Oklahoma to consider occupational licensing reforms
Earlier this month, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin announced the formation of a task force to review the state’s occupational licensing requirements. Throughout 2017 the task force will comprehensively review all of Oklahoma’s occupational licenses with an eye toward determining whether the amount and degree of licensing is necessary, and which professional barriers are too burdensome in relation to public health and safety concerns. While any recommended changes won’t be expected until 2018, this is still a welcome development.
As of 2012, Oklahoma had the dubious distinction of maintaining the 11th most burdensome licensing laws in the United States. In middle to low-income professions requiring a license, an average of $116 in fees, over a year of training, and completion of two exams are required before a professional can simply go to work. The impact of such burdens is that many people—particularly those with low incomes, little formal education, and members of racial minority groups—are precluded from entering those professions, and consumers incur higher costs without much proven increase in quality. As a result, scaling back the amount and degree of licensing would allow more people to get to work, and lower prices paid by consumers. In a year in which Oklahoma’s unemployment rate has increased by a full percent, lowered barriers to employment would be most welcome.
In any event, Governor Fallin deserves applause for initiating action on occupational licensing, but she should also look at other areas where Oklahoma laws stifle opportunity and keep people from earning a living in the state. One example is a law that Pacific Legal Foundation is currently challenging on behalf of award-winning American Indian artist Peggy Fontenot. In short, Oklahoma should ensure that any time lawmakers seek to enact a law that will limit someone’s right to earn a living, they do so in the least restrictive manner necessary. All too often, regulators start with the most restrictive form (e.g. occupational licensing) when other, less restrictive means like registration and voluntary certification would serve the public interest just as well or better. PLF looks forward to seeing the results of the task force and increased prosperity for Oklahomans and those doing business in the state.
learn more about
Fontenot v. Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma
Peggy Fontenot is an award-winning American Indian photographer and artist, specializing in hand-made beaded jewelry and cultural items. A member of Virginia’s Patawomeck tribe, she has made her living for 30 years traveling the country to show and sell her American Indian art. She regularly participated in Oklahoma art festivals until local, politically-connected tribes convinced the state legislature to restrict the definition of “Indian tribe” to include only those tribes recognized by the federal government. The restriction was ostensibly to prevent the marketing and sale of art fraudulently described as “American Indian-made.” However, as a result of this law, Ms. Fontenot – a legitimate member of a state-recognized tribe – may no longer truthfully describe her art as “American Indian-made” in the state of Oklahoma.Read more
What to read next
This past week Cato Institute, Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed amicus briefs supporting our Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Ganson v. City of Marathon regulatory takings case. … ›
California has now rescinded the state’s onerous “certificate of authenticity” requirement for the sale of autographed books. Hear directly from Bill and case attorney Anastasia Boden about the impact of this victory for freedom, common sense, and Bill’s right to be an upstanding small business owner.
One of the most fundamental rights of American citizens is the right to seek redress from illegal government action in a court of law. But the federal government has an arsenal of weapons it wields to deny or curtail this right. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the government’s attempts to stifle landowner suits challenging federal agency action under the Clean Water Act.