Tulsa Election 2018: November 2018 Archives
Polls are open Tuesday, November 6, 2018, until 7 p.m. The Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter tool will let you know where to vote and will show you a sample of the ballot you'll see. Here is the complete list of offices and issues on Tuesday's ballot across Oklahoma.
Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma general election on November 6, 2018. Click the hyperlink on the office to see detailed information on that race and its candidates. (This entry will change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.)
As I post this, there are other races I had planned to write about in detail, but time is short, people are voting, and many have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold.
1st Congressional District: Kevin Hern. For all my misgivings about Hern and the depth of his conservative convictions, there's no doubt that he's more conservative than his Democrat opponent. I don't want Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House, but that will happen if Republicans can't hang onto Oklahoma's 1st District.
Governor: Kevin Stitt. As a successful business owner, Stitt has had to make decisions, pick a course amidst uncertainty and commit to it. Drew Edmondson abused his power as Attorney General to persecute people who were working to defend the interests of Oklahoma taxpayers and property owners.
Attorney General: Mike Hunter. I'm aware of the concerns about Mike Hunter's performance as acting AG. But in a time when freedom of conscience is under attack, particularly with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, we need an Attorney General who will stand up for our rights.
Auditor and Inspector: Cindy Byrd. Byrd is a solid professional auditor who has served under and been endorsed by Gary Jones, the most efficient and aggressive State Auditor Oklahoma has ever had.
Lt. Governor: Matt Pinnell
Superintendent of Public Instruction: John Cox
Labor Commissioner: No recommendation
Corporation Commissioner: Bob Anthony
District Attorney, District 14: Steve Kunzweiler
State House 8: Tom Gann
State House 41: Denise Crosswhite Hader
State House 71: Cheryl Baber
State House 79: Dan Hicks
State House 83: Jason Reese
You can read my Oklahoma State Question recommendations here.
Tulsa City Council District 3: Justin Rolph
Tulsa City Council District 7: Ken Reddick
Rolph and Reddick are both conservatives, and conservatism doesn't have a voice at City Hall right now, even though it's the majority political philosophy. Rolph is a journeyman electrician with a vision for seeing District 3's vast reaches of vacant land develop with manufacturing jobs. Reddick is a certified program manager and electrician concerned about inadequate streets in southeast Tulsa and neighborhood crime. Both would be advocates for the needs of their districts, not rubber-stamps for the mayor and the downtown crowd.
I'm not making endorsements in either of the other two Tulsa City Council races. More about the Tulsa City Council 2018 election here.
For District Judge in Judicial District 14 (Tulsa and Pawnee counties), I'm enthusiastically supporting Rick Westcott in the open seat for Office 12.
I reluctantly support Linda Morrissey for re-election to Office 9, despite supporting her replacement in previous elections, because her opponent, Chris Brecht (or Christopher Uric Brecht-Smith, as he calls himself on his Facebook profile), supports the use of government force to compel Christian adoption agencies to pretend that a "gay marriage" is equivalent in every respect to a natural marriage between a man and a woman. Brecht says that SB1140, which protects the rights of adoption agencies to make decisions in the best interests of the child and in accordance with their values, is "hateful, discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional on its face." I think it's fair to assume that, as a judge, Mr. Brecht would be hateful and discriminatory to people who uphold natural understandings of marriage and sexuality, and that he would twist the federal and state constitutions and statutes to use government power to impose his twisted opinions on those issues on the people of Oklahoma.
When in doubt, I look at campaign contributions, which often tell a story about a candidate's ideological leanings or close ties with local power brokers. That has led me to support the least-funded candidates in two races, more by process of elimination than as a positive endorsement: Tom Sawyer for Office 1 and Brian Crain for Associate District Judge. I wasn't a fan of Crain's service as State Senator, but I know that he is pro-life, and I'm worried by some of the names I see on his opponent's donor list. Tom Sawyer says that he supports Crisis Pregnancy Outreach, which is a hopeful indication of his world view.
One of the judicial races is only on the ballot in part of the county. Incumbent Judge Sharon Holmes is being challenged by downtown resident Blake Shipley, who is running on a platform that seems more appropriate for a candidate for the legislature. Shipley, a young, Caucasian attorney who "spends much of his discretionary income on Lone Wolf sandwiches" would be an odd choice in this district that was drawn to be majority African-American in order to satisfy Federal law and court rulings.
On Supreme Court retention, I'm voting YES for Wyrick and NO on all the others. Here you can find out how each of the Oklahoma appeals court judges is registered to vote and which governor appointed each to office.
MORE INFORMATION:
Tulsa Bible Church pastor Phil Martin has put together a comprehensive collection of links to candidate websites.
OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES:
Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.
If you live in District 3 (northeast Tulsa) or District 7 (southeast Tulsa), you've got someone on the City Council ballot worth voting for. Otherwise....
Justin Rolph, running in District 3, and Ken Reddick, running in District 7, are both conservative Republicans, newcomers to politics, and they work for a living. They aren't plugged into the development industry, they don't have sinecures at a non-profit, they aren't getting thousand-dollar donations from Kathy Taylor or the Chamber of Commerce. In short, Justin Rolph and Ken Reddick aren't Yacht Guests.
As conservatives, Rolph and Reddick represent a perspective that has been absent from City Hall since 2011, despite the fact that that perspective is held by the majority of Tulsans.
Justin Rolph graduated from Edison High School in 2011 and is a journeyman electrician. His focus for the district is on cleaning up neglected properties and attracting more jobs to the northside.
Ken Reddick, 36, is a married father of two young children, a certified project manager and electrician at the University of Tulsa. His major concerns are roads in his underserved district and neighborhood crime. Click the link to hear Pat Campbell's interview with Ken Reddick.
While the District 3, 4, and 5 seats are general elections between the top two candidates, District 7 is a special election to replace Anna America, who resigned, after the filing period, to take a job at City Hall. Accordingly, the District 7 race is a first-past-the-post special election with seven candidates and no runoff. Someone could easily win the race with 20% of the vote. (One might almost suspect that that was the reason for the timing of America's resignation; her husband, Michael Patton, is running to replace her, but the partisan Democrat would be hard-pressed to win a one-on-one runoff in this Republican District.) If conservatives want to prevail, they need to coalesce around one candidate, and Reddick is the only conservative in the race who has raised enough money to need to file campaign contribution reports.
Campaign contribution reports can be revealing. TulsaBizPac, the political arm of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, has given $2,000 to Crista Patrick in District 3, $1,000 to Daniel Regan in District 4, $1,000 to Cass Fahler in District 5, and $1,000 to Michael Patton in District 7. The Chamber never met a tax it didn't like.
(Here's an article explaining in depth why conservatives should shun candidates endorsed by the Tulsa Regional Chamber.)
Regan also received $1,000 from former Mayor Kathy Taylor and $200 from the leader of a local organization that wants government to force the rest of us to adopt the leftist view of sexuality and marriage.
Before the primary, I submitted a questionnaire to District 4 candidates, but received only one reply, which you can see here. Despite Daniel Regan's courtesy in replying, I can't support him. His contributions from the likes of TulsaBizPac and leftist former mayor Kathy Taylor mark him as a minion of the city's ruling class, not the kind of independent voice we need on the council. His opponent, Kara Joy McKee, rallied support for higher state taxes, working for left-wing policy group that rallied support for higher taxes and that judges morality by how much money government takes from your paycheck.
In District 5, Cass Fahler appears to be the pick of the downtown establishment, another recipient of funds from the Tulsa Regional Chamber's TulsaBizPac. His opponent, Mykey Arthrell, is employed by a non-profit, and while there's very little on his Facebook page to indicate his leanings, news reports make it clear that he takes a left-wing view of government. (His father, Dan Arthrell, was the Democrat nominee for House District 71 in 2012.) Fahler is a Republican, Arthrell a Democrat.
A few notes on the other candidates:
In District 3, Crista Patrick is running to replace her late father, longtime city councilor David Patrick. We extend our condolences to Ms. Patrick, but District 3 would not be well served to have a councilor who follows her late father's approach to the job. Mr. Patrick consistently put the interests of the Chamber, the developers, the city establishment ahead of the interests of the neighborhoods in his district. We remember Kathy Taylor flying Patrick back on her private jet from his ranch in Colorado to vote for her ballpark scheme. And we remember Patrick keeping his constituents in the dark about plans to build a four-story facility for the homeless and chronically mentally ill in the district. This 2011 endorsement of Patrick's longtime District 3 rival, the late great Roscoe Turner, provides an extended discussion of why David Patrick's approach to the job was bad for his district and bad for Tulsa. In 2008, during the controversy over the homeless facility, Bill Kumpe offered this perspective on Patrick and his colleague at the time, District 4 Councilor Eric Gomez:
If you and your friends can't kick in ten or twenty grand each to hire a team of lawyers to take on city hall, you can pretty well forget about your rights in municipal government. And, if you can't afford a Lear Jet to host the meeting and an "expert" to put on the Lear Jet to state your case for you, you might as well forget about even hearing from your city councilor on key issues, much less influencing him.Councilors Gomez and Patrick apparently don't have a hearing problem. They can meet with and even skillfully represent the interests of the people they are willing to listen to. The problem is, the people they are willing to listen to are not their constituents.
In District 7, I admire the fire in candidate Eric Turley's letter to the editor, critiquing the Tulsa Whirled's endorsement of Democrat Michael Patton and honorable mention for the other Democrat in the race, Lori Decter Wright. But because the top vote-getter will be elected regardless of the percentage, it's important not to split the conservative vote; based on campaign activity, Ken Reddick seems best positioned to win the seat.
State Question 801, proposed by the state legislature, would add 14 words and delete one word from Article 10, Section 10, of the Oklahoma Constitution. Those few words open up a world of flexibility for taxpayers in local school districts to direct their property taxes where most needed.
Currently, while some property taxes go to fund a school district's operations, voters don't have the option of increasing local property taxes to increase the operational budget. They can only vote bonds to build new buildings. Adopting SQ 801 means that local taxpayers who want to increase teacher salaries or hire more teachers can raise the money themselves; they wouldn't have to wait for the legislature.
Here's how Article 10, Section 10, would change if SQ 801 is adopted. Added words are underlined, the deleted word is stricken through.
Section 10. A. For the purpose of erecting public buildings in counties or cities, or for the purpose of raising money for a building and operations fund for a school district which may be used for erecting, remodeling or repairing school buildings,andfor purchasing furniture or for operations as deemed necessary by a school district, the rates of taxation herein limited may be increased, when the rate of such increase and the purpose for which it is intended shall have been submitted to a vote of the people, and a majority of the qualified voters of such county, city, or school district, voting at such election, shall vote therefor: Provided, that such increase shall not exceed five (5) mills on the dollar of the assessed value of the taxable property in such county, city, or school district.B. A school district may upon approval by a majority of the electors of the district voting on the question make the ad valorem levy for a building and operations fund under subsection A of this section permanent. If the question is approved, the levy in the amount approved as required by this section, shall be made each fiscal year thereafter until such time as a majority of the electors of the district voting on the question rescind the making of the levy permanent. An election on such question shall be held at such time as a petition is signed by ten percent (10%) of the school district electors or a recommendation by the board of education of the school district is made asking that the levies be made each fiscal year.
As with bond issues for school buildings, voters in the school district would have the final say as to whether the tax increase is approved.
Oklahoma has a problem with too many different pots of money -- earmarked funds that can only be spent on limited purposes -- making it impossible to move funds where they are most needed when times are tight. SQ 801 is a step in the right direction, and I'm voting YES.
Subscribe to this blog's feed: