State questions, November 6th, 2012

[Townsend]

OK Policy.org's information.

http://www.okpolicy.org/2012-state-questions

[guido911]

Thanks for linking to this. There are a couple of these that should spark some debate in here.

[Townsend]

Thanks for linking to this. There are a couple of these that should spark some debate in here.

Have you looked at your ballot?  Busy bee ballot this go 'round.

I've got questions about the judges for you guys with any knowledge.

[guido911]

Have you looked at your ballot?  Busy bee ballot this go 'round.

I've got questions about the judges for you guys with any knowledge.

Here is something to work from.

http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/listbk12_general.pdf

[nathanm]

Thanks. It appears that there will be a lot of "no" votes on my ballot.

[guido911]

Thanks. It appears that there will be a lot of "no" votes on my ballot.

You cannot vote "No" for president.

[Hoss]

You cannot vote "No" for president.

You can damn sure leave it blank.

[nathanm]

You cannot vote "No" for president.

[Gaspar]

You cannot vote "No" for president.

Yes you can!  In Oklahoma if you vote for President Obama, that's basically a "No."

 

[Townsend]

We can find a better solution if SQ 766 fails

Gene Perry is a policy analyst with the Oklahoma Policy Institute. Find more information from OK Policy at okpolicy.org.

http://www.capitolbeatok.com/letter-to-the-editor/we-can-find-a-better-solution-if-sq-766-fails

To the Editor:

With State Question 766, Oklahoma voters will be asked to allow a tax break for some of the largest corporations in the state. This would be paid for by a combination of cuts to schools and counties and increases in individuals’ property tax bills.

Supporters of SQ 766 tell a very different story. They argue that voting down the question could lead to large tax increases on everyone, with assets ranging from teaching certificates to “goodwill” being newly taxed. This argument is incorrect for two reasons.

First, the legislature could have proposed an amendment that protects families and small businesses from intangible property tax without also exempting those corporations that have already been paying it. The tax had previously been levied only on those companies that are “centrally assessed,” which means their property tax bills are calculated by the state rather than by individual counties. Centrally assessed companies in Oklahoma include railroads and utilities such as AT&T.

After a 2009 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling denied an attempt by AT&T (then Southwestern Bell) to exempt specific intangibles from taxation, the company began lobbying to exempt all intangibles. To gain support for their cause, the company and groups like the State Chamber of Commerce raised the specter of intangible property taxes spreading to all taxpayers.

To ensure this would not happen, the Legislature could have put forward an amendment that exempted locally assessed entities from intangible property tax while continuing the status quo for centrally assessed entities. That’s similar to what is done in Oregon. Alternatively, they could have exempted intangible property but allowed a method of assessing value that includes all assets of a public corporation (for example, basing valuation on the market-determined stock price).

Instead, the legislature created a loophole that will cost an estimated $50 million initially and is almost certain to grow over time.

The second reason individuals and small businesses are not in danger of seeing a tax increase if this measure fails is that the legislature has already created a safeguard. After the initial Supreme Court decision, lawmakers created a “business activity tax” of $25 that could be paid in lieu of intangible property taxes. They also created a corresponding tax credit to pay back the $25, so no one’s tax bill has changed. If SQ 766 fails, this temporary fix will stay in effect. It is a messy solution, but it gives us time to take a more careful approach without needing to worry about a tax increase in the immediate future.

Ironically, passing SQ 766 could result in a tax increase on individuals across the state. The revenue loss from this amendment would be partially paid for by cuts to schools and counties, but mandatory expenses like school bonds and court-ordered payments cannot be cut. To meet these obligations, counties could increase the property tax rate for everyone.

On the other hand, if SQ 766 fails, lawmakers can go back to the drawing board for a better solution.

 
Sincerely,

Gene Perry, Tulsa

[Townsend]

Voters to Decide on Racial Preferences in Oklahoma Hiring

http://kwgs.com/post/voters-decide-racial-preferences-oklahoma-hiring

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — While the nation's highest court ponders the use of race in college admissions, Oklahoma voters will decide next month whether to prohibit any affirmative action programs in state government.

State Question 759 is a Republican-backed proposal approved by Oklahoma lawmakers last year that would ban any government programs that give preferred treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.

Supporters say affirmative action programs are no longer needed, while opponents maintain racism still exists and that eliminating such programs would move the state backward.

The ballot question in Oklahoma comes just as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case involving a white student who contends she was discriminated against when the University of Texas did not offer her a spot in 2008 because of its affirmative action program.

[Townsend]

Trying to get a sample ballot for the November 6th election for Wagoner county for my in-laws. It's embarrassing how hard it is.

Wagoner County election board has an inactive phone number listed and the POC for the state election board couldn't help me. I've been transferred to someone named Rochelle and she seems pretty miffed that I'm trying to track it down.

How is this acceptable? Anyone have any suggestions?

[nathanm]

I saw a scaremongery pro SQ766 ad last night. No mention of the fact that nobody actually has to pay that tax, of course.

[Townsend]

With Oklahoma being so unimportant in the presidential race I'm surprised we're not spending the majority of our political conversations on the state questions.

Anyone want to toss in thoughts?  I'd love to hear some input.

[RecycleMichael]

I vote against all judges. I figure they should share the honor with other lawyers.