Voter purging case one to watch
THE U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Ohio that bears watching in Oklahoma, too. Ohio is challenging a federal appeals court ruling that struck down that state’s method for purging voters from its registration rolls. In Ohio, voters are removed if they haven’t voted in six years or if they fail to respond to notices that they might be removed from registration rolls. The system is run by county officials and, as an investigation by The Cincinnati Enquirer and USA Today found last year, it’s conducted somewhat haphazardly.
Oklahoma’s is not. Here, the process is fully automated. As Bryan Dean, spokesman for the state Election Board, noted in an email, “No one at either the state or county level can designate or except an individual voter from the process. We don’t know the names, party affiliations or any other information about those removed” until the process is complete.
The state sends address confirmation notices in odd-numbered years to inactive voters for one of five reasons, including not having voted since before the two previous elections, or they’re registered to vote in another state. Recipients have 60 days to return the confirmation mailing to the Election Board or go online to verify their address. If they don’t, their registration becomes inactive — although they can still vote, in which case they become active again. Voters are removed from the rolls if they remain inactive for two straight general election cycles after receiving their notice.
This is reasonable and fair. But if the Supreme Court finds fault with Ohio’s purging process, the effects of such a ruling could be felt here.
Politicians behaving badly
Oklahoma politicians have often been a source of embarrassment to Oklahomans. Perhaps this is of little comfort, but Oklahoma isn’t the only state whose citizens are subjected to that feeling. The Dallas Morning News reports the final day of session in the Texas House involved a “shoving match and war of words” that “nearly turned into a fistfight on the Texas House floor …” This year, Texas lawmakers voted to require cities to enforce federal immigration laws, targeting self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” that ignore the law. Protesters showed up, and Reps. Ramon Romero and Cesar Blanco, both Democrats, then got into a dispute with Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi. Both sides accused the other of making violent threats. Rinaldi later issued a statement in which he said he was willing to shoot someone in selfdefense. The problem of politicians behaving badly, it seems, isn’t confined to Oklahoma’s state lines.
A favorite tactic
Barry Switzer remains highly popular nearly 30 years after coaching his last football game at the University of Oklahoma, and that popularity is attractive to politicians and political causes. The latest example is provided by Republican state Sen. David Holt, who this week announced that Switzer has endorsed Holt’s candidacy for mayor of Oklahoma City. Switzer lives in Norman and thus isn’t eligible to vote in the February 2018 election, but the candidate said Switzer has “always believed that what happens in Oklahoma City affects the whole state.” That may be so. Our sense, though, is that when city voters choose their next mayor, they’ll do so based more on their impressions of the candidates and their platforms, and less on which celebrities they have in their corner.
Classy contrast
Many Democrats like to dismiss President Trump as a former reality TV host who is crass and vulgar. So it’s interesting that Business Insider now reports, “Influential Ohio Democrats are pushing former Cincinnati mayor and daytime TV host Jerry Springer to run for Ohio governor in 2018 ...” That’s right: We’re talking about the same Jerry Springer whose show was noted for tabloid theatrics, including revealing paternity tests live on the air as people watched the reaction of the parties involved. We’re talking about the same Jerry Springer who once had to resign from his position on the Cincinnati city council in a prostitution scandal that came to light when police obtained the personalized check Springer had used for payment. Who could better provide a contrast with Trump Republicans and prove that Democrats are very classy?
What if roles were reversed?
Donald Trump’s unexpected presidential victory sent many liberals into a tailspin from which they have yet to recover, fueling “protests” that often go well beyond expressing passionate disagreement and into straight-up derangement. So it’s welcome news that some on the left reached their limit this week when comedienne Kathy Griffin posted video in which she holds Trump’s severed “head,” covered in fake blood. Some prominent Democrats quickly condemned the stunt. CNN announced Griffin would no longer host the station’s New Year’s Eve coverage. Soon, Griffin issued an apology (whether heartfelt or not remains to be seen). As the president’s eldest son, Donald Jr., noted on Twitter, “This is the left today. They consider this acceptable. Imagine a conservative did this to Obama as POTUS?” That’s a good point, because many liberals would undoubtedly oppose Griffin-style stunts if the partisan roles were reversed.
Still not great, but …
In Chicago during the long Memorial Day weekend, five people were killed by gunfire and 44 wounded — and authorities were encouraged. That’s because the totals represent a slight improvement over a year ago (seven dead, 61 wounded) and are a sign that efforts to curb the violence are making a dent. USA Today reports that Chicago’s death toll from guns through the first six months of this year is down from the same period in 2016, with the number of shootings falling from 1,222 to 1,047. The largest declines in shootings have come in two districts where violence has been the worst. The city opened its first data-driven “nerve centers” in those districts in January, using videos, sensors and other equipment to help police respond more quickly to shootings and predict where trouble might occur. Chicago remains beset by violence, clearly, but the small gains are worth applauding.
Excuses
Hillary Clinton has been playing the blame game, insisting her presidential election loss was the fault of everyone but the candidate. In a recent public appearance, Clinton lambasted The New York Times, saying the newspaper covered her use of a private email server as secretary of state “like it was Pearl Harbor.” At the same event, Clinton blamed the Democratic National Committee, saying, “I got nothing” from the party to help her campaign. That prompted a profanity-laced response from Andrew Therriault, the DNC’s former director of data science, calling Clinton’s claim false, in no uncertain terms. In reality, Clinton received kid gloves treatment from the press compared with what most Republicans would receive in comparable situations. And her party went to the mat for her, despite her obvious flaws. That Clinton is so oblivious to reality shows why it’s such a good thing she isn’t president today.