Attorney General Hunter Files Response in Support of Bixby Landowners Opposing PSO Wind Catcher Route
Hunter: I support landowners’ rights to have concerns heard

OKLAHOMA CITY – Attorney General Mike Hunter has filed a motion in support of the city of Bixby and concerned area landowners, who are opposing the newly planned route of the Wind Catcher project’s power line.

The new route was pursued after Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s (PSO) original route through Osage County was changed in January. Affected residents and city officials were notified last month of the new route by mail.

City officials and landowners are asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) to postpone a July 2 hearing to allow the city time for further review of the case and to provide corporation commissioners with concerns.

Attorney General Hunter said because Bixby residents weren’t notified until last month of the new route, they were effectively disallowed from participating in any previous public hearings before the commission.

“I stand in support of the rights of the affected landowners and residents to have their voices and concerns heard by the commissioners,” Attorney General Hunter said. “This is a clear burden for the Bixby community and stands to hinder economic development in our state. I want to ensure the city’s interests are properly addressed.”

“From the beginning, our position has been that Wind Catcher does not meet the requirements for preapproval and cost recovery and should be denied by the commission. We also want to ensure customers are protected if PSO moves forward, with or without commission preapproval. Not hearing from residents along the new route would be a disservice to this great community.”

In motions filed with the OCC, Bixby officials write, PSO never formally notified the OCC of its plans to change the original route of the power line from Osage County to a southern route running through the city.

Bixby officials continue, PSO never updated its application or testimony to show the differences between routes, the increased cost and never addressed how the electric line may affect the health, safety and welfare of citizens of Oklahoma who may live near the line.

Attorney General Hunter has said PSO has failed on several fronts to qualify for preapproval and cost recovery, including failure to comply with the OCC’s competitive bidding rules, the inability to show an actual need for the additional generation capacity from the project and unrealistic assumptions as the basis for PSO’s estimated ratepayer savings.

His opposition has been joined by the OCC’s administrative law judge and the public utility division.

Read Attorney General Hunter’s response in support of the city of Bixby, here: .

Read Bixby’s filings with the OCC, here: .

###

Attorney General Hunter Joins 17-State Coalition Defending Religious Leaders against Atheist Group’s Lawsuit

OKLAHOMA CITY – Attorney General Mike Hunter has joined a coalition of 17 state attorneys general to defend the housing allowance religious leaders receive from the federal government.

In a brief, supporting an appeal filed by clergy members and churches, the attorneys general ask the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse an October 2017 judgment that declared the parsonage allowance unconstitutional.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2011 by the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. In its petition, the group claims the tax exemption for housing allowances violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Attorney General Hunter said the tax exemption is vital to communities and religious leaders.

“The parsonage allowance dates back to the founding of the country and is supported by the Constitution,” Attorney General Hunter said. “If upheld, the ruling stands to place a financial burden on religious organizations, which will harm outreach and charitable services provided to worthy causes and our most needy, vulnerable citizens.

“My colleagues and I stand by all faiths in defending this important resource and against the attack from this atheist group. We encourage the court to follow centuries of law and custom and reverse this ruling.”

In the brief, the attorneys general write that the exemption is constitutional and has been accepted by the colonies, the early states, Congress and the Supreme Court and is still practiced today.

“The federal parsonage allowance applies when a church-employer gives a housing benefit to a ‘minister of the gospel’ as ‘part of his compensation,’” the brief reads. “This is the essence of the deeply rooted parsonage system: a church giving its minister a home to live in while he or she serves that church and its congregation.”

The attorneys general also express concern that if the ruling isn’t overturned other tax exemptions offered to religious groups will become exposed to potential lawsuits, such as exemptions for sales tax, state income-tax and real property.

“Each of these laws may be vulnerable to attack in light of the district court’s opinion, causing incalculable disruption to the states and their citizens,” the brief concludes.

To read the brief, click here. 

In addition to Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, the brief was signed by attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Michigan.

###

Tulsa lawyer Gentner Drummond said Tuesday he will file this week for state attorney general.

Drummond, a Republican, figures to go head to head with incumbent Mike Hunter in the June 26 GOP primary.

Besides his law practice, Drummond is involved in banking, communications and ranching and was a decorated combat pilot in Operation Desert Storm.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com

OKLAHOMA CITY – A landmark appellate court decision on tribal criminal jurisdiction could have far-reaching effects on the state’s petroleum industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court should reverse the 10th Circuit Court’s ruling in the Murphy v. Royal case, said the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association’s A.J. Ferate. But the case’s civil implications are much less clear, said two tribal nation representatives and a law professor.

Ferate, the OIPA’s vice president of government affairs, filed an amicus brief on Friday, urging the high court to review the case and strike down the appellate court’s ruling. He argued that the Murphy v. Royal case, applied to oil and gas law, would make the regulatory scheme much more complicated and costly.

Patrick Murphy was convicted in 2000 for killing George Jacobs, a former lover of Murphy’s girlfriend. Murphy appealed the state of Oklahoma’s death sentence and his attorneys argued that the land where the alleged crime occurred was part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s tribal land. Congress never disestablished the Muscogee (Creek)’s reservation and the state couldn’t pursue criminal charges for a Native American against another Native American on a reservation, his attorneys argued.

Read the complete story on journalrecord.com

Here’s a rough estimate of the potential impact of a recent ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that says Oklahoma criminal courts don’t have jurisdiction over cases involving American Indians within the Creek Nation.

According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 361 inmates convicted in seven counties wholly inside the Creek Nation identify themselves as Native Americans. Another 331 self-identified Native American prisoners come from Tulsa County, which is mostly inside the Creek Nation.

Give or take a few, that’s 692 potential felons currently in prison who might have to be retried in federal court unless the appeals court ruling in the case of death row inmate Patrick Dwayne Murphy is reversed.

I’ll admit some flaws in that guestimate. Some of those inmates claiming to be American Indians might not actually be members of a tribe. That would subtract a few cases. Others may have exhausted their appeals, which could take out a few others.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a legal challenge to Gov. Mary Fallin’s appointment of Patrick Wyrick to the state’s high court.

The ACLU of Oklahoma on behalf of two individuals challenged the appointment of Wyrick based on residency requirements.

“While we are disappointed with today’s decision, we respect the court’s opinion,” said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU of Oklahoma executive director.

“There are times when we agree with the decision of the court and times we disagree, but one thing is clear. Regardless of how we may feel about any given decision, it is the unquestionable prerogative of the Oklahoma Supreme Court to say what the law is.”

Wyrick is the former solicitor general to former Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Pruitt was appointed administrator of the EPA.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com

Anti-abortion advocates have been stymied by a single sentence in the Oklahoma Constitution that has nothing to do with abortion, but a lawmaker hopes to prevent future challenges by changing it.

The section of law forces new laws to meet the single-subject rule. It’s an effort to prevent logrolling, or the practice of putting different proposals into the same bill.

The state’s high court has ruled against several anti-abortion bills by citing the single-subject rule. State Sen. Greg Treat, who has been involved in several proposed abortion laws that were later struck down, said last year he would try to address the rule.

“I very much respect they’re a third and coequal branch of government and that they have the purview to rule on these things,” Treat told The Oklahoman on Tuesday. “They very seldom, on the life bills, rule on the merit.”

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

The senior lawyer for the Oklahoma Republican Party organized 35 of his colleagues to join him in signing a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supporting President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

Anthony J. Ferate, the Oklahoma GOP’s general counsel, said it is important that a Supreme Court justice knows where the role of a judge ends and the role of Congress begins.

@AJFerate:  As an attorney that learned Separation of Powers directly from Justice Scalia, Gorsuch is a perfect choice. #ConfirmGorsuch
7:20 PM – 31 Jan 2017

“Judges risk becoming unelected legislators when they do not utilize the restraint essential to service in the Judiciary,” Ferate said.

“There should be no such reservation about Judge Gorsuch, and the attorneys signing the letter feel strongly about saying that,” he said.

Read the complete story on breitbart.com

Senate Judiciary Committee Moves on Slate of Judicial Reforms

Oklahoma City – The Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday approved a series of bills aimed at reforming the judiciary, including a series of legislative referendums that would reshape the way judicial appointments are made.

“These are important reforms that would shift the balance of power in the judicial appointment process in Oklahoma away from trial lawyers and back to the people. The governor and the members of the Oklahoma Senate are directly elected by the people and on behalf of the people should have more say in which judges are appointed to the bench. These measures, which now move on to the full Senate for consideration, present a variety of common-sense options to implement much-needed judicial reform,” said Pro Tem Mike Schulz, R-Altus.

Sen. Anthony Sykes, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was author of several of the judicial reform bills.

“Oklahomans have been reminded countless times of the need for judicial reform in Oklahoma. If we don’t have these discussions about judicial reform, then we’re putting ourselves at the mercy of a system that puts too much power in the hands of trial lawyers instead of the hands of the duly elected representatives of the people of Oklahoma,” said Sykes, R-Moore.

Among the measures authored by Sen. Sykes:

• Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 42, which, if approved, would allow voters to decide whether to change the Oklahoma Constitution to require a partisan election of Supreme Court justices and Court of Criminal Appeals justices.
• SJR 43, if approved, would allow voters to decide whether to amend the judicial appointment process to model the federal system. Under this proposal, the governor would nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies and the Oklahoma Senate would confirm or deny the governor’s appointment. The Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) would rate the governor’s judicial nominees as either “qualified” or “not qualified.”
• SJR 44, if approved, would allow voters to decide whether to amend the Constitution to modify the judicial nominating process. Under this proposal, the JNC would provide the governor with five qualified nominees to fill a judicial vacancy, instead of the current recommendation of three nominees. The governor would be allowed to reject those nominees and request five new nominees. The governor would then select one nominee, whose name would be forwarded to the Oklahoma Senate for confirmation.

Additionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the following measures:

• SB 699, by Sykes, would require all appellate justices and judges to retire when their combined age and years of service equaled 80.
• SB 700, by Sykes, which allows the President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate and Speaker of the Oklahoma House to appoint three attorney members each to the JNC board.
• SB 702, by Sykes, which adjusts the counties included in the Supreme Court judicial districts.
• SB 708, by Sykes, which requires a district judge to have served as lead counsel in at least three jury trials before being elected or appointed to serve on the bench.
• SJR 14, by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, would allow Oklahoma voters to decide whether to amend the Constitution to require 60 percent of voters approve the retention of a judge.
• SB 213, by Dahm, which would change the boundaries of Supreme Court judicial districts to correspond with the number of congressional districts in Oklahoma plus adding at-large positions.

###

On Nov. 8, by voting Yes on State Question 790, Oklahomans will have the chance to directly increase their religious freedom, a rare opportunity in this age when liberal courts and governments are actively seeking to narrow religious liberties.

We support SQ 790 because it would remove from Oklahoma’s Constitution the “Blaine Amendment” a provision added in the 19th century during a time of anti-Catholic prejudice for the primary purpose of preventing Catholic schools – and Catholic orphanages, hospitals and charities – from receiving any government benefits.

These provisions, were at one time present in the Constitutions of nearly every state, and their history steeped in bigotry has never been in dispute. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Mitchell v. Helms (2000), Blaine Amendments have a “shameful pedigree” rooted in “pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general.”

Over time, these provisions have gone beyond bigotry against Catholics and been used to curtail religious freedom of all kinds. Oklahoma’s Blaine Amendment was cited by the state Supreme Court in 2015 when it ruled that the provision prohibited the display of a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) that a display of Ten Commandments on public property does not necessarily violate the U.S. Constitution.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com

Those who want to make it harder for police to seize money and property from suspects before conviction now have a powerful ally, Oklahoma’s chief legal officer, Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

Sen. Kyle Loveless, who has been a staunch backer of asset forfeiture reform, is hoping Pruitt’s support will help him get past the finish line with legislation on this topic in next year’s legislative session.

Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, is in discussions with law enforcement to see if consensus can be reached.

He views Pruitt’s support as key.

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

Next year, Republican Gov. Mary Fallin will have her first chance to appoint an Oklahoma Supreme Court justice, selecting from nominees appointed by a commission that has drawn criticism as highly politicized and heavily weighted with trial lawyers.

Justice Steven Taylor, who will retire at the end of this year, was appointed by Democratic Gov. Brad Henry.

Fallin will select his successor from one of three nominees put forward by the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Of the nine justices on Oklahoma’s top court, only one, James Winchester, was appointed by a Republican governor, Frank Keating. That means the court will remain dominated by justices selected by Democratic governors even after Taylor leaves.

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Right to Farm Amendment

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Oklahoma’s Right to Farm Amendment, State Question 777, and will allow the measure to stay on the ballot for the November 8 election.

“Today, Oklahoma’s family farmers have scored a big win against out of state special interests who are trying to decimate Oklahoma’s economy and our way of life,” said Tom Buchanan, President of Oklahoma Farm Bureau. “Now is the time to stand up, and defend hard-working family farmers and ranchers that do so much for us.”

In its ruling, the Supreme Court let stand a previous decision by an Oklahoma County District Judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

State Question 777 is supported by dozens of groups made up of Oklahoma family farmers and the state’s leading agriculture organizations.

For more information, visit OklahomaRightToFarm.com.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 20, 2016

Senate Approves Bill to Allow Voters to Change Judicial Appointment Process

The Senate on Wednesday approved a measure that would allow voters to change the way judges are nominated in the state of Oklahoma. House Bill 3162, authored by Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman and House Speaker Jeff Hickman, places a state question on the ballot for November to allow voters to change the section of the constitution that provides for filling vacancies for judges.

“The current judicial nominating process is highly political, not transparent, and vests too much influence into the hands of trial lawyers in Oklahoma,” said Bingman, R-Sapulpa. “This measure would remove the outsized influence of trial lawyers, allow the governor to select from a wider and more diverse pool of qualified attorneys, and ultimately return power to the people by allowing their directly elected representatives in the Senate to confirm or reject the men and women nominated to serve as judges in Oklahoma.”

The bill would call for the governor to submit the names of his or her judicial nominees to the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), which would issue an advisory rating of “qualified” or “not qualified.” The governor’s judicial nominees would then require conformation by the Oklahoma Senate.

Currently, the JNC consists of six attorneys selected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, six commissioners appointed by the governor, one commissioner appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem, and one commissioner appointed by the House Speaker. The remaining commissioner is selected by the other members of the JNC.

Bingman said the reforms proposed would make the Oklahoma judicial nominating process more accountable by mirroring the federal system, where the President has the ultimate authority and responsibility to appoint judges and the U.S. Senate has the authority to confirm or reject judicial appointees. In Oklahoma, the responsibility for judicial nominations is not as clear cut, nor is the judicial nominating process as open, Bingman said.

“We are constantly reminded of the need for judicial reform in Oklahoma,” said Sen. Anthony Sykes, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The governor and the Senate, who are held responsible for their decisions by the voters of Oklahoma, should have more say in selecting the men and women who serve as judges in Oklahoma. The judicial branch is a co-equal branch of government and this bill is a giant step forward in restoring the balance of power among all three branches of government.”

The bill now returns to the House for further consideration.

-30-

The people of Oklahoma deserve the right, in light of the judicial activism running rampant in our system and endorsed by the Judicial Nominating Commission, to chart a path that allows them to select our judges and determine their merit for ourselves.

It is time to cast aside the cozy back-room system that gives lawyers more control than citizens. It’s time to move for direct elections on the ballot.

In 1937, the American Bar Association endorsed a proposal for states to take the power of judicial selection away from the people. Now, an unaccountable commission partly controlled by the state bar association decides who can become a judge.

While a state governor would make the appointment, the governor would be limited to only three candidates approved by the commission. Giving lawyers outsized control over the judiciary would be no different than giving utility companies the power to select Corporation Commissioners. Absurd, and undemocratic.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com