Attorney General Scott Pruitt Supports Ban On Out Of State Petitioners

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott PruittTomorrow the Supreme Court of the Unites States will consider an appeal by the state of Virginia on its ban on out of state petitioners. [UPDATE: The Supreme Court refused to take up the case (PDF). This means that the lower court ruling overturning the ban remains in place in Virginia and all other jurisdictions that have had such bans overturned.] This ban was challenged by the Libertarian Party of Virginia and the law banning the petitioners was overthrown by the Fourth Circuit Court.

Oklahoma had a similar law in effect, but its law was overturned and a repeal was forced. This was unfortunate for many in power in Oklahoma and specifically for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Because of this, AG Scott Pruitt has filed an amicus brief in the Virginia case along with six other states asking the Supreme Court to uphold the ban on out of state petitioners.

If the Supreme Court upholds the ban, it would have the ramifications of making it far harder for alternative parties and citizens seeking to field a ballot question to fellow voters. If the law is overturned by the Supreme Court then Pruitt argues that the remedies left to the states to prevent fraud would be severely hampered. (PDF)

The States of Oklahoma, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wyoming as amici have an interest in the outcome of Charles Judd, et al. v. Libertarian Party of Virginia and Darryl Bonner because the States are vested with the responsibility for ensuring that ballot access, both in terms of initiative petitions and candidate petitions, are shielded from fraudulent behavior and that the integrity of these initiatives is preserved. To ensure these twin aims are met, many States have instituted residency requirements. Yet, despite recognizing that these interests are compelling, a number of courts have nevertheless declared residency requirements insufficiently narrowly tailored to these compelling interests, and have therefore ruled that residency requirements unconstitutionally infringe on circulators’ First Amendment rights. These courts have based their determinations on an exaggerated reading of this Court’s precedents, leaving States with a few, ineffectual means of combating the harms toward which residency requirements are aimed. The amici urge this Court to accept review in this case.

Part of Pruitt’s concern is that the electoral and petition process will be usurped by out of state interests. His concern is that single issue campaigns will come in and change laws and the constitution without having to deal with the fall out.

Nevertheless, “a major fear of citizens in states with ballot initiatives is that out-of-state special interest groups will come into their state and change the political climate by enacting laws and altering constitutions while avoiding any of the negative effects such changes could create.” Therefore, the integrity of the initiative is integral to continued direct democracy within the State. The same is true for candidate petitions.

However, we can look back at recent elections to see that Pruitt’s stated fears have no merit. In 2010, the only citizen petition to be granted a ballot question was SQ744 which would have changed the way the state funds education. This question was highly criticized as being funded and pushed by the national teachers unions. Despite the strong national support from a strong union, the question failed to pass a vote of the people. This situation shows that even if a national interest groups successfully gets a question on the ballot, it would still need to garner state support to pass. If the people of the state are not interested in the national interest, then it would certainly not be harmed by the allowance of out of state petitioners.

Pruitt also closes that statement by saying that candidate petitions are also at danger of such national meddling. Yet, Pruitt fails to understand Oklahoma’s current candidacy climate. Oklahoma has a system in which independent candidates can pay a fee rather than circulate a petition. In fact, the only line on the ballot that does not include a fee instead of a petition is that of President. Considering the national importance of the Presidency, it would make sense to leave the petitioning for President open for national parties and groups to fund the petition process.

Of course, if Pruitt really wants to weaken national interests in the state, perhaps the better plan of action is to strengthen the citizens in the state. The process for forming a new party is extremely burdensome without the support of national parties. If the process were easier for those in the state, they would be less reliant on out of state petitioners. The same goes for the initiative petition process. With requirements of 8% of the last statewide vote for proposed laws and 15% for constitutional amendments, the process could be made easier for the citizenry. The same could be done with the formation of new parties which require a petition of 5% of the last statewide election. If the citizens had greater access to the ballot, then the power of out of state interests would be weakened dramatically.

for more information: Judd vs Libertarian Party of Virginia

Speaker Shannon Wants To Make Judicial “Reform” A Priority In 2014

Speaker TW ShannonOklahoma, much like the United States, is a Constitutional Republic. In that form of government, members of the government are elected by the people to perform the duties outlined in the governing constitution. Much like the US, Oklahoma’s government was organized with a series of checks and balances to protect the people from tyrannical rulers. In this system, we have a legislature that writes and passes laws, an executive that signs bills into law and is responsible for executing the laws, and a judiciary that determines whether those laws meet the standards laid out in the US and State constitutions.

However, there are some people who are not happy with those checks and balances. One particular person is Speaker T. W. Shannon. Earlier this year, the State Supreme Court overturned a tort reform law because that law failed to meet the State Constitution’s ban on logrolling, or the process of including more than one topic in a single bill. Because this law was overturned, Governor Mary Fallin called a special legislative session to reenact those laws properly. That same court also ruled against a bill that placed unconstitutional hurdles in the process of a women getting an abortion. These rulings are checks and balances in practice. However, Speaker Shannon is not happy with the court’s rulings claiming that they amount to “judicial activism”. Continue reading

RJ Harris Makes Bid For Governor’s Seat Official

RJ HarrisEarlier this year, we reported that RJ Harris was considering running for Governor on the Democratic ticket. This past weekend, he made that official by filing with the State Ethics Commission. As of this time, no other Democrats have expressed interest in running for Governor.

Many people have already expressed concerned about his party allegiance as he has never run for office as a Democrat before. His campaign history has him as a Republican, Independent and Libertarian. In response to these concerns, Harris responded in the comments of the NewsOK report that anyone who values liberty should support him.

I know there will be some strong opinions for and against my candidacy but I am sure we all agree an election with only one name on the ballot is no election at all. In response to those commenting on my changing parties. When I saw first hand how so many in the Republican Party are still swayed by racism and religious bigotry; and when I saw how the OK GOP leadership would lie and cheat to prevent the properly elected Ron Paul delegates from attending the national convention in Florida, I realized that there was simply no place left for me there nor for anyone who’s primary political goals are the advancement of freedom over tyranny. If you are someone who wants your government to stay out of your private life and also wants your government to be accountable for the money it takes from you then I encourage you to join me in the Oklahoma Democratic Party where we will be working together to restore the Democratic Parties of Jefferson and Kennedy…which is to say a party COMMITTED to the advancement of personal, religious and economic liberty. While this may be out of step with what Democratic leaders are doing nationally, here in Oklahoma, we will fight for Liberty.

While this stance may not calm the fears of all Democratic voters, it has at least been okayed by Wallace Collins, chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.

As for the two known candidates for Governor, Mary Fallin and RJ Harris, Harris is the only one of the two with strong support for ballot access. He has made ballot access reform one of his key issues:

Overly aggressive limitations placed upon ballot access strike at the very legitimacy of the electoral process by calling into question whether a truly representative government has been seated. We are a state and a nation of very diverse political philosophies so why should our choices of public servants be limited to only those from the top two major parties? Freedom of choice and true representative government means that we have an honest and complete choice of parties and candidates from which to choose and not a watered down list provided by those already in power. As Governor, I will fight to restore very liberal ballot access for all political parties and candidates and I trust the people of Oklahoma, not the political interests, to make the best selections of the candidates they wish to serve them regardless of party affiliation.

We will continue to keep you updated on all news regarding candidates for and against ballot access reform.