Associate Publisher

OKLAHOMA CITY — It was 9:01 a.m. Late for the daily editorial meeting with E.L. Gaylord, publisher of The Oklahoman, I was rushed.


The elevator I entered on Ninth did not stop until reaching the ground. About fourth or fifth floor, there was a slight sway in the vessel. A random thought went through my mind: after four years, the device was showing signs of age.


When the elevator doors opened at 9:03 a.m., I heard voices down the hall exclaiming over something. Walking into the break room, I saw cartoonist Jim Lange, seated at our customary table.


He asked, “Did you hear that?”


“What?” I responded.


“Like a sonic boom, but a hell of a lot louder.” He pointed south, toward downtown.


To the east, helicopters lifted off first one, then another, then a third. Jim and I walked to the windows and concluded it was the SkyCam units for TV stations along Britton Road and points north.


Looking south, we saw a dark plume rising.


Ed Kelley, executive editor, walked in, found the clicker and put the television on the CBS affiliate. One helicopter camera was already focused on the gaping and jagged scar that now marked the face of the A.P. Murrah Federal Building.


I talked to Mr. Gaylord and we began to absorb what had transpired just two blocks from the building where we worked until 1991.


In a few minutes, it hit me: my wife had planned to go to the Federal Employees Credit Union, in the Murrah Building, to make a deposit. I called; all lines were busy for hours. We finally talked in early afternoon; she told me the bomb sounded like our neighbor’s home had collapsed.


It was days before I told her I had feared she was at the credit union. Dead were 168 people, including 21 at the credit union.


I read stories by friends in our newsroom. I worked late that night, seeing bright lights at the Murrah site reflect off the skyscrapers.


After seeing me on the “NewsHour,” National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air” had asked for an interview. It was dark and I was tired. I described what I had seen, heard and read that first day.


Bikers in leather, chains dangling, standing next to lawyers in impeccably-tailored men’s suits, as hundreds waited in long lines to donate blood.


A nurse who ran into (not away from) the building to rescue someone she did not know. When she raced in a second time, falling debris struck her. Moments later, she collapsed and died.


A firefighter holding a baby — an image that became a Pieta-like icon.


A group of Boy Scouts marched from MidTown to the edge of the carnage, wanting to help recover bodies. Officials had them work traffic flow, instead. The boys walked home that night, knowing they had done something practical.


Everyone wanted to help, and found a way to do so.


I’ve never listened to the Fresh Air archives from that day. I remember expressing admiration for people acting with kindness and compassion.


Strangers called to say it was the first time they had heard a Christian witness on NPR. I do not deserve credit, save as a willing vessel.


Later, our state’s First Lady (Cathy Keating) and a corps of volunteers placed roses placed on the pillows and cots of rescuers, including those from towns “Back East” (as we still deem it) — places like New York and Boston.


For those who did not lose a loved one, the hardest time after the bombing was the sequence of funerals. Every one distilled broken hearts and continued anguish.


Weeks after, a local woman called me to describe the Jewish’s community’s plans to honor righteous Gentiles in conjunction with the Holocaust Remembrance. She expressed awe over seeing an entire city live in love: “Our neighbors are living their faith, and it is inspiring.”


Reading my columns and editorials, she knew I was worn with grief. We spoke words we could never have imagined saying to one another. We talked like old friends, crying and comforting each other.


I have trouble when I go the Oklahoma City Memorial, where portals mark minutes before and after the bombing. On my most recent visit, I met an Israeli couple to discuss the city’s recovery. A few minutes into our discussion, I had to stop for a bit to gather myself.


There are a million variations on this story. I am only one, but I am one.


Emerging from the malevolent bombing of a city and its people is a process. I once was a long distance runner, so there is appeal in the Marathon itself as a metaphor for Boston’s time ahead.


Simplistic overgeneralizations are not in order, so what is? It is hard to do better than patience, kindness, eloquent silence, presence, fortitude, and a thirst for justice.


For a time, let actions speak louder than words.


www.CapitolBeatOK.com

Patrick McGuigan

By Patrick B. McGuigan


 

Oklahoma City — American prisons are often graduate schools of crime, places where foundational purposes of Western law – restitution and justice – are myths.


 

In Oklahoma, prisons and jails are more crowded than ever, as Corrections trails only Health Care as a cost-driver. People convicted of comparatively minor offenses, including low-level drug crimes, receive such long average sentences that the state has the top incarceration rate for women, and one of the top five rates for men.


 

Over the last three years, the state Legislature edged toward reform, but the journey ahead is long.


 

There is new cause for concern about what has been called “justice reinvestment” for Oklahoma. Will folks who consider themselves “tough on crime” slow-play reform to death?


 

“Smart on crime” policies advanced across America, including by the “Right on Crime” group based at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, divert those who are not violent into treatment programs that include work and restitution.


 

Experts clash over whether or not there is a link between crime rates and particular public policies. But after a half-decade of reforms pioneered under Gov. Rick Perry, violent crime fell 8.3 percent in the Lone Star last year – even as the incarceration rate fell 1.45 percent. At the very least, those policies have not harmed crime fighting, while reducing imprisonment rates (and attendant costs).


 

Some states are saving money while incapacitating the worst among us, and trying to salvage the rest. This is both practical, and moral.


 

Years ago, Daniel Van Ness of Prison Fellowship wrote, “Crime involves four parties: the victim, the offender, the surrounding community, and the state.”


 

The criminal justice process generally focuses only on the offender and the state. Yet, Van Ness notes. in the roots of Western law, the Old Testament, “all four parties were involved in fixing responsibility for a criminal act and in bringing restoration to the victim.”


 

The ideal of restitution (victim restoration), well explained in the writings of Van Ness and of former University of Oklahoma Law Professor Herb Titus, did not disappear in the New Testament. In the story of Zacchaeus, the repentant sinner pledges to Jesus that he will repay “fourfold” anyone he has wronged.


 

Restoration of victims and recompense from criminals continued into the modern era — and is a policy inclination not yet quite eradicated. But as government has grown more powerful, the role of mediating community institutions has weakened.


 

The resort to imprisonment has become habitual. It has replaced the function, utility, and moral purpose of non-governmental means to hold the guilty accountable, while reaching hearts and souls.


 

Some studies estimate nonviolent offenders constitute one-third to perhaps one-half of the population of prisons and jails. Few analyses put the number at less than one-fourth.


 


Including all drug offenders might skew numbers, but the “one-fourth” vs. “one-half” numbers more or less represent the parameters of the debate over violent and nonviolent offenders incarcerated.


 

All of us should care, but I assert people of faith should lead the way. Even those who have themselves been victims should not give up on those behind bars or in other forms of custody. Convicts may be out of sight, but if they’re out of mind, we’re falling short.


 


In the 18th chapter of Genesis, the patriarch Abraham was visited by three men he discerned were actually Angels. They spoke with authority. Among other things, they informed Abraham and his wife Sarah that, after years of barrenness, she would bear a child.


 

Abraham learns the visitors are on their way to Sodom, to investigate its evil. In one of the great intermediary prayers recorded in all of Scripture, Abraham walks with the visitors, pleading for the minority to be spared.


 

He asks, what if there are 50 righteous men in the city? The angel responds that for the sake of those, he could spare the city. The sequence continues, through 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10. After Abraham’s final plea, the angel says, “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake” (Gen. 18:32 King James Version).


 

In that story, in the end, there were no righteous. Judgment was terrible.


 

That was then. This is now. What if, in Oklahoma’s worst prison – McAlester — there are 50 people who could yet become “convicted” of the necessity to make amends for criminality? What if there are ten? What if there is one?


 

McAlester or any other facility should be a place where faith can be lived. Public policies should send to McAlester only those who absolutely need to be there.


 

Those who believe there is a final Judge — One concerned for “the least of these, my brothers” (Matthew 25:40, KJV), including prisoners — dare not abandon the ten, or even the one.


 

NOTE: This essay is revised and updated from a 2009 commentary that appeared in Perspective Magazine, monthly publication of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. McGuigan is the editor of ‘Crime in Punishment in Modern America’ (1986, University Press of America). 


www.CapitolBeatOK.com

Dr. Keith Smith

By Patrick B. McGuigan

Associate Publisher

When I was formally diagnosed as suffering from arthritis more than two decades ago, our general practitioner said I had to see a specialist. My wife Pam and I embarked on a search for that person. That’s when we learned the country was already facing a shortage of rheumatologists, that many were not accepting new patients, and those who were had waiting lists months long.

So, Pam prayed for “the right doctor” to come along. We got on several waiting lists, then one day got a call from the office of a fellow we hadn’t even contacted.

That’s how I met Dr. Philip Wright. The right doctor, indeed. It took a couple of years to deal with my unusual mix of symptoms, but soon the disease was manageable and my life more livable. Perhaps it was too good to last, because one day he called to say he was leaving his private practice behind.

When we had our last appointment, I asked why he was hanging it up. His answer focused almost equally on “the damn insurance companies” and government regulations that had, over the last few years, taken the joy of medical practice away from a joyful man. We parted with a hug and a handshake, and I went on to several years of wonderful care from a young colleague of his.

When people say the health care system has been broken for a long time, and needed reform, they have a point. That doesn’t mean President Barack Obama’s 2010 legislation was the right answer.

Last month, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) hosted a forum featuring Dr. Keith Smith of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, a business that avoids Medicaid, Medicare, and often even traditional private health insurance. The center delivers –– largely on a cash basis – affordable health care for willing patients and employers.

That is causing a stir as attention focuses on bold price transparency, including online posting of guaranteed costs. With efficient and affordable procedures, the center is even triggering a domestic version of medical tourism, with patients coming regularly from Canada and from across the United States.

A company in the Dallas metroplex has designated the Surgery Center a partner for employee health care. Savings from procedures performed at the center, even with lodging and travel covered, yield lower costs for the employer. After reporting all this on the national website Watchdog.org, I had phone calls from across the nation, including from fellow reporters, dubious that such things are possible.

At the Surgery Center, Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steve Lantier have established an operational structure and market-oriented billing as explicit alternatives to the third-party payer systems that now dominate U.S. health care. They post online an up-front price for medical procedures in diverse areas of practice, including orthopedics, ear/nose/throat, general surgery, urology, ophthalmology, foot and ankle, and reconstructive plastics. In all, a total of 112 procedures are listed.

The typical bill at the Surgery Center is a page long, compared to 3-4 pages for the same procedure at a hospital. The real kicker? The Center’s prices are one-sixth –– and in some cases one-tenth –– those charged at large hospitals in Oklahoma City.

The Reason Foundation, a 44-year-old think tank based in Los Angeles, has devoted one of its Reason.tv documentaries (“Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare”) to the shocking cost differentials between the Surgery Center and one local hospital – focusing on the Surgery Center’s charge of $5,885 for a complex bilateral sinus procedure, compared to $33,505 at the large hospital.

At last month’s OCPA briefing, Dr. Smith told me the center’s approach is helping to restore an old-fashioned medical ethic for provision of quality care.

Many referrals to the hospital come from churches and other groups helping the poor.

Patients are encouraged in those cases to pay what they can, while physicians and anesthesiologists can (and often do) waive their fees for individuals in need.

Rather than get hung up on hospital-bashing or Obama-bashing, let me limit myself to the obvious: in provision of frequently provided procedures, a variety of incentives have been built into government-regulated “private” care that drive up prices –– including mark-ups on medical material and prescriptions, duplicative practices, governing price-setting as a “floor,” and consumer ignorance of pricing.

Rather than go deeply into specific examples of the price differences between the Surgery Center and the larger players in the state and region, it seems clear the burden of proof ought to be on the higher-priced players, rather than on a place meeting needs at a lower cost.

Several years after Dr. Wright’s retirement, my wife and I faced the challenge of living without health insurance for three years. After a lifetime of playing by the rules and always meeting co-pays promptly, we were faced with the anxiety of operating “without a net.”

Through no fault of our own, an insurer operating with an odd exemption dumped us without warning, and got away with it. It took us three years to work our way back into a tenable situation with a new employer and new source of coverage, and another year after that to overcome pre-existing condition limitations. (No surprise to us, the provider that had dumped us went out of business in 2011.)

Those were difficult days, but Pam and I came to understand the cash market, and I grew to understand its utility, even in a mixed-market increasingly dominated by government fiat and insurer diktat –– or maybe that’s government diktat and insurer fiat.

We were no more worthy (or unworthy) than any other Americans of modest means facing similar circumstances, but we had the good fortune and determination to seek out affordable alternatives. (Note: the number of companies providing health insurance for employees is declining since passage of Obamacare –– and self-insured companies and religious institutions are under new regulatory pressures to drop coverage.)

John Lennon wrote a song that included these lyrics: “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” So, all I am saying is give a real market in health care a chance.

Several months ago, before the U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments in the health care case, I pressed a career public servant on the fundamentals of the legislation and the complexities of insurance markets. Promising anonymity, I cashed in the trust from a long-term relationship to insist on an answer to this question: “Is there any way that the ‘Affordable Care Act’ can ‘work’ as its advocates contend?”

The wise old sage paused a moment, sighed deeply, and looked all around to assure that we were alone, then replied to this enquiring journalist of a certain age: “Absolutely not. It cannot work.”

All I am saying …

Brandon Dutcher of OCPA, who organized that Capitol event highlighting the Surgery Center as a positive example of market provision in health care reflects, “Dr. Smith and Dr. Lantier have done a great service by posting their prices online, and there are signs this transparency movement is spreading. I’m hearing of proposed legislation in other states requiring all providers who receive government money to post their ‘cash price’ to the public, and I think this is a discussion we need to be having in Oklahoma.”

As Canadians and people from across America fly to Oklahoma City to get important medical procedures performed at a fraction of what they cost elsewhere, it seems reasonable to ask: Why not give the free market in medicine a chance? It is the right thing to do, and compared to the mess our nation is working itself into right now, it seems only right to continue to leave room in the system for alternatives.

With rational incentives and cultural support rather than professional disdain and operational frustration, I am confident there are a lot of Dr. Wrights out there who could be kept in the profession, or coaxed back into active practice.

NOTE: This essay is adapted from McGuigan’s commentary which also appeared in the January 2013 edition of Perspective Magazine, monthly publication of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

October 22, 2012

Besides November being an election month, it’s also when many of the bills approved this past session become law.  In total there are 176 bills that will become effective on November 1^st including 81 Senate bills and 95 House bills.

I’d like to discuss a few Senate bills that I think will be of widespread interest given that they will affect a majority of Oklahomans.

SB 138 will allow veterans to have a flag emblem placed on the front or back of their driver licenses and identification cards.  This will help them more easily be able to take advantage of discounts at various businesses as well as readily identify their status for special military activities.

SB 987 expands the definition of murder in the first degree to include deaths resulting from the manufacture or distribution of a synthetic, or “designer drug” as well as the manufacturing of drugs that result in a death, as in a meth lab explosion.  The legislation was filed after East Central University students Stacey Jewell and Andrew Ackerman died last year after using “2-Bromo Dragonfly,” a designer drug still available on the Internet that can cause hallucinations, vomiting, seizures and rapid heartbeat. Prosecutors said because of how the current law was written, the individual responsible could not be charged with first degree murder.

SB 1019 would help the state’s 107 housing authorities recoup millions in unpaid rent and property damages each year.  The new law will do this by allowing public housing authorities to file claims with the Oklahoma Tax Commission to garnish former tenants’ personal income tax refunds for any monies owed for rent or property damage.  Rent in public housing is based on one’s income so there’s no reason why these individuals can’t afford to pay their bill each month.  Public housing is government subsidized so taxpayers are already footing part of the bill for these individuals’ rent.  We shouldn’t have to also foot the bill when they’re irresponsible and tear a residence up or skip out on rent.  By garnishing former residents’ income tax refunds, municipalities will be able to recover thousands in overdue rent and damage expenses.

SB 1199 will require that certain judgments for support debts owed by a father and support debts owed from public assistance paid by DHS for the benefit of a child in DHS custody draw interest.  This is a great measure that will ensure deadbeat parents who fall behind on child support and other types of payments will be forced to pay interest just as people are required to do with other late payments such as credit cards.

Finally, SB 1316 will protect public buildings used as shelters during natural disasters from liability claims.  The new law modifies the Governmental Tort Claims Act by adding an exemption from liability for cities, towns, counties or other entities that open public buildings up to citizens during emergencies like tornadoes.  The new law does not require public facilities to serve as natural disaster shelters, but will simply protect those entities that choose to let the public in during such events from being liable for any injuries individuals might incur while in the building or from being turned away because the facility is full.

To learn more about these and other bills becoming law on November 1st, please visit our website at www.oksenate.gov.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached by email at mcaffrey@oksenate.gov or by phone at (405) 521-5610.  You can also write me:  Senator Al McAffrey, State Capitol, 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd. Room 533, Oklahoma City, OK, 73105.

Pat McGuigan of the City Sentinel

by Patrick B. McGuigan

Executive Editor

Among the half-dozen ballot questions facing Oklahoma voters in November, State Question 766 is arguably the most significant in economic terms.

If voters agree, the measure would exempt “all intangible personal property from property tax. No person, family or business would pay a tax on intangible property. The change would apply to all tax years beginning on and after Jan. 1, 2013.”

An “intangible” tax, according to state law, involves items that certainly are tangible to property owners — cash on hand, gold, silver, coins, money on deposit, accounts receivable, promissory notes, and similar things. But it could include almost anything, from the value of insurance policies to a business’ good will.

The measure resulted from a collaboration between state Sen. Mike Mazzei, a Tulsa Republican, and state Rep. David Dank, a Republican who represents parts of the MidCity area.

Passage would put in place clear, affirmative protections for businesses and individuals against what would otherwise be major new taxes.

This year’s legislative work on the issue, leading to placement of the constitutional amendment before the people, flowed from a process that began in the 2010 legislative session, as legislators grappled with the implications of a 2009 ruling in the case of “AT&T v. Oklahoma State Board of Equalization.”

Controversy emerged because the justices decided that anything not listed explicitly would be considered “tangible” for purposes of taxation.

In a nutshell, that’s the rub.

The court in that instance interpreted existing state constitutional provisions that explicitly exempt from taxation a variety of business assets. These are items deemed tangible, in Article 10, Section 6A of the state constitution, such as gold and cash.

Concern about intangible taxation brought the free market Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs and the liberal Oklahoma Policy Institute to nearly the same conclusion at hearings held last fall, during the legislative task force’s hearings designed to address unease created in the business community over the ruling’s implications.

Testifying before the task force, OCPA president Michael Carnuccio pointed out that no surrounding states levy a tax on intangibles. In fact, according to the Tax Foundation, only 10 states in the whole nation do so.

David Blatt of the Oklahoma Policy Institute said last fall the best solution was a constitutional amendment to restore the “status quo ante,” putting the levy on centrally assessed entities only, that is, larger entities whose property tax assessments are made at the state level.

This year, however, Blatt’s group has offered criticisms of S.Q. 766.

In a July 18 blog post, OK Policy’s Gene Perry argued that a result of the measure’s passage “would be a revenue loss to schools and local governments of about $65 million that would have to be made up for by a combination of budget cuts and hikes in the tax rate on the property that remains taxable.” He said, “there are much better way to achieve property tax relief than creating more arbitrary caps and exemptions.”

In a Sept. 11 guest post on the OPI blog, Michelle Cantrell, a tax specialist in Tulsa, contended the measure could cost local governments around $50 million, most of that in public school funding, and an undefined higher amount over time.

The concern is that over the past three decades, in a growing service economy, “intangibles” have become a higher portion of the perceived value of businesses. Pointing to Oregon and Washington state as places that include intangible taxation to one degree or another, Cantrell said the approach proposed in S.Q. 766 would create “a giant tax loophole for corporations.”

Concerns from conservatives, however, are not theoretical. The logic of the state court decision could lead to significant increases in the size of government and the tax burden on business.

Are some of us worrying too much about theoretical possibilities?

Probably no. At least one county assessor in central Oklahoma — not Leonard Sullivan in Oklahoma County, the state’s most populous urban center — has been making inquiries to lawyers and tax accountants about the value of goodwill in home sale transactions. In that scenario, the intangible to be taxed could shift from business to the most ubiquitous benchmark of the American dream, a man’s or woman’s castle.

In the views of one seasoned, admittedly Republican, student of government, with S.Q. 766, “personal pensions, the value of any license — including a teaching certificate — and even ‘goodwill’ could be taxed.”

More on that in a moment.

In Florida, before intangible taxation was tossed overboard, even the cash value of whole-life insurance policies was subject to the levy.

Supporters of S.Q. 766 include OCPA’s analysts, chambers of commerce members, leading businesses, and, unsurprisingly, AT&T.

Legislation sending the constitutional measure to the ballot sailed through the state House easily, guided by Dank, on a relatively bipartisan vote, then got locked up a bit in the Senate, where Democrats broke against it.

On this one, there is broad unity on the political “right,” loosely defined, in Oklahoma. There is concern about what failure for the proposition would mean — among the majority of conservative activists, as well as those analysts sometimes deemed “Chamber types.”

Speaking of chamber types, people engaged in commerce worry about taxing the value of items identified by the State Chamber of Oklahoma’s Gwendolyn Caldwell in a recent backgrounder — customer lists, relationships, databases, goodwill, employment contracts, patented technology, lease agreements, trademarks, trade names, software, land leases, mineral interests, insurance, and a virtually endless list of other possibilities.

At this point, arguing against S.Q. 766 is Blatt’s OK Policy, based in Tulsa, some school superintendents and defenders of the original decision.

Here’s a personal take on the situation. For business interests, a tax on intangibles is essentially double taxation. A woman’s business is taxed on profits, not the unrealized value of a name brand. A man who leases mineral rights already pays a tax on income — should he also have to pay a tax on the value of a lease?

And, what about the value of a relationship established by contract?

For that matter, what about the value of a handshake agreement, which is still the way a lot of Oklahomans do business? To this day, such deals benefit both parties, in most cases.

In the end, a successful outcome gets taxed the right way, on actual profits. I run the Oklahoma bureau of the Franklin Center’s news organization, a nationwide nonprofit dedicated to strong, independent journalism, albeit on the Internet rather than in print.

When people quiz me about being in the pioneer generation of the adventure known as nonprofit journalism, I often tell them that the weekly community newspaper I am part of, The City Sentinel, is a longstanding pioneer of nonprofit journalism, even if it wasn’t intended that way.

As a journalist, I will never get rich, but I do get taxed. I have accumulated, dare I say it, “goodwill.” The “brand name” for both news organizations is obviously “valuable” – one locally, the other nationally.

Still, I don’t know how in the world anyone could determine the taxable value of that any more than they could put a monetary value on the respect I have for advocates like Carnuccio and Blatt.

Taxes are plenty high on the things that can be assessed and monitored, like real property values and profits.

Keep it real, and tangible. That ought to be enough for any government.

Editor’s Note: This essay first appeared in the October edition of Perspective Magazine, monthly publication of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.This commentary also appeared nationally, on the Watchdog.org website.

Oklahoma Chief Justice Steven Taylor

By Patrick B. McGuigan

Executive Editor

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court might rebuff a Tulsa lawyer’s request for a temporary restraining order intended to regain a ballot line for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee.

Chief Justice Steven Taylor and his colleagues might be right, legally, if they turn that cold shoulder. But such a result will renew concern over our restrictive political process.

In arguments to Supreme Court Referee Barbara Swimley, Attorney James Linger last week hoped to reverse the Election Board’s spike of the Americans Elect party’s line for Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and his running-mate James P. Gray.

Johnson and Gray are on the ballot in 49 states and the District of Columbia – either as Libertarians or independents. This summer, at a small convention for Oklahoma’s Americans Elect party, the party’s electors were designated for Johnson-Gray.

That meeting took place even as national leadership abandoned efforts “in all states in which Americans Elect has obtained a ballot access line.”

In a September 5 appearance before Swimley, Linger contended passionately to preserve what was granted in March, after a successful petition drive secured party status for Americans Elect. Linger asserts the line can only be taken away after an election — if the party’s presidential candidates get less than 10 percent support in November.

Assistant Attorney General Leader, arguing for the state, reasoned that this case’s specifics – national rules and procedures, and a promise that electors support the nominees of the national party – mean that there now is no national Americans Elect party, and therefore no need for state Electors.

The Court will move quickly to assure that overseas voters, especially American soldiers, get to vote.

Despite the present urgency, this argument is nothing new.

Two years ago this week, four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader came to Oklahoma to push reform, telling an enthusiastic crowd that independent party candidates “have to climb the equivalent of Mount Everest to get on the ballot” in the Sooner State. He flatly described Oklahoma as being “the worst [state] in the country” for access.

Oklahoma Libertarians are frustrated over facing a third straight election without a presidential option.

In 2011, State Rep. Charles Key, an Oklahoma City Republican, led a serious push to make ballot access rules less onerous. That proposal passed the state House but died in the Senate Rules Committee.

The Americans Elect effort to provide an alternative in the November election began with hoopla last year, and peaked this spring when University of Oklahoma President David Boren joined triumphant activists to present more than 89,062 signatures seeking ballot status, which was granted at the end of March when an impressive 64,424 names were found valid.

But national officials maneuvered this summer to kill Americans Elect efforts, all over the nation.

Opposing the arguments of state officials, an affidavit from Richard Winger of Ballot Access News pointed out that absentee ballots don’t have to go into the mail until September 22 – but now, that is less than two weeks away.

In last week’s presentation to the referee, Linger argued the state could continue with absentee ballot preparation but wait to close the in-person ballots. He even suggested the Court could mandate that the state allow write-in voting, as a partial remedy.

Leader, arguing for the state, reasoned that national Americans’ Elect rules procedures, and the Electors’ oath to support nominees of the national party,– lead to the conclusion that there is no Americans Elect party in Oklahoma. Leader says the remedies Linger seeks are without merit.

Leader is the Election Board’s legal counsel. In late August, he said the board should pull the ballot line. Attorney Linger and journalist Winger counter that state parties have prevailed in such disagreements over ballot access for most of American history.

Leader’s analysis may persuade the justices, but the controversy illustrates anew how desperately our state needs to revise its laws. Even if not illegal, as a practical matter the state’s unique status in this matter seems ill-advised.

No matter how the present litigation turns out, Oklahoma continues to earn its dubious reputation as the most restrictive state in America for third party candidates or parties.

The Oklahoma Legislature should carefully reexamine the state’s darn-near-impossible budget access provisions. As a matter of justice, the “safety valve” aspects of third parties should be allowed to have at least some chance of success in function here, as is the case in every other state.