District 54 Hearing Rescheduled – Really

UPDATE:  Let the state Democratic Party know what you think.  Email Joe Turnham, party chair, or call party headquarters (334) 262-2221. 

The contest hearing for District 54 has been rescheduled for Thursday at 2:00 pm.  Despite the fact that all the citizens affected live in Birmingham, the hearing will be in Montgomery (same place as before).  I’m wondering if the later time means the party is hoping for lower turnout — or maybe that’s just too cynical.  I’m also wondering how many committee members are beholden to Joe Reed.

9 Responses to “District 54 Hearing Rescheduled – Really”

  1. The Dirt says:

    Many many thanks for keeping this story covered. If Patricia’s win is overturned it will be a mighty blow for gay folks in Alabama, and further coarsening of race relations. Let’s hope the Democrats come to their senses and end this on Thursday.

  2. Kathy says:

    I hope Thursday is the end of it.

  3. [...] Joe Reed, as many of you know, is a founder of the Alabama Democratic Conference as well as an assistant executive director with the AEA. His influence among Democratic party leaders is vast, and he doesn’t like Chris England. Why? Because England’s father, John England, is a local judge who helped form the New South Coalition more than 20 years ago. The New South Coalition rivals the Alabama Democratic Conference. It is also looking like Reed is set to hand-pick the nominee for House District 54, where Patricia Todd was named the winner over Gaynell Hendricks. Kathy has the details on this one, but it’s the same story. As Kathy points out, even though the primary voters of Birmingham picked a nominee and even though the district, the constituents and the candidate live in Birmingham, a meeting in Montgomery of party officials in Montgomery will ultimately decide the winner. A group of officals, I should add, who may be under the influence of Joe Reed. [...]

  4. [...] It is also looking like Reed is set to hand-pick the nominee for House District 54, where Patricia Todd was named the winner over Gaynell Hendricks. Kathy has the details on this one, but it’s the same story. As Kathy points out, even though the primary voters of Birmingham picked a nominee and even though the district, the constituents and the candidate live in Birmingham, a meeting of party officials in Montgomery will ultimately decide the winner. A group of officals, I should add, who may be under the influence of Joe Reed. Reed highly endorsed Hendricks in the primary election. [...]

  5. Del says:

    I hate to show my ignorance, but here goes: does this mean that Joe and his “committee” just get to pick a different candidate if they don’t agree with the primary results? I had thought Ms. Hendricks was attempting to contest some irregularity in the vote count or something.

  6. Kathy says:

    That’s the purported charge, Del, but the party has already certified the result and recorded it with the Secretary of State. No one really thinks there were voting irregularities. The more I hear, the more it sounds like Gaynell Hendricks just assumed the seat would fall in her lap and didn’t work hard enough to win it. Joe Reed endorsed her, he wants a black person in the seat, and he doesn’t like to lose.

  7. You’re exactly right, Kathy. Hendricks is the Lieberman of Alabama – a sore loser who thought she was entitled to a position because of the color of her skin. She has skimpy Democrat credentials at best, while Todd has been active in the party for years. What’s really sad is that this race has demonstrated that at least on a small scale Birmingham citizens are willing to go beyond skin color and truly judge someone on the content of their character. And the people who purport to hold MLK Jr as a role model? They’re playing the race card.

    On a slightly different topic but still elections: I was at a meeting last night where several judicial candidates spoke, and every one that approached me to hand me literature, I told them I was only voting for Democrats. The response from the Republican candidates was “vote for the person, not the party.” A year ago, the response would have been “you must be a traitorious gay abortionist.” Times have changed!

  8. Del says:

    So the party has certified the result, but now they’re trying to take it back? How bizarre. It’s amazing that these people have the face to go through with this performance.

    I wonder if Joe et al. would be quite so po’ed if Patricia were white, but heterosexual. IOW, we could stand losing to a white woman, but we’ll be d*mned if we’ll lose to a lesbian. (I keep trying to imagine what “uglier” terms might have been used in that nasty flier you spoke of, Kathy. I wish you would email me privately and let me know. All kinds of things are running in my head.)

    We recently had a similar but reversed situation in the Mobile mayoral election—first three whites and one black man competing, then a run-off between the black guy and one of the white candidates. He assumed he’d get all of the white vote and win easily. But he was wrong, and now Mobile has its first black mayor. As Lisa said, it’s encouraging when people really are willing to go beyond skin color.

  9. Lisa says:

    I can not believe these african americans are not on the news being called what they are BIGOTS…..and the kind thats truly dispicable!!!!! HOW DEAR THEY……I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ANOTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN IF THEY DECIDE TO TAKE THIS WOMANS POSITION JUST BECAUSE SHE IS WHITE….SHE GOT VOTED IN PEOPLE GET IT!!!!!ALSO I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR DEFAMATION …I FIND THIS OFFENSIVE!!! AND IF THE BLACK DEMACRATES DONT LIKE IT JOIN THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE BIGOTS LIKE YOU!!!!

Leave a Reply