On Tuesday, longtime libertarian political activist Paul Jacob was indicted on felony charges in Oklahoma for conspiracy to defraud the state, along with Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach and Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action.
It isn't Jacob’s first time with the guns of the state aimed at him. He served five months in jail in 1984, after a year on the run, for refusal to register for the draft.
I interviewed him by phone Thursday morning about his legal troubles and the threat they pose to citizen power over their government.
reason: What happened to you Tuesday?
Jacob: I was named along with two other people in an indictment brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.
The background: In 2005, Oklahomans in Action launched an initiative campaign to bring two measures to the ballot in Oklahoma, one of them a taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR) that puts a cap on the rate by which state government spending can increase and only allows that cap to be overridden by a vote of the people.
I worked at the time for Americans for Limited Government and we were making significant contributions to that campaign. My job was to help the campaign get on the ballot and help them find a petition company. I helped Rick Carpenter decide on National Voter Outreach, who had done successful initiatives in Oklahoma 10 or 15 times over the past 10-15 years.
As this campaign unfolded, it met with ferocious opposition. Tactics included hiring “blockers” at $100 a day who admitted going into stores and lying to managers that a petitioner had cursed them out or treated them rudely and urging the manager to throw them out. As someone would talk to the petitioner, these folks would come around and begin yelling and be abusive. People trying to get groceries are doing petitioners a favor to stop as it is; they don’t want to be involved in a street fight.
reason: Is this common when interests are opposed to the content of a petition drive?
Jacob: The ferocity by which the powers that be opposed this drive is something I’ve never seen before. I saw a lot of harassment during my years working on term limits initiatives, but when it came to TABOR it increased tenfold and the worst case was Oklahoma. Something ran in the paper that mentioned petitioners were going to post offices, and the next day every petitioner at a post office was told to leave by police.
That sort of thing made it very difficult for the petitioners. They were falling behind. One of the things I asked the petitioning company about was the rules on people coming in from out of state to collect signatures. In most of the country now anyone from anywhere can petition. Oklahoma has a residency requirement, but [National Voter Outreach] was told by people with the state election board and secretary of state that this requirement could be met by anyone who moved to Oklahoma and declared themselves a resident. There was no requirement they live the rest of their days in Oklahoma; if they ended up not getting a job after this, they could go elsewhere to find a job. I don’t know of any agency you can go to to have them declare you a resident. If the petitioner declares themselves a resident and lists an Oklahoma address, then that’s a resident.
I asked for any court precedents, as often times no matter what the law says as written or what an official tells you, you want to know what judges have up their sleeve. There was a recent case [involving a petition regarding a ban on cockfighting] in which the petition was alleged to have been circulated by people who were not Oklahoma residents. The court basically upheld the signatures collected by every one of those people, even people they could not find.
So the petition company moved forward and hired people who came to Oklahoma, and over 300,000 signatures were collected, more than enough to put the TABOR on the ballot. The TABOR was challenged on the signatures as well as challenged on constitutionality. The signature challenge was the most well-funded challenge I’d ever heard of, and one thing they challenged was circulators who moved to Oklahoma and declared residency and had not lived there for months or years or their whole life.
reason: How was this resolved, given the vagueness of the statute?
Jacob: The court in this case ruled that the definition of residency was living in Oklahoma, having a domicile, and intending to remain in Oklahoma permanently. That’s a pretty wide definition of residency, since courts have long ruled that someone who sleeps under the interstate had rights, and that person doesn’t have a domicile. You don’t usually have to say you are never going to leave your state to have rights in that state. The statute just specifies “bonafide resident,” but what bonafide means is the issue.