Issues Confront Legislature
Convention of the States
With former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn expected to lobby the Oklahoma Legislature to support a "Convention of the States" (COS) in the upcoming legislative session, the issue could get more traction than it has received in the past. Perhaps the strongest supporter of the idea in the Legislature is Norman Republican Senator Rob Standridge (85% Conservative Index). He has filed a joint resolution, calling for a national convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. In support of his proposal, Standridge has also introduced legislation to prescribe selection of delegates to any such convention. Conservatives are divided on the issue.
The COS is an idea which has been around for years and promoted as a way to "rein in" and an out-of-control federal government. Proponents, like Standridge and Coburn, contend that the Congress will never pass such needed amendments as a Balanced Budget Amendment, and so the states must take this alternate route.
The U.S. Constitution provided that the fundamental governing document of the nation could be amended. States, either through their legislatures or by special conventions, would need to ratify any proposed change. Proposed changes can come either through a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress, or by the national convention method desired by Standridge and Coburn. While the Constitution has been legally amended 27 times, the national convention, or COS method, has never been used.
Opponents hope it never is.
The main argument of opponents against the COS is that the risks far outweigh any potential benefits which could come from such a convention. They argue that such a convention, as a practical matter, could not be limited, and could result in a runaway convention that replaces our present Constitution with a new document. It could basically overturn our republican form of government based on federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances, and replace it with one that greatly increases the power, scope, and size of the federal government. Others fear the Bill of Rights, with its guarantees of various liberties, could be severely curtailed in the name of "national security."
Standridge dismisses such concerns as "far-fetched."
Many conservatives are skeptical that any amendment that emerges from such a convention would survive in a viable form. They say it would have to be watered down in order to gain the support of enough representatives from the states to be approved by the COS. Or, that the conservative representatives would have to trade support for their amendments by supporting amendments proposed by liberals. A majority of the delegates elected to any such convention could very well be those who want an even stronger federal government, rather than limited-government conservatives like COS advocate Mark Levin.
Opponents also say that if Congress, the president, and the federal courts regularly ignore our present Constitution, they would most likely ignore any new amendments, changing their meaning by a liberal interpretation. These opponents contend that the federal government ignores the 10th Amendment, for example, on a daily basis. The First Amendment stated very clearly that Congress could make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, yet only seven years later Congress proceeded to do exactly that with the Sedition Act.
Article V applications have already been passed in Alaska, Florida and Georgia. Proponents say they have prime sponsors in 32 additional states and expect to meet the 34 state requirement by the end of 2015.
National Popular Vote
Another issue related to our constitutional structure that may resurrect itself is the push for a National Popular Vote (NPV). Last year, using stealth, proponents engineered a 28-20 passage of the NPV in the Oklahoma Senate. The NPV would create a compact with other states to give Oklahoma's Electoral College votes to the person who ran first in the national popular vote for president. Presently, Oklahoma's election law gives all of the states's seven electoral votes to the person who runs first in Oklahoma's popular vote. Had NPV been in effect in 2000, 2008, and 2012, Democrat candidates Al Gore and Barack Obama would have received the state's electoral votes instead of the Republican candidates who won the state's popular vote by large margins.
Supporters of the proposal admit that they simply can not get an amendment added to the Constitution to repeal the Electoral College, so they are plotting to change the method of presidential election through a state compact. The Electoral College would technically still exist, but it would be relegated to symbolic status.
Those who favor the NPV usually contend that our present Electoral College system is "not democratic." Of course, neither is the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives. Each state has two U.S. senators, regardless of the state's population, so California receives no more senators than Wyoming, despite its much greater population. We do not award House seats based on some national popular vote, either, but rather one must win a specific district to win election to the House.
Others worry as to how re-counts could be handled under a national popular vote compact. Since the NPV would be extra-constitutional, no state would be required to conduct a re-count, and the specter of a close presidential election would hang over the country.
Most political consultants salivate at the prospect of a NPV. As it is now, states like Oklahoma, which vote overwhelmingly Republican, are generally ignored by the presidential candidates. Many political consultants believe they could generate additional income with the NPV.
Some of the senators who voted for the NPV last year are no longer in the state Senate, and some have recanted their support. The House refused to even take up the measure last year. However, with the NPV side being heavily bankrolled, and pro-NPV lobbyists offering legislators trips to vacation spots like the Virgin Islands, the NPV is still a threat to reemerge in this session in the hope it could be implemented in time for the 2016 presidential election.
American Indian Cultural Center
It is expected that supporters of The American Indian Cultural Center and Museum (AICCM) will again push to get more money to complete construction of the project at the junction of Interstates 35 and 40 in Oklahoma City. Oklahoma taxpayers have already provided $63 million for the construction and about $30 million for operations and debt service. Starting in 2010, there have been attempts every year to pump more funds into to project to complete construction.
The Native American Cultural and Educational Authority (NACEA), the state agency created to develop the facility, has been seeking $40 million to match pledges of $40 million in private, tribal and local government support. If successful, that would bring the total price of the project, including federal, state, local, and private funds, to $173 million.
State debt payments to service bonds authorized prior to 2010 have been running at about $5.3 million per year. This does not include appropriations to NACEA for operations. The state currently appropriates $1.5 million per year to support NACEA's 14-member staff. Once construction is complete, the agency has plans to expand to as many as 60 employees.
In May of 2013, proponents believed they were just days away from getting the $40 million in state funds in the final week of the legislative session. But, an EF5 tornado passed through south Oklahoma City and Moore, killing more than 20 people. Lawmakers ended up passing several items to aid in the tornado recovery efforts, including a $45 million relief package for victims. Legislative leaders were forced to place the funding measure for the center on hold. Last year, a funding measure passed in the Senate, but did not come to a vote in the House due to lack of support. Various proposed funding schemes have been floated in recent months which would divert funds from other programs to complete the project, rather than do another bond issue. But, regardless of the source of the funds, many legislators oppose what they term a boondoggle.
In 2012, Gov. Mary Fallin requested state Auditor and Inspector Gary Jones to conduct an audit of the agency. Jones and his staff completed the audit and issued a report on October 17, 2012. The NACEA cited the audit in their announcement of another push for bond funding. "We are pleased to report that no financial wrongdoings were found." However, if one reads the audit report, one may reach a different conclusion. Perhaps to the extent that no fraud or other criminal activity was uncovered in the audit, the claim of no "financial wrongdoings" may be correct. But, the audit placed much of the blame for the funding problems on poor decisions made by the agency.
In his cover letter on the audit report, Jones said: "The Board chose the "Vision Plan,' the most elaborate and expensive of the options provided by the project architects in 2004. Projects on such a grand scale require substantial funding, however, and at no time has the Board's available funding closely approached its projected expenditures." The option chosen by the board was approximately $83 million more than the least costly plan, which is more than their current funding shortfall.
Jones notes that rather than reconsidering their costly decision, the agency continued down the same questionable path. "It is reasonable to expect that funding shortfalls might lead to a reevaluation of the plans by the Board ... The Board has taken the opposite approach, and rather than evaluating less costly options that would still allow construction of a world-class facility, has maintained their vision, with an expectation that taxpayers will foot the bill," said Jones.
The 210-acre plan for the AICCM encompasses many different elements, including commercial development, a park, and the museum itself. Much of the landscaping and the shell of the project's main buildings have been completed. If funding is secured, the group hopes to have the facility open in 2017.
Legislative opponents of the AICCM note that the state passed three previous bond issues, and each time it was promised that no more state money would be needed for the project. A 2008 press release after the last $25 million bond issue was approved declared: "The remaining $75 million will come from private sources including American Indian tribes."
Meanwhile, individual tribes have built their own cultural centers. The Chickasaw Nation opened a $40 million cultural center in Sulphur in July 2010. Previously, the Potawatomi Nation opened its cultural center in Shawnee in 2006, and the Comanche Nation opened its center in the Lawton area in 2007. Other Oklahoma tribes also have cultural centers or museums. So, some wonder why it was necessary for the state to also build one.
Other contentious measures could emerge once the bill filing deadline is reached and the hundreds of pieces of legislation work their way through the legislative process.
Latest Commentary
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024