Statement of Paul Jacob
October 2nd, 2007 by PaulWhat Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson is trying to do to me is wrong. In America, we cherish the right to engage in politics, to speak our minds, to promote our candidate, to work to pass a voter initiative, without fear of reprisal. That is why today is such a sad day, not only for me, but for all of us who love the initiative process and the right of citizens to control their government.
This indictment unsealed today is not about the law, but is rather 100 percent politically motivated. This is politics—very ugly politics.
The highest legal office in the state of Oklahoma seems bent on silencing citizens through harassment and intimidation, threats and coercion. The goal is to silence me, and to frighten you, from petitioning our government.
Those who attempt to put citizens in charge of government spending decisions, through initiatives like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or to pursue any other issue that rankles the powerful political forces of a state, can expect to face an onslaught by the full powers of the government.
This is yet another round in the age-old attempt to stop ideas by force, by harassment, by imprisonment, by anything except a better idea. Oklahomans, your attorney general is not practicing democracy. He is practicing the politics of destruction.
It won’t work.
This indictment will not stand. I will fight it with every fiber of my being. And I know that, in the end, those who misuse the power of their office for political advantage, employing ugly and un-democratic tactics, will ultimately face an indictment of their own.
My life, my family, my children are being threatened here…for what? For what?
I have committed no crime. Unless the heartfelt desire to place government under the control of its citizens is now illegal. But this cannot be so. There is much bluster in this indictment. Yet what is my actual offense but that of daring to help Oklahoma voters hold an election to decide an issue?
No, I don’t deserve to go to prison for being politically active. I know that. You know that. Mr. Edmondson should know that, too.
The State of Oklahoma threatens me and others with prison to prevent our involvement in political life and to chill the speech and assembly of others who might wish to become involved. Involved in working to hold an election. To give Oklahomans a vote on an issue.
One might expect this kind of repression in Egypt or Iran or China. But not Oklahoma.
We the People will not be intimidated. We will keep fighting to turn out-of-control government into government that is under citizen control. We will defeat this vicious attempt to criminalize honest political activity. And in the end, we will win.
Background
Let me address the so-called charge against me. I’m accused of violating the Oklahoma statute requiring petition circulators to be residents, a residency requirement currently being challenged in federal court. There seems little justification for this underlying law other than to restrict and hamper the petition process. I believe it will ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional.
Twice in the last quarter century—in Meyer v. Grant and in ACLF v. Buckley—the U.S. Supreme Court struck down similar restrictions, like regulating petitioners’ pay and requiring petitioners to be registered voters. As the High Court put it in Meyer, government cannot “reduce the available pool” of people to assist citizens in communicating with their fellow citizens and petitioning their government.
But regardless of how the courts ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the residency requirement, everyone I worked with on the TABOR petition sought to follow the statute as written. As an advisor to the petition drive, I worked to help Rick Carpenter and Oklahomans in Action obtain the best petition services at the best price, and then to monitor the drive’s progress.
Oklahomans in Action contracted with a petition company called National Voter Outreach, which had worked in Oklahoma on many successful petition drives before taking on the TABOR petition. That contract stipulated that the company was thoroughly familiar with the laws of Oklahoma regarding petitioning.
As the TABOR petition drive got underway, an aggressive campaign was launched to block and harass petition gatherers. Jeannie Berg, an expert in campaigns of harassment against petition drives, was brought in from Oregon to manage the multitude of blockers—many of them brought in from outside the state, and reportedly paid $100 a day.
These “blockers” used thuggish tactics, which have been documented. For example, gangs of them would stalk a petitioner, interrupting, yelling and creating a scene whenever a voter was being asked to sign the petition. There was an organized campaign of lying to store managers, alleging rude treatment from petitioners and asking that they be removed.
In response to all the harassment, many Oklahoma petitioners left the state to petition in other states. Given the difficult environment, not enough new circulators were being recruited and retained in Oklahoma to enable the petition to reach the ballot. Under such circumstances—and under the legislature’s (not the constitution’s) draconian 90-day petition window—I suggested to the petition company that the drive be scuttled.
I was then informed that under Oklahoma’s statutory residency requirement, people could move to Oklahoma and immediately declare residency, and thus be qualified to circulate the petition. The petition company felt enough people could be recruited to move to Oklahoma to gather enough signatures to bring the question to the ballot.
When I inquired as to whether the state officials had been asked for their guidelines on what constitutes residency, I was told that the petition company had indeed sought—and received—the advice and approval of officials in the Secretary of State’s office. Indeed, two separate individuals with National Voter Outreach spoke to government officials to determine the rules on residency. They were told that people could indeed come to Oklahoma, declare residency, and begin circulating a petition.
In good faith, the company acted on this information.
I also asked the folks at National Voter Outreach whether there had been any challenges of petition drives on the basis of residency, and whether any ruling on same had been issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I received a copy of the court’s decision in a challenge to an initiative to ban cock-fighting. In that decision, circulators were challenged for being “out-of-state” circulators because they had moved to Oklahoma during the petition drive and because many lived in hotels during their residence in the state. According to the information I received, every circulator in the cock-fighting ban petition who declared him or herself a resident was ruled to be qualified to circulate the petition, regardless of how long he resided in the state or whether he lived in a hotel. The only circulator disqualified had listed an out-of-state address on the petition form.
In 1994 and 1996 I monitored ballot drives in Oklahoma for term limits. During those drives, circulators were required to be registered voters. Many people moved to Oklahoma, registered to vote, and circulated the petition. Often they would live with friends or at a hotel.
As long as it could be verified that a person was a registered voter in Oklahoma, a proponent could feel comfortable that that circulator met the statutory requirements and that his petition would count. However, that voter registration requirement was subsequently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. ACLF.
After the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in the TABOR challenge, there’s a new interpretation of the residency statute. The new standard argues that no one who moves to the state to accept a job, no matter how long the duration, is a “genuine” resident unless he is committed to remaining in the state permanently. For example, in the challenge to the TABOR petition, the court ruled that a man who had come to Oklahoma in September of 2005 to circulate the petition and then continued to live in the state for the next ten months was NOT a resident. Thus, the Oklahoma voters who signed his petitions were disenfranchised.
Under the new requirement of residency there is simply no way for petition companies to adequately determine whether a petitioner is or is not a resident. Therefore, future petition proponents and managers can expect to face criminal prosecution depending on circumstances largely, if not entirely, beyond their control. This is certain to have a chilling effect on petition activity.
The underlying state statute here is an unconstitutional attempt to deny the First Amendment rights of Oklahoma citizens. I believe it will be and should be struck down. But even so, during the TABOR ballot drive we sought to understand this statute and to abide by it.
Let me say it again: constitutional or not, we obeyed the statute.
So, why the prosecution? I am told by many friends in Oklahoma that this outrageous prosecution is, sadly, very much in character for the Oklahoma Attorney General. They inform me that while Drew Edmondson shows an uncanny ability to miss the corruption taking place right under his nose by members of his own Democratic Party—such that a federal investigation must now be conducted—he tosses decency and common sense straight out the window to persecute his political opponents.
What’s at stake? The very process by which citizens can check their government—the right to voter initiative and referendum—is under attack in these prosecutions. When the powerful in government are threatened by citizens demanding reform, they have time and again sought to clamp down on the petition process.
After term limits swept the initiatives states, something I was very much involved in, legislatures throughout these states launched a barrage of legislation to hamstring and restrict he process and hamstring citizen efforts for reform.Now we see a similar backlash from politicians afraid of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which would give voters more control over state spending decisions.
Three-hundred thousand Oklahomans signed a petition to vote on giving citizens a veto on large spending increases. The state constitution says voters have the right to decide. But the Oklahoma Supreme Court said no.
Just months ago, the Oklahoma Supreme Court again found a flimsy excuse to block voters from considering another initiative—the so-called 65-Percent Solution. The court deemed the short statement that the legislature (not the constitution) requires proponents to place on petitions—i.e., to give petition signers simply the “gist” of the measure—to be insufficient. The voters supposedly didn’t know what they were signing.
Posted in Uncategorized |
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 am
[…] Statement of Paul Jacob […]
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Petition.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:08 am
My thoughts are with you. Good luck! Here’s a little typo I found:
What’s at stake? The very process by which citizens can check their government—the right to voter initiative and referendum—is under attack in these prosecutions. When the powerful in government are *threaten by citizens demanding reform, they have time and again sought to clamp down on the petition process.
*threatened
October 4th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Please advise how to contribute to you in your legal fight against these b*st*rds. How should the check be made out and to what address should it be sent?
When is chief b*st*rd Edmondson
running for office again? To what opponent should campaign contributions be sent?
Finally, do your state supreme court “justices” run for office?
Restore the Republic. Ron Paul for President.
David Macko
October 4th, 2007 at 8:41 am
I want you-all to know you’re up against the Satan, which include corrupt government, which include corrupt members such as Drew Edmondson, which include corrupt and powerful citizens along with corrupt and not so powerful citizens. Way I see it there are only two laws. the law that save the corrupt and the law that condemn the non-corrupt.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I have been a supporter of Paul Jacob and what he has done from day one.
And I support him now.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
What Paul Jacob says is rational, honest, correct, decent, valid, and therefore of utterly no interest to the corrupt filth who run Oklahoma’s government.
Oklahoma is indeed a state with no residency requirement for voting, though you have to register to vote 25 days before the election. This site lists that fact:
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html
But, Oklahoma loves to play games with its laws. To divorce in Oklahoma, you have to be resident for six months. To have resident student fees at their colleges you have to reside for a year.
The question of whether a separate standard for voter petition gatherers from voting in some way violates the state or federal constitution is one for the courts to settle. The issue of whether the government of Oklahoma is corrupt and vindictive is easy to see.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Take a look at one of my cases in Utah. MIght help. South Salt Lake v. Terkelson, 61 P.3d 282 (Utah App. 2002)
October 7th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Paul, we believe in you. I’m sorry we didn’t participate in the lawsuit against the residency requirement like you requested. I was out-voted due to the fight we have begun against the Republik of Oklahoma’s draconian ballot access laws. If it’s not too late for me to get involved, I will try to help.
Jimmy OKLP (you have my number)
p.s. I tried to call you this morning, I’ll try again later.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:45 am
If the law of the land says you need to be a resident to collect petitions, how hard would it be to organize residents to do the petition collecting? If you cannot organize enough local residents to do the petition collecting then maybe the local residents do not share you philosophies and perhaps you don’t belong there to begin with. Pretty simple and democratic if you ask me.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Sounds to me like zen isn’t for constitutional rights of the all of the people: his definition of law of the land needs to be broadened and, at the very least, subordinate to the laws of this great nation - otherwise Oklahoma should be excommunicated from our union!
October 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sign on the front door to Oklahoma: “you don’t belong here”.
Whadda great state. zen, if you don’t already live there, maybe you can apply for a visa.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Actually, I’m just for more local democracy rather then large nations where people from one place try to impose their ideologies on people from another place. I no more want Mr Jacobs coming to my town or to my state to speak on my behalf without my consent then I want some stuffed suit with a greed inspired agenda from Washington DC.
Do I believe the law to be constitutional? Not really, but perhaps it’s a reactionary movement by the people of Oklahoma to what amounts to them as carpetbagging. Perhaps it was an ill conceived notion of them that they could or should prevent outsiders from poking around in their business. I can, however, sympathize. I know that I don’t like the idea of some outsider, who has come, uninvited, to my community to stir up trouble. Especially if, as a whole, democratically, my community is currently content with it chosen government representation.
I suppose it would be within my constitutional rights to hop on down to Oklahoma and to campaign against Mr. Jacobs on those same ideological issues on behalf of the Oklahoman citizenry but then again, I’m the kind of person that believes it’s not really any of my business how Oklahoman’s go about conducting their business in whatever ideological form they choose to do so in so long as it doesn’t cause me or my community direct or indirect harm. I suppose, however, given the zealotic nature of political ideologies, some of you would try and debate the notion that the ideological nature of how one goes about their business somehow does somehow harm others. What a circle of a conversation that would be.
Which is precisely my point. It seems to me that Mr. Jacobs is a malcontent looking for a revolution rather then a revolutionary of thought and ideas. Had the issue be one of disapproval of the anti non-residential petitioning law, then perhaps it would have made more sense to me that Mr. Jacobs would be acting in a manner befitting a true discontent. That is not, however, the case here. Instead, Mr. Jacobs comes to what amounts to a foreign land seeking simply to exchange the status quo for his own version, even if it’s against the wishes of those he’s trying to “save”. That’s where, in my book, Mr. Jacobs becomes a hypocrite and does not deserve my sympathies nor my support.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
And who was being FORCED to sign any petition? Free exchange of ideas is a constitutionally guaranteed right!!!
October 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I found this particularly laughable…
“Oklahomans in Action contracted with a petition company called National Voter Outreach”
So there aren’t even enough people in Oklahoma who believe in these petitions to get out on the street to discuss the issues with the public and get them to sign that you have to higher a 3rd party to do the job for you. Hell, who knows what a company would do to ensure it’s customers are happy with the job it’s doing.
I’m even more turned off towards this then before. You come into a state, hire some goons to bug people for petition signitures (if they don’t just fabricate them), and get the laws changed to your liking, then leave the state. Democracy at it’s finest!
October 8th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Define goon.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:04 am
“Goon is a slang term referring to thugs hired by bosses or other authorities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goon
In the context of the statement, simply a derogatory term used to describe someone of questionable motivation, hired to do a task.
I think it’s pretty clear.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
http://www.aclu-nca.org/pdf/InitiativeACLUAmicusBrief.pdf
for your reading pleasure
October 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I guess I’m another outside-agitator. As a Texan, I’ve been building political alliances with Oklahomans. We not only share the same border, we are all Americans.
The initiative movement is a national movement, as is the political reform movement for such revolutionary ideas as term limits, campaign finance reform, the right to recall, fair ballot access, etc. It’s always been a national movement — remember suffrage, the 8 hour day, civil rights? The initiative has been a tool — a national tool — for reform for 100 years!
The petition requirements in OK and TX, and many other states, are designed for failure. Getting 250,000 signatures in 90 days, is impossible in a relatively unpopulated state like Oklahoma. That is why petition companies have to be utilized. The OK legislature created that problem, not the people of OK.
Petition barriers need to be eliminated across the country. I’m glad this has come to a head in OK and they picked on one of the most beloved leaders of the iniatitive and political reform movements — Paul Jacob.
We need to get behind the “Oklahoma Three”. I’m also a friend of Susan Johnson’s, who couldn’t be a more ethical and committed person. Thanks to them, Oklahomans may come out on top.
Who bought the Oklahoma Attorney General? We need to work together to get an answer to that question.
I believe that the timing of this indictment — and the heavy handed way in which this is being conducted, tells me that some powerful people in OK want to kill the initiative process. Why? What is on the OK agenda that is precipitating this? We all need an answer to that question.
Linda Curtis, Independent Texans
October 11th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I hope you enjoy your stay in our Oklahoma prison system. Maybe you will get a cute cellmate who likes men just like you. Oh and don’t drop the soap!
October 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Can’t wait until you get here. I hope you like man love. We gots lots of time to get to know each other!
October 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
That will teach you not to come to Oklahoma and try to manipulate their elections you putz!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Linda, fine comment generally but what do you mean when you say “I’m glad this has come to a head in OK and they picked on one of the most beloved leaders of the iniatitive and political reform movements — Paul Jacob”? It sounds like you welcome the fact that Paul has been targeted insofar as it may help the battle to eliminate petition barriers, going after Paul being such a stupid move on the part of the Oklahoma thugs in the AG’s office and elsewhere. If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Paul is in the crosshairs and will fight this battle. But he should never have been indicted and subjected to this kind of arbitrary threat.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Who cares! It’s Oklahoma! The entire state is nothing but a wasteland, a bad scenic road from Texas to Kansas! If you could see OK on a drive through it you’d understand WHY there’s nobody there to sign the petition!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[…] have a troll. His name is Zen. He writes at length, in comments here and here and here, about how terrible it is to port one’s ideas and values to any politically […]
October 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I comment on Zen’s, er, reasoning in a fresh post to freepauljacob.com; click here.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
[…] very subtle. It’s so not-subtle that the only persons who don’t get it after reviewing the facts of this case are the persons bound and determined not to get […]
November 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
[…] Armed robbery. Kidnapping. Conspiracy to commit murder. Actual murder. And then there’s…organizing a citizen initiative drive while failing to anticipate how the state government would ret…. […]
November 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
[…] you’re just clicking in to our site, Paul Jacob elaborates the stark and dreary story in a detailed statement (easy to find by clicking on The Story tab on the menu bar at the top of the screen). Short […]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 am
[…] It’s worse than what’s noted above, however. Edmondson knows darn well that the interpretative court decision he cites as justification for prosecuting the OK3 was handed down after the allegedly criminal involvement by Jacob, Johnson, and Carpenter in the petition drive and after they had secured relevant advice about the residency status of the petition circulators from the Oklahoma secretary of state’s office. The OK3 had every reason to believe that they were following the law. (See Paul Jacob’s explanation of the background of the case.) […]
February 15th, 2008 at 12:16 am
[…] his statement at the FreePaulJacob.com web site, Paul writes: [R]egardless of how the courts ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the […]
March 24th, 2008 at 1:43 am
[…] Attorney General Drew Edmondson for allegedly willfully violating this ban, which they deny (see Paul Jacob’s “Full Statement” at FreePaulJacob.com). The three are facing the possibility of ten years in prison for the allegedly criminal good-faith […]
March 27th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
[…] the agent provocateur to hold his own rally and abstain from intruding on theirs. Presumably, a truly innocent person of high character would have stopped protesting the injustice being perpetrated against him and […]
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 am
[…] Anyone who knows Paul knows that he is a thoughtful and decent soul who deeply believes in freedom and the rule of law. BISC’s smear campaign—which scrupulously evades cardinal facts that are also scrupulously evaded in Edmondson’s indictment—won’t work. It might prove adept at churning out talking points for persons as wantonly dishonest as the BISCquickers themselves. But it can’t persuade anyone honestly concerned with rights, truth, and liberty, constitutional rights, and what actually happened in the Oklahoma TABOR petition drive. […]
April 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
[…] has elsewhere related (at FreePaulJacob.com, for example), how the 2005 TABOR petition drive in Oklahoma was besieged by blockers. These […]
April 14th, 2008 at 2:54 am
[…] if you’re a blogger, don’t forget to tell your readers about the Oklahoma Three, even if you aren’t able to swing by Denver on the 19th to hobnob with your […]
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
[…] “Edmondson says he had no choice but to persecute these three citizen activists for the crime of helping Oklahomans petition their government—no choice, if he is to ‘uphold the law,’ but to try to jail them for 10 years,” Reynolds said. “Now, the Supreme Court has not ruled that lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishment. It has merely agreed to review the challenge. So if the attorney general believes that he should not act on cases while a legal challenge is ongoing that could affect Oklahoma, why is he rushing to destroy the lives of three good people, but not rushing to carry out the sentences of convicted murderers? Seeking 10 years in prison for individuals acting in best-faith efforts to satisfy a murky residency requirement seems pretty flimsy.” […]
May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
[…] Whew. No biggie. Unless you’re among the dead or injured, that is. In any case, is this the kind of environment to which those with the temerity to petition the government should be relegated? Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, the man trying to imprison the Oklahoma Three, thinks so. […]
May 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
[…] what? The folks at BISC must be aware that Paul has defended himself, Johnson, and Carpenter in comprehensive detail against the charge that they willfully flouted rules governing the petition process in Oklahoma. […]
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
[…] Oh. […]
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
[…] cites Paul’s defense against Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s outrageous indictment and in conclusion notes that he “spoke briefly with Jacob before he left for the airport. He […]
June 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[…] trust the optimism is justified. But who could have predicted that such a completely groundless assault would have been launched against the Oklahoma Three to begin […]
July 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
[…] Attorney General’s assault against the Oklahoma Three is vindictive and outrageous. But it may also spur much needed change. Stay […]
July 26th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
[…] in his excellent report (read the whole thing). For more background about the Oklahoma Three, see the statement that Paul Jacob distributed when Edmondson issued the indictment last […]