Submitted by Jim Powers
Jan. 23, 2015, 11:09 a.m.
Today is the 50th anniversary of the 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since ratification of the Amendment, payment of poll taxes can no longer be used as a requirement to vote in Federal elections. But that Amendment did not address other forms of voter suppression, legal and illegal, that still exist.
I grew up in central Georgia, which has never been considered an enlightened area for equality and protection of voting rights. So I know suppression. I remember decades ago in Georgia when winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to election. That was not good, although considered “legal, because it is within the law.” Convenient things, laws.
Poll taxes were legal for many years. Those particularly onerous taxes are gone now, but we still have examples, legal and illegal, of continuing voter suppression—–voter caging, purging of voter eligibility lists in various ways to ensure political purity, carefully drawn and redrawn district lines, voter intimidation, etc and so forth . There are highly compensated consultants who play those “games” for a price. Karl Rove and Lee Atwater come to mind. Often legal, but not necessarily ethical whether legal or not. I think we all know that voter marginalization and disenfranchisement still exist..
Suppression can be particularly effective when you exclude potential voters not just on a one-by-one basis but rather in large categories. Label the category and exclude the whole bunch. Much more efficient that way.
That, in effect, is what the Nassau Legislative delegation, Representative Adkins and Senator Bean, voted to accomplish when their action excluded roughly half of the voters from participating in Port Authority elections. That is a lot of people.
The port’s attorney did little to clarify their thinking. He only said it has been done “this way” for years, so we should just change the Charter from non-partisan to partisan elections to make it legal. I found his reasoning for ignoring existing law weak and inarticulate. He appeared to consider the mandate in the Charter inconsequential. And irrelevant.
Representative Adkins stated that she supports partisan elections for the OHPA because the candidates hold the “core values of the party they represent,” “thereby providing transparency.”
I might ask “transparency into what ?”. Transparency to make sure a candidate or sitting official is not strolling outside the boundaries set by the party apparatus? In my mind, her words are gobbledegook. I would like to hear her defense of such a comment. It appears to me she is advocating the Port commissioners give lock-step adherence to party mandates.
But who makes those party decisions? And who are those decision-makers beholden to? It has been made clear that they are not beholden to the citizens of Fernandina Beach—–the site of the port, let us not forget. Hopefully, the Fernandina Beach City commission, the City Manager, the City staff, and advisory boards will be key participants in future activities and planning for the Port. They should not be stiff-armed out of the way. A healthy partnership is necessary. Who knows what challenges might lie in our future, or who the future members of the Nassau County legislative delegation might be?
It would not be wise to change a state law (Special District Accountability Act) to encourage voter suppression.
Mrs. Adkins words and action greatly disappointed me. My one conversation with her, several years ago, concerned an exchange of ideas about school boards. I served on a school board in Texas years ago and I was favorably impressed with what she had to say. I have to wonder if her current words are just words of political convenience.
I offer one more story for us, the citizens, to think about.
Georgia Tech was invited to the 1956 Sugar Bowl. To play Pittsburgh. Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin, a staunch and vocal segregationist, refused to allow Georgia Tech to accept, because—-yeah, Pittsburgh had some African American players on its team. A fellow Tech student of mine, the Governor’s son, was a member of the large Tech student group that demonstrated against the Governor’s action. Supported by the students, the coaching staff, and the faculty, the Georgia Board of Regents eventually overrode the Governor. The underlying principle at play here is that even though school segregation had not been legal since 1954, Governor Griffin – two years later – was still taking an exclusionary stance when it came to following the law/mandate. But he was forced to back down by citizen pressure.
I have to wonder if the Nassau Legislative Delegation might likewise back down given enough citizen pressure. It would only take one of the two of them to make that decision.
The Port Authority charter mandated non-partisan elections. What ethical reason is there to change the charter? Just because recent elections haven’t followed the mandate doesn’t cut it. Is citizen pressure the way to encourage the delegation to back down and change their decision?
If either Representative Atkins or Senator Bean changes course, the long standing Charter mandate will be followed as written in all upcoming elections — and the delegation won’t be responsible for ignoring the legal mandate for political reasons. Or validating the view “ignore the law, folks, like you have been doing for years, and continue doing what you want to do”. Additionally, by the delegation backing down, the State legislature will not have to the spend the time, energy and resources necessary to consider a proposed local law and enact — or not enact — a change to a mandate that was expected to stand as written.
A side benefit for the Nassau delegation if they step down is that they will not be seen as setting a precedent for other exclusionary practices. Would the election results change in the Republican-dominated county ? Not likely, but the odor of exclusionary practices would be greatly diminished.
Editor’s Note: Before coming to Fernandina Beach, Jim co-managed the total renovation of a golf course in Virginia, and oversaw the management of the resulting course complex. He considered this experience plus his previous background in planning and managing highly complex technical programs within NASA as what he “brought to the table” when he served on the CGAB and CGEC.
I always find Jim Powers’ articles enlightening and many times quite inspiring. His well crafted arguments make for good reading and in this case have changed my mind and opinion about the Port Authority election process. I hope that Janet Adkins and Aaron Bean re-visit their opinion and come to the same conclusion that I have.
Thank you Jim for your article and for always being a civic minded citizen.
Mr. Powers, I feel your comments are so Jermaine to this travesty of political injustice. You and Phil Scanlons, Opinions in this Blog are so well said and compelling. Stay with Non-Partisan Elections. Senator Bean, Representative Adkins. I know your offices monitor the Observer. Take heed, the majority of your constituents ( The ones that pay attention to issues ) want Non-Partisan Elections. This is not over.
Great article Jim! I had forgotten you were a fellow Yellow Jacket.
Partisan Port elections will exclude about 1/2 the county tax paying citizens from running for election — which they could do in a non-partisan election.
In addition, the simple filing by an uncompetitive write-in candidate will exclude about 1/2 the county taxpaying citizens from “voting “in the real election.
That is what happen in the last county commission election and what happened in the last US Representative election here in Nassau County
I realize and accept that Nassau county is a dominant Republican Party and for the past several years only Republicans run in partisan elections. I also realize and accept that all County elected officials are Republican.
However, I would still like to be able to vote in the real election — and not be relegated to only being able to vote in a wasteful election of the Republican winner vs. a non-competitive write-in candidate. In the last US Representative election the write-in candidate would not even let anyone know their name — indicating it was just a ploy to exclude all Democrat and Independent voters from voting in the real election.
Excluding 1/2 the citizens from being able to run in a competitive election by making the Port election partisan is not helpful to obtain better Port management. Excluding 1/2 the citizens from being able to “vote” in real elections is un-American and some of those citizens that have been excluded are veterans, like myself.
The Florida election laws should not be changed to make FB Port elections partisan.
The Florida elections laws should be changed to eliminate a separate General election for an uncompetitive write-in candidate (which seems to have been used to simply exclude voters). A write-in candidate should simply be put on the ballot with the candidates from one party when there are only candidates from one major party in a partisan election — and that would be the General Election all could vote in.