Attorney General Keeps Biased Language in Term Limits Ballot Question

From Oklahomans for Responsible Government:

Despite calls for change, Edmondson refuses to take out misleading sentence

The Attorney General’s Office has submitted the final language for State Question 747 and despite calls for biased language to be removed, it will remain.

Oklahomans for Responsible Government pointed out earlier this month that the Attorney General was changing the proposed language for the ballot measure to impose term limits on statewide elected officials. Specifically, the Attorney General’s version included the following sentences:

It limits the ability of voters to re-elect statewide elected officers. It limits the number of years a person may serve in each statewide elected office.

Now, despite calls for the elimination of the first sentence which is biased and misleading, the final language has been submitted. The only change was combining the two sentences into one:

It limits the ability of voters to re-elect statewide elected officers by limiting how many years those officers can serve

OFRG believes term limits will pass despite the political retaliation of Attorney General Drew Edmondson. Voters overwhelmingly supported legislative term limits in 1990 and polls indicate it’s a winning issue for statewide elected officials, too. It’s just a shame that the Attorney General, who personally lobbied against such a measure last year, would again try to interject politics in an attempt to defeat the ballot measure by confusing voters.

Playing politics with term limits?

From Oklahomans for Responsible Government:

The resolution that passed the House and Senate that will put term limits for statewide elected officials on the ballot in 2010 has been changed. By a statewide elected official.

Here’s how it would have appeared on the ballot as proposed by the legislature:

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

This measure amends Sections 4 and 23 of Article 6 of the State Constitution. It also amends Section 15 of Article 9 of the State Constitution. This measure would limit the Governor to eight years of service. Years served for less than a full term would not be counted. The person serving as Governor when this measure is passed could complete his or her term. Other statewide elected officials would be limited to eight years of service, although Corporation Commissioners would be limited to twelve years of service. Years served for less than a full term would not be counted. Persons serving when this measure is passed could complete their terms and serve an additional eight or twelve years. The Legislature could pass laws to implement these changes. Under current law, the Governor is limited to two successive terms.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?

FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________

Before the Secretary of State can put anything on the ballot, it has to be sent to the Attorney General’s office. Last week, Attorney General Drew Edmondson sent a letter to the Secretary of State, Speaker Benge and Senate President pro tem Glenn Coffee saying that what you read above ”did not comply with applicable laws.” So Attorney General Drew Edmondson is proposing changing it to the following:

The measure amends Sections 4 and 23 of Article 6 and Section 14 of Article 9 of the State Constitution. It limits the ability of voters to re-elect statewide elected officers. It limits the number of years a person may serve in each statewide elected office. Service as Governor is limited to eight years. Service as Lieutenant Governor is limited to eight years. Service as Attorney General is limited to eight years. Service as Treasurer is limited to eight years. Service as Commissioner of Labor is limited to eight years. Service as Auditor and Inspector is limited to eight years. Service as Superintendent of Public Instruction is limited to eight years. Service as Insurance Commissioner is limited to eight years. Service as Corporation Commissioner is limited to twelve years. Service for less than a full term would not count against the limit on service. Years of service need not be consecutive for the limits to apply. Officers serving when this measure is passed can complete their terms. All such serving officers, except the Governor, can also serve an additional eight or twelve years. The Legislature could pass laws to carry out these changes.

Look at that sentence I highlighted and tell me if it’s necessary at all. If anything, it may confuse voters into thinking they will not be able to re-elect anyone which is false. If that sentence were taken out, would it change the paragraph at all? Of course not. So why is a misleading statement being put into a ballot measure? Aren’t they supposed to be clear and concise? It makes you wonder why Drew Edmondson, who could be on the ballot in 2010 himself, would want to mislead voters.

But consider that this is the same Drew Edmondson who personally lobbied lawmakers last year to not pass term limits. And now that he’s failed in that regard, he’s trying to submarine the ballot measure with confusing language. We ask that Attorney General Edmondson remove that misleading statement from the ballot measure and let the people vote.