Nullification in Oklahoma?

Weekly Opinion Editorial

Nullification in Oklahoma?

by Steve Fair     

   
     Nullification, aka interposition, is a legal theory that a U.S. state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state deems unconstitutional. The theory of nullification never has been legally upheld in court and in fact, the US Supreme Court has rejected it in several cases
*****    
     State Rep. Mike Ritze, (R-Broken Arrow) plans to reintroduce a bill in the 2013 legislative session to “nullify” the individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care legislation in Oklahoma.  “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and believe that state governments were intended to serve as a check on the federal government,” said Ritze. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is better known as ObamaCare, is an example of federal overreach and my legislation will authorize the state to resist it and ban the enforcement of it.”
*****
     If passed, Ritze’s legislation would authorize the Oklahoma Attorney General to defend citizens who fail to purchase health insurance against the federal government and criminalizes the enforcement of the individual mandate.
*****
“My hope is that ObamaCare will be repealed, but I do not think that means we have to wait for the repeal to happen. Oklahoma lawmakers should do what they can to support our choice to make our own health care decisions,”  Ritze says.

*****     

     Can states pick and choose which federal law to obey?    Nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by a compact among the States.  It says the founders of the federal government intended to give the States the final authority to determine the limits of the power of the federal government. Under this theory, the states and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. So if a state believes a federal law shouldn’t apply in that state, they may nullify or reject federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers.

***** 

     Nullification is not a new issue.  In 1798, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) declared the states had the right to nullify laws when the federal government overstepped its limits.  The resolutions were not approved by any other state and the issue died.  Nullification came back to the forefront in the 1820s when one of the biggest advocates for nullification, Senator John Calhoun was VP.  A South Carolina native, Calhoun argued that overreaching federal tariffs-an idea of President Jackson- were not applicable to South Carolina.  His policy conflicted with Old Hickory and he was forced him to resign as Vice President- the first VP to do so.  Jackson said, “Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down.”

***** 

     Judge Andrew Napolitano, of Fox News, says nullification is constitutional.   "Nullification offers hope to those who wish to tame the federal monster as the Framers intended — by using the utterly lawful and historically accepted principle of nullification."  Here is one YouTube video by the Judge on the subject- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-cQIMmVo4. 

***** 

     John Quincy Adams condemned nullification and said, “Democracy is self-government of the community by the conjoint will of the majority of numbers. What communion – what affinity can there be – between that principle and nullification?...Never – never was amalgamation so preposterous and absurd as that of nullification and democracy!”

***** 

      In an article written by David Barton of Wallbuilders, in 2010, Barton says, “Nullification is the hallmark of selfishness and anarchy; and selfishness and anarchy, whether by citizens or states, is not a cherished virtue. To the contrary, a characteristic of America’s greatness has been an unwavering dedication not only to follow the rule of law but also to expend as much time and energy necessary, no matter how long it takes, to make needed changes through the constitutional process, whether by the use of courts or through elections. While this is admittedly a much slower process, there is never an end-around for doing what is right, nor can right be secured by pursuing wrong.”  You can read the entire article at http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=46525.

***** 

    Ronald Reagan said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” There is no doubt government at all levels has gotten too big and far reaching.   The nullification option may not be the right way, but in some American’s minds, it is the only way. 

Don't apologize for hard work!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

DON’T APOLOGIZE FOR HARD WORK!

by Steve Fair

     At a campaign stop in Virginia last week, President Obama said, “If you’ve got a business,. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Conservatives jumped on that statement like a chicken on a June bug. He defended his comments and said they were taken out of context. What Obama actually said was that if you had been successful in business, government had helped by providing the infrastructure (roads, bridges, public education) that helped make your business successful. While it is true that government builds roads, the President forgot who funds the government - the people. The truth is the government has no money to build infrastructure with until people pay taxes, fees, penalties, so we are in effect, helping ourselves.
*****
     The President went on to say, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.” There are a lot of wealthy successful Americans who do give back, but not in the form of increased tax burdens. These wealthy Americans give back by participating in the free market system and in doing so, they create wealth not only for themselves but their employees. Government can never create wealth- directly or indirectly. The only possible way a government can assist in the creation of wealth, is by creating an economical environment that fosters success. This is accomplished is by limited regulations, taxes, and interference. Government produces nothing- it consumes. The President may be confused about business and job creation because the largest employer in the U.S. is government.
*****
    According to Gallup, seventeen percent of U.S. workers work for federal, state, or local government, ranging from 38% in Washington, D.C., to 12% in Ohio. More than a quarter of workers in Washington, D.C., Alaska, Virginia, and Maryland work for government, as do upwards of 15% in the vast majority of states. Oklahoma ranks #8 in the U.S. in percentage of government workers. That is not healthy.
*****
    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says, "What has made America the greatest country in the history of the world is the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of the American people, and especially those who take enormous personal risk to build a business. Until now, these are qualities we as a country have always celebrated. But to denigrate those efforts and attribute to government the credit that rightly belongs with individuals turns the whole American idea on its head."
*****
     While it is true that many successful people did not get there “on their own” as President Obama told us, the help they did get was from others participating in the free market system. The successful individuals in our nation did so by buying goods and services from one another. These successful individuals took financial risks in order to possibly obtain a greater financial reward. The successful business owner is not only intelligent, they are hardworking, goal oriented, business savvy, and creative.
*****
     Many successful companies, such as Staples, did have help from companies such as Bain Capital. One of Bain's earliest and most notable venture investments was in Staples, the office supply retailer. Bain’s 4.5 million dollar investment in the company enabled Staples to expand from one store in 1986 to over 2000 stores in 2011. Staples went public in 1989. Bain Capital eventually reaped a nearly sevenfold return on its investment, and Mitt Romney sat on the Staples board of directors for over a decade. Staples is a great example of true job creation- private money creating private wealth.
*****
     There are small businesses that have had help from the local communities purchasing their goods or services. They had help with small business loans from local banks. And yes there are some good teachers who teach free market economies, individual liberty, and instill a foundation of basic knowledge to take the risk of business ownership. However the vast majority of teachers in public universities prefer to teach their students about broken socialist systems, welfare states, and instill in their students a false narrative that has been proven over time the be in fact false.
*****
     President Obama wants to create jobs, but not job creators. His collectivist philosophy, if fully implemented, would result in a loss of incentive for Americans. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” could become our national creed. Is that what we want in America?

OBAMA FIDDLES WHILE AMERICA BURNS!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

OBAMA FIDDLES WHILE AMERICA BURNS!

     by Steve Fair

     Colorado and other parts of the western half of the U.S. are experiencing one of the worst wildfire seasons in over a decade.  In late June, the fast-moving Waldo Canyon fire near Colorado Springs nearly doubled in size overnight, forcing as many as 32,000 residents to be evacuated.  At one time, the fire threatened part of the U.S. Air Force Academy campus, claiming nearly ten acres close to the facility  The Academy’s Fire Chief, Ernst Piercy, told the official U.S. Air Force website: ‘This is absolutely the worst wildfire I’ve ever seen.’

*****

     President Obama went to Colorado to tour the fire-damaged areas on June 29^th.  He said, “I think what you see here is an example of outstanding coordination and cooperation between federal, state and local agencies. We have been putting everything we have into trying to deal with what’s one of the worst fires that we’ve seen here in Colorado. And it’s still early in the fire season, and we still got a lot more work to do. But because of the outstanding work that’s been done, because of not only the coordination but also some unprecedented arrangements that have been made with military resources combined with the civil resources, we’re starting to see progress.”
*****
     While the President did resist the urge to call the fires- Bush- fires, his statement about federal agency coordination and his administration ‘doing everything they can to fight the wild fires' is not completely accurate. 
*****
    Take for example, a company called Aero Union, founded in 1960.  Aero Union converted military aircraft to aerial firefighters and operated some of their planes under contract with the federal government.  For years the company had a fourteen million dollar annual contract with the U.S. Forest Service to provide airtankers- P-3 Orions-  for wildfire control, but on July 29, 2011, the U.S. Forest Service terminated Aero Union’s contract saying safety inspections were not being completed. 
*****
     "Our main priority is protecting and saving lives, and we can't in good conscience maintain an aviation contract where we feel lives may be put at risk due to inadequate safety practices,” Tom Harbour, director of the Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation Management program said. “This contract termination notwithstanding, we possess the aircraft support needed for this year's fire season." Oops, you may have not anticipated a record years for wildfires Tom! 
*****
     Shortly after they lost their contract, Aero Union laid off sixty workers and declared bankruptcy.  Bear in mind, Aero Union’s airtanker planes were FAA worthy, but did not meet the standards for the USFS.  Following the logic of the federal government, the planes could be used to transport people, but not fire retardant?  That makes no sense whatsoever, but then again, it’s the government. 
*****
     So which federal agency should be certifying aircraft as airworthy- the FAA or Smokey Bear?    I would prefer a guy with a degree in Aerodynamics, not Forestry.  It would seem this is a classic illustration of no federal agency coordination.   In the meantime, airworthy planes equipped and ready for firefighting service are sitting on a runway in Chico, California while people’s home and businesses are burning. 
*****
     To add insult to injury, the Mobile Airborne Fire Fighting Sytems (MAFFS) - which retrofits C130 Aircraft for use as fire fighting aircraft was build and supported by Aero Union.  So when the Brain Trust at the Forrestry Service pulled the plug on Aero Union, they also pulled the plug on the company that built the equipment that pretty much made up the rest of the large air tanker fleet.  Now the MAFFS is no longer being built, spare parts are no longer being built, and the intellectual property that underlies the MAFFS is tied up in Bankruptcy.  One C-130 crashed in the past couple of weeks, one MAFFS lost . . .
*****
     But wait, it gets better, with no logical replacement available for the P3 Orion or the C130 as airborne tankers, guess where the USFS is looking for replacements- try Russia!   http://fireplanes.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/iab-evaluating-beriev-be-200-air-tanker-in-russia/  How do you say "Outsourcing" in Russian?  The answer:  аутсорсинга.  How do you say hypocrite in politics?  OBAMA!
*****
     President Obama’s administration should be explaining to the American public what they haven’t done about the wildfires.  The Obama administration’s conflicting policies put a sixty year old aerial firefighting company out of business, costing sixty people their jobs.  Their conflicting policies kept fire fighting planes on the ground when they could have been used to help fight the wildfires that were destroying homes and businesses.  The lack of foresight by the USFS has placed in jeopardy property and lives.  They shouldn't be talking about outsourcing jobs when they are trying to buy planes from the Russians.
*****

     When he was running for President in 2008, Obama attacked President Bush’s policy on fighting wildfires and  said, “As President, Barack Obama will aggressively pursue an effective fire prevention plan that decreases the fire risks to communities.”  His whole 2008 campaign wildfire policy is available online at http://obama.3cdn.net/4c3532cf6695d7eb42_j8amvy80e.pdf. Oops!- that policy didn’t go quite as planned.   Because of his administration’s inability to use simple common sense, thousands of American families’ homes burned down. 

*****

    Popular legend claims that Roman emperor Nero played the lyre and sang while Rome was burning in 64 AD.  It appears President Obama may be tuning his fiddle and his voice for the big BUSH(GOP) fire coming in November.
*****
     President Obama recently has been attacking Mitt Romney for saying he built a business.  Obama said,  "If you have a business you didn't build that . . . you had help along the way . . ."  The full text of Obama's speech is available here 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/ .  My question is if your aerial tanker business was destroyed and 60 people lost their job and hundreds of thousands of acres burned....who HELPED with that?

Health Care Exchange? NOT SO FAST!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE?- NOT SO FAST!

by Steve Fair     

     A health care exchange is a set of state-regulated and standardized health care plans in the United States, from which individuals may purchase health insurance eligible for federal subsidies. Under federal law, all exchanges must be fully certified and operational by January 1, 2014.  The exchange – envisioned as an easy-to-use, online insurance marketplace for consumers who need an individual health plan – is the heart of ObamaCare and the piece that will impact consumers most directly.
*****
     In theory, using an exchange could be much simpler than the current way that people buy insurance. Right now, consumers have to dig through technical jargon and complicated premiums, copays, deductibles and hidden exclusions to compare one plan with another.
*****
     As envisioned by ObamaCare, an online exchange would have simple, side-by-side comparisons of health plans. Depending on how the exchange is set up, it could also prescreen the health plans available to make sure they are comprehensive and as affordable as possible. The exchanges could pull together large groups of people – such as combining both individuals and employees of small businesses – to make a bigger pool and keep prices down or not since all of this is theoretical and untested.
*****

     Currently your best option for reducing the cost of your health insurance is to buy a policy with a high deductible, which leaves you to pay for routine checkups and minor injuries... but covers your needs in catastrophic circumstances.  If you have a bad car accident or expensive treatment for cancer, your insurance would kick in. But the health-insurance exchange is intended to eliminate precisely this kind of low-cost catastrophic coverage. Its purpose is to force health-insurance companies to offer ‘comprehensive coverage’ that pays for all of your routine bills - which in turn comes at a higher price. So under the guise of making health insurance more affordable, ObamaCare will restrict your menu of choices to include only the most expensive options.

*****

     The liberal New York Times says it’s time to get those state exchanges up and going.  In an editorial last week, they wrote, “Many states are well on the way toward setting up exchanges, a complicated process in which governance procedures must be established, standards must be set for the plans that will compete and new information technologies put in place. The big uncertainty is how many Republican-led states will refuse to set up exchanges either because they adamantly oppose all aspects of the reform law or because they are reluctant to spend any time, effort or money to set up a mechanism that they hope Republicans will repeal after the November elections. That sounds like wishful thinking. States would be foolish to rely on it with deadlines fast approaching.”
*****
    Not everyone agrees, including Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn.  Dr. Coburn, eleven other Republican Senators and sixty members of the U.S. House sent a letter to every Governor across the country urging them to not bend to federal pressure to set up the complicated health care exchanges.  In the letter, they wrote, “These expensive, complex, and intrusive exchanges impose a threat to the financial stability of our already-fragile state economies with no certainty of a limit to total enrollment numbers. Resisting the implementation of exchanges is good for hiring and investment. The law’s employer mandate assesses penalties – up to $3,000 per employee - only to businesses who don’t satisfy federally-approved health insurance standards and whose employees receive “premium assistance” through the exchanges.  The clear language of the statute only permits federal premium assistance to citizens of states who create a state-based exchange.”
*****

    It’s unclear where Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and the legislative leadership is on the issue of the health care exchange.  In 2011, Governor Fallin and the State House and Senate agreed to accept a $54 million federal grant to set up a health care exchange. Conservatives became enraged and the blowback produced an about-face and a return of the grant. Last fall, a legislative committee studied possible state responses to the law if ObamaCare was found to be constitutional, but no action was taken during the legislative session. 

***** 

      The federal lawmakers concluded their letter to the Governors by saying, “Implementation of this law is not inevitable and without the unconstitutional individual mandate it is improbable.  Join us in resisting a centralized government approach to health care reform and instead focus on solutions that make health care more affordable and accessible for every American. Let’s work to create a health care system of, for, and by the people, not government or special interests.”

***** 

     The best way to handle the health care exchange is at the ballot box in November.  Americans should take back their government and give Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

Winning a Battle- Lose the War!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

WINNING A BATTLE- LOSE THE WAR!

     by Steve Fair

    

      The ruling on federal mandated health insurance by the Supreme Court of the United States has dominated the news in the past week.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the four liberal justices on the court to uphold the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or to pay a fine. 

***** 

     Writing the majority opinion, Roberts and the other four justices evidently based their decision on ObamaCare being a ‘tax.’  President Obama and the Democrats have long argued the mammoth federal health care program was not a tax.  Conservatives had argued that forcing Americans to buy a product was a violation of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  The justices agreed that the government could not force us to buy a product, but then in their 5-4 ruling contradicted themselves by saying it could be done if it was called a ‘tax.’ 

***** 

     Four observations about the ruling:

***** 

     First, this ruling surprised most people because the ‘tax’ argument was not expected to be the basis of the ruling.  It is true Congress is given the constitutional authority to tax, but is ObamaCare a tax?  Not according to Justice Scalia, who wrote in the dissenting opinion, “To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it.” And President Obama has repeatedly said the fines and penalties imposed on Americans who do not buy health insurance are not a tax.  On Sunday, his chief of staff, Jack Lew said on CNN’s State of the Union that the penalty for failure to buy health insurance is not a tax.   "This is a penalty," Lew said "It's something that only 1 percent of the people who could afford insurance -- (and) who choose not to get it -- will pay."  So while the SCOTUS rules the Individual Mandate a tax, the White House doesn’t want to have it labeled a tax in an election year. 

***** 

     Second, federal mandated health insurance is most certainly a tax.  Webster defines a tax as: a sum of money demanded or required by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.   Federal mandated health insurance fits the definition of a tax.  As Shakespeare said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”  Penalties are a form of taxes just as are tolls, tribute, import duties, customs, and excise fees.   Calling a tax a tax can be political suicide, so politicians have conveniently re-labeled taxes and called them mandates and penalties, but that doesn’t change what they are. 

***** 

     Third, you never know about Supreme Court justices.  Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions often end up being contrary to a president's expectations.    According to the U.S. Constitution, “The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”   The current nine members include two appointees by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama.  Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.  Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment.  The current justices age range from 52 to 79.  There are three women on the court.  Chief Justice John Roberts was expected to be a reliable conservative on the court, one who would rule based on the Constitution.  That didn’t happen.  In the dissenting opinion, the four conservatives on the court firmly stated the case should have been tossed out because the individual mandate was unconstitutional.  So how did Roberts, a constitutional expert, get this wrong?  Charles Krauthammer, a conservative commentator who disagreed with the ruling, says Roberts made the ruling to avoid the appearance of politics on the high court and because he carries two identities. “Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature,” Krauthhammer said.  

***** 

     Fourth, this ruling is really a nightmare for the Democrats.  It allows them to claim victory in a battle, but it could cost them the war.  President Obama said the ruling was, “ a great victory for all Americans,’ but 69% of the American public have said they don’t want ObamaCare.  Rush Limbaugh says it was the largest tax increase in world history.  Now the Democrats must take ownership of that TAX.  In the majority opinion Roberts wrote,  “We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”

***** 

     The Supreme Court ruling told the American public ObamaCare can be overturned the same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. 

A NEW kind of Slavery!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

A NEW TYPE OF SLAVERY!

by Steve Fair

     Why aren’t more African Americans registered Republican?  Historically the GOP has been a supporter of African Americans.  The Republican Party abolished slavery under President Lincoln, and gave Blacks the vote during Reconstruction in the late 1860s.  Blacks voted Republican overwhelmingly after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century; because Lincoln was Republican and the white segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats who didn’t want anything to do with African-Americans.

*****

    They changed from R to D when FDR ran for President.  Tapping into the frustration the African-American community had with the economic policies of President Hoover, a Republican, and with the country in the midst of a depression, Roosevelt met with Black leaders and promised he would help Blacks get jobs. That promise got him seventy one percent of the Black votes in 1936.  Four years later, in June 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee. The order stated that the federal government would not hire any person based on their race, color, creed, or national origin.  Roosevelt, the only President to be elected four times, never got below 75% of the Black vote and since that time no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than fifteen percent of the African-American vote.  In 2008, exit polls showed President Obama getting 95% of the Black vote in the presidential election.  No demographic votes in a block like the African-American community.  Which begs the question- are only five percent of the African-American voters in America conservative thinkers? 

*****

     Former 4^th district Congressman J.C. Watts and I have had this discussion often through the years.  Why do pro-life, pro-traditional marriage conservative Blacks vote Democrat and shun the message of Republicans whose values mirror their own?  In his book, What Color is a Conservative,”  in talking about Blacks, Watts says, "Our values and belief systems have a lot more to do with how we were raised and the life we've lived than whether we are Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives."  So even though Republicans and Democrats have fundamental differences on values that manifest themselves in policy, that doesn’t stop many conservative African-Americans from checking those values at the door and voting for people who are fundamentally the opposite of their values in the voting booth.

*****

     According to Ellis Washington, a Black attorney and law professor, blacks vote Democrat because for the past 75 years since FDR came to power, socially and culturally Blacks have been indoctrinated to follow, follow, follow.  “From antiquity, the blacks followed the African tribal chief and the shaman. During slavery, we followed ‘masser’ and the overseer and did what we were told. The next 100 years after 1865 and the Civil War during de jure and de facto segregation, we followed poverty-pimp preachers and civil rights activists (not Martin Luther King) who told us that by voting Democrat, God would bless black people through government handouts, a minimum wage and good government jobs,” Washington says.

*****

     How did the Republican Party lose the African-American vote and how do we get it back?

*****

    First, Republicans lost the Black voter because we took it for granted.  Immediately after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, Blacks were voting overwhelmingly Republican.  Instead of paying attention to that loyal demographic, we allowed FDR and the Democrats to sell African-Americans a bill of goods that have resulted in high incarceration, poverty and abortion rates among Blacks.  When it became apparent the Black community was not voting Republican, GOP candidates begin to skip Black neighborhoods when campaigning, further reinforcing the myth that Republicans could care less about African-Americans.  The reality is that all political candidates campaign where there are swing votes and in the past seventy years that hasn’t been in the Black neighborhood.  With limited time to campaign, candidates, 'fish where the fish are.'

*****

     Second, how do we get it back?  Republicans have a compelling argument on why Blacks should leave the Democrat Party.  Just look at the statistics.  The Democrat Party has done nothing for the Black community.  The leadership of the Ds only panders to them to get their vote.  President Obama’s failed policies have hurt the poor in America much more than the middle and upper wage earners.  By promoting inflation, bailing out big business and banks, promoting the unions, and regulating environmental policy, the President has made it difficult on American small business which employs the majority of African-Americans.  Democrat policies over the past 75 years have resulted in a new type of slavery among African-Americans.

*****

    Republican leaders in our counties, state and nation must reach the African-American voter with the same message we have for any other voter, no matter their race, creed or color:  A message of limited government, conservative values and liberty for all.  We shouldn’t ‘target’ any particular demographic.  Republicans should be about the business of educating the general public on the differences in the two major Party platforms and encouraging people to align with their values.   If we do that, intelligent, freedom loving, conservative African-Americans will join us.

Who'd have thunk it?

Weekly Opinion Editorial

In the early days of radio and TV, Edgar Bergen (yes, Candace's dad) had a ventriloquist act which featured a dummy named Mortimer Snerd. Mortimer was pretty dumb, and most of the time when something was explained to him, he'd shake his head and say "Who'd have thunk it?"  You might also be familiar with another of Mortimer's inventions - the word "DUH!"

WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT?

by Steve Fair

    

     On Tuesday, voters across Oklahoma will go to the polls to vote in their respective Party primary elections.  The purpose of the primary is to select nominees for the general election in November.  Oklahoma has ‘closed’ primaries, which means a voter has to be registered in the Republican Party to vote in the Republican primary.  . 

***** 

     Twenty one states have ‘open’ primaries, where a voter, no matter how they are registered, can vote in either Parties’ primary.  The supporters of the confusing system reason because Republicans don't just govern Republicans, Democrats don't just govern Democrats, that the individual voter should decide what Parties primary they wish to participate in.  I oppose open primaries for a couple of reasons:

*****  
     First, I believe open primaries are unconstitutional.  Open primaries violate ‘freedom of association’ because it allows outsiders to select their candidates.  In Supreme Court case NAACP vs. Alabama, the court said, “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the due process clause of the first and fourteenth amendments, which embrace free of speech.”   In other words, the freedom of association is part of freedom of speech.
*****

     Second, beyond the constitutionality issue, OPEN primaries are illogical and can promote dishonesty.  Take for example what happened in Michigan, an open primary state, in the 2012 GOP presidential primary.  Rick Santorum campaigned to Democrats encouraging them to vote in the GOP primary instead of the Democrat primary.  You can’t blame Santorum because what he did was perfectly legal, but the open primary distorted the results by not reflecting the will of the Republicans in Michigan.  The Democrats voting for Santorum in the primary were not doing so because they liked him but because they thought the Senator would be the weaker candidate in the general against President Obama.  Voting is a sacred right and no voter should be playing games with their vote.

***** 

     For decades, leaders in the Oklahoma Democrat Party used the ‘closed’ primary in our state as an effective tool to insure newly registered voters signed up Democrat.  “You will never be able to vote in the county elections because no Republicans run at the local level,” they would warn.   That was sometimes accurate, but most of the time, it was an exaggeration and a scare tactic used to steer citizens to the ‘D’ column.  

*****

     But times have changed.  In 2010, more Republicans were on the primary ballot across Oklahoma than Democrats.  In 2012, many county and legislative races will be decided in the Republican primary because no Democrat filed.  The only statewide race this year is for a six year term on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.  In that race, incumbent Bob Anthony faces Brooks Mitchell.  They are both Republicans and the election will be decided in the primary because no Democrat filed.

***** 

     In the latest voter registration by party statistics released by the Oklahoma state election board, over 11% (229K) of the voters in Oklahoma are registered Independent.  Why would you register Independent in a ‘closed’ primary state?  Independents can’t participate in any election except a general election.  Recently, a registered Independent, who used to be Republican, told me, “I changed because I wanted to send a message to both parties.”  He was upset because this change prevented him from participating in primaries and he was lobbying me to persuade the OKGOP leadership to allow Independents to participate in our primaries. The only message he sent was that he was clueless about the process.

***** 

   He correctly pointed out that in November of each odd-numbered year, recognized political parties declare whether or not they will permit Independents to vote in their primary elections during the following two calendar years.  You cannot obtain permission on an individual basis.   Neither the Oklahoma Democrat or Republican Party has allowed Independents to ever vote in their primary.  Why should they?  Remember freedom of association. 

***** 

   I get that no political Party has all the answers, but basically dropping out of the process by registering Independent is a cop out.  Voters registered Independents should research the platforms and then align with the Party that best represents your values.  A closing note about voters registered Independents- as a whole- vote less than half as much as registered Rs or Ds. 

***** 

     Right or wrong, political parties are part of our system for electing government officials.  I realize George Washington hated them and said they would be the ruin of our system of government, but they are the mechanism candidates use to get elected.  The system is not perfect, but no system will be perfect.    

****** 

     By the way, if you want to vote in the local and statewide races and participate in the process, you are going to have to be registered Republican. Who'd have thunk it?