Monthly Archives: March 2013

Letter To The Editor Laments The Death of HB2134, Ballot Access Reform

by

Over the weekend, Anthony Papillion of Miami had a letter published in the Tulsa World in which he laments the death of HB2134. Despite passing out of the House Rules Committee with no issues, HB2134 was never heard by the House Calendar Committee and thus never voted on by the House.

The Oklahoma Legislature had another opportunity this year to give more Oklahoma voters a voice at the polls. House Bill 2134 would have reduced the number of signatures required to get a new party listed on the ballot from its current high count of 5 percent of active voters to the pre-1974 level of 5,000.

Unfortunately, HB 2134 won’t even be heard this year by the Legislature because lawmakers have much more important bills to hear. Those bills include setting a new price for a one-day fishing license, allowing counties to provide incentives for wellness programs, and declaring part of Oklahoma 81 as a historic bike trail. Yes, all those “important” bills were more important than making sure as many voters as possible had the chance to participate in the electoral process.

Oklahoma voters have shown that they want more choice in their ballot. We’ve shown that we are not happy with the current two-party status quo. Why does the Legislature find it so hard to get that message? Perhaps lawmakers are afraid of giving us too much power so that we have a chance to get rid of them when we go to the polls?

As always, writing letters to the editors of the various newspapers in Oklahoma is one of the easiest ways to spread the word about the need for ballot access reform. Keep them coming.

After HB2134’s Death, What’s Left For Oklahoma’s Reform Efforts?

by

Last week, the House let HB2134 die for the year. Had it passed HB2134, the law governing the signature requirement to form a new party would have gone from a 5% of the last general election requirement to a flat 5,000 signature requirement. This would have returned Oklahoma law to how it was prior to 1974. Yet, due to some unwillingness from Speaker Shannon, HB2134 never got a floor vote despite passing the Rules Committee unanimously.

So what is left for Oklahoma voters? There are still two bills alive and kicking that we are keeping our eyes on. The first is a similar bill to HB2134. SB668 passed the Senate unanimously and is now waiting for action from the House. Under SB668’s language, the signature requirements to form a new party would no longer take into consideration the Presidential elections, only the Governor elections. What this would do is bring about consistency between elections, but would not bring about much relief to new parties.

As you look back through recent elections, you will find that in Presidential election years, years in which parties would form based on the last Governor election, new parties were not able to form and gain access to the Presidential ballot. This language is the primary reason why Oklahoma has been the only state in the nation to give its voters only two choices for President for three elections in a row.

Despite these complaints, there is value in allowing SB668 to go forward as currently written. First, recent Legislative Sessions have shown that the Senate is unwilling to pass anything that goes lower than 5%. This stance has prevented a number of bills from going to the Governor to be signed into law. Next, we have Speaker Shannon’s stance that ballot access reform is not a priority. We are not sure if the specific reform found in HB2134 was not a priority or just ballot access reform in general. Letting SB668 go to the House Floor for a vote would show that reform itself is a priority but Speaker Shannon doesn’t support a genuinely lower requirement to form a new party. Finally, passing SB668 as is would open the door to future reform efforts as the Legislature would have a changed mindset toward reform efforts. This psychological opposition to reform would be weakened after the passage of SB668 and any future complaints and opposition would not be as strong.

SB668 has not yet been assigned to a House committee for review. When it does, it will most likely go to the Rules Committee which has shown its support already for reform. After that, it will need to pass the Calendar Committee before getting a floor vote. Hopefully, we will see it pass out of both without issue. Representative Watson, the House sponsor of the bill, is on the Rules Committee so he will most likely be advocating for its passage soon.

The other bill that we are concerned about is SB76. SB76 would double the filing fees for all elected offices in Oklahoma. This fee, as far as we can tell, is not needed in the state. An increased fee to run for office will result in nothing but a reduction in people running for office. In the last election, less than 50% of all Oklahoma legislative seats had a November election. All other seats were either unopposed or settled in a primary election. With so few people running for office, why would anyone support further reduction?

SB76 has already been assigned to a committee for a hearing. It has been assigned to the House Appropriations and Budget committee but will most likely be assigned to one of the subcommittees, either the General Government or the Revenue and Taxation subcommittee. Representative Russ, the House Sponsor of the bill, is on the General Government Subcommittee so it is likely to go there, however, the bill does increase fees so that falls under the purview of the Revenue and Taxation committee. We will likely find more information soon.

That is where we stand at this point in the Legislative Session. What we need from you at this point is to contact your Representatives and ask them to support the passage of SB668 and to oppose SB76.

House Doesn’t Hear Ballot Access Reform Bill; HB2134 Dead For The Year

by

Today is the last day for the State House to hear its own bills and HB2134 is not on the agenda. That means that HB2134 is dead for the year. It could come back again next year, but it will be competing with a whole new lot of bills that will be introduced for that session, reducing the chance that it will be heard.

Earlier this week, it became apparent that the reason HB2134 had not been and would not be heard was because Speaker Shannon did not want it heard. In an email, HB2134 author Representative Hickman wrote:

I made another pitch to one of the floor leaders to try to get HB2134 added to the agenda to be considered by the Calendar Committee at their last meeting at 1130a today. He likes the bill and talked to Speaker Shannon about adding it but the Speaker said no. Sorry we weren’t able to get it heard. I will see what I can do to help with SB668 since it will be coming to the House next week. Thanks again for your interest.

This combined with a recent news report from NewsOK that any bill that doesn’t strictly adhere to the Republican agenda is having trouble being heard doesn’t breed much confidence in HB2134 being heard next year.

On Tuesday March 12, 2013, a good number of people called the offices of Speaker Shannon and Calendar Chair Peterson to ask them to support HB2134 and pass it to the Floor for a vote. I appreciate all the help from those who called and those who wrote letters. Your efforts did not go unnoticed, even if those efforts went unheeded.

On Wednesday March 13, 2013, I had the pleasure of joining Oklahoma Libertarian Richard Prawdzienski in a meeting with Shannon aid Rick about the status of HB2134. While Rick was sympathetic to the plight of new parties, having worked on several petitioning drives in the past, he was plain in stating that ballot access reform was just not a priority for Speaker Shannon. With all the evidence showing just how important this legislation is, you have to really wonder what exactly are his priorities.

At this point, the only hope for reform this year is SB668. SB668 as it is currently written only removes the Presidential elections from the 5% signature calculation. Under this language, new parties will not have any real relief. As you look back over the last three Presidential elections, in which new parties could form based on the Governor election calculation, alternative parties had not been able to gain access to the Presidential ticket despite their best efforts. This shows that even this proposed hurdle is still too high and will continue to deny Oklahoma voters real choice in the elections.

However, there are still advantages to letting it pass as written. Based on recent reform efforts, the Senate is unwilling to pass anything lower than 5% of the last Governor election. While passing the bill with that language won’t provide any real relief, it will change the psychology of the Legislature, making future reform efforts easier. The introduction and passage of reform bills this year and in years prior show that the Legislature recognizes that reform is needed and wants to pass reform. Yet, due to some kind external or internal pressure, they can’t bring themselves to pass anything of substance. Once something like this passes and they realize that it is not the end of the world, future reform would be easier for them to handle.

With The Evidence In Favor, Why Won’t The House Hear Reform Bills?

by

For nearly four decades Oklahoma has had one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the United States. In 1974, Oklahoma Democratic legislators passed a bill that changed the petitioning requirement to form a new party and gain access to the highest election ticket in the state. This new law increased the number of signatures a new party would need to gather in order to gain ballot access from a flat 5,000 signatures to 5% of the vote cast in the last general election. This new requirement set in motion a series of events that would lead us to today in which Oklahoma has been the only state to limit its voters to two choices for President in the last three elections.

Fortunately, evidence is mounting that this is a failed policy not just in practical reasons but for idealogical reasons as well. As such, it is time for the Oklahoma Legislature to pass legitimate reform now.

Recently, the Federal Election Commission released its official 2012 Presidential Election results. With this report, the facts show that arguments against reform have no merit. The two most common arguments against reform are that voters will be confused and that alternative candidates will create a “spoiler effect” between the duopoly candidates. But when you analyze the election results, you will find that the data shows no evidence that voters were confused. In every state and D.C., the vast majority of voters had no problem finding and voting for one of the two duopoly candidates. On the “spoiler effect” front, no state in the U.S. had margins close enough that a lack of choice on the ballot would have flipped the election. If you look specifically at any one alternative candidate, none of them had enough votes to flip the election in any state.

Other facts show just how limited Oklahoma is with its choice at the ballot. The next lowest number of candidates available in any state is double that of Oklahoma. The average number of candidates on any ballot is eight or four times more than what is available in Oklahoma. Continue reading →

Senate Votes To Greatly Increase Candidate Filing Fees

by

On March 5, 2013, the Oklahoma Senate voted to pass SB76. This bill would greatly increase the filing fees in order to run for office in Oklahoma. This bill is not needed in Oklahoma as we already suffer from too few people running for office. This bill, if passed in the House and signed by the Governor, would simply make that problem worse.

The good news is that there is a lot of bipartisan opposition to the bill. The vote for the bill was 27-18. No Democratic Senators voted for the bill and the opposition was a good mix of Democratic and Republican Senators. This shows that many people in the State Legislature understand that this bill is problematic.

The bill now moves to the House. As we have said, it is vital that this bill be voted down in the House. We do not need this fee increase in Oklahoma. People should be free to run for office and increasing the fees associated with it would reduce that freedom. Please contact your Representative and ask them to vote against this arbitrary fee increase.