Some encouraging results in Tuesday's Republican runoffs; a heartbreaking near-miss in the Tulsa general election. Grassroots candidates defeated three RINO incumbent legislators: In Senate District 3, Julie McIntosh defeated incumbent Blake Cowboy Stephens by 61% to 39%. Corey DeAngelis, a leader in the national school choice movement celebrated the result, noting that Stephens was proud of being the teachers' union's Legislator of the Week. In House District 32, Kevin Wallace, chairman of the House Appropriations and Budget Committee (a role that is a magnet for lobbyist money -- Wallace had almost three-quarters of a million dollars to spend) was defeated by Jim Shaw, 54% to 46%. Wallace's voting record received a failing grade from multiple conservative organizations. Wallace also lost support for his use of human manure ("biosolids") as fertilizer on his farmland and over concerns about wind and solar arrays displacing privately-owned farms and ranches in rural Oklahoma. Gabe Woolley defeated House District 98 incumbent Dean Davis, whose arrest for public drunkenness made national news last year and had received a deferred sentence in 2019 after pleading nolo contendere to charges of a 2nd Offense DUI, speeding, and obstructing an officer. Grassroots conservatives also fared well in open-seat runoffs. Lisa Standridge, wife of term-limited conservative stalwart Rob Standridge, has won her runoff in Senate District 15 by 51 votes of about 5,000 cast. Stacy Jo Adams in House 50 and Kelly Hines in Senate 47 each beat a better financed opponent 60% to 40%. The closest race of the night was the two-vote victory of Jonathan Wilk over Mike Whaley in House 20, 1,668 to 1,666. One of CAMP's few wins this season was in the Tulsa County Commission District 2 Republican runoff, with former State Rep. Lonnie Sims defeating Melissa Myers. Sadly, Josh Turley, running this year as an independent, has chosen to withdraw from the race. The general election will be between Sims and leftist activist Sarah Gray, who defeated former City Councilor Maria Barnes for the Democrat nomination. City of Tulsa results were heartbreaking. Brent VanNorman, the only Republican with a significant campaign, finished just shy of making the runoff. Our choices in November (barring a change due to the recount that VanNorman has requested) will be Left and Lefter -- Democrat Karen Keith and Democrat Monroe Nichols. The difference between 2nd & 3rd place was 438 votes, about 2.7 votes for each of Tulsa's 163 precincts. You can't help but wonder what would have happened if VanNorman had switched to the mayoral race a few weeks earlier, or if prominent Republicans like Gov. Kevin Stitt had endorsed early enough for TV ads and mail pieces. The key obstacle VanNorman faced was communicating to Republican voters that he was the candidate Republicans should support. That message had to be strong enough to stick with voters all the way into the voting booth, since the ballots carry no party labels. Stitt's election eve endorsement came too late to communicate to the voters except by stickers on campaign signs election morning. I noticed that somehow, in their joint appearance at the Women for Tulsa meeting, no one managed to get a picture of Stitt and VanNorman together -- just an oversight, or purposeful on Stitt's part? Did the Governor want credit with the base for the last minute endorsement while not upsetting the people who really matter to him by making the endorsement so late and quiet as to make no difference? Stitt managed to find time to knock doors for Kevin "Humanure" Wallace and record a video attacking the supporters of Jim Shaw as "political animals." What if he had invested as much into helping a conservative Republican get elected as mayor of Oklahoma's second largest city? And what if a long-time Tulsa Republican with a track record had run? State Sen. and former TU football coach Dave Rader, former AG Scott Pruitt, former AG John O'Connor, former Congressmen John Sullivan and Jim Bridenstine, former DA Tim Harris are just a few names that come to mind. Keith's survival is thanks to early mail-in absentee ballots, presumably cast before her campaign began to sink. 53.4% of mail-in ballots were for Keith, 1,638 of 3,066 cast, giving her a 1,067 vote lead over Brent VanNorman. Keith and her CAMPaign team squandered a strong lead and positive name recognition. Many people had expected Keith to win without a runoff. Election day ballots alone had Nichols at 33.2% (17,033), VanNorman at 33.0% (16,964), and Keith at 31.3% (16,082). Monroe Nichols won early voting at the Tulsa County Election Board, 975 to 801 for Keith and 492 for VanNorman. VanNorman finished first in Districts 2 (43.4%), 6 (41.5%), 7 (40.8%), and 8 (47.5%), but turnout in 2 and 6 was particularly bad. Keith led only in District 9 (34.7%), but that had the highest turnout of any district. Although the districts were drawn to have nearly equal population, District 9 was 18.7% of the election day turnout. Districts 4, 8, and 9 combined for 54.0% of election day votes. Nichols dominated District 1 (66.4%) and District 4 (45.3%), and he finished slightly ahead in low-turnout District 3 (33.1% to 33.0% for Keith and 30.5% for VanNorman) and District 5 (34.5% Nichols, 31.4% VanNorman, 31.1% Keith). The only bright spot in the city elections was the District 7 Council race, where Republican Eddie Huff made it to a November runoff against incumbent Democrat Lori Decter Wright, 43.7% to 48.6%. Decter Wright had only a 50-vote margin on election day, but she had a 204-vote lead from mail-in and early votes. This is a winnable race for Huff in November, but he will need volunteers and funds to reach Republican voters in the midst of a noisy general election season. There will also be runoffs in Districts 2 and 9, and in both cases one candidate is above 40% with 2nd place trailing far behind. In District 2, Anthony Archie will face Stephanie Reisdorph, and in District 9, former State Rep. Carol Bush will face incumbent Jayme Fowler. Fowler spent several months running for mayor before deciding his run wasn't viable. He decided to file for re-election instead, although the other candidates had been campaigning under the assumption that this would be an open seat. In District 2, as in the mayor's race, instant runoff voting might have produced a different top 2, as minor candidates would have been eliminated and had their votes redistributed to each voter's second choice.
- August 29, 2024 at 11:35PM
2024 runoff recap
Click the headline to read the full story.

The Republican Party of Tulsa County has officially endorsed Brent VanNorman for Mayor of Tulsa in the Tuesday, August 27, 2024, election. So have a number of Republican elected officials and leaders, but other prominent Republican voices have remained silent. On Wednesday, August 21, the Tulsa County GOP issued the following statement

Mayoral Endorsement Brent VanNorman

The municipal elections in Tulsa are fast approaching, with less than a week remaining. Many inquiries have been made about the Republican candidates in the mayoral race and the preferred candidate of the Tulsa County Republican Party. In recent months, Brent VanNorman has demonstrated remarkable commitment and effort in his campaign to become Tulsa's next mayor. He has been working relentlessly to increase his visibility and share his vision for the city, achieving considerable success in his endeavors. After discussions with the other active Republican candidate, we have concluded that uniting behind a single candidate will maximize our chances of success in the Tulsa mayoral race on August 27th. With his encouragement, we are pleased to direct our support to Brent VanNorman. The Republican Party of Tulsa County urges our fellow Republicans to cast their vote for Brent VanNorman for Tulsa Mayor on August 27th.

Of the three Republican campaigns, only Brent VanNorman and Casey Bradford filed a Statement of Organization with the City Clerk's office, as required by law for raising and spending more than $1,000, but only VanNorman has filed the required campaign contribution and expenditure reports, which show him receiving maximum contributions on a nearly daily basis. On Friday, voters received a mailer from the Brent VanNorman campaign listing endorsements from:

• Congressman Kevin Hern
• Former Attorney General John O'Connor
• Former Tulsa Police Chief Dave Been
• State Senator Dana Prieto
• State Representative Mark Tedford
• State Representative Chris Banning
• State Representative-elect Rob Hall
• Bama chairman/CEO Paula Marshall

The mailer quotes Congressman Hern: "Brent's commitment to Tulsa values and his real-world experience are unmatched. He will bring the fresh, new leadership Tulsa needs." Former AG John O'Connor writes: "Brent is a true family man and business leader. He's the only Republican running with a bold plan to put Tulsans first and ensure a bright future. " But many prominent Republican officials with Tulsa ties are still silent and on the sidelines. Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell, Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready, State Senator (and beloved former TU football coach) Dave Rader, Sheriff Vic Regalado, County Clerk Michael Willis, and County Court Clerk Don Newberry all reside in the City of Tulsa. (Gov. Kevin Stitt is registered to vote at the Governor's Mansion in Oklahoma City, but before he was elected, he lived in the Tulsa city limits.) Why are these Republicans remaining on the sidelines? Some of them have a history of backing one Republican against others in past City of Tulsa elections. This time, they aren't backing someone other than VanNorman; they're just staying very quiet. The number one reason is likely that VanNorman is so new to Tulsa. While we've had a relatively new Tulsan serve as mayor (Dick Crawford moved to Tulsa in 1978 and was elected mayor in 1986), it's an unusual circumstance. VanNorman's late entry into the mayor's race, switching just before filing from running for Council District 2, as Jayme Fowler dropped back to running for his old council seat, may be another eyebrow-raiser, although that looks like a pragmatic reaction to Fowler's failure to catch fire as a mayoral candidate and VanNorman's resources for a citywide campaign. Only recently has VanNorman campaign material reached mailboxes, radio, TV, and social media, so these GOP leaders may have been wondering if VanNorman's campaign was in earnest. Elected officials are naturally focused on the preservation and extension of their own political careers, and an endorsement poses a risk to their own reputations. Some may be hoping that the problem will resolve itself after Tuesday -- either VanNorman is the lone Republican against a Democrat, making an endorsement in the November runoff straightforward, or else he's out and Tulsa voters choose between two Democrats in November. I have to wonder, too, if some officials are deterred by their working relationships with either Democrat Karen Keith or her campaign consultants, who often represent Republicans. While staying on the sidelines is understandable, these officials ought to expect a share of the blame from Republican voters in future elections if VanNorman fails to make the runoff by a slim margin while they remained silent. I would think Gov. Stitt in particular would be glad to have the mayor of Oklahoma's second largest city on the same side of his fight for one system of laws and justice for all Oklahomans. The latest poll released by VanNorman's campaign has the race tightening, with Karen Keith dropping to 25%, VanNorman rising to 23%, and Monroe Nichols slipping to 19%. Unsure is at 30% and other candidates are at 3% combined. But the margin of error is 7%, with only 227 responses, due to what the poll press release calls "response fatigue due to overpolling by many political races." The poll seems to indicate positive momentum for VanNorman, but at that MOE, any two of the three candidates could end up in the November runoff. The Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort will decide whether the November runoff includes a conservative Republican or is a choice between two left-of-center Democrats. The key will be getting Republican voters to (1) turn up at the polls with an awareness that (2) VanNorman is the only conservative Republican running a well-funded campaign and (3) Karen Keith and Monroe Nichols a liberal Democrat. News coverage of trusted Republican voices endorsing VanNorman and robocall reminders from these officials to drive election-day turnout could have an impact. Even shifting a few hundred votes could be enough to make the difference in such a close race. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.
- August 25, 2024 at 01:27AM
Republican leaders (some) endorse Brent VanNorman
Click the headline to read the full story.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2024, Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats have a partisan primary runoff election in a number of legislative and county races, and the City of Tulsa will conduct a non-partisan citywide general election, including races for Mayor, all nine City Council seats, as well as two charter-change propositions. There are a smattering of other school, municipal, and county propositions across Oklahoma. Here is the Oklahoma State Election Board's list of all races and propositions on the August 27, 2024, ballot. In-person absentee voting will be available on Thursday, August 22, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on Friday, August 23, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and (in most counties) on Saturday, August 24, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. For most counties, in-person absentee voting takes place at the county election board, but there are a few exceptions; click here for the full list of early-voting locations. Wagoner County will have a locations at NSU-BA and First Baptist Church in Wagoner. Polls will be open Tuesday, August 27, 2024, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. NOTE: Precinct boundaries, voting locations, and district boundaries were changed, in some cases dramatically, in 2022. Enter your name and date of birth on the Oklahoma State Election Board's online voter portal and you will see where to vote and your sample ballot. In response to popular demand, I have assembled the guidance detailed below into a downloadable, printable, single-page PDF.

Click to download a printable PDF version of the BatesLine ballot card

Here are the candidates I'm recommending and (if in the district) voting for in the Oklahoma Republican runoff election and City of Tulsa general election on August 27, 2024. (This entry may change as I decide to add more detail, link previous articles, or discuss additional races between now and election day. The entry is post-dated to keep it at the top.) Many readers have asked for a summary of my recommendations. My most enthusiastic choices are in bold. The hyperlink on the name of the office will take you to the article where I discuss that race. Republican primary runoff: The State Senate 33 runoff was a hard call: While I would be happy with either candidate (and have concerns about each), Christi Gillespie has earned the support of courageous conservative stalwarts like Sen. Dana Prieto, outgoing Sen. Nathan Dahm, and Tulsa school board member E'Lena Ashley, and I believe her experience as a member of the Broken Arrow City Council will help her be effective in navigating the legislative process. Shelley Gwartney was endorsed by primary opponent, Bill Bickerstaff, someone I greatly respect. That said, if I were Gillespie I wouldn't brag about Tulsa Regional Chamber and Oklahoma State Chamber endorsements, but I suspect they jumped aboard the bandwagon in light of her primary finish above 40%. (Please read my 2016 article "Chambers of Horrors" to understand why social and fiscal conservatives, opponents of cronyism, and supporters of historic preservation should find Chamber endorsements problematic.)

• Tulsa County Commissioner District 2: Melissa Myers
• State Senate 3: Julie McIntosh
• State Senate 15: Lisa Standridge
• State Senate 33: Christi Gillespie
• State Senate 47: Kelly Hines
• State House 20: Jonathan Wilk
• State House 32: Jim Shaw
• State House 50: Stacy Jo Adams
• State House 53: Nick Pokorny
• State House 60: Ron Lynch
• State House 98: Gabe Woolley

City of Tulsa general election: For City of Tulsa races, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff coincident with the state/federal general election in November. All of the candidates listed are registered Republican voters, except Angela Chambers (a Democrat running against a Democrat incumbent) and Aaron Griffith (an independent running against a Democrat incumbent). Tulsa Mayor: Brent VanNorman Tulsa City Council:

• District 1: Angela Chambers
• District 2: Aaron Bisogno
• District 3: Susan Frederick
• District 4: Aaron Griffith
• District 5: Karen Gilbert (very reluctantly)
• District 6: Christian Bengel (unenthusiastically)
• District 7: Eddie Huff
• District 8: Chris Cone
• District 9: Jayme Fowler

Tulsa charter amendments:

• Proposition 1: YES
• Proposition 2: YES

MORE INFORMATION: OFFICIAL INFORMATION:

• Oklahoma State Election Board
• Tulsa County Election Board
• Oklahoma Ethics Commission Guardian campaign finance database

OTHER CONSERVATIVE VOICES: Here are some blogs, endorsement lists, candidate questionnaires, and sources of information for your consideration.

• Muskogee Politico news and analysis
• Oklahoma Constitution Index: Scores incumbent legislators on voting record
• iVoterGuide surveys of Oklahoma statewide, federal, and legislative candidates
• City Elders Tulsa speakers' videos, including candidate speeches
• Oklahomans for Life candidate surveys
• Oklahomans for the 2nd Amendment (OK2A) endorsements
• NRA-PVF endorsements (NOTE: NRA typically endorses an incumbent over a challenger, even if both have similar views
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights (OKHPR) endorsements

---

If you appreciate the many hours of research that went into this guide and into the rest of my election coverage, and if you'd like to help keep this site online, you can contribute to BatesLine's upkeep via PayPal. In addition to keeping me caffeinated, donated funds pay for web hosting, subscriptions, and paid databases I use for research. Many thanks to those generous readers who have already contributed.
- August 27, 2024 at 08:00PM
Oklahoma Runoff, Tulsa General Election 2024: BatesLine ballot card
Click the headline to read the full story.

Tulsa voters will see two proposed amendments to the City Charter on the August 27, 2024, city general election ballot. Both are worth approving. Proposition 1 amends Article II, Section 2, to change a city councilor's salary from a fixed $24,000 per year to $32,000 per year, with biennial adjustments up or down based on cost-of-living. Here is the current text:

Each member of the Council shall receive a salary of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000.00) per year, commencing December 1, 2014, payable as employees of the city are paid. The City Council shall have no power to change its salary by its own vote. Councilors may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

Here is the proposed replacement text, with new text underlined:

Each member of the Council shall receive a salary of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) per year, commencing December 2, 2024, payable as employees of the City are paid. Thereafter any adjustment to City Council members' annual salaries shall be as certified by the City Treasurer to the City Council. Any adjustment, up or down, certified by the City Treasurer shall coincide with the start of a new City Council term. The salary certified by the City Treasurer shall be commensurate with the most local consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the immediately preceding two-year period. The City Council shall have no power to change its salary by its own vote. Councilors may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

The original councilor's salary in the 1989 charter was $12,000. Although the Council had the power to vote for a salary increase to take effect after the next election, this was only done once, in 2002, increasing the salary to $18,000. In 2013, voters approved the current charter language, increasing the salary to $24,000 but removing the Council's power to adjust its salary. While I like the idea of indexing the salary to inflation, and the method prescribed seems reasonable, I have a couple of concerns. City Treasurer is an office defined by the City Charter, but the method of appointment is not explicitly stated. If the City Treasurer is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, there's a separation-of-powers problem. It could be a means for the Mayor to punish a Council he doesn't like. The definition of the price index in the "escalator clause" also requires some interpretation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly CPI-U release includes "Table 4: Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Selected areas, all items index." CPI-U is calculated monthly for the four standard statistical regions and nine statistical areas and the three largest metropolises (NYC, LA, Chicago), then every two months for 20 large and notably expensive metropolitan areas, like Boston, Atlanta, Washington, and Urban Hawaii. The number that appears to meet the definition of "most local consumer price index" is the West South Central CPI-U, which increased by 2.5% between July 2023 and July 2024. A note on the spreadsheet cautions against relying on local area numbers (emphasis added):

NOTE: Local area indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local index has a smaller sample size than the national index and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in their escalator clauses.

Proposition No. 2 would increase the ratio used to calculate the City Auditor's salary from the Mayor's salary. The current language, in Article IV, Section 2:

The salary of the City Auditor shall be seventy percent (70%) of the salary of the Mayor payable as employees of the city are paid.

The proposed replacement would say:

The salary of the City Auditor shall be seventy-five percent (75%) of the salary of the Mayor, payable as employees of the City are paid.

Currently, the Mayor's salary is $105,000, so the Auditor's pay would increase from $73,500 to $78,750. These salaries haven't changed since 2002. Barely six figures is not the money you pay the CEO of a billion-dollar corporation. Mid-five figures is not what you pay the auditor of a billion-dollar corporation. Of course, we've never had a CEO in the Mayor's office under the 1989 "strong mayor" charter. We've had schmoozers and ribbon cutters. The people with the necessary skills to keep city departments running get paid much more than the mayor. (Before 1989, city departments were under elected commissioners who also served as the city's legislative body.) Most "strong" mayors have hired a Chief Administrative Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer to coordinate the department heads and leave Hizzonner free to schmooze. Republican Brent VanNorman is the only mayoral candidate this year with the experience to enable him to act as city government's CEO. In theory, keeping salaries low compared to private-sector salaries for similar levels of responsibility should filter out those who are just in politics for the money. In reality, to run for a full-time office and serve, you'd either have to be independently wealthy, retired, or young enough for the pay to be a step up. Of you could be well-connected enough that the Powers That Be give your spouse a well-paid, no-show job, with the promise of a cushy sinecure for yourself when your time in office is over. Professionals in mid-career without those connections would have to put their careers on hold and take a huge pay cut. Their families would endure a lifestyle cut along with the absence of a parent and the massive disruption to family life that holding office entails. City Council is even worse. Done right, it's a full-time job with part-time pay. You can make that work as a retiree (e.g. Jim Mautino, Roscoe Turner), with a solo professional practice (e.g., attorneys John Eagleton and Rick Westcott, although serving on the Council would have cut into their availability for legal work), or perhaps as a business owner with employees who can manage the business while you go to council meetings (e.g. Bill Martinson, Chris Trail). If you're a non-profit executive, being a councilor is just an extension of your day job, so there's no need to take paid time off to attend council meetings. You're not there to represent your constituents, you're there to do the bidding of the philanthropocrats who fund or employ you. Any salary for being a rubber-stamp at council meetings is just icing on a very rich cake. I'll be voting yes on both propositions as a step in a better direction, but there are consequences to the small amounts we pay our city officials.
- August 21, 2024 at 07:10PM
2024 Tulsa City Charter amendments: Council & Auditor salaries
Click the headline to read the full story.

The only valuable member of the current Tulsa City Council, the only councilor who was more than a rubber stamp, decided at the last minute not to run for re-election. District 5's Grant Miller had planned to run for a second term, but Tulsa's establishment (what I've called the Cockroach Caucus) made it clear that they were determined to ruin his life unless he went away. Miller had the temerity to think for himself. He wisely opposed the Improve Our Tulsa 3 package, which was rushed to the ballot two years early and included $75 million for some magical, undefined solution for homelessness. When Miller caught the Mean Girls Clique -- Vanessa Hall Harper, Laura Bellis, Lori Decter Wright -- texting each other during a public meeting of the Council's Urban and Economic Development Committee, in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, he exposed their catty messages through an Open Records request. They were privately discussing the agenda item and ridiculing Miller's ideas, rather than using facts and reason to debate Miller's ideas publicly. The Mean Girls Clique got their revenge with the help of the Meanest Girl of All, Mayor G. T. Bynum IV. Councilor Miller had completed his law degree at the University of Tulsa, had passed his bar exam, and had applied for admission to the Oklahoma bar. Bynum, Hall Harper, Bellis, and Decter Wright communicated "concerns" about Miller to the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners, who denied him the right to practice law in Oklahoma. The Bynum Mean Girls Clique, with other accomplices, punished Miller for his politics by preventing him from earning a living in the profession for which he had been expensively educated. (And that brings us back to this question: Why is conservative Oklahoma allowing a left-leaning, Commie-supporting private club to serve as gatekeeper to the legal profession and the judiciary in Oklahoma?) On top of all that, just as Tulsans began to read about the clearly political reasons for Miller's exclusion from the bar, a bogus charge of domestic assault and battery, called in two days after the event from someone a thousand miles away from Tulsa, resulted in an arrest and headlines. Miller was quickly cleared, and he intended to continue his campaign for re-election, but his plans were changed by the realities of needing to care for two children, including a young son with autism, while, he told KRMG in May, his wife was hospitalized for alcohol-induced pancreatitis. This is the System, the Cockroach Caucus, making an example of someone who dared to think critically and independently. No wonder it's hard to find good candidates to run for City Council. A few months ago, I was at an event where several council candidates spoke. Julie Dunbar, running in District 9, spoke in a way that was touchingly naive about her hopes for serving on the council. This is paraphrasing from memory, but she was looking forward to exchanging and discussing different ideas for improving the city with her council colleagues. Ms. Dunbar is a social worker who specializes in "Relationship Issues, Trauma and PTSD, and Life Coaching," so you'd think she would be able to recognize organizations blighted by narcissism and toxicity. Her husband, Todd Huston, served a term as a city councilor, and the same forces that helped him win election in 2000 recruited an opponent to defeat him in 2002, because he didn't endorse the "It's Tulsa's Time" tax increase on the November 2000 ballot. You'd think Huston might have been able to communicate to his wife that the Tulsa establishment doesn't welcome a diversity of ideas. A couple of years ago, Tina Nettles, a Tulsa friend who raises chickens in her backyard, discovered that the commission rewriting the animal welfare ordinance was completely uninterested in hearing from citizens who are knowledgeable on the subject. If you're serving on the City Council or on a board or commission, you might think you're there to propose creative solutions to the problems on the agenda. In 1998, District 4 City Councilor Anna Falling believed she had found a less expensive way to meet the city's recycling goals. While her proposal may have met the requirements of the stated agenda of city leaders, it apparently didn't also meet the real, hidden agenda. And so the Mayor and a compliant news media set out to end her service on the City Council. We could go on to talk about what was done to Jim Mautino, Chris Medlock, and Roscoe Turner in the mid-2000s and the lawfare targeting councilors circa 2009. What's the hidden agenda of the Powers That Be? It might include making sure that "our friends at this non-profit and our friends who own a heavy construction company and our friends the bond attorneys and bond bankers all get a piece of the pie while those guys over there who aren't beholden to us at all get nothing." A solution that doesn't involve massive spending is worse than no solution at all, from their perspective. An alternate, simpler, less expensive solution to the stated agenda might capture the imagination of the public and make the plan that satisfies the hidden agenda politically impossible. In the immortal words of Sal Tessio: Sally's stated agenda (protecting the boss in a meeting with his rival) didn't line up with his hidden agenda (setting up the boss to be assassinated). His angry reaction to the proposal of a different plan to meet the stated agenda exposed the treacherous hidden agenda. The future Fish was taken away to sleep with the fishes. Which brings us to the August 27, 2024, City of Tulsa general election. For a start, we need to defeat these three harpies, the Mean Girls Clique, who carried out this attack on Miller on behalf of the Cockroach Caucus. We also recall Vanessa Hall Harper's racist verbal attack on Republican Sen. Tim Scott and Laura Bellis's obscenity-saturated speech at a fundraiser for Lori Decter Wright claiming Republican City Council candidates were "actual fascists," sentiments praised by Decter Wright. Fortunately, each of those three districts has a better alternative on the ballot:
- August 21, 2024 at 08:42AM
2024 Tulsa City Council election
Click the headline to read the full story.

There are seven candidates on the August 27, 2024, ballot for Mayor of Tulsa. If one candidate manages more than 50% of the vote, he or she will be elected. If no candidate reaches that threshold, there will be a runoff on November 5, 2024, between the top candidates. From Article VI, Section 2.2 of the Tulsa City Charter: "If more than two (2) candidates file for an office and no candidate receives more than fifty percent (50%) of all votes cast at the election for that office, the names of the several candidates for the office receiving the greatest number of votes totaling fifty percent (50%) at such elections shall be placed on the ballot at a run-off election in November, on the day specified by the laws of Oklahoma, and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast at said run-off election shall be deemed elected." Because of the number of candidates, the non-partisan ballot (no party primary), and the possibility of an outright winner in August, conservatives need to vote tactically. If conservative votes are divided among the three Republicans on the ballot, the likely outcome will either be an outright victory for Karen Keith in August, or a runoff between two bad Democrat options, Karen Keith and Monroe Nichols, in November. A poll conducted after the mayoral debate has Democrat Karen Keith leading with 33.4%, Democrat Monroe Nichols with 21.9%, conservative Republican Brent VanNorman with 19.2%, and the other four candidates at 1.9% combined. 23.6% are undecided. If Republicans can hold Keith below 50% and get VanNorman into second place, there's a good shot at electing a conservative mayor for the first time in 38 years. Brent VanNorman would bring a variety of experience to the table -- president of an investment company, pastor, accountant, attorney. Until June he served as president of TriLinc Global, but he continues as the investment firm's General Counsel, according to his LinkedIn resume. Prior to that, he spent 13 years as an intellectual property attorney, engaging in patent litigation for Hunton & Williams LLP in Richmond, Virginia. He connected with Tulsa when his son came here in 2008 to attend Oral Roberts University; he and his wife moved here in 2021. It would be a breath of fresh air to have a mayor who is an outsider to the local establishment. He wants to make Tulsa the "business-friendliest" city in America. He acknowledges the growth of crime and homelessness and has plans to address both. VanNorman has been endorsed by Congressman Kevin Hern, who writes, "Brent combines diverse expertise with strong business acumen. His commitment to common-sense family values and real-world experience make him the fresh, effective leader Tulsa needs." Tony Lauinger of Oklahomans for Life writes that VanNorman is "strongly pro-life." During the KJRH-NonDoc debate at Cain's Ballroom, Karen Keith issued platitudes and spoke of relationships, Monroe Nichols advocated for destructive policies, but Brent VanNorman presented common-sense solutions in a positive way. In the debate's section on homelessness, VanNorman was the only candidate to identify drug abuse and mental illness as the heart of the crisis, something that can't be fixed by subsidizing developers to build more housing (Keith's solution). He mentioned God's Shining Light's holistic ministry to the homeless. The church has restored the Saratoga Motel, a Route 66 classic, as a 107-unit sober living center, offering "a safe residential housing environment, counseling, training, job opportunities, and education in a grace filled atmosphere." VanNorman was the only candidate to oppose Tulsa's "Welcoming City" certification, a status that implicitly forbids the city from cooperating with federal authorities enforcing immigration law under programs like 287(g) cooperation agreements or taking measures to deter illegal immigrants from settling here. He correctly exposed the label one step toward a sanctuary city. Regarding the other major candidates, VanNorman said that they "are both liberal Democrats. They're great people, they're wonderful to be around, they're well intended, but their policies will lead us to being the next Seattle, the next Portland, the next Minneapolis, the next San Francisco," referring to the squalor, crime, and civil disorder that has characterized the failed governance of leftist-controlled cities." More on Keith and Nichols after the jump:
- August 17, 2024 at 11:43PM
Brent VanNorman for Tulsa mayor
Click the headline to read the full story.

Co-governance is a means for bypassing democracy. On the pretext of righting historical wrongs, the self-styled leaders of indigenous groups, representing a tiny percentage of the overall population, are given not only a seat at the table, but also a deciding vote or veto over decisions made by the elected representatives of the entire population. New Zealand is furthest along the path to co-governance, although the voters there pushed back last year. (Here's an explainer from a pro-co-governance perspective.) For example, the previous government, led by socialist Jacinda Ardern of the Labour Party, started a process to take governance of water supply away from local governments and giving it to regional bodies with equal representation of Maori tribal leaders and the general population, a plan called Three Waters. Self-identified Maori constitute about 20% of the national population. There once was a requirement to prove Maori ancestry and a blood quantum over 50% in order to vote in elections for set-aside Maori parliamentary and council seats, but people can now self-identify, which is likely swelling the numbers. Co-governance is a great setup for the Left. If you can't get the support of the general public for your "progressive" plans, you can more easily manipulate tribal leaders who were voted in by tiny electorates. Under co-governance those tribal leaders would be able to stop a conservative city or state government initiative or push a left-wing proposal that a majority of the total electorate would have rejected. If a billionaire with an agenda can turn the heads of the elected officials of a city of 400,000 people, it would be no problem for him to enlist the compliance of leaders elected by 5,193 voters with some cash for pet projects and promises of cushy non-profit gigs. Citizens of Australia and New Zealand wisely rejected pushes for co-governance last October with Aussies overwhelmingly defeating the "Indigenous Voice to Parliament" proposal and Kiwis electing a new center-right coalition opposed to the co-governance that had been pushed by the defeated socialist government. The new New Zealand government has repealed the Three Waters proposal. David Seymour, leader of ACT, a junior partner in the newly-elected coalition government, writing before the election, explained eloquently the divisiveness and injustice inherent in co-governance:

"The current [Labour] government is presenting New Zealanders with a false choice. It says that if we want to right the wrongs of the past, cherish Māori language and culture, and give all New Zealanders equal opportunity, then we must throw out universal human rights in favour of co-government. "Parties on the left, led by Labour, promote decision-making made by two parties jointly co-governing when it comes to regulatory decisions and government service delivery. ACT would overturn and replace the obsession with co-government, replacing it with a more liberal outlook that treats all humans with equal dignity.... "We are told that 'one-person-one-vote' is old-fashioned, and we should welcome a new, 'enlightened' type of political system. This new system is a 'tiriti-centric Aotearoa,' where we are divided into tangata whenua, people of the land, and tangata tiriti, people of the treaty. Each person will not have an inherent set of political rights because they are citizens of New Zealand. Instead, they will have rights based on their whakapapa or ancestry. "Continuing to embed the extraordinary belief will be highly divisive. The danger is that if the Government continually tells people to regard each other as members of a group rather than individuals with inherent dignity, there is a danger people will internalise that lesson. Once that happens, it is very difficult to go back."

The wrongly-decided McGirt ruling laid a legal foundation on which co-governance could be justified in Oklahoma. Yes, co-governance would be built atop the pain and trauma of a four-year old girl who was sexually molested by her grandmother's husband. By the way, child molester Jimcy McGirt, cornerstone of co-governance, is now a free man. Despite claims at the time (e.g. T. W. Shannon) that McGirt would receive a harsher penalty in Federal court, his 500-year Oklahoma district court sentence was replaced with a 30-year Federal sentence and credit for time served. (Details on how that came about on the jump page.) Although Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion, backed by the Court's left wing, stated that the scope of the ruling was limited to prosecution of felonies under the Major Crimes Act, the City of Tulsa's amicus brief and Chief Justice John Roberts's minority opinion spelled out the dangerous implications of the McGirt ruling, which overturned 100 years of settled law and precedent:

Across this vast area, the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law. None of this is warranted. What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the "well settled" approach required by our precedents. Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 5).

With Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a more recent ruling began to contain the toxic legal overflow of McGirt. The 2022 Castro-Huerta ruling, decided 5-4 with Gorsuch now in the minority, put crimes committed by non-Indians in eastern Oklahoma back under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma's district courts. There is reason to hope that further rulings would continue to limit the bounds of McGirt and perhaps some day to reverse it altogether. Hooper v. Tulsa, a case questioning the City of Tulsa's ability to enforce its traffic laws, was working its way through the federal courts. The city sought a stay on the federal district judge's ruling, but a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court and SCOTUS both denied a stay. The district judge dismissed the case in December. (I have reached out to experts to find out where this case stands and whether the city will further pursue the case.) Those mitigating rulings will not happen if our elected officials choose to drop the cases. Oklahoma is already hampered by a state attorney general who seems more beholden to tribal governments than to the people of Oklahoma. It's in the interest of tribal officials (and the forces who hope to harness them for their own ends) to get city and state elected officials to halt legal challenges to tribal jurisdiction and agree to co-governance, creating a fait accompli before the issue reaches SCOTUS. You either have one territorial sovereign, elected by all the people and governing all the people, or you have something like South Africa's apartheid system, with different laws and courts for different people based on ancestry. It's to the benefit of all Tulsans, tribal citizens as well as the rest of us, to have a single system of laws and justice consistently applied to everyone, whether you have a great-great-great-great grandfather on the Dawes roll or not. We need our next mayor and council to pursue that goal aggressively through the federal courts. The issue was raised at the recent Tulsa mayoral debate at Cain's Ballroom. Only one of the three major candidates, Republican Brent VanNorman, will defend the principle engraved on the pediment of the Supreme Court building: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. VanNorman would continue to pursue criminal jurisdiction over tribal members in the Federal courts. He had an apt illustration: "If someone's here from Kansas and is speeding, we expect our police to pull them over and give them a ticket." The law should be applied the same no matter what license plate you have. While VanNorman spoke about communication and coordination with tribal governments, which aren't prepared to handle the burden of law enforcement that sovereignty implies, VanNorman affirms that there must be one set of laws and one system of justice for everyone. Equal justice under law. "Democrat" State Rep. Monroe Nichols is committed to co-governance with tribal officials. That means that officials elected by tiny numbers of voters, most of whom live outside the City of Tulsa, will decide how our city is run, not the elected representatives of the citizens of Tulsa. Nichols's own webpage on the topic acknowledges that there are only 30,000 Native Americans living in Tulsa; undoubtedly fewer than that number are citizens of the tribes that claim to have reservations covering part of the city. Those 30,000 people are full citizens of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the USA, and are already represented in city, state, and federal elections. It's not democratic to give them more say than the 370,000 Tulsans who are not tribal citizens. (Thus the sneer-quotes around "Democrat" above; the "Democrat" Party has shown on this issue and in the replacement of Joe Biden with Kamala Harris that they don't respect democracy.) Nichols stated at the debate that Tulsa is the largest city in the US in an Indian reservation. That's because for 113 years, it was NOT governed as if it were in an Indian reservation. (It wasn't in an Indian reservation, and it still isn't, except for the mineral rights of the Osage County portion.) You can't build a city in a reservation. The Navajo reservation, the largest in the nation, is nearly the size of Oklahoma's pre-statehood Indian Territory (27,413 sq. mi. vs. 31,069.88 -- source here), but it has no cities. Land is held in common, controlled by the tribal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so it can't be developed. 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. In Oklahoma, allotment gave tribal citizens land of their own to farm, develop, or sell, providing capital and clear title where cities and towns, businesses and industries could be established and grow. The Curtis Act and other laws of the period affirmed the USA's agreements with the the Five Tribes that their citizens, "when their tribal governments cease, shall become possessed of all the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States." Without the Curtis Act, allotment, and statehood, there would be no Tulsa, no McAlester, no Ardmore, no Ada. Tribal capitals like Tahlequah and Okmulgee would be villages, not the cities they became after they were platted and the lots transferred to tribal members. In her answer (in most of her answers), Karen Keith talked about relationships. Keith said she has talked to "our Nations' leaders" about putting a "pan-tribal court" in a new Tulsa County Courthouse. She wants to come to "consensus" with tribal authorities in hopes of getting rid of the legal issues. In other words, she would capitulate to a dual system of justice but would hope to help citizens "navigate" the confusing system that Gorsuch, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan devised in McGirt. I said before the midterm primaries that 2022 was the McGirt election, but every election will be a McGirt election until Congress explicitly reaffirms the disestablishment of reservations (already accomplished before statehood, but denied by Gorsuch et alii) or until the Supreme Court narrows or eliminates the scope of the ruling. The McGirt case was wrongly decided, with the narrow 5-4 majority ignoring the legal developments that occurred in the decades leading to statehood. Subsequent rulings, after the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett, have limited the scope of McGirt, and we can hope that the U. S. Supreme Court will ultimately limit McGirt's implications to the Major Crimes Act cited in that ruling, and perhaps overturn it altogether. To reach that democratic goal, our mayor needs to be a strong advocate for democracy and equal justice, not a a puppet of petty tribal fiefdoms. That's one more reason I will be voting for Brent VanNorman for mayor on August 27, 2024. Click "Continue reading" for video of the debate section on co-governance and more on the legal process that led to McGirt's release from prison last month.
- August 17, 2024 at 10:05PM
Tulsa mayoral candidates differ on tribal co-governance
Click the headline to read the full story.