« The Ticket: Picks and Predictions for August 3 - County Commission | Main | I want a blogging job so maybe I can afford a pedometer »
July 19, 2006
Three Big Mistakes
Early-voting vignettes plucked from around the state
When gamesmanship comes home to roost
Just as early voting got underway, Chattanooga acted as host to one of the year’s more bizarre political stories. The tale involves a camera phone, a chicken, a blogger and an automobile. There are at least two sides to the story, but the consensus account has it that one windshield was shattered, one blogger went to hospital, and one chicken-suit-wearing Volvo driver tore across town after the main event. The cell phone didn’t get to play its intended role, as the blogger meant to snap a photo of the chicken running around with its headgear off.
If you had read, some months ago, TeamGOP member Jeff Ward’s assertion that conflicts in West Tennessee Republican circles were often settled with fists and baseball bats, you may not have been surprised to learn of this chicken’s origin (Shelby County). There’s the matter of the blogger, though, who hails from Chattanooga and who, according to some accounts, may have attacked the chicken’s car. Rival campaign volunteers are birds of a feather, it seems. The point is that what should be passion for getting the “right” person elected all too often grows into unhealthy zeal for obstructing another’s campaign. This shows up as sign theft or desecration, phone-jamming schemes and, most unfortunately, physical violence and chicken suits. With the focus so grossly misplaced, lower turnout can be among the widespread effects. Is that what we want? (Like anything else, that depends upon whom is asked.)
And what was a Republican doing driving a Volvo, anyway? Raise your hand if you think those Ed Bryant decals were conveniently covering up a MoveOn.org sticker or two.
Turns out we didn’t need Amendment XIX or the Voting Rights Act after all
The Internet (or, if you prefer, tubes) can be such a wonderful thing. Say you want to find where a chairman of a local political party chapter has misattributed our right to vote to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Just google some key terms and, wham-o, you’ve got the Stuart James article on HamDems.org. (Okay, fair enough: I tried googling for it, and it didn’t show up by press time. But trust me, it was there.) Pundits across the state were left scratching their heads at this display. Just to be clear: the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to vote.
What the First Amendment does cover is the right to confuse the public, even though such wouldn’t be my recommendation. And it covers a small-time political columnist’s right to be snarky about someone else getting his facts mixed up, even though it should be pointed out here that it’s all in good fun.
Another bit of nonsense is the concept that early voting is somehow superior to voting on election day. It’s difficult to see what “message” it sends, with the possible exception being that a few people are just that sure about their choices and/or aren’t available for some reason on the official day. That said, any program that will increase participation is worth considering. (Whatever happened to the practice of handing out free food and booze?)
Ballot fatigue
A friend wrote of his early voting experience that his brain began to shut down just as he was starting the county general section. This is bad news, kids; the local seats are the ones that matter most to daily life, and folks are weary by the time they get to them. Why is this? It could have something to do with the twenty-seven judicial retention questions that formidably occupy so much ballot real estate. (Come on, do they really have to start every single solitary one with the word “Shall” and go through the motions every time? Just give us a heading, the names and the Yes/No boxes, and we’ll figure out what to do.)
Trivia buffs, here’s your question for the week: how many times has a Tennessee Supreme Court Justice or a judge in any of the Courts of Appeals been removed from office due to a majority of “No” votes on this judicial retention ballot? Thought so.
Since it’s just not prudent to go mucking about with the Constitution, I suppose we’ll have to keep doing this every eight years; but can we put the county races first? The state and federal primaries matter still less, to some of us anyway, but there aren’t that many. Governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, only every other State Senate seat, and the State House—yeah, that’s doable. 27 up-or-down votes on names you’re not likely to see or hear again until the next time? Please offer stimulants at the polling place entrance. (Fact: you can request a general election ballot that will leave off the primaries, but it still has these judicial retention questions.)
The right thing to do is to make an informed choice on each judicial seat. There’s no way around that truth, but the supporting information is hard to come by. Various interest groups publish recommendations en masse, but their picks are usually so agenda-driven as to be spoiled. Not many of us has time to research the opinions handed down in appeal after appeal over most of a decade—times 27. Do the best you can; and then get some oxygen, and mush on to the remainder of the ballot.
[This column appears in the July 19, 2006 Pulse.]
Pulsations | By joe lance | 01:30 PM