Y'know, it seems like just about every Commissioner can be identified with on major issue. Carl Jordan is the "I hate light" Commissioner. Elton Dodson is the "I hate smoking" Commissioner. David Lynn is the one who never says anything. Tom Chasteen is the "I desperately need political cover on everything, so I won't piss people off in my mayoral campaign" Commissioner. And so on.
So now, is Kathy Hoard the animal cruelty Commissioner? We're not being snarky here. It's good to see her out there taking a stand, and we're pretty sure that this happens far more frequently than folks admit here in ACC. Good on her!
She writes about it here.
And, oh yeah. If you beat your animals, you're a douchebag. No ifs ands or buts. And you should go to jail, where a large man named Tony will make you into his bitch.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Menage a Prince Redux
Well, discuss it all on the comments thread, folks. Talking about it can only make you feel better. We wanted to bring up a somewhat different issue though, which is sort of related.
The ACC Commission, it occurs to us, is marginally progressive, at least in (campaign-season) words. But when it comes to action, they show a remarkable affinity for the status quo. Discuss.
The ACC Commission, it occurs to us, is marginally progressive, at least in (campaign-season) words. But when it comes to action, they show a remarkable affinity for the status quo. Discuss.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Three Laning of Prince: We take a position.
Don't do it. See this post.
But either way, be advised that, if three-laning passes and works, we will take credit for being in favor of it all along. If it passes and is a miserable failure, then we will ride the "I told you so" train.
It's a grand journalistic tradition, really. Don't say we never learned anything from the ABH.
Seriously, there have been good and compelling arguments on both sides of this one. And while right now, we're leaning against the three-laning, we're convincable. So convincable, in fact that this post was initially in favor of the three-laning, until we read safeashouses this morning. So feel free to try to convince us. Not that we have a vote or anything.
We'd also like to mention the really smart political move by the Chamber of Commerce. (We believe in giving credit where credit is due.) This is in reference to the insane amount of money that it's going to cost ACC to take over the Milledge-Pulaski corridor, and the Chamber suggests that instead, we take the money and devote it to public transportation. Smart political move from the Chamber, and that would have convinced us, except that we know that the M&C is teh suck when it comes to funding the Bus. Now that the Chamber is on record as such strong supporters of public transportation though, we do hope they'll continue to fight the good fight.
Of course, as any follower of Athens politics (the concept, not the blog) knows, now that the Chamber is in favor of public transportation, the M&C must violently oppose it.
Tips.
But either way, be advised that, if three-laning passes and works, we will take credit for being in favor of it all along. If it passes and is a miserable failure, then we will ride the "I told you so" train.
It's a grand journalistic tradition, really. Don't say we never learned anything from the ABH.
Seriously, there have been good and compelling arguments on both sides of this one. And while right now, we're leaning against the three-laning, we're convincable. So convincable, in fact that this post was initially in favor of the three-laning, until we read safeashouses this morning. So feel free to try to convince us. Not that we have a vote or anything.
We'd also like to mention the really smart political move by the Chamber of Commerce. (We believe in giving credit where credit is due.) This is in reference to the insane amount of money that it's going to cost ACC to take over the Milledge-Pulaski corridor, and the Chamber suggests that instead, we take the money and devote it to public transportation. Smart political move from the Chamber, and that would have convinced us, except that we know that the M&C is teh suck when it comes to funding the Bus. Now that the Chamber is on record as such strong supporters of public transportation though, we do hope they'll continue to fight the good fight.
Of course, as any follower of Athens politics (the concept, not the blog) knows, now that the Chamber is in favor of public transportation, the M&C must violently oppose it.
Tips.
Judges R Us
Morris Communications shill-disguised-as-a-journo Walter Jones gets all in a tizzy about judge shopping in today's ABH (and, one would assume, in the Augusta Chronicle and Savannah Morning News.)
Did the folks opposing the bill do a little venue shopping in order to find a friendly judge? Probably, yeah. Is Judge Murphy any less qualified, and is his court any less proper for the case? No.
Now I'm more than willing to let our legal editor address the legal arguments about judge shopping, but you should know that it isn't just a Democratic tactic.
Here's what's really disturbing. Faced with a court challenge, the proponents of this law have mounted an impressive public relations campaign. They've gone to great lengths to get their pundits and their talking heads, and their elected officials on television, on the radio, and in the print media. The approach has been fantastic, but the message leaves something to be desired.
You see, instead of taking the high road and giving their bill the type of issues-oriented defense that some of the more rational proponents believe it deserves, the GOP has taken to the airwaves to start a smear-bombing campaign against the judge, the appeals court, the groups who oppose the law, and apparently, the judicial system in general.
Here's the thing. If the GOP had actually attempted to defend their bill to the masses instead of attacking the judicial system and the judge that granted the injunction, they might have changed some people's minds. Instead, they made the conscious choice to come across sounding like a bunch of whiny toddlers after someone takes away their G.I. Joes. C'est las politics.
Hey Republicans, if your law is so good, then why can't it stand on the merits? Why the sleaze? Why the smear campaign?
We think we know the answer to that. As as been explained exhaustively in previous posts, the law doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on. The big brains in the GOP know this, and expecting the law to be struck down, they're doing a little pre-emptive damage control. If the law goes down in federal court, then they get one more notch on the GOP's anti-judicial bedpost (blame the activist judges), and a little more ammo to use in their continuing fight to emasculate the judicial system.
Sigh. Maybe the GOP has a point though. If only there were a way for them to have Judge Murphy's decision reviewed, in case he was biased, or if he granted the injunction on frivolous grounds...
Oh wait, there is. It's called the Court of Appeals, and you lost there too.
One has to wonder when the GOP attack machine is going to start laying into the 11th Circuit Judges that denied their appeal. Since said attack machine might have taken the weekend off to go to the Florida game or something, we're going to go ahead and do their work for them. These three appellate judges, all of them raging liberals, possibly even Socialists, really. Let's take a look at them. Judge Stanley Birch, appointed in 1990 by George Bush. Judge Joel Dubina, appointed in 1990, by George Bush. And of course, Judge Frank Hull, who actually was appointed by a Democrat (Bill Clinton in 1997). Of course, given how bad the GOP was at the time about stonewalling Clinton's nominee's, we have to assume that Hull was at least marginally palatable to the Republicans.
So there you have it. In fact, the background of these three judges, who ruled on the injunction, totally negates the point made by Walter Jones and the GOP, that politics have somehow played a role in this whole imbroglio. While the injunction was granted by a Carter appointee, it was upheld by two Bush appointees and a Clinton appointee. Or did the Clinton appointe work some sort of crazy Democratic judicial mind-control spookery on the other two? We're just waiting to hear that talking point.
Now speaking of Walter Jones, we also wanted to address some of his wackjobbery. Specifically, we wanted to talk about his somewhat subtle implication that if only our judges were elected, then venue shopping would just *poof* magically disappear. Now to those of us who live in the world of reason and logic, nothing could be more divorced from the truth. For instance, assume that you wanted to try a voting rights case in state court (not federal court as in this matter). And further assume that you had a choice between doing so in beautiful Athens, GA which went about 60% for Kerry, or beautiful Oconee County, which (to put it succintly) didn't exactly cotton on to Kerry. (FWIW, presidential performance is as good a way as any to get a rough idea of ideology in this situation) If you're trying to uphold voting rights, which will you choose? The answer's pretty obvious. If anything, it will make it easier to venue shop, by cutting down on the research one has to do. Of course, we already elect most of our local judges, and venue shopping is just as prevalent on the local level as on the higher levels, if not more so.
This is Republican politics at its finest. And the thing is, it shouldn't be political at all. The groups and people who oppose this law have, for the most part, tried to keep this thing where it belongs - in the courts, and off the front page, until a decision is made. The opponents will comment, but they aren't whoring themselves out to the media like a Bill Stephens or Glenn Richardson. (Friends under the Gold Dome tell us that the most dangerous place in Atlanta is between Glenn Richardson and a camera.) No, unfortunately, it's the Republicans who have chosen to make this into a political issue. It's the Republicans who won't debate on the merits, and insread choose to go into attack mode. And it's the Republicans who should be ashamed of themselves.
Just business as usual in the GOP.
Did the folks opposing the bill do a little venue shopping in order to find a friendly judge? Probably, yeah. Is Judge Murphy any less qualified, and is his court any less proper for the case? No.
Now I'm more than willing to let our legal editor address the legal arguments about judge shopping, but you should know that it isn't just a Democratic tactic.
Here's what's really disturbing. Faced with a court challenge, the proponents of this law have mounted an impressive public relations campaign. They've gone to great lengths to get their pundits and their talking heads, and their elected officials on television, on the radio, and in the print media. The approach has been fantastic, but the message leaves something to be desired.
You see, instead of taking the high road and giving their bill the type of issues-oriented defense that some of the more rational proponents believe it deserves, the GOP has taken to the airwaves to start a smear-bombing campaign against the judge, the appeals court, the groups who oppose the law, and apparently, the judicial system in general.
Here's the thing. If the GOP had actually attempted to defend their bill to the masses instead of attacking the judicial system and the judge that granted the injunction, they might have changed some people's minds. Instead, they made the conscious choice to come across sounding like a bunch of whiny toddlers after someone takes away their G.I. Joes. C'est las politics.
Hey Republicans, if your law is so good, then why can't it stand on the merits? Why the sleaze? Why the smear campaign?
We think we know the answer to that. As as been explained exhaustively in previous posts, the law doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on. The big brains in the GOP know this, and expecting the law to be struck down, they're doing a little pre-emptive damage control. If the law goes down in federal court, then they get one more notch on the GOP's anti-judicial bedpost (blame the activist judges), and a little more ammo to use in their continuing fight to emasculate the judicial system.
Sigh. Maybe the GOP has a point though. If only there were a way for them to have Judge Murphy's decision reviewed, in case he was biased, or if he granted the injunction on frivolous grounds...
Oh wait, there is. It's called the Court of Appeals, and you lost there too.
One has to wonder when the GOP attack machine is going to start laying into the 11th Circuit Judges that denied their appeal. Since said attack machine might have taken the weekend off to go to the Florida game or something, we're going to go ahead and do their work for them. These three appellate judges, all of them raging liberals, possibly even Socialists, really. Let's take a look at them. Judge Stanley Birch, appointed in 1990 by George Bush. Judge Joel Dubina, appointed in 1990, by George Bush. And of course, Judge Frank Hull, who actually was appointed by a Democrat (Bill Clinton in 1997). Of course, given how bad the GOP was at the time about stonewalling Clinton's nominee's, we have to assume that Hull was at least marginally palatable to the Republicans.
So there you have it. In fact, the background of these three judges, who ruled on the injunction, totally negates the point made by Walter Jones and the GOP, that politics have somehow played a role in this whole imbroglio. While the injunction was granted by a Carter appointee, it was upheld by two Bush appointees and a Clinton appointee. Or did the Clinton appointe work some sort of crazy Democratic judicial mind-control spookery on the other two? We're just waiting to hear that talking point.
Now speaking of Walter Jones, we also wanted to address some of his wackjobbery. Specifically, we wanted to talk about his somewhat subtle implication that if only our judges were elected, then venue shopping would just *poof* magically disappear. Now to those of us who live in the world of reason and logic, nothing could be more divorced from the truth. For instance, assume that you wanted to try a voting rights case in state court (not federal court as in this matter). And further assume that you had a choice between doing so in beautiful Athens, GA which went about 60% for Kerry, or beautiful Oconee County, which (to put it succintly) didn't exactly cotton on to Kerry. (FWIW, presidential performance is as good a way as any to get a rough idea of ideology in this situation) If you're trying to uphold voting rights, which will you choose? The answer's pretty obvious. If anything, it will make it easier to venue shop, by cutting down on the research one has to do. Of course, we already elect most of our local judges, and venue shopping is just as prevalent on the local level as on the higher levels, if not more so.
This is Republican politics at its finest. And the thing is, it shouldn't be political at all. The groups and people who oppose this law have, for the most part, tried to keep this thing where it belongs - in the courts, and off the front page, until a decision is made. The opponents will comment, but they aren't whoring themselves out to the media like a Bill Stephens or Glenn Richardson. (Friends under the Gold Dome tell us that the most dangerous place in Atlanta is between Glenn Richardson and a camera.) No, unfortunately, it's the Republicans who have chosen to make this into a political issue. It's the Republicans who won't debate on the merits, and insread choose to go into attack mode. And it's the Republicans who should be ashamed of themselves.
Just business as usual in the GOP.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
The ABH: Not Progressive, Not Regressive, just kind of Gressive
It has to be tough to work for the ABH's editorial board sometimes. On the one hand you have the readership which, at least in Athens, tends to be fairly progressive, and just a little lefty. On the other hand (probably the right hand, if you get our drift), you have the newspaper's corporate ownership, Morris Communications, which also owns the Augusta Chronicle and Savannah Morning News.
It should come as no surprise that Morris is pretty darn conservative, as far as newspaper chains go. Heck, the Savannah paper even endorsed Pat Buchanan a few years ago. And, according to more than one of our sources who used to work for Morris, the corporate ownership has a tendency to pressure the local papers to take certain stands on certain issues.
So, you can see how the chasm between the ABH's readership and their owners can sometimes create certain problems. A really good example of that can be found on page A10 of today's ABH, in which the editorial board safely wades into the mushy middle on the Voter ID law.
Do we think that the ABH is writing nice things about the Voter ID law because the boss told them to? Unclear. Do we think that the ABH should oppose the law? Absolutely. But remember, this isn't the first time that the ABH has been mushy on what we see as clear Constitutional issues.
To recap, the law was passed, numerous groups, including the NAACP, ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and the AARP got all het up about it, took it to court. Said court granted an injunction prevented enforcement of the law, and said injunction was recently upheld on appeal.
If you want to read the myriad reasons why we oppose the Voter ID law as it currently exists, take a look at this. Check out the legal side of things here. If you've already read this stuff, then we'll sum up. If the giant brains in the GOP can't come up with a bill that doesn't violate your Constitutional rights, then they need to table the issue until they can.
Back to the ABH. The editorial inadvertently makes some good points, as far as revealing the Georgia GOP's real agenda. Y'see, the GOP congressional delegation wants to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which happens to be the part that requires federal approval of any redistricting changes, to make sure that said changes don't carve out districts that reduce minority voting strength.
If you thought the 2000 Democratic map was bad (and it was), wait until you see what the GOP is going to do to your Congressional districts if Westmoreland and his gang of Constitutional thugs get their way.
So, no, we don't know whether the editorial board took this stand because of pressure from above, or their actual convictions. But consider this. Attacking those folks who want to repeal part of the Voting Rights Act is a pretty safe issue. The Voter ID law is much more dangerous ground.
Tips.
It should come as no surprise that Morris is pretty darn conservative, as far as newspaper chains go. Heck, the Savannah paper even endorsed Pat Buchanan a few years ago. And, according to more than one of our sources who used to work for Morris, the corporate ownership has a tendency to pressure the local papers to take certain stands on certain issues.
So, you can see how the chasm between the ABH's readership and their owners can sometimes create certain problems. A really good example of that can be found on page A10 of today's ABH, in which the editorial board safely wades into the mushy middle on the Voter ID law.
Do we think that the ABH is writing nice things about the Voter ID law because the boss told them to? Unclear. Do we think that the ABH should oppose the law? Absolutely. But remember, this isn't the first time that the ABH has been mushy on what we see as clear Constitutional issues.
To recap, the law was passed, numerous groups, including the NAACP, ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and the AARP got all het up about it, took it to court. Said court granted an injunction prevented enforcement of the law, and said injunction was recently upheld on appeal.
If you want to read the myriad reasons why we oppose the Voter ID law as it currently exists, take a look at this. Check out the legal side of things here. If you've already read this stuff, then we'll sum up. If the giant brains in the GOP can't come up with a bill that doesn't violate your Constitutional rights, then they need to table the issue until they can.
Back to the ABH. The editorial inadvertently makes some good points, as far as revealing the Georgia GOP's real agenda. Y'see, the GOP congressional delegation wants to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which happens to be the part that requires federal approval of any redistricting changes, to make sure that said changes don't carve out districts that reduce minority voting strength.
If you thought the 2000 Democratic map was bad (and it was), wait until you see what the GOP is going to do to your Congressional districts if Westmoreland and his gang of Constitutional thugs get their way.
So, no, we don't know whether the editorial board took this stand because of pressure from above, or their actual convictions. But consider this. Attacking those folks who want to repeal part of the Voting Rights Act is a pretty safe issue. The Voter ID law is much more dangerous ground.
Tips.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Link correction
I'm assuming my partner in crime meant to send you here for the second headline.
The website about Fox News throughout history is hilarious, by the way.
The website about Fox News throughout history is hilarious, by the way.
Two unintentionally funny headlines
Hey kids. There's more serious political stuff on the next post down, but it's Friday and we wanted to lighten things up. Happy Indictment Day, everybody, and a merry Fitzmas to all.
It isn't often that we're blessed with two unintentionally funny headlines in the ABH, and these two might be the best since "Jefferson Water Affected by Taint."
Headline 1. (That's got to be either sexual or painful, but we aren't sure which)
Headline 2. (We knew she was a bit of a brown-noser, but this is a level of sycophancy that is purely re-donkulous.)
Also, a good and work-safe link to check out.
Political? Well the headlines aren't, but hey. It's Friday, and at least half of your crack editorial staff is punchy from being up all night working.
It isn't often that we're blessed with two unintentionally funny headlines in the ABH, and these two might be the best since "Jefferson Water Affected by Taint."
Headline 1. (That's got to be either sexual or painful, but we aren't sure which)
Headline 2. (We knew she was a bit of a brown-noser, but this is a level of sycophancy that is purely re-donkulous.)
Also, a good and work-safe link to check out.
Political? Well the headlines aren't, but hey. It's Friday, and at least half of your crack editorial staff is punchy from being up all night working.
A Few Reasons to Celebrate
There's a party going on right here...a celebration to last throughout the year.
Why?
Several reasons. Today is possibly indictment day inside the Beltway. In fact, the NYT is reporting early that Libby is going to see the business end of a perp walk, while Rove will continue to sit on the hot seat. Read all about it here.
Also, moving from national to state politics, the Court of Appeals offers a great big "nuh-uh" to the Voter ID, and refuses to drop the injunction. Here's some electronically delivered dead tree.
And finally, we're happy to announce that this is the one-hundredth post here on Athens Politics. Seems like just yesterday we opened the doors and started bitching about politics to y'all. We'd like to thank out readers, and especially the folks who are kind enough to comment and argue about the tripe we post. And we mean that.
Backwards spit.
Why?
Several reasons. Today is possibly indictment day inside the Beltway. In fact, the NYT is reporting early that Libby is going to see the business end of a perp walk, while Rove will continue to sit on the hot seat. Read all about it here.
Also, moving from national to state politics, the Court of Appeals offers a great big "nuh-uh" to the Voter ID, and refuses to drop the injunction. Here's some electronically delivered dead tree.
And finally, we're happy to announce that this is the one-hundredth post here on Athens Politics. Seems like just yesterday we opened the doors and started bitching about politics to y'all. We'd like to thank out readers, and especially the folks who are kind enough to comment and argue about the tripe we post. And we mean that.
Backwards spit.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Miers Withdrawal
Just in case you hadn't heard yet, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination today. Feel free to opine away. In any event, this is the story today, unless of course, Patrick Fitzgerald decides to hand down indictments this afternoon.
Also in the news, Congressman John Barrow is officially confirming what we've all known for months; he'll be moving to Savannah and running against Max Burns in the new 12th, which doesn't include Athens. According to the ABH, it sounds like he's got his eye on some pretty choice real estate down yonder as well. Kegger at Johnny B's for New Year's!
Also, he's getting divorced, but we don't have any kind of snarky comment on that. Things happen.
Anyway, two points to remember in this particular imbroglio. First of all, the GOP is going to start throwing around the hackneyed "carpetbagger" rhetoric, which might actually stick, if it weren't for the fact that he's been representing the majority of the new district for the last year or so anyway.
The other point to keep in mind is this. To all of our Athens friends with a eye for changing government and deep pockets to make it happen, do us a favor. Don't donate to John for the 2006 cycle. Here's why. Jonh Barrow, if he's ever been good at anything in his life, is good at fundraising. Don't believe us? Just run a search in the ABH. Plus, as an incumbent, he's going to be well-funded by the national network of party faithful. And finally, Savannah is next to only Atlanta in terms of political donations. To sum up, John isn't going to have any trouble raising money to beat Max Burns (who tended to rely on the GOP money machine for his own bucks, unlike John)
But hey, you know who is going to have trouble raising money? Whoever runs in the new 10th District against Charlie Norwood. And that's who you should support. Now, the conventional wisdom says that no Democrat is going to win against Norwood, and we'll agree that the chances are pretty slim. But wouldn't it be nice to see a real race, rather than just conceding this seat right now?
Of course, first we're going to need a candidate...anyone know what Becky Vaughn is up to these days?
Speaking of candidates, you might recall our much earlier post on Doug McKillip's race for House District 115? Looks like he might have some company in that race. More on that soon.
Tips.
Also in the news, Congressman John Barrow is officially confirming what we've all known for months; he'll be moving to Savannah and running against Max Burns in the new 12th, which doesn't include Athens. According to the ABH, it sounds like he's got his eye on some pretty choice real estate down yonder as well. Kegger at Johnny B's for New Year's!
Also, he's getting divorced, but we don't have any kind of snarky comment on that. Things happen.
Anyway, two points to remember in this particular imbroglio. First of all, the GOP is going to start throwing around the hackneyed "carpetbagger" rhetoric, which might actually stick, if it weren't for the fact that he's been representing the majority of the new district for the last year or so anyway.
The other point to keep in mind is this. To all of our Athens friends with a eye for changing government and deep pockets to make it happen, do us a favor. Don't donate to John for the 2006 cycle. Here's why. Jonh Barrow, if he's ever been good at anything in his life, is good at fundraising. Don't believe us? Just run a search in the ABH. Plus, as an incumbent, he's going to be well-funded by the national network of party faithful. And finally, Savannah is next to only Atlanta in terms of political donations. To sum up, John isn't going to have any trouble raising money to beat Max Burns (who tended to rely on the GOP money machine for his own bucks, unlike John)
But hey, you know who is going to have trouble raising money? Whoever runs in the new 10th District against Charlie Norwood. And that's who you should support. Now, the conventional wisdom says that no Democrat is going to win against Norwood, and we'll agree that the chances are pretty slim. But wouldn't it be nice to see a real race, rather than just conceding this seat right now?
Of course, first we're going to need a candidate...anyone know what Becky Vaughn is up to these days?
Speaking of candidates, you might recall our much earlier post on Doug McKillip's race for House District 115? Looks like he might have some company in that race. More on that soon.
Tips.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Miscellany
Flagpole: McCommons Declares War on Chasteen, Other Commissioners
This week's Pub Notes yields plentiful bounty for those who like to see the press take on the local electeds, as Pete McCommons does everything short of calling Tom Chasteen a raging douchebag for opposing the three-laning on Price Avenue. Pete makes short work of dismantling Tom's point about traffic diverting to Boulevard, and, in our humble opinion, does so in a pretty convincing fashion. (We had the same concern, still do actually, but to a lesser extent.) What's interesting about this piece to us is that for the first time in a long time on this issue, Pete has abandoned his more pedantic style and returned to the hell-raising, fire in the belly, full of piss and vinegar Pete that got us hooked on Flagpole lo those many years ago. Get 'em Pete!
The best stuff in here is where Pete calls out the "anti-progressive" Commissioners (McCarter, Sims, Carter) and gives the Chamber of Commerce a little what fer as well. This is the Pete McC we know and love, and we're glad to have him back. Somewhere, the ghost of the Athens Observer is smiling just a little brighter today.
LPDS:
First off, Flagpole's own Ben Emmanuel writes up the situation and in so doing, kind of puts the ABH to shame. Read it here.
Despite the recent withdrawal of the zoning request from next Tuesday's meeting, the flood of letters to the ABH about LPDS doesn't seem to be slacking off at all. The most recent controversy? Bashing Executive Editor Jason Winders for playing the race card in his Sunday column. Needless to say, Cedar Creek rushes to its own defense, and bends over backwards to prove that, as the cliche goes, some of their best friends are Latino. You can read for yourself here, and also here, courtesy of the gummint relations committee chair of the Cedar Creek Civic Association. In a related letter, stop picking on States. We would mention in passing that the ABH points out, correctly enough, that Winders didn't accuse Cedar Creek residents specifically, as they make clear in the editorial note at the end of today's letter from the aforementioned gummint relations committee guy.
Also in LPDS-world, people are beginning to isolate noise as the only realistic concern with respect to LPDS. Folks talk about that here and here. For what it's worth, noise isn't the only legitimate concern, in our opinion. One of the more rational LPDS opponents, who also happens to be a regular visitor to AP, is more than a touch concerned about the slippery-slopeitude of the zoning issues involved. We respect that, and certainly don't think that he or she is being alarmist, but we would submit by way of rebuttal that, if we've learned nothing else from this little imbroglio, the CCCA can certainly mount a serious challenge to anything they don't want in their backyards.
Finally in LPDS-world, we've gotten a few emails about the whole Winders/racism thingamabob, and if you really want our opinion, here it is. Yeah, we think Winders was a little over the top in implying that race is the issue in LPDS. It isn't. Are there racists involved in the opposition, as Winders alleges? Probably so. The CCCA represents over 650 homeowners, by their math. Statistically, there's probably one or two that flat just don't like Hispanics. But that's not the issue here. So, while it appears Winders is on the same side as us, we are not on the same page on racism.
Taylor:
Pundit Extrordinaire Bill Shipp takes the easy road out in today's column, by writing two pretty self-referential grafs, and quoting one email for the other 11. Nonetheless, it's worth a read. Basically, Shipp gets accused of driving, or at least taking a ride, on the "Mark Taylor should drop out and run again for Lieutenant Governor" bandwagon. Old friend of Taylor's, responds, rehashes Taylor's talking points, Shipp is contrite.
This isn't anything new. Seems like any time you've got two Democrats in a primary, who are both pretty strong, one of the two starts the same old refrain. (The GOP, by the by, mostly handles this stuff out of the public eye and before candidates announce their intentions, making sure that the voters are usually only left with the party-approved example of steely-eyed faux conservative zealotry.) It might not surprise anyone that this has happened numerous times, even right here in the Classic City.
Nonetheless, it makes us respect Mark Taylor just a little bit more. Is he the most electable against Perdue? We don't know. But the thing is, neither do you, and neither does Cathy Cox (or her pollster). Early polls that test the strength of different primary candidates against an incumbent are not necessarily unreliable, but they are early polls, and any support is very soft.
Here's what we're gonna do. As we've mentioned before, we don't really have a dog in this fight yet. So we're going to take a close look at both candidates for the Democratic nomination and make up our own minds. We hope you'll take a good look at Taylor, and dismiss this "weaker candidate" crap as just that. The result of very soft early polling that the other candidate is using to their own advantage.
Cox:
Speaking of the governor's race, we do have one thing to mention about the Cox campaign. As our regular readers might know, one of our frequent commenters, one Random Thoughts, took umbrage recently at two comments Cathy made (wearing the Secretary of State hat, not the candidate hat) that implied that Georgia poll workers were elderly and easily confused. (These comments were made in reference to the Voter ID Law). On our encouragement, RT posted a question about that on Cox's blog. Oddly enough, the comment never made it to the actual blog, implying (at least to those of us who have experience managing campaign blogs) that someone on the staff decided not to publish it. Here's what makes that little fiasco even better.
Your crack editorial staff (who has what we humbly think of as a divine mission to keep you informed on the goings-on of various campaigns) received a mass email recently from the Cox campaign. Sez Morton Brilliant, campaign manager, ""Grassroots" is a term you hear a lot of campaigns toss around. To Cathy Cox, it means building an open, accessible campaign..."
Yeah, not so much.
Here's how the Cox campaign should have handled it, in our humble opinion. There are a couple of options. The best and easiest, would have been to post and reply to the comment, and explain Cathy's position. You know, we're big fans of "open and accessible" campaigns that are actually open and accessible.
But failing that, a nice email explaining that this was from Cathy as SOS and not Cathy as candidate and giving an appropriate contact for the question, would have also probably worked.
But, censoring it? Just our guess here, but Cathy might have just lost a vote in the Democratic Primary.
Prince:
The fine folks in charge of Athens Regional Medical Center aren't fans of three-laning Prince, sez the ABH. They cite the 35 or so emergency calls per week from ARMC to the downtown area. We wonder how three laning Baxter affected the same situation with St. Mary's. Anyone know?
Slack-ass Editors:
On a final note, we apologize from the heart of our bottom for taking a day off yesterday. We were busy, yo.
Tips go here, beeyotch.
This week's Pub Notes yields plentiful bounty for those who like to see the press take on the local electeds, as Pete McCommons does everything short of calling Tom Chasteen a raging douchebag for opposing the three-laning on Price Avenue. Pete makes short work of dismantling Tom's point about traffic diverting to Boulevard, and, in our humble opinion, does so in a pretty convincing fashion. (We had the same concern, still do actually, but to a lesser extent.) What's interesting about this piece to us is that for the first time in a long time on this issue, Pete has abandoned his more pedantic style and returned to the hell-raising, fire in the belly, full of piss and vinegar Pete that got us hooked on Flagpole lo those many years ago. Get 'em Pete!
The best stuff in here is where Pete calls out the "anti-progressive" Commissioners (McCarter, Sims, Carter) and gives the Chamber of Commerce a little what fer as well. This is the Pete McC we know and love, and we're glad to have him back. Somewhere, the ghost of the Athens Observer is smiling just a little brighter today.
LPDS:
First off, Flagpole's own Ben Emmanuel writes up the situation and in so doing, kind of puts the ABH to shame. Read it here.
Despite the recent withdrawal of the zoning request from next Tuesday's meeting, the flood of letters to the ABH about LPDS doesn't seem to be slacking off at all. The most recent controversy? Bashing Executive Editor Jason Winders for playing the race card in his Sunday column. Needless to say, Cedar Creek rushes to its own defense, and bends over backwards to prove that, as the cliche goes, some of their best friends are Latino. You can read for yourself here, and also here, courtesy of the gummint relations committee chair of the Cedar Creek Civic Association. In a related letter, stop picking on States. We would mention in passing that the ABH points out, correctly enough, that Winders didn't accuse Cedar Creek residents specifically, as they make clear in the editorial note at the end of today's letter from the aforementioned gummint relations committee guy.
Also in LPDS-world, people are beginning to isolate noise as the only realistic concern with respect to LPDS. Folks talk about that here and here. For what it's worth, noise isn't the only legitimate concern, in our opinion. One of the more rational LPDS opponents, who also happens to be a regular visitor to AP, is more than a touch concerned about the slippery-slopeitude of the zoning issues involved. We respect that, and certainly don't think that he or she is being alarmist, but we would submit by way of rebuttal that, if we've learned nothing else from this little imbroglio, the CCCA can certainly mount a serious challenge to anything they don't want in their backyards.
Finally in LPDS-world, we've gotten a few emails about the whole Winders/racism thingamabob, and if you really want our opinion, here it is. Yeah, we think Winders was a little over the top in implying that race is the issue in LPDS. It isn't. Are there racists involved in the opposition, as Winders alleges? Probably so. The CCCA represents over 650 homeowners, by their math. Statistically, there's probably one or two that flat just don't like Hispanics. But that's not the issue here. So, while it appears Winders is on the same side as us, we are not on the same page on racism.
Taylor:
Pundit Extrordinaire Bill Shipp takes the easy road out in today's column, by writing two pretty self-referential grafs, and quoting one email for the other 11. Nonetheless, it's worth a read. Basically, Shipp gets accused of driving, or at least taking a ride, on the "Mark Taylor should drop out and run again for Lieutenant Governor" bandwagon. Old friend of Taylor's, responds, rehashes Taylor's talking points, Shipp is contrite.
This isn't anything new. Seems like any time you've got two Democrats in a primary, who are both pretty strong, one of the two starts the same old refrain. (The GOP, by the by, mostly handles this stuff out of the public eye and before candidates announce their intentions, making sure that the voters are usually only left with the party-approved example of steely-eyed faux conservative zealotry.) It might not surprise anyone that this has happened numerous times, even right here in the Classic City.
Nonetheless, it makes us respect Mark Taylor just a little bit more. Is he the most electable against Perdue? We don't know. But the thing is, neither do you, and neither does Cathy Cox (or her pollster). Early polls that test the strength of different primary candidates against an incumbent are not necessarily unreliable, but they are early polls, and any support is very soft.
Here's what we're gonna do. As we've mentioned before, we don't really have a dog in this fight yet. So we're going to take a close look at both candidates for the Democratic nomination and make up our own minds. We hope you'll take a good look at Taylor, and dismiss this "weaker candidate" crap as just that. The result of very soft early polling that the other candidate is using to their own advantage.
Cox:
Speaking of the governor's race, we do have one thing to mention about the Cox campaign. As our regular readers might know, one of our frequent commenters, one Random Thoughts, took umbrage recently at two comments Cathy made (wearing the Secretary of State hat, not the candidate hat) that implied that Georgia poll workers were elderly and easily confused. (These comments were made in reference to the Voter ID Law). On our encouragement, RT posted a question about that on Cox's blog. Oddly enough, the comment never made it to the actual blog, implying (at least to those of us who have experience managing campaign blogs) that someone on the staff decided not to publish it. Here's what makes that little fiasco even better.
Your crack editorial staff (who has what we humbly think of as a divine mission to keep you informed on the goings-on of various campaigns) received a mass email recently from the Cox campaign. Sez Morton Brilliant, campaign manager, ""Grassroots" is a term you hear a lot of campaigns toss around. To Cathy Cox, it means building an open, accessible campaign..."
Yeah, not so much.
Here's how the Cox campaign should have handled it, in our humble opinion. There are a couple of options. The best and easiest, would have been to post and reply to the comment, and explain Cathy's position. You know, we're big fans of "open and accessible" campaigns that are actually open and accessible.
But failing that, a nice email explaining that this was from Cathy as SOS and not Cathy as candidate and giving an appropriate contact for the question, would have also probably worked.
But, censoring it? Just our guess here, but Cathy might have just lost a vote in the Democratic Primary.
Prince:
The fine folks in charge of Athens Regional Medical Center aren't fans of three-laning Prince, sez the ABH. They cite the 35 or so emergency calls per week from ARMC to the downtown area. We wonder how three laning Baxter affected the same situation with St. Mary's. Anyone know?
Slack-ass Editors:
On a final note, we apologize from the heart of our bottom for taking a day off yesterday. We were busy, yo.
Tips go here, beeyotch.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Get on the bus, Gus; We've got a new plan, Stan.
As promised, here's a little bit on public transportation.
First of all, here's the ABH's story on the subject. Basically, Athens Transit has a shiny new plan, that isn't particularly shiny or new, in that it's more or less a compilation of the same things they've been trying to get the Mayor and Commission to pony up for for a few years now. Based on the somewhat limited coverage in the ABH, we're ready to say it's a good thing.
You know, if you listened to some folks around town (including us) you might come to the conclusion that the most important issues in ACC are the La Puerta del Sol zoning madness and the proposed three-laning of Prince Avenue. Those are important, to be sure, but take it from us, this trumps both of those issues.
You might remember about a month ago, when we lauded Super-Commissioner Elton Dodson for coming out swinging against poverty. Since then, he's been strangely quiet, perhaps in order to discourage States McCarter from leaving flaming bags of dog poo on his front doorstep. We hear those two don't get along. (We'd also point out that we sent him an email asking what he had in mind to combat poverty, but he hasn't responded yet. Must've been something we said.)
In any event, we humbly submit that if the Mayor and Commission is serious about tackling the problem and doing something to help the 28.6% of ACC residents that live below the poverty line (source here), then this would be a good first step. Is it the silver bullet? No, but have you seen gas prices lately? It's a good first step.
Not only would this be a good first battle in the war on poverty, it also helps out the more fortunate folks in ACC. Funding Athens Transit's requests according to the plan, combined with a campaign to encourage everyone to try the bus again, can cut down on traffic congestion, pollution, accidents, etc. That means safer neighborhoods all over Athens.
That's not to say there aren't problems with the plan as well. It could become a money pit. For whatever reason, and your crack editorial staff is guilty of this too, Southerners love driving places, and we sure haven't cottoned on to public transportation yet. Perhaps it's the lack of options, or the fact that Southern cities tend to be more sprawled out than other places. We're not experts, we don't rightly know.
There's this whole funding issue that we've got to address as well. First of all, the proposal in the State Legislature that would let cities besides Atlanta make their own transit authorities. We're in favor of that, assuming that the pols don't attach a bunch of silly riders on the bill as well. And we wouldn't mind adding an additional 0.25% sales tax to fund Athens Transit.
But we think it's worth a shot. So, as always, here's your call to action. Email your Commissioners, especially Elton D, who took a brave stand on poverty. Let 'em know how you feel.
Tips, scoops, gossip, unsubstantiated rumors? We're not picky. Send 'em here.
First of all, here's the ABH's story on the subject. Basically, Athens Transit has a shiny new plan, that isn't particularly shiny or new, in that it's more or less a compilation of the same things they've been trying to get the Mayor and Commission to pony up for for a few years now. Based on the somewhat limited coverage in the ABH, we're ready to say it's a good thing.
You know, if you listened to some folks around town (including us) you might come to the conclusion that the most important issues in ACC are the La Puerta del Sol zoning madness and the proposed three-laning of Prince Avenue. Those are important, to be sure, but take it from us, this trumps both of those issues.
You might remember about a month ago, when we lauded Super-Commissioner Elton Dodson for coming out swinging against poverty. Since then, he's been strangely quiet, perhaps in order to discourage States McCarter from leaving flaming bags of dog poo on his front doorstep. We hear those two don't get along. (We'd also point out that we sent him an email asking what he had in mind to combat poverty, but he hasn't responded yet. Must've been something we said.)
In any event, we humbly submit that if the Mayor and Commission is serious about tackling the problem and doing something to help the 28.6% of ACC residents that live below the poverty line (source here), then this would be a good first step. Is it the silver bullet? No, but have you seen gas prices lately? It's a good first step.
Not only would this be a good first battle in the war on poverty, it also helps out the more fortunate folks in ACC. Funding Athens Transit's requests according to the plan, combined with a campaign to encourage everyone to try the bus again, can cut down on traffic congestion, pollution, accidents, etc. That means safer neighborhoods all over Athens.
That's not to say there aren't problems with the plan as well. It could become a money pit. For whatever reason, and your crack editorial staff is guilty of this too, Southerners love driving places, and we sure haven't cottoned on to public transportation yet. Perhaps it's the lack of options, or the fact that Southern cities tend to be more sprawled out than other places. We're not experts, we don't rightly know.
There's this whole funding issue that we've got to address as well. First of all, the proposal in the State Legislature that would let cities besides Atlanta make their own transit authorities. We're in favor of that, assuming that the pols don't attach a bunch of silly riders on the bill as well. And we wouldn't mind adding an additional 0.25% sales tax to fund Athens Transit.
But we think it's worth a shot. So, as always, here's your call to action. Email your Commissioners, especially Elton D, who took a brave stand on poverty. Let 'em know how you feel.
Tips, scoops, gossip, unsubstantiated rumors? We're not picky. Send 'em here.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
More on LPDS
As promised, here are a few extra thoughts and a little more information about the La Puerta del Sol postponement.
Of course, the ABH writes it up, and you can find that here.
Here’s the thing about LPDS. Although the less-rational and more strident wing of the anti-LPDS movement will try to spin it this way, this is at best a Pyrrhic victory for States and his followers. Fact is, that this just proves that Bruno is for real. There were community concerns, and in response to those, he volunteered to incur the extra expense of more site changes (some of which were necessary, some of which are, in our opinion, just sops to the Cedar Creek folks), and postpone his project for another three months.
Would Lowe’s do that? Would T.G.I. O’Chilibee’s? Nope, they’d be mass grading in Oconee County before you could say, “smart development.”
For that matter, would most of our local businesses go to this much trouble to appease the Cedar Creek Civic Association? Probably not, and indeed, one of the sane LPDS opponents (who actually has real reasons for being opposed) mentioned the numerous problems caused by Cedar Pointe, who promised more than they’ve (so far) delivered.
In any event, this is a good thing for both Cedar Creek and LPDS. We can only assume that the new site plans, which are dramatic enough to require a second trip through the Planning Commission, will reflect the legitimate concerns expressed by east side residents. (Sorry Ms. Wood, changing the menu to a KFC franchise is not an option.)
And that’s going to be a good thing for everyone concerned. Bruno continues to look like a responsible member of the neighborhood that so far still wants to deny him access, and, we hope that Cedar Creekians are going to see their input in the new plans.
And hey, if this thing doesn’t pass in February? Well, enjoy your vacant lot, east side. You earned it.
Coming soon, more on this (in a shock to absolutely no one). We’re also going to talk a little about this public transit thing.
Of course, the ABH writes it up, and you can find that here.
Here’s the thing about LPDS. Although the less-rational and more strident wing of the anti-LPDS movement will try to spin it this way, this is at best a Pyrrhic victory for States and his followers. Fact is, that this just proves that Bruno is for real. There were community concerns, and in response to those, he volunteered to incur the extra expense of more site changes (some of which were necessary, some of which are, in our opinion, just sops to the Cedar Creek folks), and postpone his project for another three months.
Would Lowe’s do that? Would T.G.I. O’Chilibee’s? Nope, they’d be mass grading in Oconee County before you could say, “smart development.”
For that matter, would most of our local businesses go to this much trouble to appease the Cedar Creek Civic Association? Probably not, and indeed, one of the sane LPDS opponents (who actually has real reasons for being opposed) mentioned the numerous problems caused by Cedar Pointe, who promised more than they’ve (so far) delivered.
In any event, this is a good thing for both Cedar Creek and LPDS. We can only assume that the new site plans, which are dramatic enough to require a second trip through the Planning Commission, will reflect the legitimate concerns expressed by east side residents. (Sorry Ms. Wood, changing the menu to a KFC franchise is not an option.)
And that’s going to be a good thing for everyone concerned. Bruno continues to look like a responsible member of the neighborhood that so far still wants to deny him access, and, we hope that Cedar Creekians are going to see their input in the new plans.
And hey, if this thing doesn’t pass in February? Well, enjoy your vacant lot, east side. You earned it.
Coming soon, more on this (in a shock to absolutely no one). We’re also going to talk a little about this public transit thing.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Breaking News! LPDS off the M&C Agenda!
Breaking News…
Team LPDS has, as of this afternoon, withdrawn their request for a vote from the Mayor and Commission at the November 1st meeting. According to what we know right now, there are going to be some revisions to the site plan which will necessitate taking the project through the ACC Planning Commission again.
More on this as we get some details, including analysis. For now, let’s just let crazy, wild-eyed speculation run rampant.
Tips.
Team LPDS has, as of this afternoon, withdrawn their request for a vote from the Mayor and Commission at the November 1st meeting. According to what we know right now, there are going to be some revisions to the site plan which will necessitate taking the project through the ACC Planning Commission again.
More on this as we get some details, including analysis. For now, let’s just let crazy, wild-eyed speculation run rampant.
Tips.
Barrow Runs Right, Gets Cozy With the NRA
If you've been following the news lately, you might be aware that Congress passed (and presumably the Preznit will sign) a bill limiting the liability of gun manufacturers, essentially protecting them from the threat of being sued by victims of gun crimes.
This was, by the way, a top issue for the NRA this year.
You know what? Whatever. We're not even surprised enough to be pissed off anymore. Just a little sad that Barrow puts gun manufacturers' bottom line above victims' rights.
But we're really a little more interested in whether he thinks that stuff like this is going to:
A. Endear him to conservative voters in the new 12th.
B. Get him an NRA endorsement over Max Burns.
"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat" (Harry Truman, 05/17/52: Complete speech available here.)
Of course, there's also the possibility that Barrow legitmately believes that people shouldn't be able to sue gun manufacturers, and we admit that.
But, consider this. The guy made his bundle as a trial lawyer, and then proceeded to raise money for his campaign mostly from trial lawyers. And by trial lawyers, we generally mean personal injury types, just the guys who stand to make lotsa dough by suing gun manufacturers on behalf of victims. Perplexing why he'd support this (which to trial lawyers, amounts to a type of "tort reform"), since it threatens his livelihood and that of a lot of his donors, if this is the first step to serious national tort reform. Coupled with the bill limiting the liability of certain drug makers that also passed, we think it might be an incremental step towards tort reform.
So, we guess screwing your donors is worth it. As long as you're buddy-buddy with the NRA.
Related: The roll call
Text of the bill
Spit.
This was, by the way, a top issue for the NRA this year.
You know what? Whatever. We're not even surprised enough to be pissed off anymore. Just a little sad that Barrow puts gun manufacturers' bottom line above victims' rights.
But we're really a little more interested in whether he thinks that stuff like this is going to:
A. Endear him to conservative voters in the new 12th.
B. Get him an NRA endorsement over Max Burns.
"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat" (Harry Truman, 05/17/52: Complete speech available here.)
Of course, there's also the possibility that Barrow legitmately believes that people shouldn't be able to sue gun manufacturers, and we admit that.
But, consider this. The guy made his bundle as a trial lawyer, and then proceeded to raise money for his campaign mostly from trial lawyers. And by trial lawyers, we generally mean personal injury types, just the guys who stand to make lotsa dough by suing gun manufacturers on behalf of victims. Perplexing why he'd support this (which to trial lawyers, amounts to a type of "tort reform"), since it threatens his livelihood and that of a lot of his donors, if this is the first step to serious national tort reform. Coupled with the bill limiting the liability of certain drug makers that also passed, we think it might be an incremental step towards tort reform.
So, we guess screwing your donors is worth it. As long as you're buddy-buddy with the NRA.
Related: The roll call
Text of the bill
Spit.
UnhUh...No She Dinhit!
Holy crap. This is one of the most absurd comments I've heard in all of the LPDS debate. In Margaret Wood's letter today, she says the following: "The market for Hispanic food in the Cedar Shoals Drive area is already saturated by Mexicali Grille, La Fiesta and Taco Bell." That's like saying the market for American food has been saturated by McDonald's, Burger King, and AppleBee's, so who needs the Porterhouse Grill? Besides, all three of those are Mexican, and fast-food or TexMex Mexican at that, and not the South American fare that Bruno is known for. But, you know, I guess I'm splitting hairs to make that fine of a distinction (sarcastic grin).
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Caution: Legal Crap Ahead; Truth May Be Further Away Than It Appears
Ok, so I'm a legal nerd. Let me just get that admission out of the way in the beginning. In that vein, I have actually studied the decision cited by Buck, Alexander v. Mineta, 531 U.S. 940 (2000). Actually, that case is a one-sentence affirmation of a decision by the D.C. District Court, which is reported at 90 F.Supp.2d 35 as Adams v. Clinton (two cases were combined because they concerned the same issue).
It's always important when looking at legal precedent to understand the facts of the case. These two cases, for example, were suits by citizens of D.C. and the District itself which claimed that it was unconstitutional to deny them the right to vote for representatives in Congress. While the opinion is a fascinating treatise on that subject, it actually says very little that is on point to our current debate.
The relevant part of the case is the discussion on whether it is constitutional for a statute of Congress to limit a pre-existing right of D.C. citizens to vote for reps in Congress. The case held that the relevant statute, the Organic Act of 1801 that created D.C., did not do that, and that in fact the Constitution itself was the source of the D.C. citizens' disability to vote for Congress (the Constitution provides that citizens of the states will so vote, and D.C. is not a "state"). The opinion agreed that a statute could not have validly taken the vote away from them ("Thus, it was not the Organic Act or any cessation-related legislation that excluded District residents from the franchise, something we agree could not have been done by legislation alone").
Implicitly recognized, even by this decision, then, is a constitutionally defined right to vote. Whether and how a state can reasonably regulate that right has been the subject of numerous other decisions. The following represents a few:
"Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is to say, the right of suffrage is subject to the imposition of state standards which are not discriminatory and which do not contravene any restriction that Congress, acting pursuant to its constitutional powers, has imposed." (for example, the Voting Rights Act -ed.)
"We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate."
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1996) (ruling unconstitutional a $1.50 poll tax).
"A government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders." Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978).
"Cases invalidating governmentally imposed wealth restrictions on the right to vote or file as a candidate for public office rest on the conclusion that wealth "is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process" and is therefore an insufficient basis on which to restrict a citizen's fundamental right to vote." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
"[States have] unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, "the States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50. Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299; [***678] Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651. "In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution."
"We deal here with matters close to the core of our constitutional system. "The right . . . to choose," United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314, that this Court has been so zealous to protect, means, at the least, that States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State."
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965)(striking down Texas law denying soldiers the right to vote in Texas).
All emphasis in the quotes added by me. Bottom line, yes, of course a state can restrict the right to vote to those who are qualified, but its means of doing so must be related to the qualifications and must not discriminate in violation of the Constitution. Putting aside and assuming for the moment that an ID requirement is rationally related to, as you put it, proving the person is who they say they are (and therefore a resident and citizen qualified to vote), the problem with the Georgia bill is whether it discriminates in violation of the Constitution against those who can not afford to purchase the ID (I realize you claim they are free, but I will incorporate by reference Jonathan's argument on that point).
I would have to do a whole separate post to talk about the Voting Rights Act, which I don't have time for and haven't done the research for, but suffice it to say for now that the test is whether there are "discriminatory effects" on the basis of race (and maybe class too? like I said, haven't done the research yet on that one). If there are (which isn't like, you know, outside the realm of possibility, considering the still-lingering correlation between income, wealth, and race, particularly in the South), then the bill may very well violate the VRA, even if it does not constitute an equal protection violation as set out above.
Sorry, folks, but the lawyer in me couldn't resist it this time.
It's always important when looking at legal precedent to understand the facts of the case. These two cases, for example, were suits by citizens of D.C. and the District itself which claimed that it was unconstitutional to deny them the right to vote for representatives in Congress. While the opinion is a fascinating treatise on that subject, it actually says very little that is on point to our current debate.
The relevant part of the case is the discussion on whether it is constitutional for a statute of Congress to limit a pre-existing right of D.C. citizens to vote for reps in Congress. The case held that the relevant statute, the Organic Act of 1801 that created D.C., did not do that, and that in fact the Constitution itself was the source of the D.C. citizens' disability to vote for Congress (the Constitution provides that citizens of the states will so vote, and D.C. is not a "state"). The opinion agreed that a statute could not have validly taken the vote away from them ("Thus, it was not the Organic Act or any cessation-related legislation that excluded District residents from the franchise, something we agree could not have been done by legislation alone").
Implicitly recognized, even by this decision, then, is a constitutionally defined right to vote. Whether and how a state can reasonably regulate that right has been the subject of numerous other decisions. The following represents a few:
"Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is to say, the right of suffrage is subject to the imposition of state standards which are not discriminatory and which do not contravene any restriction that Congress, acting pursuant to its constitutional powers, has imposed." (for example, the Voting Rights Act -ed.)
"We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate."
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1996) (ruling unconstitutional a $1.50 poll tax).
"A government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders." Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978).
"Cases invalidating governmentally imposed wealth restrictions on the right to vote or file as a candidate for public office rest on the conclusion that wealth "is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process" and is therefore an insufficient basis on which to restrict a citizen's fundamental right to vote." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
"[States have] unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot. There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise. Indeed, "the States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50. Compare United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299; [***678] Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651. "In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution."
"We deal here with matters close to the core of our constitutional system. "The right . . . to choose," United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314, that this Court has been so zealous to protect, means, at the least, that States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State."
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965)(striking down Texas law denying soldiers the right to vote in Texas).
All emphasis in the quotes added by me. Bottom line, yes, of course a state can restrict the right to vote to those who are qualified, but its means of doing so must be related to the qualifications and must not discriminate in violation of the Constitution. Putting aside and assuming for the moment that an ID requirement is rationally related to, as you put it, proving the person is who they say they are (and therefore a resident and citizen qualified to vote), the problem with the Georgia bill is whether it discriminates in violation of the Constitution against those who can not afford to purchase the ID (I realize you claim they are free, but I will incorporate by reference Jonathan's argument on that point).
I would have to do a whole separate post to talk about the Voting Rights Act, which I don't have time for and haven't done the research for, but suffice it to say for now that the test is whether there are "discriminatory effects" on the basis of race (and maybe class too? like I said, haven't done the research yet on that one). If there are (which isn't like, you know, outside the realm of possibility, considering the still-lingering correlation between income, wealth, and race, particularly in the South), then the bill may very well violate the VRA, even if it does not constitute an equal protection violation as set out above.
Sorry, folks, but the lawyer in me couldn't resist it this time.
We've got mail! Yaaaaay!!
Just a quick secondary post that, for once, doesn't concern the Voter ID law or LPDS! (well, it does mention LPDS, but only in a peripheral manner)
ACC Commission hopeful James Garland wrote in to say howdy the other day. He's a regular reader of AP, and wanted to let us know that he's running for ACC Commission, District 1, a seat currently held by Charles Carter, who is retiring at the end of 2006.
Now, a lot of y'all may already know who Mr. Garland is. He's a regular writer of letters to the editor at the ABH, and did a political column for the short-lived Athens Weekly News.
Garland noted in his letter to us that he spoke out in favor of LPDS at the Planning Commission meeting and emailed his support to Heidi and the gang before the Oct 4 M&C meeting [post edited, because Mr Garland emailed us to clarify that he wasn't at the M&C meeting as we originally said]. (there's the only LPDS reference you'll get in this post), but what impressed us the most was the things he had to say about Charles Carter.
For background purposes, and for those who don't keep up with the whirlwind that is District 1 politics, Garland also ran against Carter in 2002. That was before the days of non-partisan elections, so we'll point out, in the interests of fairness that he ran as a Republican. Nonetheless, Garland has some nice things to say about the incumbent.
Sez Garland:
ACC Commission hopeful James Garland wrote in to say howdy the other day. He's a regular reader of AP, and wanted to let us know that he's running for ACC Commission, District 1, a seat currently held by Charles Carter, who is retiring at the end of 2006.
Now, a lot of y'all may already know who Mr. Garland is. He's a regular writer of letters to the editor at the ABH, and did a political column for the short-lived Athens Weekly News.
Garland noted in his letter to us that he spoke out in favor of LPDS at the Planning Commission meeting and emailed his support to Heidi and the gang before the Oct 4 M&C meeting [post edited, because Mr Garland emailed us to clarify that he wasn't at the M&C meeting as we originally said]. (there's the only LPDS reference you'll get in this post), but what impressed us the most was the things he had to say about Charles Carter.
For background purposes, and for those who don't keep up with the whirlwind that is District 1 politics, Garland also ran against Carter in 2002. That was before the days of non-partisan elections, so we'll point out, in the interests of fairness that he ran as a Republican. Nonetheless, Garland has some nice things to say about the incumbent.
Sez Garland:
You are also correct in that Charles is stepping down, so it will be an open
seat. I ran against him in 2002. Actually, we both ran for the same seat
rather than against one another; everyone recognizes that Charles
is a nice guy...and it was an altogether collegial affair.
Thanks for writing in, James! Let us know when you've got your website up.
And, as always, feel free to comment anytime.
Email.
ABH Roundup
Letters, they get letters
House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R) has gotten his panties all in a wad about the injunction filed against the Voter ID law. Richardson's solution? Term limit federal judges. Only problem is, that if Congress were to take a collective dump on 200+ years of judicial and Constitutional precedent, said changes would certainly be subject to judicial review. And who would be reviewing such a law...hmmm...hold on, it's coming to us...oh yeah! Federal judges! The douchebaggery that the GOP will emply in trying to beat this particular dead horse knows no bounds.
But our question is this: Why are the Republicans so afraid of having their little law upheld in a court of law? After all, if it were, wouldn't that validate the law and leave them with clean hands, politically speaking?
They're afraid because they know this thing is not Constitutional, but they've dug themselves into the hole now, so all they can do is rail against federal judges and throw around the same hackneyed "judicial activism" crap.
Just one LPDS thing today.
If we've learned nothing from the discourse here, it is that there are rational people with legitimate concerns about the project (who often get their rational comments drowned out in the public discourse.)
Friends, meet one of the drowners.
Adrian Fitzpatrick (not to be confused with local attorney Adrian Patrick, who is, as far as we know, a pretty stand up guy) writes in to the ABH today. The gist of his letter is, "I live nearby, and no one's opinion matters but mine and my neighbors' and all you folks on the west side who support this can go to hell!"
We respectfully disagree. This is a community issue, and our voices carry just as much weight as yours. The M & C have to weigh what the nearby residents (you, in this case) want, against what is best for the community at large (us). And, with all due respect, this stopped being a Cedar Creek issue when the Commissioner from Cedar Creek began airing his dirty laundry with the other Commissioners in the Athens Banner Herald. Also, we do have a vested interest in this. The precedent that the M & C set in this issue will go on to affect how things are done down the road in Cobbham, Five Points, Boulevard, and all over Athens.
Backwards spit goes here. Also, pissog and spoocs.
- Watkinsville man is somewhat less than fully gruntled with the ABH's new online format. We agree.
- Local attorney and REM connection weighs in on three-laning Prince. You know, we're going to have to blog about this eventually, but we're putting it off as long as we can.
House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R) has gotten his panties all in a wad about the injunction filed against the Voter ID law. Richardson's solution? Term limit federal judges. Only problem is, that if Congress were to take a collective dump on 200+ years of judicial and Constitutional precedent, said changes would certainly be subject to judicial review. And who would be reviewing such a law...hmmm...hold on, it's coming to us...oh yeah! Federal judges! The douchebaggery that the GOP will emply in trying to beat this particular dead horse knows no bounds.
But our question is this: Why are the Republicans so afraid of having their little law upheld in a court of law? After all, if it were, wouldn't that validate the law and leave them with clean hands, politically speaking?
They're afraid because they know this thing is not Constitutional, but they've dug themselves into the hole now, so all they can do is rail against federal judges and throw around the same hackneyed "judicial activism" crap.
Just one LPDS thing today.
If we've learned nothing from the discourse here, it is that there are rational people with legitimate concerns about the project (who often get their rational comments drowned out in the public discourse.)
Friends, meet one of the drowners.
Adrian Fitzpatrick (not to be confused with local attorney Adrian Patrick, who is, as far as we know, a pretty stand up guy) writes in to the ABH today. The gist of his letter is, "I live nearby, and no one's opinion matters but mine and my neighbors' and all you folks on the west side who support this can go to hell!"
We respectfully disagree. This is a community issue, and our voices carry just as much weight as yours. The M & C have to weigh what the nearby residents (you, in this case) want, against what is best for the community at large (us). And, with all due respect, this stopped being a Cedar Creek issue when the Commissioner from Cedar Creek began airing his dirty laundry with the other Commissioners in the Athens Banner Herald. Also, we do have a vested interest in this. The precedent that the M & C set in this issue will go on to affect how things are done down the road in Cobbham, Five Points, Boulevard, and all over Athens.
Backwards spit goes here. Also, pissog and spoocs.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Voter ID Bill, some food for thought
Ok. I've been taking a lot of heat on this one, so I want to strip away the rhetoric, and explain very clearly why I'm so opposed to this law. Don't worry, I don't expect to convert anyone over, but I hope everyone who is reading, and the few who are commenting, are going to look at this with an open mind.
There are actually a number of reasons, but I'm going to limit myself to four; one social, one political, one civil libertarian, and one Constitutional. That should be a wide enough spectrum for everyone to get good and irate.
The social reason is this. For a lot of folks, it isn't as simple as traipsing down to one's local DMV and getting an ID. In previous posts, I pointed out that the DMV in Athens isn't exactly accessible, unless you have a car, or someone to drive you. Fact is, that here in Athens, we're fairly lucky in that we actually have a DMV in the county.
Put yourself in the shoes of a senior citizen, who's living on a fixed income. And by senior, I mean really senior. You don't have a car; perhaps you're too old to drive, maybe you just can't afford one. Doesn't matter, since the bus can take you to the doctor, pharmacy, senior center, grocery store, whatever.
Who's going to take you to the DMV for that ID, if you don't have one? Friends? Family? Don't count on it, because not everybody has that kind of a network. I know from experience that there are folks out there who don't.
So again, who's taking you to the DMV? And what if you live in a rural county and the DMV is 30 or 45 minutes away or more?
I can hear the scorn now. I've created a hypothetical situation so narrow that, while it proves my point, it just isn't reflective of reality. Fair enough, but ask yourself this. It is possible that there might even be one person in Georgia in this situation? If so, (and I think that's pretty likely), then you've got to ask yourself, if just one person is disenfranchised, then what kind of damage are we doing to our liberty and our representative democracy? It’s a slippery slope, and one that I, for one, would like to stay far away from the precipice of.
Moving on to the political reason I oppose this. I think, as do many others, that this law was entirely politically motivated. If voter fraud was such a huge issue, why haven't I seen legislation to stop interest groups from handing out "tickets" or "sample ballots?" (Such legislation, by the way, would create its own Constitutional issues, but I'll refrain from getting into that.) For that matter, why no bills to stop the practice of circulating fliers around minority neighborhoods that state flatly that in order to vote you have to be paid up on your child support payments, or not be behind in utility bills, or some such nonsense. I've personally seen those tactics employed in two cities in Georgia (neither was Athens). The same folks who do that also occasionally flier neighborhoods giving the wrong day for voting, but if you're a citizen in a representative democracy you shouldn't fall for that crap, so I'm not going to give anyone a pass on that.
Back to my point. Both "sample ballots" and misleading fliering affect tens if not hundreds or thousands of votes. At the most, voting under a fake name affects one vote. If the GOP were serious about preventing voter fraud, why weren't measures to stop this kind of thing even suggested? Attached as an amendment? I submit that the GOP is very motivated by political ends in passing this bill. And again, we know these fliers are going out, we know that "street money" (which I didn't mention above) is used, we know that "sample ballots," while legal, are certainly misleading. But no noise about that?
The civil libertarian argument. I'll keep it short and sweet. If you're part of the spectrum of people, from Bob Barr to the ACLU, who questioned or opposed all or part of the Patriot Act, then I expect you to be on my side on this one too. Why? Forcing people to get government issued ID cards. I hear you out there. Driver's licenses are required. Yep, they sure are. But here's the thing. Driving is a privilege. If you abuse the privilege (for instance by driving drunk), you lose it. Voting is a right. And, here’s another slippery slope argument to go along with this. It’s a state-issued ID to vote today, what will we have to have one for tomorrow? What basic right will be threatened next?
Finally, what I think is the strongest argument - the Constitutional argument. Now, I'm no Robert Byrd, but like him, I do keep a copy of the Holy Bible and the United States Constitution within easy reach. (Would that more of our elected officials would do the same!) He keeps his in his coat pockets, mine are near the desk. I'll let the Constitution speak for itself. (Don't worry, liberal friends, I'll keep the scripture for another day.)
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There you have it. Key phrases here are, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and "to form a more perfect Union." I would submit that if even one person is disenfranchised by this law, we have failed to fully secure the blessings of liberty, and our union is less perfect as a result.
But here's the real meat of the Constitutional argument, your friend and mine, the 14th Amendment.
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime…"
Now before you get snarky, the "male inhabitants" part is of course, no longer operative.
The operative part is the phrase about not denying the right to vote to anyone, unless they've participated in "rebellion, or other crime." Last time I checked, being poor was not a crime. Neither was failing to get a state-issued ID. And the net result of this bill is that people will, through the bureaucracy that comes from stuff like this, be denied the right (and I cannot stress the word "right" enough) to vote. In fact, it's probably already happened.
There you have it. A long comment, a social argument, a political argument, a civil libertarian argument, and a Constitutional argument. To counter those, all I've heard is "people should just go get a stupid ID! What's the BFD?" I'd submit that's not good enough.
I’d also point out that if you’re a woman or a minority, you haven’t had the right to vote for very long, historically speaking. Over the course of history, people have fought for that right, in the streets of Boston and in the streets of Birmingham, and more places too numerous to mention here, and personally speaking, I can’t conscience any attempts to limit that right. The right to choose our representation is one of the most basic rights we have.
But hey, I'm realistic, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I do hope though that people who read this will at least think about the points I've made, and realize that this is about more than just people being too lazy to go get an ID.
Thanks for reading.
There are actually a number of reasons, but I'm going to limit myself to four; one social, one political, one civil libertarian, and one Constitutional. That should be a wide enough spectrum for everyone to get good and irate.
The social reason is this. For a lot of folks, it isn't as simple as traipsing down to one's local DMV and getting an ID. In previous posts, I pointed out that the DMV in Athens isn't exactly accessible, unless you have a car, or someone to drive you. Fact is, that here in Athens, we're fairly lucky in that we actually have a DMV in the county.
Put yourself in the shoes of a senior citizen, who's living on a fixed income. And by senior, I mean really senior. You don't have a car; perhaps you're too old to drive, maybe you just can't afford one. Doesn't matter, since the bus can take you to the doctor, pharmacy, senior center, grocery store, whatever.
Who's going to take you to the DMV for that ID, if you don't have one? Friends? Family? Don't count on it, because not everybody has that kind of a network. I know from experience that there are folks out there who don't.
So again, who's taking you to the DMV? And what if you live in a rural county and the DMV is 30 or 45 minutes away or more?
I can hear the scorn now. I've created a hypothetical situation so narrow that, while it proves my point, it just isn't reflective of reality. Fair enough, but ask yourself this. It is possible that there might even be one person in Georgia in this situation? If so, (and I think that's pretty likely), then you've got to ask yourself, if just one person is disenfranchised, then what kind of damage are we doing to our liberty and our representative democracy? It’s a slippery slope, and one that I, for one, would like to stay far away from the precipice of.
Moving on to the political reason I oppose this. I think, as do many others, that this law was entirely politically motivated. If voter fraud was such a huge issue, why haven't I seen legislation to stop interest groups from handing out "tickets" or "sample ballots?" (Such legislation, by the way, would create its own Constitutional issues, but I'll refrain from getting into that.) For that matter, why no bills to stop the practice of circulating fliers around minority neighborhoods that state flatly that in order to vote you have to be paid up on your child support payments, or not be behind in utility bills, or some such nonsense. I've personally seen those tactics employed in two cities in Georgia (neither was Athens). The same folks who do that also occasionally flier neighborhoods giving the wrong day for voting, but if you're a citizen in a representative democracy you shouldn't fall for that crap, so I'm not going to give anyone a pass on that.
Back to my point. Both "sample ballots" and misleading fliering affect tens if not hundreds or thousands of votes. At the most, voting under a fake name affects one vote. If the GOP were serious about preventing voter fraud, why weren't measures to stop this kind of thing even suggested? Attached as an amendment? I submit that the GOP is very motivated by political ends in passing this bill. And again, we know these fliers are going out, we know that "street money" (which I didn't mention above) is used, we know that "sample ballots," while legal, are certainly misleading. But no noise about that?
The civil libertarian argument. I'll keep it short and sweet. If you're part of the spectrum of people, from Bob Barr to the ACLU, who questioned or opposed all or part of the Patriot Act, then I expect you to be on my side on this one too. Why? Forcing people to get government issued ID cards. I hear you out there. Driver's licenses are required. Yep, they sure are. But here's the thing. Driving is a privilege. If you abuse the privilege (for instance by driving drunk), you lose it. Voting is a right. And, here’s another slippery slope argument to go along with this. It’s a state-issued ID to vote today, what will we have to have one for tomorrow? What basic right will be threatened next?
Finally, what I think is the strongest argument - the Constitutional argument. Now, I'm no Robert Byrd, but like him, I do keep a copy of the Holy Bible and the United States Constitution within easy reach. (Would that more of our elected officials would do the same!) He keeps his in his coat pockets, mine are near the desk. I'll let the Constitution speak for itself. (Don't worry, liberal friends, I'll keep the scripture for another day.)
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There you have it. Key phrases here are, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and "to form a more perfect Union." I would submit that if even one person is disenfranchised by this law, we have failed to fully secure the blessings of liberty, and our union is less perfect as a result.
But here's the real meat of the Constitutional argument, your friend and mine, the 14th Amendment.
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime…"
Now before you get snarky, the "male inhabitants" part is of course, no longer operative.
The operative part is the phrase about not denying the right to vote to anyone, unless they've participated in "rebellion, or other crime." Last time I checked, being poor was not a crime. Neither was failing to get a state-issued ID. And the net result of this bill is that people will, through the bureaucracy that comes from stuff like this, be denied the right (and I cannot stress the word "right" enough) to vote. In fact, it's probably already happened.
There you have it. A long comment, a social argument, a political argument, a civil libertarian argument, and a Constitutional argument. To counter those, all I've heard is "people should just go get a stupid ID! What's the BFD?" I'd submit that's not good enough.
I’d also point out that if you’re a woman or a minority, you haven’t had the right to vote for very long, historically speaking. Over the course of history, people have fought for that right, in the streets of Boston and in the streets of Birmingham, and more places too numerous to mention here, and personally speaking, I can’t conscience any attempts to limit that right. The right to choose our representation is one of the most basic rights we have.
But hey, I'm realistic, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I do hope though that people who read this will at least think about the points I've made, and realize that this is about more than just people being too lazy to go get an ID.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)