Troy King, taking it to the hoop

The Chastang mess (Riley appointed a county commissioner instead of allowing a special election, long legal battle, eventual triumph of lawsuit based on violation of Voting Rights Act) is going to the Supreme Court. Not the Alabama Supreme Court—it’s already been there. The US one.

 Y’all, this is not about Mobile County, or even Alabama. This is about the Voting Rights Act. I just wonder how long this particular plan of legal campaign has been mapped out . Maybe this explains Riley’s otherwise inexplicable decision to pursue a similar, and presumably similarly doomed, appointment in Jefferson County. And maybe it explains the Press-Register’s curious silence on the recent Mobile County election—the one where Merceria Ludgood defeated Mr. Chastang by a margin too generous to be called a landslide.  She’s in now, like Flynn as the expression goes, and there doesn’t seem to be any question of Chastang somehow retaining the seat.

No, this is all about “state’s rights.”  

King said he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the federal judges’ order was in essence telling the state to disobey its own Supreme Court.

“You have a federal Justice Department and federal judges saying to the state of Alabama that they are determining that a statute the Alabama Supreme Court said was unconstitutional has to be followed simply because of a decision they made,” he said. “It’s an insult to states’ rights, and it is a dangerous precedent.

 The attorney who filed the Voting Rights Act-based lawsuit against Riley in the first place is “confident” that the Supremes will back up the lower court’s ruling. Gardner said he believes the justices agreed to hear the case only because they want to make sure there is a clear precedent set. 

Hmmm. Precedent. There’s that word again. “And that precedent will be in our favor,” [Gardner] said.

I wonder.

7 Responses to “Troy King, taking it to the hoop”

  1. Kathy says:

    Why exactly do Troy King and Bob Riley have such a problem with allowing the people in a particular district of a particular county to vote for their own representation? Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to give the appointment power to the governor in the first place? I’m not a fan of Larry Langford, but that doesn’t mean the governor should have the authority to choose his successor in violation of county law, which, if IIRC, is supposed to outweigh the state statute.

    (I readily admit I haven’t researched the background of the statute, and I’m going by what I’ve read in the news. I’m also aware that the federal court’s decision in the Mobile case was based on the Voting Rights Act, not the state statute and its apparent exception for counties that had pre-existing legislation governing special elections.)

    Good to hear Troy’s beating the old “states’ rights” drum. He sounds remarkably similar to Fob James, who determined that the US Bill of Rights didn’t apply to Alabama. And, like Fob, he will play very well with a certain segment of the population that continues to define us as the Make Me State.

  2. Bill says:

    Next thing you know, they’ll be freeing our slaves.

  3. Del says:

    I think Troy and Bob are just pawns here in a larger movement to overturn the Voting Rights Act, or at least damage it, after the Congressional effort failed.

  4. HotShot says:

    I agree with Del, I believe the Roberts Court is going to overturn the Voting Rights Act.

  5. ALmod says:

    I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but when I was harping on how the people of Argo should have been given a special election to replace their city council and mayor as opposed to Riley’s appointments, and when I was harping on about how the city of Argo was fighting against a vote of the people regarding annexation…

    This was a situation sure to follow. And there will likely be more.

    Hopefully, this situation will catch more attention than the previous situation with Argo, in which the people were ultimately not allowed a vote of any kind. The fact of the matter is that if we are to have any semblance of a representative government, then the people must decide who represents them. Period.

  6. Kathy says:

    ALMod, I hope you’re right that this situation will get more attention. I think it’s at least marginally possible that Riley will appoint a Democrat in this case (current Bham City Councilor Roderick Royal is lobbying hard for the position), and that might prevent major outcry from the citizens of the district. But it shouldn’t matter whether or not Riley appoints the “right” person in any given district; the voters should vote, as you say, period.

    Del, you’re scaring me, and reminding me just how important it is to stand up for the voters in what might seem to be small, unrelated cases. The precedents start adding up quickly.

  7. [...] and they just now ruled in favor of Riley. I have posted about this before on the Blues (here and here) and also on Thomason Tracts, offering my opinion that this is about a Larger Issue than who [...]

Leave a Reply