filed an open records request through the Tulsa Schools website and sent an email directly to district clerk Sarah Bozone. I have yet to receive a reply.

UPDATE 2020/06/29: At 9 a.m. the day before the election, TPS has responded to my open records request. I will not have time to turn these PDFs into a tabulated account of campaign contributions, so you will have to look at them yourselves. I have taken the files provided, given them more meaningful file names, and run them through OCR, but that's it. Each file contains all of the ethics reports filed by the candidate during this campaign.

District 5: John Croisant

District 5: Scott Pendleton*

District 5: Shane Saunders

District 6: Ruth Ann Fate

District 6: Jerry Griffin

*Pendleton finished third in the primary. He was the only candidate not advancing to the general who managed to raise and spend enough money to be required to file ethics reports.

I shouldn't even have to ask: When the clerk receives a report, it ought to be immediately scanned in and posted on the district website. Better yet, let's fix the law so that all candidates and campaign committees in the state use the Oklahoma Ethics Commissions's electronic filing system. Currently, county candidates file ethics reports with their county election board, school board candidates file with the district clerk, municipal candidates file with the city clerk. Having one system with a consistent interface and electronic records would serve everyone better -- except perhaps for candidates with something to hide.

Which brings me back to the topic. Knowing that I was unlikely to get a timely reply from the district clerk, I emailed the candidates directly on Tuesday, requesting their ethics reports, asking who had endorsed their campaigns, and asking for their opinion on the plan to extend Superintendent Deborah Gist's contract for an additional three years in a snap vote one week before new school board members would be elected.

All four candidates responded, but only two, Shane Saunders, candidate for Office 5, and Jerry Griffin, the Office 6 challenger, both Republicans, sent me their campaign contribution reports. Office 5 candidate John Croisant and 24-year Office 6 incumbent Ruth Ann Fate, both Democrats, said that they had filed their reports with the district clerks -- a very passive-aggressive response.

Three of the four objected to the school board voting to extend Gist's contract right before the election; Fate, the incumbent, wrote, "I will be making my decision tonight." Only two of the seven school board members, Jennettie Marshall and Stacey Woolley, voted against the contract extension. Next week that vote might have been 4-3 against extension.

Endorsements reported to me by the candidates:

Tulsa World: Croisant, Fate
Tulsa Regional Chamber: Saunders, Fate
Tulsa County Republican Party: Griffin
American Federation of Teachers: Griffin

Griffin has also been endorsed by John Remington, the third-place candidate in February's primary.

Notable contributors during this reporting period: Shane Saunders received contributions from his erstwhile boss, former Congressman John Sullivan (Saunders served as Sullivan's press secretary), and from former Tulsa Mayor Robert J. LaFortune. Jerry Griffin received a contribution from the Tulsa County Republican Party; parties are allowed to help candidates running in non-partisan elections. Griffin also received a donation from the American Federation of Teachers.

Please read my previous report on the pre-primary contributors to all of the Tulsa School Board candidates, including the two who are refusing to provide BatesLine with copies of their pre-general reports.

Contributors and vendors are from Tulsa unless otherwise noted. If you're reading this on the home page, the lists for each candidate are after the jump.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board 2020 general election contributions.

No on SQ802: Obamacare Medicaid expansion

By Michael Bates on June 21, 2020 8:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The only state question on the June 30, 2020, primary ballot is Oklahoma State Question 802. This would create a new Constitutional Amendment, Article XXV-A, requiring the State of Oklahoma to offer Obamacare Medicaid expansion coverage to anyone below a certain income, regardless of the person's work or family status. While expansion brings in some additional federal funds, it also brings in heavy long-term liabilities that the state must meet, which would result in higher taxes, cuts in other state-funded services (e.g. education), or both.

Oklahoma's governor and legislature have rightly rejected Obamacare Medicaid Expansion until now because of the fiscal time bomb it would create. SQ802 was an initiative petition backed by supporters of greater government control and by those who expect to profit from the mandated increases in government payments to healthcare providers. The proposal will drive up medical costs without providing real access to quality care.

OCPA has a Quick Facts on Medicaid Expansion that notes that "Expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma could divert state resources away from Oklahoma's traditional Medicaid population--children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled--and instead favor the newly eligible population of 628,000 able-bodied, working age adults." The second page of the handout offers 10 suggestions for how to expand access to health care without installing a budgetary doomsday machine in Oklahoma's State Constitution.

Oklahomans should also reject SQ802 because a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate vehicle for this type of legislation. A constitution is deliberately difficult to change, and its content ought to be limited to fundamental rules and rights. (I raised this issue in 2016 with regard to SQ792.) This proposed constitutional language is tied to specific sub-sub-subsections of Federal law and regulations, which could change and render this state constitutional amendment a confusing mess. If this language were in state statutes, the legislature could quickly respond to federal changes that might affect Medicaid; SQ802 doesn't permit that flexibility. In all likelihood, courts would step in to reinterpret the amendment, virtually rewriting it to make the mess make some sort of sense. (The severability clause in Section 4 is practically an engraved invitation for judicial interference.)

Currently children, adults with children in the home, the blind and disabled, and senior citizens are eligible for Medicaid in Oklahoma if their income is below a certain level. SQ802 would make anyone below the income threshold eligible for Medicaid, even able-bodied adults who refuse to work. As you'll see below, Section 2(B) doesn't allow Oklahoma to impose more stringent requirements, such as a requirement for able-bodied, young recipients to be working or studying in order to receive this benefit.

Here is the language that would be added to the Constitution of Oklahoma if SQ802 passes.

SECTION 1. Definitions
As used in this Article:

A. "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" or "CMS" refers to the agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program at the federal level, including review and approval of State Plan Amendments.

B. "Low Income Adults" refers to those individuals over age 18 and under 65 whose income does not exceed one-hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level, as described by and using the income methodology provided in the federal Medicaid statute at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII), and who meet applicable non-financial eligibility conditions for Medicaid under 42 CFR Part 435, Subpart E.

C. "Medical assistance" means payment of part or all of the cost of the care and services, or the care and services themselves, or both, as provided in the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.

D. "Oklahoma Health Care Authority" refers to the single State agency responsible for administering the Oklahoma Medicaid program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a)(5).

E. "State Plan Amendment" refers to the document(s) the State submits to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for review and approval before making a change to the program policies, including setting forth the groups of individuals to be eligible for medical assistance.

Section 2. Medicaid Expansion

A. In addition to those otherwise eligible for medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program, the State shall provide medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program to Low Income Adults.

B. No greater or additional burdens or restrictions on eligibility or enrollment shall be imposed on persons eligible for medical assistance pursuant to this Article than on any other population eligible for medical assistance under Oklahoma's Medicaid program.

Section 3. Implementation

A. Within 90 days of approval of this Article, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority shall submit a State Plan Amendment and all other necessary documents to seek required approvals from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to include Low Income Adults as a coverage group in Oklahoma's Medicaid program beginning no later than July 1, 2021.

B. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority shall take all actions necessary to maximize federal financial particpation in funding medical assistance purusant to this Article.

Section 4. Severability

The provisions of this Article are severable, and if any part or provision hereof shall be void, invalid, unconstitutional, the decision of the court so holding shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions hereof, and the remaining provisions hereof shall continue in full force and effect.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has a great deal of research and analysis on the fiscal hazards of Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. Most recently, OCPA policy research fellow Kaitlyn Finley points to tax increases in 13 other states to fund Medicaid expansion:

According to a tally by Governing Magazine last year, 13 states have had to raise taxes, fees, or cut provider rates to fund their state portion of expansion costs. North Dakota cut payment rates to Medicaid providers. California passed a provider tax on hospitals and cigarette sales. Oregon put another tax on health insurance plans and hospitals. Other states like Kentucky and Arkansas have pursued charging premiums and implementing work requirements to make up for program shortfalls.
Although these states' plans to tax hospitals to pay for expansion may seem like an additional financial drain on emergency care providers, in reality, many "nonprofit" hospitals have jumped at the chance to take on this financial "burden" because hospitals may increase their profits thanks to the tax.

Note that while some states have "pursued... implementing work requirements" to reduce the fiscal damage of Obamacare Medicaid Expansion, the authors of SQ802 want to cut off that possibility for Oklahoma.

MORE: State Rep. Mark Lepak sets out the fiscal dangers that Medicaid Expansion would bring, increasing the burden on a budget already strained to its limits by CCP Bat Virus:

Proponents point out that we will bring our federal dollars home with a 9-to-1 federal-to-state match. True statement. However, they also claim the expansion population will be about 200,000 people, costing about $200 million. Actually, up to 628,000 will be eligible, with a price tag over $370 million. When "free health care" is advertised, what should we anticipate from the eligible? And those numbers are just first-year expenses that don't contemplate the rising costs of health care, nor the federal government's habit of shifting costs to the states.
Consider our experience with the existing Medicaid program. From 2003 to 2018, Oklahoma's share of Medicaid expenses grew from $715 million to $2.2 billion. At the same time, we went from 649,000 enrollees to more than a million. We're spending three times as much for less than twice the people. Furthermore, in 2003, Oklahoma was responsible for 29.9% of its Medicaid costs. In 2018, that number was 41.8%. With that track record, the 9:1 match from the feds will become 8:2, then 7:3, and so on. With an increasing federal debt and deficit spending, does anyone think they won't continue to shift more and more costs to the states in the future?

MORE: Both Republican candidates for Senate District 37 are saying they'll vote yes, but SQ 802 will damage budgets for both the Federal Government and the State of Oklahoma. Wish they could both lose:

Emerson, who is married with nine children, is voting for State Question 802, Medicaid expansion, which also appears on the June 30 ballot.
But he said it is important to note that it will increase the federal deficit.

Rogers, who is married with five children, also is supporting SQ 802, but said he doesn't see how the state will be able to afford it, especially given the current budget situation in which state revenues are on the decline.

RELATED: Ray Carter of the Center for Independent Journalism reports that some voters are receiving mailers with a subtext that the voter will be named and shamed if they don't vote in the upcoming election. I have read comments on social media that so far only Democrats and Independents have received these mailers. I surmise that backers of SQ802 are afraid that, with few interesting Democrat primaries on the June 30 ballot, pro-big-government voters who would be inclined to vote yes on 802 won't bother to go to the polls.

Tulsa Election 2020: Filing Day 3

By Michael Bates on June 10, 2020 12:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I will be updating this entry as new information becomes available.

MIDDAY UPDATE:

Two more candidates have filed for mayor this morning: Gregory Robinson II, a Democrat, who was introduced at his Election Board press conference by Dr. Tiffany Crutcher, and Craig Immel, an Independent, who was the lead plaintiff in the battle to keep park land on Riverside Drive from being turned into a shopping center that might possibly someday have an REI-type store in it.

As previously announced, incumbent Democrat District 1 City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper has filed for re-election. She has one opponent so far, Jerry Goodwin, also a registered Democrat.

Auditor Cathy Champion Carter and City Councilors Jeannie Cue, Crista Patrick, Cass Fahler, and Phil Lakin remain unopposed as of noon Wednesday.

No other new filings as of noon today. Candidates must file a notarized declaration of candidacy along with a $50 cashier's check or 300-signature petition at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave., by 5 pm, today, Wednesday, June 10, 2020.

CLOSE OF FILING:

Two more candidates, Republican Ty Walker and Democrat Ricco Wright, filed for Mayor Wednesday afternoon, bringing the total number of candidates to eight.

City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter and two city councilors, Jeannie Cue (District 2) and Phil Lakin (District 8), failed to draw an opponent and have been reelected to another two-year term.

Two previously unopposed incumbents now have opposition. Paul Eicher, a Democrat, will face District 3 councilor Crista Patrick. Republican District 5 councilor Cass Fahler drew four opponents during the final hours of filing, all of them Democrats in their 30s, including 2018's second-place finisher Michael William Arthrell-Knezek aka Mykey Arthrell.

Kathryn Lyons, a Republican, filed in District 4, and Cheyenna Morgan, a Democrat, filed in District 6. Both districts have Democrat incumbents.

The names, ages, and addresses below are from the Tulsa County Election Board's official list of Monday filings. I've added incumbent status, registered voter name in brackets if it differs from the name used for filing, and party affiliation, which I checked against the current voter registration database.

Mayor
GT Bynum, 42, 3607 S. Florence Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, incumbent, Republican
Paul Tay, 57, 415 W Archer, Tulsa, OK 74103, Independent
Ken Reddick, 37, 5008 S 85th East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74145, Republican
Zackri Leon Whitlow, 39, 2951 W 66th St, Tulsa, OK 74132, Democrat
Craig Immel, 44, 1739 West Newton Street, Tulsa, OK 74127, Independent
Gregory C. Robinson II, 30, 2307 E 29th Pl N, Tulsa, OK 74110, Democrat
Ty [Tyron Vincent] Walker, 54, 8538 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, Republican
Ricco Wright, 38, 1913 N Santa Fe Place, Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat

Council District 1
Jerry [James G] Goodwin, 57, 2406 W. Pine Pl., Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat
Vanessa Hall-Harper, 48, 2020 West Newton Street, Tulsa, OK 74127, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 2
Jeannie Cue, 5313 S 32 Pl W, Tulsa, OK 74107, incumbent, Republican

Council District 3
Crista Patrick, 46, 1918 N. Joplin Ave., Tulsa, OK 74115, incumbent, Democrat
Paul Eicher, 31, 509 S 76 East Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat

Council District 4
Kara Joy McKee, 41, 1119 S Quebec Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, incumbent, Democrat
Landry Miller, 26, 221 N Union Ave, Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat
Casey Robinson, 38, 1260 E 29th Pl, Tulsa, OK 74114, Republican
Kathryn Lyons, 53, 2831 E 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74114, Republican

Council District 5
Cass [Cassidy G] Fahler, 47, 7383 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, incumbent, Republican
Mykey Arthrell [Michael William Arthrell-Knezek], 35, 1747 S Erie Pl, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat
Justin Schuffert, 35, 2216 S. 78th E. Ave, Tulsa, OK 74129, Democrat
Rachel Shepherd, 30, 5719 E. 30th St, Tulsa, OK 74114, Democrat
Nat Wachowski-Estes, 34, 1213 S 87th E Ave, Tulsa, OK 74112, Democrat

Council District 6
Christian Bengel, 52, 13173 E. 29th Street, Tulsa, OK 74134, Republican
Connie Dodson, 53, 13302 E. 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74134, incumbent, Democrat
Cheyenna Morgan, 29, 9 South 185th East Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74108, Democrat

Council District 7
Chad Ferguson, 40, 6751 S. 71st East Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Justin Van Kirk, 29, 10709 E 100 Pl, Tulsa, OK 74133, Republican
Lori Decter Wright, 45, 8706 E 86th St, Tulsa, OK 74133, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 8
Phil [Philip Lawrence] Lakin Jr., 52, 9808 S. Knoxville Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74137, incumbent, Republican

Council District 9
[Bobbie] Leeann Crosby, 36, 3845 South Madison Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Democrat
Jayme Fowler, 61, 5601 S Gary Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Republican

City Auditor
Cathy Champion Carter, 65, 4120 E 22nd Place, Tulsa, OK 74114, incumbent, Democrat

UPDATED to include Justin Van Kirk and Jayme Fowler, whose names I overlooked when initially composing this report. UPDATED again to include information from Zackri Leon Whitlow and Landry Miller about their voter registration.

Where are Tulsa's candidates?

By Michael Bates on June 9, 2020 10:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I've made this plea repeatedly on social media, on Pat Campbell's show on 1170 KFAQ, and here on this blog. And yet I look at the list of candidates after two of the three days of the filing period, and I am amazed to see so many unopposed candidates. Four of the city councilors do not have opponents, nor does the city auditor.

It's especially surprising after a fortnight that has put the spotlight on the importance of city government. Questions of law and order, police protocols and accountability are at the top of everyone's minds, and these questions are answered by our city council and mayor. Providentially, while we're all thinking about the importance of municipal policy, we have the greatest opportunity to make a difference, because it's filing period for city offices.

We only get to choose a new mayor once every four years, and now is the time to make sure there's someone on the ballot that you'd be happy to vote for. We only get to choose a new auditor and councilors every two years. There seems to be a lot of discontent, from across the political spectrum, with Tulsa City Hall, and I'd have thought that that discontent would burst forth this week in an outpouring of candidates for city office.

Do people still believe in elections? It looks like the protesters that blocked interstates and arterial streets don't. Instead of trying to elect a new mayor and councilors who are in agreement with their aims, to have a real seat at the table, it appears that the protesters' plan is to continue to protest, presumably in hopes that the existing mayor and council, whatever they may personally believe, will be inspired or intimidated by the protests into adopting the protesters' platform.

Perhaps because the news media loves the drama of protest and civil (or uncivil) disobedience more than the slog of legislation and debate, mass protests caught the public imagination as the way to effect change. Even the venerable Atlantic magazine is talking about "toppling" President Trump, as if we didn't have a presidential election in five months. Protesters in the US and the UK are defacing monuments and demolishing statues, as if it were impossible to enact the removal of offensive monuments through the ordinary processes of representative government.

You've heard the marchers' chants: "This is what democracy looks like!" No, this is what ochlocracy looks like. Democracy looks like people knocking doors for candidates, casting ballots, and sitting around committee tables poring over budget books.

In February 2020, the City Council voted 5-3 against putting a charter amendment on the ballot to create an Office of Independent Monitor (OIM) to review use of force cases by the police. Councilors Vanessa Hall-Harper (District 1), Kara Joy McKee (District 4), and Lori Decter Wright (District 7) were the only votes in support of putting Mayor Bynum's proposal on the ballot. All three have drawn opponents.

Councilors Jeannie Cue (District 2), Crista Patrick (District 3), Connie Dodson (District 6), Phil Lakin (District 8), and Ben Kimbro (District 9) voted against the OIM charter change, and Cass Fahler (District 5), who was absent, had voiced opposition to the proposal. Kimbro isn't running again, but only one of the other five (Dodson) has drawn an opponent. Only two candidates have bothered to file for the open District 9 seat.

Marlin Lavanhar, senior pastor of All Souls Unitarian Church, has drawn a couple of scathing cartoons critical of Mayor Bynum's response to the protests. So where is the challenger to Bynum from the left side of the spectrum?

I've checked a few names prominent in the protests and found that some of them are registered to vote in these districts whose councilors are opposed to their goals. If I dug further, I suspect I'd find that there's a leading protester in each one of these council districts. Why aren't they using their youth, enthusiasm, and energy to run for a real seat at the table, instead of being satisfied with scraps?

So who are the candidates who have already filed? Let's start with a look at the mayoral candidates.

GT Bynum is running for a second term. A professional schmoozer in one form or another for his entire career (Senate staff assistant, public relations, corporate communications, governmental affairs, lobbyist), Bynum IV is clearly in over his head, particularly now that the job demands tough decisions, not just ribbon-cutting and pious virtue signalling. Michael Mason has documented Bynum's deep ties to billionaire George Kaiser. In the words of New York Times writer Cassidy McDonald, "Kaiser has turned Tulsa into 'beta city,' U.S.A," a guinea pig for his social experiments, which are grounded in the materialistic worldview set out in his "Giving Pledge." However noble, Mr. Kaiser's intentions, Tulsans should not give him carte blanche to direct city resources to carry out his private philanthropic aims. Tulsans need elected officials who are not beholden to a billionaire who seems to see us as lab rats.

Ken Reddick is running as a conservative Republican and has already been campaigning for a few months. After many years as a manager for an electrical utility contractor and as an electrician, Reddick now has his own business managing projects for contractors in the utility and electrical fields, helping them to streamline processes and find efficiencies. Reddick ran a credible special election race for District 7 City Councilor in November 2018, but conservative support was divided among several candidates.

Paul Tay, who has run many times for mayor and city council, and made an infamous cameo appearance at the 2016 RSU-TV mayoral debate between incumbent Mayor Dewey Bartlett and challenger GT Bynum, was released Monday after five months in the Tulsa County Jail for outraging public decency. I won't repeat the specifics of his crime, for which he was convicted in a jury trial in January, but the state's witness list and the judge's instructions to the jury will tell you more than you wanted to know. Tay also has felony charges pending for possession of a stolen vehicle and violation of a protective order. When I first met him, way back in 1998, he had some cogent thoughts on urban planning and bicycles, but there's nothing cogent about his increasingly bizarre behavior. On his declaration of candidacy, Tay listed the Day Center for the Homeless as his place of residence, contrary to his voter registration address.

The fourth candidate, Zackri Leon Whitlow, doesn't appear in the voter registration database at all. Whitlow shows up on LinkedIn, Facebook, and IMDb. It appears that he is an insurance agent and broker, and that his agency may have been located in California, in Langley, Oklahoma, and now in Tulsa. It appears that he served as a butler at the Playboy Mansion, credited with an appearance on the reality series based there, "The Girls Next Door." I haven't found anything indicating his views on city issues.

City Auditor Cathy Champion Carter (formerly Cathy Criswell) is still unopposed. She has held the post without a challenger since her first election in 2013, when she defeated appointed incumbent Clift Richards and Josh Lewis. If the listing of internal audit reports on her City Auditor website is complete, Tulsa hasn't had a sensitive payments audit since FY 2017, and the pace of internal audits in general has slowed considerably over the past few years. It was the intention of the framers of our City Charter that the city auditor should be an "anti-mayor," acting as a whistleblower on abuse and corruption. Instead, Carter continues to follow the pattern set by Phil Wood, the first city auditor under the 1989 charter, quietly churning out reports but doing little or nothing to call attention to her team's findings, findings that might uncover inefficiency, waste, or even corruption.

If you're wondering whether or not to file, go for it. Every councilor should have a challenger. After filing closes at 5 pm Wednesday afternoon, you've got two days to investigate and speak with the other candidates who have filed, and if you'd rather back one of the other candidates you can withdraw by 5 pm Friday and take your name on the ballot. But let's at least make sure that every voter has good choices in every office and district.

Tulsa Election 2020: Filing Day 2

By Michael Bates on June 9, 2020 5:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

At the end of the second of three days of candidate filing for the 2020 City of Tulsa elections, the incumbent mayor, auditor, and seven of the nine incumbent city councilors have filed for re-election, with Mayor GT Bynum IV drawing three opponents and incumbent Democratic Councilors Kara Joy McKee (District 4) and Councilor Lori Decter Wright (District 7) each drawing two opponents. Five council seats and the auditor's office have only one candidate each. Incumbent Democrat councilors Connie Dodson (District 6) has also drawn a Republican opponent. Republican District 9 councilor Ben Kimbro is not running for re-election; two candidates have filed thus far for that seat. Democrat District 1 Councilor Vanessa Hall Harper has confirmed to BatesLine that she will file tomorrow; Jerry Goodwin has already filed as a challenger for the seat.

Three candidates may have issues with their voter registrations, or lack thereof. District 4 candidate Landry Miller is not in the current state election board voter registration database as of noon today. Perennial mayoral candidate Paul Tay is registered to vote at 6104 N. Boulder, which does not match the residential or mailing address (both 415 W. Archer St., the Day Center for the Homeless) he supplied on his declaration of candidacy. The voter registration database also does not have a record for mayoral candidate Zackri Leon Whitlow; there is someone with a similar name and age registered to vote at a different address.

(UPDATE 2020/06/10: Zackri Whitlow responded to my inquiry about his voter registration: "I just submitted my Tulsa Voter Registration on Friday. I am an Oklahoma Native but had moved to California back in 2006. I was last registered in Riverside County and that should be in the process of them transitioning my new Voter Registration to Tulsa County." Whitlow says he has registered in Oklahoma as a Democrat. Landry Miller responded to my inquiry: "I am registered in District 4, under my current address. This was only recently changed because I hopped around Tulsa for a while trying to find the perfect spot to live. So therefore my previous registration was in Rogers County, where I waited to update my registration until March, so I could still vote in the presidential primaries (in Rogers County).")

In addition, four candidates -- Jerry Goodwin, Cass Fahler, Phil Lakin, and Leeann Crosby -- have filed under names that do not match their voter registration records. While state law permits a candidate to specify a ballot name that differs from their legal name, both of which are specified on a declaration of candidacy for state office, the Tulsa City Charter does not. In the past, I can recall a number of occasions where a city candidate's full name (including middle name and suffix) appeared on the ballot, even if it differed from the name by which the candidate was popularly known. This 2009 City of Tulsa primary ballot for Mayor and Council District 8 has middle names for almost all of the candidates.

This name-matching requirement seems to have motivated candidates to change their voter registration. For example, the mayor is registered as last name "Bynum," first name "G T," which allows his name to appear as "G T Bynum" on the city ballot, even though that would appear to be in violation of the section of law (26 O.S. 4-112) that requires each voter to register with his full name, in his case, George Theron Bynum IV.

The Tulsa City Charter, Article VI, Section 3.1, requires, "Any person who desires to be a candidate for a City office shall file with the Election Board of Tulsa County or its successor a Declaration of Candidacy which shall contain: A. The name and residence street address of the person as it appears on the voter registration records;...." A candidate who has provided a name and address combination that doesn't match a voter registration record for an address in the City of Tulsa would be in violation of that charter provision.

A candidate with an invalid declaration of candidacy could have his candidacy contested by an opposing candidate or, if no other candidate has filed, by any eligible voter registered to vote for the candidate. Contests must be filed by 5 p.m. Friday with a $250 deposit. Contests are governed by Title 26, Chapter A1, Article V of Oklahoma Statutes, sections 118 to 131. Section 117 states that the relevant election board can reject a Declaration of Candidacy "which on its face shows that the candidate does not meet the qualifications to become a candidate for the office set forth as contained in the Oklahoma Constitution, statutes or resolution calling the election."

Filing continues for one final day, tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave., Tulsa, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. More about the filing and election process here.

Council District 1
Jerry [James G] Goodwin, 57, 2406 W. Pine Pl., Tulsa, OK 74127, Democrat

Council District 2
Jeannie Cue, 5313 S 32 Pl W, Tulsa, OK 74107, incumbent, Republican

Council District 3
Crista Patrick, 46, 1918 N. Joplin Ave., Tulsa, OK 74115, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 5
Cass [Cassidy G] Fahler, 47, 7383 E 24th St, Tulsa, OK 74129, incumbent, Republican

Council District 6
Christian Bengel, 52, 13173 E. 29th Street, Tulsa, OK 74134, Republican
Connie Dodson, 53, 13302 E. 28th St., Tulsa, OK 74134, incumbent, Democrat

Council District 8
Phil [Philip Lawrence] Lakin Jr., 52, 9808 S. Knoxville Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74137, incumbent, Republican

Council District 9
[Bobbie] Leeann Crosby, 36, 3845 South Madison Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Democrat
Jayme Fowler, 61, 5601 S Gary Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105, Republican

City Auditor
Cathy Champion Carter, 65, 4120 E 22nd Place, Tulsa, OK 74114, incumbent, Democrat

2020 City of Tulsa candidate filing period

By Michael Bates on June 8, 2020 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In addition to the high-stakes presidential race, the City of Tulsa has its own high-stakes elections this year. All nine Tulsa City Councilors and the Tulsa City Auditor are on the ballot every two years, but in presidential years, the Mayor's office is also up for grabs. Filing period begins Monday, June 8, 2020, and ends Wednesday, June 10, 2020. Candidates file in-person at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver (in the old Marina-style Safeway building), between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily.

I'll stick to the nuts and bolts in this item; later I hope to explain why Tulsans should want to run for office and change the personnel running our city government.

Filing involves filling out a declaration of candidacy, getting it notarized, and presenting it at the county election board with a cashier's check for $50 for the filing fee. The filing fee is really a deposit, intended to deter frivolous candidates: If you get more than 15% of the vote when your name first appears on the ballot, or if you're unopposed, you get the cashier's check back. In lieu of the filing fee, you have the option of filing a petition signed by 300 registered voters in your election district if you're running for council, or city-wide if running for Mayor or Auditor. The information packet with all the forms, including the declaration of candidacy and all ethics disclosure forms, is on the Tulsa County Election Board website.

City elections are governed by Article VI of the City Charter. Council races are run by district. Our council districts were gerrymandered in 2012 evidently with the intent of eliminating then-Mayor Dewey Bartlett's harshest critics. The lines will be redrawn next year following the publication of the 2020 census results by a five-person committee appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. If the next council consists of the mayor's yes men, the mayor will be able to redraw the district lines to benefit his most loyal councilors.

To find your district, consult the Oklahoma Voter Tool, or use the city's interactive map, or consult this set of static maps, showing the precincts contained within each council district.

Tulsa's municipal elections are non-partisan, and the process has changed since the last mayor's election in 2016, going from three stages to two. The August 25, 2020, election is considered a general election. (The same date is used for runoffs for candidates for Federal and State Legislative offices.)

If two candidates are running for an office, the candidate receiving the most votes at the August election wins. If more than two candidates are running, the number of top candidates whose votes total at least 50% advance to a runoff on November 3, 2020, the same date as the general election for U. S. President, Senator, Congressmen, and state legislators.

To give you an idea of how this would work, suppose the top two candidates for Mayor fell short of 50% of the vote combined in a very evenly divided race.

Candidate A 25%
Candidate B 23%
Candidate C 14%
Candidate D 11%
Candidate E 10%
Candidate F 9%
Candidate G 8%

If these were a regular Oklahoma primary, only Candidates A and B would advance to the November runoff, but because their combined total falls short of 50%, one more candidate, C, would advance. Because A, B, and C's vote share exceeds 50% (62%) only those candidates will advance to November. This is a highly unlikely spread, except perhaps in a race for an open seat; in most cases, it will simply be the top two candidates advancing to the November runoff.

If you're unhappy with a mayor who makes concessions without consulting all stakeholders involved in a decision, if you're unhappy with a mayor who refuses to enact a curfew to protect Tulsa residents and businesses, if you're unhappy with a council that fails to hold the mayor accountable, if you're unhappy with councilors who break their promises to constituents who are facing the destruction of their homes by eminent domain, if you're unhappy that most of our elected officials are beholden to a billionaire who sees Tulsa as a lab rat for social experimentation, you ought to consider running for office. We can't have change unless we have different candidates to choose from.

State Rep. Mark McBride accused of obscenely abusing think-tank leader

By Michael Bates on March 10, 2020 9:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mark McBride, a Republican Oklahoma state representative from Moore who touts himself as a "lifelong conservative Republican" and founder and president of a mission organization, has been accused of directing a fusillade of obscene verbal abuse at a think-tank president who was walking through the State Capitol.

In a recent news release promoting the OCPA's new legislative scorecard, Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, reports that McBride "flipped him off" as Small passed by a committee room. Small says that McBride then summoned Small into the committee room and proceeded to unleash a barrage of obscenities at Small in front of several other people.

At the beginning of the 2020 legislative session, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs announced that we would produce a legislative scorecard to be updated throughout the session.
The OCPA board of trustees and staff came to realize that there wasn't an easy-to-use guide for constituents to understand just how their lawmakers are voting on issues related to free markets, limited government, individual initiative, and personal responsibility. So we decided to change that.

At the beginning of the legislative session, we launched our new Legislative Scorecard, which can be found at scorecard.ocpathink.org. In addition to the scorecard itself, we released a watch list of bills that are eligible to be included on the scorecard. You can view the watch list at ocpa.co/WatchList.

Check out the live scorecard and share it with your family and friends, it even has an easy-to-use locator so anyone can easily find their lawmaker.

The scorecard has already had major impact.

Early this session, a horrific bill popped up on the House Calendar, House Bill 1230 (HB1230). In short, while touted as a "transparency bill" it actually commands government bureaucrats to violate the privacy of families and students who use the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship, including students with special needs and disabilities. The bill easily can be interpreted to require students and families to waive rights to privacy, normally afforded to most other students, in order to participate in the program in the future.

OCPA sent repeated notices to lawmakers that HB1230 would be scored negatively.

You need to know about something. Just a little over two weeks ago, the day after the vote on HB1230, I was at the state capitol building. As I was walking on the 4th floor of the Capitol, I passed a committee room. In the room were several people and a lawmaker who was sitting in a chair facing the doorway. The lawmaker was State Representative Mark McBride, author of HB1230.

As I walked by the door, I was surprised when I saw that State Representative Mark McBride slightly raised his hand from his lap and flipped me off.

After being flipped off by State Representative Mark McBride, it appeared State Representative Mark McBride motioned for me to go in the room to talk to him. As I got close to his chair, with others sitting around and in a voice so others could hear, State Representative Mark McBride then began to cuss at me profusely. His words included saying I was the "F..." word at least twice, calling me a piece of "S..." twice, saying I was worthless twice, referring to me as a derogatory word for male genitalia twice, and twice telling me to "scat" like I was some sort of animal. Also included in his personal, verbal, and public attack on me was his criticism of OCPA for opposing HB1230.

Our hope is that Oklahomans will utilize the scorecard to remain informed and involved in the legislative process, while also holding politicians accountable.

Thank you,

Jonathan Small
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
President

McBride currently has a score of 35 on the OCPA scorecard out of a possible 100. The lowest score for any Republican is 29.

Rep. McBride boasts on his House web page that he is "the Founder and President of Thousand Hills Mission - a non-profit organization dedicated to providing agricultural and veterinary assistance to the people of developing and Third World countries." Guidestar shows the most recent IRS Form 990 as filed for the 2013 tax year, and that the IRS non-profit ruling was issued in 2012. The earliest 990 that Guidestar has is from 2011, and it shows fundraising back to 2007. Here are the annual fundraising totals shown on the 2011-2013 IRS Form 990s.

2007: $24,409
2008: $50,343
2009: $27,019
2010: $24,409
2011: $72,814
2012: $10,730
2013: $8,030

The expenses for the 990s provided seem to cover travel for one or two people and veterinary supplies. The organization reported no paid employees.

I'm reminded of an experience I had back in March 2004, when I took a camcorder to capture the Tulsa City Council "pre-meeting" which was held in the library of the council offices an hour before the official meeting and which dealt with the agenda for the main meeting. My presence there triggered an obscene outburst against me from a City Council staffer.

In the future, I suggest that Mr. Small and his OCPA colleagues wear GoPro cameras when they walk through the Capitol. They may capture some insights into the character of our legislators that aren't fully evident in voting records and campaign websites.

2020 Oklahoma presidential primary; liquor sales on Sunday

By Michael Bates on March 3, 2020 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Postdated to remain at the top of the blog until the polls close at 7 p.m.

Today, March 3, 2020, is the Oklahoma presidential preference primary. Oklahoma is one of 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia (Democrats only), and Vermont) holding a presidential primary on "Super Tuesday." American Samoa Democrats will also hold a territorial caucus on Tuesday.

Super Tuesday came into existence in 1988, driven by southern Democrats. After a win in the post-Watergate election of 1976, with a ticket headed by former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, Democrats were wiped out in 1980, as Reagan beat Carter, and again in 1984, as Reagan won 49 states against former VP Walter Mondale. The worry was that the early states (Iowa and New Hampshire) tilted the playing field in the liberal direction, resulting in a liberal nominee.

The Democrats' practice of "superdelegates" was another reform aimed at the electability problem that traces back to the reforms prior to the 1972 convention. The idea was that Democrats who had actually been elected office would help shift the convention and the selected nominee in a more centrist direction than Democrat primary voters left to their own devices.

The hope was that a Southern regional primary early in the process would encourage the nomination of a Southern moderate who could win in November. Oklahoma's Democratic governor and legislative majorities went along with the plan; previously, both major parties used the caucus and convention system to elect national delegates from Oklahoma. As it happened, of the 13 Southern states voting, Jesse Jackson won the four Deep South states (LA, MS, AL, GA) plus Virginia, Al Gore won five border states (OK, AR, TN, KY, NC), Michael Dukakis won Florida and Texas, and Dick Gephardt won his home state of Missouri. Dukakis's wins in the south, plus success in his home region of New England, killed Gore's electability argument.

(Virginia Republicans will not hold a primary but will use the caucus and convention process: County and Independent City Republican parties will elect delegates to the Congressional District and State GOP Conventions, and the CD and State Conventions will elect delegates to the Republican National Convention. All of Virginia's 48 delegates will be pledged to the candidate winning the presidential preference vote of delegates at the Virginia State Republican Convention.)

In Oklahoma, each political party may opt to allow voters not registered with a party to vote in their primary. For 2020 the Oklahoma Democratic Party is allowing independents to vote in their primaries; the Republican and Libertarian party primaries will be open only to voters registered with the respective party.

Oklahoma Democrats will have 15 candidates to choose from, all mainstream enough to earn a spot on a debate stage at some point. They're shown below in the order in which they filed for the primary back in December.

Tulsi Gabbard
Amy Klobuchar
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg
Andrew Yang
Deval Patrick
Michael R. Bloomberg
Tom Steyer
Joseph R. Biden
Michael Bennet
Marianne Williamson
JuliÃ¡n Castro
Cory Booker

Only five are still actively campaigning: Gabbard, Warren, Sanders, Bloomberg, and Biden. (Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer dropped out after poor showings in South Carolina last Saturday.) All of the Democratic candidates take an extreme position in support of abortion. They all support greater intrusion of the federal government into every aspect of life. Each of the Democratic candidates wants Christians either to bow down before the gods of the Sexual Revolution, or have the Federal Government destroy their businesses, their professional careers, their schools, their churches, their private organizations. None of them are "moderate." Given the number of conservative rural Oklahomans who are still registered as Democrats, a candidate that, say, supported private spaces and protected athletic opportunities for women, opposed late term abortion, supported robust protections for religious liberty, and sensible policies on immigration and trade -- someone like Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards -- would do very well in the Oklahoma Democratic primary.

Although you can still vote for any of the candidates on the ballot, a candidate needs at least 15% of the vote in a congressional district or statewide to get any delegates at all. In South Carolina, Biden got 49% and Sanders 20%, but split all of the delegates between them because the rest of the candidates split the remaining 31% of the vote, with none of them topping the threshold. Steyer's 11.3% was the best of the rest. Very little polling has been done in Oklahoma. A Sooner Poll taken from 2/17 to 2/21 put Biden at 21.2%, Bloomberg at 19.8%, undecided at 19.3%. Buttigieg and Klobuchar, both now out of the race, combined for 17%.

For Oklahoma Democrats, each congressional district has a different number of delegates: CD 2 and CD 3 have four each, CD 1 and CD 4 have five each, and CD 5, with a Democrat congressman, has six. There are 13 seats pledged based on statewide results: 8 statewide at-large delegate seats and 5 seats belonging to Party Leader and Elected Officials (PLEOs). Five more PLEOs go as superdelegates -- the Oklahoma Democrat chairman and vice-chairman and the national committeeman and national committeewoman, plus Congressman Kendra Horn. The "superdelegates" aren't pledged to any candidate, but they won't be able to vote unless no candidate receives a majority of the delegate vote on the first ballot at the National Convention. (I am still trying to find out who the pledged PLEOs are and why we have five. In other states, the number of unpledged PLEOs is different from the number of pledged.)

Oklahoma will have 43 delegates to the Republican National Convention, three from each congressional district, plus 28 statewide, including the state party chairman, the national committeeman, and the national committeewoman. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in a CD or statewide, he gets all the delegates for that jurisdiction, even if another candidate breaks 15%, which seems unlikely.

Five Republicans are challenging President Trump on the Oklahoma ballot.

Zoltan G. Istvan, 46, of Mill Valley, CA: Istvan is a transhumanist who wants Republicans to embrace the unfettered use of technology to modify humanity. He believes science and technology can solve all problems. He writes, "The fate of fiscally conservative Republicans rests in embracing transhumanism and become more open-minded to cultural and technological change--or the far-left will own the future, just like they already own the environmental movement. The GOP must embrace radical innovation in the human being and be the caretakers of humanity's brave future." Istvan also wants to "improv[e] the Constitution to make it more malleable and ready to adjust every few years to radically changing times and accelerating technology." Call him the "Brave New World" candidate.

Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente, 65, San Diego, CA: He ran as a Democrat on the 2016 Oklahoma ballot, and his son ran as a Democrat in New Hampshire this year, but he's on the GOP ballot in Oklahoma in 2020. In 2016, he was also the presidential nominee of the American Delta Party and the Reform Party, which was founded by Ross Perot. De La Fuente tends toward an open-borders view: "We need comprehensive immigration reform that views undocumented workers as assets rather than liabilities. It is not logical to suggest that we can deport 13 million immigrants in a way that would be deemed fair. It is just as illogical to suggest that we could deport the small percentage of undocumented immigrants who have committed felonies." He wants to raise the retirement age and the contributions cap to keep Social Security solvent.

Matthew John Matern, 54, Manhattan Beach, CA: Matern is an attorney. He wants to solve homelessness by giving people a $10,000 tax credit for taking in a homeless person. He wants to raise the threshold for taxable income to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for families. Matern wants to focus on the environment, including a tax credit for reducing carbon footprint and tariffs to penalize goods from major polluters like India and China. He wants a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Bob Ely, 61, Vernon Hills, IL: Ely is running as a something of a tongue-in-cheek, satirical candidate, "your least-worst alternative." He calls himself partyfluid, says he has no experience and the charisma of a doorknob. His political pronouncements are the sort of thing your opinionated uncle might shout at the TV while watching the news after a few beers. Ely claims he would be a "better" (and scarier) Trump:

A federal judge I know decried how Trump was subverting the rule of law. I told him I could do much worse. He said that was impossible. How about this, I said:

In some random speech or tweet I would state: "A human virtue I admire most is loyalty. I am loyal to those who are loyal to me." An unimpeachable statement.

My sleezy [sic] friends would understand OmertÃ .

I would let those who cooperated with Mueller rot in prison; I would pardon those that stayed silent. My smarter sleezy friends would figure out that the easiest strategy would be say nothing; plead guilty; get pardoned.

The judge conceded that would be worse.

On foreign policy, Ely believes that sanctions against international bad guys are ineffective, and that instead, on a case by case basis, America should choose between resigned acceptance and putting a Tomahawk through a dictator's bedroom window, pour encourages les autres. On illegal immigration, Ely supports amnesty and guest worker visas for low-income jobs. Ely doesn't want you to follow him on Twitter or friend him on Facebook.

Joe Walsh, 57, Washington, D.C.: Walsh is a former congressman who suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination after a poor showing in Iowa and is now begging his supporters to vote for Democrats in order to unseat Trump. He won a seat in Congress by a slim margin in 2010, then lost it in 2012, after making light of the war injuries of his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth. He spent much of his presidential campaign apologizing for outrageous things he said as a radio host.

Also on tomorrow's ballot: Seven counties in Oklahoma -- Creek, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Washington -- will vote whether to allow liquor stores to open on Sundays. Since supermarkets can now sell strong beer and wine, and they can sell on Sundays, and since people can buy liquor by the drink at bars and restaurants, it seems only fair that liquor stores should be able to compete on a somewhat level playing field. It seems to me that it's safer for everyone if people buy alcohol at the store and take it home to consume, rather than drinking at a bar or restaurant and then having to get home somehow.

Oklahoma School Board 2020 primary election

By Michael Bates on February 11, 2020 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Unofficial RESULTS from the Oklahoma State Election Board:

Tulsa School Board, Office 5: John Croisant 1,063, Shane Saunders 633, Scott Pendleton 400, Kelsey Royce 313, Ben Croff 17. Croisant and Saunders advance to the April 7 runoff.

Tulsa School Board, Office 6: Jerry Griffin 377, Ruth Ann Fate 335, Stephen Remington 311. Griffin and Fate advance to the April 7 runoff.

Bixby School Board, Office 5: Tristy Fryer 681, Jason Prideaux 43, Todd Hagopian 41. Fryer exceeds 50%, wins outright.

Owasso School Board, Office 5: Frosty Turpen 799, Beth Medford 306, John H. Haning 115. Turpen exceeds 50%, wins outright.

Collinsville, Mayor: Larry Shafer 298, Jerry Garrett 289. Shafer wins.

Sand Springs, Commissioner, Ward 3: Mike Burdge 42, Justin Sean Tockey 32. Burdge wins.

Jenks school bonds: Prop. 1 passes with 83.23% of 1,884 votes, Prop. 2 with 83.52% of 1,887 votes

Liberty school bonds: Props. 1 and 2 pass with 86.39% of 169 votes.

Owasso school bonds: Prop. 1 passes with 76.27% of 1,298 votes, Prop. 2 with 77.18% of 1,297 votes

Postdated to remain at the top through the end of the election.

Polls are open in selected precincts across Oklahoma in the February 11, 2020, school board primary election from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some municipalities also have elections today. The Oklahoma State Election Board's new Oklahoma Voter Portal will tell you where to vote and let you view sample ballots before you go to the polls. Here is the complete and official list of elections in Oklahoma today, February 11, 2020, sorted by county.

Yesterday I was on 1170 KFAQ to discuss today's election with Pat Campbell; here's the audio.

School elections

Only school board races with three or more candidates will have a contest today. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote today, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020, between the top two candidates. Races for which only two candidates filed will also be held on April 7.

Four school board seats are on the ballot in Tulsa County:

Bixby Public Schools, Office No. 5

Tristy Fryer, Republican (Facebook)
Todd Hagopian, Libertarian (Facebook)
Jason Prideaux, Republican (Facebook)

Candidate forum for Bixby school board, Office 5

Owasso Public Schools, Office No. 5

John H. Haning, Republican (no online presence found)
Beth Medford, Democrat (Facebook)
Frosty Turpen, Democrat, incumbent since 1995 (Facebook)

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 5: BatesLine endorses Scott Pendleton

Ben Croff (withdrew from race but still on ballot)
John Croisant, Democrat (questionnaire, website, Facebook)
Scott Pendleton, Republican (endorsement, questionnaire, website, Facebook)
Kelsey Royce, Democrat (questionnaire, Facebook)
Shane Saunders, Republican (questionnaire, website, Facebook)

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 6: BatesLine endorses Jerry Griffin.

Ruth Ann Fate, Democrat, incumbent since 1996 (~~questionnaire~~, website, Facebook)
Jerry Griffin, Republican (endorsement, questionnaire, website, Facebook)
Stephen Remington, Democrat (~~questionnaire~~, Facebook)

Note: Remington and Fate did not respond to the questionnaire.

Campaign finance reports for Tulsa school board candidates.

Three Tulsa County districts each have two general obligation bond issues on the ballot. These require passage by 60% of the vote. Links go to the official bond disclosures required by the Bond Transparency Act of 2017, for each. Each disclosure provides detailed purposes for each bond proposition and lists all previous bonds that remain outstanding:

Jenks Public Schools: Proposition 1, $11.4 million for Freshman Academy expansion, textbooks, technology, classroom equipment; Proposition 2, $870,000 for student transportation equipment.
Liberty Public Schools: Proposition 1, $780,000 for asphalt resurfacing, fencing, and other repairs; Proposition 2, $320,000 for vehicles for pupil transportation.
Owasso Public Schools: Proposition 1, $9,805,000 for district-wide facility upgrades (air conditioning, roofs, parking lots, paint, lighting, etc.), technology, instructional materials, weight room, fine arts and athletic uniforms and equipment; Proposition 2, $1,570,000 for vehicles for pupil transportation.

Municipal elections

City Of Collinsville, Mayor

Jerry Garrett, Democrat, former city commissioner (Facebook)
Larry Shafer, Republican, incumbent city commissioner for Ward 3 (website, Facebook)

City Of Sand Springs, City Councilmember, Ward 3

Mike Burdge, Republican, incumbent (Facebook)
Justin Sean Tockey, Independent (no campaign internet presence)

Scott Pendleton for Tulsa school board, Office 5

By Michael Bates on February 9, 2020 9:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Tulsa school district needs drastic reform. Enrollment and attendance are dropping, teachers are fleeing, and more and more schools are closing. In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2016, the Tulsa district had an Average Daily Membership of 39,167. Four years later, ADM for the first quarter of FY2020 was 35,403. (Here's the State Department of Education page with Average Daily Membership and Average Daily Attendance statistics.)

Parents and taxpayers from across the political spectrum want to see Superintendent Deborah Gist gone. Tulsans were outraged by her handling of the recent round of school closings, which seemed to treat board approval as a mere formality, and the controversial handling of federal funds for Indian Education.

We need board members that will treat the superintendent as a hired hand and who will take seriously their responsibility to set policy and monitor spending. We need board members who see the voting public as their bosses, not the philanthrocapitalists that are pushing for experimental curricula in the schools.

After reviewing the questionnaires from the four active candidates for Office 5 and their campaign contribution reports, my choice is clear. I'll be voting for Scott Pendleton in the Tuesday, February 11, 2020, election.

Continue reading Scott Pendleton for Tulsa school board, Office 5.

Jerry Griffin for Tulsa school board, Office 6

By Michael Bates on February 9, 2020 8:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For all the reasons described in my previous post, Tulsa's students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers need an upheaval on the Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education. Only two seats, at most, out of seven are up for election in any given year, but good candidates in both races will allow us to begin the process.

Ruth Ann Fate, a Democrat who was first elected in 1996, is seeking her seventh term on the school board. Fate has been an unapologetic cheerleader and rubber-stamp for Superintendent Deborah Gist. If we want accountability and reform in Oklahoma's largest school system, step 1 is to replace Ruth Ann Fate.

Democrat Stephen Remington refused to submit a response to the BatesLine candidate questionnaire, writing in response to my reminder: "I apologize but I am not filling out your questionnaire. Endorsements are fine but I am not looking to get any. My campaign is not asking for donations either. Ruth Ann has not filled one out either which indicates we will not have a fair assessment of this race." So Mr. Remington's views must remain a mystery. He has also not filed any of the campaign finance reports; his wife has stated on Facebook that he has not raised nor spent more than $200. I find it hard to believe that you can run a competitive race for this district without spending at least $500. Printing alone, even if you're taking photocopied flyers door-to-door, is likely to take you over the reporting limit. (CORRECTION: The threshold requiring a candidate committee to file reports is now $1,000, whether in contributions or expenditures. It's somewhat more plausible that a candidate could manage without spending more than $1,000, but it doesn't seem very probable. )

Dr. Jerry Griffin, a registered Republican, was the first candidate in either district to respond to my questionnaire, and he gave detailed and intelligent answers.

Griffin is committed to exercising real oversight over the superintendent and school administration, which he calls the "primary duty of the school board." He notes the lack of public discussion or pushback from the current board on any administration proposal. "Generally, the votes are 7-0 to approve any proposal with little to no discussion or open debate." As a college professor for the past 20 years, he has seen in his students the damage done by a "fad-of-the-year" K-12 curriculum that has left them unprepared for work at the collegiate level; the board needs to take an active role in setting the educational philosophy and curriculum for the district. The board should openly and publicly scrutinize every grant from federal, state, or philanthropic sources, weighing the costs and benefits before accepting and auditing for compliance with the terms of any accepted grants.

In his response to my question about schools and American patriotism, Griffin wrote:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door." These masses came seeking a better life and a country in which they could experience freedom and achieve their dream. Being an American means, it does not matter your race, class, religion or ethnic heritage - you are first and foremost an American. The schools have a definite role in teaching and developing a sense of patriotism in our youth. This does not mean teaching an ideological or party focus but a pure love for America - that is celebrated daily.

Concerning transgender issues at TPS, Griffin details the changes in Federal Title IX guidance between the Obama and Trump administrations, but notes that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reaffirmed her department's commitment to a learning environment free from bullying and harassment. Griffin wants TPS to return to the pre-Obama policy of limiting private female spaces to females, while having single-stall facilities available.

Griffin is a graduate of Tulsa's Edison High School, has his bachelor's degree from University of Tulsa, an MBA from Southern Methodist University, and a Doctorate of Education from TU. He is an adjunct professor at a number of universities, including the University of Oklahoma and the University of Phoenix, with a focus on criminal justice. In Fall 2016, for example, he taught an upper-level course for University of Oklahoma, "Comparative Justice Systems," and a graduate-level course, "Mediation and Conflict Resolution in the Criminal Justice System."

If I lived in Election District 6, I would vote for Jerry Griffin to bring fresh perspective and careful oversight to the Tulsa school board.

Tulsa School Board 2020 campaign contributions and expenditures

By Michael Bates on February 7, 2020 11:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: Jerry Griffin emails with his complete report, which includes itemized expenditures, and which he says he filed. Either the district clerk's copy got lost, or I overlooked it. I've added the information below.

Below are the campaign ethics reports filed with the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk as of this morning for candidates running for Tulsa school board offices 5 and 6. No paperwork was on file for Kelsey Royce or John Remington. (Ben Croff filed for Office 5, but has announced that he is not running an active campaign, although is name is still on the ballot.) No school district political committees filed a report, and none of the candidate reports showed donations by political action committees.

Because Oklahoma state law is designed to make it as difficult as possible to track campaign donations for local candidates, Friday morning I went to the Education Service Center, where newly appointed district clerk Sarah Bozone provided me with a folder of all the campaign filings received to that time. I photographed each page, and then this evening, when most of you were relaxing, I transcribed and organized the reports by candidate, and by donor in decreasing order of contributions. I'm happy to be notified of corrections. If you'd like to thank me, there's a PayPal Donate button on the home page. You're welcome.

Map of Tulsa School Board election districts for Office 5 and Office 6

Electronic filing would make this process easier for all concerned. A computerized web app would ensure consistency and would prompt candidates to provide all required information. John Croisant provided occupation and employer for his contributors, but not their addresses, which are also required, and yet he provided addresses for his vendors. Shane Saunders provided contributor addresses, but for many of the donors occupation and employer are "Requested," i.e., not provided. Scott Pendleton and Jerry Griffin managed to get addresses and occupations from all of their donors. Ruth Ann Fate's reports are handwritten and have addresses but not occupations or employers. ~~Jerry Griffin was the only candidate who neglected to itemize his expenditures.~~ [CORRECTION: Griffin says he provided itemized expenditures with his report; these are now listed below.]

The totals below are as reported on the forms. I attempted to double-check a few, but gave up, because candidates differed in how things were supposed to be totaled. John Croisant's forms misused the "Aggregate Total" column, using it for the campaign as a whole, rather than for the total for a particular contributor or vendor over the course of the campaign, and he put campaign totals in the "$50 or less boxes" at the top of the page.

Some observations, based on my many years of looking at campaign contributor lists:

John Croisant is clearly the establishment's pick in Office 5. Croisant's contributors include a who's who of Yacht Owners and Yacht Guests: former Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor; two former school board members, Cathy Newsome and Cindy Decker (Decker is now executive director of George Kaiser Family Foundation's Educare); former Cherokee Principal Chief Ross Swimmer; former Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner and Tulsa Finance Commissioner Norma Eagleton; former Oklahoma Policy Institute head David Blatt; retired oilman and major Democrat donor George Krumme; developer and Democrat donor Sharon King Davis; QuikTrip spokesman Mike Thornbrugh; donors associated with BOK Financial and with the Frederick Dorwart law firm; former Tulsa County Superintendent of Schools Kara Gae Neal, wife of retired Tulsa World editor Ken Neal; and former City Councilor Gary Watts, who now serves as the attorney for Sand Springs Public Schools.

Former school board member and GKFF Educare executive director Cindy Decker gave $100 each to John Croisant and Shane Saunders.

One small expenditure caught my eye: Croisant paid for the Democratic Party's canvassing app, which, I assume, would give his campaign access to the party's voter database.

Shane Saunders has the biggest war chest, but fewer donors. Two-thirds of his funds came from two couples: Frank and Diane Murphy of Dallas and Charles and Krista Bendana of Tulsa. Mindy Taylor, Saunders's successor as chairman of Iron Gate ministry, is one of his donors.

Scott Pendleton seems to be funded mainly by family and friends around the country, which is a typical pattern for a candidate who is running on their own initiative, rather than as the minion of the local power structure.

Ruth Ann Fate and Jerry Griffin are both the biggest donors to their own campaigns.

Contributors and vendors are from Tulsa unless otherwise noted. If you're reading this on the home page, the lists for each candidate are after the jump.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board 2020 campaign contributions and expenditures.

Tulsa School Board 2020 questionnaires

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 8:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

BatesLine sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for Tulsa school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The eight questions dealt with the board's authority with respect to the administration, curriculum, music, history and patriotism, the role of philanthropists, and the practical implications of transgenderism.

All four candidates running in the open Office 5 seat submitted a response, but only one of the challengers for Office 6 took the time. (Ben Croff filed for Office 5 but has withdrawn from the race, although his name will appear on the ballot.) The election district for Office 5 is shown in the map above in Harvest Gold, while Office 6 appears as Avocado Green -- very '70s colors.

The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Here is a list of the candidates, with age, address, party registration, and links to their responses, if provided. (While school board races are non-partisan, a candidate's party registration is a publicly available piece of information that I consider informative.)

Office No. 5:

Office No. 6:

Ruth Ann Fate, 83, 7014 E. 60th St., Tulsa, OK, 74145, Democrat (Did not respond)
Jerry Griffin, 75, 6552 E. 60th St., Tulsa, OK, 74145, Republican
Stephen Remington, 42, 4909 E. 2nd St., Tulsa, OK, 74112, Democrat (Did not respond)

Tulsa School Board Office 5: Scott Pendleton questionnaire response

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 7:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded.

Tulsa Election District 5 is midtown Tulsa, bounded by Riverside Drive, Yale Avenue, 11th Street, and 51st Street, minus the area NW of 21st and Peoria, minus the area SE of 41st and Harvard, and plus a few streets south of I-44 between Riverside and Peoria. This is an open seat. Brian Hosmer, the appointed incumbent who replaced the winner of the 2016 election, Cindy Decker, is not running for the seat. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

Scott Pendleton sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.scottpendleton.us and he has a Facebook page.

Pendleton welcomes questions from voters via email at scott@scottpendleton.us or by phone at 918-688-7318.

My questions are in bold and italics; Pendleton's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board Office 5: Scott Pendleton questionnaire response.

Tulsa School Board Office 5: Shane Saunders questionnaire response

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 7:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Shane Saunders sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is shanesaunders.org and he has a Facebook page.

Saunders welcomes questions from voters via email at shane.saunders@gmail.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Saunders's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board Office 5: Shane Saunders questionnaire response.

Tulsa School Board Office 5: Kelsey Royce questionnaire response

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 7:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kelsey Royce sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. She has a campaign Facebook page.

Royce welcomes questions from voters via email at kelseyroycefordistrict5@gmail.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Royce's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in her answer.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board Office 5: Kelsey Royce questionnaire response.

Tulsa School Board Office 5: John Croisant questionnaire response

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Croisant sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.johncroisant.com, and he has a Facebook page.

Croisant welcomes questions from voters via email at john@johncroisant.com.

My questions are in bold and italics; Croisant's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board Office 5: John Croisant questionnaire response.

Tulsa School Board Office 6: Jerry Griffin questionnaire responses

By Michael Bates on February 4, 2020 12:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

BatesLine has sent a questionnaire to all of the candidates for school board in the two seats up for election in the Tulsa Public School district. Three candidates are running for Office No. 6: The incumbent of 24 years, Ruth Ann Fate, a Democrat, and two challengers, Stephen Remington, a Democrat, and Jerry Griffin, a Republican. The primary election will be held on February 11, 2020; if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff will be held on April 7, 2020.

The same questionnaire was provided to all four candidates in the Office No. 5 race, and all four responded. These will be posted as soon as possible.

Tulsa Election District 6 is bounded roughly by I-244, 61st Street, Yale Avenue, and 89th East Avenue, minus wedges of land NE of I-44 & 31st (around Skelly Elementary) and SW of I-44 and 41st Street (around Promenade Mall), and minus the section SW of 51st and Sheridan.

Mrs. Fate did not respond to attempts to contact her via her district email address, and she did not appear to have a web presence at the time the questionnaire was sent. Mr. Remington acknowledged the questionnaire, but refused to respond: "I apologize but I am not filling out your questionnaire. Endorsements are fine but I am not looking to get any. My campaign is not asking for donations either. Ruth Ann has not filled one out either which indicates we will not have a fair assessment of this race."

Dr. Jerry Griffin sent a detailed response, which (if you're viewing this on the home page) is after the jump. His campaign web page is www.drgriffinforschoolboard.com and he has a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

Griffin welcomes questions from voters via email at drgriffinforschoolboard@gmail.com or by phone at 918-521-2623.

My questions are in bold and italics; Griffin's responses are in normal type except where bold and underlining were used in his answer.

Continue reading Tulsa School Board Office 6: Jerry Griffin questionnaire responses.

Tulsa GOP 2020 precinct meetings

By Michael Bates on January 27, 2020 8:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This Thursday night, January 30, 2020, starting at 6 pm, the Tulsa County Republican Party will hold precinct meetings, the first stage in the process for selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention and developing a party platform. The meetings are open to all registered Republicans.

To simplify the logistics, all but four precincts will gather at twelve regional meetings, mostly at public libraries. Here is the complete list of Tulsa County Republican Party 2020 precinct meeting locations.

The Oklahoma Republican Party hold precinct meetings in every odd-numbered year for the election of precinct party officials and as the first stage in the process for electing county and state party officials, but in presidential years, the focus is on the road to the Republican National Convention.

Precinct meetings have two main orders of business:

(1) Elect delegates to the 2020 Tulsa County Republican Convention. Each precinct is allocated a number of seats to the convention based on the vote for the Republican nominee for governor in the previous election. The county convention will elect delegates to the 1st Congressional District Republican Convention and the Oklahoma State Republican Convention. The Congressional District conventions each elect three delegates and three alternates to the national convention; the remainder of our delegation is elected by the state convention, which also elects a man and a woman to represent Oklahoma for the next four years on the Republican National Committee, the party's permanent governing body.

(2) Debate and approve resolutions for inclusion in the party platform. Interested Republicans can join the Tulsa County platform committee, which takes platform planks proposed by the precincts, crafts them into a county party platform which is then debated and voted on at the county convention. County platforms are used to develop a state platform, and state platforms are used as a basis for the development of the national platform.

A precinct meeting's duration depends on the number of people who show up for a particular precinct and how many issues they want to discuss, but typically you'll be done within an hour or so.

For more information, contact the Tulsa GOP headquarters at 918-627-5702.

« Oklahoma Election 2018 | Main Index | Archives | Oklahoma Election 2021 »

Oklahoma Election 2020 Category

About this Archive

Contact

BatesLine links

Search

Category Monthly Archives

Feeds