We saw this coming.
We are a short sighted people if nothing else.
The loss of more matching federal funding was never pushed very hard by some of our glorious leaders. Now that we're looking at that, the reactions are "wait...what?"
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 08:40:04 AM
We saw this coming.
We are a short sighted people if nothing else.
The loss of more matching federal funding was never pushed very hard by some of our glorious leaders. Now that we're looking at that, the reactions are "wait...what?"
Loss of matching federal funding on what? Which question?
Apparently we're risking loss of matched funding for sooner care and insure Oklahoma.
I know most of us don't use it but many do.
Dan Newberry's idea of starting a dialogue by instituting litigation with the federal government is less than brilliant.
Our state is one of the most obese, heaviest smoking, heaviest drinking in the country but by God, screw medical coverage.
Sorry, Linky:
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/oklahoma-%26-healthcare-reform (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/oklahoma-%26-healthcare-reform)
The lawsuits I heard were both stupid and I would think they would get thrown out quickly.
The first was on voter id. Since you get a voter id card when you register, I can't see how it can be unconstitutional to require you to show it.
The second was on english as the official language. Nothing in the bill restricts the government or citizens in any way, it just says that a non-english speaker cannot sue the state for not providing a form or service in their native language.
Sorry dude, I'm not feeling the outrage here:
"Some worry if the new law will impact the programs' federal funding.
Senator Adleson says the passage of SQ756 is only symbolic."
Who is worried about this? There's no quoted source in the story saying we could lose federal funding.
Wanna go have a McRib and OE 40 for lunch and stop off for a carton of butts at the smoke shop afterwards?
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2010, 09:16:43 AM
The second was on english as the official language. Nothing in the bill restricts the government or citizens in any way, it just says that a non-english speaker cannot sue the state for not providing a form or service in their native language.
Has that happened alot?
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:21:04 AM
Has that happened alot?
I was drafting a case against the state for not being able to file my taxes in Klingon, but I have to forgo it now.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2010, 09:25:02 AM
I was drafting a case against the state for not being able to file my taxes in Klingon, but I have to forgo it now.
If Klingon can be recognized as a Native American language you're golden.
I had several years of German language class in high school but I have forgotten most of it. I was hoping we could get state forms to be in German to force me to brush up on my German. I guess that won't happen now.
Google language lawsuits. I used the term native language lawsuits. It's like a rash.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:27:34 AM
If Klingon can be recognized as a Native American language you're golden.
They did first arrive in Broken Bow, Oklahoma.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
They did first arrive in Broken Bow, Oklahoma.
That is a very good point.
MajQa
I figured that the sore losers,attention whores and other degenerates would be throwing a fit by filing junk law suits. This Oh the poor and elderly won't be able to vote since they do not have ID is a load of garbage. My mother was poor single mother raising 5 kids and she still had a driver's license. A ID only cost 10 dollars(renewals are probably cheaper). The only people who should not have state IDs are the long term residents in correctional facilities and little kids seeing how they won't cash checks, try to get benefits or use other tax payer funded services or the services of a bank.
Considering the fact this is the US our language is english our official business therefore should be done in English. The state of Oklahoma should not end up like California with multilingual ballots,signs, forms and ect. Our government should not carter to people too damn lazy to learn english. We are not asking foreigners to speak like a grammar nazi (I am sure some grammar nazi will point out how hicks talk or how I type sentences)or to get a college degree in it. All we ask is that you be proficient in it.
I also heard that CAIR is filing a lawsuit against the SQ that bans judges from using foreign law an sharia law. If you want to use sharia law then you are in the wrong country and if you want a judge to cite Mexico's, France or Britain's laws then you are in the wrong country.
Most of the SQs seem like a solution in search of a problem. If international law has invaded our court system, you wouldn't know it by practicing law. If people are voting under false names, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of it. If people are suing the state for ballots or forms in a different language, so what? The only people against greater access are the people with something to hide.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 11:14:25 AM
Most of the SQs seem like a solution in search of a problem. If international law has invaded our court system, you wouldn't know it by practicing law. If people are voting under false names, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of it. If people are suing the state for ballots or forms in a different language, so what? The only people against greater access are the people with something to hide.
There's a fear of greater access because of our leaky borders and piss poor immigration control. Voter fraud has existed as long as there have been democracies. What's the big issue of carrying a simple card which says you are elligible to vote?
Voting isn't simply a right, it's also a privelege.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 11:39:01 AM
There's a fear of greater access because of our leaky borders and piss poor immigration control. Voter fraud has existed as long as there have been democracies. What's the big issue of carrying a simple card which says you are elligible to vote?
Voting isn't simply a right, it's also a privelege.
We need to watch that thinking though. While I agree with the voter ID issue, to state that voting is a 'privilege', even in concert with it being a right, reminds me of why our forefathers left Britain in the first place. We shouldn't have to feel 'privileged' to be part of the democratic process.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 11:39:01 AM
There's a fear of greater access because of our leaky borders and piss poor immigration control. Voter fraud has existed as long as there have been democracies. What's the big issue of carrying a simple card which says you are elligible to vote?
I think you make my point. Nobody is calling into question the integrity of our elections, and by your own account, "
voter fraud has existed as long as there have been democracies." I don't think throngs of illegals are pouring over our borders to cast a ballot, and I don't think that a person determined to commit voter fraud will be discouraged by "
carrying a simple card".
Just more fear-mongering IMO.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
They did first arrive in Broken Bow, Oklahoma.
Deep Geek. ;D
Now, the suit challenging the "prevention of the takeover by Sharia law" likely has merit, not because it was ugly, divisive and hateful fear-mongering, but because it was redundant.
Quote from: Hoss on November 04, 2010, 11:42:43 AM
We need to watch that thinking though. While I agree with the voter ID issue, to state that voting is a 'privilege', even in concert with it being a right, reminds me of why our forefathers left Britain in the first place. We shouldn't have to feel 'privileged' to be part of the democratic process.
I disagree. I feel very priveleged to have been born to a family in the United States and not some third world shithole Democracy. Perhaps my parents spent far too much time emphasizing to me how sacred some of our freedoms are and that I should stop and really appreciate them every now and then.
Look, (and this is addressing Coffee Bean as well) I don't go to sleep at night worrying about illegal aliens exploiting our polling system, I'm simply commenting on why I think laws like this get crafted in the first place.
Many of us are simply wired to think that if you are reluctant to show an ID then you must be hiding something. I don't have a problem showing identification when it's required to prove I'm not committing fraud or theft in a financial transaction, I don't have a problem showing it to prove citizenship, and I don't have a problem showing it if I've been caught breaking a traffic law. So I really fail to see how a voter ID creates a hardship on anyone, and why there are so many advocates for ID-less voting.
How many of you must use an ID card to enter your place of business? Why don't you have a problem with that? Isn't that awfully invasive of your employer to be able to track your moves with that?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 12:23:26 PM
I disagree. I feel very priveleged to have been born to a family in the United States and not some third world shithole Democracy. Perhaps my parents spent far too much time emphasizing to me how sacred some of our freedoms are and that I should stop and really appreciate them every now and then.
Look, (and this is addressing Coffee Bean as well) I don't go to sleep at night worrying about illegal aliens exploiting our polling system, I'm simply commenting on why I think laws like this get crafted in the first place.
Many of us are simply wired to think that if you are reluctant to show an ID then you must be hiding something. I don't have a problem showing identification when it's required to prove I'm not committing fraud or theft in a financial transaction, I don't have a problem showing it to prove citizenship, and I don't have a problem showing it if I've been caught breaking a traffic law. So I really fail to see how a voter ID creates a hardship on anyone, and why there are so many advocates for ID-less voting.
How many of you must use an ID card to enter your place of business? Why don't you have a problem with that? Isn't that awfully invasive of your employer to be able to track your moves with that?
I understand your point; my point was that we shouldn't have to feel like we should belong to a certain class of citizen in the USA to feel the 'privilege' of voting. Some people say that, and I remember my history when women didn't have that 'privilege' and African-Americans didn't have that 'privilege'. That's what I'm getting at. If you are born, or are a naturalized US Citizen, you shouldn't have to feel like it's a privilege to vote. It's your right and your duty to do so.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 12:23:26 PM
Many of us are simply wired to think that if you are reluctant to show an ID then you must be hiding something. I don't have a problem showing identification when it's required to prove I'm not committing fraud or theft in a financial transaction, I don't have a problem showing it to prove citizenship, and I don't have a problem showing it if I've been caught breaking a traffic law. So I really fail to see how a voter ID creates a hardship on anyone, and why there are so many advocates for ID-less voting.
An ID is already required to register to vote, and you can't vote unless you register. This SQ does absolutely nothing to guard against voter fraud, but it does gin up fear that some unknown monolith is out to steal your America.
Again, completely legal, but totally pointless, unless your point is the creation of fear.
Quote from: jamesrage on November 04, 2010, 09:52:02 AM
I also heard that CAIR is filing a lawsuit against the SQ that bans judges from using foreign law an sharia law. If you want to use sharia law then you are in the wrong country and if you want a judge to cite Mexico's, France or Britain's laws then you are in the wrong country.
Well, if you want to make it so contracts written in foreign countries are unenforceable here, it's a great law.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 12:58:43 PM
An ID is already required to register to vote, and you can't vote unless you register.
You have to pass a driver's test to prove you know the rules and can operate the machinery.
Why carry a driver's license?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 04, 2010, 01:09:26 PM
Why carry a driver's license?
In practice, you don't need to these days, unless you're driving through podunk towns without computers or out of state. The Troopers can look up your DL and your insurance now.
If your goal is to secure elections, showing ID to vote doesn't really help. The same thing could be accomplished without restricting some people's access to the vote by using computers to display the voter's photograph so that poll workers can verify identity or gathering some sort of other biometric data at registration time. (a fingerprint, iris scan, whatever)
I still think it's all a bunch of crap anyway until someone can point to voting fraud here in Oklahoma that would have been averted by checking IDs.
Edited to add: Oh, and Conan, I don't have to show ID to go to work. If I did, I'd fire the client. In my daily life, I don't have a need to show anyone my identification. This isn't the damn Soviet Union. If someone asks me to show ID to use my credit card, I tell 'em no. There is a signature on the back they are more than welcome to compare to the signature I gave them on their little electronic thingie or the paper slip. The only people that get to see my ID are the employees at my bank when I'm withdrawing large sums of cash and police officers on the rare occasion I'm stopped. Well, that and the guy at the liquor store standing between me and a Marshall's, but that's for
Marshall's.
Thankfully, I don't fly commercial any more, so showing off my ID to the TSA goons isn't an issue.
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/elections_local/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-sharia-law-state-question
Lawsuit to be filed against Sharia Law state question
QuoteThe Center on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR is organizing a news conference at the state Capitol on Thursday afternoon.
The group says it's supporting a citizen who is filing a federal lawsuit regarding a constitutional amendment Oklahomans passed on Tuesday
These questions are going to be pricey.
"FIX OUT STREETS!" "No, wait, defend our paranoia."
Rick Tepker, professor at the OU College of Law on the Sharia ban:
Quote"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 02:37:11 PM
Rick Tepker, professor at the OU College of Law on the Sharia ban:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/
I have literally written more than a thousand legal briefs and I cannot recall ever mentioning international law. Most state and federal jurisprudential authority is so settled that its source, be it international or even religious originated, is lost.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 01:40:26 PM
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/elections_local/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-sharia-law-state-question
Lawsuit to be filed against Sharia Law state question
These questions are going to be pricey.
"FIX OUT STREETS!" "No, wait, defend our paranoia."
I suppose you could fix a cost to defending it, but it's essentially attornies who are already on state payroll getting paid regardless of what case they are working on. It's sort of like a corporation saying it cost them $2mm to defend a lawsuit using in-house counsel.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 03:07:41 PM
I suppose you could fix a cost to defending it, but it's essentially attornies who are already on state payroll getting paid regardless of what case they are working on. It's sort of like a corporation saying it cost them $2mm to defend a lawsuit using in-house counsel.
I'd take that bet.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 12:58:43 PM
An ID is already required to register to vote, and you can't vote unless you register. This SQ does absolutely nothing to guard against voter fraud, but it does gin up fear that some unknown monolith is out to steal your America.
Again, completely legal, but totally pointless, unless your point is the creation of fear.
I'd pointed out yesterday that if I were so inclined I could vote 20 to 30 times on election day going precinct to precinct without an ID. There really would be no point to it for me, simply saying that without an ID it's very possible. I'm simply puzzled and amused at the resistance of some in wanting to ensure inelligible people can't vote.
Nathan- I have to show my ID all the time going in and out of prospective customer's facilities, as well as signing a permanent log book. It translates to $$ in my pocket so I have zero problem with it. Same with a clerk wanting to see my ID with a debit card. It helps protect me from fraud even though their intent is to protect their employer. One thing I don't do is give out my phone number when asked by a store clerk. A clerk at Gordman's wanted it a few weeks ago and it was not in context of wanting to hook up I'm quite sure since FMC was with me. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on November 04, 2010, 02:54:40 PM
I have literally written more than a thousand legal briefs and I cannot recall ever mentioning international law.
In 99% of cases this will have no effect whatsoever, but I do think it calls into question the ability to enforce a choice of law provision based on international law. Why potentially frustrate the the freedom to contract?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 03:15:49 PM
I'm simply puzzled and amused at the resistance of some in wanting to ensure inelligible people can't vote.
The SQ does not prevent
ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.
God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.
Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 03:26:33 PM
The SQ does not prevent ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.
God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.
Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)
The law would make it terribly inconvenient for someone to try and vote as me, as it would require they steal and alter one of my photo ID's or my voter registration card.
As far as losing your license? That's why you have a county election board-issued voter ID card. If your license were suspended or revoked, you can purchase a state-issued ID which you will need to cash a check at your bank or for other financial transactions. I personally have three pieces of ID I could use to go vote based on the new law. I keep my voter ID card in my sock drawer and only take it out on election day in case I'm asked for it. You make it sound like some sort of undue hardship to present indentification when it's not.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 03:40:52 PM
The law would make it terribly inconvenient for someone to try and vote as me . . . You make it sound like some sort of undue hardship to present indentification when it's not.
I vote first thing in the morning, so the law as it stands would already make it terribly inconvenient, if not impossible, for someone to vote as me.
But my point has less to do with hardship and more to do with circumstance. Whether my vote is counted should not depend upon some misfortune that leaves me without an ID on election day. There are better solutions available that would not jeopardize my right to cast a ballot, including the availability of a comparison signature already in the roll book when you arrive at the polling place, similar to the way that banks compare signatures on check.
It seems like people are more interested in erecting barriers than finding a solution that preserves both the ability to vote and the integrity of the result.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 03:15:49 PM
I'd pointed out yesterday that if I were so inclined I could vote 20 to 30 times on election day going precinct to precinct without an ID. There really would be no point to it for me, simply saying that without an ID it's very possible. I'm simply puzzled and amused at the resistance of some in wanting to ensure inelligible people can't vote.
Nathan- I have to show my ID all the time going in and out of prospective customer's facilities, as well as signing a permanent log book. It translates to $$ in my pocket so I have zero problem with it. Same with a clerk wanting to see my ID with a debit card. It helps protect me from fraud even though their intent is to protect their employer. One thing I don't do is give out my phone number when asked by a store clerk. A clerk at Gordman's wanted it a few weeks ago and it was not in context of wanting to hook up I'm quite sure since FMC was with me. ;)
How about instead of making it harder for eligible people to vote, we train the poll workers to not show you the book so you can just pick out a name? :P
Regarding being IDed at customer facilities, I'm not terribly interested in working with people who are that paranoid. We all make choices about what we're comfortable with, and that's one that I've made. And showing a clerk my ID provides no advantage to me (all my banks have a zero liability on fraudulent charges policy), yet increases the chances of being a victim of identity theft (in a very small way, but still). They want ID, they don't make a sale.
I have on a couple of occasions pulled it out, making sure to cover the photo with my thumb as I showed it to them, just to see what happened. They don't care. It's completely useless as "security". I did that once at Best Buy with a friend of mine and he was laughing his donkey off at the ridiculousness of the whole charade.
These SQs are curious exceptions to the conservative hatred of big government. Let's enact some laws that address remotely possible hypotheticals, but which might have to be litigated (for awhile!), and which in general are about reducing some of our freedoms by adding regulation, rather than increasing our freedom by decreasing regulation.
It's funny how laissez faire -- how Reaganesque even-- us libs are with personal freedom, eh?
And the reasoning that we seem to be slouching towards here -- I support X law because I don't think it would affect me and I am a law abiding citizen in general -- is actually pretty regressive. I say that because we have our freedoms to protect everyone and every situation, not just the upright lifestyle you live or can imagine. It's especially for lifestyles you can't imagine, or might imagine but detest. So long as they live within the law of the land they are as equal as you are.
That includes people who forget their ID, or lost it, or never had one. They still get to vote,too.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 03:26:33 PM
The SQ does not prevent ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.
God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.
Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)
You don't need your ID. You sign an affidavit saying you are who you say you are.
Quote from: nathanm on November 04, 2010, 04:30:53 PM
Regarding being IDed at customer facilities, I'm not terribly interested in working with people who are that paranoid. We all make choices about what we're comfortable with, and that's one that I've made. And showing a clerk my ID provides no advantage to me (all my banks have a zero liability on fraudulent charges policy), yet increases the chances of being a victim of identity theft (in a very small way, but still). They want ID, they don't make a sale.
I have on a couple of occasions pulled it out, making sure to cover the photo with my thumb as I showed it to them, just to see what happened. They don't care. It's completely useless as "security". I did that once at Best Buy with a friend of mine and he was laughing his donkey off at the ridiculousness of the whole charade.
Now who's paranoid? ;)
Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.
We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2010, 04:48:15 PM
Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.
We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.
This can't be helping.
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2010, 04:48:15 PM
Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.
We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.
You know what's interesting? For a state supposedly so bigoted against brown people, hispanic enrollment in public schools is way up.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 05:09:54 PM
You know what's interesting? For a state supposedly so bigoted against brown people, hispanic enrollment in public schools is way up.
How are we doing on pulling new businesses in? Hispanic or other?
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 04:42:04 PM
You don't need your ID. You sign an affidavit saying you are who you say you are.
The new law maintains the ability to cast a provisional ballot, but doing so will not allow the vote to be counted unless you follow-up and provide ID.
Not only are we back at square one, but we've now complicated the process to the point where some percentage of voters will be discouraged from voting at all.
I'm not against preserving the integrity of the vote, but there is a way to do that without creating unnecessary hurdles.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 05:20:29 PM
The new law maintains the ability to cast a provisional ballot, but doing so will not allow the vote to be counted unless you follow-up and provide ID.
Not only are we back at square one, but we've now complicated the process to the point where some percentage of voters will be discouraged from voting at all.
I'm not against preserving the integrity of the vote, but there is a way to do that without creating unnecessary hurdles.
Something tells me that with the percentage of voters normally showing up at the polls, we didn't have much of a problem with voter fraud.
Possibly election fraud, but most likely not voter fraud.
At least the election board isn't doing vote caging like they have in other states. And we still get paper ballots. (for the moment) We could be far worse off, election-wise.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on November 04, 2010, 05:20:29 PM
The new law maintains the ability to cast a provisional ballot, but doing so will not allow the vote to be counted unless you follow-up and provide ID.
Not only are we back at square one, but we've now complicated the process to the point where some percentage of voters will be discouraged from voting at all.
I'm not against preserving the integrity of the vote, but there is a way to do that without creating unnecessary hurdles.
I'd guess we just alienated .00001% of the voters.
Again, tell me the hardship of keeping your voter registration card in a safe place and remembering to take it with you on election day or simply signing an affadavit if you've been bone-headed enough to get your license suspended. Why is that such a high hurdle?
It's not "simply sign[ing] and affidavit", though. Last I checked, you have to vote a provisional ballot after signing the affidavit, then show up in person at the county election board office by the end of the day on the Thursday immediately following the election to show the appropriate photo ID. Unless the measure on the ballot changed that?
Also, it's damn easy to get your license suspended in Oklahoma, although for the less bone-headed stupid things there's no one there to physically take it from you. Say you have a car that is inoperable but haven't black tagged and cancel the liability insurance. No license for you!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 05:58:47 PM
I'd guess we just alienated .00001% of the voters.
Again, tell me the hardship of keeping your voter registration card in a safe place and remembering to take it with you on election day or simply signing an affadavit if you've been bone-headed enough to get your license suspended. Why is that such a high hurdle?
There shouldn't be any hurdles, I think is the point.
Or fewer, not more.
Well my problem is that if you have to sign an affidavit then I am sure you get a provisional ballot. Which probably never gets counted.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 04, 2010, 10:03:18 PM
Well my problem is that if you have to sign an affidavit then I am sure you get a provisional ballot. Which probably never gets counted.
I'm sure that if they would make a difference, the potential losing candidate will make sure they get counted. If everything that wins, wins by a lot more than the number of provisional ballots it would not change the winner if they were counted. It would only make a difference in the point spread.
Quote from: nathanm on November 04, 2010, 05:34:04 PM
At least the election board isn't doing vote caging like they have in other states. And we still get paper ballots. (for the moment) We could be far worse off, election-wise.
Our voting machines is something we got right. They appear to be accurate and leave a paper ticket to count in case of a dispute. NO HANGING CHATs or whatever caused the problems in some states.
Well hell, let's make sure no one is inconvenienced doing their civic duty. I really don't care to vote on election day and driving down to the Tulsa County Election Board to vote early is a pain in the donkey for me. They should simply extend the voting out a few extra days so myself and people who aren't very punctual can vote at their convenience.
I have never seen so many people get bent over having to be responsible enough to keep and maintain some sort of identification. Urg! :'(
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 10:17:07 PM
Well hell, let's make sure no one is inconvenienced doing their civic duty. I really don't care to vote on election day and driving down to the Tulsa County Election Board to vote early is a pain in the donkey for me. They should simply extend the voting out a few extra days so myself and people who aren't very punctual can vote at their convenience.
I have never seen so many people get bent over having to be responsible enough to keep and maintain some sort of identification. Urg! :'(
Many states do extend voting a few extra days or allow "absentee" ballots to be cast walk-up at many different locations for a couple of weeks prior to the election's nominal date. Some go so far as to put poll workers in grocery stores and other high-traffic places to make it as convenient as possible to vote. Oregon is all mail-in.
It's not that we condone irresponsibility, it's that we don't think that voting should be conditioned on anything but perhaps being adjudicated insane or a felon and being an otherwise eligible voter. I don't think it's worth even going that far, but I realize that stance is outside the norm given that only a couple of states allow people in jail/prison to vote.
I'd be curious to see how much the state has spent defending these lawsuits. There were several lawsuits related to the abortion laws passed this summer and now these state questions. That might make Republicans think twice about voting for this garbage when they find out the state has spent millions of dollars (unsuccessfully) defending them. This would make a good Urban Tulsa/Oklahoma Gazette piece.
Quote from: SXSW on November 05, 2010, 08:28:55 AM
I'd be curious to see how much the state has spent defending these lawsuits. There were several lawsuits related to the abortion laws passed this summer and now these state questions. That might make Republicans think twice about voting for this garbage when they find out the state has spent millions of dollars (unsuccessfully) defending them. This would make a good Urban Tulsa/Oklahoma Gazette piece.
The state is constantly being sued. These lawsuits are principally defended by attornies already on state payroll. If they were not assigned to these new cases, they would be assigned to other cases. Yes there are law suits where the state brings in outside counsel or experts. This is simply a matter of filing motions. Someone else is welcome to correct me but constitutionality challenges seldom, if ever, result in a monetary award to the plaintiff.
We could have been real progressive and provided incentives for voting.
-Tie in a free lottery ticket for voting at a QT or Love.
-Allow voting to be done from a computer on OK.gov
-Allow voting from an ATM for an extra charge that BOK gets a % of.
-Register to vote at WalMarts, Targets or Utica Square with coupons.
Quote from: waterboy on November 05, 2010, 10:24:05 AM
We could have been real progressive and provided incentives for voting.
-Tie in a free lottery ticket for voting at a QT or Love.
-Allow voting to be done from a computer on OK.gov
-Allow voting from an ATM for an extra charge that BOK gets a % of.
-Register to vote at WalMarts, Targets or Utica Square with coupons.
The unions and ACORN already do all that, silly. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on November 04, 2010, 08:59:03 PM
It's not "simply sign[ing] and affidavit", though. Last I checked, you have to vote a provisional ballot after signing the affidavit, then show up in person at the county election board office by the end of the day on the Thursday immediately following the election to show the appropriate photo ID. Unless the measure on the ballot changed that?
Also, it's damn easy to get your license suspended in Oklahoma, although for the less bone-headed stupid things there's no one there to physically take it from you. Say you have a car that is inoperable but haven't black tagged and cancel the liability insurance. No license for you!
Again, like I and others have said, all you need is the voter id card you get for free
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 05, 2010, 11:07:40 AM
Again, like I and others have said, all you need is the voter id card you get for free
Evidently that is more than some people are capable of handling. I think they normally vote left.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 05, 2010, 11:25:10 AM
Evidently that is more than some people are capable of handling. I think they normally vote left.
That would necessarily require something called "personal responsibility" but I've been called out for mentioning the "R" word on here ::)
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:21:04 AM
Has that happened alot?
I recall here fairly recently a lawsuit because the stte did not provide a drivers license test in Farsi.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
That would necessarily require something called "personal responsibility" but I've been called out for mentioning the "R" word on here ::)
Shame on you for using that word in the Land of Entitlement. ;D
Quote from: custosnox on November 05, 2010, 01:24:19 PM
I recall here fairly recently a lawsuit because the stte did not provide a drivers license test in Farsi.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The federal government is investigating whether the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety violated the civil rights of Iranian immigrants by refusing to provide them with driver's license tests in their native Farsi language.
The complaint was filed on behalf of Fardha Sharifi and her husband, Alireza Sanghinmanesh, who immigrated to the United States with their young son, said Hassan Sharifi, Fardha Sharifi's cousin and a restaurant owner in Bartlesville.
Finally, the couple went to the neighboring state of Kansas, located less than 25 miles north of Bartlesville, where they each passed a Kansas exam that tested their driving skills using graphic symbols rather than language, Hassan Sharifi said.
"There was no translation needed," he said. Once they returned to Oklahoma, they exchanged their Kansas driver's licenses to Oklahoma licenses and are now both legally licensed to drive in the state, he said.
The formal complaint was filed with the government by Hassan Sharifi's son, Payam Sharifi, a senior in economics at the University of Oklahoma.
The chief legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety, Wellon Poe, said the agency plans to formally respond to the complaint later this month.
If the state does not comply, it could be penalized by the withholding of federal transportation money.http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080401_1__OKLAH23086
QuoteA U.S. District Judge issued a ruling Monday morning blocking the amendment on Islamic law. It prevents the state election board from certifying the results of Tuesday's general election in which the amendment was approved by 70 percent of the voters.
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/state/Copy_of_USIslamic-LawLawsuit_83893523 (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/state/Copy_of_USIslamic-LawLawsuit_83893523)
And now the next lawsuit starts
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101110_14_A1_Alglca82917
Quote from: custosnox on November 10, 2010, 12:00:57 PM
And now the next lawsuit starts
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101110_14_A1_Alglca82917
SQ 751 amends the state constitution to make it constitutional. All these lawsuits have no merit.
If they are referring to the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies because there is nothing in the US Constitution saying that the states cannot have an official language or cannot ban Shariah law.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on November 10, 2010, 01:55:24 PM
SQ 751 amends the state constitution to make it constitutional. All these lawsuits have no merit.
If they are referring to the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies because there is nothing in the US Constitution saying that the states cannot have an official language or cannot ban Shariah law.
Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.
Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2010, 01:57:53 PM
Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.
It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day. Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others. There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions. This is basic procedural crap.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day. Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others. There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions. This is basic procedural crap.
That's surprising to me Conan. If that's so though, it'd be great if they'd use that for Tulsa's defense too.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101107_11_A1_Auhaie303191&allcom=1 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101107_11_A1_Auhaie303191&allcom=1)
Tulsa's legal fees to defend itself in police corruption lawsuits could reach $900,000
Edited to add that it still bugs that my tax money is used to defend against BS like these SQ's whether the attorneys are on payroll or not. It makes me think of the Ten Commandments on government property.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day. Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others. There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions. This is basic procedural crap.
I'm having a hard time finding information for or against what you're saying. So far I've found:
QuotePruitt said he's received sound advice from Virginia's attorney general who has already filed one of the state lawsuits against the federal law. Some experts say fighting the federal health care law could come at an enormous cost to Oklahomans.
Now I don't know if "some experts" are referring to financial, spiritual, or human costs but it seems to me that it's going to cost us extra.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
It's not costing you one extra penny, the state is sued for a variety of reasons every day. Attornies already on state payroll will defend these suits just like the others. There's no expensive investigations or exhibits to put together, basically an attorney or attornies will sit at a computer terminal and write motions. This is basic procedural crap.
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp)
QuoteIn recent years, much attention has been paid to the phenomenon of state attorneys general taking on the role of plaintiffs' lawyers. In lawsuits against the tobacco companies, Microsoft, gun manufacturers, and other seemingly wealthy (and usually unpopular) industries, many of the states' top lawyers have sought to fill public coffers by winning multi-million dollar settlements or judgments for their states. These lawsuits are generally very expensive to litigate and therefore consume a large portion of the personnel and financial resources of the attorney general. Some attorneys general, facing fiscal and political limits on their ability to bring these suits, have come upon a creative solution; rather than seeking increased appropriations to hire new lawyers, they are hiring plaintiffs' firms under contingency fee contracts to litigate the suits for them.
A leader in this new approach to law enforcement is Oklahoma's attorney general, Drew Edmondson. In 2005, after three years of negotiations, Edmondson filed a lawsuit against a dozen poultry companies alleging that waste from thousands of their poultry houses (located mostly in Arkansas) were illegally increasing the amount of phosphorus in Oklahoma drinking water. Rather than seeking more money for the legislature to bring this suit, Edmondson has hired three plaintiffs' firms, under contingency fee contracts that will allocate to the firms up to fifty percent of any judgment or settlement procured, to litigate the cases for the state.
If you continue through the article it reads to me that it will cost us extra.
Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2010, 03:02:41 PM
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.473/pub_detail.asp)
If you continue through the article it reads to me that it will cost us extra.
What you posted is related to the State AG as a
plaintiff's attorney. In the case of suing the Feds over Obamacare, Pruitt would be the plaintiff's attorney acting on our behalf. I suppose there might be costs involved if they subpoena people within Oklahoma government to travel to DC and back for depositions or experts are hired. The other "costs" involved probably have to do with
blackmail er, cutting state funding on various programs.
However, I thought we were talking about the cost of Oklahoma
defending lawsuits on state questions. It's basic civil rights stuff using staff attornies in cases over constitutionality of state questions. Defending the state or city against dirty cops is a whole different kettle of fish and the plaintiff's in those cases, I would assume are also looking for a financial gain or reparation of some sort. Not the case in a SQ lawsuit. CF or Guido is more than welcome to correct me on this. I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's not mine. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2010, 04:01:37 PM
What you posted is related to the State AG as a plaintiff's attorney. In the case of suing the Feds over Obamacare, Pruitt would be the plaintiff's attorney acting on our behalf. I suppose there might be costs involved if they subpoena people within Oklahoma government to travel to DC and back for depositions or experts are hired. The other "costs" involved probably have to do with blackmail er, cutting state funding on various programs.
However, I thought we were talking about the cost of Oklahoma defending lawsuits on state questions. It's basic civil rights stuff using staff attornies in cases over constitutionality of state questions. Defending the state or city against dirty cops is a whole different kettle of fish and the plaintiff's in those cases, I would assume are also looking for a financial gain or reparation of some sort. Not the case in a SQ lawsuit. CF or Guido is more than welcome to correct me on this. I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's not mine. ;)
Sounds reasonable. I was surprised it's so hard to find info about this.
Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2010, 01:57:53 PM
Either way my tax money is going to go to defending them over and over and that vexes me.
I agree that it is a waste of our money. It is all partisan politics and lawyers wanting notoriety or a payday. The federal judge involved in the forbidding of Shariah law was nominated by Clinton.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/SQ-751-Challenge-Could-Cost-Taxpayers/P-om_CR_BUyOi4eoWzEKLg.cspx?rss=77 (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/SQ-751-Challenge-Could-Cost-Taxpayers/P-om_CR_BUyOi4eoWzEKLg.cspx?rss=77)
SQ 751 Challenge Could Cost Taxpayers
QuoteIt's a legal question that could cost taxpayers. The English only law recently passed by voters is being challenged for its constitutionality. FOX23's Douglas Clark takes a look at how much it could cost the state to fight the lawsuit.
State Question 751 requires all official state communications to be in English or American Indian languages, except as otherwise required by federal law. Now the issue is going to court and the costs could add up.
A local attorney has filed a lawsuit in Tulsa County District Court that challenges the constitutionality of the recently passed English-only law. The suit alleges the law violates the right to free speech. The issue has drawn mixed reactions.
"If they want to stay here, they have to learn English," says Hispanic immigrant Maria Diaz.
"I feel that they should cater to whatever language they're speaking because they live here and pay taxes," says another woman.
The lawsuit names Governor Brad Henry as the defendant. But the attorney general's office will likely step in to defend him. How much will that cost taxpayers? It depends on how long the case is in litigation. If it drags on for years with multiple appeals, experts think it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
While a spokesperson for the AG says the agency would step in if asked, it would prefer if the legislature consulted Drew Edmondson before passing any controversial laws that could be challenged in court.
According to one expert, the burden is on those who filed the lawsuit to prove why they think the law is unconstitutional. The governor has not yet asked the attorney general's office to step in. But he's expected to do so soon.
Great journalism:
"How much will that cost taxpayers? It depends on how long the case is in litigation. If it drags on for years with multiple appeals, experts think it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
While a spokesperson for the AG says the agency would step in if asked, it would prefer if the legislature consulted Drew Edmondson before passing any controversial laws that could be challenged in court.
According to one expert, the burden is on those who filed the lawsuit to prove why they think the law is unconstitutional. The governor has not yet asked the attorney general's office to step in. But he's expected to do so soon."
Who are these experts? Why doesn't Fox bother to name them? For all we know, the reporter might be talking to a TNF poster. Whole lotta ifs there.
After all the other stupid legislation which has caused Constitutionality lawsuits in the past, why are we suddenly obsessed with this?
Let's look at it from another angle: If the AG office defends the suit using staff attornies, what are the real costs we could expect to see? Making Xerox copies? Operating a computer? I mean really Townsend, what costs are there other than specifically assigning an hourly cost of people already on the state payroll? I'm just not seeing the outrage with this. There's far worse things coming in terms of defending lawsuits.
I'm far more concerned with potential future litigation awards in the TPD scandal from defendents in those cases. The Arvin McGee verdict cost us $12.5mm alone. Just wait until 20 to 30 lawsuits start chugging through the courts. That's the kind of defense which really hurts.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
Great journalism:
It's a local station. We can't expect much.
I think the SQ's were crap so I'm beating the last breath out of the horse.
Even if it is all done in house, it's still logged hours wasted having to defend crap.
Maybe we can just pass one SQ that just says that Oklahoma dislikes minority religions, sexual preferences and races. That way we just have 1 SQ and stop having to have 4 or 5 variations on every ballot.
Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2010, 01:32:37 PM
It's a local station. We can't expect much.
I think the SQ's were crap so I'm beating the last breath out of the horse.
Even if it is all done in house, it's still logged hours wasted having to defend crap.
But should we stifle Democracy because we are afraid of defending it in court?
Whether or not the view of those backing these questions is shared by you, they have a right to put these questions to a vote. There have been questions I've felt were complete turds and others I've agreed 100% with. If there are enough people wanting it on the ballot, it belongs there and we can and
should expect challenges if they pass.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 01:36:19 PM
But should we stifle Democracy because we are afraid of defending it in court?
Whether or not the view of those backing these questions is shared by you, they have a right to put these questions to a vote. There have been questions I've felt were complete turds and others I've agreed 100% with. If there are enough people wanting it on the ballot, it belongs there and we can and should expect challenges if they pass.
I agree.
Too bad the "look at me" politicians were able to shove these piles of fecal matter through.