Extreme makeover: recall edition

On November 6, 2012, Chattanooga voters opted to amend their city charter by repealing one section and inserting new language having to do with recalling an elected official.

Or, put another way, Chattanooga voters simply made official what a state appellate court has already decided: that the requirements pertaining to validation of petition signatures have been set by the Legislature.

Several provisions in Chattanooga’s recall procedure were out of line with state law, but the one change that motivated this amendment—from requiring 50% of the number of voters in the last election to requiring 15% of registered voters—is one of two* pieces the state statute leaves flexible. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 (j) carves out the ability for qualified municipalities to set their own numeric thresholds, if they enact or amend charters after June 1997.

Do you feel like you just went in a circle? Hold tight and get something to clench your teeth on, because this post is going to get wonk-y. Continue reading

On the Ticket: Who is Merlin Miller?

If you have taken the time to look at the ballot for the November 6 election (or if you have perhaps voted early), you will have noticed that—gasp—there are more than two sets of candidates running to be President and Vice-President of the United States.

I thought we’d start at the bottom of the list and work our way up in a brief series of posts on the lesser-known candidates, since (one would hope) everyone knows who the Republican and Democratic nominees are.

Rounding out the Tennessee ballot’s list of seven presidential candidates is one that I had never heard before seeing it on the Secretary of State’s website: Merlin Miller. The first thing to know about Miller is that he is associated with a political party, even though in Tennessee his party does not have ballot access and therefore he is listed as “Independent.”

As you know, “Independent” can mean a lot of things. This is why it’s a good idea to identify the political party with which a candidate affiliates.

The American Third Position Party (or “A3P” for short) has been described as promoting white supremacy. When I looked up Miller’s website I noted that, like many a candidate, he was hawking a book he had written. There was another (new to me) name on that book as the foreword author. Ah, I thought. Better look up that guy. Who’s promoting this candidacy?

So I encountered some writings by A.H. Krieg. I will not do him the service of linking or quoting, but suffice it to say that he does not look kindly on the Jewish people. I read a bit about some other A3P leaders and found their positions on immigration, race, and nationalism equally off-putting.

My next bit of research was on Virginia Abernethy, who is Miller’s running mate. Lo and behold, she is a “professor (emerita) of psychiatry and anthropology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.” So there is a Tennessee connection, although candidates can get on the ballot here far easier if they’re willing to go “Independent” than if they were to try and gain party ballot access.

Readers, I sometimes stridently break from the mythical “pure objectivity” that journalism types adore (we often forget it’s unattainable). This blog is both “straight news” and “editorial page.” In 2008, I openly endorsed now-President Barack Obama. I haven’t yet decided whether I will endorse a candidate in this election.

But I wanted to make sure that voters know what Miller’s “Independent” label means in case they were looking to cast a vote along the lines of “I don’t care for either of the major candidates, so I’m going to vote Independent.” If you are an angry white right-wing populist, an anti-Semite, a vociferous anti-immigration activist, then this is your ticket. (Honest assessment: I can think of several people who self-identify as “Tea Party” that hold similar views to those espoused by the American Third Position Party. Hmmm.)

Otherwise, this information likely will steer you away from Miller-Abernethy as a choice.

Either way, you have been informed.

Column: On closed primaries

Over at Nooga.com, I declare the conditions under which closed primaries would be acceptable.

Let me be clear up front: I have no problem with closed primaries….

Select from those who have been granted entrance only the purest of the pure, the mirror for bona fides, the über-partisan. Rest in the knowledge that there has been no meddling by interlopers, miscreants or rhinoceroses.

There are just two little matters that stand in the way of this dream, this heavenly state where only zealots nominate only Zeleniks.

Read on.

Not married to the party, just Dayton

WRCB’s Jonquil Newland on Monday reported that there is either a coordinated crossover conspiracy in Rhea County’s state House election, or there is a coordinated effort by election workers to zealously thwart what they perceive as a stealth crossover plan.

The TBI’s findings may be interesting, but in the meantime, can we just let people vote? There is no way to tell whether or not a citizen has had a sudden—or slow-building—change of heart. We don’t need the political thought police enforcing a false sense of partisan purity. This is true in GOP primaries in Rhea County, or Democratic primaries in, say, Clarksville.

When people have a choice as to who speaks for them in government, let them make it. It’s not healthy to allow a single group to dictate a region’s representation.

Else we could close primaries and take them off the taxpayers’ bill. Let parties vet their own nominees. Or we could implement a “top two” system. There are other options.

Or maybe we could just brand people on the forehead with a ‘D’ or an ‘R’. Better yet: do it at birth.

Your peers need you, and you your peers

Chattanooga journalist Gary Poole wrote a Facebook post that expresses many similar thoughts to my own on the subject of jury duty. I am quoting it here with his permission.

Here’s something I don’t understand. I have been called for jury duty (I go in today), yet nearly everyone I have told about it has given my “advice” on how to get out if it or “sympathized” with my “misfortune.”

First of all, I don’t want to get out of jury duty. Not only do I feel it’s my duty as a citizen, but I think it’s something everyone should *want* to do. For all that people complain about jury rulings in cases, one would think when given the opportunity to take part in the process themselves, they’d jump at it.

Secondly, there is no misfortune here. The jury system is at the living, breathing heart of our justice system. If you yourself are ever charged with a crime, wouldn’t *you* want the best possible jury deciding you’re fate? Then why on earth do so many people act as if jury duty is something to be avoided at all costs?

I am by nature a generally positive person. I keep my Facebook musings light and tending towards the humorous. I like to laugh and enjoy everything that life offers. But the reaction I’ve gotten from people over this has, quite frankly, annoyed me. Being called to serve on a jury is something everyone should be *proud* of, not upset about.

To put it simply, citizenship is more than just an address.

I hope we can all rise to the occasion when it is our turn.