State Questions on Ballot

[PonderInc]

I always try to print off a sample ballot from the Tulsa County Election Board before any election, so I know what to expect at the polling place.  

Not sure why, but the sample ballots I pulled up at the Tulsa County Election Board website didn't include the following State Questions.

I'm intrigued by the inclusion of the right of all Oklahomans to "take game and fish by traditional means."  Huh?  Do we really need to include frog gigging in our state constitution?  Noodling is a right of all citizens?

It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish?!  Huh?  Who decides what's preferred?  Under what circumstances?

What's next?  Allowing fishermen the right to marry a stripped bass?!  The religious right should be on the lookout!

[PonderInc]

Here's the full text of the state questions...

STATE QUESTION NO. 735 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 343
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds Section 8D to Article 10. The measure takes effect January 1, 2009. It creates an exemption from personal property tax. The exemption would be for the full amount of taxes due on all household personal property. The exemption would apply to certain injured
veterans. It would also apply to those veterans' surviving spouses.  To qualify for the exemption an injured veteran would have to meet certain requirements. First, a branch of
the Armed Forces or the Oklahoma National Guard would have to have honorably discharged the veteran from active service. Second, the veteran would have to be an Oklahoma resident. Third, the veteran would have to be the head of the household. Fourth, the veteran would have to be one hundred percent permanently
disabled. Fifth, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs would have to certify the disability. Sixth, the disability must have occurred through military action or accident, or resulted from a disease contracted while in active service. The Legislature could pass laws to carry out the exemption. Such laws could not
change the amount of the exemption.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 741 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 344
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Section 22A to Article 10. This section is related to exemptions from property taxes. It would require a person or business to file an application for an exemption. No exemption could be granted prior to filing an application. The Legislature
may write laws to carry out the provisions of this section.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 742 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 345
This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable
regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will
not affect existing laws relating to property rights.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 743 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 346
This measure amends Section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution. It requires a customer to be twenty-one and physically present to purchase wine at a winery, festival or trade show. The measure changes the law to allow certain winemakers to sell directly to retail package stores and restaurants in Oklahoma. The change applies to winemakers who produce up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year. It applies to winemakers in state and out of state. Those winemakers may not also use a licensed wholesale distributor. They must sell their wine
to every retail package store and restaurant in Oklahoma that wants to buy the wine. The sales must be on the same price basis. The sales must be without discrimination. Those winemakers must use their own leased or owned vehicles to distribute their wine. They may not use common or private carriers. If any part of this
measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or restaurants in Oklahoma.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I always try to print off a sample ballot from the Tulsa County Election Board before any election, so I know what to expect at the polling place.  

Not sure why, but the sample ballots I pulled up at the Tulsa County Election Board website didn't include the following State Questions.

I'm intrigued by the inclusion of the right of all Oklahomans to "take game and fish by traditional means."  Huh?  Do we really need to include frog gigging in our state constitution?  Noodling is a right of all citizens?

It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish?!  Huh?  Who decides what's preferred?  Under what circumstances?

What's next?  Allowing fishermen the right to marry a stripped bass?!  The religious right should be on the lookout!

it is to protect gun owners.  I didn't realize hunting weapons were under attack by the anti gun lobby but whatever.


I'm still wondering what 100% permanently disabled means on the first question.  I feel this is a big loophole for a few vets to deduct taxes on things like big screen TVs.  if they are wheelchair bound and must be spoon fed I could probably let that one slide.

[Gaspar]

I'm not a lawyer (I'd like to think I'm smarter than that) but by making hunting and fishing a "Right" to oklahoma residents, don't you take a way the states ability to charge people for a hunting or fishing license?  Those are use fees that go to good use.

As an Oklahoma resident and avid fisherman, I pay for my fishing license every year and view it as part of Oklahoma's wildlife management program, but if you make it my "Right" to fish or hunt, then I could argue that the state has no grounds to charge me for a fishing license because that would be an infringement on my "Rights".

I understand where they are going with this, it's part of a series of legislative steps designed to protect the integrity of the second amendment in Oklahoma the face of a changing political landscape, but I'm not sure this is the way to go about it.

[Ed W]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc



I'm intrigued by the inclusion of the right of all Oklahomans to "take game and fish by traditional means."  Huh?  Do we really need to include frog gigging in our state constitution?  

If I understand the intent of this one properly, it has to do with the pressure hunting and fishing have received in other states as a result of animal rights activists.  It would make hunting and fishing much more difficult to outlaw, if the people of Oklahoma decided to do so at some time in the future.  In that sense, it's an anti-democratic question.  i seriously doubt that hunting and fishing are under attack in this state, but the hook and bullet crowd is a little bit alarmed at the prospect of facing down scantily clad PETA activists.  When a hunter with a scoped 308 and a razor sharp skinning knife is confronted by a girl wearing shoes and not much else....well....it's hardly a fair fight.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I'm not a lawyer (I'd like to think I'm smarter than that) but by making hunting and fishing a "Right" to oklahoma residents, don't you take a way the states ability to charge people for a hunting or fishing license?  Those are use fees that go to good use.

As an Oklahoma resident and avid fisherman, I pay for my fishing license every year and view it as part of Oklahoma's wildlife management program, but if you make it my "Right" to fish or hunt, then I could argue that the state has no grounds to charge me for a fishing license because that would be an infringement on my "Rights".

oh interesting argument. Probably didn't think of that one.  I'm trying to think of another example of where you are charged a fee to exercise your rights and I can't think of an analogous example.  Closest thing would be a conceal carry permit, but that analogy would be akin to charging a fee to hunt on certain reserves, while still allowing anyone to hunt elsewhere.

[pmcalk]

I was initially excited by state question 743, but now that I read it more carefully, I am disappointed.  When the court determined that limiting direct sales to in-state wineries was unconstitutional, I thought we would finally lift the ban of direct sales, and we could join wine of the month clubs (and hopefully soon to follow beer of the month clubs).  The way its worded, seems we won't be able to do so.  I'm happy for local wineries, but I am frustrated by the death grip the distributers have on this state.

[PonderInc]

The wording in 743 that requires vinyards to provide their own vehicles to distribute their wines struck me as totally weird.  

What other industry is hamstrung in this way?  "You may manufacture widgets, but you must hand-deliver them to your clients.  No shipping carriers allowed!  In fact, we would prefer if you'd use a bicycle..."

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The wording in 743 that requires vinyards to provide their own vehicles to distribute their wines struck me as totally weird.  

What other industry is hamstrung in this way?  "You may manufacture widgets, but you must hand-deliver them to your clients.  No shipping carriers allowed!  In fact, we would prefer if you'd use a bicycle..."

Yeah, that's an effort to create legislation for the sake of creating legislation.

You remove one unreasonable limit and exchange it for another unreasonable limit, therefore creating a bill that does nothing for anyone but sounds good on the stump when you are trying to get re-elected.

If legislators are going to spend thousands of dollars of  tax money working on legislation designed to free small businesses from archaic old laws, then I expect them to draft a working bill, before it gets on a ballet in front of my face!

This is a DVD rewinder.

If the people vote yes than the bill will do no harm to the status-quo, and be of no advantage to the state or small business.  if the people see through the BS and vote no then the politicians can go back to the wineries and say "sorry, but the people don't want you to have more freedom to conduct your business."

The large State alcohol distributers win either way and any attempt to compete with them is eliminated.  

So. . . I think it would be a wise exercise to see what state politicians received the most political donations from alch distributers.  Then we will understand.

[PonderInc]

Is it about money?  Or is it about religion?  Or is it really about money, but disguised as religion?  I've always wondered.

How does Oklahoma justify these archaic and patriarchal liquor laws.  

I can't believe we've got a state question addressing wine sales that doesn't also include allowing sales in grocery stores and on Sundays.

If Joe Schmo has the "right" to gig frogs and shoot large mammals on Sundays... I damn sure ought to have the right to buy a bottle of locally grown wine from Reasor's!

What if I want to buy a bottle of wine so I can club a deer with it?  Would that make it OK by the state legislature's standards?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The wording in 743 that requires vinyards to provide their own vehicles to distribute their wines struck me as totally weird.  

What other industry is hamstrung in this way?  "You may manufacture widgets, but you must hand-deliver them to your clients.  No shipping carriers allowed!  In fact, we would prefer if you'd use a bicycle..."

It gets worse.  They also have to charge the same price to any customer in the state. A Tulsa area winery would have to use their own vehicle to deliver to Enid, Woodward, Guymon, etc for the same price as Tulsa.  I can't imagine any business buying into that scheme.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Is it about money?  Or is it about religion?  Or is it really about money, but disguised as religion?  I've always wondered.

How does Oklahoma justify these archaic and patriarchal liquor laws.  

I can't believe we've got a state question addressing wine sales that doesn't also include allowing sales in grocery stores and on Sundays.

If Joe Schmo has the "right" to gig frogs and shoot large mammals on Sundays... I damn sure ought to have the right to buy a bottle of locally grown wine from Reasor's!

What if I want to buy a bottle of wine so I can club a deer with it?  Would that make it OK by the state legislature's standards?

It's about money.  Very old money.  Our laws have allowed a very select few to control all of the liquor sales and distribution throughout the state.  In the past religion has been used as camouflage, but today it's just money and years and years of political lobbying and contributions.  The only way to stop it is to shine a light on the legislators receiving campaign funds and gifts from these lobbies.

James Milner, whose clients include alcohol wholesalers, is the lobbiest who is responsible for pushing U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Friot to strike the law that would allow Oklahoma wineries to sell directly to restaurants and liquor stores.

Milner's reasoning was that if Oklahoma wineries were allowed to sell directly, the state would lose that extra level of sales tax revenue."  i.e. "the middle man tax,"  a liberal favorite.

So State Rep. Jeffrey Hickman introduced this bill that has now become a state question.  Once it passed through the legislative filter it became neutered legislation, and because it discriminates between in-state and out-of-state wineries, if it passes, Mr. Milner will take it back to court, and it too will be overturned just like SQ 688.

Gerbils in a wheel for your entertainment.

[Steve]

All the questions sound like a bunch of "turkeys" to me.  They are matters that should be the subject of state statute, not constitutional provisions.  I will vote no on all 4.

Oklahoma's constitution was a laughingstock when passed back in 1907.  The longest, most complicated state constitution ever written, Theodore Roosevelt did not want to sign off on it, but bowed to political pressures and did.  Packed with 1000's of items that should be matters of state statute, not constitutional edict, the whole thing should be junked and a new constitution drafted IMO.  The U.S. Constitution is only 2-4 pages long and has only been ammended 27 times in over 200 years.  Only once (prohibition) has a previous provision been recinded.  This is a great testament to its effectiveness and strength.  The Oklahoma Constitution takes volumes to print and has been ammended and portions deleted more times than one can count.

I think groups actually tried to call a constitutional convention several years ago for the purpose of drafting a new one, but not surprisingly they got nowhere.

[Steve]

There is no sound reason why State Questions 735, 741 and 742 could not be enacted by state statute and not through constitutional ammendments.  The wine question probably requires a constitutional vote because so many of our alcohol regs are already a part of the constitution (stupid.)  In the case of the hunting provision, I believe state statute already addresses this.  The only possible explanation is our state legislators don't have the guts to do what they have been elected to do, and pass appropriate laws if they really believe in these proposals.  And there are individuals that want provisions written into the constitution so it will make it harder to reverse such laws in the future.  That mocks the system and is most highly undemocratic.

Vote no on all 4.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Is it about money?  Or is it about religion?  Or is it really about money, but disguised as religion?  I've always wondered.

How does Oklahoma justify these archaic and patriarchal liquor laws.  

I can't believe we've got a state question addressing wine sales that doesn't also include allowing sales in grocery stores and on Sundays.

If Joe Schmo has the "right" to gig frogs and shoot large mammals on Sundays... I damn sure ought to have the right to buy a bottle of locally grown wine from Reasor's!

What if I want to buy a bottle of wine so I can club a deer with it?  Would that make it OK by the state legislature's standards?

It's about money.  Very old money.  Our laws have allowed a very select few to control all of the liquor sales and distribution throughout the state.  In the past religion has been used as camouflage, but today it's just money and years and years of political lobbying and contributions.  The only way to stop it is to shine a light on the legislators receiving campaign funds and gifts from these lobbies.

James Milner, whose clients include alcohol wholesalers, is the lobbiest who is responsible for pushing U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Friot to strike the law that would allow Oklahoma wineries to sell directly to restaurants and liquor stores.

Milner's reasoning was that if Oklahoma wineries were allowed to sell directly, the state would lose that extra level of sales tax revenue."  i.e. "the middle man tax,"  a liberal favorite.

So State Rep. Jeffrey Hickman introduced this bill that has now become a state question.  Once it passed through the legislative filter it became neutered legislation, and because it discriminates between in-state and out-of-state wineries, if it passes, Mr. Milner will take it back to court, and it too will be overturned just like SQ 688.

Gerbils in a wheel for your entertainment.

yes, it is the same bull**** laws from the distribution cartel that prevent refrigerated beer from entering the state.  OH DEAR!  Don't expose Oklahoma to the wonders of your refrigeration techniques!

No respectable brewer would allow his beer to be transported at room temperature.  that is why you can't get so many good beers in this state.