The Curious Case Of Paul Jacob
I met Paul Jacob briefly at the Conservative Leadership Conference earlier this month, after a speech he gave regarding libertarianism, as I recall. I had heard a little about Jacob and his battle with the Oklahoma Attorney General over an issue of petition-gathering for a tax initiative that had turned ugly. Although Jacob didn't discuss the case at length with me, I asked him to send me some information so I could look at it more closely.
The case looks more and more strange the deeper one looks, I discovered. Jacob had worked in Oklahoma to gather signatures for a taxpayer bill of rights that would have capped state government spending, along with other national organizations such as National Voter Outreach. Oklahoma has a state law that requires that the gatherers of such signatures be Oklahoma residents, an odd requirement that seems very insular. Most states only require that the signatures represent actual registered voters in the state, and could care less about the gatherers themselves.
In Oklahoma, that certainly isn't the case. The indictment against Jacob and two others doesn't just charge him with a misdemeanor, but with felonies, including conspiracy. Conspiracy for what? To limit government spending? Jacob explains how the petition's advocates tried to comply with the law:
Unlike most initiative states, Oklahoma has a residency requirement allowing only Oklahoma residents to circulate a petition. But when the petition company checked with state officials to determine what constituted a resident, those officials said that a person could move to Oklahoma and immediately declare residency — and begin petitioning.Just to be safe, since sometimes simple law can be made amazingly complicated, I asked for any relevant legal precedent. The ruling in a recent challenge to an Oklahoma petition to ban cock-fighting seemed clear: residency was determined by an individual's intention to be a resident.
A number of petitioners moved to Oklahoma, declared residency, and proceeded to gather signatures on the various petitions. Ultimately, both the spending cap and the property rights measure garnered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Then, the various forces of big government that had worked so hard to block the vote, joined by a who's who of corporate CEOs and the heads of energy companies and banks (can you say "daddy welfare"?), challenged the petition. And the Oklahoma Supreme Court came to their aid, providing a much different standard for residency than in the past. The judges now equated residency with a "permanent home."
How permanent was "permanent"? One petition circulator, who moved to Oklahoma in September of 2005 and was still living there in July of the following year, was ruled not to be a resident.
Let's recall what constitutes residency elsewhere. How long did Hillary Clinton live in New York to qualify for the US Senate? How long did Alan Keyes live in Illinois for the same purpose, if not even close to the same result?
Quite clearly, the Oklahoma state government felt threatened by limited-government advocates and want to send a message to anyone else who tries to stir up trouble. It's a frightening abuse of government power, and all because people wanted to engage the political system.
I'll interview Paul Jacob on today's Heading Right Radio at 2 pm CT.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 25, 2007 8:42 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (18)
Posted by rbj | October 25, 2007 9:11 AM
For welfare payments, states can require 30 days before you become a resident. A year is too long, the Supreme Court has held.
I guess the OK government can't come up with a good argument why this is a bad proposal, and thus needs to squash it -- hard.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 25, 2007 10:09 AM
This is ridiculous on so many levels.
For just one example, Oklahoma City hosts Tinker Air Force. Federal monies provide the city with jobs, etc.
So say an Air Force man reaches the age of retirement, and decides he wants to make Oklahoma his residence and raise his children there.
He's not considered a resident then?
If the state of Oklahoma doesn't think so, the feds should BRAC Tinker AFB. Immediately.
Posted by flenser | October 25, 2007 10:48 AM
the various forces of big government that had worked so hard to block the vote, joined by a who's who of corporate CEOs and the heads of energy companies and banks (can you say "daddy welfare"?), challenged the petition.
Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that corporations and business leaders are not normally what we regard as fiscal conservatives.
Posted by Howard Hirsch | October 25, 2007 11:37 AM
HRC and Alan Keyes are bad examples for your case. The Constitution requires only that US senators be residents of their states at the time of their election, with no prior requirements.
Posted by PersonFromPorlock | October 25, 2007 12:54 PM
IANAL but this looks like exactly the kind of abuse that 18 USC 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" was designed to punish. That's a federal felony, folks, and I'm sure the Bush DOJ will be getting on it real soon now.
Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 25, 2007 12:59 PM
"A technical report said the slot machine's computer malfunctioned, and incorrectly made it appear as if Hoffman won more than the machine is able to pay out. The slot machine has a disclaimer that says it pays a maximum of $2,500 and warns that malfunctions void all winnings, said Paul Bardacke, Sandia's lawyer.
The technical report, prepared for the casino by Gaming Laboratories International, showed that the machine's memory malfunctioned, causing the slot to treat a losing spin as a winner -- what the report called an "erroneous jackpot." The machine manufacturer, International Gaming Technology, blamed the problem on a software program.
Bardacke said Sandia offered Hoffman the maximum payout of $2,500. "
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3772215&page=1
Dude, you lost. Case Closed.
People, if a disclaimer says something, then believe it. Lawyers write those disclaimers, it's almost impossible to defeat that in court. The casino offered to give him the maximum amount of he could have possibly won, even though they don't have a legal obligation to do so. He should have taken the money.
Posted by Ol' Country Boy | October 25, 2007 1:02 PM
Is there ever a full press going on for this guy! I am as conservative as you can get, but first, I am an Oklahoman and American. Of what state is Mr. Jacob a resident? Although I consider the petition subjects to be good, what business has this man or anyone else, such as ACORN or union goons, coming into our state to accomplish an agenda that has not been promulgated by our citizens. If this was ACORN or Moveon, you guys would be beside yourselves wanting to put them away forever.
If you come to Oklahoma to work, you have 30 days to reregister your car. Belive me, I have seen the local constabulary sitting outside AF Plant 3 after a new spate of hiring, pulling out-of-staters over. As far as the comment mentioning Tinker AFB - if the retiring military wish to be OK residents, there are many ways of showing it, such as voting in local elections, buying local car tage (which the military doesn't have to do, buying or renting a house off-base. Otherwise they are residents of the state from which they entered the service (or so it used to be).
I think it is evident from the narrative that the petition circulators merely stated they were residents. How many stayed and voted in an election, relicensed their car, etc. I thought so. No matter the good intentions of the petitioners, no matter what they were told by their information sources on residency requirements, they still were commiting fraud.
I know that I am just a crochety ol' country boy, but we have these several states so each of us can live in a place that has enough local variation to please us. Whether you are liberal, conservative or socialist or immigrant, don't try to remake somebody else's lhome in your image.
One last item, Oklahoma has a poplist constitution. Everything is in it and we vote to change it at virtually every general election. If we didn't like it we would change it. The people of this state probably have more direct input into their laws than those of most other states. Don't criticize us for being different from what you are used to. Those energy company people and bankers are our friends and neighbors, they got there through hard work. Why would these people oppose tax caps to the point of making a felon out of Mr. Jacob. And Mr. Edmundson (D) is not the Ayatollah as in Mr. Jacob's blog (website?). He is doing his job as he does with every other petition.
Sorry I ran on so long.
Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 25, 2007 1:07 PM
Opps, sorry, I posted that in the wrong thread. Silly me!
Posted by NoDonkey | October 25, 2007 1:13 PM
"As far as the comment mentioning Tinker AFB - if the retiring military wish to be OK residents, there are many ways of showing it, such as voting in local elections, buying local car tage (which the military doesn't have to do, buying or renting a house off-base."
Retirees aren't covered by the rules that govern active duty military - they have to have state plates and pay state taxes like everyone else.
And to me "permanent", means native born, if that's how the judge feels like interpreting it.
Posted by Jazz | October 25, 2007 1:25 PM
This story, at first read, certainly sounds plausible. (And I'll get to why I would think that in a minute.) However, before closing the book on this (or I should say, "taking sides") it would be interesting to have Ed contact and interview some folks from the government side. It's likely pretty much as Paul Jacob describes, but all stories have two sides and it would be worthwhile to look into both.
This does, however, seem to sound all too typical. In order to silence unpopular (to the government) speech, amazing lengths can be reached in law enforcement. A few years ago, when I first began blogging, I had the opportunity to cover the trial of the St. Patrick's Four in Binghamton, New York. Now, this is a group that most commentors at CQ would find repulsive, and probably be calling for their scalps, but the situation is very reminiscent of Paul's story. I had the chance to cover the trial live, interview the defendents in person for our blog and the federal prosecutor as well.
They were Iraq war protesters who broke the law by going into a military recruiting office and splashing vials of their own blood on the floor, furniture, and (by one account) splashing some on an American flag. They were tried for a variety of misdomeaners which, at least IMO, they were clearly guilty of and were ready to 'do the time" for. A sympathetic jury found them innocent and set them free. The Feds responded by bringing up federal conspiracy charges to make sure they did *some* time for this. The trial was a three ring circus. They were found innocent of the federal conspiracy charges, but guilty of some low level charges. The Federal Judge in the case gave them nearly the max sentence possible in some cases and sent them to prison anyway.
These things do happen, so it will be interesing to hear more of Paul's story and see how it plays out.
Posted by MissJean | October 25, 2007 2:16 PM
Thanks, Ol' Country Boy, for explaining the state-side of the coin. I understand it a little better.
As an aside, I'm going to have to declare a party this year. My state never required that a voter declare a party before voting in the primaries, only that they could only vote in ONE primary. It makes me sick to have to change from GDI.
Posted by McGehee | October 25, 2007 2:40 PM
Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that corporations and business leaders are not normally what we regard as fiscal conservatives.
Many of us woke up to that years ago -- the problem is how many on the Left assume that because a corporation supports something, that means it's a conservative position.
And then there's that whole, "How can the media be biased!? They're owned by <gasp> CORPORATIONS!!!!1!!ONE!!!!eleven" load of horse hockey.
Posted by McGehee | October 25, 2007 2:41 PM
...er, insert the word "liberal" in place of "biased," above. I got distracted by teh drama.
Posted by Steven Den Beste | October 25, 2007 4:05 PM
If that Oklahoma law is as represented, I don't see how it can survive constitutional muster. It seems to me that it violates the First Amendment "free assembly" clause.
Posted by Sympathizer | October 25, 2007 6:39 PM
Ol' Country Boy is making a cottage industry out of visiting blogs that talk about Paul Jacob and makin' stuff up.
Like he does here.
Oklahoma has had exactly one initiative get on by petition in the last eight years. That was a petition drive to ban cockfighting. It was funded by out of state anti-animal abuse groups. They brought in out of state petitioners. The cockfighting association complained to Attorney General Drew Edmondson. He did nothing. That was just a few years ago.
Other states have tried to pass laws prohibiting out of state petitioners. The Supreme Court has thrown those laws out.
When people in Oklahoma don't want to sign a petition, they don't sign it. When they don't want to approve something that gets on the ballot (increasingly rare, given our situation here), they vote against it.
Throw someone in jail for trying to put something on the ballot? That's not the Oklahoma way, until Drew "Mike Nifong" Edmondson decided to angle to be AG under Hillary.
Posted by Ken Oglesby | October 25, 2007 7:10 PM
Everyone should know that Oklahoma is a breakaway county of TEXAS and someday soon we'll go up there and bring it back in the fold.
We'll address these inequities and wrongs at that time.
For now,sorry will have to do.
Posted by David M. Brown | October 26, 2007 1:27 PM
Seriously, there is stuff you can do right now to spread the word about this unjust indictment especially in Oklahoma. One quick thing you could do to follow developments in the case is sign up for the freepauljacob.com site's email updates. Visit: http://www.freepauljacob.com/email-updates/
Many thanks to Edward Morrissey for bringing the attention of his readers to the case.
Posted by David M. Brown | October 26, 2007 2:11 PM
"I am as conservative as you can get, but first, I am an Oklahoman and American. Of what state is Mr. Jacob a resident?"
Oh dear. "Don't bring any of those furrin ideas to mah state," huh, Country Boy? So I guess you're against lectures, books, phone calls, anything and everything that involves a person in one state conveying and promoting his political values to any persons in another state? Is that your position? That's what it means to "be an American," for you? Imprison anybody who talks to anybody beyond a state line--as did, for example, America's presumably un-American Founding Fathers?