Senate looks to give Oklahomans an avenue to recall politicians
OKLAHOMA CITY – A state lawmaker wants to create a process to allow voters to recall elected state officials.
The Senate on Thursday passed Senate Bill 990, which is expected to be the vehicle to set up the process that Oklahomans can use to remove someone from office independent of the involvement from the Legislature.
'We all got to this room here by the will of the people, and currently, the only way a person can be removed from office is not by the will of the people,' said Sen. Bill Coleman, R-Ponca City. 'It's by our friends across the rotunda, and it's on this body to remove somebody from statewide elective office.'
In Oklahoma, impeachment proceedings start in the House. If the House votes to impeach, a trial is held in the Senate and requires two-third of the senators, who serve as jurors, to vote to remove a state official from office.
Grounds for impeachment include willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude committed while in office.
'What I want to do is change that to where the people, the people that elect somebody, decide whether or not somebody should be recalled,' Coleman said.
He said he envisions an initiative petition-like process requiring those seeking a recall election to collect signatures from 25% of the voters who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial election.
'It needs to be a high bar because overturning the will of the people is a big deal,' he said.
In order for citizens to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot, they must collect signatures from 8% of voters in the last gubernatorial election.
To get a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires signatures from 15%.
Coleman said the final bill will have some guardrails so a person can't be removed just because they are unpopular.
The current version of the bill only applies to statewide officers. It was not immediately clear if a final version will apply to lawmakers.
Coleman said he has had a request to have it include county officers.
The current version creates a procedure for the Legislature to start the process, but Coleman wants to alter the measure so it can be done by members of the public.
'This is about a process, a process that the people of Oklahoma are locked out of,' Coleman said.
Sen. Dana Prieto, R-Tulsa, voted against the measure.
'This has the potential to be greatly abused,' Prieto said. 'We have a process for it already and that is called elections.'
Some Democratic lawmakers have called for the impeachment of state Superintendent Ryan Walters, a Republican. But former House Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, said the House would not pursue it unless Walters committed a crime.
In 2004, the Oklahoma House impeached Insurance Commissioner Carroll Fisher, a Democrat who had been convicted of embezzlement and perjury.
Fisher resigned before the Senate could hear the matter.
Senate Bill 990 passed by a vote of 31-15 and is available for consideration in the House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chappaquiddick Tapes Reveal New Details Into Ted Kennedy's Involvement in Mary Jo Kopechne's Death
Damning tapes that paint a dark picture of an alleged cover-up of the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick Island — and the involvement of the late Ted Kennedy in the tragedy — have finally resurfaced after conveniently vanishing over 30 years ago, a disappearing act that allowed the powerful Massachusetts senator to walk away from the deadly scandal virtually unscathed, sources say. Now, insiders believe the discovery may reveal a sinister cover-up that threatens to permanently shatter the reputation of the once-revered Camelot clan. Sources say the Kennedy crisis recently exploded when the son of now-dead investigative writer Leo Damore revealed that he uncovered his father's cache of audiotaped interviews with significant figures linked to the evening of Mary Jo's death. No explanation of how or why they disappeared was given. 'Kopechne's parents died feeling like they never got justice — because Ted got away with murder,' longtime Kennedy insider Leon Wagener tells GLOBE. 'Ted covered it up — and the cops helped him. 'These tapes have the potential to finally reveal the truth about Chappaquiddick and ruin the Kennedy family's reputation!' Recently, a Globe report exposed allegations that former President John F. Kennedy — Ted's brother — impregnated trailer park mistress Joan Lundberg before ascending to the White House, but paid her to have an abortion. News of the bombshell tapes also comes amid claims that staunch Democrat Kerry Kennedy banned her U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services brother Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump — from the family's annual July 4 shindig in Hyannis Port, Mass. As Globe readers know, Mary Jo attended a late-night party in 1969 that Ted hosted on Chappaquiddick for the 'Boiler Room Girls' — a group of politically ambitious young women. Married Ted left the party with Mary Jo, 28, and detoured to the Massachusetts island's lover's lane, but his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont ultimately plunged off a bridge and landed on its roof in a pond. Ted survived — but Mary Jo was left to die in the wreckage. The big shot, who succumbed to a brain tumor in 2009 at age 77, didn't report the crash for 10 hours and later claimed he'd tried to rescue Mary Jo, who some say was pregnant with his child. Leo Damore had used the resurfaced tapes to write his explosive 1988 best-seller, Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up, which alleges that Ted utilized the Kennedy political machine to bury the sketchy incident and attempt to salvage his White House ambitions. However, the tapes disappeared after Leo's 1995 suicide as he worked on a book about JFK mistress Mary Pinchot Meyer, who in 1964 was gunned down in Washington, D.C. Many suspect her unsolved murder was orchestrated by the CIA to keep her from revealing the agency's supposed role in JFK's 1963 assassination. Leo's son, Nick, 39, tells People the tapes were found in a briefcase under the bed of one of his father's late lawyers and contain hours of interviews, including extensive chats with Ted's late cousin Joe Gargan. In another book, Chappaquiddick Revealed: What Really Happened, author Kenneth Kappel alleges drunken Ted crashed into a tree, thought Mary Jo was dead and sought help from Gargan and friend Paul Markham. Kappel writes that the trio pushed the Olds off the bridge to make it appear as if Mary Jo had been at the wheel alone to keep Ted from being charged with vehicular homicide. Officials believe Mary Jo survived inside the death trap for hours in an air pocket. According to Leo's book, when Gargan suggested Ted call the police, the pickled politician replied, 'I'll take care of it,' but went home to sleep it off instead! Ted later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a two-month suspended sentence. Nick Damore declined to comment for this article.
USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans are afraid of Mamdani in New York. That's a good thing.
Republicans think Zohran Mamdani will turn NYC into a socialist mecca because they forgot what a functioning government looks like. We're a few months out from New York City's municipal election, and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani is still the frontrunner in the mayoral race. It's a positive sign for progressives who want to see democratic socialists transform the party. In a July poll by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions, Mamdani received 50% of support while the rest of the candidates trailed behind. Former Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent, received 22% of support, followed by Republican Curtis Sliwa at 13%. Current Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running as an independent, received just 7% support. Mamdani may be polling well, but his path to victory in November is anything but smooth. There are already five anti-Mamdani PACs that have formed since the primary, backed by business moguls and real estate tycoons who warn that the Democratic nominee would be bad for the city's economy. He's also having to answer for some of his previous posts about 'defunding the police' and comments on Israel. Republicans criticizing Mamdani for 'defund police' comment are hypocritical The biggest criticism of Mamdani has come from his previous comments about the New York City Police Department. In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, Mamdani posted to X that the NYPD was 'racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety' and called for defunding the force. Mamdani has also proposed creating a Department of Community Safety separate from the police department, which would respond to mental health calls. But the Democratic nominee is attempting to distance himself from these previous claims, calling the posts 'out of step' with his current stance on public safety. He recently met with the family of Officer Didarul Islam, one of the four people killed in a recent shooting in Midtown Manhattan. Republicans criticizing him seem more than willing to ignore the way President Donald Trump pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who attacked police officers, or his own criminal convictions. But he is the "law and order" president, for sure. And the GOP is the "law and order" party, right? Voters are increasingly agreeing with Mamdani on Gaza Another criticism from the right is that Mamdani is too critical of Israel. Fox News recently resurrected a clip of Mamdani from a 2024 panel where the mayoral candidate claimed, 'Israel is not a place, it is not a country.' Mamdani seems to be taking these attacks to heart. He recently said he would not use the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and would also discourage others from using it. Mamdani had previously refused to condemn the phrase. On the other hand, Mamdani's criticisms of Israel proved to be popular with voters in the Democratic primary. A poll from Data for Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project found that his 'support for Palestinian rights' was important for 96% of his voters, while his 'willingness to criticize the Israeli government' was important to 88% of his voters. Opinion: People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen? While conservatives are trying to attack Mamdani for his previous stances on Israel and his sympathy for the Palestinian people, it doesn't seem like it'll work. Democrats should listen to their voters, not conservatives, to know how to approach this issue. Only 8% of Democrats support Israel's actions in Gaza, according to a recent Gallup poll, while 71% of Republicans support it. Some Republicans are even breaking with the party to denounce mass starvation in the region, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, who recently called the crisis a "genocide." Republicans are afraid of what Mamdani stands for. Good. Mamdani won the primary largely thanks to his mobilization of young voters. It worked out for him: voters under 40 made up 40% of early voting turnout. Now, the question is whether they'll turn out for the general election. I'm hopeful that they will. I have personally seen the way my generation has reacted to Mamdani's campaign. There is a palpable excitement reminiscent of Barack Obama's first run for the presidency, an excitement fueled by the idea that the Democratic Party can change, in spite of itself. Opinion: Zohran Mamdani rallied Gen Z voters. We can't abandon him now. The reasons conservatives are criticizing Mamdani are the reasons people my age voted for him. We believe in moving funding from the NYPD into areas like mental health care and community building. We support Palestinian rights. We want to see that working-class New Yorkers can remain in this city. We see taxing corporations and the wealthy as a good thing. Some may call these things unrealistic, and they may have a point. There's no way New York City becomes a socialist utopia if Mamdani is elected, since he must work with the city council, state and national governments to achieve many of his campaign priorities. But his very election could signal to the Democratic Party that they should run to, not from, progressive politics. Mamdani's path to victory is not an easy one. He will continue to face criticism from the right throughout the next few months. But if polling is any indication, he's still likely to be the next mayor of the largest city in the United States. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
2 hours ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
