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.

Ward Connerly and Valery Pech Orr have one less obstacle in Colorado now that the parallel "twin" amendment sponsored by opponents of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) has failed to qualify with enough signatures.

An initiative that would have preserved affirmative action programs in Colorado fell short of the required number of signatures to make November's crowded ballot, the secretary of state's office said Wednesday.

Initiative 82 was nearly 8,000 signatures short following a line-by- line verification of the petitions, according to Secretary of State Mike Coffman.

There are 18 statewide issues on the Nov. 4 ballot, in addition to local ballot questions and races, state legislative contests, and U.S. House, Senate and presidential races.

The technique was an interesting one - the twin amendment copied CCRI in almost every word except for a rider at the end allowing programs that are already allowed by federal law. The rider might effectively nullify CCRI, assuming the twin amendment received more overall votes than CCRI.

Oh, and 18 ballot proposals is ridiculous. Michiganders complain that Michigan's ballot procedure is "too easy" or one that it was one of the "easiest in the country," need only look to Colorado, which truly is among the easiest. Michigan never qualifies more than 5-6, and even in 2006 one of the five was placed on by the legislature. Our average is 2-3.

The Associated Press wire, here through AzironaCentral.com, reports that AzCRI has dropped its legal challenge to recover signatures. While we had recently received a press release from Jennifer Gratz suggesting AzCRI had very optimistic possibilities in bona-fide challenges to recover valid signatures, it appears that one of the county recorders made voter file access exceedingly difficult in the period of time allowed by Arizona law once the Secretary of State made her ruling a week and a half ago. The re-challenge period would have been 10 days, expiring this coming Wednesday, but AzCRI claimed that the recorders were allowing only access to two voter file computers because of an upcoming Tuesday primary which necessitated that the Recorders' have access to the remainder in the interim.

This brings to three the total of signature drives that fell just short of their mark, but both Colorado and Nebraska did successfully make the ballot. It takes patience to end preferences.

In a disheartening development, according to Arizona Republic, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) petitions were, after review by County Recorders (Clerks), rejected because a number of signatures were found to be invalid. AzCRI is the third of five to fail to obtain sufficient signatures, and rumors of paid "blockers" who intentionally signed false signatures on a large scale preceded today's development, suggesting that a new era in blocking and how signature-gathering operations teams will need to respond to it, has emerged. Three other petitions in Arizona apparently failed this year, no petitions in Oklahoma have succeeded since the Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson indicted a petition-operation management team for work they did 3 years ago, and others failed in Missouri, to name a few.

The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative initially submitted 334,735 signatures to the state. But following petition reviews by the Secretary of State's Office and the state's 15 county recorders, that number was whittled down to 194,961 valid signatures. That's short of the 230,047 required for a Constitutional amendment.

In positive news though, Nebraska appears to have been sufficient and qualified, according to NCRI's campaign manager Doug Tietz, on KPTM Fox 42's online site reprinting AP wire reports.

Jason Gillman over at Michigan Taxes Too Much raises a nice point about how "non-profits" really exist at the expense of the taxpayer and are "public". While this doesn't change the current interpretation of the law treating non-profits as private entities, it is a valid point philosophically so we reiterated our position generally against the very idea of non-profits (in the sense of government subsidy through by giving tax breaks to donors, not as a concept where someone or group spends after-tax dollars without making a profit).

Regardless, you can catch the full exchange at Gillman's site.

Over at my sister site Equality Talk, I detail the story of yesterday's submission of signatures in Oklahoma for the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OkCRI). I'll let that site do the work, but wanted to alert my readers here to the important national story. Not only is Oklahoma abuzz with the story of being the first of the 5 states in 2008 turn in signatures, but it is abuzz with a long-running signature-gathering and petition-rights suppression story with the Attorney General seeking to crush Paul Jacob and others for a signature-drive in 2005 (documented in ZR's previous entry here), arguing that they should be jailed for 10 years for using what he defines as out-of-state circulators.

For those of you who follow my miscellaneous national and topical interests like signature-gathering, and Ward Connerly's SuperTuesday, you'll also know that I follow First Amendment questions of whatever type. The Paul Jacob story hits all three. Connerly is helping a group in Oklahoma collect signatures as I write. Signature-gathering difficulties there are driven largely by politics - and although the people of Oklahoma are quite rational, their Attorney General and special interests seem to have figured out that out and realize they must hamstring the people.

Enter Paul Jacob. Like him or hate him and his efforts, he helped a group in 2005 in Oklahoma collect signatures for a version of TABOR (taxpayer rights initiative). Taxpayer initiatives are serious challenges to government and special interests because when taxpayers can say no and turn the spigot off - special interests and the "governmental class" (the army of people working for the government get to vote, and self-lobby, too) get mad. Mad enough to put people who threaten them in jail.

So, when Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson told a grand jury to indict Jacob earlier this year, they jumped. Grand juries would indict cinder block if told to, and even under the best circumstances, a grand jury indictment is under a standard of evidence that there is simply enough evidence to warrant a trial - not that anyone is guilty. Regardless, the indictment was for "conspiracy" to "defraud the state", a stretch of that charge based on the underlying crime of ... coordinating signature-gatherers who did not intend to live in Oklahoma forever. That is, using "out-of-state" signature gatherers invalidates a signature in Oklahoma (nowhere in the Oklahoma code however, could I find a law criminalizing out-of-state gathering, merely the AG interpretation that residency means someone must intend to live in Oklahoma forever). From the non-crime of not knowing exactly where one might live in a few years, and two years following the Oklahoma state court's "referee" refusal to place TABOR on the 2006 ballot, the AG indicted 3 petition drive leaders (with no indictments for any criminal circulator below them, another hard piece of logic to follow). Now clearly this all contrived to make all signature-gathering of any type more difficult, and to plant the fear of criminal prosecution in the hearts of petition-drive leaders.

But the AG made a technical mistake in his grand jury indictment, and misused the multi-county nature of that body, so he had to drop the charges. Yesterday, he reissued the charges under his own office's direct power of prosecution, and is going full-steam ahead.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, or libertarian (I guess if you're authoritarian, you should support the AG), you should take note of this case. It's about control and power. It's about suppressing speech and petitioning. Sure, reasonable rules can invalidate bad or petitions created in error - and although there is probably no compelling interest in state residency requirements even if there were, this case is one of ambiguity in law being used as a blunt hammer to quash dissidents. Even if you are an opponent of Jacob's views, to remain silent when his speech and petition rights are subverted is to invite the same to happen to you when you disagree with the establishment.

In all, this is probably the most important First Amendment case, and clearly the most important petitioning case to arise from the year 2007. Follow it closely. Prevent it from happening in your state. Blog it if you can. Write a letter to the editor if its relevant. And be careful when you travel through Oklahoma.

DC Observer, which is a blogger's choice award nominee level blog with a tilt to the left, has used the "blood quantum" argument to attack Ward Connerly. DC Observer now claims the authority to declare "that it is not accurate to consider Ward Connerly as a black person." It's rare that the left uses the blood quantum argument to attack its conservative Republican enemies, but this isn't the first time Ward's multi-racial status (and he'll call himself that before he calls himself black, but that's not the point -- the argument that is "not black" should not be made and exposes a double-standard on the left). All reasonable persons on either side of this debate should criticize this argument - the blood quantum was used viciously historically to implement Jim Crow laws, and Ward certainly grew in conditions where he didn't "benefit" from any "whiteness" (and he visually couldn't "pass" for white). It's a bad argument that should be thrown into the ash bin of history.

Here's the entry:

Related Post Script

I do not believe it is accurate to consider Ward Connerly as a Black person. In an article, Connerly has described himself as 25% Black.

Connerly has stated he is one-quarter Black, three-eighths Irish, one-quarter French and one-eighth Choctaw.

The inference from his statement is that he is primarily White and Native American.

And my response:

Who the heck (I'd use a stronger term, but I'm being nice) are you to determine accuracy of what is or isn't a "black person". This post is insulting and you should apologize for it.

There used to be a "one-drop" blood test that offensively labeled anyone, with any drop of African lineage, "black," and subjected that person to Jim Crow (or, simpler, whether the person "looked" black -- Ward, visually, definitely couldn't "pass" for white).

Now, when its convenient for you to argue that someone that would have fit that test which most on the left (and the right and the middle and everywhere that reason is accepted) have condemned as an immoral and disgusting practice, you want to apply a similar purity test to your benefit.

Chetly Zarko,
OutsideLansing.com

PS - as a matter of disclosure, I worked with Ward on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the offensiveness of this post.

If it has to do with signature-gathering (particularly if not inside Michigan where one of my sister-sites will pick it up), its a subject ripe for PP&M. And this one is ripe - Ralph Nader has sued the DNC alleging a vast conspiracy (VLWC) by the Demoncratic National Committee to obstruct his ability to get on the 2004 ballot. Frivolous lawsuits, blockers, bogus challenge-phase assertions. The suit itself details some 90 law firms that participated.

This story, from the site "Ballot-pedia", which is a brilliant use of the wiki concept to map out a small universe of specialized knowledge, details it well and provides links to the original source documents and news stories.

Needless to say, while ZR doesn't normally subscribe to conspiracy arguments because they are too complex and usually not the simplest explanation, there is some validity to this one. The DNC didn't make it a secret that it wanted to keep Nader off the ballot - in fact, it admitted it was trying to do so. And various officials admit to using frivolous legal techniques solely to drain Nader. That's abuse of process, and Nader should recover something for it.

The charge alone says it all.

In the story below, I note how Paul Jacob was charged with violating Oklahoma law in allegedly employing out-of-state signature-gatherers. Here, the Tulsa World reports some of the details:

"Oklahoma law requires anyone who circulates a petition be a qualified elector; that means a U.S. citizen over the age of 18 and a resident of Oklahoma," said Attorney General Drew Edmondson, whose office oversees the multicounty grand jury. "The grand jury alleges Carpenter, Jacob and Johnson knew they were violating Oklahoma statute and engaged in a conspiracy to illegally gather signatures."

You gotta love the certainty with which the AG "defines" "qualified elector", a complicated legal term to most individuals, no doubt. Thanks for telling petitioner-gatherers after-the-fact precisely what that means. Maybe next time you could write it into the law, in plain language. And how about a definition of "resident", which is what this case really hinges on. Am I resident if I move to Oklahoma and say so as the US Constitution implies, or is there a set of hoops I need to jump through? Give petitioners and future-voters a clear definition of your terms.

Jacob said the charges are an attack on a person's right to petition the government.

"It will not stand," he said.

Obviously, and hopefully. But you have to love King Drew's spin here:

Edmondson called the right to petition the government "the very life-blood of the democratic process."

"The voices of those Oklahomans who chose to support this petition were silenced because of this alleged conspiracy," he said. "We cannot tolerate schemes designed to manipulate our state's election laws."

The voices were silenced because you have vague notions of laws that you personally used to silence them. But my favorite:

Conspiracy against the state is punishable by as much as 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

Any state that has a law against "conspiracy against the state" harkens back to King George. Now I understand treasonous and revolutionary action against the state and would support them as legitimate domains of regulation and punishment. But the general notion of "Conspiracy against the state"? Come on guys. I plead guilty.

Paul Jacob, one of the principal forces behind the Term Limits movement and an architect of the recent TABOR drives, voluntarily submitted himself to Oklahoma authorities yesterday to be indicted by Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson. Jacob was indicted for helping bring non-Oklahomans into the state to petition for their Stop Overspending drive, which was thrown off the ballot in 2005 because non-Oklahomans allegedly were involved in signature collection and this allegedly violated Oklahoma's residency requirement, which is poorly and unclearly defined.

Jacob's story here.

Speaking from my experience with Michigan signature-gathering and management, its clear that opponents will throw everything they can at you. Don't think for a moment that exercising your rights in this arena isn't risky. This attack on Jacob is a fundamental attack against American liberty and self-government. It's meant to crush Jacob personally using the raw power of government and to scare the rest of us into inaction. Speaking to those forces - I, for one, am invigorated by your threats and the battle is on. In all my endeavors, I will strive to follow the law as it is, but I will not be intimidated by threats of misapplication of vague laws. To my supportive readers - if you can assist Jacob, please do so.

Cross-posted at Equality Talk.

The power of wiki allows me as a blog writer some new flexibility. Here's a "timeline" of events we've created on the Wiki. It covers literally every event on equality issues you might want to add, although I anticipate it will be more detailed as time goes forward than in the past (a longer term project). The tools allows organization of events, press releases, and news in time.

After the tease, you'll find my analysis of the Fiscal Impact statement from the City of St. Louis. ZR concludes that St. Louis has admitted to quotas and improper violations of federal law.

Read more »

In the post below, you'll notice that I've cross-posted the subject to my new blog EqualityTalk.com. EqualityTalk is MORE THAN A BLOG THOUGH.

It's also a "Wiki". The purpose is to act as a clearinghouse and knowledgebase of race issues. I strongly encourage all my readers to help out and make entries, particularly about your own biographies and areas you are particularly involved. This is a long-term project - equipped with a technology - that I think has great potential.

EqualityTalk was originally designed to be a forum, but the forum technology just hasn't taken hold. So I've gone to a traditional WordPress blog - but I'd love to have two or three other co-moderators, so feel free to apply to me in person. ET is also non-partisan, although my position on the issue is clear, I would still accept moderators of any perspective as long as I deem them to be civil, respectful and someone I can work with. Anyone can participate on the comments forum, as well.

Finally, this allows me to do something I've wanted to do for a long-time. Split my blogging so that it has more topic focus. ET allows me to move all my race, gender, and equality traffic into a logical place, while keeping my Michigan politics angle here (and that may move, since this blog is still not that focused). So check both blogs if you're a regular reader, and add ET to your feed if possible. Also, add to the wiki.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com (see next post for announcement).

Joining the pantheon of weird, and bad, arguments against anti-preference ballot initiatives, is this attempt to paint the Curator (like a Regent) of the University of Missouri and lawyer for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) as having a "conflict of interest" or being ineligible to represent MoCRI in court because he's on the board of control. The Columbia Missourian covers it here:

As a University of Missouri curator, David Wasinger has sworn to uphold affirmative action laws in hiring and admissions at the system’s four campuses.

As a private attorney, Wasinger and a colleague are aiding the effort to persuade voters in 2008 to dismantle racial and gender preferences in public employment, contracting and education.

Opponents of the anti-affirmative action proposal, known as the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, call Wasinger’s involvement a conflict of interest that also damages the university’s credibility.

“This is an initiative that can do harm to the university and its admissions policy,” said Jim Kottmeyer, a Democratic political activist. “Yet you’ve got a curator out there representing the group.”

First, I doubt he's "sworn to uphold affirmative action laws" specifically, although even as a lawyer he's sworn to uphold them. Since MoCRI has no conflict with "affirmative action laws," its irrelevant anyway. Nonetheless, the curator is not using his title for the initiative, and you'd think from this argument that his status as curator strips him of his private First Amendment rights. Whether the initiative harms or helps the university is a matter of opinion, of course, but it doesn't matter either way.

Even the newspaper gets it right in the rare obvious editorial moment:

The curators’ conflict-of-interest policy prohibits members from voting or “attempting to influence the decision of the university” on any issues that would result in “material ... or personal financial gain.”

Under that standard, Wasinger’s dual duties would seem acceptable, barring a curator vote to support or oppose the ballot proposal.

Ah, but reality means nothing, as:

But the perception of undue influence remains, said Gwen Grant, president of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City.

“If it’s not a conflict of interest, it certainly smells like one,” she said.

Perception of conflicts of interest can be an important issue, but "perception" is too broad and malleable to allow it to take over your life. If it did, no one would do anything on this issue because opponents "perceptions" are so outrageous and detached from reality.

(in the world of academia, as this argument here proves, the reality is that you must support preferences and there is no other option)

The question I have to ask is: if someone working for or another curator of the university works to oppose the initiative, is that a conflict of interest? Will the Democrat leaders complaining here insist on their neutrality?

The Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, with the final approval of Attorney General Jay Nixon, have blatantly abused of the power of his office with this writing of the "ballot summary" for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI):

Constitutional Amendment to Add Article I, Section 34, Relating to Banning Affirmative Action Programs, 2008-009

[full text]

Submitted by: Mr. Tim Asher

Mr. Tim Asher
Missouri Civil Rights Initiative
P.O. Box 545
Grain Valley, MO 64029
(816)812-4929

Petition sample form approved for circulation on June 21, 2007. Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on July 19, 2007.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY
SECRETARY OF STATE

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

* ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
* allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?

The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, however, costs or savings related to future contracts are unknown. Some local governments estimate no costs or savings, but prohibition of certain municipal policies may result in unknown costs.

This is what could have happened in Michigan, but the Secretary of State made a fair attempt at some compromise. Here, the worst possible bias has been inserted - and the language is completely untrue, even in the context of Grutter and case history that gives states any standing for preference use. Preferences under Grutter were not "designed to eliminate discrimination against" minorities or women, they were desgined to create "diversity" for their alleged educational benefits. The courts have clearly recognized the state right to programs that "eliminate discrimination against" individuals - enforcing anti-discrimination law, full outreach and publication requirements, and other programs are distinct from preferences. So the Secretary of State has just invented a new (old) reason for the programs - one that the Courts have never accepted since even before Bakke v. Regents of University of California. It would be impossible to ban programs intended for something that are already banned - hence a subtle legal and logical problem with this analysis. The major problem obviously is that the Secretary's language is so obviously slanted that it is worthy of rejection by the courts.

Apparently, the lesson the left has learned from Michigan is that they didn't go far enough in their twisting of language, and negative and dirty campaigning. Unfortunately, they're just digging a further grave for the words "affirmative action," which were once noble words with meaning in the 1960s. But when you cry wolf - or mis-define a word too often - people catch on.

DailyKos and the equally liberal FireUpMissouri have apparently taken on Frontpagemag.com for calling the Secretary of State out on this, and the news of this backstory has apparently only hit the blogospere so far. It appears that MoCRI will file some kind of legal challenge to the language. ZR is prepared to predict that this tactic and a number of other escalating pre-election legal and other maneuvers will be the primary tool opponents will rely on. They have become convinced that subterfuge and the further misuse of the channels of raw power they control are the only means to stopping what they can't stop through persuasion at the ballot box. With five states, it would be hard to imagine that the legal gauntlet in at least one state might simply be too hard to run. A Democratic Secretary of State or Attorney General or appointed court in any state will present new and different challenges for these initiatives.