The State Questions for Tuesday
We in the Tea Party are not fans of State Questions for the most part. They give the legislators an out, a way of avoiding doing what should be done, and frankly few voters know enough about the topics to cast a reasonably informed vote especially with the propaganda thrown their way. But they are on the ballot and we need to talk about them so that our readers are informed if needed.
SQ 793 the Ballot Language:
This measure adds a new Section 3 to Article 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Under the new Section, no law shall infringe on optometrists' or opticians' ability to practice within a retail mercantile establishment, discriminate against optometrists or opticians based on the location of their practice, or require external entrances for optometric offices within retail mercantile establishments. No law shall infringe on retail mercantile establishments' ability to sell prescription optical goods and services.
The Section allows the Legislature to restrict optometrists from performing surgeries within retail mercantile establishments, limit the number of locations at which an optometrist may practice, maintain optometric licensing requirements, require optometric offices to be in a separate room of a retail establishment, and impose health and safety standards. It does not prohibit optometrists and opticians from agreeing with retail mercantile establishments to limit their practice. Laws conflicting with this section are void.
The Section defines 'laws,' 'optometrist,' 'optician,' 'optical goods and services,' and 'retail mercantile establishment."
This SQ came from a citizen initiated referendum, sort of, it was actually financed by Walmart and Costco. The idea is to allow eye doctors to work out of retail big box stores. Simple enough, it amends the state constitution so it can't be rolled by by the legislature. The licensing and regulation of eye doctors remains the same, it allows them to operate out of the big box stores or other retail locations, but not do laser treatment or eye surgery, as long as it is in a separate room and keeps the same health and safety standards as current eye doctor offices. If passed, Oklahoma would be the 48th state that allows this.
The pro facts is that getting eye exams and eye care will be much easier and cheaper for the average consumer as the competition will drive down prices. The cons are that the smaller independent eye doctors will have to work harder to compete, that not all eye services will be offered at the retail stores, and that enshrining this in the state constitution means it is harder to change.
I have done a lot of eye doctor cabinet jobs, these guys have a lot of money once they get established. As all but two of the other states have done this, it is past time to get past this rent seeking legislation that has been blocking it from happening. Rent seeking is passing legislation that raises prices while not offering any corresponding benefit for the general public. The regulation, health and safety standards will remain the same so in our opinion a yes vote is the right thing.
SQ 794 the Ballot Language:
This measure amends the provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that guarantees certain rights for crime victims. These rights would now be protected in a manner equal to the defendant's rights. The measure would also make changes to victims' rights, including:
(1) expanding the court proceedings at which victims have the right to be heard;
(2) adding a right to reasonable protection;
(3) adding a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;
(4) adding a right to talk with the prosecutor; and
(5) allowing victims to refuse interview requests from the defendant without a subpoena.
The Oklahoma Constitution currently grants victims' rights to crime victims and their family members. This measure would instead grant these rights to crime victims and those directly harmed by the crime. Victims would no longer have a constitutional right to know the defendant's location following arrest, during prosecution, and while sentenced to confinement or probation, but would have the right to be notified of the defendant's release or escape from custody.
Under this measure, victims would have these rights in both adult and juvenile proceedings. Victims' rights would be protected in a manner equal to the rights of the defendants. Victims would be able to assert these rights in court and the court would be required to act promptly.
This law has some good and bad, but the defining point is that it equalizes victims rights with the rights of the accused, something that ought to give people pause. It allows victims to be notified about the criminal case, to be heard, to receive restitution, and to speak to the prosecutor. Only a few other states have went down this path so far and the law has been overturned in another state because of the many separate issues on one ballot.
The pros are that victims will have a few more rights but it also views criminals and victims equally, not a good idea to be thinking that. Victims get to have input on plea bargining and have the right to be notified where the criminal is located during the prosecution and sentencing and prison sentence. The cons is that it will be expensive as new employees and attorneys will have to be hired by the justice system. And the law might well be challenged and overturned for having multiple subjects on one bill or state question, which is log rolling.
SQ 798 the Ballot Language
This measure will add a provision to the Oklahoma Constitution to change the manner in which the governor and Lieutenant Governor are elected. Currently, voters cast one vote for their preferred candidate for Governor and a separate vote for their preferred candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
Under this measure, if approved, candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor for the same party will run together on a single ticket and voters will cast one vote for their preferred ticket.
The measure requires the Legislature to establish procedures for the joint nomination and election of candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. If passed, this new election format will be used beginning in the 2026 general election cycle.
Really, what ought to be done is to eliminate the Lt. Gov position and let the Speaker of the House or Pro Tem at the Senate fill in when needed. The position is useless as the people that generally get elected to it and expensive with lots of security for a person that is under no real risk. As far as savings, there are no savings as the ballots will be printed anyway. Twenty six states run a combined ticket for Gov/Lt. Gov, 17 states including Oklahoma have two slates, seven states do the sane thing and have no Lt. Gov or use the President of the Senate instead.
The pros are partnering the two jobs will give a more unified vision, although for the life of me I can't see what the Lt. Gov. does anyway. It does guarantee that both come from the same party so the Lt. Gov might not be tempted to do something stupid when the Governor is out of state. And yes, it does make the media's job easier. The cons for this state question is that it takes away choices for the voters, in cases of impeachment it would be better to leave a more independent Lt. Governor that isn't implicated in the scandals, and that it would be much better to simply eliminate the position to save money on a useless salary, security, office space, retirement, and budget for the clown.
SQ 800 the Ballot Language
This measure would add a provision to the Oklahoma Constitution creating a new trust fund. This fund would consist of (i) legislative appropriations, (ii) deposits from other sources, and (iii) investment income. Beginning July 1, 2020, 5% of revenues from the gross production tax on oil and gas will be deposited into the fund as well. The percentage of gross production tax revenues deposited into the fund will then increase by 0.2 per year.
Monies in the fund will be invested by the State Treasurer. The fund is exempt from constitutional restrictions on the State owning stock. The State Treasurer is required to make prudent investment decisions and diversify the Fund investments to minimize risk.
After July 1, 2020, 4% of the fund's principal will be deposited each year into the State's General Revenue Fund. Principal will be calculated by using an average of the fund's annual principal for the five years before the deposit. No more than 5% of the Fund may be used to pay interest on bonds issued by the State or local governments. This Fund will be called the Oklahoma Vision Fund.
This is simply a slush fund for the Chamber of Commerce, a way for the politicians to pay back campaign donations. It makes a trust fund that raids the current taxes starting at five percent of the GPT and increases at .2% each year with seemingly no limit. In twenty five years the amount would be at 10% of the massive GPT tax income, however, the language is such that it might be increasing by .
2% the first year and by 5.2% times 1.02% the second year and so on. Depending on how the language was read that would put the funds raid at over 50% in a few decades. This is an endowment scheme, taking tax money and squirreling it away into interest bearing or risk bearing stocks and bonds, then taking a mere 4% of the principle into the General Revenue Fund and up to 5% used to pay debt obligations of the state. OR local government. Keep in mind that we already have TWO of these funds, the Rainy Day Fund and the 2016 Revenue Stabilization Fund. They could be funneling around 50 to 60 million dollars again into this endowment fund in a few years and it grows by 2% every single year.
The pros are oil and gas will someday be gone so saving part of today's tax income is prudent, that an endowment fund will stabilize the budget, and in time the fund will provide more and more of our annual budget through investments. The cons are that we already have two of these funds plus the school land trust fund, it diverts too much needed revenue into a lock box savings account, that it allows the money to be siphoned off to pay state, counties, town, and other entities debt instead of being used for state purposes. It will be up to the legislature as to who gets the money each year.
There is another massive endowment fund, TSET, the billions locked away by the Tobacco settlement, much of which is being wasted on ads telling us to drink more water, purely a political honey pot to hand out and make jobs available to ex legislators.
Endowments given by private donors to government or colleges are a great idea, but don't hold a gun to the citizens heads and take more than is needed to run the government and then invest the money instead of providing services for those that have been robbed by the government. A no vote is the right vote.
.
SQ 801 the Ballot Language:
This measure would provide a means for voters to allow school districts to expand the permissible uses of ad valorem tax revenues to include school operations.
The Oklahoma Constitution limits the rate of ad valorem taxation. However, it permits voters in a school district to approve an increase of up to five mills ($5.00 per $1,000.00 of the assessed value of taxable property) over this limit for the purpose of raising money for a school district building fund.
Currently, monies from this fund may only be used to build, repair, or remodel school buildings and purchase furniture. This measure would amend the Constitution to permit voters to approve such a tax to be used for school operations deemed necessary by the school district, in addition to the purposes listed above.
If passed, the local building fund raised by property taxes could be used for school operations and not just buildings. Right now up to $5.00 per $1000 in valuation can be assessed as taxes for the school buildings repair, maintenance, or new construction. This state question would remove that limitation both to the amount and for what the revenue was spent on at the schools.
Around thirty or more school districts are entirely self supporting by local taxes and receive no state money. An average of 76% of school money comes from these property taxes and the state kicks in around $4500 per kid plus the other state sources like the Lottery, gambling income, and the like. Now the limit is 45 mills, $45.00 per $1000 of valuation can go to the schools.
The pros are that there could be more competition between school districts if teachers could be paid more or more teachers could be hired so the larger schools could pull students from smaller schools, it would give flexibility to the schools if they had good buildings and wanted to pay teachers more, and lower income schools could increase teacher pay to attract better teachers. The cons are that this will increase the disparity between the quality and outcome of rich and poor areas of the state. It would also drive teacher salaries up in a bidding war and marginalize the teachers not working in the high property tax school systems. It also would mean less state aid coming in to the school as they eat what they kill so to speak. The per pupil funding isn't going to change unless property taxes are raised.
There are some good parts to this that seem to override any bad parts. First, each school will have more local control over teacher pay and local taxation. That might push more taxpayers to the polls on the bond elections and local elections to keep the local school from raising taxes even higher. But it also allows people to tax themselves at any rate to pay for their own kid's education instead of raiding the state budget that is already at over 55% of the total tax revenue going into public education. People can just leave the school district if they think they are not getting value for their taxes, vote with their feet, which will limit tax increases toward the schools. It will wean the local schools off state budget aid and it makes little sense that taxpayers on the Eastern side of Oklahoma are paying for the schools of the big cities that refuse to raise property taxes or homeowners that prefer to live in shacks and derelict homes instead of fixing the homes up and paying more in property taxes. A yes vote is the right vote on this ballot question in our opinion.
