Election Lawsuit Filed: Montgomery

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that three candidates in Montgomery's upcoming municipal election have filed suit to stop the August 28 election. They contend that moving the date from October to August violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Basically, they are arguing that the change is intended to keep black people from voting.

The complaint has its roots in Joe Reed's concern that black students at Alabama State University will not be able to meet the 30-day residency requirement to vote in the election. The start date for classes at ASU fell within the 30 days prior to the election.

To make a successful claim that the change violates the Voting Rights Act, the candidates will have to show that the change has a disproportionate negative impact on black voters compared to other voters. I'm not sure they can do that. All of the local colleges and universities began classes within the 30 days prior to the election: Auburn Montgomery, Troy University, Huntingdon College, Faulkner University. These other colleges are predominantly white and their students will also have to meet the 30 day requirement.

William Boyd, a candidate for mayor and a co-plaintiff in the suit, says that the city is going to confuse voters with the date change and wants it moved back to October.

"They are trying to confuse people," Boyd said. "I think if they had done this
in a non-election season, it would probably have a different effect."

With all the publicity that an election gets through campaigning and even without controversy and legal challenges, I think Boyd is hard pressed to say that voters will be confused by the date change. Montgomery voters know the date of the election, especially if they are engaged enough to vote.

I don't know what motivated the city council to change the date. The city claims it was to accomodate military voters. Did they have other less pure motives? I don't know. I'm not in their heads.

I agree that the change may make it harder for some students, especially incoming freshman, to be eligible to vote in city elections. That is disheartening, since I have witnessed several Alabama cities, especially smaller ones, try to keep college students out of their local political decisions. But I also wonder, from a practical standpoint, if incoming freshmen who haven't been in town more than 30 days can really cast an informed ballot.

I'm also concerned that the furor over this change seems primarily focused on the impact on black college students with little said about all of the other college students or even non-students who may move to Montgomery within 30 days of an election. I don't think we can build bridges on the issue of race if every issue of controversy is framed solely in terms of race even when whites or other groups are impacted as well.

Catching Up: Fuhrer Furor; Worley Gigs

Sorry for the absence. You wouldn't believe what I've been up, even if I told you all the gory details.

Catching up ... you probably already know about these things, but I want to chime in.

Der Fuhrer Says

Joe Reed has come under fire for referring to Bradley Byrne as the "Fuhrer". Now, I don't mind a bit of hyperbole in political debate and discourse. However, I do find it obnoxious of Reed to throw this label out.

It seems to me that if Don Imus was wrong to call black girls "nappy headed ho's", then it would be just as wrong for a Reed to say Byrne is Alabama's version of a fascist who committed genocide against millions of people.

Worley vs. Riley

Governor Riley may miss having the voter registration system in 100% compliance by the deadline, but his folks have been much better than Nancy Worley in getting us into compliance.

In the 3 years Worley had to work on the project, she got nowhere.

No contract.

No equipment or software purchases.

No installation.

Riley has the system nearly complete in about a year's time.

UPDATE: Are we to be surprised that the Alabama Democratic Party's blogger has this ridiculous post indicting Beth Chapman for the new system not being up?

Let the Man Talk!

It seems ironic to me that in response to claims that she won't address women's issues, Hillary Clinton's husband is out front defending her in this article - with no comments from Hillary herself!

Hasta La Vista (maybe)

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has shut down his campaign operation in Alabama. McCain once led in the polls in Alabama but his support is slipping because of his support for President Bush's strategy in Iraq and the recent immigration proposal in the U.S. Senate.

 

I draw two possible conclusions from his actions. Maybe McCain feels that he is so weakened politically that he cannot regain even the high level of supports he had one time in Alabama. Or, maybe  McCain is not convinced that a win in Alabama next Feburary will help bolster his campaign and make it more viable further into the nomination season.

 

Either way, it seems like McCain has is placing a "no confidence" vote on Alabama.

Working Worley's Legacy

During her re-election campaign, Nancy Worley identified herself as "Working Worley" and claimed she worked until all hours of the night doing the public's business.  It now looks like one of her attorneys was taking lessons.  The Mobile Press-Register reports today that Trey Granger, a one-time legal counsel to Worley , was paid for working 32 hours in one day. Documents also show he supposedly worked 24 hours on another day and 22 hours each on nine other days.

 

Ken Wallis, the Governor's legal adviser, says the Governor's office is responsible for the "errors" on the invoice.  They just wanted to get Granger paid for hours he worked.

 

Read the article. I'm still not sure why there is not a straight forward accounting of the hours worked or why the Governor's office went through the gyrations to create invoices that would make it look like Granger worked 91% of some days and even 133% of another day.

Government Propaganda

I guess the state election law isn't as clear as Attorney General Troy King would have us think. At least not the part that prohibits state officials from trying to influence the political activity of Alabamians.

 

In the trial of Nancy Worley, King's office sought and obtained an indictment against Worley saying she had violated that law. The law states:

Any person who attempts to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.

King's argument against Worley is that she solicited her employees to support her campaign by asking them to place a bumper sticker on their car, or by putting a sign in their yard, or by even donating money. She obviously was asking them to vote for her in her re-election bid. King said this activity violates the law quote above. I agree with him.

 

However, King issued an opinion earlier this year to Governor Riley saying it was okay for a Governor Riley to ask for the people's support for the Capital Improvement Trust Fund amendment that was on the ballot June 5.  The conclusion of the opinion states:

The Governor is not prohibited by subsections 17-1-7(b) and 17-1-7(c) of the Code or by 17-17-4 or 17-17-5, as recodified, from educating the voters of this state on issues of public importance and from using public funds to promote the passage of a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters at a referendum election when the Governor determines that a public service is served by that expenditure .

I know the point King was apparently trying to make. He was distinguishing situations like the amendment election from candidate elections, like Worley's, by saying that if the amendment does not something to promote the public good, then it's okay for a publc official to speak in favor of the amendment and encourage others to vote for it, even if the official uses public funds to spread the message.

 

It turns out that the permissibility of public officials to use public funds to support a proposed amendment has been discussed before. Then Attorney General Bill Pryor in 2003 wrote an opinion to then-state Superintendent of Education Ed Richardson and Representative Jim Carns saying it was okay for them use public funds to promote Governor Riley's tax and accountabilty package (Amendment 1) that was on the ballot that year.

 

Under the first amendment, I have no problems with public officials speaking in favor of amendment on their own time or without using state funds to promote their position. However, King's opinion has two problems. First, it ignores the plain language of the law. The law doesn't provide any exceptions. The law doesn't say "hey, this really only applies in candidate elections, because we don't want public officials using taxpayer money for candidate advertising, but an amendment is really different from a candidate so use taxpayer money to your heart's content to promote that!"

 

Second, I do not think it's good public policy for the governor or legislators - or other public officials - to craft some policy or program and then use taxpayer money to convince the taxpayers to support it.  The men and women who staff our government as elected officials or as administrators should not be in the business of convincing us with our tax money to support what they want to do.  That type of activity really falls into the arena of government propaganda, no matter how well-intentioned it is.

 

And here's the kicker:  since every proposed constitutional amendment is designed to place a policy option or choice before the voters, then every amendment involves a public interest. And since we do not have the power of initiative in Alabama, these amendments come from elected officials who were defining a solution to a perceived problem. So, they can easily claim that in any constitutional amendment election, they should have the right to spend public dollars to convince you and me to support their plans.

 

How many Alabamians would have wanted legislators using their taxpayer dollars to promote the amendment that removed language that prohibited interracial marriage? How many of those same Alabamians would want their tax dollars supporting an amendment to recognize gay marriages?

 

Call me a contrarian, but I just don't think that government officials should be using my own tax dollars to convince me to support their ideas and vote accordingly.

Nursing Home Voter Fraud

The Mobile Press-Register reports this morning that a former candidate for the Alabama House of Representatives have been arrested for alleged voter fraud:

Darren Lee Flott, a one-time candidate for Alabama House District 98, and Angie Corine Green, an activities director for a nursing home, were both arrested and charged with voter fraud Thursday, Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. announced.

The pair exploited a host of nursing-home patients, Tyson alleged in a news conference held in his offices at Mobile Government Plaza.

Those taken advantage of were elderly and infirm men and women, who, at the time the ballots were cast in their names, were either "comatose" or "otherwise unable to communicate" their voting preferences, Tyson said.

Allegations such as these are not new in Alabama. However, it's not often that charges get filed and suspects get prosecuted.

 

If you have any tales of this kind of voter fraud or other abuses you've seen at nursing homes, please share in the comments or by e-mailing me. E-mails will be kept confidential unless you agree otherwise.

Jury Should Hear Worley's Felony Charges

After reading about the Attorney General's reasons for filing the felony charges against Nancy Worley, I have changed my previous opinion. I now think that jury should get the opportunity to hear the evidence on those charges and render a verdict.

The statute in question is 17-1-7(c), which says:

(b) No person shall attempt to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person. Any person who violates this subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony and punishable by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed two years, or both.
 

Judge Truman Hobbs indicated that this section was being applied only to Worley's solicitation that included not only a request for money but also asked employees to place a bumper sticker on their car or a campaign sign in their yard.  Without any further information, I agreed with Hobbs. These activities are standard for campaigns and do not generally reflect a misuse of public office, although the request for money apparently violates a separate statute that prevents state employees from being solicited for campaign contributions by supervisors.

The Attorney General's filing though shows more is at play than just the letter that Worley sent employees.  According to WSFA, the Attorney General's filing include this:
 

"The State also expects to introduce evidence that the mailing did in fact include the referenced bumper sticker as well as a donation envelope.  Further, the State expects to present evidence that Defendant Worley obtained the home addresses of some of the respective employees by virtue of her position as the chief executive in the Office of Secretary of State.  Additionally, the State expects witnesses to testify that Worley, in her capacity of Secretary of State told employees that she could find out if they voted and for whom they voted."
 

If Worley utilized the employees' personnel files to get their addresses for her mailing, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy. 

Similarly, if Worley told her employees that by virtue of her position as Secretary of State she could determine how they voted and used that as a tool of intimidation, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy.

Now, maybe Worley didn't do either of these things. Maybe the employees are lying or misunderstood something Worley said. Maybe Worley didn't get the addresses out of the personnel files. Those, however, seem to be questions of fact for the jury to decide.

Without further information, it doesn't appear to me that the statute is overly-broad, in theory or in the way it is being applied here.

Worley Trial Delayed Again

WSFA reports that Judge Truman Hobbs has thrown out the felony charges against Worley. So, the Attorney General's office has asked for, and been granted, a delay in the trial starting while it appeals the judge's action.

Ballot Access Visited Again

Representate Cam Ward continues to discuss ballot access over at Doc's Political Parlor in the comments to this entry. Despite the many words he has spoken on this topic, Ward has yet to offer any idea about what he would consider a fair ballot access law, other than to say he wants to "strike a balance between a ballot that is too restrictive and one that is the size of a phone book".  I am amused when folks like Ward talk about preventing a "phone book"-size ballot in Alabama. Exaggeration on his part aside, Alabama could easily loosen up the ballot access law without fear of a extremely lengthy ballot. 

 

But speaking of too many names on a ballot, I wonder what Ward thinks about the Republican and Democratic Parties being able to hold their election for their state and county executive committees on the primary ballot. Just looking at the Secretary of State's ballot certification for the 2004 Republican (see pages 7-10) and Democratic (see pages 13-20) primaries, the parties were able to add a slew of candidates to the ballot.  I doubt that more lax ballot access laws would lead to anything as out of hand as allowing the political parties to place this large number candidates for party offices on the ballot. (As an aside, just remember that this is basically a taxpayer-funded subsidy for choosing internal political party offices.  It's not like the primary election for regular offices where there is a public interest in the state and counties paying for and conducting the election.)

 

And how about the number of candidates the two parties place on the primary ballot in a presidential year to decide who will get to their big shindigs - their national nominating conventions? In 2004, the Republicans had 4 pages of convention delegate nominees; the Democrats had 9 pages. (Again, this a taxpayer-funded subsidy - this time to figure out who can go to a big party somewhere and have a good time drinking, waving the American flag, and demonizing the other party.)

 

Since I have pointed out that Ward has not offered up any solution to the ballot access issue, let me throw out some ideas. 

 

If the Legislature doesn't want to reduce the number of signatures required on a petition, why not set a fee that minor parties or independent candidates can pay for ballot access? If the idea is to prevent frivolous candidacies and ballot crowding, a fee can be set high enough that people won't waste their money on a bogus candidacy; however, it could be low enough to not be an undue burden on the parties or candidates.

 

Further, the statewide ballot access requirement for a independent should be lower than the statewide ballot access requirement for a minor party.  Currently, they must get the same number of signatures. However, when an independent gets ballot access, that access places only one more name on the ballot. When a minor party gets statewide ballot access, it can nominate candidates for all offices on the ballot - federal (not presidential) to state to county.  Where is the equity in that? Why place the burden carried by a whole political party on a single individual who wants to run for office?

 

There's another serious issue about the ballot access laws that gets little, if any exposure in the media. An independent candidate who wins election to office does not get automatic ballot access in the next election. He or she must petition for ballot access again.  The "20%" rule applies only to the political parties. This is no hypothetical concern. Independent William Hightower won election to a Pike County district court judgeship in 2006.  In 2004, Ashley McKathan was elected to a circuit court judgeship as an independent. 

 

Even if the Legislature chooses to not ease up the number of signatures required to get a name on the ballot in the first place, it should pass a law that permits an incumbent who was elected as an independent to have automatic ballot access to run for re-election.

 

 

Update 5: Worley's Trial

Helen Hammonds of WSFA has this report on the Attorney General's response to Judge Truman Hobbs' concerns about the felony charges against Worley.

 

Worley's trial is set to being this afternoon. More news and analysis as the day goes by.

Debate for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendered

Ben Smith's blog over at politico.com has a report that several top contenders for the Democratic nomination for president will participate in a debate that will be "devoted solely to LGBT [lesbian, gay, bixsexual and transgendered] issues."

So far, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd have confirmed their participation.

Money quote from a commenter on the blog piece (it's just a joke people):

"Since Billary is known for changing her dialect/accent based on audience I guess she can now use the lisp."

Barkley for Gov!

At a fundraiser yesterday's for Barack Obama, Charles Barkley spoke on behalf of Obama. According to The Birmingham News:

At one point, someone in the crowded shouted at Barkley urging him to run for governor, something he has said for years he wants to do.

"Let me tell you something," Barkley told the shouter. "You don't have to worry about that. You've got my word on that."

P.S. War Eagle, Charles!

Thermometers and Thermostats

Last night on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes", former Arkansas governor and presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee joined the bandwagon of politicians who claim they do not slavishly follow polls.

He said polls are a thermometer of public opinion. He said he wanted to be a thermostat and provide leadership to affect public opinion in a positive way.

I guess he didn't think about his analogy enough. For a thermostat to work properly, it must read the temperature of the air around it and then activate the processes to adjust the air temperature. It doesn't operate in a vacuum all willy nilly.

(Don't you love the phrase "willy nilly"?)

Even You, Obama!

View full size

I commented on this photo here. Looks like Obama beat me to the punch. He commented on the scene in Huntsville:

[The crowd] included two men holding signs that read: "Anybody but Hillary Even You," a reference to Obama's main rival for the Democratic Party nomination for the White House, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. As Obama shook hands with the small crowd, he pointed at the two men, chuckled and said, "That's kind of a backhanded compliment."

Your assignment: Compare and contrast, 100 words or less, Obama's response to the response you might expect from Al Sharption or Jesse Jackson.

More Ammo for the Foot Please!

View full size

This photo is from al.com's home page. I'm not sure this image really puts the best foot forward for Alabamians. But I can guess that many would see the "even you" on that white guy's sign as being a race-based comment.

And they may well be right.

Update: I was talking to a friend about this photo. She didn't take it as a racial remark. I know the guy probably didn't mean it to be racial. I guess I'm just trying to channel Rev. Al for some reason.

Money not where Mouth Is

State Representative Cam Ward has replied to my question. I reposted the question from this blog to him at Doc's Political Parlor here and you can see his response here.

Ward, in a quick reply, said he hasn't introduced legislation "yet" that would ease up ballot access restrictions, suggesting he will do so in the future.

Although it won't make or break my opinion of him, I find this unconvincing. Ward was elected in 2002 and he claims he saw the problem with ballot access when he worked for then-Secretary of State Jim Bennett in 1998. His blog post at Doc's Political Parlor emphatically states that the law needs changed.

He claims he was "just talking about some issues", but he is a legislator that saw a problem as early as 9 years ago and has indicated something should be done. However, for the record, he has chosen to not doing anything in the five legislative sessions he has under his belt.

Maybe Ward's answer to my question is indeed "neither": he hasn't introduced legislation and maybe he isn't courting the growing number of independent voters. Perhaps his third way is that he likes to talk the talk but doesn't follow up by walking the walk. He shouldn't be surprised (or feign surprise) when someone notices and asks him about it.

I love the part of his reply where he says: "Sorry no grand conspiracy!!!! " I was only asking about his actions on this issue. How can he have a conspiracy with himself?

I wish Ward the best in the next legislative session. Hopefully, he'll take up the ballot access issue next time out and will provide a serious reform bill and the leadership to get it passed.

Is the Money where His Mouth Is?

State Representative Cam Ward, over at Doc's Political Parlor, has written in support of making ballot access easier for independent and minor political parties. He even cites his short term as political appointee under then-Secretary of State Jim Bennett as proof he knows of what he speaks.

I wonder if Ward has ever introduced legislation to ease up the ballot access requirements?

Or is he just trying to court the ever-growing independent voting bloc that might view him favorably if he appears open-minded on this issue?

I'll have to do some research on ALISON, unless Ward beats me to it and provides the answer himself.

Worley Discussed

Worley's day in court this coming week is the final product of a complaint filed by Ed Packard, an employee in the Secretary of State's office and Worley's opponent in last year's Democratic primary for Secretary of State.

Worley claims she's a victim of a political witchhunt. Packard claims that Worley violated state campaign finance law and should be held accountable. Others say that even if Worley is guilty, her crime is not all that important. For a discussion of this from last year, check out this clip from Alabama Public Television's program "For the Record".



And if you just want some good old fashioned campaign fun, check out these two clips. The first is from the Worley campaign. The second is from Beth Chapman, Worley's opponent in the general election. (Bonus tidbit: In Worley's ad, that is Worley herself doing the voice over and talking about herself in the third person!)

Worley Nears the Plate

The AP has a report today about Nancy Worley's trial, which is set to start to Monday.  Money quote from the article:

Packard said what Worley did goes against the candidate handbook she published as secretary of state.

That handbook says: "It is unlawful for any state officer or employee to solicit any type of political campaign contribution from employees under his or her supervision. Such supervisors are also not allowed to coerce any subordinate employees into working in any political campaign or cause."

Packard said Worley should have known better than to send the letters. "She was the chief election official," he said.

You never know what will happen when a case goes in front of a jury but this one sounds like it will easily go against Worley.