Lawmaker wants 'fair' ballot language
Last month, numerous Greene County voters said they stood in polling booths, puzzled about what a county ballot initiative meant.
Some told reporters they had no idea what they voted for or against because the ballot language for Question 1 read like a section of law only discernable with a copy of the state constitution handy.
Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, wants to reform the way ballot questions are presented to voters by giving them a "fair" interpretation of what current laws mean and how they would be altered under the proposed changes.
"The Greene County Question 1 is a good example of letting people understand what it is now and what we're changing it to," said Goodman, who doesn't represent Greene County but heard plenty of complaints about it from voters.
Goodman said voters deserve easy-to-understand information at the ballot box to make informed decisions.
"I want to work to make sure voters truly understand what they're voting on and the consequence of what they're voting on," he said.
Goodman's legislation, Senate Bill 35, would establish a newly created bipartisan eight-member Fair Ballot Commission to review and approve ballot language.
Entering his second term representing Barry, Lawrence, McDonald, Ozark, Stone and Taney counties in the Senate, Goodman remains the assistant majority floor leader and will likely chair a committee, although assignments have not yet been announced.
In addition to the fair ballot language bill, Goodman has pre-filed two other bills.
During the 2008 session, Goodman unsuccessfully sought a bill that would have allowed prosecutors to seek the death penalty against perpetrators who raped or sodomized a child under 12 years old. It was modeled after a Louisiana law.
Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Louisiana law, effectively ending efforts in Missouri and other states to make child rape punishable by death.
But Goodman has modified the bill for the 2009 session, eliminating the death penalty clause. His new legislation, Senate Bill 36, would give prosecutors the option to seek life without parole for crimes of brutal rape and sodomy of a child.
"Under existing law, the maximum, even though you can call it a life sentence, is 30 years," said Goodman, a former Dade County assistant prosecutor.
Goodman's Senate Bill 37 would allow regional public defender systems to contract with private attorneys to take certain types of lower-level criminal defense cases. Missouri is one of seven states where public defender systems are under tremendous caseload strain, creating bad national press and delaying justice by months and, in some cases, years.
"It's becoming a very big problem," Goodman said. "The real losers are the crime victims. They're not getting their case solved. They're not getting to move on with their lives."
Goodman said privatizing some of the defense work allows the state to provide adequate defense and utilize the contractor's support staff and offices, eliminating the need to expand current government-run public defender offices. He said his bill is a short-term fix to a system that's woefully underfunded.
"Until we're able to do that, this allows some flexibility and greater efficiency," Goodman said. "If we don't put in place a system for the protections of everyone's right when they're accused, then the rights you and I enjoy wouldn't mean anything."
State to appeal unconstitutionality ruling
Oklahoma will appeal a federal appeals court ruling that held unconstitutional the state’s law banning out-of-state initiative petition circulators, a spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson says.
“We have some options,” Charlie Price said.
One route would be to seek a rehearing before the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, another to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We will be, over the next few days, next week, making a decision how to proceed on that front,” Price said.
Price said there is a split among federal circuit courts on the issue.
That nation’s highest court is more likely to agree to hear matters on which federal appeals courts do not agree.
Price said that in 2001 the 8th Circuit upheld North Dakota’s law banning out-of-state petition circulators. He said a 1998 decision by the Maine Supreme Court had held that state’s law constitutional.
“The other side took that to the U.S. Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case, therefore upholding Maine’s ban on out-of-state petition takers,” he said.
Price said there is also an Arizona case, which dealt with an attempt to get a candidate on the ballot by petition, rather than a state question.
“Their ban on that situation has been struck down,” he said. “The state of Arizona currently has a petition for cert
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit held that Oklahoma’s ban on nonresident petition circulators violates the First and 14th Amendments.
The Oklahoma law was challenged by Yes on Term Limits, which backed a proposal to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to limit the terms of certain state offices. An Oklahoma federal judge upheld the law.
The appellate panel said that to survive the strict scrutiny required of laws that limit the freedom of core political speech, Oklahoma had the burden of proving that its ban on nonresident circulators is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
The 10th Circuit disagreed with the lower court that the Oklahoma law met that burden, saying the record did not support the district court’s conclusion that out-of-state circulators as a class engage in fraudulent activity more than resident circulators.
The appellate judges also said Oklahoma could craft a more narrowly targeted law requiring that nonresident circulators make agreements with the state, rather than initiative proponents, requiring them to provide their contact information and agree to return to the state in the event of a protest. They said the state could provide criminal penalties for those who fail to return.
“Oklahoma has failed to prove the ban on nonresident circulators is narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the initiative process,” the 10th Circuit said.
In an earlier civil action filed by Taxpayer Bill of Rights protesters, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the TABOR petition invalid due to “criminal wrongdoing and fraud” during the signature drive.
Price said it is up to Oklahoma County Special Judge James Paddleford how to proceed in a criminal case pending against three individuals accused of using circulators from other states in the 2005 TABOR signature drive.
Rick Carpenter, chairman of Oklahomans in Action, the major state support group behind the TABOR petition, was charged with violating the Oklahoma law banning out-of-state circulators. Carpenter and Susan Johnson, president of National Voter Outreach, which conducted the signature-gathering process, and Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge, were each charged with conspiracy to defraud the state.
A preliminary hearing in the felony case is scheduled to reconvene Feb. 6.
“We will be ready to do whatever the judge decides to do,” Price said. “At the time the charge was filed, the law in the state of Oklahoma was, you cannot use out-of-state petition takers.”
Jacob issued a statement following the appeals court ruling, which he said affects the criminal prosecutions.
“We did not violate this law, but now we know that the law in question is unconstitutional,” Jacob said.
Citizens in Charge has long argued that residency restrictions are unconstitutional, he said.
“The impact of these laws is to reduce the number of people available to help Oklahomans speak out politically,” Jacob said.
He termed the prosecutions politically motivated, saying that they have had a “terribly chilling effect” on Oklahomans wanting to petition the government.
Citizens in Charge officials said the 10th Circuit ruling follows decisions from the 9th and 6th Circuits overturning residency laws.
Oklahoma City attorney James Dunn, a board member of Yes on Term Limits, said the appeals court decision was a proper ruling.
“What the 10th Circuit pointed out so astutely is that petition circulation is core political speech, because it involves interactive communications and it concerns political change,” he said. “If the people are not able to rise up and change the political process through a majority of numbers and through massive numbers, then we’ve got a real problem.”
Dunn said the decision will benefit not just the state, but the nation as well.
“This, I’m sure, is precedent for any other state that has this same type of activity, some other attorney general trying to take the same po
