10.07.2014

Voting Information For Judges and State Questions!



Every election season, people come to me and say, "What judges do I vote for?" I always have to laugh and tell them that I haven't a clue - I only seem to look at education policy. I never know how to vote in these elections myself! Granted, this blog post isn't about education, but it is about citizenship and being an informed voter and that's SO IMPORTANT!  

Recently, I received an email from Sharon Annesley of the Oklahoma Liberty Tea Party in Blanchard. This is HANDS DOWN the best information on judges I've EVER SEEN! This is awesome and I asked her permission to share it with you! The best part of the whole piece was that she has listed ALL the URL's she used for research, so if you want to go check them out yourself, you darn sure can! Thank you again so much for sharing Sharon! I hope this helps you as much as it helped me!  If anyone has any information they want to add to the post, please do! Discussion is great!

NOV. 4th ELECTION INFORMATION
·         Important Dates…
·         Link to List of All Candidates…
·         Judicial Retention Elections…
·         State Questions on the Ballot….

IMPORTANT DATES
The election will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 4th, 2014.  Absentee ballots are already being sent out. 

General Election:                               Tuesday, November 4

Last day to register to vote:                October 10

Deadline to request absentee ballot:   5 p.m. October 29

Early voting:                                       Thursday, October 30, 8 AM - 6 PM
                                                Friday, October 31, 8 AM - 6 PM
                                                Saturday, November 1, 9 AM - 2 PM


LIST OF ALL CANDIDATES/OFFICES AROUND THE STATE:
A list of all the Statewide Candidates on the Nov. 4th Ballot can be found at the following:


JUDICIAL RETENTION IN HIGHER COURTS:

In the following Judicial Retention comments, I have completed a cursory review of these candidates and this is how I’ll probably vote. However, you can and should look into the judges as much as possible to make a valid decision based on your personal values….If I get further information related to these people, I will forward on to you to help you with your decision-making….

For information on the DA and District Judge Elections for District 21, see original information below this email.  For elections in other Judicial Districts, see link above to “All Statewide Candidates”….

A Summary of my Overall Preferences on the Judicial Retention Elections:

RETAIN:

 ”YES” to GARY LUMPKIN – OK Criminal Appeals Court
 “YES” to BRIAN JACK GOREE – OK Civil Appeals Court

DO NOT RETAIN:

  “NO” to JOHN F. REIF – OK Supreme Court
  “NO” to TOM COLBERT – OK Supreme Court
             “NO” to JOSEPH M. WATT – OK Supreme Court
             “NO” to JERRY L. GOODMAN – OK Civil Appeals Court
             “NO” to JANE P. WISEMAN – OK Civil Appeals Court
             “NO” to DEBORAH BARNES – OK Civil Appeals Court
             “NO” to KEITH RAPP – OK Civil Appeals Court

DISCUSSIONS:

Historically, no High Court Judge has ever been “voted out” in an Oklahoma Retention Election…however, as voters become more educated, this could change…”If in doubt, vote'em out”…..

OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

DISTRICT NO. 1 – JOHN F. REIF – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Reif was originally appointed by Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2007.

DISTRICT NO. 6 – TOM COLBERT – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Colbert was originally appointed by Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2004.

DISTRICT NO. 9 – JOSEPH M. WATT – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Watt was originally appointed by Governor David Walters (D) in 1994.

Probably one of the most publicized cases out of the OK Supreme Court this past year was when the OK Supreme Court took it upon themselves to "stay" the execution of two inmates despite the fact that this stay of execution was the responsibility of the OK Court of Criminal Appeals and not the OK Supreme Court.  By law, the OK Supreme Court handles no criminal cases.  The OK Court of Criminal Appeals voted NOT to stay the execution.

Colbert, C.J., Reif, V.C.J., Kauger, Watt and Combs, JJ., concurred with allowing for a Stay of Execution, even though it was fully outside of their jurisdiction per Oklahoma State Law (Constitution).

On the other hand Winchester, Edmondson, Taylor and Gurich, JJ., dissented with this Stay, claiming "The Appellants have maneuvered this Court right where they set out to put us and that is, for the first time in this Court's relevant history, in the middle of a death penalty appeal.  We have never been here before and we have no jurisdiction to be here now." (Justice Taylor)

No matter how the execution came out, the Justices who voted Yes were wrong in trying to “stay” the execution within the OK Supreme Court. We don’t need Supreme Court Justices who believe they can work outside the law and outside their jurisdiction.

In 2008, the OklahomaConstition.com commented on these same 3 Justices…indicating that people should Vote “NO” for all three….


OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUSTICES

DISTRICT NO. 3 – GARY L. LUMPKIN – VOTE “YES”, to keep
Lumpkin was originally appointed by Gov. Henry Bellmon (R) in January 1989.


In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of State Supreme Court Justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns.  A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal.  Lumpkin received a Campaign Finance score (CF score) of 0.88, indicating a conservative ideological leaning.  This is more conservative than the average CF score of 0.33 that justices received in Oklahoma.  The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature).  This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors. 

In 2008, the OklahomaConstitution.com commented on this same Justice…recommending the people Vote “Yes” on Justice Gary Lumpkin.


OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS JUSTICES

DISTRICT NO.  1

OFFICE 1 – JERRY L. GOODMAN – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Goodman was appointed by Governor Frank Keating (R) in 1994.

OFFICE 2 – JANE P. WISEMAN – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Wiseman was appointed by Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2005.


DISTRICT NO.  2

OFFICE 1 – DEBORAH B. BARNES – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Barnes was appointed by Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2008.

Steve Fair, Republican, of Duncan, OK recommended a Vote of “NO” for Barnes in the 2010 election.  Although, Steve mostly recommends a “No” vote based on whether they were appointed by a Democrat or Republican Governor.


OFFICE 2 – KEITH RAPP – VOTE “NO”, not to keep
Rapp was appointed by Governor George Nigh (D) in 1984.
CASES: 
RAPP (All but 2003, 2005)
KEITH RAPP (2003)


DISTRICT NO.  6

OFFICE 2 – BRIAN JACK GOREE – VOTE “YES”, to keep
Goree was appointed by Governor Mary Fallin (R) in 2012.

If you believe blogs, it appears that Justice Brian Goree is most likely a pro-gun and a pro-life person….

In 2008, the Oklahoma Constition.com commented and recommended the following vote….
It is recommended that all four of these judges up for retention, Jerry Goodman, Jane Wiseman, Keith Rapp, and John Fischer, should be replaced.  VOTE NO on all four (Note:  3 of which are included in the 2014 election).   http://oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?nid=132&pastissue=1



STATE QUESTIONS:

There are 3 State Questions on the ballot.  I will probably vote YES (to pass) on all 3, unless I hear something about them that is not so obvious....NOTE:  Always be careful how you vote on State Questions.  I don't have the actual wording on these and sometimes a "NO" vote is a pass-vote and sometimes a "YES" vote is a pass-vote...read them carefully.....

SQ 769  (Summary:  Modifying the current law in order to allow some of those who hold office to simultaneously be in a Reserve or Guard Unit, even if they are called to active service while holding office)

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

This measure amends Section 12 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution.  That Section currently imposes limits on an individual simultaneously holding certain government offices.  The amendment would permit those serving in state offices of trust or profit to also hold certain military positions.  Holders of an Oklahoma office of trust or profit who currently cannot simultaneously hold certain military positions, include:
    Legislators;
    State Judges;
    District Attorneys;
    Statewide elected officials, such as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer;
    Members of State Boards, Agencies and Commissions, and Many County Officers.

The measure creates a state constitutional right permitting holders of Oklahoma offices of trust or profit to also serve and be called to active duty or active service in the following military positions:
    An Officer or Enlisted Member of
    The National Guard,
    The National Guard Reserve,
    The Oklahoma State Guard, or
    Any other active militia or military force organized under State law;
    An Officer of the Officers Reserve Corps of the United States or
    An Enlisted Member of the Organized Reserves of the United States.

The Measure empowers the Legislature to enact laws to implement the amended Section.

SQ 770  (Summary:  A Special Homestead Exemption for disabled veterans and spouses of disabled veterans)

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution.  It amends Section 8E of Article 10.  This section provides a homestead exemption to certain qualifying disabled veterans.   It also provides a homestead exemption to the surviving spouse of qualifying disabled veterans.  This measure would allow either the veteran or his or her surviving spouse to sell the homestead but acquire another homestead property in the same calendar year.  The exemption would apply to the newly acquired homestead property to the same extent as the original exemption for the homestead property that was sold.

SQ 771  (Summary:  A Special Homestead Exemption for spouses of military personnel who have died in the line of duty)

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution.  It would add a new Section 8F to Article 10.  It would create a homestead exemption for the surviving spouse of military personnel who die in the line of duty.  The United States Department of Defense or the applicable branch of the United States military would make the determination regarding whether the person engaged in military service died while in the line of duty.  It would provide the surviving spouse of such person with a one hundred percent (100%) exemption for the fair cash value of the homestead until the surviving spouse remarried.  This measure would allow the surviving spouse to sell the homestead, but acquire another homestead property in the same calendar year.  The exemption would apply to the newly acquired homestead property to the same extent as the original exemption for the homestead property that was sold.  The exemption would apply beginning in calendar year 2015.  The exemption would also apply for the 2014 calendar year if the surviving spouse meets applicable requirements.


THE CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT @! (Cleveland, McClain and Garvin Counties)

Overall, my opinion on the Judicial Retention Elections (not those candidates below) are "If in doubt, vote them out"....

Generally, I vote NO to all judges that are on the "retention" list ballot unless I know them to be truly good and fair judges who do not want to legislate from the bench...

The two candidates for DISTRICT JUDGE are:  
STEVE STICE
JEFF VIRGIN

This new District Judge position will be principally located in Cleveland County.  Both of these men are currently working as Special Districat Judges in Cleveland County (Stice) and McClain County (Virgin).  

Steven Stice previously owned a small business and worked with others regarding business law for several years.; he worked in private practice for quite a few years; and, he has been a Special Judge for a few years.  His experience is broad-ranged.  He believes that it is important that both parties who come to court, be it criminal or civil cases, should be treated equally under the laws of the State and as applicable to law.  He did not believe that it was good to have "political" endorsements as he believes they should remain apolitical as the job calls for.  He has several judges within the state who endorse him.  He believes it is not his position to "legislate" from the bench.

Jeff Virgin is younger than Stice and essentially has less experience.  He has worked with the DA's office and he has worked as a Special Judge for a short time.  He has been endorsed by the Sheriffs' offices in all 3 counties and the DA's office.  He also has been endorsed by US Rep. Tom Cole and several of the State Legislators.  He is proud of these endorsements and he indicated that his experience as a Special Judge in McClain County has given him much broader experience than would be normally anticipated due to their heavy workload.

The meeting in Norman gave me a lot of insight into these two candidates and really helped me to make up my mind which one I believe to be the better candidate.  I think both candidates are worthy of the position; however, due to life and legal experience, I believe Steve Stice to be the better of the two candidates at this time.  I have no real problems with Jeff Virgin.  I agree with Steve Stice that judges should remove themselves from the political arena as much as they can.  I would also like for Jeff Virgin to obtain a little more experience.

My Choice:  STEVE STICE - DIST. JUDGE, D-21

The two candidates for DISTRICT ATTORNEY are:

GREG MASHBURN (incumbent)
MIKE MILLSTEAD

The District Attorney (along with the Assistant DA's appointed by him) work in all 3 counties (Cleveland, McClain, and Garvin Counties).

Greg Mashburn is the incumbent DA for District 21.  He has been our DA for 8 years.  Overall, Mashburn did not impress me too greatly.  His prosecution of many different crimes seemed to be somewhat "mechanical" in his viewpoint.  In example:  He commented that he gives drug offenders 5 chances (with various stepwise increasing punishments) and then sends them to prison.  His attitude didn't seem to take into account various types of scenarios that could occur with these people.  

Mike Milstead openly admitted that he has an "ax to grind" against Mashburn.  This appears to be his greatest reason for running for Dist. Attorney.  This "ax" appears to be marijuana (probably the legalization of it).  He believes that the possession and use of marijuana should not be a prison offense.  When asked questions about various issues, he seldom gave any answer unless the question related to marijuana.  I believe that he would "enact" marijuana legalization by poor or no prosecution of most offenders.  I don't know if he would do too well at anything else either.  His views and his overall presence pushed me to only consider Mashburn as a viable candidate.

My Choice:  GREG MASHBURN - DIST. ATTORNEY, D-21 

10.02.2014

Who Are The Common Core People In Your Neighborhood? Marc Tucker


Today I read an article published in EdWeek called, "Common Core The Real Issues" by a man named Marc Tucker. Here, the writer asserts, 
There has been much Sturm und Drang about the Common Core in recent months, but it looks to me as though the Common Core, in most states, is safe for the time being.  Its name may be changed in some states.  It may suffer from nips and tucks on occasion, but in most states it will emerge into the highlands fairly unscathed.
Goodness! This is quite the statement isn't it? If you haven't been paying attention to the Common Core fight today, nearly every state in the union has some form of legislation against the Common Core. Arguably, fighting the Common Core has become a populist movement in this nation not seen since nationalized health care - but then again, the move to 'nationalize' everything in a country that even decades ago was still the bastion of free-thinking, free-thought and free-economy, can do that to a people not ready for serfdom.

He then goes on to tell us,
Consider what the Common Core is all about.  Prior to the Common Core, the states set their own standards and chose their own tests to measure student progress against those standards.  In a majority of states, students can graduate high school by getting a passing grade on their core high school courses and they could do that mostly just by showing up.
This is bad? Local control is bad? I guess so because he also asserts that the reason why Common Core is causing so much consternation is because we don't also have a national curricula to go with it.
But the states have not developed curricula that will become the basis of their examination systems.  It is hard to imagine us having the kind of success that the top performers have had unless we figure out how to create very powerful and coherent curricula that accurately reflect the intent of the standards and serve as the basis of our examinations. 
Wow. So not only are we to create a national system of standards - and, no matter what parents think or how poor the standards have been shown to be - America should not only continue this trend, but double down by now including curricula? Pardon me while I simply utter "Wow" in the exclamatory.

One last quote from the article with worth mentioning,

The Common Core is far more likely to be declared a failure by the general public because the states failed to implement it well than it is likely to be the victim of the attacks of current critics from either the right or the left.
On one hand, this is as frightening as it sounds, but on the other, really quite expected when you look at Marc Tucker and his vision for US public education. 

Here is information about Tucker from the National Center for Education and the Economy - an organization which he founded and for which he has served as President and Chief Executive Officer since 1988.

Marc has been a leader of the standards-driven education reform movement for many years. Mr. Tucker created New Standards, a 23-state consortium designed to develop internationally benchmarked student performance standards and matching student examinations. He authored the 1986 Carnegie Report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, which called for a restructuring of America’s schools based on standards; created the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; created the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce and co-authored its report, America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, which called for a new high school leaving a certificate based on standards; and, was instrumental in creating the National Skill Standards Board and served as the chairman of its committee on standards and assessment policy.
The letter Tucker wrote to Hillary Clinton in 1992 - which, coincidentally, shaped the trajectory of public schools in America via the Clinton presidency - explained exactly, and in great detail, how he intended to implement Common Core. 
Clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in the world for students of 16, and public schools are expected to bring all but the most severely handicapped up to that standard.
We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards... 
As with most initiatives created by those convinced government is smarter than individuals, this system is predicated on the notion that nationalization is the only way to create a level playing field for all involved. Teachers can't be expected to help ALL students equally, but a federal mandates will solve that problem nicely. 

NONE OF THIS IS AMERICAN. None of it. As Phyllis Schlafly explains,

Designed on the German system, the Tucker plan is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.
Yes, Tucker's model is predicated on the German system. Knowing this, I found the use of Sturm and Drang in his opening sentence quite telling. Not the student of history I should be, I had to research the term. Here's what I found
(German: "Storm and Stress"), German literary movement of the late 18th century that exalted nature, feeling and human individualism and sought to overthrow the Enlightenment cult of Rationalism.
Lest we believe 'human individualism' to be the same in Germany as America during this time, it is important to note that 'individualism' in Germany - and other European countries - was antithetical to that which became the model for our Constitution. In fact, this kind of 'individualism' became a rallying cry for national community. 

In other words, Marc Tucker - in the opening sentence of yet another treatise extolling the virtues of education for the collective - tells us plainly he will never give up his socialist vision for America and he will never give up plying that upon school children who he understands can be molded to create this utopia.


I do not understand why more parents haven't awakened to the ultimate goal of today's public education - unification training. The architects of this plan tell you this straight out, it's just that they do so in the most elitist of terms possible, betting on the ignorance of today's population. Do not be ignorant. School your children at home if at all possible. If not, 

  1. Stay as active and involved in their educations as you possibly can - to the point of activism. 
  2. Run for your local school board, challenge teachers and principals who seem to be more interested in advancing the collective than in fostering the individual growth and spirit of your child. 
  3. Opt your children out of every test possible - and those are the majority given today. 
  4. Educate your children about the loss of privacy that comes with completing surveys that ask questions that probe into personal or family areas.
  5. Opt your child out of every form of data collection possible through the school.
  6. Never, never use your social security number to identify your child in a public venue - especially public school.
Tucker's vision for this country via it's public education system must be destroyed. This will take parent education and activism at every level and while seemingly a task of epic proportion, one-by-one states are kicking at their chains and stopping his plan for nationalized standards, aka Common Core. We must continue to fight, and on the days we fail to see light at the end of the tunnel, we must turn to Churchill and agree to "Never, never, never give up".