Jon Echols visits Bartlesville on his campaign for Oklahoma attorney general
Republican Jon Echols is officially on the campaign trail for Oklahoma Attorney General, making stops around Bartlesville on April 24 and April 25, introducing himself to voters and outlining his vision for the office.
Echols, a former state representative from Oklahoma City, sat down for an interview with the Examiner-Enterprise in between meetings with local police, firefighters and community leaders.
"I'm an Oklahoman through and through," Echols said in an interview with the EE. "I believe in a safer, freer, stronger Oklahoma, and I think the Attorney General's office is the best place to make a real difference for the citizens of this state."
Echols served 12 years in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, including eight as majority floor leader, before term limits forced him out in 2024. He announced his candidacy for attorney general earlier this year and says the response has been overwhelming, noting endorsements from more than 18 sheriffs and the Oklahoma Fraternal Order of Police.
The 45-year-old attorney said his goal is to bring a proven conservative record to the AG's office while ensuring that all citizens — regardless of background — are treated equally under the law.
"Whether you're from the richest part of Tulsa or the wrong side of south Oklahoma City, like my parents were, you will be treated the same by my office," he said.
Echols emphasized that the Attorney General's duties go beyond criminal law enforcement, explaining that a large part of the job involves protecting taxpayer dollars and serving as the legal counsel for state agencies. He pledged to maintain transparency and to prioritize upholding the Constitution.
One hot-button issue already on Echols' radar is the use of Flock Safety cameras, which are license plate readers that track vehicles, sparking debate locally and across the state. While some hail the technology as a crime-fighting tool, others worry it could violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
More: Bartlesville City Council approves Flock camera rules after split vote, heated debate
Echols said he is taking a cautious approach.
"Anytime you're dealing with government surveillance, it has to be done within the confines of the Constitution — both Oklahoma's and the United States," he said.
He stressed that he is gathering information and weighing critical questions: how the cameras are used, where data is stored and whether the scope of surveillance is being legally applied.
"I'm not a shoot-from-the-hip guy," he said. "Whatever the law is, that's what we're going to follow."
Echols acknowledged the complexities surrounding surveillance technology, pointing out that he previously voted to authorize cameras used specifically to catch uninsured motorists — a system he said has operated appropriately within legal boundaries.
Local news, sports and more: Accessing local journalism is even easier with the Sun-News app
With no major challengers yet announced, Echols is the first declared candidate in the race for the 2026 election. He says his campaign is about public service, not political ambition.
"If someone doesn't want a conservative Attorney General, I'm not their guy. I mean that and I have the track record to back it up," he said.
The filing period for the 2026 elections begins in April of that year.
This article originally appeared on Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise: Jon Echols campaign for Oklahoma AG comes to Bartlesville
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
22 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP tax and spending bill dings states that offer health care to some immigrants here legally
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults outside of the Governor's Reception Room at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) The Republican budget bill the U.S. House approved last month includes a surprise for the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid: penalties for providing health care to some immigrants who are here legally. Along with punishing the 14 states that use their own funds to cover immigrants who are here illegally, analysts say last-minute changes to the bill would make it all but impossible for states to continue helping some immigrants who are in the country legally, on humanitarian parole. Under the bill, the federal government would slash funding to states that have expanded Medicaid and provide coverage to immigrants who are on humanitarian parole — immigrants who have received permission to temporarily enter the United States due to an emergency or urgent humanitarian reason. The federal government pays 90% of the cost of covering adults without children who are eligible under Medicaid expansion, but the bill would cut that to 80% for those states, doubling the state portion from 10% to 20%. That's the same penalty the bill proposes for states that use their own money to help immigrants who are here illegally. Ironically, states such as Florida that have extended Medicaid coverage to immigrants who are here on humanitarian parole but have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would not be harmed by the bill, said Leonardo Cuello, a Medicaid law and policy expert and research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. It is 'wildly nonsensical and unfair' to penalize expansion states for covering a population that some non-expansion states, such as Florida, also cover, Cuello said. 'It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage.' Republican tax bill could slash billions for Oregon Health Plan, state officials say West Virginia is one of the states where lawmakers are nervously watching U.S. Senate discussions on the proposed penalty. Republican state Rep. Matt Rohrbach, a deputy House speaker, said West Virginia legislators tabled a proposal that would have ended Medicaid expansion if the federal government reduced its share of the funding, because the state's congressional representatives assured them it wasn't going to happen. Now the future is murkier. Cuello called the proposed penalty 'basically a gun to the head of the states.' 'Congress is framing it as a choice, but the state is being coerced and really has no choice,' he said. There are about 1.3 million people in the United States on humanitarian parole, from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Venezuela as well as some Central American children who have rejoined family here. The Trump administration is trying to end parole from some of those countries. A Supreme Court decision May 30 allows the administration to end humanitarian parole for about 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Not many of those parolees qualify for Medicaid, which requires a waiting period or special status, but the 40 states with expanded Medicaid could be penalized if immigrants qualify for the program, said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage. – Leonardo Cuello, Georgetown University research professor Meanwhile, an increasing number of states and the District of Columbia already are considering scaling back Medicaid coverage for immigrants because of the costs. The federal budget bill, named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is now being considered by the Senate, where changes are likely. The fact that so many states could be affected by the last-minute change could mean more scrutiny in that chamber, said Andrea Kovach, senior attorney for health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago. By her count, at least 38 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by the new restrictions, since they accepted some options now offered by Medicaid to cover at least some humanitarian parolees without a five-year waiting period. 'They're all going to be penalized because they added in parolees,' Kovach said. 'So that's 38 times two senators who are going to be very interested in this provision to make sure their state doesn't get their reimbursement knocked down.' The change to exclude people with humanitarian parole was included in a May 21 amendment by U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who chairs the House budget committee. Arrington's office did not reply to a request for comment, though he has stressed the importance of withholding Medicaid from immigrants who are here illegally. '[Democrats] want to protect health care and welfare at any cost for illegal immigrants at the expense of hardworking taxpayers,' Arrington said in a May 22 floor speech urging passage of the bill. 'But by the results of this last election, it's abundantly clear: The people see through this too and they have totally rejected the Democrats' radical agenda.' Some states already are considering cutting Medicaid coverage for immigrants, though Democratic lawmakers and advocates are pushing back. Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed phasing out a program that provides Medicaid coverage to adults regardless of their immigration status, a move she says would save the District of Columbia $457 million. Minnesota advocates protested a state budget deal reached last month with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz to phase out health care coverage for adults who are here illegally, a condition Republican lawmakers insisted on to avoid a shutdown. Similarly, Illinois advocates are protesting new state rules that will end a program that has provided Medicaid coverage to immigrants aged 42-64 regardless of their legal status. The program cost $1.6 billion over three years, according to a state audit. The state will continue a separate program that provides coverage for older adults. 'Our position is that decision-makers in Illinois shouldn't be doing Trump's work for him,' said Kovach, of the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. 'Let's preserve health coverage for immigrants and stand up for Illinois immigrant residents who have been paying taxes into this state for years and need this coverage.' Illinois state Sen. Graciela Guzmán, a Democrat whose parents are refugees from El Salvador, said many of her constituents in Chicago may be forced to cancel chemotherapy or lifesaving surgery because of the changes. 'It was a state budget, but I think the federal reconciliation bill really set the tone for it,' Guzmán said. 'In a tough fiscal environment, it was really hard to set up a defense for this program.' Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek is among the governors holding firm, saying that letting immigrants stay uninsured imposes costs on local hospitals and ends up raising prices for everyone. 'The costs will go somewhere. When everyone is insured it is much more helpful to keep costs down and reasonable for everyone. That's why we've taken this approach to give care to everyone,' Kotek said at a news conference last month. Medicaid does pay for emergency care for low-income patients, regardless of their immigration status, and that would not change under the federal budget bill. Franny White, a spokesperson for the Oregon Health Authority, said her state's Medicaid program covers about 105,000 immigrants, some of whom are here illegally. She said the policy, established by a 2021 state law, can save money in the long run. 'Uninsured people are less likely to receive preventive care due to cost and often wait until a condition worsens to the point that it requires more advanced, expensive care at an emergency department or hospital,' she said. California was among the first states, along with Oregon, to offer health insurance to immigrants of all ages regardless of their legal status. But it now is considering cutting back, looking to save $5 billion as it seeks to close a $12 billion budget deficit. In May, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed freezing enrollment of immigrant adults who are here illegally, and charging them premiums to save money. 'It's possible that other states will decide to cut back these services because of budgetary concerns,' said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research organization. If the federal budget bill passes with the immigrant health care provision intact, states would have more than two years to adjust, since the changes would not take effect until October 2027. 'We have time to really understand what the landscape looks like and really create a legal argument to make sure folks are able to maintain their health care coverage,' said Enddy Almonord, director for Healthy Illinois, an advocacy group supporting universal health care coverage. Stateline, like the Capital Chronicle, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thune plows ahead to pass Trump's megabill as Musk continues to bash it
Senate Republican Leader John Thune reiterated that "failure is not an option" as he works to get GOP holdouts on the megabill advancing President Donald Trump's legislative agenda in line -- especially amid Elon Musk's efforts to tank the bill. "This is a team effort, and everybody is going to be rowing in the same direction to get this across the finish line. Failure is not an option, and we intend to deliver, along with the president for the American people on the things that he committed to do and that we committed to do in terms of the agenda," Thune told reporters after he left a meeting with Trump at the White House on Thursday. As things currently stand, Thune can afford to lose only three of his GOP members to pass the package, and right now, he has more members than that expressing serious doubts about the bill. MORE: Trump tries to shore up support for megabill among Senate GOP at White House meeting The House-passed legislation extends the Trump 2017 tax cuts, boosts spending for the military and border security -- while making some cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs. It could also add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to an analysis out Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As the Senate weighs possible changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap as part of the tax portion of the bill, House Republicans from blue states are already threatening to derail the bill's prospects. "Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal," New York Republican Mike Lawler said Wednesday in a post on X. New York Rep. Nick LaLota is on the same page, posting on X: "No SALT. No Deal. For Real." The House-passed bill raises the deduction limit of state and local taxes from federal income tax filing from $10,000 to $40,000 for joint filers making less than $500,000 per year. The cap increases then by 1% every year thereafter. MORE: What will Trump's megabill do to programs like Medicare and SNAP? Thune signaled changes could be coming to the SALT deal that was struck in the House, but the details are still unclear. "It would be very, very hard to get the Senate to vote for what the House did," Thune told reporters. "We've just got some people that feel really strongly on this." Speaker Mike Johnson said he spoke to the SALT caucus on the floor during House votes Wednesday and plans to "communicate" their red line with Senate leaders. The SALT deal is "a very delicate thing and we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House, and it took us almost a year… so I don't think we can toss that," Johnson said. Not helping Thune's endeavor to sway the defectors are frequent posts from Musk targeting the bill -- and on Thursday targeting the president. Musk on Thursday quoted a 2013 post from Trump criticizing Republicans for extending the debt ceiling, with Musk writing, "Wise words." Earlier, Musk slammed the bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination" and later urged all members of Congress to "kill the bill." Trump touted the bill from the White House on Thursday -- brushing off the scathing criticism from Musk. "I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner-workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem," Trump said. MORE: 'KILL the BILL': Elon Musk continues to blast Trump's bill in barrage of social media posts Johnson said he plans to speak directly to Musk on Thursday, a day after the speaker said the billionaire was "flat wrong" in his criticism of the bill. Johnson said Musk "seems pretty dug in right now. and I can't quite understand the motivation behind it." "But I would tell you that what we're delivering in this bill is not only historic tax cuts, but historic savings as well. He seems to miss that," Johnson added. Thune said Wednesday that although he can't speak to Musk's motivations for his opposition, he will continue to push for the bill's success in the Senate. Musk's public bashing of the bill came up in senators' meeting with Trump on Thursday, said Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, describing it as a "laughing conversation for 30 seconds." "It was very much in jest and laughing, and I think he said something positive about Elon appreciating what he did for the country," Marshall said. ABC News' Will Steakin, Mary Bruce, Molly Nagle and Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.
