OK-SAFE, Inc. Blog

November 7, 2012

OK Statewide Election Results (Unofficial – 11/6/12)

Filed under: Education — Tags: , , , , , , — oksafeinc @ 4:35 pm

OK-SAFE, Inc. – Yesterday was the big election.  The Presidential election is the big disappointment, of course. (Anyone else ready to sever ties with California and the East Coast?)  If ever there was a time for God’s people to be in repentance, now is the time.

If you live in Tulsa County there was some good news – both Proposition 1 & 2 of the proposed Vision2 scheme went down in defeat, due in great part the Tulsa912 group, OKforTea, Michael Bates, and groups from all parts of Tulsa County working together.  Well done, all!

The State Questions are another matter.  All six questions passed – SQ 765 was the only question OK-SAFE supported, but even that one only with reservations.  Our recommendations to vote NO were aimed at protecting the people; unfortunately for all of us, because the ad valorem issue is so complicated most folks could not see how they are going to negatively effected.  And they will be.

Other good news is that Rep. John Bennett (HD-2) is returning to the House, despite a concerted effort by the State Chamber to unseat him for not being “pro-business” – which means he was  guilty of having called the Chamber out on what they’re doing.

Here are the unofficial election results from the Oklahoma State Election Board:

PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
BARACK OBAMA (DEM) 19,328 43,121 380,338 442,787 33.20%
MITT ROMNEY (REP) 44,617 68,596 776,497 889,710 66.80%
Total 63,945 111,717 1,156,835 1,332,497
US REP. DIST 01 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JOHN OLSON (DEM) 4,118 6,287 80,905 91,310 32.00%
JIM BRIDENSTINE (REP) 8,980 7,541 164,365 180,886 63.50%
CRAIG ALLEN (IND) 510 451 11,825 12,786 4.50%
Total 13,608 14,279 257,095 284,982
US REP. DIST 02 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
ROB WALLACE (DEM) 2,995 10,983 81,953 95,931 38.30%
MARKWAYNE MULLIN (REP) 5,672 16,836 121,009 143,517 57.30%
MICHAEL G. FULKS (IND) 400 1,045 9,364 10,809 4.30%
Total 9,067 28,864 212,326 250,257
US REP. DIST 03 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
TIMOTHY RAY MURRAY (DEM) 2,308 6,251 44,736 53,295 20.00%
FRANK D. LUCAS (REP) 8,921 21,954 170,088 200,963 75.30%
WILLIAM M. SANDERS (IND) 524 1,135 11,087 12,746 4.80%
Total 11,753 29,340 225,911 267,004
US REP. DIST 04 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DONNA MARIE BEBO (DEM) 3,370 7,814 60,571 71,755 27.60%
TOM COLE (REP) 8,728 13,999 153,834 176,561 67.90%
RJ HARRIS (IND) 531 732 10,462 11,725 4.50%
Total 12,629 22,545 224,867 260,041
US REP. DIST 05 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
TOM GUILD (DEM) 4,598 9,577 83,184 97,359 37.30%
JAMES LANKFORD (REP) 10,737 6,117 136,567 153,421 58.70%
PAT MARTIN (IND) 195 213 4,972 5,380 2.10%
ROBERT T. MURPHY (IND) 223 182 4,757 5,162 2.00%
Total 15,753 16,089 229,480 261,322
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 3 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JIM BYNUM (DEM) 593 932 9,737 11,262 45.70%
WAYNE SHAW (REP) 697 1,131 11,555 13,383 54.30%
Total 1,290 2,063 21,292 24,645
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 5 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JERRY ELLIS (DEM) 389 1,418 14,111 15,918 66.50%
HOWARD HOUCHEN (REP) 330 953 6,724 8,007 33.50%
Total 719 2,371 20,835 23,925
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 7 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
J. PAUL LANE (DEM) 442 1,208 10,490 12,140 46.20%
LARRY BOGGS (REP) 559 1,353 12,248 14,160 53.80%
Total 1,001 2,561 22,738 26,300
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 9 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
EARL GARRISON (DEM) 486 3,172 13,518 17,176 69.70%
BARNEY S TAYLOR (REP) 301 1,313 5,855 7,469 30.30%
Total 787 4,485 19,373 24,645
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 11 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JABAR SHUMATE (DEM) 740 1,881 12,573 15,194 76.00%
DAVE BELL (REP) 183 168 3,056 3,407 17.00%
CURTIS J. MULLINS (IND) 39 78 1,284 1,401 7.00%
Total 962 2,127 16,913 20,002
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 13 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
SUSAN PADDACK (DEM) 600 2,419 16,789 19,808 75.90%
FRED E SMITH (REP) 288 755 5,263 6,306 24.10%
Total 888 3,174 22,052 26,114
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 15 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
CLAUDIA GRIFFITH (DEM) 623 1,149 9,950 11,722 38.40%
ROB STANDRIDGE (REP) 1,128 1,135 16,503 18,766 61.60%
Total 1,751 2,284 26,453 30,488
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 27 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
A. BRYCE MARLATT (REP) 1,126 3,254 18,808 23,188 84.50%
TOMMY W. NICHOLSON (IND) 201 589 3,470 4,260 15.50%
Total 1,327 3,843 22,278 27,448
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 31 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
TONY TERRILL (DEM) 274 1,073 6,156 7,503 32.20%
DON BARRINGTON (REP) 607 1,842 13,348 15,797 67.80%
Total 881 2,915 19,504 23,300
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 39 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JULIE HALL (DEM) 787 628 12,960 14,375 43.10%
BRIAN A. CRAIN (REP) 1,166 599 17,228 18,993 56.90%
Total 1,953 1,227 30,188 33,368
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 41 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
CLARK JOLLEY (REP) 2,295 1,026 24,059 27,380 79.40%
RICHARD PRAWDZIENSKI (IND) 437 404 6,262 7,103 20.60%
Total 2,732 1,430 30,321 34,483
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 43 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
MIKE FULLERTON (DEM) 311 682 7,721 8,714 29.30%
COREY BROOKS (REP) 942 1,683 18,384 21,009 70.70%
Total 1,253 2,365 26,105 29,723
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 2 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
RICK AGENT (DEM) 178 650 4,608 5,436 46.30%
JOHN R. BENNETT (REP) 217 790 5,307 6,314 53.70%
Total 395 1,440 9,915 11,750
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 3 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JAMES H LOCKHART (DEM) 210 756 6,045 7,011 59.80%
ROGER MATTOX (REP) 161 673 3,883 4,717 40.20%
Total 371 1,429 9,928 11,728
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 12 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
WADE ROUSSELOT (DEM) 203 799 6,323 7,325 53.90%
DAVID TACKETT (REP) 268 564 5,424 6,256 46.10%
Total 471 1,363 11,747 13,581
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 14 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JERRY RAINS (DEM) 183 789 4,690 5,662 45.10%
ARTHUR HULBERT (REP) 271 993 5,616 6,880 54.90%
Total 454 1,782 10,306 12,542
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 16 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JERRY SHOEMAKE (DEM) 187 687 6,656 7,530 61.00%
JAMES DELSO (REP) 202 339 4,277 4,818 39.00%
Total 389 1,026 10,933 12,348
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 20 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
MATT BRANSTETTER (DEM) 176 278 3,815 4,269 33.50%
BOBBY CLEVELAND (REP) 452 538 7,471 8,461 66.50%
Total 628 816 11,286 12,730
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 21 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JERRY L. TOMLINSON (DEM) 98 453 3,564 4,115 36.00%
DUSTIN ROBERTS (REP) 190 885 6,232 7,307 64.00%
Total 288 1,338 9,796 11,422
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 22 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DORIS ANNE ROW (DEM) 198 900 5,391 6,489 49.10%
CHARLES A McCALL (REP) 230 1,031 5,460 6,721 50.90%
Total 428 1,931 10,851 13,210
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 23 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
SHAWNA KELLER (DEM) 123 197 4,080 4,400 41.50%
TERRY O’DONNELL (REP) 227 239 5,730 6,196 58.50%
Total 350 436 9,810 10,596
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 26 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
PATTY SUE WAGSTAFF (DEM) 210 693 3,944 4,847 39.40%
JUSTIN FREELAND WOOD (REP) 284 1,027 6,144 7,455 60.60%
Total 494 1,720 10,088 12,302
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 27 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
RANDY R GILBERT (DEM) 172 320 4,466 4,958 38.10%
JOSH COCKROFT (REP) 400 544 7,117 8,061 61.90%
Total 572 864 11,583 13,019
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 28 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
MARILYN RAINWATER (DEM) 107 381 3,711 4,199 37.20%
TOM NEWELL (REP) 280 535 6,275 7,090 62.80%
Total 387 916 9,986 11,289
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 29 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DAVID W NARCOMEY (DEM) 101 294 2,826 3,221 23.60%
SKYE McNIEL (REP) 298 860 9,242 10,400 76.40%
Total 399 1,154 12,068 13,621
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 32 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
KEITH KINNAMON (DEM) 183 556 5,115 5,854 42.80%
JASON SMALLEY (REP) 277 693 6,844 7,814 57.20%
Total 460 1,249 11,959 13,668
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 36 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JIM MASSEY (DEM) 217 160 4,425 4,802 34.60%
SEAN ROBERTS (REP) 435 240 8,399 9,074 65.40%
Total 652 400 12,824 13,876
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 37 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
NANCY L. NIEMANN (DEM) 211 356 4,756 5,323 40.90%
STEVEN E. VAUGHAN (REP) 417 605 6,685 7,707 59.10%
Total 628 961 11,441 13,030
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 42 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
STEVEN VINES (DEM) 123 282 2,308 2,713 20.20%
LISA J. BILLY (REP) 417 1,140 9,146 10,703 79.80%
Total 540 1,422 11,454 13,416
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 45 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
PAULA ROBERTS (DEM) 348 755 5,665 6,768 49.90%
AARON STILES (REP) 389 553 5,844 6,786 50.10%
Total 737 1,308 11,509 13,554
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 47 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
LEON A PIVINSKI (DEM) 178 252 2,725 3,155 20.40%
LESLIE KATHRYN OSBORN (REP) 808 898 10,604 12,310 79.60%
Total 986 1,150 13,329 15,465
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 48 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
BRIAN SPENCER (DEM) 153 413 3,059 3,625 28.00%
PATRICK OWNBEY (REP) 368 1,033 7,904 9,305 72.00%
Total 521 1,446 10,963 12,930
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 51 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
STEWART MEYER (DEM) 174 382 4,559 5,115 35.70%
SCOTT R. BIGGS (REP) 436 670 8,119 9,225 64.30%
Total 610 1,052 12,678 14,340
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 56 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DAVID L PERRYMAN (DEM) 211 766 5,110 6,087 50.50%
CHUCK UTSLER (REP) 243 656 5,059 5,958 49.50%
Total 454 1,422 10,169 12,045
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 60 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
KENDRA MENZ-KIMBLE (DEM) 168 450 4,095 4,713 37.70%
DAN FISHER (REP) 345 677 6,763 7,785 62.30%
Total 513 1,127 10,858 12,498
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 66 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DAVID C. PHILLIPS, III (DEM) 186 222 3,975 4,383 33.20%
JADINE NOLLAN (REP) 331 259 8,246 8,836 66.80%
Total 517 481 12,221 13,219
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 71 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
DAN ARTHRELL (DEM) 367 409 5,685 6,461 46.80%
KATIE HENKE (REP) 492 302 6,563 7,357 53.20%
Total 859 711 12,248 13,818
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 72 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
SENECA SCOTT (DEM) 181 455 5,350 5,986 72.70%
RANDALL L. REESE (REP) 78 80 2,087 2,245 27.30%
Total 259 535 7,437 8,231
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 76 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
GLENDA K. PUETT (DEM) 177 218 4,700 5,095 32.30%
DAVID BRUMBAUGH (REP) 551 235 9,880 10,666 67.70%
Total 728 453 14,580 15,761
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 78 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
JEANNIE McDANIEL (DEM) 422 394 7,988 8,804 61.40%
PAUL CATALANO (REP) 226 167 5,134 5,527 38.60%
Total 648 561 13,122 14,331
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 83 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
ED HOLZBERGER (DEM) 360 661 4,876 5,897 34.90%
RANDY McDANIEL (REP) 1,085 409 9,491 10,985 65.10%
Total 1,445 1,070 14,367 16,882
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 86 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
WILL FOURKILLER (DEM) 440 566 6,322 7,328 68.70%
RUSSELL DON TURNER (REP) 180 268 2,890 3,338 31.30%
Total 620 834 9,212 10,666
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 87 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
NICK SINGER (DEM) 243 357 5,082 5,682 44.60%
JASON NELSON (REP) 461 174 6,413 7,048 55.40%
Total 704 531 11,495 12,730
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 88 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
KAY FLOYD (DEM) 266 419 6,774 7,459 69.20%
AARON KASPEREIT (REP) 181 112 3,032 3,325 30.80%
Total 447 531 9,806 10,784
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 99 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
ANASTASIA A. PITTMAN (DEM) 408 1,841 8,379 10,628 83.50%
WILLARD LINZY (REP) 123 157 1,819 2,099 16.50%
Total 531 1,998 10,198 12,727
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 101 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
STEPHEN E COVERT (DEM) 242 287 4,586 5,115 32.40%
GARY BANZ (REP) 575 181 9,908 10,664 67.60%
Total 817 468 14,494 15,779
JUDICIAL RETENTION
SUPREME COURT – NOMA D. GURICH ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 33,377 65,638 689,311 788,326 66.50%
NO 17,255 33,167 347,457 397,879 33.50%
Total 50,632 98,805 1,036,768 1,186,205
SUPREME COURT – YVONNE KAUGER ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,610 64,499 676,471 773,580 65.60%
NO 17,880 33,639 353,262 404,781 34.40%
Total 50,490 98,138 1,029,733 1,178,361
SUPREME COURT – JAMES E. EDMONDSON ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 33,166 65,843 691,763 790,772 66.90%
NO 17,485 32,677 341,080 391,242 33.10%
Total 50,651 98,520 1,032,843 1,182,014
SUPREME COURT – DOUGLAS L. COMBS ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,770 65,101 684,656 782,527 66.40%
NO 17,424 33,149 345,280 395,853 33.60%
Total 50,194 98,250 1,029,936 1,178,380
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – CLANCY SMITH ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,591 63,777 674,548 770,916 65.80%
NO 17,268 33,882 349,323 400,473 34.20%
Total 49,859 97,659 1,023,871 1,171,389
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – ARLENE JOHNSON ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,822 65,084 680,298 778,204 66.60%
NO 17,036 32,473 341,290 390,799 33.40%
Total 49,858 97,557 1,021,588 1,169,003
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – DAVID B. LEWIS ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,973 64,784 684,056 781,813 67.00%
NO 16,741 32,577 335,978 385,296 33.00%
Total 49,714 97,361 1,020,034 1,167,109
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – P. THOMAS THORNBRUGH ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 33,353 64,193 687,579 785,125 67.30%
NO 16,398 33,030 331,764 381,192 32.70%
Total 49,751 97,223 1,019,343 1,166,317
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – WILLIAM C. HETHERINGTON, JR. ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,377 63,358 666,257 761,992 65.60%
NO 17,186 33,485 348,188 398,859 34.40%
Total 49,563 96,843 1,014,445 1,160,851
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – KENNETH L. BUETTNER ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 33,067 63,719 683,415 780,201 67.30%
NO 16,424 32,978 330,189 379,591 32.70%
Total 49,491 96,697 1,013,604 1,159,792
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – ROBERT BOBBY BELL ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,328 63,249 669,133 764,710 65.90%
NO 17,193 33,479 344,648 395,320 34.10%
Total 49,521 96,728 1,013,781 1,160,030
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – E. BAY MITCHELL, III ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
YES 32,904 63,906 679,451 776,261 66.90%
NO 16,607 32,903 334,726 384,236 33.10%
Total 49,511 96,809 1,014,177 1,160,497
STATE QUESTIONS
STATE QUESTION NO. 758 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 358 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 42,807 68,814 745,090 856,711 67.70%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 14,445 37,287 356,593 408,325 32.30%
Total 57,252 106,101 1,101,683 1,265,036
STATE QUESTION NO. 759 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 359 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 34,174 57,866 652,514 744,554 59.20%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 22,885 47,656 442,705 513,246 40.80%
Total 57,059 105,522 1,095,219 1,257,800
STATE QUESTION NO. 762 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 360 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 33,876 62,376 647,613 743,865 59.20%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 23,092 43,015 447,027 513,134 40.80%
Total 56,968 105,391 1,094,640 1,256,999
STATE QUESTION NO. 764 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 361 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 32,167 58,738 614,131 705,036 56.70%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 24,006 45,555 469,047 538,608 43.30%
Total 56,173 104,293 1,083,178 1,243,644
STATE QUESTION NO. 765 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 362 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 34,595 58,889 657,074 750,558 59.90%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 21,974 46,184 433,932 502,090 40.10%
Total 56,569 105,073 1,091,006 1,252,648
STATE QUESTION NO. 766 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 363 ABSENTEE EARLY ELECTION TOTAL
MAIL VOTING DAY
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 38,321 65,374 721,047 824,742 65.00%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 18,923 41,058 384,656 444,637 35.00%
Total 57,244 106,432 1,105,703 1,269,379
Advertisements

November 2, 2012

Who’s Funding SQ 764?

OK-SAFE, Inc. – A search on Campaign Reporting on the OK Ethics Commission website reveals who the money is behind the “Yes on SQ 764” effort. (Ethics number 312002).  SQ 764 creates the Water Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Reserve Fund and would allow the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) to issue up to $300 M in bonds.

This measure would provide the funding to implement the highly controversial Water for 2060 Act, (HB 3055), one of the most dangerous bills ever passed by the Republican-led Oklahoma Legislature.

HB 3055 reads “the public policy of this state is to establish and work toward a goal of consuming no more fresh water in the year 2060 than is consumed statewide in the year 2012”.

If passed, SQ 764 would provide the funds to make this dangerous and costly bill a reality in OK, leading to the rationing of freshwater, regardless of its abundance.  (See below the Campaign Contributions chart for further details on SQ 764).

Yes on SQ 764 PAC

The “Yes on SQ 764” PAC was established in June of this year by the Oklahoma Municipal League, the OK Rural Water Association (ORWA), and the State Chamber Of Oklahoma.  Chair of this committee is Homer Nicholson, Mayor of Ponca City; Treasurer is Arnella Karges of the State Chamber of Oklahoma; and Deputy Treasurer is Billy G. Simms, Pres. of ORWA.

The big contributors to this committee were BancFirst Corp., contributing a whopping $15,000, and the Chickasaw Nation, who contributed $10,000.  Other donors included a general contractor from Manhattan, KS, a law firm from Dallas, TX, and a financial advisor firm, also in Dallas.

How very…regional.

Last minute contributors included the State Chamber with a contribution of $3,800.

Campaign Contributions for “Yes on SQ 764”:

Name & Address of Contributor Occupation & Employer or Principal Business Activity Date Accepted Amount of Contribution
BancFirst Corporation Banking 11-Sep-12 $15,000.00
Chickasaw Nation Native American Tribe 20-Sep-12 $10,000.00
RICK SMITH FINANCIAL ADVISOR (sic) 24-Aug-12 $5,000.00
Municipal Finance Services Municipal Financial Advisor 12-Oct-12 $5,000.00
The Public Finance Law Group PLLC Law Firm 9-Oct-12 $5,000.00
State Chamber Of Oklahoma Legislative Advocates For Business 10/31/12 $3,800.00
Okla Rural Water Association PAC Special Interest Association 10/29/12 $2,500.00
ORWA Assurance Group Business 10/29/12 $2,000.00
FirstSouthwest Financial Advisor – Dallas, TX 10/31/12 $2,000.00
Butler Engineering Consulting Engineering 13-Sep-12 $1,500.00
HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Engineering 10-Sep-12 $1,500.00
Holloway Updike & Bellen, Inc. Civil Engineering – Consulting 22-Aug-12 $1,000.00
United Trenching Incorporated Water & Sanitary Sewer Installation 22-Aug-12 $1,000.00
Krapff-Reynolds Construction Company Utility Contractor 28-Sep-12 $1,000.00
JACOB A. BACHELOR, PC BOND COUNSEL ATTORNEY 24-Sep-12 $1,000.00
Lasso Corp Oil & Gas Investment 20-Sep-12 $1,000.00
M&E Consultants, LLC Civil Engineering 20-Sep-12 $1,000.00
AEP-PSO Electric Utility 20-Sep-12 $1,000.00
Walters-Morgan Construction, Inc. General Contractor – Municipal Infrastructure – Manhattan, KS 17-Sep-12 $1,000.00
Jess Mark Nichols Farms Farming 11-Sep-12 $1,000.00
WDB Engineering PLLC Consulting Engineering 16-Oct-12 $1,000.00
Bank Of Cushing Banking 5-Oct-12 $1,000.00
McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, L.L.P. Law Firm – Dallas, TX 5-Oct-12 $1,000.00
Wind, Water, And Agriculture (wwag) Pac Political Action Committee 10/25/12 $1,000.00
F. FORD DRUMMOND SELF EMPLOYED 22-Aug-12 $500.00
JOE E TARON, DDS RETIRED 24-Sep-12 $500.00
JAMES GAMMILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 10/29/12 $500.00
Myers Engineering Consulting Engineers 10-Oct-12 $250.00
MARK F. SELVIDGE ATTORNEY 2-Oct-12 $250.00
J.D. STRONG DIRECTOR – OWRB 22-Oct-12 $200.00
JOE S FREEMAN CHIEF – OWRB 18-Sep-12 $100.00
JENNIFER WASINGER OWRB 1-Oct-12 $75.00

Total contributions to date, including last minute contributions: $68,675.

SQ 764 Recommended Vote: No

Title: Creates the Water Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Reserve Fund; allows the OWRB to issue bonds

Ballot Language: This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new Section 39A to Article 10. It would allow the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to issue bonds. Any bonds issued would be used to provide a reserve fund for the Board. The fund would be a reserve fund for certain water resource and sewage treatment funding programs. The fund could only be used to pay other bonds and obligations for the funding programs. The bonds could only be issued after other monies and sources are used for repayment. The bonds would be general obligation bonds. Not more than Three Hundred Million Dollars worth of bonds could be issued. The Legislature would provide the monies to pay for the bonds. The Legislature would provide for methods for issuing the bonds. The Legislature would provide for how the fund is administered.

Comments: This measure would provide the funding to implement the highly controversial Water for 2060 Act, (HB 3055), one of the most dangerous bills ever passed by the Republican-led Oklahoma Legislature.

HB 3055 reads the public policy of this state is to establish and work toward a goal of consuming no more fresh water in the year 2060 than is consumed statewide in the year 2012”.

If passed, SQ 764 would provide the funds to make this dangerous and costly bill a reality in OK, potentially leading to the rationing of freshwater in this state, regardless of abundance.

October 13, 2012

Assessor Agrees with OK-SAFE Position on State Questions dealing with Ad Valorem

OK-SAFE, Inc. – After publishing our voter guide on the six state questions on the November ballot, some folks were scratching their heads over some of OK-SAFE’s recommendations, particularly the two questions dealing with the ad valorem taxation – SQ 758 (putting a 3% “cap” on fair cash value of property) and SQ 766 (exempting intangible personal property from ad valorem taxation).

We recommended a NO vote on both.

The Ad Valorem taxation subject is  a relatively new one for us – we normally deal with issues of rights to life, liberty and property; the growth of government, surveillance technology, health care reform, sustainable development, etc.

We took a long time analyzing the six state questions, paying particular attention to the context of the proposal,  what was being amended, what the intent was, and more importantly, what would be the effect of the proposed state question.  We also checked for connections to other national efforts.

We consulted with County Assessors and with the Oklahoma Tax Commission on the two tax questions.

We did not consult the author of the two tax bills, considering them to be biased, nor with the State Chamber of Commerce, considering them to be biased AND unprincipled.

We also kept in mind the nature of this legislature/administration – passing laws that protect life, liberty and property is not their habit.

[This is the same  legislature that, despite the wishes of the people, has continued the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka “ObamaCare”); passed the legislation authorizing the use of Smart Meters; twice killed the pro-life Personhood bill (the real one last year, and the faux one this year); worked to take your DNA upon arrest; made it lawful to confiscate your vehicle for failing to PROVE you have insurance; fought all 2nd amendment bills; and passed the most dangerous water bill we’ve ever seen (HB 3055, the Water for 2060 Act), committing the state of Oklahoma to consuming no more freshwater in the 2060 than was consumed in 2012].

Not Likely

Asking ourselves, “How likely is it that this same legislature/administration passed any state questions that actually benefit the citizens of Oklahoma; that the questions put on the ballot will really result in the protection of life, liberty and property?”

The answer was, “Not likely.”

So, after examining the six state questions, and doing due diligence on research, we concluded that 5 of the 6 questions deserve a NO vote, and one a YES vote.  The NO Votes are SQ 758, 759, 762, 764, and 766.  The one YES vote, with reservations, is SQ 765. For details on the ballot title, ballot language, and our recommended vote, see our prior post here and the front page of our website at www.ok-safe.com.  Our printable flyer is available in both locations, listing all these details.

County Assessor Agrees with Recommendations on Tax Questions

One County Assessor read our recommendations on the state questions and took the time to send us an email.  Wade Patterson, Garfield County Assessor, was a member of the 21-member committee that studied the tax questions, and was part of the group that submitted language that would have mitigated the negative impact the Civil Court of Appeals decision on the SW Bell Telephone case dealing with intangible property. Their recommended language was not adopted by the legislature.

With his permission, Patterson’s email is noted below:

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Hello Mr. Sellers:

I just wanted to take the time to say what a good job you did on explaining the state questions.  You have done some extensive research on the ad valorem topic and have a good grasp on what happens when one group gets special treatment.  You hit the nail on the head by expressing the opinion that it will simply transfer the responsibility to pay the bill to everyone that did not receive the same special treatment.

The County Assessors Association of Oklahoma crafted language for Senator Mazzei that would have kept the intangibles at the local level exempt from taxation.  We agreed that if the intangibles were not exempted at the local level it could be a new level of taxation on businesses.  The public service valuations are much more complicated since intangibles are imbedded in the “unit valuation methodology” currently used by the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

It was our suggestion that the legislation be broken into two separate pieces one that would deal with local valuations (assessor) and the other dealing with public service valuations (OTC).  The legislation was simple and dealt with local valuation until about a week before the end of the session.   However, since a solution could not be reached on the public service valuation methodology, the authors simple put the two back into the same bill, ignoring the fact that the impact was not known.  Simply saying that intangibles are exempt will create a huge funding issue for many jurisdictions.  The estimates range from $12 million to $68 million, depending on who you ask.

As you have stated in your recommendations, this shortfall will simply be spread out among all the property owners.  Every school district in my county has a sinking fund therefore everyone in the district will be required to make up the difference for the reduction in the public service valuations.  I explain the sinking fund to constituents this way; you simple divide how much you need (bond payments) by how much you are worth (net assessed value) the answer is the millage needed to cover your debt payment.  The only people that win are the ones that get a lower value because of the new law.

Whether someone is for or against the exemption is not the issue here, the issue is the legislature’s lack of understanding and unwillingness to be problem solvers.  Simply passing the buck is poor leadership at best!

Once again, let me say well done on the explanations of the very complicated issue.  Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Wade Patterson,
Garfield County Assessor
114 W. Broadway, Room 106
Enid, OK  73701

October 23, 2010

OK-SAFE State Question Summary for Nov. 2, 2010 Ballot

There is tremendous interest about the upcoming November 2, 2010 election in Oklahoma.  In addition to all the state-wide races, there are 11 state questions to be decided.  Some of these questions, like SQ 744 on Education Funding, have gotten a lot of attention and have been discussed in depth by other groups.  (We like to refer people to the ROPE website for the best summary of what is wrong with SQ 744). Like ROPE and many other groups we recommend a  NO vote on SQ 744.

Other questions, just as important, have gotten a lot less attention.

Below is a summary of OK-SAFE’s positions on 10 of the 11 state questions on the upcoming November 2, 2010 Ballot.  We have no recommendation on SQ 752, the Judicial Nominating Commission, deciding this needed more research to understand the full impact of this proposed change.

This summary is available as either a one-page printable pdf or a 5-page expanded version which includes the actual ballot wording, links to the originating legislation, and links to supporting documentation for our some of our positions.

To view these printable summaries go to the OK-SAFE website at www.ok-safe.com, and click on the Non-Partisan Oklahoma Voter Guide link.

The state questions:

State Question 744 – Education Funding – OK-SAFE Recommends a NO vote on SQ 744

Note:  “SQ 744 is a proposal by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) that would force the state to spend nearly a billion dollars more on education by cutting all other state agencies or raise your taxes by the same amount.” [Source: www.stop744.com]  Further, it violates local control of education principles.

State Question 746 – Voter ID – OK-SAFE Recommends a NO Vote on SQ 746

Due to concerns that this measure is part of the incremental steps being taken towards the creation of a national/international ID card. NOTE: Mexico has created a National Biometric Identification card (fingerprints, photo, and iris scan) which is set to replace their current voter ID card.

State Question 747 – Term Limits for Statewide Elected Officials – OK-SAFE Recommends a YES Vote on SQ 747

State Question 748 – Apportionment – OK-SAFE  Recommends a NO on SQ 748

Due to the continued concentration of powers being given to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro-Tempore, (paving the way for conflict of interest), this ballot measure raises some concerns, namely the issue of powers of appointment which removes accountability to the public versus commission members who are elected in general elections and who can ultimately be held accountable at election time.

State Question 750 – Ballot Access – OK-SAFE  Recommends a YES Vote on SQ 750

Note:  The rationale behind the changing of the election used is because of the massive shifts in voter turnout. The Presidential General Election usually has a higher turnout. Thus, the measure would generally have a lowering effect on the number of required signatures.

State Question 751 – English Language for Official Actions- OK-SAFE  Recommends a YES Vote on SQ 751. 

State Question 752 – Judicial Nominating Commission – OK-SAFE takes no position on SQ 752

[Observation: Given the current trend of the OK legislature, and the support of the State Chamber for this ballot question, the most likely appointees would be from the private sector with connections to special interest groups.]

State Question 754 – State Appropriations – OK-SAFE  Recommends a NO Vote on SQ 754

Although in agreement with the initial intent of this legislation, there are serious concerns with limiting the power of future legislatures to amend the state’s Constitution; additionally, there are concerns about possible unintended consequences of undoing beneficial existing and/or future Constitutional formulas. (Heads up: the State Chamber of Commerce supports this bill)

State Question 755 – State Courts and Law- OK-SAFE  Suggests a tentative YES on SQ 755

There are still concerns with consulting other states’ laws, i.e. states that recognize homosexual marriage, being considered in OK courts. One lawyer we consulted did not think this would be an issue, but his was an “opinion” only and not a point of fact.

State Question 756 – Health Insurance- OK-SAFE  recommends a YES Vote on SQ 756

Even though this is the weaker of the two bills introduced in 2010 opposing the federal healthcare bill, it is the only option on the November 2, 2010 Ballot addressing this issue.

 State Question 757 – Rainy Day Fund – OK-SAFE Recommends a NO Vote on SQ 757

Since the reserve money (our money) ends up in a Reserve Fund that the Legislature has demonstrated it will tap into for virtually any reason under the sun, we cannot support increasing this surplus revenue amount by 50%. 

 For further information and the actual ballot wording please see the OK-SAFE website.

October 5, 2010

Reminder – OKC Action Forum Thursday, October 7, 2010

Filed under: Education — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — oksafeinc @ 2:39 am

The next OK-SAFE Action Forum will be this Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010.

Location: The Village Library, 10307 N. Penn Ave., The Village Library, The Village, OK (north OKC)

Time: 6:30pm – 8:15 pm.

Subjects covered will include a brief power point on the Earmark process, how the appropriation process works, who are the requestors and recipients of the money in Oklahoma.  Discussion will also cover the subject of HUB Zones, (federal designations), enterprise zones & opportunity zones (state designations), and which technology companies are linked to them.

Be prepared for a lively group discussion on the 11 state questions on the upcoming November 2, 2010 Oklahoma ballot.  OK-SAFE’s State Question Summary is available on our website at www.ok-safe.com, just click on Non-Partisan Oklahoma Voter Guide or download pdf here.

After the Octoer 7th meeting the  OK-SAFE Action Forums will be changing to a different meeting schedule, with the dates of the meetings to be determined as needed and convenient for attendance.  This move will allow for more time for research, open up the calendar for a different meeting schedule and allow for more content.

It will also help alleviate the ‘so many meetings to attend’ anxiety many  Oklahoma activists have expressed having and which has shown to be counterproductive.

Stayed tuned for notices of future meeting times, dates, and locations.

See you at 6:30 pm, Thursday, Oct. 7 at The Village Library in Oklahoma City, OK.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: