Monthly Archives: January 2013

Example Letter Sent Regarding SB 668 Ballot Access Reform

by

With SB 668 being sent to the Senate Rules Committee for review, I feel that it is important to contact those members to express the need to amend the bill to reflect the 5,000 signature requirement in the House Bill. As such, I am providing you with the letter that I sent to Senator Rob Johnson, the author of SB 668. I also sent a similarly worded letter to the other members of the Senate Rules Committee.

So if you are having trouble writing a letter or need some talking points when making phone calls, feel free to use this letter as a launching point.

Dear Senator Johnson,

My name is Zachary Knight. I am the Chief Editor of OKVoterChoice.org, the online home of Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform. I am writing to you today regarding the introduction of SB668 to the 2013 Legislative Session. I am grateful to see that you have taken up this important reform for Oklahoma’s political climate. However, I must express some disappointment in the current wording of the bill.

According to the bill as introduced, SB668 would not bring much relief to new parties attempting to form in Oklahoma. SB668 simply removes the Presidential elections from the equation. While this language would bring some stability to the petition requirements, it will do little to ease the burden of fledgling parties in the state.

Additionally, it is this language that has led reform bills in previous sessions to die in committee as the Senate refused to amend the bills to reflect a flat signature requirement as proposed in similar House bills. For four years, the Senate has maintained that the requirement should be kept at 5% of the Gubernatorial elections and for four years, this demand has led to Oklahoma voters continuing to be denied voter choice.

Representative Hickman has introduced HB2134 which would reduce the signature requirement to a flat 5,000 signatures. I would implore you to amend your bill, SB668, to reflect that same requirement. Oklahoma voters deserve to have more choices on the ballot.

I fear that without this reform, Oklahoma politics and elections will continue to stagnate as fewer and fewer people take part in the election process. We have seen this over the last 3 Presidential elections. Each election has seen significantly lower voter turnout than the previous election. How much longer will the Oklahoma Senate sit idly by while Oklahoma voters lose faith in the Democratic process?

Once again, I ask that you amend SB668 to reflect the 5,000 signature requirement in the House Bill.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to watching the progress of your bill.

E. Zachary Knight

Chief Editor

OKVoterChoice.org

Example Letter Sent Regarding SB76 Increased Fees To File For Office

by

With SB 76 being sent to the Senate Rules Committee for review, I feel that it is important to contact those members to express how damaging this bill will be to Oklahoma Elections. As such, I am providing you with the letter that I sent to Senator Fields, the author of SB 76. I also sent a similarly worded letter to the other members of the Senate Rules Committee.

So if you are having trouble writing a letter or need some talking points when making phone calls, feel free to use this letter as a launching point.

Dear Senator Fields,

My name is Zachary Knight. I am the Chief Editor of OKVoterChoice.org, the online home of Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform. I am writing to you today regarding the introduction of SB76 to the 2013 Legislative Session. I write to you because I am at a loss for the justification behind an increase in the filing fees to run for office.

Before I get into my investigation into the the number of candidates filing, I would like to express some general thoughts on the economics of such fees. This filing fee, for all intents and purposes, is very much a tax on participating in the political process. As such, when one increases a tax, it has the direct and obvious result of reducing demand for that which is taxed. With that in mind, it would seem that increasing the filing fee needed to run for office would result in fewer people running for office.

Following on to that, I can see no justification for reducing the number of people running for office. If anything, Oklahoma certainly needs the opposite. By looking at the number of people running in previous elections, we can see a steady downward trend in the number of elections.

From 2004 to 2012, the number of November elections for State House seats has dropped from 66 seats to 34, respectfully. On the State Senate side over the same time period, we have seen a drop from 19 to 12, with two elections in that time frame coming in at 11 and 10 seats. In all of those elections, the highest number of candidates on any one ballot was three.

If we increase the filing fees, the result will be to exacerbate those trends.

Looking statewide, I can find no seats that have had more than 3 candidates in recent years. For federal elections, the most I have seen is 4 candidates. Yet, in none of those elections were voters unable to choose a clear winner.

Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform supports efforts to make participation in elections more inclusive. With that mission in mind, we cannot support SB76 and will actively campaign to defeat this bill. We ask you to voluntarily withdraw your bill and work with your legislative colleagues to improve Oklahoma elections to make them more inclusive.

Thank you for your time.

E. Zachary Knight
Chief Editor
OKVoterChoice.org

Presidential Electors Facing Potential Changes

by

Among all the changes to Oklahoma elections proposed this year, there are four bills introduced that would change the way we deal with Presidential Electors in the state. As many of you know, the US does not directly elect its President. What we do is elect certain electors who then vote for who they want as President. Most states have passed laws that control who and how those Electors are chosen and who they can vote for.

In Oklahoma, recognized political parties choose their candidates in state primaries and then submit those candidates names as well as the Electors who will appear on the ballot. After the election, the electors for the winner of the statewide popular vote for President meet to cast their votes. In Oklahoma, the Electors must pledge to vote for a certain candidate and they are fined of up to $1000 if they do not.

This process could change if any of the following bills were to pass.

SB 309, introduced by Senator Holt Republican District 30,  will change how we deal with “Faithless Electors” or those electors who fail to vote for the candidate they pledged to support. On top of the $1000 fine, those electors are removed and a replacement elector is chosen by those remaining. This would end the possibility that the electors would go against the will of the people of Oklahoma.

Next is HB 1533, introduced by Representative Banz Republican District 101, which would change how these electors are distributed. Under current statute, The winner of the popular statewide election would get all of Oklahoma’s seven electors. Under HB 1533, each US Congressional District would elect one elector and the winner of the Statewide popular vote would earn the two at-large electors. This could allow a more fair representation of electors based on regional preference.

The final two bills address the same purpose with the same language. Both these bills introduce a proposal to have Oklahoma join a National Popular Vote agreement. Under SB 523, introduced by Senator Sparks Democrat District 16, and SB 906, introduced by Senator Rob Johnson Republican District 22, all of Oklahoma’s presidential electors would go to the winner of the National Popular Vote rather than the Statewide Popular Vote.

These two bills are in response to national calls for an end to the Electoral College. While ending the Electoral College outright would require an amendment to the US Constitution, the Constitution grants the states the right to choose how and when those electors are chosen. Most states choose their electors based on the votes of its citizens, and others have chosen to elect their electors based on the National Popular vote.

While there are many people who are calling for an end to the Electoral College, there are also many people who feel that ending it undermines state sovereignty. For example, in the last two presidential elections, President Obama did not win a single county in the state, and he polled significantly lower in the November election than his Republican rivals. However, Obama went on to win the National Popular Vote in both elections. This means that while the Republican challenger won the state, our Electors would have gone to Obama under a National Popular Vote agreement.

We will certainly keep tabs on all these bills and monitor their progress through the Legislative Session.

 

Ballot Access Reform Introduced In Oklahoma

by

Once again, Ballot Access Reform bills have been introduced in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, we are already off to a rocky start. While bills have been introduced in both houses of the State Legislature, each bill carries its own conflicting language.

First up, we have SB668, introduced by Senator Rob Johnson. This bill became available first and includes language that really offers no reprieve to new political parties. It modifies the current requirement of 5% of the last general election, which includes both the Presidential and Gubernatorial, to 5% of the last Gubernatorial election.

This is better in only the fact that no political parties have met the current requirement following Presidential election years. All new parties that have formed since the 1974 change have only been able to form in years following Gubernatorial elections. However, only 3 such parties have formed since the 80s. Considering the most recent example, the Americans Elect Party, was only able to form with considerable outside financial backing, we would continue to see a lack of political options in years to come.

Fortunately, the House version, HB2134 introduced by Representative Jeffrey Hickman, includes language consistent with the requirements prior to 1974. Under HB2134, a new party would be able to form after gathering only 5,000 signatures. This is a much more reasonable and fair requirement than the current 5% requirement.

However, due to the conflicting nature of these two bills, it will be difficult for true reform to pass this year without a fight. In the last Legislative Session, similar bills were filed. While both passed their respective houses, although the House version did not pass without an amendment that raised the requirement to 25,000 signatures, because of the conflicting language, the bills went to a Conference Committee which sat on them till the close of the session. This killed the chances of reform in both 2011 and 2012.

Another unfortunate oversight by those filing these bills is the lack of other needed reforms. Particularly in the area of retaining status. Oklahoma’s current requirement for retaining status is to win 10% of the total votes in the General Election. If a party does not field a candidate or does not win the 10% mark, they are removed from party status and must re-qualify. A better solution would be to make party status good for 4 years rather than the current 2 and to lower the General Election vote requirement to 1-5%.

Finally, neither of these bills tackle the statute language that immunizes the Democratic and Republican parties from these requirements. Under current law, if the Democratic or Republican parties fail to win 10% of the general Election vote, they will still retain official party recognition.

While these bills are not perfect, it is imperative that we contact our House and Senate representatives and encourage them to vote for these reforms. It is also important that we emphasize to our Senators, and specifically the Senate Rules Committee to amend the legislation to reflect the 5,000 signature requirement. We should also emphasize to the House Rules Committee to preserve the current language.

House Members File First Of Many Election Reform Bills

by

Not to be outdone by the Senate, members of the House have also filed two bills that will change elections. Both bills are rather positive bills that could allow for better elections and accountability for elected officials.

The first of the two, HB 1011, is a simple modification to the dates that voters can request in-person absentee ballots. It will add 3 extra days to the request period. Right now, you can only request ballots the Friday, Saturday and Monday prior to an election. If this bill passes, you will be able to request them as early as the Tuesday before an election. This is a good measure that will make it easier for those seeking to vote earlier to do so.

The second bill, HB 1008, gives a whole new set of powers to the voters in Oklahoma to hold their elected officials accountable. This new power is the Recall. Many of you may be familiar with the national attention that the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker received last year. Many in Wisconsin felt that Gov. Walker failed to uphold his duties and challenged him to a recall. While the recall failed to unseat him, the process was an incredible display of the power that voters have in which to hold elected officials accountable.

I was unaware that Oklahomans did not have a recall power until this bill was filed. So you can imagine that I am pleasantly surprised.

Under this ability, voters can file a petition with the State or County Election Board to recall any State or County elected official. When filing, you must present ready a petition to fill in which you describe why the elected official deserves to be recalled. After filing the recall, you have 90 days to gather signatures equal to 15% of the last election for that elected official’s seat. The bill is not completely clear, but I would assume that the signatures must be from people that live within that Legislative District, County or the State, for statewide races.

If a successful petition is filed, then those seeking to replace the elected official must file at the same time. Then an election is held. In this election, you must first vote for whether you want that elected official recalled. If yes, you then vote for who you want to replace that official. The elected official being recalled cannot be in the list of potential candidates,

Some other checks apply, though. You cannot file for or gather signatures for a recall until the elected official being challenged has been in office for 12 months. If the elected official wins the recall, they cannot be challenged again until the end of that term.

Unfortunately, this bill contains a number of missing measures that one would think should be taken into account. First off, the bill provides no alternate petition requirement for elected officials who won their seat without a challenge, eg that elected official was the only one who filed. Nor does it provide for cases in which the elected official won the seat in a partisan primary. Without those requirements spelled out, it is unclear if an elected official under those circumstances could be recalled. Both of these scenarios happen regularly each election.

Additionally, with the requirement that recalls cannot be filed until after the first 12 months and can’t be filed again till the end of the term, it would seem that this ability is mostly toothless for members of the State House. Those members only serve terms of 24 months. It would be far easier to wait the additional 12 months and challenge them in the election rather than wait 12 months, petition for 3 months, wait for the petition to be certified and the election held and counted. That process could take up to 18 months or after the close of the second Legislative Session for that House Member’s term. It would have been far better for the language of the bill to have read “1/4 the length of the elected officials term.” Under this language, you could file and petition and hold the election prior to the beginning of the second Legislative Session of that House Member’s term. Unfortunately, that is not so.

Hopefully, as this bill moves through the legislative process, those concerns will be addressed and this will become another powerful tool for voters to hold their elected officials accountable.

Election Reform and “Reform” Bills Already Hitting The Senate

by

While we are still waiting on word of the true reform bill we are looking for, the Senate is busy introducing other bits of reform and some “reform”. Why the quotes? Well, some things that are called reform are far from it.

There are three bills introduced so far that will change elections in some fashion. Two of them are pretty good changes and the third is a move that would result in fewer people running for office. Fewer people engaged in the election process is never a good thing.

The first bill, SB 80, allows for county election boards to request an earlier starting time to begin counting absentee ballots. This means that if a county receives a large number of absentee ballots, it can request an earlier time before the election to begin counting them. This would likely result in a reduced burden in the week following the election and hopefully result in fewer miscounts.

The second bill, SB 99, changes how County Commissioner races are handled. Under this legislation, County Commissioners will no longer file or run under party labels. These non-partisan elections will hopefully result in less partisan rhetoric during elections and a greater emphasis on the actual candidates rather than their political leanings.

Under this new system, the way elections will be handled is as follows. If only one person files, that person automatically wins the seat, as currently happens in other races. If two people file, those two candidates go to a November election. If three or more people file, a non-partisan primary election is held. If the Primary election results in a single candidate winning 50% or more of the vote, that person wins the election. If no candidate wins 50% or more, then the top two candidates go on to the November election.

The final bill is a bit of a doozy and is the one that earns the quotes on reform. SB 76 doubles to triples (an original version of the bill, incorrectly listed the current fees thus making some seem to have tripled.) the fees required to file for various races for the state and US. The increases for the various races are as follows:

  • Governor goes from $1000 $1500 to $3000
  • US Senate goes from $750 $1000 to $2000
  • US Representative goes from $500 $750 to $1500
  • Lieutenant Governor, Corporation Commission, Attorney General, State Auditor and Inspector, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Treasurer, Commissioner of Insurance and Commissioner of Labor are all at $1000
  • All other state elections, such as State House and Senate, go from $200 to $400

I am seriously straining to find a real need for these changes. It is not as if Oklahoma suffers from a glut of candidates filing each year. If one is too look over the last decade or so of races, you will find that few races in November have more than three candidates on the ballot. If you look at Primary elections, the most I was able to find on a single primary race was eight. However, even in those races, it was often fairly easy for voters to narrow their choices.

Whatever the supposed reason for this bill, and we will be contacting Senator Fields about his reasoning, the most likely result will be fewer people running for office. In a state that teeters on fewer than 50% of races making it past the primaries to the November elections, that would be a very bad thing. It could further stagnate citizen participation in the election process. The key reason is that these increased fees will mean that candidates without established financial backers will be unable to pay the filing fees.

For an example of this, I ran for State House in 2010. The filing fee was $200 and I spent an additional $100 of my own money during the campaign. Had the filing fee been the $400 proposed, I would not have been able to afford the filing fee and would not have been able to run. While some incumbents might like that idea, it will result in a further decay of public trust in government.

We at Oklahomans For Ballot Access Reform encourage all to contact your State Senators and Representatives and ask them to oppose this bill. This is not the type of reform the State of Oklahoma needs. We need reform that will result in a more inclusive and better represented government and election process.