Contact: State Rep. Mike Reynolds
Capitol: (405) 557-7337

OKLAHOMA CITY (October 8, 2007) – Attorney General Drew Edmondson has adopted an apparently schizophrenic approach to enforcing Oklahoma law based on his actions in two very similar cases, state Rep. Mike Reynolds said today.

Reynolds noted that Edmondson has taken opposite stances when it comes to issues involving the death penalty and the initiative petition process.

"Where is this attorney general coming from?" asked Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. "Is he following a discernible legal principle, or just his political preferences?"

On the issue of the death penalty, Reynolds noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the use of lethal injection in executions, which opponents argue amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In response, Edmondson has asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals to defer executions until the high court has ruled.

But in a similar case pertaining to a state statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Oklahoma, Edmondson has not adopted the same standard. The organization Yes on Term Limits is appealing a recent ruling and the case is now in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, on Oct. 2, Edmondson indicted three persons involved in last year's ballot initiative to limit state spending, also known as a Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR.

The three targets are Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge and senior fellow with the Sam Adams Alliance; Susan Johnson, president of National Voter Outreach, a petition management firm with a track record of successful petition drives in Oklahoma; and Rick Carpenter, president of Oklahomans in Action, which promoted the TABOR initiative.

"Edmondson says he had no choice but to persecute these three citizen activists for the crime of helping Oklahomans petition their government—no choice, if he is to 'uphold the law,' but to try to jail them for 10 years," Reynolds said. "Now, the Supreme Court has not ruled that lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishment. It has merely agreed to review the challenge. So if the attorney general believes that he should not act on cases while a legal challenge is ongoing that could affect Oklahoma, why is he rushing to destroy the lives of three good people, but not rushing to carry out the sentences of convicted murderers? Seeking 10 years in prison for individuals acting in best-faith efforts to satisfy a murky residency requirement seems pretty flimsy.

"Obviously, this isn't about justice and objective law. Our attorney general doesn't like the death penalty. He also doesn't like the constitutionally protected right of citizen initiative. And he clearly doesn’t care about the guilt or innocence of those involved."