Concerns About Propriety and Law at the Oklahoma State Election Board
....or, railroading whisleblowers, Oklahoma-style.
Editorial
by Wendi Montgomery Dial, Restore Liberty Oklahoma State Director
I honestly don’t know what I expected, but even I can be surprised at the sheer lack of selfawareness, the shamlessness and the disregard for the Almighty that I witness these days with officials, both elected and appointed.
I have waited several days to write this, as I wanted to digest what occurred and receive a little more background information on the events surrounding the January 31, 2024 special meeting of the Oklahoma State Election Board.
Having been given notice that a special meeting would be held, potentially to address concerns that were brought up regarding the December 12, 2023 election by two appointed members of Oklahoma County’s election board, and having attended the December 15, 2023 meeting of the Oklahoma County Election Board to certify the December 12th election, I decided to attend the special meeting. I put out a call for others around the state to attend and gather at the Capitol, something I haven’t done in 3 years of investigating elections in Oklahoma. Between that call and the call of our Oklahoma County Guardian for Restore Liberty the meeting room was standing room only by 9 am on the morning of the meeting. I was given a copy of the letter sent to Jenni White, the alternate member of the Oklahoma County Election Board, by the State Election Board, essentially summoning her to the Capitol for this meeting without a hint of what would be discussed, except a vague reference to ‘personnel complaints’. There was no other information given so that she could prepare to assist the State Election Board in their inquiry. There is no hint that she was a target of a legal inquiry, no advice that the State Election Board was consulting legal counsel and that she had a right to do the same. All members of the Oklahoma County Election Board received this letter and none were enlightened as to the issues, which directly affected them.
Approximately 36 hours before the meeting, the agenda was released.
Since there is an inquiry being discussed regarding personnel matters, why is this, all of the sudden, turning into a legal matter to be turned over potentially to the ‘proper authorities’? The State Election Board has the authority, which I would argue is a violation of due process, to remove any election board member for any reason they wish, and at any time. Aren’t they the ‘proper authority’ to be handling this matter, since it is a personnel matter and not a matter of possible criminal or civil legal violations? Because I would argue that criminal or civil legal violations, if suspected, would render this matter to be immediately turned over to the ‘proper authorities’ upon the suspicion of wrongdoing for independent investigation. Don’t appointed officials have the duty to report these issues in a timely manner as custodians of the public trust, when they even suspect some sort of legal breech by someone under their supervision? It seems to me that the State Election Board should have removed themselves from the process and turned over Jenni White’s concerns, as well as all other information they received, to an independent agency for review to determine any legal ramifications. Jenni White and Cheryl Williams’ letter to the SEB alleging possible violations of state law regarding elections should have immediately been turned over to the DA’s office for review. The DA’s office should have been nowhere near that board meeting determining the status of a situation which could possibly end up in their office for investigation. What did happen was that Jenni and Cheryl’s letter received a reply from the Secretary of the State Election Board which essentially declared that he had investigated the matter himself (he isn’t authorized to determine breeches of law), and found that nothing was wrong and told Jenni this. Since when do we have officials with the authority to investigate their own offices? Where is the oversight here from the Legislature to make sure things are being done properly by the State Election Board themselves?
It appears as if the entire gist of the response to the complaint letter Jenni and Cheryl sent, which is chronicled here, is that 'You offer no evidence that I deem evidence, and I’m not of a mind to have someone else look into this or take it too seriously, except to suggest that you should never have complained. Rather, I will defend all of this, give my own interpretation of statute and dismiss it, as well as remind you that I can fire you at any time, as well as not even engage there’s reason to be concerned.’ Extremely concerning. Once again, where is the oversight? Or are our officials allowed to investigate themselves and determine that they’ve done nothing wrong, and not only that, to remove anyone that complains or points out potential problems, including possible illegalities? I will just point out on page 3 the reference to the Secretary of Oklahoma County’s Election Board. Does the phrasing there seem familiar to anyone? ‘You claim “without evidence”’, though probable cause to be concerned is right there in the sentence quoted. There’s no acknowledgement that such behavior might or should be of concern.
One more document. This is a letter dated AFTER the date that absentee ballots were opened in Oklahoma County. According to Statute, all absentee ballots are to be counted the day of the election, which was December 12th. Any permission to open the ballots on the 11th should have been dated the 11th or before. So, where is the letter from October with the typographical error? Are we just supposed to take the word of the SEB that this error exists? This letter was given to Cheryl Williams, AFTER the election was certified December 15th, though she asked for it BEFORE certification. She refused to certify the election due to the questions she had about the process. One of the charges against her is that she refused to certify the election due to her concerns. Apparently our county election board officials are appointed to be rubber stamps for all the processes, including questionable processes, or they face their own investigation. Oklahoma, we have officially become Georgia. What am I reading here in this letter below? This is truly baffling.
I am including my own independent observations from the December 15th, 2023 certification of the December 12, 2023 election here in the interests of full disclosure.
I would like to state for the record here, that when I have gone into the Oklahoma County Election Board, I have always been treated with courtesy by the Oklahoma County Election Board Secretary and he’s always been respectful to me. He and I disagree on what he should be concerned about regarding the absentee ballot process and I have made my concerns with the process I have witnessed known to him in my questions and available to the public, as are all of my observations regarding Oklahoma elections. My opinion is that, given the questions regarding absentee ballot security and voter roll integrity, we should make our county election boards’ jobs easier and pass Nathan Dahm’s proposed legislation, SB2034, to restrict absentee ballots to military overseas and the disabled and infirmed.
There is also a matter of the lack of recusal and disclosure of a conflict of interest from the President of the State Election Board, Heather Cline. Ms. Cline and Cheryl Williams served together on the Oklahoma County GOP Executive Committee, Ms. Cline as a member of the Oklahoma County GOP and Ms. Williams as the Vice Chair of the Oklahoma County GOP. The working relationship was not described as a cordial one. Regardless of the tone of the relationship, the simple fact that they knew each other and were once colleagues should have been enough for Ms. Cline to recuse herself from the entire inquiry. Her protestations in the video of the open part of the meeting, after the marathon executive session, found here, along with her tone and deference to the assistant district attorney for Oklahoma County while speaking (who really was running this entire meeting?) is legitimate cause for concern.
So here, in events after a single election in Oklahoma, where county election board officials are bringing concerns as whistleblowers to the State Election Board, we have the following bizarre circumstances:
A letter was dated after a questioned event, excusing the event. Never mind that the event itself, by a plain reading of Statute is a violation. If a county wishes to count absentee ballots early, there should be a change in statute authorizing it.
Complaints being filed in the form of observations sent to the SEB and a biased look into those complaints. Our officials can look into their own processes and procedures and refer individuals they have a previous history with to legal authorities? Since when?
An investigation being conducted behind the scenes with attorneys, which shouldn’t be needed since the board has authority to remove members with impunity for mere personnel issues.
Summons under what could be described as false pretenses. A letter requesting assistance in an inquiry goes out. Legal counsel is only allowed to be allotted to the investigating body, the President of which has a personal animosity toward one of the targets of the inquiry and should, by all measures of integrity as a publicly appointed official, be asked to recuse herself from. By all measures of integrity, no one should have to ask her to do so. The targets of the inquiry are never told they have allegations against them that could result in legal action against them and never advised they have a right to legal counsel during the proceedings.
The inquiry resulted in individual questioning under executive session, where one person being questioned stated that they were intimidated and the attempt was made repeatedly to get them to state something the individual knew wasn’t true. There is no independent witness to this and all minutes from executive session may only be compelled by subpoena. This executive session lasted 10 hours, where the board ordered in lunch for themselves, and I’d like to see that receipt to see who was billed for that.
Legal counsel was present for the board at the entire meeting, a taxpayer salaried individual, who actively directed the board President during the public session, where charges were publicly levied against INDIVIDUALS without any evidence presented to back them up, effectively slandering those individuals. This was presented as a personnel matter and the board had stated they had authority to remove the board members. The question is, with the list of the ‘charges’ there’s nothing criminal in them and everything they list as a ‘charge’ is covered by the first amendment. Why is the assistant DA present for deliberations where she is recommending a board recommend people be referred to her own office for investigation? Highly improper. As the potential investigating body, that office never should have been involved in the inquiry.
The board was being directed, during their public session, by the assistant DA in what to say.
The board directed the Secretary to refer two whistleblowers for potential investigation, raising questions of retaliation and whether or not they have possibly run afoul of 42 US 1983, the federal statute titled Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. If the two removed members sue due to blatant abuse of power and deprivation of rights, guess who foots the bill for the legal defense of the indefensible? The people of Oklahoma. Not the people who committed the infraction.
No mention was made in the public session about the resolution of the matters raised by the two county election board members. The County Secretary was not disciplined in any way for potential rule or statute violations which were clearly documented. Questionable actions were defended and not investigated.
There was no acknowledgment of any kind whatsoever that there was any problem that was raised that would actually be a problem. All matters were explained away and dismissed with the implication that they never should have been brought and that the member was wrong for doing so. By someone that has every interest in burying potential issues. Not only that, she was reminded that she could be removed from her position at any time for any reason.
In conclusion, with this entire saga, there are concerns I have as an Oklahoma citizen regarding several issues.
Transparency from appointed state officials as they conduct their duties.
Potential violations of due process in the conduct of their duties.
Potential covering of statute violations of officials by officials.
The use of other state employees in an official capacity and with taxpayer funds to facilitate the issues above.
The lack of disclosure of a situation which could potentially lead to bias in the outcome of a legal action.
The lack of recusal given 5.
The possible deception involved in an official letter and the lack of information given to potential targets of an investigation.
The potential violation of habeas corpus.
The apparent interference of an official in the official proceedings of another county entity.
The lack of the use of ‘alleged’ when public accusations are being leveled upon individuals when the evidence is being actively hidden.
The apparent intimidation of witnesses.
The possible violation of 42 US 1983, the deprivation of rights under color of law.
The inexcusable situation of officials being left to investigate their own processes instead of being required to hand problems and concerns to an independent agency for review. Investigating one’s self never turns out well for the public good.
The lack of an appeal process.
The unconstitutional unchecked authority given to a single individual by a legislative body and the lack of oversight of that individual.
The apparent persecution of whistleblowers.
The lack of action by lesser magistrates to protest against all of the above.
In other words, the weaponization of the government in Oklahoma against the citizens of this state.
When will the people stand up and speak out against such outrages? By the time it reaches your personal door, it will be too late. I would argue that with the situations surrounding our elections, with all the information that has been gathered and brought to light and which has not been addressed, the outrage is already past your door and is standing in the middle of your house.
Great article. Glad you were in attendance to witness and report on these events.
Thank you for your report