Voters case ballot for a Party- whether they recognize it or not!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

VOTE SMART!

by Steve Fair

 

Early voting starts Wednesday in Oklahoma.  In-person absentee voting – more commonly referred to as “early voting” in Oklahoma – is available to all voters. No excuse is needed. Voters can cast their ballot at the County courthouse or Election board on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday from 8am to 6pm and on Saturday from 8am to 2pm. Early voters will need to complete an in-person absentee ballot application when they check in at the early voting location before they are given a ballot.

Oklahoma voters are also required to prove their identity before they are given a ballot.  There are three ways to prove identity: (1) Photo ID.  It must have been issued by the federal government, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized tribal government.   The name on the ID needs to match the way it appears on the precinct voter registry.  (2) Election Board Voter ID card.  The law allows use of the voter ID card even though it does not include a photograph. (3) Affidavit with a provisional ballot.  If a voter refuses to show proof of identity, they may vote by provisional ballot and prove their identity by signing a sworn affidavit.  After election day, County Election Board officials will investigate the information provided by the voter on the affidavit and either will approve the provisional ballot for counting or will reject it based on the outcome of that investigation. 

There is no excuse not to vote, but there is also no excuse to be a low information or uninformed voter. In the United States voting is accessible, but with accessibility comes a price.  Voters have a responsibility to educate themselves.  They should do their own research about the candidates on the ballot.  The deliberate dissemination of misinformation by campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion and influence voter behavior makes voter decisions difficult.  Here are three principles that voters should recognize:

First, political Party affiliation matters.  Voters are not just casting a ballot for a candidate, but they are voting for the Party's agenda- especially in a legislative body- whether they realize it or not.  Not every Republican on the ballot is not as conservative as the Party platform- the RINOS- but in most cases those RINOS are more conservative than the Democrat.  The most conservative D is going to caucus with the most liberal Democrat once they are elected.  The so called 'independent voice' in a legislative body is virtually non-existent.

Second, voters should be cynical about campaign material.  Every candidate puts their best foot forward.  They brag about their experience, their honesty, integrity, and unselfishness.  Conversely, they paint their opponent as unqualified, crooked, and devious.  Clean campaigns are a thing of the past, which make sorting the sheep from the goats next to impossible.

Third, voters should base their decision on three factors: (1) Ability to do the job.  Is the candidate qualified for the position?  Do they have the skill set to do the job? (2) Who is funding the candidate?  This may be more critical than the first factor.  Special interests don't give their money to a candidate without expecting something in return.  Voters should research who donated to a candidate.  It will reveal who they are beholden to.  (3) Accessibility and accountability.  Candidates that refuse to meet with constituents and avoid being willing to justify a vote should be shunned.

America has a lot riding on the November 3rd election.  Will the country take a hard left and set up gridlock for the next two years or will it stay the course?  Remains to be determined.  Vote, but vote smart!

STEVE'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON SQs & JUDGES!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

STATE QUESTIONS & JUDGES!

by Steve Fair

 

Oklahoma uses a retention system for justices and judges on the state’s three higher courts.  Each justice/judge appears on the retention ballot every six(6) years.  The retention system came about from a scandal.

In 1965, three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices were convicted of federal tax evasion charges for accepting bribes to decide cases over a twenty-year period.  Justices N.S. Corn, Samuel Welch, and Napoleon Johnson either resigned or were impeached after it was exposed their decisions could be brought.  

After the bribery scandal, then Governor Dewey Bartlett, (R-Tulsa) pushed for judicial reform.  With the Democrat led legislature’s cooperation, two state questions were drafted and placed on the July 1967 ballot.  Oklahoma voters approved, by a narrow margin (52%-48%), two state questions (#447 & #448) amending the State Constitution and creating the Oklahoma Court on the Judiciary.    

The two state questions abolished elected justices of the peace, the county court system, and special courts (replacing them with 77 district courts).  It created the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), replacing judicial elections with the current retention system.  Appellate justices and judges are appointed by the governor from a list of three finalists provided by the JNC.  

Since Oklahoma went to the retention ballot system, only one justice or judge has been removed.  There are nine (9) justices/judges on the retention ballot in 2026.  They are listed below, along with my recommendations on to retain or not to retain.

Retain all four of the justices serving on the Oklahoma Supreme Court:  John Kane IV,  Travis V. Jett, Dana Kuehn and Richard Darby.  Retain Robert Hudson on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Four judges on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals are on the ballot in November.  Retain Stacie Hixon and James Hurber.  Do not retain Jane Wiseman and Deborah Barnes.

These recommendations are based primarily on who appointed them to the bench.  The two judges I recommend to send home were appointed to the bench by former Governor Brad Henry, so they have been there a long time. 

There are two state questions on the November ballot.  State Question #845 would reform the JNC.  Certainly, the JNC needs reformation, but this proposal would give the lawyers more control of who serves on the bench. The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) already wields plenty of influence in who sits on the bench.   I recommend voting NO on SQ#845.

The second state question is State Question #847.  It proposes to reduce the annual growth limit of the calculated cash value of property assessed for taxation.  It would reduce the annual growth from 5% to 4%.  It would reduce the annual growth amount for homestead exemption from 3% to 1.75%.  SQ 847 would eliminate the hard income cap to qualify for the senior property valuation limit, and change the senior property tax freeze into a tiered cap. Instead of locking the assessed value at exactly zero percent growth, the value would be permitted to rise by an annual limit of 1.75% or higher, depending on income.

Supporters say SQ#847 would protect property owners from sharp increases. Critics note slower growth in property values would also slow the growth of funding for local schools and services.  They point out property tax monies stay in the community where it is collected and are one of the few ways local citizens directly control funding for local services. 

SQ#847 isn’t perfect, but voters should never miss a chance to reduce their tax burden.  Vote yes on SQ#847

TAKE NO DELIGHT IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NO LIVESTREAM!

by Steve Fair

 

On August 8, 1936, 20,000 people gathered at sunrise in Owensboro, Kentucky to witness the public hanging of Rainey Bethea.  Beathea had confessed to the rape and killing of 70-year-old Lishia Edwards.  The public outrage over the circus atmosphere of Bethea's execution made it the last public one in the United States.  90 years later, public executions are back in the news.

On November 5, 2009, Major Nadal Hasan, a U.S. Army doctor killed 14 people (one an unborn child) and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood, Texas.  Hasan, a psychiatrist admitted to the shootings at his court-martial in August 2013 and was sentenced to death.  Hasan's stated motive was to stop U.S. soldiers from going to Afghanistan to kill Muslims.  He has been on military death row for 13 years.

Two weeks ago, President Trump approved Hasan's execution by firing squad to be carried out at Fort Hood on December 3, 2026 at 1pm.  The time of the execution reflects the time-of-day Hasan carried out the shooting.   If Hasan's execution is carried out, he would the first member of the U.S. Armed Forces to be executed since 1961 and the first by firing squad since WWII.  Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the execution would be livestreamed, which has sparked intense debate.  Four observations:

First, Hasan deserves the death penalty.  His crime was planned, premediated and deliberate.  It was the most violent attack on an American military base in our nation's history.  Hasan bragged at his court martial that he had 'changed sides,' and was not contrite or remorseful.   The families of Hasan's victims deserve justice for their loved ones and have waited for 17 years for it to be carried out. 

Second, a primary function of civil government is to wield the power of the sword.  Christians, including Pope Leo, who believe the scripture forbids capital punishment are wrong.  The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13, government's role in society is to punish evildoers and reward those that do good.  Paul describes governing authorities as 'ministers of God,' who are appointed with the responsibility to punish lawbreakers, which includes capital punishment if the crime warrants it. 

Third, the death of the wicked should never be celebrated.  The prophet Ezekiel wrote that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, preferring they repent instead.  Gloating or showing sadistic joy over a person's demise is inconsistent with Christian character.  Hasan's long overdue execution will no doubt provide some justice and closure for the families of his victims, but it shouldn't be acclaimed. 

Fourth, there is no real proof public executions deter crime.  Most criminologists believe criminals are deterred more by the speed of apprehension and punishment than the severity of the penalty.  In other words, speed of justice discourages criminals more than public punishment.  With systemic backlogs, decade long delays and bottlenecks in courts, America's guarantee to a speedy trial and justice is broken.  Government should be focusing on speeding up justice to discourage criminals instead of creating a circus around punishment.

Hegseth may have just been pontificating/grandstanding when he announced Hasin's execution will be livestreamed.  Perhaps he was sending a message to the radical Muslim community the U.S. can be as callous and coldhearted as they are. Pray we aren't.

SOME ISSUES ARE THEOLOGICAL & POLITICAL!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FAITH ALONE!

by Steve Fair

 

The old social rule is to "never discuss politics or religion in polite company."  That's because talking about those two polarizing topics often invokes intense emotional reactions and relationships are sometimes damaged because of the conflict.

The problem with that rule is politics and religion are directly tied to a person's core values, moral framework and personal identity.  So, keeping the rule means hiding the very essence of who you are to maintain social harmony. 

This week, Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President, Pastor Willy Rice called on SBC pastors across the country to violate the rule.  Rice said pastors should "step up" into the political process.  Rice argues pastors have long played a key role in American politics and it's time once again for them to crawl into the ring.  Three observations:

First, pastors should be involved in the political process.  They should be a faithful voter and an example of a good citizen.  They should render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.  They should be politically knowledgeable and feel the freedom to exercise their right to engage in politics just like the members of their congregation.  They should not avoid politics, but they should recognize politics is temporal.  Like the old hymn said, they should recognize this world is not their home- they are just a passing through. 

Second, the pulpit should be exclusively for preaching the Gospel.  A pastor should make the main thing the main thing and the main thing is the Gospel.  The Gospel will change individual hearts and lives and transform America.  Any pastor who abandons preaching the Gospel to preach patriotism or a social transformation message will reap converts of changed behavior, not regenerated hearts. 

Third, there are political issues that are theological issues. Abortion, same sex marriage, and gender identity top the list.  Those issues are biblical issues.  Pastors have neglected to teach what the Scripture says about those issues.  They have failed to preach the 'whole counsel' of the Word.  Christians should vote based on what God's stance is on an issue.  They should identify and support candidates who align with their convictions and the principles in the Bible.

Liberal politicians have used churches for years.  The left has openly campaigned from pulpits.  They have used churches as a base of campaign operations.  Liberal pastors endorse candidates from the pulpit.  They ignore the Johnson Amendment, which restricts churches from participating or intervening in politics. 

Rice is advocating conservative Christians do the same thing, but the Johnson Amendment, the1954 provision in Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) remains on the books, prohibiting tax-exempt organizations, charities, universities, and houses of worship from endorsing or opposing political candidates.   

Rice should have left the politics to those who believe political activism alters the eternal decree of God.  He should have challenged SBC pastors to preach the coming judgment of God upon a wicked culture.  Considering the dearth of clear Gospel preaching from SBC pulpits today, it would seem that would be a worthy goal.    

Preaching moralism and teaching people they can 'fix themselves,' is the long-time political and theological message of the liberals.  Conservatives should be preaching the Gospel message of faith alone!  That would change lives and the nation.