Today’s hearing was a procedural battle of wills. In one corner, Raymond Johnson, attorney for Mattie Childress, Gaynell Hendricks’ mother-in-law. In the other corner, Ed Still and Bobby Segall, attorneys for Patricia Todd. The crowd was larger than last week’s and appeared to be fairly evenly divided by candidate. Unfortunately, it was almost completely segregated by race. After all the accusations, it came down to whether a 1974 party rule that has not been enforced for years should take precedence over the 1988 state law that superceded it.
The 1974 party rule requires all candidates to file financial disclosures with the Democratic Party. It also states that the party cannot certify a nominee who does not file the report before the set deadline. The 1988 Fair Campaign Practices Act requires candidates to file financial disclosures with the Secretary of State’s office. The Supreme Court has ruled that a candidate who files after the statutory deadline but before the election may face a fine but will not be disqualified. Only a candidate who fails to file at all or files on or after election day will face disqualification. While neither candidate filed financial disclosure forms with the state Democratic Party, Ms. Hendricks’ attorney insisted that Patricia Todd should be disqualified because she did what every other candidate did and filed her forms with the Secretary of State’s office – as required by state law. Executive Director Jim Spearman testified that no candidate filed financial disclosures with the party.
The original contest filing referenced the state law and challenged Patricia’s victory on that basis. An amended contest was filed after the statutory deadline that changed the grounds for the challenge to party rules, and Ed Still made a motion that the amended contest filing be dismissed. It’s currently under advisement, along with everything else.
Fairly early in the proceedings, both sides agreed to drop any dispute over the vote totals certified by the party and the Secretary of State’s office. Patricia’s 59-vote advantage stands. They also dropped any challenge based on confusion over endorsements. If you’re following along in the original contest filing, that means paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were rendered moot. Paragraph 4 was the only one still in contention (there is no paragraph 5).
So the question for the subcommittee was whether it will selectively enforce a rule that has been superceded by state law. Ed Still made a motion that the subcommittee dissolve itself since all of its members had been on the ballot and no member had complied with the rule. His motion was denied.
Ms. Hendricks’ attorney didn’t seem to get the point that disqualifying Patricia based on the old party rule would also disqualify Ms. Hendricks, not to mention that it would disqualify virtually the entire Democratic slate.
Ed Still made it clear in his closing that he knows Ms. Hendricks has powerful supporters, but he appealed to the committee to respect the will of the people. Bobby Segall reminded us that the party has suffered from the perception that elections can be overturned on the whim of a few people.
Jerome Tucker, who was by far the most vocal committee member and appeared to be biased toward Ms. Hendricks, disputed the contention that the Democratic Party had abandoned the rule on financial disclosures in favor of following state law. He kept saying that the law is the law, and it can’t be superceded unless it’s officially changed. Mr. Segall pointed out that Amendment 111 technically remains the law of Alabama. That amendment gives a parent the absolute right to refuse to send his or her child to school with children of another race. I believe it was superceded by Brown v. Board of Education.
The Hendricks people are asking for selective application of a rule that hasn’t been used in eighteen years, and Bobby Segall made it clear that we all realize this is about race. He asked us not to sweep that under the rug. He asked, “What are we going to look like if we overturn a fair election?” He asked the committee members to act like Democrats and stand up for voting rights.
The committee adjourned the hearing around 5 pm and started its deliberation. Patricia’s attorneys expect that they will reach a decision tonight, and Mr. Segall made it clear that he thinks today’s hearing was a setup. He expects the dispute to go to court. Goody. More bad press for Alabama and the Democratic Party.
Committee members included Amy Burks (state party vice-chair), Darrell Sinkfield, Jerome Tucker, Monica Arrington, and Glenn Allen. We were not given a written list, so I make no promises on the spelling, nor were we told who these people are or how they are qualified to serve on the committee. Mr. Still made reference during his argument that all of them were elected officials and were therefore in danger of disqualification. Mr. Segall said he knew them all and knew the political pressures they were facing.
I have done lots of previous posts on this mess, and you can read them here. For good background information on the election and the contest, read Kyle Whitmire’s coverage in the Birmingham Weekly.
As soon as I hear the result, I’ll post it.
Thanks so much for that update — it’s much appreciated.
I hate to have to ask this question but, given the barely-disguised undertones of this whole affair, it’s quite an important one: what was the racial make-up of the committee members?
I should have mentioned that. Three black, two white.
Great. . .
Thanks for the report and cross-post, Kathy. I agree, this sounds like it will end up in court.
So once again racism rears its ugly head in Alabama. What irony. Bull Connor must be laughing in hell.
The Montgomery Advertiser is reporting that both Hendricks and Todd have been disqualified.
I’m covering this story over at my blog:
Pink Panthers Blog!
I’m interested in this because it seems to have the issues of sexual orientation versus racism. It seems to me this particular case provides a good argument that sexual orientation truly is the last institutionalized discrimination in America. I would be interested to note whether or not the Alabama Democratic Party would have challenged the winner if both had been African American? This is should be really embarassing for any intelligent Democrat in Alabama and the national DNC should get involved and ensure the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and that the Democratic Party is not HYPOCRITICAL when it comes to VOTER’S RIGHTS.
As one of the voters from District 54 I did not vote on race or sexual preference, nor did any of my neighbors from whom I heard about the candidates. Those researching opinions in Crestwood North may be able to find some informative conversations archived at groups.yahoo.com/Crestwood_North. Personally I felt we had a strong slate of good candidates, and the primary produced the best of them in the runoff. Events since the runoff election have given me pause regarding one of the candidates, however.
Thanks for explaining the mess for us layfolk. I have to say that the sentence “There is no paragraph 5″ made me laugh out loud.
What the ‘F’ is going on in Alabama’s Democratic party? Who is this Joe Reed and how can we get in touch with him? The bit I’ve read about him reminds me why we as Democrats are losing elections…(read: Crashing the Gates to understand this statement).
Seems this committee made itself the Katherine Harris of District 54.
Democrats outside your state are watching all of this and just rubbing our heads…let’s pray that Saturday will sort all of this out and Ms. Todd can go on with the full support of the community. Good luck and God bless.
Alabama has had its share of embarrassments throughout its history, from idiots like Bull Conner, opportunists like George Wallace, the whole Graddick fiasco that turned over our state Governorships to Republicans, Fob James monkey walk and now this. It is hard to say which of these is the worst, but having the Democratic Party annul the election results based upon a law that has never been enforced, and if so would eliminate all of Alabama’s current candidates and office holders from office…. I just can’t wrap my brain around the sheer stupidity of it.
The logic is so tortured that a high school student would consider it beneath them to even try this approach….
A law from the 70’s that was superceded in the 80’s and that NO DEMOCRAT EVER FOLLOWS, including all sitting Democrats and all other current primary winners, is all of the sudden applicable to this one primary only????? The logic is even more tortured from the Hendricks side!!! They want only Patricia to be disqualified and not them…. because they brought it up as an issue and Patricia didn’t? This is the current thinking processes of the power brokers of the Alabama Democratic Party? Pathetic
This is the first time in years where the Democratic Party could take advantage of the wholesale corruption and worthlessness of the current brand of Republicans in office and then these clowns try to one-up them? This is beyond embarrassing….
Finally! Another state is starting to remove the dunce’s cap from Florida’s head! Maybe people will stop talking about how stupid Florida’s voters are and start talking about how corrupt and lacking in intelligence and competence the Alabama Democrats are turning out to be.
[...] Kathy continues her reporting on the race here, here, here, and here. Explore posts in the same categories: Elections, Corrupt Politicians, Alabama Legislature [...]
I read the NY Times story too. We in Montgomery are having what is turning out to be a race-based issue regarding our school superintendent, Carlinda Purcell. As best as I could figure out, it started as a personnel issue and now the city is divided along racial lines. I’ve been posting on my blog about our trouble and have noticed the connection to your situation in Birmingham. Seems to be one Joe Reed. As a Yellow Dog Democrat, I am disappointed to see that a duly elected candidate is being treated this way. No wonder we are losing power.
Sheila, my brother was telling me about the problems with the school superintendent. What a surprise to know that Joe Reed is in the middle of it…
I’ve tried to get people over at Daily Kos interested, but they are only interested in being anti-Republican. Corruption in the Democrat ranks doesn’t seem to interest them.
In any case, I’ve posted the info on DK, and called the ‘Bama Democratic Party. This whole thing is embarrassing, not only for the Democratic Party, but blacks in Alabama should be ashamed too. What do Jerome Tucker and Joe Reed think this is, Nigeria or Zimbabwe run by people like Robert Mugabe?
Well, I was happy to hear the Party reversed the decision.
[...] HD 54’s march toward court continues… Kathy at Birmingham Blues has a good write-up of the happenings at today’s hearing. [...]