Collection of recent Oklahoma editorials

A collection of recent editorial opinions in Oklahoma newspapers:

___

The Oklahoman, Aug. 4 - It’s a sign of progress that no one wants to be associated with the anti-Catholic heritage of state constitutional “Blaine amendments.” But that doesn’t make that heritage disappear.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision ordering removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the state Capitol has highlighted the Blaine controversy. That decision was primarily based on Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which declares, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion” or for the benefit of “any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

In the late 1800s, U.S. Rep. James G. Blaine, a Maine Republican, sought to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban government support of Catholic schools while preserving public schools with broadly Protestant religious focus.

That effort fell short, but similar language was later inserted into state constitutions nationwide. Those provisions are commonly known as “Blaine amendments.” …

When the state Supreme Court recently declined to rehear the Ten Commandments case, several justices suggested Oklahoma doesn’t have a Blaine amendment. Those arguments ring hollow.

For one thing, Justice Noma Gurich drew a direct line between the original Blaine amendment and Oklahoma’s constitution. In 1889, she noted, Congress “resurrected remnants of the failed Blaine Amendment” in an enabling act authorizing statehood for four states if Blaine-style “no-funding provisions” were incorporated into their constitutions. Gurich notes a similar provision was included in Oklahoma’s federal enabling act in 1906. But she argues Article II, Section 5 is not a Blaine amendment because it has broader reach than the original amendment or enabling-act mandate.

Other justices dismissed Blaine connections, citing early historical accounts linking Article II, Section 5 to a Virginia state constitutional provision associated with Thomas Jefferson.

But there’s little similarity between the Virginia provision and Oklahoma’s constitution. The heart of the Virginia provision states that no citizen can be “compelled to frequent or support” any religious institution, or punished by the government “on account of his religious opinions or belief .” It also bans government taxation “for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry .”

There’s little clear overlap between the Virginia language and the Oklahoma Constitution. But similarities with the original Blaine amendment abound. It declared, “No public property and no public revenue . shall be appropriated to or made or used for the support of any school . under the control of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination” and that no government appropriation “shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination …”

Another sign of the Blaine bloodline is use of “sect” and “sectarian” in Oklahoma’s constitution. U.S. Supreme Court justices have noted those were code words for “Catholic” in the late 1800s.

Is Oklahoma’s provision more expansive than the original Blaine amendment? Sure. That doesn’t mean the two are unrelated, nor does it cleanse Oklahoma’s constitution of the stain of bigotry. You don’t need a DNA test when the family resemblance is obvious.

___

The Tulsa World, Aug. 2 - Young voters have all but disappeared from Oklahoma politics. … (I)n some parts of Oklahoma 98 percent of the people ages 18-24 didn’t vote in 2014.

Nowhere in the state did more than 17.5 percent of the young people vote. …

Just 10 years ago, there were 224,000 registered voters age 24 or younger. This year, that number is down to 138,000.

And only a fraction of those who are registered actually show up on election day. In 2014, Oklahomans elected two senators and a governor. The overall turnout was a disappointing 40.7 percent. Among 18- to 24-year-old voters, the turnout was 14.5 percent.

Why? Some young voters say they are turned off by the hyperpartisanship of politics. Others say they look at the candidates available and don’t see anyone who represents their point of view.

There’s some validity to both of those answers, but many older voters have the same complaints, and they still show up at the polls. Somehow the civic duty of voting has not imprinted on the younger generation yet.

We use the word “yet” for the sake of optimism, but there is some reason for pessimism.

If not seeing your reflection in the ballot is enough to stop a generation from showing up on election day, the trend will perpetuate itself. The nature of modern retail politics is such that candidates and parties will fashion themselves to reflect the people who do vote.

That’s the force of democracy at work, but it’s also one of its failings: If a generation of voters checks out, the power of the remaining electorate is magnified.

There are steps Oklahoma can take to address the trend.

State Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, proposed a substantial list of voting reforms last year, but only a handful became law. One that made the cut was a reasonable statute allowing the Oklahoma Election Board to develop an online voter registration system.

It’s no secret that the rising generation is jacked in to the virtual world. Moving the registration to their environment is a reasonable accommodation.

We also think last week’s decision by the Oklahoma Democratic Party to open its primaries to independent voters is a positive step toward encouraging young voters, who strongly tend against party membership. Involving young independent voters in the primary process, where the most important decisions are often made, could help develop voting habits and shape candidates to better reflect what young voters are looking for. Republicans ought to move in the same direction.

More is possible. Absentee voting remains arcanely difficult in Oklahoma and needs reform. On a broader level, our method of voting - in person, on Tuesdays, in November, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. - is designed for another era. Oregon has achieved some of the strongest voter turnout numbers in the nation, by moving to a secure mail-in ballot system. Mail-in ballots may not be the Oklahoma solution, but the problem is such that it deserves outside-the-box action.

But such changes only will be effective with those motivated to vote.

In the end, the success of democracy is dependent on the will of the voting public. In other words, no matter how the election is organized, we’ll only get more young voters when more young people decide that voting is important.

The first step in that direction will be the realization that the future that is at stake is their own.

___

Tahlequah Daily Press, Aug. 3 - Americans may have good reasons to question the nuclear deal six world powers cobbled together with Iranian diplomats. But the suggestion that President Obama’s preeminent role in negotiations is tantamount to “marching Israelis to the door of the oven” is way over the top.

Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee may be one of the most zealous advocates for Israel, but he didn’t make any new friends in the Jewish community with his polarizing comment. In fact, many Americans and others who identify themselves as Jewish found it offensive because of its pejorative implications.

Perhaps Israeli Transport Minister Yisrael Katz expressed it best on social media: “Dear Mr. Huckabee, no one is marching Jews to the ovens anymore. That is why we established the state of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces, and if necessary, we will know how to defend ourselves, by ourselves.”

Katz is a member of the right-wing party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been vocal in his adversity. Though Netanyahu’s direct lobbying of Congress is diplomatically inappropriate, he has many advocates in both chambers. They don’t want sanctions against Iran lifted, even if Iran makes many concessions. Naysayers believe Iran will step over the line, and then other world powers - like China and Russia - won’t agree to reinstate sanctions.

A nuclear Iran isn’t a potential threat against the U.S.; it’s a threat against Israel. Therefore, perhaps without meaning to, Katz - with his acknowledgment that Israel can defend itself - removed one of the main arguments Congress has been using to thwart the agreement.

But Huckabee’s motives aren’t the same as Netanyahu’s, or Katz’s, or any other Israelis’. His are rooted in religious principles. As an NPR piece about the former Arkansas governor explained …, Huckabee’s views are predicated on his status as an evangelical Christian. Some evangelicals consider the return of Israel as a state to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecy - one that will usher in the return of Christ. Modern Jews have no problem with the support of evangelical Christians as far as the survival of the Jewish state is concerned, but they take umbrage with what some consider the second half of that doctrine, which says anyone who hasn’t accepted Christ - including religious Jews - will be condemned in the afterlife.

Perhaps it’s time to set aside political and religious approaches, and at least consider the pragmatic one. Without a “deal” in place, Iran could pursue a nuclear weapons program, anyway, even with sanctions in place. And it’s a matter of precedent that most sanctions only hurt the average citizens of pariah countries, rather than the power-brokers making the decisions. Is economic deprivation really going to win hearts and minds in the general population?

Iranian leaders may bluster and blow, just like our own leaders do. But despite their past pledges to “destroy” Israel, the Iranians know Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, and that any aggression would likely be met with an in-kind response. And if Israel doesn’t have enough warheads to send the message, its allies - including the U.S. - would likely step in to finish the job.

Iranians don’t want to set themselves up for annihilation. Taking a wait-and-see attitude toward this “treaty” may be the best option the world has for now. Though Israel is an important ally and the recipient of the biggest chunk of U.S. aid, we shouldn’t let its leaders control our foreign policy, whatever their motive might be. And the same is true for perennial presidential contenders.