Skip to main content

Oklahoma Elections: For Insiders Only?


When is election day? Most people probably assume it’s the first Tuesday in November. That makes sense, since that’s the date for statewide elections, and, in even numbered years, federal elections as well. Would it surprise you to learn that there is an election scheduled in Oklahoma every single month in 2019? That is not to say that every district has an election every month. That would be a hassle - the well-engaged citizen would have to make it to his local precinct every 4 weeks to make sure his views are adequately expressed. The slipshod way local elections are scheduled is far more shocking and less predictable than that.

One would be forgiven for thinking, on first glance, that Oklahoma allows government bodies to change lawmakers and raise taxes through oddly scheduled, poorly noticed elections on (almost) whichever Tuesday they want. However, in reality there are “only” 15 days per year when local elections can be scheduled. Still, this means that the party in power gets to set the date of their election. School boards and local governments can set elections in any month they choose. This could be a Tuesday in July when people are on vacation, or in December when the rush of the holidays is upon us. In either case, voter turnout is likely to be low. A few stalwart supporters could easily carry any vote to approval. The rest of the citizens impacted by the vote may be completely unaware of its timing or even of its existence. It is left to the county election board to determine how to let voters in their district know about the times and dates of elections. 

This is no way to run a democracy. Majority rule and the consent of the governed are the touchstones of the American way of life. Only through the due process of scheduling reasonable elections at well-noticed times can the citizens of Oklahoma be truly be heard and represented. Scheduling elections for a date when no one expects it – so that only those voters who work in, or are somehow connected to, the local government remember to vote – is, at best, undemocratic and, at worst, a sham. 

The right to vote carries responsibilities to be sure - being informed on the basic issues and candidates should be a prerequisite for anyone casting a vote. But it should not be difficult for a reasonably informed citizen to know when it’s time to vote. Oklahoma should put procedures in place to ensure that people know when votes will happen, and that there are not a burdensome number of voting days in a year. Any ballot measure should have to happen concurrently with the statewide primary. Or, if the need is sufficiently urgent, on the date of the statewide primary. 

In a perfect world, there would be only two election dates each year: the primary and the general. However, There may be some real logistical reasons that school board and other local elections can’t happen on the date of the statewide elections - congressional districts do not always follow the same lines as school districts or county offices. Therefore, voters might be required to go to multiple polling places on the same day. As this would also be burdensome, the smart solution is for the state to intervene and ensure that, at a minimum, all school board elections occur on the same day across the state. Likewise, all county elections should occur on the same day statewide, as well as all municipal elections. Any ballot measure impacting such a district should also occur on the same day as elections for those officials. Furthermore, all Oklahoma elections should require actual notice, such as mailers to every household for each and every election scheduled. This would ensure that election dates are not burdensome to the average voter, that all citizens are aware of the elections which could affect their household, and that the citizens’ will is made law, not the government’s. It would also be somewhat expensive - this is a feature, not a bug. The cost would encourage localities and school boards to work together to hold elections on the same day, or better yet, find a way to hold them on the days of the statewide primary and general elections.

Voter turnout is not something the state can or should control. Decisions are made by those who show up. But there should be a real effort to ensure that elections are publicized enough that those who care to show up, can.  

By Mike R. Davis, 1889 Institute Research Fellow
Send comments to mdavis@1889institute.org 


Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more