2010 Oklahoma State Questions

I am posting a list of the ballot questions we will see in November here in Oklahoma. This is a neutral summary of the measures, the changes that they are proposing, and some reasons that proponents support the measure and opponents oppose it. This is intended to be an informative list, not persuasive.


744: Education Spending. State Question 744, also known as the “Helping Oklahoma Public Education Act” or “HOPE Initiative”, was initiated by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) after the union lost a lawsuit seeking to increase education funding. If approved, this constitutional amendment would determine the annual education budget in Oklahoma by assessing the regional average per pupil in six neighboring states and spending that amount per pupil in Oklahoma. That average would be determined by the State Equalization Board as part of the revenue certification process. There are no provisions in the measure on how the state would fund this.
• Proponents of this measure claim that if passed, Oklahoma will have the ability to raise teachers’ salaries, decrease class sizes, and purchase new textbooks and technology. This would give Oklahoma children the same educational opportunities as children in neighboring states. Proponents also say that investing in education will bring business investment to our state and result in a better educated workforce.
• Opponents of this measure claim that the budget challenges that the education fund is facing is shared by all spectrums of state government. Mandating a huge increase in spending without ensuring an equal increase in revenues will likely result in our state falling behind in other important areas of public investment, including services that are relied on by schoolchildren and teachers. Opponents also disagree with making a budget appropriations policy constitutionally mandated because it takes the flexibility out of the budget process in difficult economic times. Many believe that this measure will be challenged in court if it passes.


746: Voter ID. State Question 746, also known as the “Oklahoma Voter Identification Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Oklahoma state senator John Ford. The measure was previously introduced as Senate Bill 692 during the 2009 legislative session and was passed by the House but vetoed by Governor Henry. If passed it would require any person casting a vote to present either photo identification or voter registration cards. Those without a valid ID can still cast a provisional ballot which will be counted once they confirm their identity.
• Proponents of this measure claim that verifying the identity of voters is critical in maintaining the integrity of our democracy. They claim that the measure would not be considered an undue hardship or an inconvenience to voters and would discourage voter fraud.
• Opponents of this measure claim that requiring identification creates an unnecessary impediment to voting and is in conflict with the Oklahoma Constitution. The state charges for identification cards and some say to require someone to have one is similar to an illegal poll tax, impacting minorities, the elderly, and the poor most frequently. Opponents also claim that this measure is a solution in search of a problem due to the fact that voter fraud has not been a problem in Oklahoma.


747: Term limits for statewide elected officials. State Question 747, also known as the “Oklahoma Term Limits Question,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Randy Brogdon. If passed, a constitutional amendment would be enacted that limits all statewide elected officials to only two terms in a specific office. That would be a lifetime total of 8-years in office for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Labor Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Labor Commissioner and 12-years in office for Corporation Commissioners. Partial terms would not apply to the limit. Those in office already when it passes would not have prior time count against them except the Governor.
• Proponents of the measure claim that enacting these stricter term limits will continue to bring new ideas to the state and will discourage scandal in the offices of state-wide elected officials.
• Opponents of the measure do not see the need for enacting stricter term limits because they trust future Oklahoma voters to determine on a case by case basis whether or not an incumbent is qualified to remain in office.


748: Apportionment. State Question 748, also known as the “Oklahoma Reapportionment Commission Measure,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Coffee and Representative Benge that seeks to establish a commission that would determine new district boundaries if the Legislature cannot agree on new districts following a U.S. census. The commission will have seven members instead of the current three. The Lt. Governor will head the commission along with six members appointed by the Governor, House Speaker, and Senate president pro-tem. Each must nominate one Democrat and one Republican.
• Proponents of this measure claim this is a good backup measure designed to step in only if the legislature cannot agree on redistricting.
• Opponents of this measure claim that this measure is a step taken by the legislative branch to shift power from elected offices and move it to the legislature.


750: Ballot Access. State Question 750, is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Randy Brogdon. If passed, the Oklahoma Constitution would be amended to lower the signature requirement required to gain access to the ballot via initiative and referendum petitioning to be based on the turnout in the most recent gubernatorial election. The current formula is based on a percentage of voters in the last general election which includes presidential elections where the turnout is greater and therefore more signatures are currently required during the two years following a presidential election.
• Proponents of the measure state that current Oklahoma initiative requirements are too stringent and this will help make the process simpler.
• Opponents of the measure say that the state has seen several ballot questions on previous ballots that were proposed by the initiative process and do not see the need in changing the requirements.


751: English Language. State Question 751, also known as the “English is the Official Language of Oklahoma Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Randy Terrill. If passed, this measure would constitutionally mandate all official actions of the state to be conducted in English. It does not prohibit the use of tribal languages. It also states that NO lawsuit could be brought against political subdivisions of the State to provide services in languages other than English.
• Proponents of the measure claim that it would increase the incentives for immigrants to learn English and make them more successful U.S. citizens because they would more easily assimilate to our culture. Proponents also say that this measure would reduce any government expenditures spent on translating and publishing material in languages other than English.
• Opponents of the measure say that the measure would create problems in the state, especially for non-English speakers when seeking government services. That impact might end up hurting the state economy instead of helping it. This measure is also being watched by the U.S. Department of Justice who has stated that this measure may be in conflict with federal law that requires Oklahoma to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient persons and if passed, federal funds received by the state may be in jeopardy.


752: Judicial Nominating Commission. State Question 752, also known as the “Judicial Nominating Commission Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by state Senators Patrick Anderson, Clark Jolley, and Representative Daniel Sullivan. If passed, the Judicial Nominating Commission would be increased by two members. Currently the commission has 13 members: 6 lawyers appointed by the bar association and 7 non-lawyers appointed by the Governor. This would add two more non-lawyers, one each appointed by the Speaker of the House and President Pro-Tem of the Senate. The measure also changes the qualification for the non-lawyer members of the commission and prohibits them from having an immediate family member that is an attorney in any state.
• Proponents of the measure claim that this will make the commission more balanced and remove the majority of control from the Oklahoma Bar Association who prefers judicial activists.
• Opponents do not see the necessity of this measure and note that the commission is already comprised of more non-lawyers than lawyers. Opponents also state that this legislative referendum is a way for the legislative branch to retain more power.


754: State Spending. State Question 754, also known as the “No Mandated State Expenditures Act,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Todd Lamb along with multiple representatives. This measure was proposed in response to SQ 744. If passed, this constitutional amendment would not allow the constitution to mandate legislative appropriations based on a predetermined formula, how much other states spend, or how much any entity spends on a function. If this measure passes and SQ 744 fails it will become law. If both measures pass, the one that passes by a larger majority will prevail.
• Proponents of this measure claim that the constitution cannot require the legislature to make appropriations decisions based on comparisons to spending in other states. When budget appropriations are added to the constitution, flexibility is removed from the budget process.
• Opponents claim that by not allowing any challenge to this measure, the rights of every future generation of Oklahomans to determine their own means of governing themselves would be taken away. Some also question the constitutionality of this measure.


755: State Courts. State Question 755, also known as the “Oklahoma International Law Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Rex Duncan and many other representatives and senators. If passed, the constitutional amendment would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when making decisions and forbids decisions based on international or Sharia law.
• Proponents of the measure claim that this law is a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma and is necessary to protect Oklahomans.
• Opponents of this measure say that there have not been any instances of Sharia law in Oklahoma and that this is just another attack against Muslims. Opponents say that the law is Anti-American and singles out an entire community to incite unnecessary fear.


756: Health Insurance. State Question 756, also known as the “Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Representative Mike Thompson and Senator Dan Newberry in response to potential federal healthcare provisions. If passed, this constitutional amendment would categorize a law that would prohibit any future law that requires residents, employers, or health care providers to participate in any health care system and would allow residents to be exempt from any health care mandates.
• Proponents of this measure claim that this is a step toward ensuring that voters get the chance to decide on the health care issue. Some proponents claim that passing this measure will provide Oklahomans with a legal protection against the federal government.
• Opponents of this measure state that even with the passage of this measure the effect will be futile because federal law will override state law. Many, including Governor Henry, state that passing this measure will only lead to lawsuits against the state due to the conflict with federal law which is an expense that the state does not need.


757: Rainy Day Fund. State Question 757, also known as the “Oklahoma Rainy Day Fund Amendment,” is a legislative referendum sponsored by Senator Mike Johnson and Representative Ken Miller. If passed, this constitutional amendment would increase the amount of money that can be placed in the Constitutional Reserve Fund, known as the Rainy Day Fund. The current maximum is 10% of the previous year’s General Fund revenues and this measure would raise that to 15%.

Ode to South Carolina

As most of you know, my family and I recently returned from a wonderful vacation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I cannot say enough good things about our stay: wonderful accommodations, perfect weather, and beautiful beaches. It is a state that I have been to several times and plan to visit again in the future. However, I just do not feel like my vacation story would be complete without sharing some humor I found when driving into the state of South Carolina.

For those of you who do not know, South Carolina is a state that often makes news headlines and provides endless fodder for late night comics. Jon Stewart recently referred to South Carolina as "America's whoopee cushion."

Sometimes the news is about a resident of the state. Do you remember this girl?

Other times SC makes the news for political scandals. Does the name Mark Sanford ring a bell? You remember, the governor who left the country without telling anyone, who was found later with his mistress, and then would not shut up about it.




However, being someone who takes great interest in public policy, especially criminal justice policy, I know South Carolina as one of the few states that might have worse policies than Oklahoma. Being an equal opportunity criticizer, I decided to give South Carolina their turn on my blog.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, South Carolina is ranked eighth in the nation for their incarceration rate. That means that 42 states have a smaller percentage of citizens incarcerated in jails and prisons. What is the big deal with that you ask? It costs approximately $20,000 a year to incarcerate someone. Is that an appropriate amount to pay to keep society safe from axe murderers and child molesters? Absolutely. However, upon entering the state of South Carolina, a prominent white sign caught my eye. It read:

LITTERING: $1000 and PRISON.

I immediately began laughing hysterically when I read the sign. I was laughing so hard I produced tears and Matt thought I might have been a little crazy. These signs were posted every two or three miles along the interstate. I thought the signs must have been exaggerating. I now know that they were not. Once I came back home, I researched the SC penalty for littering. I stumbled across a website entitled "Palmetto Pride, Your Anti-Litter Organization." There I read the state littering law. That is where I discovered that the maximum fine for littering in South Carolina is $1087 plus court assessments and that guilty convictions can lead to jail time between 30 days to one year. In addition, depending in what county you get caught littering, there are often additional fees.

Consequently, in a state where fifteen percent of adults are considered illiterate, one third of high school students drop out before graduation, and 15.7 percent of citizens live below the poverty level, South Carolina chooses to build a criminal justice system to incarcerate litterers. Maybe they should consider spending some of that money educating their beauty queens.

I will still visit you South Carolina. I love you for giving us beautiful beaches, Stephen Colbert, and a road trip with many laughs. However, until you get real about your policies, you can expect to be the comic relief on late night television for years to come.

Being raised in a Red State

I was listening to npr yesterday, as I regularly do, and was fascinated by a discussion on Talk of America about the difference in family values in the red states and blue states. Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explain this apparent paradox in their book, Red Families V. Blue Families. I have not read it yet, but plan to. Here's a short excerpt from the conversation on npr yesterday:
"Many of our assumptions about the cultural divide between red and blue states may be wrong. New research shows that more liberal states, like Massachusetts, tend to have the lowest rates of divorce and teen childbirth. In other words the most stable families, the homes with two parents to nurture their kids, are found in the liberal strongholds along the East and West Coasts. Conversely, the higher rates of teen childbirth and divorce occur in the red states that conservatives so often celebrate as the heartland of family values."

This led me to think about the culture of the state that I have resided my entire life and the way it has shaped my values and beliefs. Red states, such as Oklahoma, tout themselves as protectors of family values, and as crusaders for God. I myself believed this notion for a large portion of my life. In fact, it has only been in the last couple years that I have started to really question the sanity of some of the beliefs I was spoon fed from my culture since birth.

To begin with, let's talk about the disconnect this state has with reproductive issues. Follow me here. Abstinence only education is taught regularly in most homes, schools, and churches. Not only abstinence now, but abstinence til marriage. (It's no wonder people here get married so young) No discussion of contraceptives takes place in any form of institutional setting for most young people and from my experiences, very little education of this type takes place in the home either. Does this lead to a decreased rate of teen sex: NO. Is the teen birthrate lower in this state as a result: NO.

Okay, fast forward to the teenagers who end up pregnant as a result of bad sex education and are then faced with the decision of whether they want to have the baby or not. The culture in a red state does not lend itself to a teen mother choosing anything but having the child. If for some reason a female decides that she does want to have an abortion, the state legislature has made sure that she will have to face every form of barrier before this can occur: harassment, guilt, unneeded and harmful medical procedures, waiting periods, exorbitant costs, etc. In fact, a woman can only have an abortion in 3 counties in Oklahoma: 3 out of 77.
But 75% of teen pregnancies in Oklahoma end in live birth, and this statistic is similar in most red states. So for most pregnant teen females, they're choice is to have a baby that the state and culture seems to want so badly to come into existence. Surely then, this culture and this state who has failed to educate teens in methods of avoiding this situation, and has failed to give them access to all choices after the fact will then be sure to go to great lengths to support this teen mom and new baby that chose life, right? NO. This state makes sure that welfare is an impossibility to gain access to (look it up), that Medicaid is cut to bare bone levels, and that anyone on these services feels guilty for taking taxpayer services. But what about the churches, surely these institutions are making sure to take care of their own, right? From what I've seen, NO. I have never seen a church support a teen mother, because that might send the wrong message.

I am not taking a stance on abortion here believe it or not. I am trying to make a point that there is a large disconnect in our culture in red states that is very disheartening. Somewhere there needs to be a change if we want to be able to tout family values without speaking in bold faced lies.


-If you would like to listen to the npr story, here is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126780035

Corporations are people too

I have been too busy with midterms and other responsibilities to do much blogging lately. Instead of going on a long rant about something that only a few of you will read, I am going to leave you with a video of a segment from last night's Daily Show. John Stewart just has a way with words. Enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In Dodd We Trust
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Globalization

Globalization is an idea that is discussed in nearly all of my political science classes. In previous generations terms like the "Cold War" or the "Space Age" have been used to describe the time, but the current generation in which we live is called the "Age of Globalization." It's real, and it's here to stay. The explosion in technological innovation has changed the way we live our lives but is it for the better? The following is a great simplistic explanation of globalization I found on the internet: People around the globe are more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent. International communication is commonplace. This phenomenon has been titled "globalization."

This is an issue that has already affected each and every one of us whether we realize it or not and it is not going away. Borders no longer exist to business, politics, social activists, or culture. Just last week an example of globalization hit me smack in the face. A friend of mine ordered a pair of boots from an internet site that was offering these boots at about half the rate you can buy them in the local store. You paid online and they came shipped directly from China. At first I was very excited to order a discounted pair but then I realized that if I did so I would be going against something that is rooted deep in my core. Please understand, I do not judge at all if you have ordered from these types of places, I know these are tough times and sometimes we all need to save money, myself included. I just made a personal decision that the cost wasn't worth the savings. If I had saved the money on this pair of boots I would have cut out the city, county, state, department store, mall, etc. If enough transactions like this take place, the jobs, establishments, and services that we all enjoy as Americans might just disappear.

Did you know that if you shop or eat at locally owned establishments the money you spend cycles through your city and state an average of six times? If you shop at a "big box" retailer or chain restaurant the local economy sees it once. If you shop online directly from another country the local, state, and federal economy receive no benefit.

Please understand that I know we all do what we can with what we have. This is just food for thought. I am far from perfect in my shopping habits, I just happen to think about it more than the average American. What are your thoughts?

For more information and a great read on globalization, I suggest The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

Here goes nothing...

I tried this blogging thing once before but got bored quickly because it seemed like I was posting the same things here that I was posting on facebook: pictures of my kids, stories of recent events, cute things that were happening in our lives, etc. I am going to try this again, but will blog less about family happenings and more about things that I will not share on facebook: school experiences, current events, politics, and random thoughts.
I invite anyone and everyone to comment or read anonymously, I just ask that people respect others. Please no name calling or profanity. This is a place for adults who want to have a conversation. I hope you enjoy this outlet as much as I hope I will.

-Erin