And the story made the New York Times. The Alabama Democratic party leadership is trying to commit political suicide. I just hope the Executive Committee performs an intervention tomorrow.
Pictures courtesy of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.
On left, Patricia Todd with her attorneys — On right, Gaynell Hendricks and Mattie Childress with their attorney
The crowd at the hearing
He is pissed! And well he should be. The State Democratic Executive Committee should overturn the ridiculous decision of the subcommittee and uphold Patricia Todd’s election. Saturday’s meeting will be interesting.
…is here.
Thanks, Loretta! This is what I missed while driving back from Montgomery. Unbelievable! Apparently the committee decided to disqualify both candidates for violating an archaic party rule — which every other Democratic candidate violated as well — and the Executive Committee will hand pick someone else to run. Of course, this supposedly doesn’t affect any other candidates because their races were already certified, but so was this one.
I doubt this is over.
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to whether a 1974 party rule that has not been enforced for years should take precedence over the 1988 state law that superceded it.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.
The Birmingham News has a fairly long article this morning highlighting the District 54 election contest. It finally mentions something I’ve been pointing out for some time: the Victory Fund contribution that Ms. Hendricks is so worked up about came primarily from local sources. This was no stealth contribution from the “outside agitators” that we love to hate here.
The Victory Fund said that 63 percent of the money it gave to Todd came from Alabama-based sources. It offered a 2-to-1 matching program, where it promised to double every dollar donated for Todd, who had become a high priority for the organization. The fund works to elect lesbian and gay candidates in every state.
I think my favorite part, though, is Jerome Gray’s twisted logic for the attempt to overturn Patricia’s election.
In 2000, the district was drawn with a 63 percent black majority. In the years since, gentrification has shrunk that proportion, and some estimate the current black population at about 50 percent. In his letter endorsing Hendricks, [Joe] Reed warned black community leaders that if they elected a white candidate, the district could be redrawn without a black majority.
“If a district became a Republican district, Republicans would fight like the dickens to keep the district Republican,” said Jerome Gray, field Director for the ADC. “The same is true if a district is majority black. Black activists and black leaders are going to fight for the dickens to keep it majority black.”
While some have attacked the ADC’s stance as reverse racism, Gray said that white Democrats simply will not spearhead the same issues as their black counterparts. He gave the restoration of felony voting rights as an example.
Interestingly, Republicans are frequently suspected these days (rightly or wrongly) of trying to suppress voting and steal elections. Does that make it okay for the ADC to do it? Anyway, given Gray’s reasoning, it seems the ADC should have pushed a biracial candidate. And why does he think that a wealthy businesswoman who until recently lived in Mountain Brook is going to represent the interests of the people of District 54 better than a woman who has lived in the district for years and is known for her work on social justice issues? It doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m going to Montgomery for the District 54 contest hearing. It’s scheduled for 2 pm; perhaps it will actually occur this time. I’ll post ASAP.
Danny at Doc’s Political Parlor has a good source and some interesting predictions for the outcome of this hearing:
A source-who-is-more-connected-than-most told me that Joe Turnham and Joe Reed have reached a compromise that Turnham can grudgingly stomach regarding who will sit on the hearing committee tomorrow to determine the winner of the House District 54 Democratic primary. The source did not know who would sit on the committee.
The source also believed that the committee’s ruling tomorrow might come down in favor of Gaynelle Hendricks rather than the originally declared winner Patricia Todd. However, the source added that tomorrow’s ruling will not matter so much because whoever loses the hearing is expected to appeal to the party’s Executive Committee that meets on Saturday. The source believes that Saturday is when the key decision will be made. Indeed, I am told that some supporters of the candidates wish to pack the Saturday meeting to observe and/or influence the ultimate proceedings and decision rather than to attend tomorrow’s meeting.
The source’s belief was that the facts of the matter were in Todd’s favor, and that if the ruling went against her after Reed’s publicized and heavyhanded attempts to influence the outcome, it could be a P.R. disaster for the party.
Yeah, I know this was a close election, but a winning margin of 59 votes is still a winning margin. Close doesn’t give the loser the right to a do-over. And even though the contest papers claim Patricia Todd received “illegal” votes, that particular accusation seems perfunctory. It isn’t the real focus of the dispute. Because of the memory card screwup, the votes were carefully recounted on election night, and Jefferson County party officials had no problem certifying the result. Joe Reed will have to find another pretext to take the election away from the winner.
I persist in the naive hope that party officials will do the right thing, but Danny’s source echoes the pessimism I’ve picked up from Todd supporters. Clearly this won’t end today. I just hope it ends well, eventually.
UPDATE: It turns out the national organization was in the process of dumping the Alabama chapter because John Giles can’t follow the rules, particularly when it comes to his precious voter guides. Could we see a visit from the IRS in his future (oh please, oh please, oh please)? Wheeler has the story at Alablawg.
This is pretty funny. The Christian Coalition of Alabama is leaving the national organization because, apparently, it has become too liberal. In a press release today, John Giles, Supreme Exalted Ruler – I mean President, said:
“I have been commissioned and authorized by the Board of Directors of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, Inc. to notify you as Chairman and President of the Christian Coalition of America of our plans to change the name of our state organization.”…
“In every major public policy debate, it is almost guaranteed that the liberal forces opposing our view will try to redefine who we are and feverishly attempt to amend our tenets and mission. The Christian Coalition of America has demonstrated by their actions in word and in deed a desire to drift from our founding tenets. The Christian Coalition of America has left us, we have not left them,” Giles concluded.
Giles doesn’t specify exactly how the national organization has sinned, but one thing could be its support for tax reform in Alabama. That’s a no-no as far as he’s concerned.
The CC of Alabama is planning to unveil a new name and logo on November 1. Loretta Nall wants to help them with their task, and she’s offering her readers the opportunity to suggest new names for the organization. If you’d like to help out, click here. My favorite one so far is the We Hate Fags and Women More Than You Do Coalition.
Hat tip, Blues reader Ken.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Montana) wants to stop illegal immigration, but it seems he has no problem hiring illegal immigrants — or at least making stupid jokes about it.
A new video released this week by his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, shows Burns, 71, joking to a crowd in June about how a “nice little Guatemalan man” fixing up his house might be an illegal immigrant. “Could I see your green card?” Burns tells the crowd he asked the man. “And Hugo, says, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Oh, gosh.’ ”
A Burns spokesman said the senator never really doubted the legal status of the handyman, Hugo Reyes. But it wasn’t the only time Burns — a critic of illegal immigration — has poked fun at the immigrants doing work around his house.
One week after the green-card crack, Burns recounted in a debate how after watching an interview on television of an illegal immigrant headed to Virginia for work, “I told my roofer, you better go out and get your help, or you won’t get my house roofed.”
Yep — he loves him some cheap labor, but no way will he support a path to citizenship for the people who roof his house or cut his grass or serve his food in the local restaurants. BTW, this is the same guy who criticized firefighters who were battling wildfires in Montana this summer and who charmingly referred to Arabs as “ragheads” in a speech seven years ago.
In a moment of unusual candor for a veteran senator fighting for his political life, Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) offered this blunt self-assessment a few months ago: “I can self-destruct in one sentence,” he told supporters. “Sometimes in one word.”
Bonus Foot In Mouth:
Also on tape are comments by Wisconsin GOP House candidate Paul R. Nelson, which critics have said are similarly racially insensitive. Nelson, who is running against Rep. Ron Kind (D), has called for racial profiling as a way to tighten airport security. When asked by a radio interviewer how to identify a Muslim male, Nelson said: “Well, you know, if he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Muhammad, that’s a good start.”
UPDATE: W is going to Virginia tomorrow to raise money for Allen. They deserve each other.
There’s been so much excitement going on here in Alabama lately that I haven’t been covering some of the national news, including the incredibly rude and racist remarks by Sen. George Allen (R-redneck). Seems Sen. Allen was so shocked to see a nonwhite face at one of his re-election rallies that he referred to S. R. Sidarth, an American of Indian descent who works for his opponent’s campaign, as ”macaca”, not once but twice. (He also told the Virginia native, “Welcome to America.”) “Macaca” is a racial slur used in North Africa, where (just by coincidence, I’m sure) Sen. Allen’s mother was raised. The Senator first wanted us to believe that he was trying, and failing twice, to say “mohawk”. Then he wanted us to believe that he made up a word on the spot that just happens to be the same as a racial slur used in North Africa. Now he’s letting his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, speak for him:
To: GOP leaders/Allen campaign leadership
From: Dick Wadhams, Campaign Manager
Re: Notes on a tough week
August 19, 2006I think it is obvious that this past week was difficult one for Senator and Mrs. Allen and the campaign. It is very clear that the news media created what they call a “feeding frenzy”, with the Washington Post alone doing major stories on the same issue for 5 consecutive days.
Literally putting words into Senator Allen’s mouth that he did not say (by speculating, defining and attributing meanings and motives that simply are not true), the Webb campaign and the news media seeming worked hand-in-hand to create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the first place.
Even after Senator Allen apologized to the Webb campaign staffer in specific, and to anyone who may have been offended in general, the news media continued to print and re-print the same speculations and inaccurate portrayals of Senator Allen’s comments. Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified in a desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking - the Webb campaign.
Senator Allen has said that his comments were a mistake. Who among us has not made mistakes? In fact, how many of us could put in the hours of work, travel, meetings, campaigning, etc. that Senator Allen has over the years and make as few mistakes as he has?…
And on and on, ad nauseum. Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified? Exaggerate much? And this was something that didn’t warrant coverage in the first place? Why, of course not! Senate candidates should be free to spew racist garbage whenever they want, without fear that their words may end up on the nightly news. Sen. Allen is the real victim here. Just ask him.
I think Sen. Allen and Mr. Wadhams should share this week’s W(hiny)A(ss)T(itty)B(aby) Award.
Hat tip to MyDD, via Democratic Underground.