Election Results Map: State Question 777

The 2016 election is over, so it's time to update my Election Results Maps series. First up, State Question 777.

The 'Yes' vote won overwhelmingly in western Oklahoma, but lost by large margins in the metropolitan areas. The three worst counties for SQ777 unfortunately were the most populous: Oklahoma County (lost by 38.62%), Cleveland County (lost by 39.88%), and Tulsa County (lost by 42.87%).

40 counties voted in favor ('yes' vote average of 61.93%), while 37 voted against ('yes' vote average of 42.42%).

Speaker Hickman comments on SQ777

If SQ777 is passed by voters, Oklahoma would join Missouri and North Dakota where similar constitutional amendments were passed in 2014 and 2012, respectively, with no reports of the negative issues opponents to SQ777 argue will occur. SQ777 will allow farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws and regulations passed by a future Legislature or statutory changes placed on the ballot through a petition drive by groups like PETA, the Sierra Club and the United States Humane Society who are opposed to SQ777.

Opponents argue that Oklahomans already have a right to farm so this amendment is unnecessary.  It is true that agriculture is not under attack today by those who serve in the Oklahoma Legislature, but as agriculture continues to become more efficient, fewer of us in agriculture are required to feed a growing number of people around the world. As a dwindling number of farmers tends to a growing number of acres to make ends meet, rural communities lose population. With each new census every 10 years, we see a drastic decline in the number of Oklahoma legislators directly involved in production agriculture, who know that food doesn't come from a grocery store. Small producers to typical farm acreages to larger, commercial operators will be equally protected by SQ777, however family farms who typically don’t have the finances to fight extreme animal rights or anti-agriculture groups who attack them would particularly benefit from this added safety net.

If you believe the current rights of Oklahomans to farm and ranch should be preserved for future generations, you will want to vote YES on SQ777.  If you believe extreme animal rights and anti-agriculture groups along with a growing number of legislators with little or no understanding of agriculture do not pose a threat to current farming and ranching practices, you will want to vote NO on SQ777.

Rep. Jeffrey W. Hickman
Speaker of the House
State of Oklahoma

My Picks for the 2016 General Election

With the election literally around the corner, here is how I plan to vote. I've focused on what will be on the ballot in Muskogee County, but also included some of the important, competitive legislative races throughout the state.

President: Anybody but Clinton. I've previously voiced my opinion about Trump. Since Oklahoma will overwhelmingly vote for Trump, I will either leave that line empty or cast a protest vote. (Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. - John Quincy Adams)
U.S. Senate: James Lankford
U.S. House: Republican nominees
State House: I'll focus on the Muskogee-area races, plus a few competitive races that I know something about the candidates.

• Rep. George Faught (HD14 - Muskogee/Cherokee counties)
• Avery Frix (HD13 - Muskogee/McIntosh counties) - Democrat-held seat
• Kevin McDugle (HD12 - Wagoner County) - Democrat-held seat
• Bob Ed Culver (HD4 - Cherokee County) - Democrat-held seat
• Steven McGowan (HD1 - McCurtain County) - Democrat-held seat
• Matt Jackson (HD85 - Oklahoma County) - Democrat-held seat

State Senate: I'll focus on the Muskogee-area races, plus a few competitive races that I know something about the candidates.

• Dewayne Pemberton (SD9 - Muskogee/Cherokee counties) - Democrat-held seat
• Sen. Joseph Silk (SD5 - far southeast corner) - probably the most important reelection, Silk has the highest Conservative Performance Index score in the legislature.
• Sen. Larry Boggs (SD7 - heart of "Little Dixie")

Muskogee County Sheriff: Roger Posey.

Supreme Court - James Winchester: NO. Our entire Supreme Court needs to be thrown out for striking down pro-life measures.
Supreme Court - Douglas Combs: NO. Our entire Supreme Court needs to be thrown out for striking down pro-life measures.

Court of Criminal Appeals - Clancy Smith: No.
Court of Criminal Appeals - Robert Hudson: Yes.
Court of Civil Appeals - Tom Thornbrugh: Yes.
Court of Civil Appeals - John Fischer: No.
Court of Civil Appeals - Larry Joplin: No.

For more on the judges, read this from OCPAC and this from Steve Fair. If history is made and a judge loses his retention election, the Governor appoints a new judge.

State Question 776: For. Would reiterate that the death penalty is not unconstitutional nor "cruel and unusual punishment".
State Question 777: FOR. This measure is intended to protect farmers and ranchers from undue government interference and from outside groups seeking to hurt agriculture in Oklahoma. Contrary to the apocalyptic rhetoric coming from the out-of-state animal-rights/environmentalist groups fighting this, at the very worst this is a "do-little" measure. This won't hurt small farmers. Farmers won't suddenly decide to poison the water and air (like you, they need good water and good air). The sky won't fall. Foreign corporations, already banned, won't be dropping a pig farm next to your suburban house. However, if SQ777 fails, you can be sure the animal-rights/environmentalists will charge into Oklahoma to restrict farming and ranching.
State Question 779: AGAINST. A 22% increase in state sales tax to fill the pockets of higher education, under the misleading guise of "teacher pay raises" is not what Oklahoma needs. Read more from AFP and OCPA Impact.
State Question 780: Against. Many of the drug crime reforms in this measure were addressed by the legislature this past session. Let's see how those work before making further changes.
State Question 781: Against. Michael Bates makes a good argument for a 'no' vote (although David Van Risseghem has good points in favor; if you do vote for 780, you should vote for 781).
State Question 790: FOR. This would remove a section in the state constitution that has been used to infringe on religious liberties.
State Question 792: Against. As someone who does not nor will ever consume liquor, I was a little torn on this. 792 would institute some semi-free-market(ish) reforms, however, if it passes this would not take effect until October 1st, 2018. Whichever way you vote, you're voting for some aspect of the liquor industry. Reading the fine print on this seems like it replaces one set of complicated restrictions with another set. Frankly, I'm surprised the state Supreme Court didn't strike this down as 'logrolling'.


If you need more information on the Judges on the ballot, see these posts.
If you need more information on the State Questions, see these posts. For SQ777 in particular, read these. For SQ779 in particular, read these.

Oklahoma delegation, top Republicans on state questions

With the election days away, some of Oklahoma's congressional delegation and top Republicans have weighed in on the various state questions on the ballot. Here's the list I've been able to find or obtain. If you are aware of a position that I have missed, let me know.

I reached out to the following officials (and others who did not respond) and specifically requested comments on SQ777 and SQ779, and received some additional input on SQ790. No one took a public position on the other state questions.

SQ777 - "Right to Farm"

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe: Supports, featured in ad for 'Yes' campaign
Former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn: Supports, featured in ad for 'Yes' campaign
U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine: taking no position on SQ777, but sounded as if he leaned against it in a Nov. 1st KFAQ radio interview (starting at 34:50)
U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin: Supports SQ777 - Oct. 26th radio interview on KFAQ (starting at 10:55)
U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas: "Congressman Lucas intends to vote for SQ 777 (Right to Farm). While he doesn't believe that adoption of SQ 777 will have a radical impact on the agriculture industry in Oklahoma, he is concerned that if the question fails we will leave the door open for anti-ag and anti-farm groups to come in and push restrictive proposals to overregulate our industry, similar to what we’ve seen in other states."
U.S. Rep. Tom Cole: "Congressman Cole has a policy of not publicly commenting on state issues. He has cast his absentee ballot and voted on SQ777 like any Oklahoma voter, but he does not intend to release a public statement about any of the state questions."
U.S. Rep. Steve Russell: did not return my request for comments.
State House Speaker Jeff Hickman: Supports SQ777 - see response to our request.

SQ779 - sales tax increase for education

U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine: Opposes SQ779 - Nov. 1st radio interview on KFAQ (starting around 16:45)
U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas: "Congressman Lucas usually doesn’t weigh in on state questions. SQ777 was an exception since he received so many requests due to his deep background in agriculture and his former role as chairman of the House Ag Committee."
Lieut. Gov. Todd Lamb: Opposes SQ779 - he spoke out against it as early as June, perhaps making him the first prominent opponent of the measure.

SQ790 - "Blaine Amendment" repeal

U.S. Sen. James Lankford: "Yes on SQ790 for religious liberty." Spoke in favor of the measure at a recent event with Oklahoma pastors, and co-wrote an op-ed with Lt. Gov. Lamb.
Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb: Supports - featured in TV ad, and co-wrote an op-ed with Sen. Lankford.

Another perspective: Richard Engle on the State Questions

Here's another perspective on the seven State Questions on the ballot. Richard Engle, a longtime conservative activist and past candidate for OKGOP Vice-Chair and National Committeeman, posted his take on Facebook, and I thought it was worth the read.

Engle on the Issues

I've been away from politics a bit more than ordinary this year, but I haven't lost my passion for truth. The Oklahoma ballot in 2016 may become best known for the state questions as there is little doubt on the outcome of the statewide candidates including the Presidential Electors.

I have decided to come out into the daylight on these issues in part to answer the many who have asked me, and in part to battle much of the misinformation being bantered on these issues.

My guess is that I will offend and surprise a few of you but here goes:

State Question 776 was designed to assert that all methods of execution shall be constitutionally allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, and designated statutorily by the legislature. This is a harmless and rather unimportant question. If you favor the death penalty for murderers then you likely want to vote in favor. I have wavered on the penalty in the wake of clear tampering of evidence and some notable DNA exonerations. Nonetheless, as a constitutionalist, I will support this question. If we want to end the death penalty a vote against is not adequate to the task. VOTE YES.

State Question 777 was designed to establish a constitutional guarantee for farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices. This is no panacea for property owners. It has little actual impact. It does protect all agriculturally related land owners including large corporations. I am amazed by the advocates of private property that would oppose this on the grounds that it protects corporate land owners. Property is property and the owners thereof deserve to be protected under the law. However, the protection it provides is minimal. The legislature may place further regulation on use by leaping a rather low standard. In that it doesn't really change anything. On the other hand, it creates an absolute barrier to subdivisions of government (counties and cities) from placing any further restrictions on agriculture. Having owned a ranch and vineyard which happened to be in the city limits I knew that the city could have put a stranglehold on my land use at any time. This proposal is worthwhile. VOTE YES.

State Question 779 was designed to increase the state sales tax by one percent to generate revenue for education funding. It will come as a surprise to nobody that I would oppose this Boren Tax. The reasons to oppose it are many and there is no good reason to support it. VOTE NO!

State Question 780 was designed to reclassify certain property offenses and simple drug possession misdemeanor crimes. The state of Oklahoma has been far too quick to create felonies. With 3 strikes you're out we are overfilling our prisons. We are not making Oklahoma safer. I don't want people to use drugs recreationally. I don't want to be a victim of a property crime of any size. However, making felons of all such criminals has not and will not help. VOTE YES.

State Question 781 was designed to use money saved by reclassifying certain property and drug crimes as misdemeanors outlined in State Question 780 to fund rehabilitative programs. "Ignorance gone to seed" is the best way I know of to describe this idea. Money saved is the property of the taxpayers. Creating another government program is not wise. VOTE NO!

State Question 790 was designed to repeal Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits public money from being spent for religious purposes. There is a lot of confusion on this one. The article to be repealed is a bad one. It doesn't matter how much you might worry about the infusion of religion into public life. If this were a question of adding the article to the constitution most of those who don't want it removed would not want it added. No Pandora's box will be opened if we remove language which was designed to discriminate against a religious minority. We will continue to have the 1st amendment to the US constitution. VOTE YES.

State Question 792 was designed to allow grocery stores and convenience stores to sell full-strength beer and wine. It saddens me that this proposal does not do what should be done. I would suggest that the only significant role the state has in the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages is the age restriction. Currently children are not permitted in liquor stores or bars. They will, however, be allowed full access to grocers and convenience stores under this proposal. "Modernization" of liquor laws does not consist of creating a system of contradictory standards for different businesses. I would suggest that any business selling age restricted items should be required to do so in an age restricted section of the business. This would create a single, simple standard for all businesses selling such items. It is little inconvenience for families to keep their children out of the bar area of a restaurant or out of a liquor store. Nor would it be a problem to require a store selling such items to create an age restricted area (such as behind the counter as is done with cigarettes) for such items. This state question does the wrong things and does not do them in a fair or even handed manner. VOTE NO!

OCPAC Voters' Guide on State Questions, Supreme Court

Continuing with more perspectives on the State Questions and judges on the ballot, here is what John Michener, president of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee has to say:

Answering Ballot Questions, A Voter Guide

SQ 776, “Full Force & Effect of Death Penalty.”  Vote YES.  This measure would affirm in the state constitution that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment.  It would affirm that the death penalty remains in force even when a particular method of execution is unavailable.

SQ 777, “Right to Harm.”  Vote NO.  This proposed amendment to our state constitution sounds good on the surface, but it appears to have been written by Washington lobbyists on behalf of multi-national corporate agricultural interests.  The measure is designed to bypass our state legislature’s authority, so that federal mandates and regulations can rule the day in farming.  Ultimately, if passed, this measure would make it harder for small farmers to fight federal overreach and harder to fight the lawyers of out-of- state big corporations.  Here is a thirteen-minute explanation of SQ 777, and here is our interview on the Pat Campbell Show.

SQ 779, “The Boren Tax.”  Vote NO.  This measure would create a new permanent state-wide sales tax.  About 70% would go to government school districts, about 20% to state universities, and almost 10% to the State Dept. of Education.

Space does not permit us to fully reveal the utter depravity of this proposal.  The government school system functions as an inefficient and corrupt monopoly, as we have explained in previous updates.  Creating a huge, permanent, new funding source will only exacerbate the problems inherent in the system.

Practically speaking, the new tax would be a tremendous burden on the citizens of the state.  If enacted, the Boren tax would increase the state education sales tax rate by about 28%!   Would you stand for your income tax rate or real estate tax rate increasing by 28%?  Is that reasonable?  The increase would make our state less competitive with other states.  According to the Tax Foundation, it would raise Oklahoma’s average statewide sales tax to the second-highest in the union.  This is no way to roll out the welcome mat for prospective families and businesses.

Furthermore, the only way to get rid of this onerous tax would be to amend the state constitution again.  Funding state departments should not be accomplished by four million people changing the constitution.  It is the proper responsibility of the Legislature in the budgeting process as they analyze needs and attempt to provide oversight of our many departments.

SQ 780, “Smart Justice Reform Act.” Vote YES.  This measure would change some drug possession crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor, and it would raise the property crime threshold to $1,000, so that if the crime involved less than $1,000 in value, it would be classified as a misdemeanor rather than a felony.  These changes make common sense.  There is a tremendous difference between having a misdemeanor versus a felony conviction on one’s record.  If we want the penalty to match the crime, this is a reform in the right direction.  Those who hurt themselves and others by abusing drugs are not beyond recovery.  They may deserve some punishment and rehabilitation, but to treat them as felons is to unfairly limit many of their future options.

SQ 781, “County Community Safety Investment Fund.”  Vote NO.   A man came home and said to his wife, “Look at this new power drill I bought for free.”  “Bought for free?” she said.  “Yes.  It was originally $40, but it was marked half off, so I bought it with the $20 I saved.”

SQ 781 is reminiscent of the free power drill.  The state would come home with a new slush fund.  Revenue for the fund would come from the cost savings of implementing SQ 780, as imagined by the “best estimate” of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services.  Then the funds would be redistributed to counties for “community rehabilitative programs.”  Let’s not buy another dollar-sucking socialist scheme.  We can use existing public and private programs to help those with addiction problems.

SQ 790, “Repeal the Blaine Amendment.”  Vote YES.  Last year the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments be removed from the capitol grounds, citing a portion of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits the government from using public property for the benefit of any religious institution.  The purpose of the monument was to remember the historical influence of the Ten Commandments, not to support a particular religious institution.  Furthermore, the monument was placed by private funds.  The court’s opinion was wrong.  If the court’s opinion is applied consistently, women and children on Sooner Care will not be able to receive services from a clinic or hospital affiliated with a religion, we will not be able to vote at church polling places, and we will not be able to hold school or conduct public business at churches after a tornado or fire destroys a public building.

Sen. Joseph Silk of Broken Bow and Sen. Rob Standridge of Norman authored SQ 790 so that the citizens might correct the injustice of the court.  If SQ 790 passes, the state must still comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents government from endorsing a religion, but we will be able to replace our Ten Commandments monument and continue to benefit from the generosity of churches.

Download this Ten Commandments Flyer, and give a copy to everybody at church.  Ask them to vote YES on SQ 790.

SQ 792, “Modernizing Liquor Laws.”  Vote Yes.  In a perfect world, we would dismantle the ABLE Commission and allow any businessperson to sell all kinds of adult beverages without state interference.  This complex resolution would not accomplish that, and it contains many anti-free market aspects.  The Legislature would still be regulating the adult beverage industry to a high degree.  The fascist ABLE commission would remain intact.  Licensing and other restrictions on ownership and sales would continue under this proposed amendment (e.g., felons could not be licensees—another reason to vote yes on SQ 780).  However, if passed, Oklahoma would inch in the right direction.  We would see more competition and availability of products as a result, and we would be more competitive with other states.  We might even be allowed to buy local communion wine on Sundays!  Vote YES.

Judging Justices

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices James Winchester and Donald Combs will be on the ballot.  Vote NO on both!  In the last few years, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has:

• Banned the Ten Commandments.  Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Preservation Committee, 2015 OK 54.  The U.S. Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments on its building.  Previous state Supreme Courts have upheld Christian symbols like a Cross on public ground.
• Protected child rapists.  Burns v. Cline, 2016 OK 99.  The court struck down a law requiring tissue samples from minors getting abortions.  This law would have helped attorneys prosecute rapists.  Other state agencies have this authority, but the court targeted this pro-life law unjustly.
• Denied women ultrasounds.  Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt.  292 P.3d 28, 2012.  Seeing an ultrasound makes a mom 80% less likely to choose abortion.  Babies die every day as a result of this opinion.
• Protected abortionists.  Burns v. Cline, 2014 OK 90.  This decision overturned the law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
• Protected sex offenders.  Hendricks v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Okla. Dept of Corr., 2013 OK 71.  The court overturned a law that deterred sex offenders from moving to Oklahoma.

Download this Judging Judges Flyer and give a copy to everybody at church.  Ask them to vote NO on Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices James Winchester and Donald Combs.

Ag Perspective: For SQ777

A few weeks ago, I reached out to two individuals who work in the agriculture sector to get opposing views on State Question 777, the Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment. Both grew up in farm/ranch families, and continue to work in farming and ranching today.

This morning, Kenny Bob Tapp presented his arguments against SQ777, and this afternoon we hear from Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox arguing in favor of SQ777. My thanks to both of them for participating in this discussion.

Vote Yes on SQ 777, for Oklahoma’s Right To Farm

A Farmer's Perspective

by Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox

November 8th, 2016, Oklahomans have the chance to secure their freedom of food choice. State Question 777 (SQ 777), the Right to Farm bill, will protect Oklahoma’s farm family’s way of life and will allow every Oklahoman access to safe, affordable, abundant food. Right to Farm is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but it is a chance for all Oklahomans to unite for the right to choose whatever food fits their current and future need.

SQ 777 is not retroactive, and it will not change any existing federal or state laws. SQ 777 will not allow foreign corporations to buy up farmland. In fact, it is illegal for foreign corporations to own production agriculture land in Oklahoma. Right to Farm will not allow our rivers and lakes to be polluted. Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers are among the top in the nation in voluntary measures taken to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. [*1]

Farmers and Ranchers are consumers. We shop at the same grocery stores, buying our fruit, vegetables, and other staples just like everyone else. As consumers, we want choices. State Question 777 gives us a choice, so myself, or someone on a fixed budget can enjoy great food for the normal 9-10% of our budget, or the next person in line can enjoy spending 30% or more of their expendable income on their food choices for boutique labels.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the same group in trouble for raising thousands of dollars for “animal rescue” after the Moore tornado a few years ago, then using less than 1% for helping animals in need here in Oklahoma [*2][*3], is the main supporter for the opposition of SQ 777. HSUS has retained former Attorney General and failed gubernatorial candidate Drew Edmondson as their hired gun. Pushing their liberal agenda, Edmondson and the Kirkpatrick Foundation seek to hamstring Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers and are lining their pockets with HSUS’s ill-gotten funds under the guise of benevolent environmental warriors and champions of the small farmer.

Many have asked why do we need SQ 777? We need SQ 777 now due to our society being further removed from the farm with every generation. Few understand what it takes to grow a crop or to raise animals for food consumption. Less than 2% of the population farm and ranch, making it easier for extremist organizations like HSUS, PETA, or the Sierra Club to get an urban electorate to vote based on emotions and Chipotle-esque scare tactics instead of sound science. Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers watched as New York, California, and Maine, passed new laws and regulations that increase the cost of production and ultimately increase the cost of food to the end user. SQ 777 would allow Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers to continue to operate using scientifically proven methods, allowing us to continue to set the world standard for food safety and responsible stewardship.

My family has farmed in Muskogee County for several generations. We grow sweet corn for fresh markets, along with soybeans, corn, cattle, wheat, and hay. After obtaining a degree in Plant and Soil Science at Oklahoma State University, I married and moved to Major County where my husband I and grow wheat, beans, canola, grain sorghum, and cattle alongside his parents. His family has been farming in Major County since the Land Run. No one cares more for the land and their animals than a Farmer or Rancher. We understand that healthy, happy animals perform better, and that our water and soil is our legacy for future generations.

Join me in voting to keep the decision making in the hands of those who care the most. Farmers and Ranchers know too well the ramifications of burdensome, emotionally evocative regulations. Stand up for all Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers by voting Yes on State Question 777, for Oklahoma’s Right To Farm.

Respectfully,
Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox
Fairview, OK/Fort Gibson, OK

Ag Perspective: Against SQ777

A few weeks ago, I reached out to two individuals who work in the agriculture sector to get opposing views on State Question 777, the Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment. Both grew up in farm/ranch families, and continue to work in farming and ranching today.

This morning, Kenny Bob Tapp presents his arguments against SQ777, and this afternoon we will hear from Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox arguing in favor of SQ777. My thanks to both of them for participating in this discussion.

SQ777: Right To Farm Or Harm?

A Rancher’s Perspective

by Kenny Bob Tapp

Rights such as the right to your person, property, and own industry are Inalienable, granted to you by your Loving Creator, which means they cannot be tampered with, providing no one else is harmed by them.

I believe Oklahoma State Question 777 is being supported by mostly well intentioned people.  At first it sounded great to this Oklahoma Rancher, until I actually took the time to read the language. Not only was it too vaguely written, but I also started to see the red flags.

The first red flag was the "compelling state interest" language. Farm Bureau representatives have told me it would have to be decided in the courts, and the thought of 777 eventually winding up before the same State Supreme Court that opinionated against the last two Life initiative petitions should send chills up your spine. These two proposed amendments would have likely ended abortion in Oklahoma. This same Court also opined that the 10 Commandment’s monument be removed.  It’s also interesting that Farm Bureau President, Tom Buchanan, told a group in Norman back in September regarding the “Compelling State Interest” language, “I wish it wasn’t in there.” [*1] The major proponents  of  777 have taken one out of  Nancy Pelosi’s play book: "We'll have to pass it to see what's in it."

Also, it would hamper if not prevent the Oklahoma Farmer and Rancher from taking legal recourse against a major ag corporation if their property, water, crops, or livestock are harmed by the corporation's farming practice. To add fuel to this fire, OUR water was made a "Compelling State Interest"  with the passage of HB 2446 this last legislative session as a bone thrown  to the leftist groups in an attempt to get them on board with 777. [*2]

Concerns with this provision:  “Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.”  Many conservatives and those of us in agriculture see that our liberal State Supreme Court would very likely codify with a court opinion the detrimental eminent domain laws and laws prior to 2014 that attack our rights, such as prohibiting individuals from taking their eggs outside of their farm to sell without a license (state permission).

SQ777 does not protect our inalienable rights already given to us by our Creator to make a living and handle our property as we see fit, as long as we do not interfere with another’s right.  This proposed constitutional amendment simply removes the artificial controlling authority of those Inalienable Rights from the state legislature, whom we can easily replace with other candidates, to a tyrannical supreme court that is almost impossible to remove.

There are those who claim that 777 would prohibit unconstitutional intrusion into our farms and ranches here in Oklahoma by federal agencies such as the EPA, USDA, etc.  This is simply not the case, looking at the language and as also admitted by my State Representative and a Farm Bureau Rep at a town hall meeting I attended.

Many are supporting 777 out of blind fear simply because infamous groups such as HSUS oppose it. Our concerns should be with a group that has had a very detrimental effect to Life and Liberty in Oklahoma, The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce. If you look at the authors and sponsors of 777, the majority of them are State Chamber backed candidates.

For almost 10 years of my citizen grassroots involvement in promoting 2nd Amendment legislation, abolish abortion legislation, free market efforts, and opposing insurance exchange efforts (Obamacare) in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Chamber and their controlled legislators have been at the forefront of stopping or opposing all these efforts and more.

My point is, while we haven't had any negative effects by the infamous HSUS in Oklahoma who oppose 777, Life and our freedoms have taken a huge hit from the infamous State Chamber, who apparently is the huge reason we have 777 on the ballot in Oklahoma.

Our Inalienable "Right To Farm” is already protected in the Oklahoma Bill of Rights:  Section II-2: Inherent rights.   “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.” [*3]

Rights, such as the rights to our persons, property, and own  industry, are solely gifts from our  Loving Creator, not men.  I urge my fellow farmers/ranchers and conservatives to hold on to those rights and refuse to grant them to the state via a rogue Oklahoma Supreme Court by voting No on SQ 777 (Right To Harm).

Kenny Bob Tapp and his wife, Rachel, live in Cimarron County, where he works on his family's ranch.

Tom Coburn supports SQ777, 'Right to Farm'

Former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn stars in a new ad from the Yes on 777 campaign, supporting the 'Oklahoma Right to Farm' state question:

SQ777: information on 'Right to Farm'

On November 8th, Oklahoma voters will be voting on seven state questions. SQ777, also known as the Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment, is one of the more prominent constitutional amendments on the ballot.

In the next week or two, I will be posting two exclusive columns, one in favor of SQ777 (written by a farmer from Major County), and one in opposition to SQ777 (written by a rancher in Cimarron County). Both grew up on family farms or ranches, and continue to work in farming or ranching after marriage.

Here is the language on the ballot:

This measure adds Section 38 to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The new Section creates state constitutional rights. It creates the following guaranteed rights to engage in farming and ranching:

• The right to make use of agricultural technology,
• The right to make use of livestock procedures, and
• The right to make use of ranching practices.

These constitutional rights receive extra protection under this measure that not all constitutional rights receive. This extra protection is a limit on lawmakers' ability to interfere with the exercise of these rights. Under this extra protection, no law can interfere with these rights, unless the law is justified by a compelling state interest-a clearly identified state interest of the highest order. Additionally, the law must be necessary to serve that compelling state interest. The measure-and the protections identified above-do not apply to and do not impact state laws related to:

• Trespass,
• Eminent domain,
• Dominance of mineral interests,
• Easements,
• Right of way or other property rights, and
• Any state statutes and political subdivision ordinances enacted before December 31, 2014.

Here is the language (Section 38) that would be added to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution:

To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the right so citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.

The Oklahoma Farming and Ranching Foundation, a pro-SQ777 group, has a good analysis here. Oklahoma Food, Farm & Family, an anti-SQ777 group, has their take here.

Here is a short list of support for SQ777:

• Oklahoma Farm Bureau
• Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association
• Oklahoma Pork Council
• Oklahoma Cotton Council
• Oklahoma Sorghum Association
• Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council
• The Poultry Federation
• American Farmers & Ranchers
• Oklahoma Wheat Grower’s Association
• Oklahoma Agri-Women
• U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R)
• Former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn

Here is a short list of opposition to SQ777:

• Sierra Club
• Humane Society of the United States
• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Oklahoma Alliance for Animals
• Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma
• Food & Farm Alliance of Oklahoma
• Oklahoma Municipal League
• City of Oklahoma City
• City of Edmond
• City of Norman
• City of Muskogee
• Cherokee Nation
• Choctaw Nation
• Seminole Nation
• Chickasaw Nation
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation
• The Tulsa World
• Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
• Save the Illinois River
• Young Democrats of Oklahoma
• Barry Switzer
• Former Atty. Gen. Drew Edmondson (D)

I will be posting more information, columns, and my take on SQ777 between now and election day.

Sen. Inhofe supports SQ777, 'Right to Farm'

Sen. Jim Inhofe: Right to Farm protects Oklahoma agriculture, families

Some people think the “Right to Farm” vote on November's ballot is unnecessary, but they don't see what I've seen in my years of public service.

The goal of liberal activists is to intimidate states in how they regulate. We're seeing this with the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which consists of two carbon mandates — written primarily by activist groups — that would attempt to strong-arm states to re-engineer their utility grids and reassess how they regulate local energy resources. Then there is the WOTUS rule, in which the administration inappropriately collaborated with radical environmentalists in an unprecedented federal land grab. These activists won't stop there.

In July 2015, I held a committee hearing where a witness testified that environmental activists are setting their sights on the agriculture industry next. Amending the state constitution is about sending a signal to liberal extremists on the outside not to waste their time and money on Oklahoma. With Right to Farm, the state can continue putting forward proper safeguards for its residents, while our constitution will protect our farmers and ranchers from being unnecessarily over-regulated as a result of external pressures and big-money liberal campaigns. With Right to Farm, Oklahoma will protect its own for generations to come.

There is a national effort to stop one of the greatest engines of our economy — agriculture. I don't want to see it succeed. I want to see Oklahoma agriculture and Oklahoma families succeed. Join me and vote “Yes” on SQ 777.

U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Tulsa)

Russell Turner: vote yes on SQ777

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW

by Russell Turner

COWABUNGA

With the general election getting closer I have been watching the debates on the upcoming state questions that will be on the Oklahoma ballot. One of particular interest to me is SQ 777, more commonly known as the right to farm bill. Having lived my entire life on the farm I feel that I have a perspective on the issue that many people do not.

Among the groups that are the most anti SQ777 are the environmental enthusiasts. It is a noble thing to want to protect the environment, we farmers and ranchers also care for the environment, sadly most of the radical environmentalists have set their collective sights on the rural farmers and ranchers. We farmers and ranchers are under constant financial pressures that few people understand. Over the past several months there has been a constant barrage of stories on the news media about the low pay of Oklahoma teachers; while their salary may be considered low, many farmers would think they were in Hog Heaven if they were able to net what an Oklahoma teacher is paid. In this country society has developed an attitude that the farmer should be content to wear old patched clothes and just barely get by. Anytime more regulations are passed it puts more pressure on the farming class, on the other hand all of these people screaming to the top of their lungs don’t have a tired dime involved.

Just recently a law was passed in California (SB 1383) that requires the state to cut methane emissions from dairy cows and other animals by 40% by 2030. While their Moon Beam governor Jerry Brown thinks this law is a good thing, there is no known method for achieving the type of reduction sought by SB 1383. Compliance with the bill will likely require California dairies to install “methane digesters” that convert the organic matter in manure into methane. These methane digesters are expensive, and with California producing 20% of the country’s milk the legislature of California has just passed another massive “food tax” on the entire country.

I have come to the conclusion that if the radical environmentalists had their way there would be very little food grown in this country. All they can suggest is for the farmer to become more efficient, but I want to give all of you a revelation - there is only so much efficiency that can be achieved on a limited budget. If all of the environmentalists are so devoted to the cause maybe they would not mind paying more for their vegetables and meats. I would lay odds that the environmentalists would be the first to complain when their milk and egg prices go up. The farmers of this state and nation deserve to make a decent wage and be able to set aside some funds for their retirement years and also make enough to pay for healthcare. Don’t take my word on this issue; just ask some of the local farmers in your area, they will all tell you the same thing. 

SQ 777 is simply a way to prevent the demise of the farming industry in Oklahoma. The real problem stems back to the people that we have been electing to represent us in the state legislature. Very few legislators have any connection with the land, nor have they had to sweat and toil for the small amount of money that the small farmer actually makes.  I for one will vote yes on SQ777.  

OCPA posts voter's guide for state questions

 Voters' Guide to Ballot Measures

published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

A product of the populist era, the Oklahoma Constitution establishes processes for direct democracy. On the November 2016 general election ballot, Oklahoma voters will decide whether to adopt four constitutional amendments and three changes to state statutes.

Some of these measures are as simple as restating current law. Others would make complex regulatory changes or change legal standards in future lawsuits. The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs does not support or oppose ballot measures. To help voters, we are providing accurate descriptions and analysis of what these ballot measures say and will do if adopted by voters.


[ State Question 776 ] Reiterating the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty

Description: Article 2, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution, just like the Eighth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, prohibits “cruel or unusual punishment.” S.Q. 776 would add new language to Section 9, clarifying that capital punishment is not “cruel or unusual punishment.” It would clarify that the legislature can determine methods of execution and specifying that if a method of execution is found invalid, the sentence of death would remain and be carried out by some other valid method.

Impact: When both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutional prohibitions against “cruel or unusual punishment” were adopted, they were understood not to prohibit capital punishment. Nevertheless, some advocates have claimed and a few judges have held that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The purpose of S.Q. 776 is to reiterate, in the state Constitution, that capital punishment is not unconstitutional in Oklahoma. It also clarifies that the legislature, rather than judges, has the power to determine methods of execution.

[ State Question 777 ] Limiting Regulations of Farming and Ranching

Description: This measure would add a new section to Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It would declare that “the rights of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state.” It would not overturn any regulations enacted through the end of 2014. Any regulation passed later than that, or in the future, by the state legislature would require a “compelling state interest.”

Impact: The text of S.Q. 777 says its purpose is to “protect agriculture,” which it declares “is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma’s economy.” It could not be used to challenge any laws enacted in 2014 or earlier. For later laws, or anything enacted by a future legislature, S.Q. 777 would require courts to apply the highest legal standard, often called “strict scrutiny,” in legal challenges to state legislation regulating “agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices.” Without proof of a “compelling state interest,” judges would strike down any such legislative acts.

[ State Question 779 ] Sales Tax Increase Directed to State Education

Description: This state constitutional amendment would increase Oklahoma’s state sales tax by an additional one percent. The tax revenue would go into a new special fund, from which 69.5 percent would go to school districts according to the state aid formula, 19.25 percent to state universities and colleges, 8 percent to the State Department of Education for early childhood education, and 3.25 percent to the Department of Career and Technology Education. School districts would be required to use some of their funds to raise teacher pay by at least $5,000. The State Board of Equalization would have power to supervise the legislature’s use of the tax increase revenue to ensure it is used to increase spending levels for state education.

Impact: S.Q. 779 would increase spending on state education programs by an estimated $615 million per year. According to the Tax Foundation, it would raise Oklahoma’s average statewide sales tax to the second-highest in the nation. About 61 percent of the tax increase would fund an increase in public school teacher salaries. Oklahoma’s current average teacher salary is $44,921. A study by the 1889 Institute found that when the cost of living is factored into state average teacher salaries, Oklahoma ranks 30th. That study found that a $5,000 salary increase would put Oklahoma at 15th among the states, just behind Texas.

[ State Question 780 ] Reducing Sentences for Nonviolent Crimes

Description: This measure amends state laws related to certain drug and property crimes. Possessing illegal drugs would become a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. For property crimes like theft, fraud, and embezzlement, the seriousness of the offense and level of punishment are based on the value of the money or property involved. This measure amends a number of property crime statutes so that, in most cases, property offenses relating to less than $1,000 would be misdemeanor crimes punishable by no more than one year in jail and maximum fines of $1,000 or less.

Impact: Felonies are crimes punishable by incarceration for more than one year in state prison; misdemeanors are crimes punishable by incarceration for one year or less, usually served in a county jail. Oklahoma has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, and spends about half a billion tax dollars each year on corrections. S.Q. 780 would change state law so that the possession of illegal drugs would be a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Manufacturing, trafficking, and selling illegal drugs would remain felonies punishable by long terms of imprisonment. Because of reforms passed this year by the state legislature (after S.Q. 780 was written), most of the reductions in sentences for nonviolent property crimes are already set to take effect this fall.

[ State Question 781 ] Directing Sentencing Reform Savings to Counties

Description: This measure will only take effect if voters also pass S.Q. 780. It would require Oklahoma’s Office of Management and Enterprise Services to calculate how much the state government has saved from the reforms made by S.Q. 780 (from fewer people being sent to state prisons) and to transfer that amount of state funds to a new special account. Funds from the account would then be provided to county governments, “in proportion to county populations,” for “rehabilitative services, including but not limited to mental health and substance abuse services.”

Impact: If S.Q. 780 is passed by voters, some people who commit nonviolent crimes will serve their shorter sentences in county jails rather than in state prisons. This means the state will save money, but counties will have higher expenses. S.Q. 781 is intended to capture the state’s savings and make it available to the counties. It earmarks those funds for rehabilitation services, but leaves counties free to design and operate those programs at the local level.

[ State Question 790 ] Repealing Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution

Description: This measure removes the following section from the Oklahoma Constitution: “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

Impact: In 2015, the Oklahoma Supreme Court forced the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the State Capitol grounds. The state Court said that while the monument may have been acceptable according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it violated Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. In response, state legislators enacted the resolution to send S.Q. 790 to voters to decide whether to repeal this state constitutional language and, in effect, overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.

[ State Question 792 ] Reforming Constitutional Regulations on the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages

Description: This measure would replace Article 28 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which regulates alcoholic beverages. It would eliminate the current distinction between “low-point” beer (required to have less than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight) and other beer and would end the prohibition against selling refrigerated alcoholic beverages. Grocery stores could sell beer and wine, but would be required to maintain a license. Liquor stores would be allowed to sell products other than alcoholic beverages, with some restrictions, and could remain open until midnight rather than being required to close at 9 p.m. Consumers could receive direct shipments of wine, but only for personal use, directly from wineries, and with limits on the number of cases.

Impact: Among the states, Oklahoma has some of the most restrictive regulations of the sale of alcohol. S.Q. 792 would reduce some of these regulations, especially by allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine and by allowing refrigeration of the products in all stores. Some liquor store owners are concerned that the changes will hurt their businesses because of increased competition with less regulated grocery stores. The Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement (ABLE) Commission would remain and would regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages at all stores.