I just read a Channel 6 article about the recall of 2 Tulsa city councilors and the controversy over the recall petitions.
This article is based on half-truths, erroneous interpretations of Tulsa’s city charter, and flat out lame excuses.
Their first error is with regard to the clerk’s dereliction of duty. The city charter clearly states the duties required by the city clerk, but Channel 6 does not think so. “The city charter appears to give the city clerk the freedom to not make that effort.” They go on to quote a sentence from the city charter, Article VII, Section 4, "the City Clerk shall, determine whether, the signatures comply with the requirements". As if some how the word “determine” gives the clerk the power to make up any rule he wants in verifying the signatures are valid. No, this is incorrect; this sentence assumes that the determination is made based on section 3, which clearly lays out the rules for recall petition verification.
The city charter is clear.
1. The signatures must be from “qualified electors” who are “residing in the election district involved”
2. The signatures “SHALL correspond with that appearing on the official voter registration books applicable to the city” (emphasis on shall added)
The city clerk only verified that the signers were qualified electors.
I know from working on many campaigns that people in Oklahoma often move outside their district and never re-register to vote. The fact that these some of people may not even live in district 6 or 2 is appalling. And based on the tactics of those pushing the recall I would not be surprised if some of the signatures are forged.
For more on this read the entry by Michael Bates titled What part of "shall" do you not understand?
Next the article suggests that it would be too hard or inconvenient to perform this check, as if it would preclude the clerk from performing his duty.
“The News on 6 found it wouldn't be hard to put the signatures side by side, but matching them is another matter. It would take an expert to determine if one signature exactly matches the other.”
The city charter does not say that the signatures shall correspond with those on the rolls, unless it’s too hard to perform the check, or if there is no expert on hand to determine if one signature exactly matches the other.
And finally my favorite part of this article:
“Even though the city does not have clearly defined standards for verifying signatures, the state does. They are anything but strict. The state doesn't require a written signature or an address. As long as the name on the petition is legible and a voter by that name is registered, the signature is considered valid.”
First, as already indicated, Tulsa does have clearly defined standards to verify signatures. And second, it does not matter what the state law says because The City's charter supersedes the laws of the state in matters of purely municipal concern.
After reading this article I must come to one of 2 conclusions. Channel 6 is ignorant and ill-informed or channel 6 is biased, in either case it begs the question, “Why should I depend on channel 6 for news”
Technorati Tags:
tulsa tulsa+city+council+recall tulsa+city+council