Oklahoma Wants to Imprison Petition Organizers

On October 2, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson indicted Paul Jacob, Susan Johnson and Rick Carpenter, on a charge of conspiring to cause out-of-state residents to circulate an initiative petition last year. The penalty is a fine of $25,000 and up to ten years in prison.

The three individuals were working for a tax limitation petition during 2006. Although the Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled in 2002 that out-of-state residents may not circulate initiative petitions in that state, it was not clear what the definition of “resident” is. Many Americans are validly registered to vote in particular states, even though they actually spend little or no time in that state. American citizens living permanently in foreign countries are permitted to remain registered in their last state of residence, even if they have not set foot in that state, or in the U.S., in decades. College students are permitted to register in states in which they attend school, even if they are domiciled in another state (such as their parents’ address).

Military personnel overseas, members of Congress, and “snowbirders” are validly permited to register in states, even though they don’t actually own a home in those states or even pay rent in those states.

In the Oklahoma instance, the out-of-state circulators were residing in Oklahoma for several months, and their employers relied on the Secretary of State that these employees were eligible.

The indictments will make it easier to win the pending federal case that charges Oklahoma is violating the First Amendment by requiring only persons domiciled in Oklahoma to circulate petitions. That case had lost in U.S. District Court on September 7. The case is Yes on Term Limits v Savage. The Court said the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the criminal penalties because a plaintiff must show a “real and immediate threat” of prosecution. The Court said there is no threat. Obviously, that is no longer true. The case is on appeal to the 10th circuit. See here for a Reason Magazine written interview with Paul Jacob. For still more information, see www.freepauljacob.com.

Ron Paul Interview with Wolf Blitzer Mentions U.S. Discrimination Against Minor Parties

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Ron Paul on October 4. The interview lasts 6 minutes and can be seen here. Ron Paul is the only prominent person who is running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic or Republican Parties, who has ever talked about U.S. policy that discriminates for two particular parties and against all others. That part of the interview is midway in the interview (at the 3 minutes, 9 seconds marker).

Ronald Reagan, while president, mentioned in a speech given in 1985 in the Soviet Union that the Libertarian Party and Socialist Party, among others, ran against him in 1984, and that this is proof that the U.S. is democratic. Gerald Ford, while president, expressed the belief in 1976 that the New York courts ought to permit independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy to be on the 1976 ballot. Calvin Coolidge, while president, expressed the belief in 1924 that Louisiana should permit independent Progressive candidate Robert La Follette to get on the ballot. Other than these 3 examples, it is believed that no sitting U.S. president in the 20th or 21st centuries has ever publicly expressed any support for the right of voters to vote for minor parties and independent candidates.

Florida Democratic Congressmembers Sue Democratic National Committee and Secretary of State Over Primary

On October 4, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson and U.S. House member Alcee Hastings filed a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee, arguing that the Democratic National Committee’s decision to deprive Florida of its national convention delegation violates the U.S. Constitution. The case is Nelson v Dean, 4:07-cv-427-RH. It was assigned to Judge Robert Hinkle, a Clinton appointee. The attorney who filed the case, Kendall Coffey, is a former U.S. attorney. He was also one of the attorneys for Al Gore and the Florida Democratic Party in Bush v Gore in 2000.

Ironically, the hearing yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres will probably make it more difficult for Senator Nelson and Congressman Hastings to prevail. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court won’t issue its opinion in Lopez Torres for some months, the media reports that virtually all members of the Court seem to feel that political parties should run their own nominations process, will injure the lawsuit filed today.