Oklahoma County District 1 Democratic primary: Lowe wins
State Rep. Jason Lowe of Oklahoma City won the Democratic special primary in the race for the unexpired term for District 1 Oklahoma County commissioner in Tuesday's voting and will face independent Jed Green in the April 1 special general election, according to the Oklahoma County Election Board.
Lowe, who took mostly generous donations from former and present Democratic Party officeholders, as well as several political action committees, faced former state lawmaker Anastasia Pittman and Midwest City Council Member Sara Bana in the primary race to replace former Commissioner Carrie Blumert, who resigned last fall.
The results were:
Lowe: 4,244, or 40.63%.
Pittman: 3,315, or 31.73%.
Bana: 2,887, or 27.64%,
Lowe said he had listened to "thousands and thousands" of voters in District 1 and heard their concerns about the controversial new jail site at 1901 E Grand Blvd., the lack of mental health care services and "roads and bridges."
Those local issues and others important to District 1 will be his priority as he campaigns until the general election.
Bana ran mostly against the new county jail site, the conditions of the present jail and what she considers the misuse of American Rescue Plan Act funds to pay for the jail Behavioral Care Center, which broke ground on Jan. 31.
More: Criminal justice reform, new OK County jail hailed at mental health center groundbreaking
She also said she planned to prioritize expanding resources to eastern Oklahoma County, improving mental health services and addressing the county's financial challenges. Bana also emphasized her experience as a Midwest City Council member and human rights activist.
Lowe said he supported the use of ARPA money to build the Behavioral Care Center, but that the county needs to make the jail complex fit the southeast OKC/Del City area.
Lowe campaigned saying he would concentrate on economic development in underserved areas of the county, infrastructure, including roads and drainage, and public health.
Pittman, who served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives for eight years and the Oklahoma Senate for four years, emphasized her experience in public service, legislation, education, mental health and community advocacy.
Pittman said she also supported use of ARPA funds for the jail Behavioral Care Center. She planned to emphasize affordable housing and homelessness prevention; economic development and small business support; streamlining regulations to attract more investments; and infrastructure and public transportation.
Staff writer Richard Mize covers Oklahoma County government and the city of Edmond. He previously covered housing, commercial real estate and related topics for the newspaper and Oklahoman.com, starting in 1999. Contact him at rmize@oklahoman.com.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: OK County commissioner District 1 primary election results: Lowe wins
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Reacts to Donald Trump's 'Unprecedented' Medicaid Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed concern for the privacy of immigrants in his state, following reports that the Trump administration has shared Medicaid data with immigration officials. An internal memo and emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. "We deeply value the privacy of all Californians," Newsom's office told Newsweek in a statement. "This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans' privacy rights in propaganda." Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department for Health and Human Services for comment via email and contact form Friday afternoon. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. More Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Why It Matters Reports of increased data sharing between federal agencies for the purpose of immigration enforcement have caused concerns for several weeks. The Trump administration has said the data is vital in finding illegal immigrants who should be deported. What To Know The dataset included the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. Newsom's office said it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some states' Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with "unsatisfactory immigration status." In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's February 19 executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that complying would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. "Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS," Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is allowed only for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a "longstanding policy," wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees Medicaid. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of "the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today," according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. "DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid," said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added, needed to guard against the "legal risk" they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'Concerning' Development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District of Columbia, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll—with full benefits—in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants "opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hard-working Americans to foot the bill." All of the states—California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado—have Democratic governors. As a result of his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year that he would freeze enrollment in the program. Illinois will shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. What People Are Saying U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told AP that the data sharing was legal: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." California Governor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security—which is itself legally dubious—will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. "Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians' privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety." What Happens Next Republicans in Congress are continuing to look to limit undocumented immigrants from accessing federal programs while continuing to scrutinize whether sanctuary jurisdictions allow them to receive benefits. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge rules Trump's firings at federal product safety agency illegal
A federal judge on Friday ruled that President Trump's firings of three Biden-nominated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) members were illegal, enabling them to return to their posts. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Maryland, ordered the administration restore the commissioners' pay as well as their access to office spaces, computers and email accounts. The three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — sued the administration after Trump fired them last month. Maddox is the latest district judge to block Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees at independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy despite federal law providing them with for-cause removal protections. The president did not purport to have cause in firing the CPSC members or at the other agencies. His administration seeks to invalidate the protections as unconstitutional by intruding on the president's authority to oversee the executive branch. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has signaled a willingness to agree with that view, but it has not yet formally overruled the court's 90-year-old precedent that has paved the way for Congress to provide the removal protections. In its latest signal, the nation's highest court last month lifted lower injunctions blocking Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), saying the agency leaders could be terminated until any appeals are resolved. Maddox acknowledged that decision on Friday but distinguished it from his case. He stressed the Supreme Court rooted its decision in how the NLRB and MSPB leaders faced a whiplash of removals and reinstatements throughout the lower court proceedings, insisting the decision did not eviscerate the constitutionality of removal protections. 'Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,' the judge wrote. 'The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.' The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' Nick Sansone, the commissioners' lead counsel who works for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement. 'Congress structured the CPSC as an independent agency so that the safety of American consumers wouldn't be subject to political whims and industry pressure,' Sansone continued. 'The court's ruling upholds that sound legislative choice.' He added, 'We are thrilled that our clients can get back to work keeping us safe from hazardous products.'
