Paul Jacob and two others now known as the "Oklahoma Three" are now free from charges brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, a Democrat, who sought to retaliate against the three for a failed 2005 anti-tax petition drive. The drive failed after a special master of the Oklahoma Supreme Court found too many signatures were collected by individuals he didn't believe "intended to reside permanently" in Oklahoma. Two years later, in 2007, Jacob and other organizers were indicted for a 10-year felony charge of "conspiring to defraud the state" - a vague catchall statute on the theory that they intentionally violated residency requirements and that intentional violation amounted to 1) a conspiracy and 2) defrauding the state (so literally, any group effort that violated complex Oklahoma rules could become a 10 year felony). While the state criminal case proceeded in early discovery phases, a federal Constitutional challenge to the residency requirement - on First Amendment grounds - was raised.

Jacob's case is important nationally as Oklahoma became a "dead zone" for petitioners - chilled by the prospect of 10 years in prison. No ballot initiatives qualified in 2008 through the process, and efforts such as Ward Connerly's Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative was quelled because of the chilled environment and a number of other difficulties all coming to together. The 10th Circuit's refusal to rehear the case and Edmondson's decision not to appeal to the US Supreme Court, puts the 10th Circuit in among other circuits and regions with similar rulings. Here, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Leon Drolet's Michigan Taxpayer's Alliance successfully fought residency requirements in the Andy Dillon recall battle. While the Dillon effort paid off for Dillon by delaying the recall until the regular election, and thereby changing its dynamic, the impact of the residency ruling will be broader ranging for future petition rights, at least until another Circuit disagrees and a case somewhere reaches the US Supreme Court.

In the current legal and political environment, one should never rule a frivolous suit being successful, particularly regarding the civil rights initiatives lead by Ward Connerly. Lawsuits are even repeated exactly verbatim in the same state even after opponents lose, as was the case recently in Missouri challenging MoCRI's attempt to requalify for 2010.

But in Nebraska where voters approved the initiative in 2008, the game clock appears to be winding down with a positive result. NbCRI appears to have won on both late "signature ethics" challenges (the usual meta-"word game" the left plays with "affirmative action" and "deception") and the so-called "single subject rule." In fact, the judge's ruling on that issue is very important, as it represents a common-sense rebuff to the left on an old strategy they played somewhat successfully with the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, and it has bearing on several future states CRI's might appear in.

Below the fold I'm including the raw text of the decision as well as NbCRI's press release. Enjoy.

Read more »

Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

Check out this stunning google visual I've created comparing four trend lines using google trend statistics, using the last four presidential nonimees (Bush, Kerry, McCain, O'Bama). Barack O'Bama quickly became the darling of both the media (bottom) and the new internet media (top). It says much about the internet and how Democrats dominated the new media this year, but it also says something about how well the candidate integrated his campaign with the new media. Clearly, O'Bama benefited in media presence from the extended primary battle, but even after the conventions he maintained healthy command in search data statistics and more importantly in mainstream news searches. It was during the downstretch of the campaign that his name ID spiked, relative to both McCain and the previous 2004 George Bush-John Kerry contest.

To conservatives - heed this data.

The ACRI blog documents this mastery of frivolous abuse of process in Missouri.

The Missouri Secretary of State Jean Carnahan is submitting the same ballot summary proposal language that a court rejected last year, following a renewed request by MoCRI organizers to qualify for the 2010 ballot. That's an abuse of power of the highest level (reminding us of Doyle O'Connor).

Simultaneously, the ACLU has already stepped up its frivolty by filing a lawsuit based on arguments it also lost in the last legal battles in Missouri.

If this doesn't prove that preference-based affirmative action supporters will willfully abuse the legal system for the illegal and immoral purpose of financially draining opponents, I don't know what does.

It's been a couple months as my regulars here will recognize (hopefully still coming off RSS). Elections and consulting intervene, and most of my online work is reported at www.outsidelansing.com or www.Oaklandpolitics.com. But this is still the place for my thoughts on race issues and anything not fitting within the easy confines of those sites.

Over at the ACRI blog, LaShawn Barber has a nice commentary, with a good discussion thread, on banning VIP and legacy preferences, which originated from a Reason Magazine article early in 2008 by Shikha Dalmia, whom we mentioned ironically in our very last post here immediately below, two months ago, on the O'Bama presidency. Anyway, here's LaShawn's read on that article and the future of movement.