AG twisted arms to halt term limits
Once again we have seen the ugly head of elected official arrogance rear up in Oklahoma City.
Our State Legislature has initiated legislation that would direct a vote at the general election in November to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to provide term limits on all statewide elected officials of 12 years (presumably in one office, not applying to other offices). Attorney General Edmondson has loudly and strongly expressed his objection to this proposal. Some of the other elected officers have probably also objected, but not so publicly. They, of course, seem to feel that the office is theirs for life, or as long as they want to keep it before going to another office.
This bill passed the House of Representatives easily and was sent to the Senate, where, because of the even division between the parties and the ensuing agreement for “joint” management, it has experienced a more difficult course.
It was on the way to approval when the AG raised the objection that, in his opinion, it was worded retroactively, meaning that he, the state school superintendent and Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony would be prohibited from running for re-election in 2010.
This came despite the claims of the authors that this was not the intent nor wording of the bill as written.
To accommodate his complaints, the senators changed a few words to make it very clear that the term limits established would begin with the next election after adoption of the amendment, meaning they would begin with the 2010 election.
However, that did not satisfy Mr. Edmondson and he leaned on the Democrat members of the Senate to achieve his goal, that is killing of the bill.
Thus, we citizens have been deprived of the right to vote on this matter by the pressure tactics of one person, probably speaking and acting for a number of other current office holders. These tactics were used on the members of the Democrat side of the Senate, since the vote was equal, according to reports received by me, and the tie-breaking vote cast by the Lt. Governor, again according to reports. This act, in my opinion, was a blatant conflict of interest on her part, since the amendment would also serve to affect her, but not for 10 years. The reports received by me may be erroneous.
It seems fair to me that statewide elected officials should be held to the same rules as the members of the Legislature, who may only hold office for 12 years total, including time in both houses for the total.
In my opinion, the term limits for the Legislature have served us well. While we have lost some excellent members due to term limits, there have also been some that have taken undue advantage of their position to further their ambitions and net worth while there.
Further, it seems that new faces resulting from these term limit changes in membership have brought new ideas for the betterment of the state as well as possibly more honesty and openness into the conduct of the legislative business, to the benefit of the public.
It seems that the same or similar results could be brought about by extending these requirements to the rest of the elected officials. Of particular note is that the proposal does not change the present eight-year term limit applying to the office of governor.
Voters should remember how their Legislators voted on this when they cast their ballots in November, and hopefully replace those who bowed to the executive department pressure.