Tag: Judge William B. Acree

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
Editorial Opinion

Thing One, Thing Two

On November 14th, the citizens of two Memphis City Council districts will have an opportunity to finish up with the business of selecting their representatives to serve on the council. As grateful as we are that the current electoral system allows this opportunity to perfect the people’s will, we’ll say again, as we’ve said in the past, this is a lousy way to do it.

By the time that runoff election date rolls around, the always chancey Memphis weather will have had ample opportunity to turn sour on us, discouraging turnout, and it’s already a given that runoff elections are notoriously poorly attended even in the best of conditions.

We have no reason to expect otherwise for what amounts to judgment day for council Districts 1 and 7 — and an important judgment day at that. Depending on the outcome, there could be two council incumbents returned, with a disposition to continue the governing pattern of the past, or two new faces, those of candidates whose campaign rhetoric at least obliges them to consider serious change in the way city government does its business.

An even split between these prospects is also possible. Our concern does not necessarily lie with a commitment to either point of view or to any of the four candidates. What we worry about is the fact that the honest will of the people may not factor into the truncated totals of a runoff election — one in which the outcome could be decided by the weather or by the electorate’s lapsed attention, or, even in the best-case scenario, by the superiority of one campaign organization or another in forcing their cadres to the polls.

The solution to the runoff dilemma is no secret: It is the election process known alternately as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting. This process has twice been approved by a large majority of Memphis voters — in a 2008 referendum and in another one in 2018. The process has so far been sabotaged by holdover council members who refuse to authorize the county Election Coordinator to employ it, and by state election authorities, who have intervened against its use. Come to think of it, that’s another good argument in favor of the new faces on the runoff ballot.

Regardless of what happens on November 14th, an event scheduled for the previous day, Wednesday, November 13th, also will have serious import for Memphis’ political future. On that date, retired Circuit Court Judge William B. Acree of Jackson convenes a hearing in Memphis to decide on the ultimate fate of bogus sample ballots that falsely claim to represent the endorsement choices of local political parties. For several election cycles, local entrepreneurs have been in the habit of fobbing off these travesties to local voters at election time.

The scandal is that an outside judge had to be called in to hear the case, since the judges of Shelby County have been as guilty as any other candidates in paying their way onto these fraudulent ballots and thus had to recuse themselves. It is for their sake and ours that we hope Judge Acree will see fit to decree an end to this fraud against democracy.

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.