Tag: voting

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

“Bogus Ballots” Continued

Never say die — particularly if you’re talking about that unkillable scourge of local elections, the bogus ballot.

That’s the term of art for those privately prepared and printed broadsheets containing the mugs of assorted candidates that various entrepreneurs pass out to voters at election time.

The balloteers charge the favored candidates a pretty penny — actually, several thousand dollars apiece — for the honor of appearing on these sample ballots as “endorsees.” 

It’s all a matter of commerce. Not much actual evaluation is involved, with the exception, perhaps, of a few — a very few — candidates who get included gratis, perhaps to salve the consciences of the money-making balloteers.

In recent years, critics of the process — ranging from occasional candidate John Marek to the Shelby County Democratic Party itself —  have gone to court in an effort to bring things to a halt, mainly because several of the ballot-mongering entrepreneurs have included misleading imagery and language making it appear that their profit-making sheets are actually the legitimate handiwork of the Democratic Party.

The plaintiffs had considerable difficulty getting hearings on the matter because so many local judges were customers of the ballot makers.

But at length, a special judge, William Acree, was brought in from Jackson and issued a permanent injunction against further publication of  bogus ballots that simulated Democratic Party efforts.

Such constraints as resulted, including still-pending action against  balloteer Greg Grant, have slowed to a halt, however, for several reasons: Judge Acree has retired, and the litigants who sought the injunction are now hors de combat.

Plaintiff Marek, a lawyer whose efforts have been pro bono, is seeking to withdraw, and his partner in litigation, Jake Brown, has already done so as of last week, having been cut loose by the local Democratic Party, which has opted under current party chair Lexie Carter to pay for no more litigation.

Meanwhile, with elections approaching in August and November, privately printed sample ballots are out there again in force, some of them heeding the injunction against feigning Democratic Party involvement, and some not. (See image of ballot from entrepreneur M. Latroy Alexandria-Williams, whose “Memphis Democratic Club” and “Shelby County Democratic Club” are shell organization with no real existence.)

And the old saw that “you get what you pay for” still reigns among local  candidates for office.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

State Officials Raise Bar to Restore Voting Rights for Those With Felony Convictions

State Capitol (Photo: Tennessee State Government)

Tennessee residents who have felony convictions and want to vote must comply with two state laws rather than one or the other, according to guidance from the state coordinator of elections.

Beginning last Friday, they now must obtain a pardon or have all citizenship rights restored, and show they have paid all restitution and court costs from their conviction, and are current on child support payments.

The guidance from Coordinator Mark Goins, an official in the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office, applies to people convicted in Tennessee, another state or in federal court. The policy builds upon a June 29th ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court on the voting rights of a Ernest Falls, who currently lives in Tennessee and was convicted then granted clemency in Virginia.

The Campaign Legal Center, among the legal organizations representing Falls, said the guidance issued by Goins “effectively closes the door to voting rights restoration for over 470,000 Tennesseans.”

Tennessee Supreme Court rules in felony voting rights case

Even before the guidance and the state Supreme Court ruling, few people with felonies have regained their right to vote in Tennessee.

By one estimate, fewer than 5 percent of those completing felony sentences ever succeed in restoring their voting rights here, according to a 2022 report by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center that was cited in an April 2023 League of Women Voters of Tennessee survey on restoration of voting rights.

“The League of Women Voters is extremely disappointed” in the communication from the Tennessee Secretary of State’s elections coordinator, the League’s Tennessee president, Debby Gould, said Monday. It does a “real disservice to thousands of Tennesseans who want to (take an active part in society) and be able to cast their vote with others in elections.”

Gould called Tennessee’s procedure for restoring voting rights after a felony conviction “labyrinthine. So many people despite their best efforts are never going to be able to meet it.”

At issue in voting right restoration are two state statutes, one passed in 1981 and the other in 2006. Both relate to the impact of felony convictions on the right to vote and how someone convicted of a felony can regain that right.

The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of more than 40 years of existing law and of common sense. Elections officials can’t just wake up one day and decide to unilaterally change the law to disenfranchise eligible voters, and it is deeply disappointing that the State Supreme Court went along with it.

– Blair Bowie, Director of Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote program

The 1981 statute says that conviction in an infamous crime – a felony – in Tennessee disenfranchises the person who committed the crime unless he or she has been pardoned by the governor or had full rights of citizenship restored. It contains similar provisions for people convicted in federal court or in another state of crimes that would disqualify them from voting in Tennessee.

The 2006 statute sets up an administrative process for having voting rights restored. Some felons can never get voting rights restored; for example, those convicted of voting fraud or treason can never vote in Tennessee again.

A person complying with all the requirements of the 2006 law, which includes payment of all court costs, court-ordered restitution and being up to date in child support payments, is issued a certificate of voting rights restoration.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a Memphis Democrat who served in the Tennessee Senate in 2006, sponsored the bill that created the Certificate of Restoration process. In a Monday phone interview, Cohen said the intention was to set up a procedure for restoring voting rights that didn’t depend on the discretion of any official or judge.

Asked whether the state legislature intended in 2006 that people convicted of felonies would have to comply with both the 2006 law and the 1981 law to regain the right to vote, Cohen replied, “Absolutely not.”

What Cohen described as the intention of state lawmakers collided with the rules judges follow in interpreting statutes in the Falls case.

A three-justice majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court said in the Falls case that judges must look to legislative intent, as shown in the ordinary meaning of words used in statutes. Judges, they concluded, must look at several laws on the same topic and try to reconcile how they work together. They must follow a general rule that a law passed later in time amends or repeals an earlier one on the same subject, but, the majority said, Tennessee courts are reluctant to repeal a law indirectly, through implication.

In the Falls case, the justices read both the 1981 and 2006 laws together and concluded that Mr. Falls had to show he paid all of the costs required by the 2006 law, in addition to having received clemency in Virginia. A fourth justice sided with Falls and a fifth newly appointed justice didn’t participate in the case.

Goins, in his July 21st memo to local election officials, said the two-part process the Supreme Court described in Falls applied in all cases of felons seeking reinstatement of voting rights, because statutory language is similar whether a person is convicted of a felony in Tennessee, in an out-of-state court, or in a federal court.

Also on July 21st, Goins sent county election officials a one-page listing of eight frequently asked questions, along with answers, and conducted statewide training for the officials, Julia Bruck, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State, said in an email Monday.

Blair Bowie, an attorney and director of the Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote initiative, said in a news release last week that Goins’ guidance “short-circuits the longstanding Certificate of Restoration process and creates a new requirement that all people with past felony convictions must also receive either a court order or gubernatorial clemency to restore their right to vote.”

“The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of more than 40 years of existing law and of common sense,” she said. “Elections officials can’t just wake up one day and decide to unilaterally change the law to disenfranchise eligible voters, and it is deeply disappointing that the State Supreme Court went along with it.”

“The 2006 legislature only intended to add a new pathway for restoration, not to change the scope of who loses the right to vote in the first place,” Bowie said in an email. What she sees as confusion in the Falls case over the two statutes led to an erroneous decision. Last week’s guidance from Goins, she said, represents “a complete contradiction of the Election Division’s policy for the last 17 years.”

FALLS-Majority Opinion-Filed

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
News News Blog

Register by Monday to Vote in the Tennessee Primary

Super Tuesday in Tennessee is coming fast (Tuesday, March 3rd). If you want to vote and haven’t registered, you have until this Monday, February 3rd, to get ‘er done.

Go to GoVoteTN.com, the online voter registration system set up by the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office. (Or scan the QR code in the above graphic). Any U.S. citizen with a driver’s license or a photo ID issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security can register online.

Voters can also download a paper voter registration application at GoVoteTN.com or pick up an application in person from the county election commission, county clerk, register of deeds, or public library. Completed paper voter registration applications must be submitted or postmarked to the local county election commission office by February 3rd.

Early voting begins Wednesday, February 12th and runs Mondays through Saturdays until Tuesday, February 25th.

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Temporarily Halts Voter Registration Law From Taking Effect

CREDIT: U of M/Facebook

U of M/Facebook

A voter registration event at University of Memphis last year

A state law that places restrictions on voter registration efforts was temporarily blocked Thursday by a federal court.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee filed for an emergency preliminary injunction late last month to halt the law from taking effect.

The law, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, mandates a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply. It was set to take effect on October 1st.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Judge Aleta Trauger granted the ACLU’s motion for emergency injunction Thursday.

Trauger wrote that the plaintiffs would “suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the public interest strongly favors granting the injunction.”

The injunction means the state cannot take any steps to “implement, enforce, conduct investigations pursuant to, or assist in any prosecution” under the law.

[pdf-1]


Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee said that Trauger’s ruling “indicates that the court understands the dangerous burdens this law places on organizations simply trying to ensure that as many eligible voters can participate in the democratic process as possible.”

“This decision allows our clients to continue their important work of registering voters — including those who have been historically disenfranchised — this election season,” Weinberg said. “We look forward to the day when this unconstitutional law can be struck down for good.”

The ACLU, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center filed a lawsuit in May challenging the legislation on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace & Justice Center, Rock the Vote, Spread the Vote, Central Labor Council, and HeadCount. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

[pullquote-1]

Danielle Lang, co-director of voting rights and redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center calls the law in question “punitive,” noting that voter registration drives have historically been a way for marginalized groups to gain access to the ballot box.

“This law punished civic organizations for seeking to help register voters, particularly those in underserved communities,” Lang said. “As the court recognized, it struck at the heart of free speech rights and imposed needless burdensome regulations.”

Thursday’s ruling by Trauger is a “significant victory,” said Michelle Cohen, counsel at Fair Elections Center.

“The court’s ruling recognizes the critical role of these efforts in our democracy,” Cohen said. “Because the court stopped these restrictions from going into effect, the door to participating will remain open to community-based civic engagement efforts to engage fellow citizens, which are so badly needed in Tennessee.”

Earlier this week, the state moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Trauger denied that request, saying in her decision that the plaintiffs in the case have presented “plausible claims.” She raised many concerns about the law in her decision, calling the law a “complex and punitive scheme.”

Trauger also cited the low number of registered voters in her decision. There were 4,872,000 voting-aged Tennesseans, but only 3,183,000 registered voters as of November 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ranked Tennessee 44th out of all states in the percentage of its citizens registered to vote.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Sound of Change

CREDIT: jb

PITTSBURGH — The three young black men, dressed to the nines, were the first in line to receive media credentials for presidential candidate Barack Obama’s climactic rally at the University of Pittsburgh’s Peterson Events Center Monday night.

Or make that Monday afternoon, since the old military system of hurry-up-and-wait is how it works these days for the seemingly endless — and increasingly tense and dramatic — series of Democratic primary contests between Obama and rival Hillary Clinton.

The day was still bright and balmy when J.C. Gamble, Darnell Drewery, and Cornell Jones, all representing a new media enterprise called blacktieradio.com, showed up at the designated glass door. But it would be getting on to 10 o’clock, with a long line strung out behind the three men, before the building’s doors would finally be unlocked. And even then, all successfully credentialed entrants would have to undergo a screening process that would put the most cautious airline’s procedures to shame.

A similar, though not quite as fastidious, drill had been in effect for attendees at an afternoon rally downtown featuring Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president. Things have changed since the primary season began and all it took to get to an event featuring one of the dozen or so Democratic and Republican hopefuls was the willingness to shoulder through a modest-sized crowd for the sake of some immodest bloviation.

With only three candidates left — Obama, Clinton, and Republican John McCain — all of them potential and plausible guardians of the Free World, the public attention is keener now, the rhetoric is sharper, and the stakes are higher.

While they waited, Gamble, Drewery, and Jones dilated on every subject under the setting sun — on the relative merits of barbecue served up in the Pittsburgh ‘hood, for example, vis-à-vis the heavily ballyhooed product in Memphis, where the three had just visited during the recent week of Martin Luther King commemorations.

“I gotta tell you, it don’t compare,” said Gamble of the fare offered by one celebrated Memphis eatery. In a more serious vein, Gamble took credit for having started the round of boos that greeted candidate McCain’s admission at the National Civil Rights Museum that he had originally opposed the creation of a national holiday in King’s honor.

Regardless of whether race was an issue in the presidential campaign before it surfaced during the South Carolina primary or whether it was there all along, the subject — along with the associated one of historical justice — was very much on the minds of Gamble and his friends. All of them are keenly aware of social issues, and Jones, who serves as a chaplain in the Pennsylvania penitentiary system, attended the annual April 4th Foundation dinner in Memphis as a representative of the Gathering, an activist organization concerned about issues of juvenile incarceration.

At one point, Drewery gave voice to a thought that increasingly is on people’s minds. And not just Democrats. And not just blacks.

“I honestly don’t know how people are going to react if Obama doesn’t get the nomination,” he said, and everybody was aware that, by “people,” he meant those in the aforesaid ‘hood. The larger one that transcends the geography of Pittsburgh. African Americans as a national group, he meant.

And then each of them described his own vision of what the immediate voter response would be.

“I think most of ’em would just stay home and not worry about voting,” Drewery offered. “I’ll tell you what I’d do! I’d go vote for Ron Paul!” said Gamble, indicating the Republican/libertarian heresiarch who could end up running as an independent.

“Naw,” said Jones, reluctantly and somewhat sadly. “I’d be there for Hillary. I couldn’t just not vote!”

Each of these three amigos spoke to a different likely viewpoint — one that, for that matter, is not limited to a particular ethnic group. The fact is, the rock-star-like celebrity of Barack Obama and the passion of his supporters are only partly related to his charisma, public positions, or oratorical skill. Whether he intended to or not, the Illinois senator has come to symbolize the near-miraculous prospect of resolving America’s antique racial divide, that which some have called its original sin.

That feeling was what caused the deafening roar when, in the course of introducing Obama, Teresa Heinz Kerry later spoke to the large and diversified crowd inside of the hope of electing “the first African-American president.” It was a roar that, like most sounds of that amplitude, is lasting and multidirectional.

Jackson Baker is a Flyer senior editor.


jb

Obama enthusiasts J.C. Gamble, Darnell Drewery, and Cornell Jones at the University of Pittsburgh

Categories
Opinion

One Vote at a Time

There is always a grain if not a rock of truth in everything Mayor Willie Herenton says, no matter how unpopular. He’s right about this: If you are going to stay in Memphis for a while — and not everyone is — then you will have to look at things differently.

Last week, I became a big fan of the Memphis NAACP. They lost but they looked good doing it, and they showed class. No organization or individual had more reasons to be partisan in last week’s election. The NAACP was co-plaintiff in the 1991 lawsuit that abolished mayoral runoffs. Not one but two favorite sons were in the race for mayor: Herenton, a trailblazer since he was a school principal in the 1970s, and Herman Morris, NAACP chairman from 1992 to 2000. Both are black. Carol Chumney isn’t.

But the NAACP’s election-day efforts were all about turnout, not any particular candidate. They lost only in the sense that turnout in the 54 precincts they targeted was not as good as they hoped it would be. In fact, it was dismal — 38 percent overall and in the teens in some target precincts.

Spartan simplicity is not always the rule at local nonprofits, but it is at the NAACP. Their little office on Vance is right across from the Cleaborn Homes housing project. On a day of excess, partisanship, and pack journalism, what better place for a reporter to view the election than a place with no cameras, no candidate signs or leaflets allowed, no bar, and no buffet? And no big screen. The only television was a 12-inch model with an antenna. Lean too close to read the numbers, and it stuck you in the eye. Move it, and you messed up the picture.

Beneath portraits of local NAACP heroes Maxine Smith, Vasco Smith, Benjamin Hooks, and Jesse Turner, volunteers worked on three clunky Compaq computers that were probably rejected by E-Cycle Management. Others worked the phones, reading from a printed script (“We’re calling on behalf of the Memphis branch NAACP to encourage you to vote today for the candidate of your choice”) and offering a ride to the polls. Forget public-service announcements and editorials; in the trenches, turnout means one vote at a time.

By mid-afternoon, the numbers coming in were not good. Wearing a yellow T-shirt that said “Lift Every Voice and Vote,” NAACP executive secretary Johnnie Turner looked worried. With five hours to go until the polls closed, nearly every precinct was hundreds of votes short of its turnout goal.

“Last year, we made almost all of our goals, but the way this is looking, people are not turning out,” said Turner, who has run the Voter Empowerment Project since 2000.

She was writing down numbers and doing the arithmetic, which was considerable. The goal was a 5 percent increase in each precinct. The 1999 election was chosen as the benchmark because the 2003 election was a Herenton blowout with a 23.7 percent turnout. That bar was too low. Or so Turner thought. Now, Asbury, Alcy, Glenview, Gaston — site after site — wasn’t coming close to the 1999 turnout, much less the hoped-for increase.

“We’ll have to regroup,” Turner said. “This election has been strange. I started to say divisive, but maybe it’s kind of polarized. Anytime the community sees discord, they take the attitude ‘I don’t want to be part of this mess.'”

When I went out to eat, I got to watch my first live shooting in a while. At Cleaborn Homes, a young man in a white T-shirt was running between the buildings. Another man with a pistol was chasing him and firing several shots from about 30 feet away, all of which missed. A minute later, the guy who’d been shot at walked past my car with the nonchalance of someone who had just missed getting sprayed with a water hose.

When I came back, Turner had made an executive decision. The original goal had been “overly ambitious.” The new goal would be the 2003 turnout plus 7 percent. In effect, the former teacher was lowering the grading curve.

“Now this is more like it,” Turner said as the polls closed and new numbers came in. “We’re going to make it.” As it turned out, however, the 1999 standard may have been unattainable, but it was not unrealistic. The overall turnout for the election was higher — more than 165,000 voters last week compared to 163,259 in 1999.

At 9 o’clock, when the first returns showed Herenton far ahead and Morris in third place, there was no cheering at the NAACP. And no booing. Soon after that, everyone left, except Turner and a few others.

Nice effort, I said on the way out. “Yes,” she said. “Honest.” And it was.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Polls: The Dark Side

The next time a pollster calls you, just say no.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say to a pollster can and will be used against you and the democratic process.

Polling organizations have a right to call us. I confess I read the polls and find them interesting fodder for discussion. But I do not trust them, and my usual response when called by a stranger on behalf of a pollster is “none of your business” or something like that. The late Chicago columnist Mike Royko had an even better idea: Lie to them.

Several polls were taken by different organizations prior to last week’s Memphis mayoral election, which was won by Willie Herenton with 42 percent of the vote.

One early poll showed Carol Chumney leading, with lots of “undecideds” and virtually no white support for the mayor. That poll, of course, was designed to convince Herenton to bow out and to get Shelby County mayor A C Wharton to enter the race. Fat chance.

Another poll showed Herman Morris gaining ground but still losing. His handlers were all over that, claiming their man had momentum, as if that is the most important thing in an election.

Yet another poll showed Herenton winning by a whisker. The excitement was almost unbearable! Don’t touch that dial! Stay tuned!

The most outrageous poll, taken by Steve Ethridge and published by The Commercial Appeal just before the election, showed Morris running close with Chumney and within striking distance of Herenton. This played neatly into the CA‘s editorial endorsement of Morris and the Morris yard signs that said “only” Morris could win. As it turned out, Morris could “only” win if the only other candidate was Prince Mongo. Chumney squeaked past Morris by 22,000 votes. And Herenton shocked the world at 495 Union Avenue by getting twice as many votes as Morris.

The CA and Ethridge should be ashamed and disgraced but not because they, in effect, threw the election to Herenton by low-balling Chumney and unrealistically boosting Morris, as some have suggested. They should be ashamed because they used the CA‘s stature as the city’s only daily newspaper to sell a highly dubious piece of partisan polling as big news, knowing full well it would be seized upon by the Morris camp.

Some anti-Herenton voters no doubt felt that they would be “wasting” their vote if they cast it for Morris or Chumney. Pollsters have a name for a poll with an intended outcome: “push” poll.

Some polls are more honest than others, but as far as I’m concerned, the benefit of the doubt goes against all of them. I know far too many people who’ve been involved in campaigns over the years, and winning may not be everything to them but it sure beats coming in second. What all the pollsters and their fans fail to grasp is that, in Memphis at least, voting and responding to a poll are not the same thing.

If a candidate runs a serious campaign and that candidate’s previous accomplishments and present positions on the issues make him or her seem like a worthy public servant, then that candidate absolutely deserves your vote, and polls be damned.

Voters, fortunately, can be pretty discerning. John Willingham, who said he had 10,000 black supporters, got only 1,118 votes in all. You can bet the Shelby County Republican Party, which endorsed him and put out sample ballots supporting him, is doing some hard thinking, if it is actually possible for them to think.

The most accurate predictor, on the other hand, turned out to be Herenton, who said the race was between him and Chumney and he would win it. It was, and he did.

I know, columnists and reporters also call people on the phone and try to get them to open up about all kinds of things. Some of us write opinion columns, like this one. But that’s different from a poll masquerading as news.

This opinion column is worth exactly what you paid for it. In that respect, it has one thing in common with a poll.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

“Fixing” Elections

It seems clear enough that several of the City Council races just run were determined by such obvious factors as name recognition and big-money advertising. On the latter score, so numerous and ubiquitous were one successful candidate’s yard signs that his campaign manager was able to say, only half-jokingly, that some of the signs probably needed to be recycled. That candidate, who campaigned in lieu of attendance at the several candidate forums held at frequent intervals and at a variety of locations, won. Yes, he probably was supported by what could be called “special interests,” but so were several other candidates — well-regarded incumbents and newcomers alike.

Giving all these worthies the benefit of the doubt (and yes, there was a definite correlation between financial support and victory), we have the right to hope that they will act in office with integrity and independence.

Another feature of this and other recent political campaigns was the prevalence of attack ads on TV. Results in this sphere were hit-and-miss, though there was little doubt that the persona of Jerry Springer, television shlockmeister nonpareil, was a downer for any candidate his name was coupled with — whether a candidate was bragging of a connection, as in one case, or imputing an unsavory relationship, as in another.

Then there were the polls. Heated controversies erupted between the camps of competing mayoral candidates, both as to the reliability of these supposedly scientific surveys and to their sponsorship, acknowledged or unacknowledged. We are not in a position to judge the latter question — nor, for that matter, the former. All we can say with certainty is that the results on election day were somewhat out of kilter with any and all of the published surveys.

Today’s financial-disclosure laws exist to provide curbs on overt special-interest support. The public media are similarly required to make space and time available on a non-discriminatory, first-come/first-served basis. As far as attack ads and polls are concerned, there is very little remedy, except for voters to outfit themselves with abundant supplies of those proverbial grains of salt.

In the end, it is the people themselves — not hucksters, not pollsters, not technicians, and not even the ever-burgeoning class of campaign professionals — who are charged with the duty of electing our public officials. There have been several intriguing proposals made of late for re-charging our electoral process — ranging from a guaranteed-instant-runoff formula (dependent on multiple-choice ballots for voters) to proposals for mandating majority turnouts.

But the remedy we continue to take most seriously is the one we hear the most about but which rarely gets acted upon anywhere — and in Memphis and Shelby County, never. That is the idea of publicly financed elections. Chances are, unfortunately, that the newly elected crop of City Council members will lend an open ear to the idea of continuing PILOT (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) subsidies for new industry. Even a small fraction of the money thereby given away would pay for publicly financed elections.

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Best of Memphis

Once again, the Flyer‘s “Best of Memphis” issue has both entertained and infuriated me. I realize that polling is an imperfect art and the (sometimes) lowest common denominator will determine the winner. And yes, I like Huey’s hamburgers.

But seriously, how can a multi-million-dollar golf course such as Spring Creek Ranch possibly be tied (for third-best golf course) with a goat track like Overton Park? And how can a pedestrian “Italian” restaurant like Pete and Sam’s possibly be in consideration for “Best Italian” in the same garlic breath as Ronnie Grisanti’s?

I could go on: “Best Service” had Texas de Brazil first, followed by Chick-Fil-A??? Holy crap! That’s just insane. And Mud Island Amphitheater winning third in “Best Place To Hear Live Music”? Yeah, like what, twice a year?

I know the Flyer doesn’t have any control over the voting, but, people, please — show some common sense!

Ricky Gardner

Memphis

I want to know how Geoff Calkins and Wendi Thomas win “Best Columnist” every year when the Flyer offers us such stellar and superior talents as Jackson Baker, John Branston, Mary Cashiola, and Bruce VanWyngarden?

Haven’t you people ever heard of stuffing the ballot?

Mary Warren

Memphis

War Ethics

As I watched the excellent PBS Ken Burns series The War this past two weeks, I was struck how American expectations and standards seem to have changed since World War II. Think about what President Bush is reviled for in Iraq.  

Under an order signed by Roosevelt, well over 100,000 U.S. citizens — mostly based solely on their race — were sent to concentration camps and much of their property was stolen. For years after Pearl Harbor, Americans weren’t told the extent of our losses in men and ships. GIs in Europe, three years after we got into the war, had such lousy equipment to fight in winter, they were stealing from the German dead to try to keep from freezing.

The Allies killed 35,000 German civilians in one night in one city. A million Japanese civilians were burned out of their homes in one day in one city. German Army prisoners were executed out of hand, and an experienced U.S. soldier protesting this was warned he might get shot too.

“Intelligence failure” hardly seems an adequate term for the massive surprise military attack on Pearl Harbor after FDR had been in office for years. Of course, the U.S. in 1940-’41 had a military smaller than Romania’s, years after Germany and Japan were arming to the teeth.

If you don’t like Bush, fine — there’s a lot not to be happy with. But maybe think about what you accept without reservation in one president before you curse another.

Herbert E. Kook Jr.
Germantown

Air America

Because I still mourn the loss of Air America Radio, I am writing in response to the letter from the gentleman in Germantown (“Letters,” September 27th issue) and his reference to a “disgruntled” listener (and the three other listeners).

There were actually a lot more than three listeners and would probably have been many more if we had been made aware Air America wasn’t going to be available in our area. He mentions “hate,” and I won’t say there wasn’t some in evidence, but I guess it was just the wrong flavor for him, because I didn’t hear it directed at homosexuals, minorities, pro-choicers, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or war protestors.

The “bile” being spewed was more directed at those who were perceived to be failing in their duty to protect and defend our Constitution and to respect our country as a nation of laws. How can dissent be un-American? Is that not what created this country? I would ask the gentleman, and anyone else, if you had been around in 1776, would you have stood with the king or the colonists?

Linda Cowart
Germantown

Iran and the U.S.

I keep hoping the damage the elected heads of state of Iran and the U.S. can do is reaching its limits.

It is a sad commentary on democracy when an “Ahmadina-Bush” is chosen. For my part, I vow never to vote for a Republican again, as I did in several races in the last general election.

Let’s send a message and work to take back our country from the election thieves of 2000!

Greg Williams

Memphis

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Analysis: The Memphis Mayoral Election, Precinct by Precinct

Mayor Willie Herenton had a strong political base, taking 75 percent or more of the vote in scores of black precincts, plus getting thousands of white votes.

Carol Chumney was a bona fide challenger, winning 70 percent or more of the vote in some white precincts.

And Herman Morris was a spoiler with no political base who had just two precincts that could truly be called a stronghold, where he won more than 60 percent of the vote.

That’s what the unofficial precinct-by-precinct returns show for last week’s mayoral election. The results were released by the Shelby County Election Commission Tuesday.

An analysis by the Flyer shows that Herenton won in a time-tested fashion. He established a base and held it, rolling up thousands of votes and 75-percent majorities in predominantly black precincts. And that was enough to win, although overall Herenton got just 42 percent of the vote.

Call it The Rule of 75. In Memphis, a successful mayoral candidate must be popular enough to get 75 percent or more in several precincts

Simply put, neither Chumney nor Morris were able to do that. In general, they split the anti-Herenton vote, although Chumney had much more of a base than Morris. Chumney finished with 35 percent and Morris with 21 percent. Neither challenger could put together those key 75-percent margins needed to run even with Herenton.

At Trinity Methodist Church in Midtown, for example, Morris (who lives two blocks away) got 49 percent, Chumney 44 percent, and Herenton 6 percent of the more than 1700 votes cast.

In 11 precincts where at least 300 votes were cast, Herenton actually got more than 80 percent in of the vote (Gaston Community Center, Lauderdale Elementary, Southside High, Riverview Junior High, Pine Hill Community Center, Annesdale Cherokee Baptist Church, Westwood High, Lakeview Elementary, Raineshaven Elementary, New Nonconnah M.B. Church, and Double Tree Elementary).

Call those “home runs.” He got at least 70 percent of the vote in scores of other precincts, which offset the precincts where he got less than 10 percent.

Chumney won two precincts with more than 80 percent (Wells Station Elementary and Kingsbury Elementary). But those two home runs were better than Morris could muster. He played small-ball and picked up 65 percent of the vote in his best precinct (Christian Brothers High School) where at least 300 votes were cast.

Voters are not racially identified, but an educated guess can be made by targeting precincts where the voting population is either almost all white or all black. An examination of such precincts indicates that Herenton got thousands of white votes despite polls showing him with virtually no white support.