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

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

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.

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

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.

Reminder – OKC Action Forum Thursday, October 7, 2010

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.