Oklahoma Election 2022: August 2022 Archives

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats have a partisan primary runoff election in a number of statewide, federal, legislative, and county races, and the City of Tulsa will conduct a non-partisan citywide general election, including races in all nine council districts as well as three charter-change propositions. There are a smattering of other school, municipal, and county propositions across Oklahoma. Here is the Oklahoma State Election Board's list of all races and propositions on the August 23, 2022, ballot.

In-person absentee voting will be available on Thursday, August 18, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on Friday, August 19, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and (because there are federal races on the ballot) on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. For most counties, in-person absentee voting takes place at the county election board, but there are a few exceptions; click here for the full list of early-voting locations. Osage County will have an extra early voting location at First Baptist Church of Skiatook, W. Rogers campus, and Wagoner County will have an extra location at NSU-BA. Polls will be open Tuesday, August 23, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

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

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

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican runoff election and City of Tulsa general election on August 23, 2022. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)

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

US Senate (unexpired term): TW Shannon
2nd Congressional District: Josh Brecheen

Treasurer: Todd Russ
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Ryan Walters
Labor Commissioner: Sean Roberts
Corporation Commissioner: Todd Thomsen

State Senate 2: Jarrin Jackson
State Senate 26: Brady Butler

State House 66: Clay Staires

For City of Tulsa races, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff coincident with the state/federal general election in November.

Tulsa City Council District 1: Francetta Mays
Tulsa City Council District 2: Aaron Bisogno
Tulsa City Council District 3: Daniel Grove
Tulsa City Council District 4: Michael Birkes
Tulsa City Council District 5: Ty Walker
Tulsa City Council District 6: Christian Bengel
Tulsa City Council District 7: Ken Reddick
Tulsa City Council District 8: Scott Houston
Tulsa City Council District 9: TBD

Tulsa Proposition 1: YES
Tulsa Proposition 2: NO
Tulsa Proposition 3: NO

Tulsa County Commissioner District 3: Bob Jack

Osage County Commissioner District 1: Everett Piper

District Attorney, District 7 (Oklahoma County): Kevin Calvey

MORE INFORMATION:

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

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

• Muskogee Politico news, questionnaires, and analysis
• Muskogee Politico runoff picks
• Muskogee Politico legislator tax votes, 2016-2018
• Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting videos, including candidate speeches
• OCPAC 2022 Runoff Voter Guide
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements
• Endorsements from David Van Risseghem at Sooner Politics

ANTI-CONSERVATIVE VOICES:

Here are some endorsement lists that are negative indicators:

• Oklahoma Public Employees Association: State government employees union can be counted on to support bigger, less-efficient government and higher taxes
• Oklahomans for Public Education: OPE advocates for higher taxes, opposes school choice, and opposes efforts to keep leftist advocacy out of the classroom. They work to defeat principled Republicans. A yellow warning mark from OPE is a badge of honor for a conservative candidate. Here is the OPE voter guide for 2022.
• Oklahoma Education Association, state affiliate of the leftist NEA teachers' union, has endorsed nine Republicans in contested primaries. The list was leaked to Corey DeAngelis.
• TulsaBizPac is the political arm of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, a contractor to the City of Tulsa. They have not issued a list of endorsements, but David Harris in District 1, Michael Feamster in District 4, and Jayme Fowler in District 9 have all proudly announced their endorsement, when they really ought to be embarassed. Please read my 2016 article "Chambers of Horrors" to understand why social and fiscal conservatives, opponents of cronyism, and supporters of historic preservation should use TulsaBizPac endorsements as an indication to look for someone else to support.

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

There are six candidates on the ballot for Tulsa City Council District 4, an open seat. As was the case two years ago, I'm not enthusiastic about any of them. This is my district, so I've had to make a choice.

A sex survey targeting teenagers was funded by the City of Tulsa using federal COVID relief funding. The survey was one of 70 non-profit projects selected for funding by a working group of four city councilors who are on next Tuesday's ballot -- Phil Lakin (District 8), Jeannie Cue (2), Lori Decter Wright (7), and Vanessa Hall-Harper (1) -- and approved by the full Council and Mayor GT Bynum IV. The survey, which remains online as of August 16, 2022, asks detailed questions of minors and concludes with links promoting websites for "tweens" and teens containing explicit sex ed materials.

Tulsa city officials routed $112,784 in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds to Amplify Youth Health Collective, a group that "coordinate[s] collective efforts within our community to expand access to sex education, promote healthy relationships, and engage the public in this conversation."

Two Oklahoma State University departments cooperated with the survey: The OSU Diversity and Rural Advocacy Group, and the OSU Center for Family Resilience of the OSU College of Education and Human Sciences.

The survey on "teen sexual health & well-being" targets children ages 15-17. A separate survey is aimed at adults, and versions of both teen and adult surveys exist in Spanish. A caption on online posters advertising the survey notes the city's support as a conduit of federal funds: "This project is supported, in whole or in part, by federal award number SLT-1498 awarded to the City of Tulsa by the U. S. Department of the Treasury."

The survey asks teenagers for their sexual orientation, "sex assigned when you were born," and gender identity (with "agender," "non-binary," and "gender fluid" as options), and to rate their current sexual health as outstanding, good, neutral, poor, or terrible, and defined "sexual health" as:

...a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being related to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination, and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected, and fulfilled. (World Health Organization, 2002)

The survey later asks these minor children "questions about sexual health access," "about your own access to sexual health care [and] what you think and believe about access to sexual health care for other people," with "sexual health access" defined as:

The ability to get all of the resources you need to stay sexually healthy such as: (a) condoms (b) contraceptives (c) sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing & STI treatment (d) medically-accurate sexual health education (e) identity affirming communities/resources and (f) trusted adults.

A few questions near the end of the survey ask about COVID-19 impact on romantic relationships and access to sexual health services, presumably to justify the use of COVID-19 relief funds. The final page of the survey links to explicit websites with age-inappropriate discussions of sexual matters for pre-pubescent children and teens.

Here is a PDF of screenshots of the Amplify Tulsa / City of Tulsa-funded teen sex survey, including screenshots of the Tulsa Parks and Amplify Tulsa Facebook posts and the home pages of the sex ed websites linked at the end of the survey. These screenshots show the course of the survey after the respondent identifies his/her age as 15.

On Monday, July 18, 2022, the survey was promoted briefly on the Tulsa Parks Facebook page. An update was posted at 12:39PM CDT to the official Facebook account for the City of Tulsa Parks Department urging children as young as 15 years old to fill out an online survey about "teen sexual health & well-being." The post (at this link until sometime the morning of the 20th, when it appears to have been deleted) read as follows:

Attention, Tulsa! Our partners over at Amplify Tulsa need you to help them help Tulsa!

They are conducting a community needs assessment this summer to help identify how Tulsa can better support teen sexual health & well-being, as well as what parents, schools, healthcare providers, youth-serving organizations, & other community members need to support the young people in their lives.

There are two different surveys, one for teens 15-17 (to complete with permission from their parents) & one for adults. And, both are translated into Spanish. So, we hope you'll consider filling out this completely anonymous survey and/or sharing it with your community before August 15. Please & TY!

Here is a direct link to the surveys: https://okstateches.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_e2QBApTNODkN1Cm

#tulsaparks #amplifytulsa #communityhealthneeds #surveys

Yesterday, August 15, 2022, at 5 p.m., was the deadline for campaign contribution and expenditure reports for candidates in any August 23 election. This includes the City of Tulsa general election as well as runoff elections for statewide office, county office, and the legislature.

The legislature has created a mess of disparate filing offices and methods. Rather than making it convenient for candidates to file and citizens to search from a single ethics database for every election in the state, county candidates file paperwork at the county election board (at a time when election boards are scrambling to prepare for early voting and election day itself), school board candidates file with the school district clerk (who is hired by the incumbents and might have an incentive to make it very inconvenient for challengers to find out where the incumbents are getting their funds), and municipal candidates file with the city or town clerk. The legislature has just made things worse this session, opening the door to suppression of information and biased enforcement by larger cities.

Meanwhile, legislative, statewide, and judicial candidates file electronically with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. For a few brief shining years, candidates for large municipalities and counties were also filing electronically through the same system, but apparently some public information can be too public for the comfort of some local officials, and their friends in the legislature reversed course.

The Tulsa County Election Board is always very prompt in responding to email requests for filings, sending scans in reply. The Tulsa Public Schools clerk demands an Open Records request, which she may or may not get around to processing before the election.

Of all the local-government ethics filing repositories I've dealt with, the City of Tulsa clerk's office is the best at making information promptly available to everyone. Here is the City of Tulsa campaign contribution report home page. When a filing comes in, it is physically time-stamped, scanned, and immediately posted to the website, with filings sorted to different webpages by office, and then within each page by candidate. Filings from previous elections are retained at the bottom of the page in an archive section. I appreciate this. There are some improvements that could be made: A standard naming template for PDFs and links, a way to download the entire collection of files, original electronic files (more searchable than scanned and OCRed paper reports).

If you are a candidate on the ballot, and your campaign committee has raised OR spent more than $1,000, you're required to file a Statement of Organization within 10 days and then you're required to file a Contributions and Expenditures report between 14 and 8 days before the election, covering all of your contributions and expenditures through the 15th day before the election. There are also quarterly filing requirements for the rest of the year. PACs who give to municipal campaigns are also required to file quarterly reports.

Based on the scans available on the City Clerk's website, here are the City of Tulsa candidates on the August 23 ballot who have filed timely reports:

• District 1: NONE
• District 2: NONE
• District 3: NONE
• District 4: Laura Bellis, Michael Birkes, Michael Feamster, Matthew Fransein
• District 5: Ty Walker
• District 6: Christian Bengel, Connie Dodson
• District 7: Lori Decter Wright
• District 8: Phil Lakin
• District 9: Lee Ann Crosby*, Chad Hotvedt

Some other candidates kinda-sorta made a half-hearted attempt at complying:

• District 1: Only David Harris has filed a Statement of Organization for the 2022 election cycle, but no candidate has filed any Campaign and Expenditures report for this cycle.
• District 2: Incumbent Jeannie Cue filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and quarterly reports up to and including the period ending June 30, but no candidate has filed the required pre-election report.
• District 3: Crista Patrick filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and filed a supplemental report for the $1,000 she received from the Home Builders Association, but no candidate has filed the required pre-election report.
• District 4: Bobby Dean Orcutt filed a 2022 Statement of Organization and a report for the period ending June 30, but has not filed the required pre-election report. Kathryn Lyons, a 2020 candidate who considered a 2022 race, and incumbent Kara Joy McKee, who made a late decision not to run for re-election, both filed reports earlier in the cycle.
• District 5: Incumbent Mykey Arthrell-Knezek did not file a Statement of Organization for the 2020 cycle, filed a contributions and expenditures report for the period ending June 30, but has not filed the required pre-election report. Adam "Grant" Miller filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 6: Lewana Harris filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 7: Jerry Griffin filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report. Ken Reddick filed a 2022 Statement of Organization but has not filed any contributions and expenditures reports.
• District 8: Scott Houston filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report.
• District 9: Incumbent Jayme Fowler filed a Statement of Organization and a June 30 report but has not filed the required pre-election report. Lee Ann Crosby filed a Statement of Organization, a June 30 report, and a "continuing report of contributions" including late July contributions, which suggests a confused but good-faith effort to comply.

In addition to candidates, two political action committees filed reports with the City Clerk.

Greater Tulsa PAC (GTPAC) had $14,346.35 in the bank as of June 30, but had not spent any money other than for administrative and fundraising costs. The PAC's chairman is Jacob Heisten, treasurer is Toni Garrison of Kellyville. This is presumably the PAC established to help Mayor GT Bynum IV re-elect rubber-stamp councilors.

Tulsa Biz Political Action Committee (TulsaBizPAC), an arm of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, filed a 2022 Statement of Organization, but has not filed the required quarterly report since 2018. TulsaBizPAC helps to ensure the election of councilors who will keep shoveling city tax dollars to the Tulsa Regional Chamber. Three candidates (David Harris in District 1, Michael Feamster in District 4, and Jayme Fowler in District 9) have announced their endorsement by TulsaBizPAC.

Voters in the City of Tulsa will be issued a separate ballot at the Tuesday, August 23, 2022, general election, which is also the runoff election for partisan races for federal and state office. The ballot will include the city council election for that district, plus propositions for three amendments to the Tulsa City Charter. Here is the sample ballot for Tulsa District 4, including the three citywide propositions.

My recommendations in summary:

• Proposition 1 (mayoral salary process clarified): YES
• Proposition 2 (one-year residence requirement for city office): NO
• Proposition 3 (increase auditor's term from 2 to 4 years): NO

Kudos to the council for including the actual language to be inserted in the charter as part of the ballot title, rather than just a summary that may or may not be accurate. That said, it doesn't show you exactly what's changing, so I will do that below, with strikethrough to show you what's being deleted and underscore to show what would be added if the proposition passes.

Proposition No. 1 would change Article III, Section 1.2:

During the first term of office under this amended Charter, tThe Mayor shall receive a salary of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) per year payable as employees of the city are paid. Thereafter, tThe annual salary to be received by the Mayor may be changed shall be as provided by ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council; provided, no change in salary shall become effective prior to the commencement of the term of office next succeeding the term in which the change is made and then only in the event such change was approved prior to the general election for the next succeeding term.

It's healthy to be skeptical when something is called a "housekeeping amendment" as substantive changes are often smuggled in under that description, but this seems to be exactly that. It is useful to clarify that the vote to modify the salary involves the passage of an ordinance, as opposed to a Council resolution or some other sort of vote. As an ordinance, it would require not only passage by a majority of the full membership (five affirmative votes, even if some councilors are absent or abstaining) but also the mayor's signature. I will vote YES on Proposition 1. I hate to see the historical information deleted, because it's useful for comparing mayoral compensation to the cost of living increase since the charter came into effect in 1990. The amendment would be even better if it required approval of a salary increase at least 30 days prior to the general election -- enough time for the electorate to hear and consider before casting a ballot.

Proposition No. 2 would affect the residency requirements for city officers in Article VI, Section 7. As this is a wholesale replacement of text, it's going to be clearer to show old and new language side by side, rather than show insertions and deletions. Here's the current language, which includes some transitional language relating to an amendment to Article IV, setting the qualifications for City Auditor.

No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Mayor or City Auditor unless such person shall be a qualified elector and resident of the city at the time of filing for the office. In addition, no person shall be eligible to hold the office of City Auditor unless such person is a Certified Public Accountant or Certified Internal Auditor and maintains such certification during their term of office. The person elected City Auditor in the election held November 10, 2009, shall be eligible to hold that office and perform his or her duties, even if that person does not have the required certification, during the term of office beginning the first Monday in December of 2009. Thereafter, or in the event that person elected in November 2009 does not serve a full term, the person holding the office of City Auditor shall be required to comply with the certification requirements set forth herein. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Councilor for an election district unless such person shall have been a qualified elector and resident of the election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district. The requirement that a person shall have been a qualified elector of an election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district shall not apply to the election district held immediately following the adoption of an Election District Plan; provided, persons desiring to become a candidate for the office of Councilor for an election district shall be qualified electors of the election district at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that district.

Here is the proposed new language:

A candidate for Mayor or City Auditor must have been a qualified elector and resident of the City for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident of that election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. This requirement shall not apply to an adjusted election district which changed a candidate's residency to a different election district; provided, a candidate must have been a qualified elector and resident within their preexisting election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing.

The significant changes here are changing the residency requirement to file for city office from 90 days to a full year -- no parachuting into the district at the last minute to run for office. The term "qualified elector" is defined in Article III, Section 1, of the Oklahoma Constitution:

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

The only exceptions I can find are in 26 O.S. 4-101, which excludes felons who have not completed their sentence and the incapacitated from registering to vote.

The language dealing with adjustments to election district boundaries could be clearer. "Preexisting" is an odd word to use; "previous" would make more sense. Does "adjustment" apply to decennial redistricting, or does it only apply to the minor adjustments the Council is authorized to make to account for changes in precinct boundaries? I would drop the third sentence entirely and change the second sentence: "A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident within the boundaries of the election district as defined at the time of filing for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing." Alternatively, you could make a person in such a situation eligible to run either in his old district or his new district, which would work against a spiteful Mayor or City Council "adjusting" boundaries to forestall a challenge to one of their council buddies. In 2011, for example, such a provision would have allowed John Eagleton to run for re-election to his District 7 seat, even after Dewey Bartlett Jr's allies on the Election District Commission gerrymandered him into District 9.

While I like the longer residency requirement in principle, I'm inclined to vote NO on Proposition 2 and ask the council to try again with more precise language dealing with changes caused by moving district boundaries.

By the way, despite the deletion of City Auditor qualifications in this section, passage would not eliminate those qualifications, as they are also present in Article IV, Section 1.

Proposition 3 changes the term of office for City Auditor in Article VI, Section 1.2.B:

City Auditor. The terms of office of and the City Auditor elected in the year 2009 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2009, and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2011; thereafter, tThe City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with the following exception: the term of office of the City Auditor elected in the year 2013 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2013 and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2014. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Thereafter Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

Here's the proposed new text on its own:

City Auditor. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

In a nutshell, the City Auditor's term will double from 2 to 4 years. The current auditor, Cathy Champion Carter, who was just re-elected because no one filed against her, will be up for re-election in 2024. One final two-year term will commence in 2024 and end in 2026, and then every term thereafter will be four years in length, elected in the cycle opposite the mayor. While we have yet to have a City Auditor play the adversarial role expected by the framers of the 1989 charter, and auditors have routinely won re-election with minimal or no opposition, citizens should not relinquish the ability to get rid of a bad city official promptly without having to go through a recall process. I will vote NO on Proposition 3.