The National Conference of State Legislatures has developed an interesting interactive demographic map that allows you to examine the makeup of each state’s legislature by ethnicity, gender, age, religion and occupation and compare those figures to national averages. Oklahoma’s most notable, and unfortunate, variation from national demographic patterns is in the gender makeup of our Legislature.  As Jean Warner, who runs the excellent Oklahoma Women’s Network Blog, never tires of reminding us,  Oklahoma ranks behind only South Carolina  in female representation in the Legislature. Only 11 percent of Oklahoma’s 149 members of the House and Senate are women; this is less than half the national average of 24 percent. In Vermont and New Hampshire, over one-third of state legislators are women. (This 2008 American Prospect article by Harold Meyerson provides perceptive insights on the regional variations in female officeholders). Read the rest of this entry »

In the last days of this year’s legislative session, House Bill 2250 passed with little fanfare. HB 2250 puts a  tax on wire transfers–$5 plus one percent on the amount over $500, with proceeds going to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. It’s  a good example of how bad law–in this case, an unfair and regressive tax that hurts Oklahoma businesses, threates to create an illegal money transmission market, and risks legal challenges–happens when people aren’t watching.

Don’t be surprised if you have not heard of this bill. The tax was never publicly discussed before appearing in a conference committee report just days before the Legislature adjourned. All indications are that few legislators were aware that the final version of the bill added a new tax. That suggests something is fundamentally wrong with our legislative system.

What did we get from this exercise in closed-door government? Three potential problems, at a minimum:

• The new law hurts low-income people. Person-to-person wire transfers are most often used by those who don’t have bank accounts, are transient, or are here from other countries. While the last group was the intended target, many others will be hurt. The law’s provision for an income tax credit for the wire transfer tax does not eliminate its sting. People with incomes below a certain threshold are not currently required to file federal and state income tax returns and so will be unlikely to claim the remittance credit. Even Oklahomans of all income levels who do file state tax returns–including parents sending money to college students– will face a substantial administrative burden to qualify for the credit. Many will fail to claim the credit for all their transfers and will end up paying a tax not intended for them.
• The law punishes legitimate businesses and encourages illegitimate ones. Wire transfer agents provide an important service and they are regulated by both the federal and state governments. This law cannot help but to reduce their revenue in an already difficult economy. Worse, some federal agencies have previously expressed concern that laws like this will drive transfers out of legitimate businesses and into the underground money transfer market, which is widely recognized as supporting money laundering practices. Appleseed, a network of public interest justice centers,  has called upon the U.S. Department of the Treasury to issue a statement about the risks of this illicit market and has asked the administration to issue a statement similar to the one President Bush issued on cutting costs of remittances.
• The new remittance charge may  open the state up to needless, costly legal challenges, which Mike Jones describes in the Tulsa World:

There is a question, however, whether it is a tax and a revenue bill or simply a fee. If it is a tax it could be in violation of the state Constitution because it passed in the final five days of the legislative session and takes effect Nov. 1, less than 90 days from passage, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Similar laws have been challenged in other states, including Georgia and Texas. To be classified as a fee it has to go to the entity regulating the service for which the fee is charged. Under this bill, the beneficiary of the fee seems to be the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which has no authority over illegal immigration, other than drug issues.

It also could be challenged as a restraint of interstate commerce. Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states and states cannot place undue burden on that commerce.

At Oklahoma Policy Institute, we believe Oklahoma should be a model for open government, policies that do not punish people based on their income, and programs that encourage and protect individuals who want to improve their financial security. This law does not move us in that direction, but away from it. We hope all Oklahomans–those affected directly by this law and those who share our goals for the state–will learn more and ask if this is where our state should be headed.

As we reported last week, the 2009 legislative session was relatively calm for Oklahoma’s local governments. Last week’s post summarized the good news, including some greater control over governance and more land use planning tools. There is bad news, too. Local governments suffered some loss in powers, got new duties without help paying for them, and still hold a big IOU from the state. Other sessions have been worse, though. There is reason for relief in city hall and the courthouse. Here’s the rundown.

Bills that prohibit local governments from acting, also known as preemptions, are among the most serious for local governments, because they can keep the government from responding to demands from citizens. This year’s only example, HB 1473, is a minor one. It exempts agricultural  land 40 acres in size or larger from ordinances restricting land use and building construction when those areas are annexed into a city. This could mean cities can never rezone or restrict buildings on this property, even after it is developed. Here’s the Oklahoma Municipal League’s response, which references an earlier version with an even stricter 10-acre minimum.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nobody fears the coming of a new legislative session more than Oklahoma’s 1,900 local governments. Because they are legally “creatures of the state,” our counties, cities, and special districts are subject to the state’s complete control. The Legislature often exerts that control by restricting funding sources for local governments, preventing them from taking certain actions, requiring them to act in certain ways, and giving them new duties, often without funding the additional costs. Collectively, these existing and new mandates play an important role in shaping how communities provide public services.

The 2009 session was fairly calm for local governments. A later post will address some negative legislative results for local governments. Here are some that most local governments would view as positive:

• SB 431 allows counties to establish fines and to cite and prosecute alleged violators of zoning, subdivision, flood plain, and storm water ordinances. This gives counties more tools to manage the growing development that is taking place outside city limits.
• SB 487 gives state agencies and local governments sued under the Government Tort Claims Act more flexibility in working with claimants to structure settlements. This could allow local governments to reduce property tax impacts of these settlements.
• Local governments got a little more revenue flexibility and freedom from HB 1480, which expands allowable uses of lodging taxes, and HB 1048, which reduces steps counties must take in collecting delinquent property taxes.
• Counties got more management flexibility from HB 1608, which adds sheriff’s deputies and others to the list of public employees who can work shifts of more than eight hours per day, and SB 490, which raises the dollar amount where counties can award contracts to the second lowest bidder if the lowest bidder cannot fulfill the contract.
• HB 1483 gives Oklahoma water use priority over out-of-state use. Oklahoma cities support this bill since it may help them meet growing water demands.
• City governments may find it easier to hire for key positions due to HB 1753, which expands the area in which a city manager may reside to include the school district serving the city and an area within 10 miles of the city limits, and HB 1420, which lets small cities hire part-time city planners.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the heat and passion of the legislative session, the battles that divide the political parties tend to grab the spotlight. This year, for the first time in history, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Oklahoma legislature. The session featured the Republican majority pursuing a wide range of policy priorities that had long been out of reach while the Democrats controlled the Legislature (pre-2004) and, more recently when control of the chambers was divided (2004-08): examples include tort reform, prohibitions on embyronic stem cell research, education deregulation, voter ID requirements, and term limits for statewide officeholders. Many of these issues pitted  Republican lawmakers against their Democratic counterparts and/or Governor Brad Henry.

Yet without minimizing the legitimate and heartfelt differences that divide the parties on many issues, if you look at budget and tax policies, the story looks rather different. Here the Legislature and Governor reached an agreement that used over $640 million in federal stimulus dollars to maintain funding for vital state services while increasing overall spending by 1.5 percent. In the context of declining state revenues, no significant tax cut measures were adopted this session. It’s hard to imagine the outcomes being significantly different had Democrats been in control of one or both chambers.

As a very rough, preliminary attempt to measure whether party control affects budget decision, we went back through the appropriations history and compared the allocation of appropriated funds between the subcommittees  over the course of this decade as party control of the Governor’s office, House, and Senate has changed. Have funding decisions  changed significantly as Republicans have assumed the Chairmanships of the key appropriations committees?  What we found suggests not. Read the rest of this entry »

Sunday’s Tulsa World reports that one of many important decisions left to the last week of the legislative session is whether to modernize Oklahoma’s unemployment insurance (UI) system to qualify for $75 million in additional federal stimulus money. According to Governor Brad Henry’s spokesman Paul Sund,

There is no downside to accepting the dollars. If we reject them, there is the risk that Oklahoma businesses may ultimately be asked to pick up the tab if or when unemployment funds run short.

In April, we released an issue brief that points out that Oklahoma needs to make minor changes to qualify for the funding:

1. Make the “alternative base period” (the period for which earnings are counted to determine unemployment compensation) permanent. Oklahoma adopted an alternative base period in 2002 but it is suspended when the balance of the unemployment trust fund falls. This is a fiscally sound requirement, but it also can cut unemployment benefits when they are needed most.
2. Expand the definition of “compelling family circumstances” that allow a worker to collect unemployment when leaving a job voluntarily. The new circumstances–domestic violence, transfer of a spouse,  and illness of the worker or family member–help make the UI system better fit today’s families.
3. Cover workers seeking part-time jobs if their previous work experience is part-time.

Read the rest of this entry »

As we reach one week until the scheduled adjournment of the Oklahoma Legislature on May 22nd, we can only share the advice offered by Bette Davis in All About Eve: “Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

The Legislature is constitutionally required to adjourn at 5:00 pm on the last Friday in May. But earlier this session, both chambers passed a resolution to move that date up one week. At this late stage in the process, a huge amount of important work remains on the Legislature’s plate. Most obviously, an agreement on the FY ’10 budget has yet to be reached between the Legislature and Governor, with the most recent indications being that the two sides remain a good distance apart. There may still be enough time remaining to pass the budget; however, with each passing day, the chances that there will be time for legislators, the media, advocates, and the public to become informed about the myriad decisions and details contained in the budget bills grow slimmer. Once an agreement is reached, bills containing appropriation language, budget limits, FTE authorizations, and other legal matters must be written, signed out of conference committee, and granted final passage in both chambers for each of the state’s 80-plus appropriated agency. For many agencies, the bills that go whizzing through the process will reflect budget cuts and include the use of federal stimulus dollars.  With such a tight schedule, it is likely to be well past the end of session before anyone other than the few key legislators and staff involved in the actual budget negotiations know what has been decided.

Read the rest of this entry »

In November, U.S. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana proposed that all applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program be required to submit to a mandatory drug test as a condition of receiving assistance. His proposal was defeated on a vote of 79-18, with a majority of Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against it.

Now the Oklahoma Legislature is considering similar legislation as a conference committee substitute for SB 390.The language being proposed reads:

The Department of Human Services shall establish a program of drug testing for those persons applying for or receiving assistance pursuant to the TANF program. Those persons identified as in need of substance abuse services shall be conditionally eligible to receive assistance pursuant to this subsection provided that the applicant participate in the recommended substance abuse services.

The bill as it originally passed the Senate and House called for a program of drug screening, rather than drug testing, for TANF applicants.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s taken me awhile, but I finally made it to the White House blog, which has been up and running since President Obama’s inauguration. For those interested in paying attention to what is going on in the White House, the blog, which is updated several times daily and includes a wide range of contributors, is an invaluable source of materials and information. In addition to entries tied to press releases coming from the President or members of his Administration, the blog includes transcripts and videos of press conferences, public speeches, town hall meetings, and the President’s weekly radio address, along with lots and lots of pictures. When the President makes a major announcement, as with last week’s commitment to cut $17 billion in federal spending as part of the FY’10 budget, the blog provides a space for the Administration to lay out its case and guide the public to more detailed information.

Read the rest of this entry »

Considering it was designed to be slow and messy and that it depends on elected officials who must keep us happy, the legislative process works amazingly well much of the time. At other times, though, it encourages bad habits that work against our ultimate goals. Sometimes legislators are overly responsive to the news of the day or to a loud but small constituency. Sometimes they appear to solve problems by forcing someone else to take care of it. This is the story of what happens when two bad habits merge.

On April 16th, the Oklahoma House of Representatives amended SB 1166 to cut county taxes on cellular phones by 70 percent. This action came in the wake of a large anti-tax rally the previous day. Amendment sponsor Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City) said:

I think this shows that yesterday’s ‘Tea Party’ protests are already having an effect. By voting to dramatically reduce a cell phone tax, I think members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives have shown they got the message and are working to rein in taxes in Oklahoma. Hopefully, Washington will get the message too.

Read the rest of this entry »

Before the Cajun culture was celebrated, largely due to the discovery of our food, my grandparents lived through a time when being a Cajun was not welcomed in this country…or even in their home state of Louisiana. I can’t help but think about that time in my family’s history when I read through SB 1156, the English as “the official language” bill. In the debate over this bill, proponents say it’s not about tribal languages. They even put a native languages exception into the bill, but all of this sounds disturbingly familiar to me.A section of the SB 1156 reads: “5. This phrase does not authorize bilingual education programs which maintain a student in a language other than English.” There was once a similar provision under Louisiana law. We may be able to learn from their past.

 In The English Only Question, Dennis Baron gives a history of how this issue came about in Louisiana. The education issue first came up in 1864, not to prohibit French but to require at least some English in all schools. At the time, there were many schools and even whole parts of the state where English was rarely used. The 1864 state constitutional convention included language that was specifically written so as to not exclude or prohibit French, but to require English: “The general exercises in the common schools shall be conducted in the English language.” Another provision was also added at that time stating that the laws and proceedings of the state were required to only be written in “the language of the U.S. Constitution”. The 1921 Louisiana Constitution once again required only English in the schools, although still being careful not to forbid French.

Read the rest of this entry »

Two hundred economists from 37 states–including the University of Tulsa’s Steve Steib have joined the rising chorus of voices cautioning states against solving short-term deficits by cutting budgets and public services.  They’re urging states to:

Maintain the public services that are critical to the health of the economy and the well-being of working families. Cutbacks at this time would further slow the economy and harm those already hardest hit by the downturn.

Budget cuts make the economic downturn worse, they argue, because almost every dollar of state spending–whether for salaries, supplies, or assistance–hits the local economy immediately. So budget cuts equal less overall spending, which equals an even weaker economy. The damage could be as bad, or worse, over the long run since the services state and local governments invest in–education, transportation, public safety, and a stronger social fabric–are essential to the long-term economic health of the state and the nation.

Read the rest of this entry »