The League of Women Voters has a voting guide that details the candidates, state questions, and local propositions
http://lwvtulsa.org/wp-content/uploads/LVW_2012-general-election-voters-guide06_FINAL_SC.pdf (http://lwvtulsa.org/wp-content/uploads/LVW_2012-general-election-voters-guide06_FINAL_SC.pdf)
They also have taken a position on two of the state questions
http://lwvtulsa.org/wp-content/uploads/STATE-QUESTIONS-Positions_FINAL.pdf (http://lwvtulsa.org/wp-content/uploads/STATE-QUESTIONS-Positions_FINAL.pdf)
This is good information, presented without spin. On the state questions, the League is opposed to 759 because:
In states that have eliminated affirmative action, well-qualified minorities and women were less likely to advance to managerial positions, reductions in hiring of women were dramatic, construction awards to businesses owned by minorities and women decreased substantially, and admission of women and minorities to universities and graduate schools dropped significantly.
If the question is passed, court challenges would be costly to the state with taxpayer dollars required for legal fees and court charges.
Affirmative action does not create quotas; it builds diversity by encouraging well-qualified women and minorities to apply for jobs, promotions, government contracts, and quality higher education.
They support 762, a proposal to remove the governor from the parole process for non violent offenders
The State of Oklahoma will join all other states in the nation by removing the governor from the parole process for non-violent offenders.
It will reduce costs by eliminating delays and will reduce the strain on the parole system by making the early parole process for non-violent offenders more effective and efficient.
It will allow the governor to focus attention on parole cases that raise genuine public safety considerations.
The League of Women Voters of Oklahoma has long supported the complete removal of the governor from the parole process and sees this measure as a step in the right direction.
Parole question might be ok, but I think the bigger issue rather than the governor being involved in the process is to pick better governors. This is a sleight of hand way to make it look like something real is being done, without state citizens having to acknowledge how bad they screw up sometimes, and avoiding the reality behind the curtain.
Reluctant yes. Mostly because of the clowns we insist on electing.
I can understand the governor wanting to avoid another Willie Horton moment, and it's a fundamental political reality that she has to appear to be tough on crime. But it's also apparent that she doesn't think the parole boards are capable of acting responsibly.
There's no real need to have the governor as the final authority on paroling non violent offenders. It's merely political posturing.
Quote from: Ed W on October 31, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
I can understand the governor wanting to avoid another Willie Horton moment, and it's a fundamental political reality that she has to appear to be tough on crime. But it's also apparent that she doesn't think the parole boards are capable of acting responsibly.
There's no real need to have the governor as the final authority on paroling non violent offenders. It's merely political posturing.
The language on the ballot says this change only applies to parole for nonviolent offenses.