FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: State Rep. Mike Reynolds

Capitol: (405) 557-7337

OKLAHOMA CITY (October 26, 2007) – Although the Washington, DC-based Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) claims to be a "progressive 'think-and-do' tank" eager to "reinvigorate the initiative process among state and national progressive organizations...." it’s actions undercut that claims, state Rep. Mike Reynolds said today.

BISC statements imply that it upholds the values of democracy and citizen initiative rights, and is a friend of the rule of law.

"But it seems this is only true when BISC wants to advance its own political agenda through initiatives," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, responding to a recent statement issued by the Center. "BISC is apparently all in favor of hauling supporters off to prison if they work for initiatives BISC doesn't like."

An October 22 press release issued by the organization applies its BISC-quicked logic to the case of Paul Jacob, Susan Johnson, and Rick Carpenter, leaders in a recent Oklahoma initiative to limit state spending often referred to as a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). If convicted of participating in democracy they could go to prison for up to 10 years.

According to BISC, the Oklahoma three are "crooks [who] have worked in this arena long enough to know the laws. They just thought they could get away with ignoring them. In fact, we have found that most right-wing ballot initiative players operate with complete disregard for state laws meant to ensure an open and honest process of putting issues on the ballot."

BISC's blanket characterization of "right-wing ballot initiative players" immediately suggests an ideological bias, Reynolds said.

But worse, said Reynolds, "BISC is dishonest to claim that the Oklahoma Three 'thought they could get away with ignoring' Oklahoma's law that petition circulators be residents. BISC links to Paul Jacob's statement of self-defense but ignores his explanation of how the state changed the rules, after the fact, on what constitutes residency. At freepauljacob.com, Mister Jacob reports in detail on the effort he and others made to ensure that they were complying with the law, a law that contrary to BISC's assertions does not in fact do anything to ensure an open and honest ballot process.

"If BISC thinks Jacob is wrong on the facts, why don't they answer him?" Reynolds asked. "Why don't they refute him? Their attack is clearly not about facts or objective law. It's sad that political activists who make use of the initiative process themselves refuse to see the glaring injustice and unconstitutionality here, which could be extended to them too one day. And it is an Orwellian inversion to imply that abetting the exercise by Oklahoma citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed citizen initiative rights is in and of itself a form of sabotage of those rights."

BISC Executive Director Kristina Wilfore has even gone so far as to submit a letter of praise to Attorney General Edmondson stressing that the TABOR campaign was funded and enjoining Edmondson to look into the "network of funders" that has supported this and other petition drives.

“BISC is not a credible source of information,” said Reynolds. “It’s on the extreme left, supported by donations from the National Abortion Rights Action League and billionaire George Soros's Open Society Foundation. BISC is about using the initiative process to promote the leftwing agenda of its donors. Contrary to its rhetoric about ‘out of state’ interests, BISC itself provides direct donations to ballot measures in multiple states.

“BISC ideologically opposes TABOR initiatives,” said Reynolds. “In 2006, Nebraska campaign filings show that BISC was paid to train people in blocking a TABOR petition drive. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against three Nebraska cities because they violated the 1st Amendment rights of TABOR petitioners."

“BISC should be ashamed enough of its admitted role in campaigns designed to harass petitioners and block voters from deciding issues like TABOR,” Reynolds concluded. “But now we see their desire to help in the AG’s witch-hunt against the initiative process, to actually throw their political opponents in prison. That's a sad commentary on BISC.”

The state representative pointed to BISC’s own statement that their help in the prosecution of these three individuals by the AG is “a continuation of those efforts” to block TABOR from the ballot.

###

Attorney General Drew Edmondson Practicing a Double Standard?

Oklahoma Gamefowl Breeders Association

Contact: Val Holland
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel. 580-369-5259
Email: OGBAoffice@gmail.com

One Oklahoman and two residents of other states now know about the double standard of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and State Attorney General, Drew Edmondson. We are Oklahoma residents and have found the Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions on signature gathering for initiative petitions to amount to a two sided coin. It is as if they ask which side of the gate you want this group on.

When opposing the referendum on cockfighting, we found that many individuals came in from outside Oklahoma to become residents, in order to gather signatures for the petition to ban cockfighting. The Supreme Court was aware of this and so was Drew Edmondson. Not one of those found to have broken Oklahoma law was arrested, nor were their signatures disallowed except in one case where the petitioner put an out of state address on the petition's affidavit. During this time, the question of outside petitioners and organizers were called to the attention of our State Attorney General. Here is where the gate was locked. We were told it was not against Oklahoma law for outside signature gathers to claim residency and collect signatures.

It was as if the same law that put three people under arrest this last week, in leg chains, did not apply to the exact same thing done during the signature gathering of the cockfighting petition. We now ask, is it law or politics? We lost our rights, who will next? It may be tax reform, cockfighting or any other issue important to the citizens of Oklahoma that will be decided by which side of the gate they choose to place you.

As Oklahomans, we feel that the day of double sided interpretation of the law needs to end. We hope all Oklahomans when voting for Attorney General and retaining those seated in our Supreme Court, question if we want them in or outside of the gate. The press reported Governor Brad Henry won with the cockfighting vote when first elected. We are committed as an organization and as Oklahomans to now turn our efforts to making sure at election time, to elect those who uphold our laws in a consistent and fair manner. We pray our fellow Oklahomans will do the same. I will assure you the only common ground we have with those who petitioned for the Tabor bill is bewilderment about how a law can have two completely different outcomes, for the exact same action. Justice is not blind in Oklahoma.

Courtesy of Conium

Andrew Spiropoulos is a professor of law and director of the Center for the Study of State Constitutional Law at Oklahoma City University. He also is an adjunct scholar at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

Andrew Spiropoulos
Guest viewpoint

Like many in my profession, I dreamed of being a lawyer from a young age, inspired by both the Atticus Finches of fiction and the Abraham Lincolns of real life. I have never lost my love for the law and the pride I have in the noblest practitioners of it.

Yet despite my love for the law and for genuine lawyers I am bitterly disappointed by the recent actions of some in my profession.

When the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs asked me four years ago to help study and develop recommendations for the reform of our state’s civil justice system, I naively believed that most of the leaders of the profession here in Oklahoma sincerely would participate in the effort to make our system better. Granted, I never expected that the plaintiffs’ bar would consider the issue with an open mind, especially the bottom-feeders who would be most hurt by reforms discouraging meritless and profiteering litigation.

I did, however, expect those whose personal financial interests were not directly hurt by sensible reform to sincerely grapple with remedying the accumulated flaws of our system.

My expectations were, of course, utterly unrealistic. The profession here in Oklahoma has shown little or no interest in reforming itself. Read more...

Courtesy of Conium

Courtesy of Conium

Attorney General Drew Edmondson is apparently very popular with Oklahoma's lazy media. Our continuing investigation into the media's appalling silence in the "poultrygate" scandal has turned up another interesting development.

World publishing Chairman Richard E. Lorton donated $2,000 to the Edmondson re-election effort last year. Coincidentally, Edmondson also won the World's endorsement. The AG's republican opponent James Dunn was outraised and outspent almost three to one in the race and was soundly defeated in a landslide. (61% -39%)

Again we ask the question: Why would Mr. Lorton and KSWO executives feel so compelled to jeopardize their respective organizations' journalistic integrity by supporting financially a political campaign that was in no danger of being defeated? You would think credible news organizations would keep an arms length distance from a candidate running for re-election, especially a candidate currently involved in a controversial lawsuit!

Are there any real Oklahoma journalists out there? Outside of the stories reporting on Edmondson performing his official duties, we would be curious to know the Lexis/Nexis search results of Edmondson's and James Dunn's mentions in the Tulsa World last year. Please send in confidence to our tipline.