Voter reforms in lawmakers’ sights
IT’s easy to understand Kris Steele’s frustration over the news that some legislators are trying to retool a justice reform initiative approved by voters. After all, the vote was conducted just three months ago.
“I think it would be indefensible for the Legislature to usurp the voters and go against the work that Oklahomans have done,” said Steele, who works extensively with ex-convicts as head of The Education and Employment Ministry.
Steele is right — before tinkering, lawmakers should allow more time for the reforms in State Question 780 to have an impact. If they don’t work as intended, then changes can always be made at a later time.
SQ 780 reclassified simple drug possession and property crimes of under $1,000 as misdemeanors instead of felonies. The aim is to reduce the inflow to Oklahoma’s prisons and direct any savings toward diversion programs in the counties.
The question passed easily Nov. 8, with 58 percent of the vote. Yet Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, says those who went to the polls really didn’t understand what they were voting for because the question’s summary paragraph wasn’t detailed enough. Another lawmaker, Rep. Scott Biggs, R-Chickasha, makes a similar argument in his push to restore drug possession as a felony if it’s within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and other places.
They’re selling the voters short, and should leave the provisions of SQ 780 alone for now.
Better late than never
Speaking of prison issues, a task force formed by Gov. Mary Fallin finally released its criminal justice reform report Thursday. The original hoped-for release date was December. That came and went with no news, and was followed by two other delays in January. But better late than never. Among other things, the task force proposes significant reductions in sentences for nonviolent drug dealers and drug makers. There are 27 recommendations in total, and it’s probably wishful thinking to believe legislators will agree on all of them. Yet every member of the House and Senate should take the time read the report, crafted after six months of work, and give serious consideration to the suggestions because the plain truth is that doing nothing isn’t an option. Continuing on the path of adding more men and women each year to already overcrowded prisons is not sustainable, and it’s dangerous to inmates and those charged with overseeing them.
Ugly episode
Soon after the Legislature convenes next week, House members will vote on whether to expel a colleague. This has never happened in Oklahoma, but Rep. Dan Kirby, R-Tulsa, merits strong consideration to become the first. A report issued last week by a special House committee included text messages between Kirby and a former legislative assistant in which he asks her for (and receives) nude pictures. The exchanges reflect horrible judgment on Kirby’s part and a total disregard for boss/employee decorum. The same behavior by a supervisor in the private sector would result in immediate termination. It’s worth noting that this investigation wasn’t a partisan witch hunt. Six of the seven active committee members were, like Kirby, Republicans, and all six of those GOP members signed off on the expulsion recommendation. A vote by the full House could come as soon as Tuesday.
Pure partisanship
This week President Trump revealed his pick to fill a vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat. Democrats were expected to oppose that nominee, Neil Gorsuch. But most people expected Democrats would do so under the pretext that the nominee was somehow “outside the mainstream.” Yet Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., revealed that Democratic opposition was driven purely by partisanship when he announced plans to launch a filibuster before the identity of the nominee was even revealed. Merkley told Politico, “We will use every lever in our power to stop this,” and declared the vacancy a “stolen seat.” The Hill newspaper, which covers Congress, noted such filibusters are rare. Republicans didn’t attempt filibusters against President Obama’s high court picks. Again, no one seriously expected Democrats to embrace any Republican president’s nominee, but it’s astounding to see a sitting U.S. senator tacitly admit there are no serious grounds for his opposition.
Back-seat driver
While there were signs that former President Obama would break with the longstanding practice of former presidents and inject himself into national affairs, many were still surprised to see him take up back-seat driving just 10 days after leaving office. In response to President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from certain countries, Obama had a spokesman issue a statement declaring that Obama “fundamentally disagrees” with Trump’s action. The statement contributed nothing substantive to the debate. Instead, what made the statement especially notable was that under Obama the State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months in 2011 after law enforcement officials raised concerns that terrorists had infiltrated the refugee program. In other words, Trump’s ban is substantially identical to Obama’s ban. This means Obama isn’t just a back-seat driver, but a hypocritical one.
Public sides with Trump
President Trump’s order to temporarily ban immigration from certain countries associated with terrorism prompted college student protests and faux outrage from the Hollywood crowd, but polling from Quinnipiac University suggests the general public sides more with Trump than with his critics. The national poll, conducted prior to Trump’s order, found 48 percent of American voters support “suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions,” compared with 42 percent opposed. The poll also found 53 percent supported “requiring immigrants from Muslim countries to register with the federal government,” a move far more aggressive than anything Trump has proposed. The same poll also found 59 percent of American voters believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States and “eventually apply for U.S. citizenship.” This suggests citizens’ concerns aren’t driven by antiimmigrant sentiment, but by valid security concerns.
Economic dynamism
There was a time, in the not-so-distant past, that critics of Walmart portrayed it as an unstoppable juggernaut, destroying small businesses and maximizing profits. Some critics still sing that tune. Yet today Walmart finds itself facing another supposedly unstoppable juggernaut: Amazon. In 2015, Walmart launched its ShippingPass program, which allowed people who paid a membership fee to buy more than a million items at Walmart.com and receive free shipping. The program was meant to challenge the Amazon Prime program. Now Walmart officials have announced the company is replacing that program with one that has a lower free shipping threshold and faster delivery and no membership fee. It turns out that even the largest companies aren’t immune from competition, and yesterday’s dominant company can become a today’s mere competitor. This ultimately benefits the consumer, and is a reminder of the dynamism of the U.S. economy.
Quite an impact
The election of President Trump has been great for business at the American Civil Liberties Union. USA Today reports that last weekend, following Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending travel into the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, the ACLU received $24 million in online donations. That’s six times the amount the ACLU usually receives online in a year. “He has to understand governing is different than running for office,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. The ACLU says its membership now stands at 1 million, twice as much as on Election Day, and roughly 140,000 people signed up for the organization’s mailing list over the weekend.