Free Minds & Free Markets

Losing Our Initiative

When ballot petitioning becomes a crime

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.

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.

So the Supreme Court in Oklahoma wrote what I consider a wrongheaded decision declaring there was fraud involved in bringing in out of state circulators [for TABOR], and the attorney general worked through a multi-county grand jury process to bring indictments [against me, Carpenter, and Johnson] alleging conspiracy to defraud the state of Oklahoma by violating their residency statutes for ballot petitioners—a 10-year maximum sentence, and a $25,000 fine.

I know a lot of people who do initiatives and I’ve been told this is unheard of. And no one who signed an affidavit saying “I am a resident” has been charged or been shown not to be telling the truth. They are charging us with conspiring to help people do something that was illegal, yet they haven’t gone after anybody who they are alleging falsely singed affidavits. I think they know these people would not be found guilty, and what would determine in court whether they were a resident or not is whether they declare themselves one.

reason: Were you aware you were going to be indicted?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||


  • ||

    In response to the folks here who keep overgeneralizing and saying that libertarians are opposed to unions, abusive things like this:

    The challenge [to the TABOR signatures] included public employee unions, teachers unions, the AFL/CIO, and also a number of the most wealthy Republican donors in the state, folks with energy companies and banks.

    are why libertarians tend to have a dim view of union political activity (while supporting their right to collectively bargain). This also illustrates why we tend to have a dim view of crony-capitalist large companies, and prefer small businesses.

  • ||

    ...are why libertarians tend to have a dim view of union political activity (while supporting their right to collectively bargain). This also illustrates why we tend to have a dim view of crony-capitalist large companies, and prefer small businesses.

    But, but, but, you can't be against one without being for the other. It just doesn't make sense! They're EXACT OPPOSITES!

    They aren't? Oh, I'm sooo confused.

  • Stephen the Goldberger||

    speaking of libertarians being arrested:

  • ||

    I am not against Unions, I don't think there should be laws protecting their right to collective bargain. If 1000 people decide to get together and press their employer that that is their right, but the law should not intervein.

    I don't really have a problem with a state not letting non-residence influence thier local politics. If that is the decision of the people of a state then fine, it is their business.

  • ||

    The crux of the matter here is not the idea of the law, which Jacobs was trying to obey, but its ambiguity. What is a "resident"? Basically, the state courts 'moved the goalposts' from what it traditionally means to be a state resident, just for this one statute.

    To me, his best argument is that the definition of "resident" under the statute was ambiguous at the time he took the actions in question, and that he made a good faith attempt to comply with the law.

    That's even before all of the First Amendment issues.

  • ||

    I'm real confused usual.

    How can a state (any state) say that only residents of that state can be employed in that state?

    It makes perfect sense to say that only residents of a state can sign a petition (or that only residents' votes will count on that petition) but how can a state say that petitions can only be circulated/presented by residents of that state? Can Florida make a law that says you have to be resident of Florida to work at Disneyworld?

    Isn't there some ACTUAL interstate commerce issue here? Or am I confused... again.

    Thanks in advance, joe, for 'splaining this to me.


  • ||

    You can thank the idiots who believe that money corrupts everything for these type of laws exsisting, preventing paid petitioners from advancing political ideas on the ballot.

    As far as unions: Libertarian thinking is against unions in the modern day because employees are given fair market value for thier labor. Back in the day when unions were a force of good and not socialism, real monopolies existed and were trading selectively with customers offering different prices to certain parties in order to stifle competition. Competition is something any pro free market person would tend to side with, modern unions seek to make thier labor worth more than the free market value and it forces the company to either cut costs somewhere else or sell thier product at a higher price and lose business. Big Business and small business are still, at the end of the day businesses.

    Statism wants to pass laws that benefit few and hurt many. (Laws that take away freedoms)

    Libertarianism wants laws that benefit many and hurt as few as possible. (Laws that allow maximum freedom)

  • ||

    If 1000 people decide to get together and press their employer that that is their right, but the law should not intervein.

    And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?

  • ||

    Welcome to what America will look like under a Hillary Clinton presidency--ruthless suppression of political dissidents.

  • ||

    And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?


  • ||

    And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?

    When you consider what Unions have done to the Detroit Big 3 Auto makers, I would say yes yes amd hell yes!

    I would rather have a company grow and provide employment for many, rather than have a few employees working for higher than free market value with little threats on losing thier jobs for lack of focus. (union pay and rules)

    Welfare states hurt many to benefit the few, so do unions.

    Toyota, Nissan, and Honda have mannaged to build plants here and are still making a killing in the auto market.

  • Robert||

    Any statement from his sister Kathy about this? I forgot, does Kathleen Richman have a blog?

  • ||

    I'm confused at why hand and leg cuffs were needed. Is petition fraud a violent crime?


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online