The OK house was very busy yesterday and cleared a lot of bills - I think it SB91 has a good chance of getting called today. Particularly since I've noticed that OK legislature like to go home about13:30 on Thursdays.

SB91 - has just passed easily 77 votes to 13.

Missed the debate but got an email just in time to catch the vote. It has to go back to the senate now to approve the house amendments but they were just technical corrections so that won't be a problem.

This is the innocuous one, right?

IMO yes. - particularly after today's events.

Something's going on in OK. Yesterday the Senate rejected the House amendments and sent the bill to conference.

This surprises me - amendments seemed technical and common sense to me and I expected them to go through with no problem. Maybe there's been a change of heart or maybe someone's trying to pull a fast one and trying to slip some vattelism in.

You know, if these bills all die won't that be proof that this effort was completely about seeing only one man's birth certificate after all.

That will give folks plenty of time to repeal this after the laughter dies down.

The Conference Committee report, including a conference substitute for SB 91 can be found here. It's not been to either house yet, indeed because of quirks in OK rules I'm not 100% sure the conference committee has finalized it yet.

It's significantly different to the previous version. There is no specific provsion relating to presidential or vice-presidental candidates - it refers to candidates in general.

The key changes to existing OK law seem to be:

1) The Secretary of the State Election Board, in consultation with the State AG, shall determine the qualifications for each office by reference to the US and state constitutions and publish them.

2)The declaration of candidacy includes an oath that the candidate has evidence to prove his/her identity and that that s/he meets the qualifications.

3)A certified copy of the candidate's voter registration must be attached to the declaration.

5)If eligibility is challenged the board can require the production of this evidence. (Note - there doesn't seem to be any widening of scope of who can challenge)

I've been puzzled why the bill was ever sent to conference but seeing the proposed substitute I suspect that the State AG has intervened behind the scenes.

1. How can a state set the qualifications for a Federal Office???
2. Is there an Oath requirement to RUN in the Federal Constitution?
3. Why a voter's card? - Someone running for Federal Office isn't required to be a voter. Does the OK law require EVERYONE to get a voter registrations card? Now, would the state accept an out of state voter registration card, even though they can be very easily forged (chunk of paper) with a color printer. Do you have to be registered to run for dogcatcher? What about foreign citizens? Can they run for office (green card)? If so, then they won't have a VRC.

Where's 4??? sorry...

5. Since this is a board, do the rules of evidence change??? Did OK outline a mechanism of how this will be accomplished? Will it be a simple majority, supermajority, or is it "one of those Oklahoma things".

I guess this IS Oklahoma...

There is no 4 - I was typing before coffee again!

Not a problem sir. I thought it might be laying around somewhere...

I've just heard that the Conference Committee Substitute for SB91 was accepted by the Senate this afternoon and has been passed on to the House for their approval.

I'm having trouble getting the latest version; can someone please paste it here?

Here's a link:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/20 ... %20CCS.DOC (Senate Conference Committee Substitute - this is the one that is going to the House)

Here's the most recent iteration before the current version, for purposes of comparison:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/20 ... 20ENGR.DOC (Senate Engrossed, as passed on 5/14/11)

THIS entire part has been TAKEN OUT (underlining & strike-through as appeared in the May 2 engrossed version)


There are other changes. I'll see if I can use Word to do some sort of comparative markup.

Just a quick recap. They took out all the stuff about showing ID & birth certificate. They added in stuff that says the candidate has to submit a form with his name, place of residence, date of birth, party affiliation, precinct and county where registered to vote, and an oath where the candidate swears that he or she is qualified for the office sought, and is in possession of proof of identity and proof of qualification. The candidate also has to submit a certified copy of their official voter registration record and that needs to match ("substantially conform") to whatever is on the candidate statement.

I think that this change may reflect one of these political concerns:

1. Now that Obama has released his long form birth certificate, there are some Oklahoma legislators who are hoping that maybe there is something amiss with Obama's voter registration records. Like maybe Obama's got a fake voter registration in Chicago through Acorn or something. Or maybe he'll list his address as being 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC but his voter registration will turn out to be in Illinois.

or

2. They've moved on from worrying about Obama and are scared that people who are really closeted libruls might try to run as Republicans or Tea Party candidates (like Jack Davis in the NY-26 race)

Where in the constitution do you have to be a registered voter to run for office? Aren't non- registered folks citizens also????

And if you don't let felons vote, and you are required to be a registered voter to run for office then you have effectively barred all folks who are felons from running for office. I didn't notice that in the US Constitution either.

The current iteration of the law also removes the reference to "presidential" candidates and purports to apply to all candidates for public office, so maybe for local offices in Oklahoma there is a requirement that the candidate also be registered to vote. (I don't have a clue, just speculating).

I agree, there is no requirement that a candidate for federal office be registered to vote, though as a practical matter I doubt that it would come up, especially for partisan positions. Oklahoma does allow felons to register to vote, once their sentence is completed -- so in terms of state elections that would not be a barrier.

I don't think it's saying that the state is *setting* the qualifications. It just says that the state election board and attorney general look at Constitution to determine what it says the requirements are (US Constitution for federal offices, State Constitution for state offices) and then publish what they are.



I think, perhaps, the wording of what OK bill is requiring may be making it somewhat confusing. They aren't asking the candidate to take an oath to DO something or to swear loyalty or any other kind of "active" oath (where the promise being made is related to future actions and behaviour.) In the case of this bill, they aren't actually adding a requirement for candidacy, they're wanting the candidate to give them a legal assurance that a certain set of facts are, in fact, true facts.

Besides, some states already require that before a candidate can be placed on the national part of that state's ballots, their party must certify "under penalty of perjury" that the candidate is, in fact, eligible. (Most states just require a statement that the party is asserting the candidate is qualified rather than the more affidavit-like "penalty-of-perjury" that a few states require.) So, at least in a few states, where an oath IS required for ballot placement. Granted, its an oath from the party rather than the candidate, but without that oath being made, the candidate won't be listed.

I gather from some of a debate I caught earlier in the process that challenging candidates is far from uncommon in OK - particularly on residence and voter registration. It's quite possible that the current version is not as influenced by birfing as we might think.

I agree that the voter registration part is unconstitutional, - some posts on the Lakin thread have convinced me of that - but putting that aside the requirements are similar to what some other states have had for years.

Do they have to apply to restore their civil rights after their term is complete or is this automatic???

So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?

Not to hammer this too hard, but a felon can run for federal office, doesn't need to be a registered voter, and in OK possibly automatic restoration of Civil Rights (possible) - but the felony is in another state ( in those nasty states that brand you a criminal forever regardless of how much time you served) which doesn't restore civil rights...

This bill still stinks to high Heaven

thorswitch wrote:

This looks problematic. Do they do this all over for each election? Isn't this like the Arizona law passing the buck to the Secretary of State and his discretion or interpretation of what is required to qualify?

It looks like they have tied themselves into knots and do not know how to get them untied in order to pass a bill that makes sense and passes constitutional muster.

Looks as if there's case dead on point on the question of whether a state can require a candidate for Federal office to be registered voter and the anserer is no!

Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 . (10 th. Cir. 2000)

On top of everything - it's a decision of the 10th circuit, which includes OK

BTW - I've confirmed that the OK legislature is trying to adjourn tomorrow.