Tag: John Marek

Categories
News Blog News Feature Politics Beat Blog Uncategorized

SCDP Gets Setback in Battle to Ban “Official Sample Ballots”

Once more, with for-profit sample ballots flooding the inner city on the eve of election, the Democratic Party cried “foul” and took what it regarded as the chief offender to court on Thursday..

Jake Brown represented the party, as he had back in February, 2021, when special judge William Acree of Jackson levied a permanent injunction against several  balloteers, prohibiting them from insinuating that their published for-profit publications had official connections to the Democratic Party, whether local, state, or federal. Brown was assisted on Thursday by John Marek, a lawyer and former candidate who had been a party to the Democrats’  prior action. 

In the earlier legal action, there had been several defendants. This time the plaintiffs named only one, veteran ballot entrepreneur Greg Grant.

And, while  Brown acknowledged that the crunch of time and the supposed singularity of Grant’s offenses were factors in limiting the party’s request for a temporary restraining order to Grant’s work, that act of singling-out damaged their hopes for immediate action

After some two hours of testimony from Brown, Marek, and Grant’s lawyer Julian Bolton, the judge — once again Acree —  declined to issue a T.R.O., evidently accepting Bolton’s argument that other ballot publishers had also, as Grant had, used variants of the word “Democrat” and “official,” but were omitted from the litigation.

Grant was named in the suit, Brown explained, because his artwork had featured a donkey, generally regarded as a Democratic symbol, along with the word “official,” under the auspices of Grant’s shell company, the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club,” as it was described on the ballot. “We didn’t like some of the other ballots, but his [Grant’s] is the one we’re objecting to,” said Brown.

Bolton was able to show that other, untargeted balloteers also used the word ‘Democratic” and/or “official” on their products.

All of the various entrepreneurs  sell spaces on their ballots to candidates, and that’s all the “endorsements” they get on the ballots, along with their mug shots, amounts to.

Thursday’s court session was held in Criminal Court, where special Judge Acree was hearing other cases, and he did set a date in June to arraign Grant on the charge of violating the injunction he issued last year. That would be criminal contempt, and it could involve jail time if Grant is convicted..

Meanwhile,with the May 3rd Democratic primary slated to come and go in in the  interim, there is evidently nothing to stop Grant or the other balloteers from continuing to mail out or hand out — and profit from — their versions of a sample ballot.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

‘Bogus Ballots’ to Exist No More, Orders Judge

Judge William Acree

Remember the sample ballots you always saw at election time purporting to be “endorsements” of a group of candidates by this or that “Democratic” organization? Glossy with color mug shots of the lucky “endorsees,” these broadsheets did their best to resemble official documents of the Shelby County or even state Democratic Parties.

In reality, advertisements for the candidates in question is all they ever were — advertisements paid for by their campaigns and tricked out to look like official party statements by the local entrepreneurs who sold space on them.

“Endorsements” they were not, except in the technical sense that they signified the support of the shell companies that published and distributed them, most of these with the word “Democratic” in their name.

It was the misleading aspect of these advertisements that made them targets of litigation by candidates, Democrats in the main, running legitimate campaigns for office and boasting no such false endorsements.

Now, several hearings over several years later, a judge has imposed a permanent injunction against such published products.

The ruling comes from Judge William B. Acree, a senior jurist from Jackson, after a January 6th hearing in the case of Tennessee Democratic Party and candidate John Marek vs. Greg Grant, individually, & d.b.a. Greater Memphis Democratic Club and M. LaTroy Williams, individually, & d.b.a. Shelby County Democratic Club. This was the climactic one of three hearings — the others having occurred on October 20, 2019, and October 3, 2020.

Those prior hearings had imposed temporary injunctions against the defendants and imposed penalties for renewed infractions.

Judge Acree based his judgment Thursday on TCA statute 2-19-116, which reads:

No person shall print or cause to be printed or assist in the distribution or transportation of any facsimile of an official ballot, any unofficial sample ballot, writing, pamphlet, paper, photograph or other printed material, which contains the endorsement of a particular candidate, group of candidates, or proposition by an organization, group, candidate, or other individual, whether existent or not, with the intent that the person receiving such printed material mistakenly believe that the endorsement of such candidate, candidates, or proposition was made by an organization, group, candidate or entity other than the one or ones appearing on the printed material.

Acree’s order states:

The court finds that the Defendants engage in the distribution of campaign literature on behalf of candidates seeking public office, are paid for such activity, and have violated the statute and restraining order on previous occasions. Thus, the Court finds a permanent injunction shall issue enjoining the Defendants from: Distributing literature, disseminating information, or, in any way, communicating, utilizing work, symbols, or graphical schemes reasonably implying endorsement of or affiliation with the Democratic National Convention, the Tennessee Democratic Party, or the Shelby County Democratic Party.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Hands Off CLERB

Councilmen Kemp Conrad and Worth Morgan are attempting to disband the Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) in favor of a City Council Law Enforcement Review Board. CLERB, which existed in the 1990s and was revamped around 2014, has struggled to be what it was intended to be, due to Police Director Michael Rallings refusing to accept any of its recommendations.  

John Marek

On May 10, 2018, CLERB unanimously agreed to send a letter to Mayor Jim Strickland and the Memphis City Council, making suggestions on how the board could be more effective.

Unfortunately, Director Rallings chose to try to render the board ineffective by rejecting all of its recommendations, which were to implement one of the following: 1) The police director should be reasonable and at least meet the board in the middle on its decisions (compromise); 2) a new police director who would work with the CLERB; 3) a new ordinance that would give CLERB binding decision-making power; or 4) an amendment to the current ordinance, which gives appellate power to the mayor over the police director’s decisions.

If any of the four CLERB suggestions had been accepted by the council and/or Mayor Strickland, CLERB would have been able to function the way it was intended. But it was not to be.

The police-involved shooting incident in Raleigh last summer is a prime example of why CLERB is so important. We do not want to be the next Ferguson. While gated neighborhoods in Memphis may not appreciate the importance of CLERB, lower-income and impoverished areas of Memphis understand the trust issue that exists between the police and some of our city’s residents. CLERB was intended to be the group that gives citizens a fair hearing, and, if implemented properly, it would help our community build trust between civilians and the local police. 

Without CLERB, we are solely dependent on MPD Internal Affairs to investigate complaints by civilians about police. MPD Internal Affairs is itself a conflict of interest; self-regulation does not work. Instead of taking advice from CLERB’s 2018 letter, the mayor has taken no action to address the issue. And now, certain council members are attempting to eliminate the board’s independence completely. 

The mayor’s lack of action has been a disappointment. As a councilman, Strickland was a strong voice in favor of the CLERB ordinance. He understood the issue well, and he and Councilman Alan Crone were instrumental in passing the legislation. As mayor, Strickland has preferred to avoid the issue, and he has not done anything to address any problems identified by the board. 

The first and second suggestions from CLERB can only be carried out by the mayor and through his influence. He appoints the police director, and the police director answers to him. Though Strickland was excellent at balancing Midtown and East Memphis concerns as a councilman, he seems to go a lot more with his East Memphis constituency as mayor. Hopefully, he will cater less to his donor base during his current term since he will be term-limited in 2023. 

One interesting point from local activist Paul Garner: Does the city council really want to have the responsibilities of CLERB? Politically, it could be dangerous, as they will be judged by supporters of both sides of any issue the council publicly makes decisions about regarding complaints against MPD.

Garner saw silver linings in the passage of the council-led review board ordinance: 1) When a case’s facts are clearly in the citizen complainant’s favor, will Rallings continue to ignore decisions when they come from the council? 2) If the council actually exercises its subpoena power to require officers to testify, will they show up? (Officers have ignored requests to do so by CLERB.) 3) Inasmuch as these meetings would be required to be public, does the city council want the additional media coverage created by the council’s openly hearing complaints against MPD?

One major consequence of passing CLERB on to the city council could be that its members would be tempted to eliminate any type of review board after passage of the initial transforming legislation. Another concern is that documents that should be made public would be deemed “confidential” by the council. 

There are a lot of negatives in switching CLERB to a council-led board, but could there be a truckload of silver linings to follow? I hope we do not have to find out.

I hope the current council will think this approach through and allow the newly elected council to make the final decision. Lame ducks should not be voting on the proposed ordinance.

And Mayor Strickland, please reconsider the suggestions from the 2018 letter from CLERB.

Lawyer/activist John Marek, a recent candidate for the Memphis City Council, was a charter member of CLERB and instrumental in its creation.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Judge Declares Halt to Distribution of For-Profit Sample Ballots in City Election

John Marek

A retired Jackson, Tennessee, Circuit Court jurist, stepping in where local Shelby County judges had feared (or chosen not) to tread, found on Thursday for the petitioners — John Marek, a candidate for the District 5 Memphis City Council seat; the Shelby County Democratic Party, and the Shelby County Young Democrats — for a temporary restraining order against further circulation of sample city ballots endorsing Marek’s opponent, Memphis City Council incumbent Worth Morgan, among several other endorsees.

The defendants in the case were Greg Grant and M. Latroy Alexandria-Williams, as well as the shell organizations — the Greater Memphis Democratic Club and the Shelby County Democratic Club, respectively — that are the nominal issuing instruments for their sample ballots.

The key point in the judgment against them was apparently their use of the term “Democratic,” in they are specifically enjoined from “distributing literature, disseminating information, or in any way communicating or utilizing words symbols, or graphical schemes reasonably implying endorsement of or affiliation with the Democratic National Committee, the Tennessee Democratic Party, or the Shelby County Democratic Party.”

The eleventh-hour judgment, which comes at the very tag-end of the voting cycle, was communicated to various polling locations by runners acting on behalf of the petitioners.

The judge, William B. Acree, did not issue a ruling on other aspects of the petitioners’ suit, including a request for judgment against the sample ballots’ use of the City of Memphis municipal seal.

Judge Acree acted after a hearing in the Shelby County Courthouse, not only issuing the T.R.O. but setting a hearing date of November 13th to consider such further prospects as “permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and restitution for unjust enrichment.” If these additional penalties should be declared, not only would sample ballots of the sort that the defendants have employed in this and past elections be proscribed but the defendants’ profits from them, garnered by selling endorsement space to candidates for a fee, would be confiscated.

The defendants are among several entrepreneurs who historically have issued sample ballots including the names and mugshots of candidates who have paid the entrepreneurs handsomely for the honor of being so listed. The sample ballots have been mailed to potential voters and passed out in the vicinity of polling locations.

So widespread has been the practice in Memphis and Shelby County that all local judges chose to recuse themselves, either because they themselves had paid for such “endorsements” or out of solidarity with those who had.

The import of Judge Acree’s ruling, especially if it is embroidered on in November, could be a fatal blow against the practice, which defenders justify on the basis of the First Amendment, among other grounds.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

If At First You Don’t Succeed…

CREDIT: JB

A consistent problem in Shelby County elections has been the distribution of sample ballots by political entrepreneurs who charge candidates for appearing on them.

Candidate John Marek, a well-known Democratic activist  JB

John Marek

who is running for the District 5 City Council seat in the October 3 city election, was outraged when he saw one being mailed and passed out under the auspices of the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club,” a shell organization operated by entrpreneur Greg Grant that exists mainly to issue sample ballots.

Compounding Marek’s sense of injury was that his opponent, Worth Morgan, is a known Republican, as are three other candidates endorsed on the ballot. All four are official endorsees of the Shelby County Republican Party. A further issue is that the ballot employed several facsimiles of the official City of Memphis seal, a possible violation of both city and state codes.

Backed by the Shelby County Democratic Party and represented by civil liberties attorney Bruce Kramer, Marek undertook to get a Temporary Restraining Order against further distribution of the ballot in Chancery Court on Thursday. The plaintiffs were stymied. How?

Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins confessed that he would need to recuse himself because he had bought onto a previous election ballot distributed by Grant as well as one by another ballot entrepreneur, M. LaTroy Alexandria-Williams, also cited in the suit. The plaintiffs hope to seek redress from another judge in another court on Friday.

Marek said that the unexpected snafu was yet another instance of why the pay-for-play ballots should be restricted or banned.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

The “Bogus Ballot” Syndrome Again

The head of the ‘Greater Memphis Democratic Club’ sample ballot superimposed over several of its endorsees, including known Republicans and featuring City of Memphis official seals (circled) on several of the mugshots.

It wouldn’t be a local election without at least one case of the “Bogus-Ballot Syndrome” turning up, and, sure enough, there’s a brand-new example that District 5 City Council candidate John Marek is threatening legal action about.

Marek’s case in point is a printed sample ballot being mailed to households and passed out at early-voting polls bearing the imprimatur of the “Greater Memphis Democratic Club,” which may have some ersatz legal status but is known to be a shell organization, without members in the usual sense, that is conducted for profit for the benefit of its proprietors, the foremost of whom is political entrepreneur Greg Grant.

Grant’s is one of several such ballots that appears at election time, and it is no secret that many, if not all, of the endorsees for office listed on them paid good money to get there. Marek, in fact, says that he himself was solicited to purchase a place on the ballot and declined.

Despite being designated as being under “Democratic” auspices, the ballot features several candidates with known or suspected Republican identifies — including Council candidates Chase Carlisle, Ford Canale, and Worth Morgan, the latter, an incumbent, being Marek’s opponent.

Besides the matter of false political auspices, however, Marek also charges the Grant ballot with likely violations of city and state law, both of which, he says, prohibit the use of official governmental insignia. Several of the favored candidates on the ballot are pictured with facsimiles of the City of Memphis seal. On that account, Marek says he is considering filing an official injunction against further distribution of the ballot.

The Grant ballot, and other pay-for-play handouts like it, are not to be confused with sample ballots like the not-for-profit one openly sponsored by three Democratic public figures — Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen, Commissioner Van Turner, and former Democratic Party chairman David Cocke.

That ballot endorses Democrat Marek, among others.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Thoughts About How to Win Memphis Council District 5

CREDIT: Justin Fox Burks

Some readers may recall that, in 2015, I ran unsuccessfully for the Memphis City Council as an avowed progressive in District 5. Since then, I have heard several people comment that District 5 was won by a conservative because three progressive candidates ran and split the vote. Now that the 2019 city elections are on the horizon, I would like to dispel that myth and look at what is potentially different for the district in 2019.

Justin Fox Burks

John Marek

Even if only one progressive had run in 2015, that one progressive would have lost. Worth Morgan, the current councilman and eventual winner, had $300,000 in his campaign war chest, and the votes of conservatives Dan Springer and Morgan combined were 55 percent of the total vote, as compared to 42 percent of the combined percentages of Mary Wilder, Chooch Pickard, and, me, all progressives in good standing.

Democratic turnout was lower than expected that year. A lot of working-class and middle-class voters were upset over the city council’s votes on pension retrenchment, and they evidently did not see any alternative that excited them enough to show up to the polls. Meanwhile, conservatives came out strong for mayoral candidate Jim Strickland.

Strickland and I both happened to be at one of the polling sites on Election Day, and I said to him: “Based on who has voted early and the seemingly low turnout today, I believe what is going to help you is going to hurt me.”

Having seen the early voting data, I also mentioned to Mary Wilder my belief that it would be Morgan versus Springer in the runoff, because of the high conservative turnout.

The fact is, District 5 is not exactly a blue district. Yes, it has Midtown and Binghampton, but it also contains most of East Memphis. In essence, Midtown progressives saw all of their districts either transformed or moved elsewhere in Tennessee in post-2010 redistricting. Congressman Steve Cohen’s former state Senate district was affected, as were the state House seats formerly occupied by Jeanne Richardson and Mike Kernell.

I would consider the current council District 5 to be purple in a high-turnout scenario and red in a low-turnout scenario. It’s regrettable that we don’t hold all of our local general elections on the same day we hold our state and federal general elections. We would save money thereby, and simultaneously reap a higher turnout of progressives.

In any case, in 2015, any progressive who might have made the runoff would have lost handily. I thought I could prevail on the strength of personally knocking on some 6,500 doors in a four-month period, while my supporters were doing likewise. Hindsight tells me I was over-optimistic.

Had any of us progressives made that runoff, the older and wealthier white vote would have shown up in higher numbers, and no amount of knocking on doors would have prevailed over the tidal wave of money committed to the conservative contender.

Instant runoff voting (IRV), which should already have been implemented after the 2008 referendum approving it, could well transform the electoral situation if it is employed in 2019. Runoffs have allowed the city’s economic elite to control a council that should by all rights have a majority voted in by working-class voters and people of color. That is why the IRV issue mattered enough for me to volunteer on its behalf in the referenda of both 2008 and 2018.

Looking ahead to 2019 voting, I find myself wondering whether or not the blue-wave turnouts we saw last year will continue to prevail in non-federal elections. If  IRV is properly implemented, a progressive could win District 5. That result would not be guaranteed, although a progressive with the ability to at least partially self-finance would, in my judgment, have a fair chance of  success.

I have heard rumors about one potential progressive candidate who would fit that profile, and that person would benefit from the absence of a runoff via IRV, as well as not having to worry about the divisive effects of multiple progressive candidates, as in 2015.  

Our current council members — and the status quo types behind them — thought it was a good idea in 2018 to try to undo decisions already made by voters in 2008, and they had the temerity to spend $40,000 of our taxpayer money to campaign for such a result in last fall’s referendums.

I would just say this: If you are a progressive prepared to run hard and govern well, please announce your intentions soon, because your city needs you.

John Marek is a lawyer, activist, and
occasional candidate for various offices.

Categories
News News Blog

Emergency Hearing to Halt Council Media Campaign on Referenda

UPDATE: Chancellor Kyle issued a temporary injunction against spending of public money, pending an opportunity for him to study the parties’ respective briefs. He will reconvene the case on Tuesday at 10 a.m. DETAILS TO COME

An emergency hearing has been set for 4 p.m. Friday in the courtroom of Chancellor Jim Kyle to hear a request by a group of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the expenditure of $30,000 to 40,000 in taxpayer funds by the Memphis City Council to advocate publicly for the passage of three referenda on the November 6th ballot.

By a vote of 5 to 3, the council passed a previously unannounced add-on resolution by Councilman/County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr. on Tuesday to provide the sum for “a public information campaign concerning the referenda” to explain their “potential benefits to the citizens of Memphis.” After passage, the council hastily voted for a “same-night minutes” process to safely embed the vote in the permanent record.

The referenda, which have been and remain controversial, ask voters to nullify previous actions approved by the city’s electorate — including a two-term limit for mayor and council members, which would be increased to three terms, and the repeal of a prior referendum calling for instant runoff voting (IRV). Another referendum proposes to nullify the district-runoff provisions of a 1993 court decree.

The request for injunction alleges that the expenditure of public funds for such a one-sided propaganda campaign would constitute “distinct and palpable injury” upon the “general citizenry.”

The plaintiffs also allege that the council’s action lacked proper mayoral authorization or opportunity to veto and that state law does not authorize the use of public funds to advertise on behalf of either side of a ballot referendum. The request for declaratory judgment further states that emergency judicial action is needed to forestall the proposed advertising campaign because voting on the aforesaid referenda is already under way.

Plaintiffs are Erika Sugarmon, John Marek, Sam Goff, and Save IRV, Inc.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Respect the Voters

In 2008, in a series of referendum votes, Memphis voters made clear how they wanted Memphis City Council elections to work. This year, the city council is systematically disrespecting the voters’ preferences through a series of votes for referendum do-overs this November. The result will be voter confusion at best and, at worst, the entrenchment of incumbents in an undemocratic system.

Currently, the council consists of seven members elected from single-member districts, and six members elected from “Super Districts” electing three members each. In the single-member districts, if no one candidate gets a majority, the top two vote-getters advance to a separate runoff round six weeks later. As described by John Marek in these pages last December, these expensive runoffs typically have only 5 percent turnout, a turnout that is disproportionately white and affluent.

In the Super Districts, no majority is required. A candidate can win with 38 percent of the vote if she has more votes than the other five candidates. This “plurality” system can allow the majority to split its votes among several similar candidates, allowing the least-preferred candidate of the majority to squeak by with 38 percent of the vote.  That’s how Donald Trump, who polling showed would have lost in head-to-head contests against candidates like Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz, won the early primaries to become the front-runner and eventual Republican nominee. 

It’s a system subject to manipulation and collusion. An established candidate can recruit a “shill” candidate to enter the race and split the opposition’s voting bloc, allowing him to prevail with a bare plurality. The plurality system is arguably an even worse system than regular runoffs.

The solution to both problems, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2008, is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where voters rank their first, second, and third choices. This ensures a majority winner, without the need for an expensive, low-turnout second election. It saves time and money, boosts participation, makes the electorate more representative of the district as a whole, and discourages negative campaigning (because candidates want to be the second choice of their opponents’ base and will be loathe to alienate them with mudslinging). IRV is slated to be phased in for single-member districts in the next city council election in 2019, with eventual implementation in all city council districts thereafter.

Last December, before IRV even had a chance to be tried once, the council voted to place a repeal of IRV on the November referendum ballot. Now, the council is about to add another competing referendum on the ballot: a proposal  to use plurality voting for all city council elections, even the single-member districts that have used regular runoffs. Both measures would kill IRV if approved by voters in November. 

Currently, there is no announced plan to withdraw the December “regular runoff” referendum measure in deference to the plurality plan (though that, of course, could change).

If you’re confused about how two contradictory measures can be on the ballot side by side, you won’t be alone. It will cause needless voter confusion in November. Some local commentators have suggested that if both are on the ballot, and they both pass, the plurality measure would make the regular runoff measure moot. That’s not at all clear: The language of the two measures is directly in conflict. Passing both would cause legal uncertainty.

The mess underscores how desperate some council incumbents are to eliminate Instant Runoff Voting, which opens up opportunities for lesser-known, lesser-funded candidates to enter the system.

Also illustrative of the incumbency protection is yet another referendum measure about to pass, which would undo another 2008 referendum result: In 2008, referendum voters said they wanted council members limited to two terms. Again, before there’s even been a chance to put that into effect, council members are pushing a referendum measure which would extend that from two terms to three terms. Conveniently, it applies to current council members.

The consistent theme here is that many city council members don’t care what the voters decided in 2008. They know better, and they’re going to push through referenda to craft a council election system most congenial to them.

We should reject all these proposals, give IRV a chance, and respect what the voters said in 2008.

Steve Mulroy is a University of Memphis law professor and a former Shelby County Commissioner.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Making the case for instant runoff voting.

In 2008, 71 percent of Memphis voters agreed by referendum to rid ourselves of expensive low-turnout runoff elections through instant runoff voting (IRV). If implemented, this would save taxpayers $250,000 a year, and it would end run-off elections with as much as an 85 percent turnout drop-off from the general election.

Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference as opposed to only being able to vote for one candidate. Once the votes are tallied, if no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate would then be transferred to those citizens’ second choice for the seat. The votes are then re-tallied, and this process continues until a candidate has a majority of the votes, hence no need for the costly and mostly ignored runoff.

IRV has been implemented in 11 cities. Where IRV has been used, it has resulted in the election of more minority and female candidates—but only candidates supported by a majority of a district’s voters. It has also led to more positive campaigning. If you’re an IRV candidate, you want to be the first choice of your base and the second choice of your rival’s base. Thus, you don’t want to do attack-ad, mudslinging campaigns. As a former council candidate myself, I can tell you that our city’s elections would benefit from candidates having to not only garner their own base, but also get along well with their opposition.

IRV also increases opportunities for first-time, lesser-funded, lesser-known candidates. You don’t have to worry about “throwing away your vote” on a favorite underdog; you can rank the underdog first, and a “safer,” more established candidate second.

Why was the will of Memphis voters ignored until possibly now? Election Commissioners and others on the state level claimed that the “touch-screen” voting machines were not capable of allowing instant runoff voting, even though that was not actually the case. Recently hired county election administrator Linda Phillip has recognized IRV can be done with our current machines, and she plans to implement IRV in 2019 for the seven single-member-district City Council races.

Now that the election commission has become part of the solution instead of part of the problem, incumbents worried about how IRV will affect the status quo are attempting to put their concerns in front of the concerns of Memphis voters by forcing an already debated and decided issue back onto the ballot. Councilman Edmund Ford Jr. and other elected officials are attempting to end IRV before voters even get a chance to use the method that they overwhelmingly supported in 2008.

Well-funded interest groups contribute heavily to candidates, and these groups are able to buy local elections for much cheaper than they are able to buy state and federal seats because of the low turnout. It should come as no surprise that workers’ rights and labor interests have faded in influence over the past 40 years. While much attention has been given to the buying of elections on the state and federal level, it is rarely discussed on the local level. Special interests like Wall Street don’t stop at Congress; they go after local government control as well.

The Memphis City Council really has no business interfering with a process already chosen by the voters in 2008, and it is an attack on democracy and Memphians’ rights that IRV was not available during the 2011 or 2015 elections. Let us come together and demand that IRV be implemented in 2019.

In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC and numerous restrictive voter ID laws that were passed across the country, elections are being bought and votes are being suppressed. The affront to IRV is no different except for the fact that we can actually do something about it since it is a local issue. IRV provides a more democratic system that will more truly represent the will of our city’s voters at a much cheaper rate.

For more information, please visit saveirvmemphis.com. Please email the entire council at IRV@saveirvmemphis.com, and ask them to respect the will of the voters and vote no on repeal.

John Marek is is a Memphis attorney, local activist, and former campaign manager for Congressman Steve Cohen.