Yes, it’s true. Drew Edmondson, the four-time incumbent attorney general of Oklahoma, notorious for abusing the power of his office to prosecute honest supporters of Oklahomans’ citizen initiative rights, has publicly stated his opposition to a bill that would limit his tenure as well as that of other state officials. Via Legal Newsline:

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson is urging state lawmakers to reject a term-limits bill that would block him from seeking re-election….

State legislators in the Sooner State are currently limited to 12 years in office, while the governor is limited to two 4-year terms.

The House-approved bill, co-authored by state Rep. Trebor Worthen, would impose a 12-year limit on statewide officeholders, including attorney general, state treasurer and superintendent of schools.

Worthen says his proposal would not apply to current officeholders, but only those elected in 2010 and after, the AP reported.

Worthen, the chairman of the House Committee on Elections and Redistricting, has said the intent of the bill is not to block the attorney general from seeking re-election.

Occasionally new term limits laws are retroactive (there’s a legal tussle underway in Kenai, Alaska, over such a law recently passed there), but usually not. So the story is a bit confusing when it states that the bill “would block [Edmondson] from seeking reelection” and then quotes the author of the bill insisting that it would not block his next possible bid. I wasn’t able to find the text of the bill online, but I suspect the author’s characterization is the accurate one. Edmondson in any case does not deserve to occupy his office for even one more day, given his conduct.

State Senator Brogdon, a strong supporter of the Oklahoma Three, notes that Edmondson’s usual policy qua “law enforcer” as opposed to law confabulator is to abstain from commenting on pending legislation:

In a statement Monday, state Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a principal backer the term-limits proposal, criticized Edmondson for breaking his tradition of not weighing in on pending legislation.

“General Edmondson’s stated practice is to avoid commenting on pending legislation,” Brogdon said. “It is very disappointing that in this case he is deviating from his usual practice.”

I guess it’s disappointing, but it’s not at all surprising. This kind of double standard is par for Edmondson. We recall what Oklahoma State Representative Mike Reynolds had to say about the AG’s malleable legal principles:

Reynolds noted that Edmondson has taken opposite stances when it comes to issues involving the death penalty and the initiative petition process….

On the issue of the death penalty, Reynolds noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the use of lethal injection in executions, which opponents argue amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In response, Edmondson has asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals to defer executions until the high court has ruled.

But in a similar case pertaining to a state statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Oklahoma, Edmondson has not adopted the same standard. The organization Yes on Term Limits is appealing a recent ruling and the case is now in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, on Oct. 2, Edmondson indicted three persons involved in last year’s ballot initiative to limit state spending, also known as a Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR.

“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.”