Voters' guide 2010: Oklahoma general election cheat sheet

| | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

I always have grand plans for election years: An entry on each race, setting out at length my reasons for one candidate over another, for voting for or against a ballot proposition. In years past, I've had much more time than I have this year for writing. So here we are two weeks from the election, and I've received a few polite inquiries from readers who have absentee ballots in hand and are unsure about a few of the dozens of votes they have to cast.

While I still hope to crank out some specific stories on specific races, here's the short version, the who and what, not the why.

Federal, state, and county races: Vote for the Republican. I don't always endorse the Republican nominee, but for all the races I've looked at this year, the Republican is by far the better candidate.

Judicial races (Tulsa/Pawnee Counties): Vote for the Republican challenger -- John Eagleton, Bill Musseman, Jon Patton. All three are listed first on the ballot. (If you live in a different judicial district and would like me to look up the candidates' voter registration, post a comment or shoot me an email.)

Judicial retention (Appeals Courts, Supreme Court): Vote no, and let our new conservative Republican governor fill the vacancies. (I always vote no without a compelling reason to vote yes.)

State questions: No on the fours -- 744, 754. Yes on everything else. (By the way, I think the author of the ballot language indulged in a bit of editorializing on some of the questions.)

744 (school funding tied to other states): No.
746 (voter ID): Yes.
747 (term limits for all statewide officials): Yes.
748 (composition of apportionment commission): Yes.
750 (consistent signature requirements for initiative petitions): Yes.
751 (official state actions in English): Yes.
752 (composition of judicial nominating commission): Yes.
754 (unamendable amendment on appropriation formulas ban on predetermined formulas for spending): No.
755 (courts can't consider sharia, international law in decisions): Yes.
756 (ban on Obamacare coercion): Yes.
757 (rainy day fund increase): Yes.

City of Tulsa propositions: Yes on both.

1 (city rainy day fund): Yes.
2 (fix schedule problem created by 3-year staggered council terms): Repeal would be better -- back to 2 year terms and fall, odd-year elections -- but this fix is better than the expense of funding a separate city election infrastructure.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Voters' guide 2010: Oklahoma general election cheat sheet.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5811

Early voting for the Oklahoma 2010 general election began today, Friday, October 29, 2010, at your county election board headquarters. The Tulsa County Election Board is at 555 N. Denver Ave., just north of downtown Tulsa. Here are the dates and times ... Read More

5 Comments

stixx23 said:

Wait a minute. Are you saying Attorney General Drew Edmondson may have let personal politics affect the wording of state question ballot titles? But I thought the Governor said that doesn't happen in his veto message on a bill that would have had the ballot title of legislative initiatives be approved BEFORE lawmakers voted whether it should go on the ballot. Something's fishy here...

On SQ754, Edmondson unilaterally added the "non-amendable, non-repealable" bit - it's not in the actual measure. It's just not true, and even if it were, it would be unconstitutional.

CGHill Author Profile Page said:

Oddly, I made exactly the same call on the state questions: no on 744/754, yes on the others. What are the chances?

Great minds, etc....

Max Bailey Author Profile Page said:

I respectfully disagree on Q 754. I do not want any entity or any voter outside of OK mandating, purposely or otherwise, budgetary requirements for OK. I want every budget item considered by Oklahoman voters or their duly elected representatives. We never want our hands tied by outsiders our formulas potentially conceived by some special interest other than we the voting public. Thus my vote is yes on 754.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on October 19, 2010 11:24 PM.

Be the wave! was the previous entry in this blog.

Election 2010: Tulsa area Republican legislative candidates is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact

Feeds

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Atom
RSS
[What is this?]