WE SHOULD KNOW IF JUDGE CANDIDATE IS AN 'R' OR 'D'

Weekly Opinion Editorial

JUDICIAL RACES SHOULD BE PARTISAN!

by Steve Fair

State Representative Kevin Calvey, (R-Edmond) will file a bill- House Joint Resolution #1037- to place on the November 2016 ballot the opportunity for Oklahomans to vote on whether the State Supreme Court and two appellate court judges would be elected in nonpartisan elections.  The bill would have to clear the State House and Senate before it gets to the ballot. 

“Our current system of selecting state Supreme Court jurists is not transparent, not accountable to the people and is dominated by the lawyers’ special interest group. No wonder we get outrageous state Supreme Court decisions like banning the Ten Commandments, causing extra costs on doctors and small business owners and allowing predatory abortionists like felon Dr. Patel to remain unregulated.  Twenty-one states elect their state Supreme Court by popular election. States which elect their Supreme Courts actually rank better than Oklahoma in terms of impartiality and the competence of judges. Contrary to the special-interest hysteria of entrenched opponents of reform, the facts show that electing state Supreme Court jurists will improve Oklahoma’s judiciary, not cause problems. It is also contrary to false claims from the lawyers’ special interest group, the Oklahoma Bar Association, that Oklahoma’s current system was not necessary to prevent judicial corruption in a 1960s court bribery scandal. The truth is, the lawyers used the judicial bribery scandal as a pretext to enact Oklahoma's lawyer-dominated judicial selection system, a system that had been proposed over 25 years earlier,” Calvey said.

Calvey is right on the history of how Oklahoma went from directly electing the judicial to a retention ballot system that simply doesn’t work.  The law lobby effectively convinced the public they knew who would be better on the bench than the electorate.  Currently seventeen states, including Oklahoma hold ‘retention’ elections for judges.  Retention doesn’t work here and it doesn’t work across the country.  In the sixty years since Kansas has had retention, it hasn’t voted out a judge.  There is a major movement in Illinois to jettison the retention ballot system.  There the judge has to get 60% to stay on the bench, and they have never kicked one off the bench.

A recent poll conducted by North Star Opinion found that 79% of registered voters polled favor directly electing the judiciary with only 16% favoring the current retention system.  A.J. Ferate, the State GOP General Counsel, says the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Oklahomans want to see real elections for judges.  “When implemented, HJR 1037 will bring transparency to judicial selection and balance of powers between the branches of government,” said  Ferate. “The poll numbers show that independent of political party, Oklahomans want change in the way state Supreme Court jurists are selected.”

Currently seven states, including Texas Alabama, and Louisiana, have ‘partisan’ races for their high courts.  Fourteen states hold non-partisan elections for justices.    

Calvey’s proposal would mirror how district and associate district judges are currently elected in the Sooner state.  They are elected in what is billed as non-partisan elections and can’t associate with any political Party or tell people how they are registered.  The non-disclosure of Party affiliation is a stupid rule and quite frankly makes no sense.  Fact is- no election is completely non-partisan.  Partisan is defined as someone who is a strong supporter of a party, cause or person.  Every person has values, opinions, and convictions.  One of the best ways to discern what those values, opinions and convictions is to know which political Party they are affiliated with.   If they are pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-limited government, they are likely registered Republican.  If they are pro-choice, pro-gun control, and believe the government should run every facet of our life, then they are likely a Democrat.  Party affiliation is our first vote.  It is important.  A person should be proud of the political Party affiliation, just like their religious affiliation.  Every candidate, at all levels and for all races should all have to declare what their Party affiliation is.  It helps voters identify what their view of the role of government truly is. 

Calvey’s idea is a far sight better than what we have, but encourage your state legislator to support a proposal to make judges run partisan races, like in Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana.  That would force judicial candidates to help us know if they are a conservative or liberal.  We have enough liberal jurists now. 

RELEASE THE RETENTION!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

RETENTION NEEDS TO BE RELEASED!

    by Steve Fair   

     Oklahoma’s court system has five types of court functions: (1) A court of limited jurisdiction, (2) A court of general jurisdiction, (3) An immediate appellate court, (4) A special court, and (5) a court of last resort.  Only Oklahoma and Texas have a court of last resort.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court and Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals are courts of last resort. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals is an intermediate appeals court.  You lose there and you can still appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  Confused?  Just wait, it gets better.

     The Oklahoma Supreme Court is made up of nine justices(8 of the current 9 appointed by a Democrat).  Their average tenure is 13 years.  The Court of Criminal Appeals has five justices(3 of the 5 appointed by a Democrat).  Their average tenure is 15.6 years.  The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has twelve judges(8 of the 12 appointed by a Democrat).  Their average tenure is 12.2 years. 

     Unlike District Judges, these twenty six are appointed by the Governor.  Nineteen of the current judges on the three courts were appointed by a Democrat.  The process to appoint involves the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission, a fifteen member board- six are appointed by the Governor and six are appointed by the Oklahoma bar, one appointed each by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro Tempore and selected at large by the commission itself.  After screening and interviews, the Commission recommends three qualified candidates for the Governor to choose from.  The Governor can deviate from their recommendations, but seldom does.   Judges are appointed for life, but must face voters on a retention ballot every six years. 

    Up until 1967, Oklahoma voters elected these twenty six judges just like they do district judges, and associate district judges, but after approving State Question #447 in July(primary election) by a narrow margin, the state went to a retention ballot for the top two courts.  In 1987, the Court of Civil Appeals joined them.  Since Oklahoma adopted a retention ballot system regarding judges, not one judge has been kicked out.  It has been close a couple of times, but they always manage to get enough yes votes to stay.  Either these judges in Oklahoma have done an amazing job over the past 60 years or the retention system isn’t working.

     On average about ten to twelve judges are on the ballot in Oklahoma’s general election every two years.  Because of Oklahoma statute 1401.1, judges- even local ones- are forbidden from disclosing their political Party affiliation.  They can’t even attend a political Party event because their office is ‘non-partisan.’  Fact is, every race is partisan and voters deserve to know what side of the bread their judicial candidates are buttering. 

     Finding out information on who is on the retention ballot requires a great deal of personal research.  The judges on a retention ballot are not required to provide the public any information on themselves.  The Oklahoma Bar Association maintains a website with the names of those on the ballot, when they were appointed and who appointed them, but finding out whether they are a liberal jurist or conservative one is next to impossible.  Many voters go into the voting booth with little information on the judges and simply do not vote.  The retention portion of the ballot is always the most under voted in every election.

     State Representative Bobby Cleveland, (R-Slaughterville) says the state judiciary system is not nearly transparent enough for the public to hold elected judges accountable. Cleveland said he intends to file a bill during the upcoming session that would require disciplinary actions taken against judges – and the reasons behind those actions –  be made public.   “The public deserves and demands transparency in all branches of government, because it serves as a vital check and balance on government,” said Cleveland. “As an equal branch of government, the judiciary oftentimes works in anonymity when compared to the executive and legislative branches. Nevertheless, it too must be accountable to the public it serves.”

      Cleveland is on the right track.  The public should be made aware of any disciplinary action a jurist may have received.  Full disclosure and transparency should be applicable to the judiciary.  Citizens shouldn’t have to hire a private investigator to find out about a tax payer funded judge that is on the ballot.  But real judiciary reform in Oklahoma must include discussion of term limits.  It is time to consider term limits for the judiciary in Oklahoma.  Clearly the retention ballot is not working. 

GOVERNMENT IS NOT A FAMILY OR BUSINESS AND SHOULDN'T HOARD MONEY!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDUCE SIZE!

by Steve Fair

Oklahoma state government has a Rainy Day Fund, aka the Constitutional Reserve Fund.  It works as a savings account for government so in the case of an emergency, it can be tapped.  Any revenue over 95% of revenue estimates collected in a year is deposited into the Rainy Day Fund.  The state constitution caps the amount to be deposited to the fund at 15% of the General Revenue Fund estimate provided by the State Board of Equalization for the prior fiscal year. 

     The legislature can tap the Rainy Day Fund if the state’s official estimate shows that the following fiscal year will bring in less than the current year.  3/8 of the Rainy Day Fund can be used for supplemental funding.  Another ¼ of the fund can be tapped if the governor and ¾ of the legislature declare a state of emergency. 

      Twice in the past eleven years, Oklahoma voters have changed how the fund works.  In 2004, the amount of money the legislature could use was reduced from 1/2 to 3/8.  The change passed by a 2 to 1 margin.  In 2010, Oklahoma voters narrowly passed a proposal to increase the amount that was to be deposited to the fund- from 10 to 15%.  The measure passed by a mere 20,000 votes statewide. Now it appears voters will be asked to vote on changes to the Rainy Day Fund in November 2016. 

     State Representative Jon Echols, (R-OKC), says he intends to file legislation in the upcoming legislative session allowing voters to amend the Constitution to both increase the cap – but not lower it – and allow the Legislature to appropriate directly to the fund. 

     “The idea that we should cap how much money the state can save is, frankly, ridiculous.  Not only is there a cap on how much we can save, there is also legitimate doubt among House staff as to whether the Legislature has the authority to make direct appropriations into the Rainy Day Fund. Neither of those restrictions make any sense. We had a $600 million budget gap last year, and we are now looking at up to $1 billion less this year to appropriate. Our current approach is shortsighted and bizarre. Taxpayers expect us to be prudent and develop a long-term approach to state spending. This is not the way a citizen would run his or her family and it certainly isn’t the way we should run our state,” Echols said.

     Oklahoma Finance Secretary Preston Doerflinger says he would like to create another fund, similar to the Rainy Day Fund that would allow state government to sock away some funds for down budget years.  In an editorial in The Oklahoman, Doerflinger said, “I think there are tools we should put in place, maybe a separate fund that would help equalize these types of downturns in the energy sector.  It might cause some smoothing or leveling of the pain that occurs if you were to see something this dramatic in the future.”

     First, Echols has a point.  Why restrict how much money the legislature can put in savings?  After all, saving money is better than government spending it.  That sounds pretty good, but government is not a family or a business.  When government socks away tax dollars into a savings account that means they are overcharging taxpayers.  If there is a surplus, give it back to the people it belongs to- the taxpayers. Government, at all levels should operate efficiently, but not be banking up a surplus- in good or bad times. 

     Second, the legislature taps the Rainy Day Fund virtually every year.  It doesn’t even have to cloud up before they hit the savings account.  That is why voters overwhelmingly voted to reduce how much the lawmakers could tap.  The fund was set up for emergencies, but every year there is an emergency.

     Third, the legislature should consider fundamentally changing the budgeting process and force agencies to justify every penny of tax dollar they are appropriated.  They should also commit to identifying and eliminating waste.  They need to force government agencies to consolidate.  Stabilization should never be the goal of government.  It should be to become more efficient and reduce in size and scope.

    Currently the Rainy Day Fund has a balance of $382 million.  With an expected budget shortfall of $1 billion or more, it’s a sure bet the legislature will be tapping the fund.  Until Oklahoma government is truly right-sized and streamlined, giving Oklahoma government more money- whether in a savings account or not- is inconsistent with good government. Government should be saving money by cutting operational costs, not by efficient management of more money.

 

Knowing God is KEY to being truly grateful at Thanksgiving!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

BEING TRULY GRATEFUL!

by Steve Fair

     On Thursday, most Americans will sit down to turkey and dressing and celebrate Thanksgiving Day.  Most school children study the ‘first Thanksgiving,’ which was celebrated by the Pilgrims after landing in the New World in 1621.  According to a first-hand account written by Edward Winslow it was attended by 90 Natives and 53 Pilgrims after the first harvest in the new country.   In 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens,” to be celebrated on the last Thursday in November.  Since that time it has been a federal holiday, but President Washington also proclaimed a day of Thanksgiving in 1789.  In 1939, in a very controversial move, President Roosevelt changed it to the fourth Thursday in November.       

     In 1844, Lydia Maria Child wrote a twelve stanza poem for Thanksgiving entitled, “Over the River and Through the Wood,” that later became a 4 verse song.  The original words were; ‘to grandFATHER’S house we go, not grandmother,’ a little Thanksgiving trivia.  Many Americans will travel to visit family and friends and have quality time fellowshipping around the table, but what should Americans be thankful for this Thanksgiving?  Here are three reasons to be grateful to live in America:

     First, America is still a country that offers more opportunity for personal economic advancement than any place in the world.  Even in an environment where manufacturing is fleeing the country faster than rats off a sinking ship, it is still possible for the average American to lift themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves.  No country offers the hard working entrepreneur more opportunities than America.  That is why we have immigration and refugee problem- people are leaving their homeland and fleeing to the land of opportunity and liberty because in spite of its shortcomings, the USA is still the best the world has to offer.

     Second, America has the best and safest food and water in the world.  It shouldn’t be taken for granted.  Over half of the world’s population has bad water and insufficient food.  A majority of the world’s population has a water supply that is either non-existent or polluted.  Their food supply is unreliable and inconsistent.   America should be thankful for those that produce process and supply their food and water supply. 

     Third, Americans have more liberty than citizens in any other country.  While it is true that liberty is under constant attack, most Americans live in states where they are legally able to arm and defend themselves.  For the most part, those citizens have the right of free speech, the freedom to worship as they see fit, and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Americans live under a self-governing system of government unique to anyplace in the world. 

    Who provided all these blessings that Americans enjoy?  The obvious answer is God, but most Americans don’t understand what true gratitude is because they don’t know God?  Jonathan Edwards, a theologian and the first President of Princeton, said, “True gratitude or thankfulness to God for his kindness to us, arises from a foundation laid before, of love to God for what He is in himself; whereas a natural gratitude has no such antecedent foundation. The gracious stirrings of grateful affection to God, for kindness received, always are from a stock of love already in the heart, established in the first place on other grounds, viz. God's own excellency.”   

     John Piper says; “Gratitude that is pleasing to God is not first a delight in the benefits God gives (though that is part of it). True gratitude must be rooted in something else that comes first, namely, a delight in the beauty and excellency of God's character.” In other words, true gratitude must flow out of knowing who provides the blessings you are thankful for.  This Thanksgiving, are you really truly grateful?  Do you know God?

 

HAS EXPANDED GAMBLING CREATED THE FOSTER CHILD INCREASE?

Weekly Opinion Editorial

OKLAHOMA KIDS NEED HELP!

by Steve Fair

     Last week, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin kicked off ‘Oklahoma Fosters,’ a program designated to encourage Oklahomans to become foster parents.  “There are nearly 11,000 children in Oklahoma’s foster care system and we desperately need the hold of our entire community to care for them,” Fallin said. “These children are in state custody through no fault of their own. They need foster families to love and support them during their time of need.”  The program is asking businesses to encourage employees, and churches to encourage congregations, and Native American tribes to encourage citizens to consider being foster or adoptive parents.  The goal is to have one thousand (1,000) new foster parents by June of 2016. 

     “This is a crisis that government alone cannot solve,” Department of Human Services Director Ed Lake said. “We must have the help of businesses, nonprofits and philanthropic foundations, along with our current community and faith partners. There is a role for everyone and it will take all of us working together to take care of Oklahoma’s children.”

     One of the reasons there is such a sense of urgency to recruit more foster parents is because the state has closed large emergency children’s shelters in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.  By the end of the year, the Tulsa facility- Laura Dester Children Center- will be closed.  Between 50-100 kids were housed at the facility at any designated time.  Laura Dester is just five years old and cost taxpayers $12.4 million. DHS hasn’t announced plans for its use after the children are removed and shifted to private homes. The closures are part of the DHS Pinnacle Plan, a five year blueprint to improve child welfare in Oklahoma.  The Pinnacle Plan was the result of a settlement with child advocacy groups after they sued the state on behalf of several children hurt or killed in DHS custody.  The plan was finalized in July 2012.  You can read the entire Pinnacle Plan online at the DHS website.  

     Earlier this month, Sue Ann Arnall, Harold Hamm’s ex wife, though her Arnall Family Foundation gave $4.8 million dollars to the Department of Human Services for programs supporting foster care.  Arnall designated $2 million to the Intercept program, a high-intensity, in-home treatment program for troubled children and families that started serving Tulsa last year and $2.8 million toward starting a Youth Village program for older foster children.  It helps mentor them as they transition to adulthood. 

     If you are interested in becoming a foster parent, the requirements and qualification are listed on the DHS website- okdhs.org.  Applicants must be between the ages of 21-55, be emotionally and financially stable, pass a background check, be a non-smoker, and be in good health.  The state pays between $15-$20 a day to foster parents.  

     Why does Oklahoma have so many foster children?  There are obviously a number of factors; first, Oklahoma has the highest female incarceration rate in the country and the second highest rate overall.  When the parents go to jail, the state has to take care of the kids.  The second reason is that DHS personnel are extra cautious and removing more children from homes.  Because of the scrutiny the agency received after children in state custody children were injured and killed, the agency has erred on the side of caution.  The result has been a 40% increase in the number of foster children in state custody in the past 5 years. Thankfully, most children placed in foster care in Oklahoma are back with their parents within a year, but a significant number remain in state custody long-term. 

     The root cause of the dramatic increase in foster children is the breakdown of the Oklahoma family.  One factor that must be considered is the expansion of gambling across the state.  According to Alan Meister, an economist at the University of California, Oklahoma Indian tribes derive over $5 billion annually from gambling revenue.   Meister says Oklahoma ranks second to only California in Indian gaming.  “The top two states, California and Oklahoma, generated a combined 38 percent of gaming revenue. Meanwhile, the top five states, which added Connecticut, Florida, and Washington to California and Oklahoma, accounted for approximately 61 percent of gaming revenue,” Meister says. 

     In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved a state wide lottery and the expansion of casino gambling.  The promise was better schools and prosperity.  Is it just a coincidence that incarceration rates, embezzlement cases and the number of foster children to be provided for by taxpayers has increased since gambling was expanded?  Gambling produces nothing.  It appeals to the covetousness nature of man and in the long run is a detriment to society.  Gambling is never a good investment.