Randolph Did right

Southwest Georgia’s Randolph County board of elections did the right thing to abandon the plan to close voting precincts. The county hit the national news when the Elections Board considered a plan to close 7 of 9 voting precincts and consolidate them into two. The proposed plan was a local decision made by a local election board based on a recommendation from a consultant.

When Secretary of State Brian Kemp, the Republican nominee for Governor, heard about the plan, he was the first elected official to speak out against it: “we strongly urged local officials to abandon this effort and focus on preparing for a secure, accessible, and fair election for voters this November.” State Representative Gerald Greene, a Republican, also opposed the plan. But it was Democrat nominee Stacey Abrams and the Georgia Democrat party who saw the opportunity to make it a racial issue and blamed Republicans for attempted voter suppression.

Democrats seized on the news and shrewdly spun it as a sinister plan of Republicans to suppress the black vote. Randolph County’s population is 61% black and it is one of the poorest counties in the nation.

Chart of Precincts in Randolph County, GA

Precincts Won By Donald Trump in Red

In politics, perception is reality and the spin, based on misrepresentation, achieved the goal of attracting media attention and promoting a message that Republicans are the enemy of black Georgians. The truth is that President Trump won 5 of the 7 precincts that were on the list to be closed and nearly half his votes came from those precincts.

The Randolph County Elections Board has two members, one black female and one white male. The consultant’s recommendation was based on locations not being compliant with the Americans for Disabilities Act. It would have also presumably saved the county money by having two polling places rather than nine.

County Attorney, Tommy Coleman, who at one time was the Executive Director of the Georgia Democratic Party, told a reporter from the Washington Post, “I’m quite sure the Board of Elections didn’t intend to disenfranchise any voters. . . . This morphed into something that wasn’t their intention.”

The consultant apparently looked at voting as if it were a merely a mechanical process that could be done more “efficiently.” The recommendation to close 7 precincts and consolidate into one was not based on racial considerations. In a way, it was even more insidious. It was based on a philosophy that views public administration as a science that only professionals can understand. It is a philosophy that creates one-size-fits-all templates while losing sight of the importance of individuals and communities.

Following an outcry from the entire community, the Elections Board met a second time and quickly reversed their decision. They also terminated the consultant who recommended the plan. They did the right thing.

A process to hold and manage fair elections is a basic function of American government. In rural areas the small precinct represents a community. The best government is the government that is closest to the people. These small precinct voting places in fire stations, community centers, churches, schools, and similar gathering places are not just a place to gather votes. They are places where the freedom to vote is an open display of our great nation making the basic decisions on how we the people will govern ourselves.

The volunteer fire station where a small number of people come to vote makes a powerful statement. The elderly farmer, retired school teacher, young married couple, and single mom with a toddler walking by her side, go to the polling place. There they see other people that they know. They know the polling worker who has worked that same polling place for years. They cast their votes for everything from county commissioner to President of the United States. They take that action right there in their own community.

The money spent to provide polling places closer to the people is well spent and should be a priority in the local government budgets. Some voting precincts will be in more densely populated areas and therefore have more voters. Some will be in sparsely populated areas and have fewer voters.

Voting places in communities serve a vital role. They stand as a living witness at every election of the liberty and freedom we have as Americans. In a very real way, those tiny precincts in rural areas remind us that we are a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people. Randolph County did the right thing. I hope that other counties who might be considering similar actions will pause and ask the people before they make such a move. I also hope that counties which may have already taken such measures, will go back and reconsider reopening the smaller precincts in the less populated parts of the county.

In the Randolph County case, Republicans and Democrats wholeheartedly agreed. It was the right thing to do.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Mr. Bishop Fund that Wall

An open letter to Congressman Sanford Bishop, Democrat – 2nd District of Georgia

Dear Congressman Bishop,

We heard the tragic news of the murder of Mollie Tibbetts yesterday. As a nation, we have watched the news and prayed since her disappearance over a month ago. Hope had grown dim and then our greatest fears were confirmed when police announced that they found her body.

As if to stab another wound, we learned that the murderer was an illegal alien. The man who murdered Mollie Tibbetts did not murder her because he was an illegal alien. But he was in the place to murder her because he was an illegal alien. If our borders were secure, he would not have been in Iowa and Mollie Tibbetts would have finished her jog with no incident.

I was sickened to hear Democrat Senator Warren say that she was so sorry for the Tibbetts family, but “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.” She went on to talk about the separation of children from their parents at the border and concluded, “Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.” Mollie Tibbetts was her mama’s baby who is separated with no reunification in this lifetime.

President Trump has been the only President who has seriously addressed border security. Your Democrat party has stood against him at every turn. It has been long past time for you to change your position. I ask you to stand up for President Trump.

The people of the 2nd district are proud, patriotic, Americans. We welcome legal migration to our nation. We want to see an immigration system that is faster, friendlier, and easier for those who seek the American Dream. We want them to come, live, grow a family, and become a part of the great melting pot of America. Those who seek liberty, who seek opportunity, who seek to make a better life for themselves and their communities are welcome. Those who stand in honor and respect when the American Flag passes by are embraced and accepted as our American brothers and sisters.

We do not welcome illegal immigration. We want it stopped. President Trump is doing his best to stop illegal immigration and yet you and the Democrats actively work against every move.

Many Democrats called to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Members of the US House of Representatives responded to these insulting calls by introducting a resolution expressing support and thanks for the work of ICE. You voted, “PRESENT.”

You refused to express appreciation and support for our law enforcement officers charged with protecting our borders. I wonder when you have last been in Southwest Georgia. In every community there are signs posted that read, “Back the Blue.” Have you not seen them? There are more of them than there are of your campaign signs.

How dare you refuse to support ICE? If you cannot support them, then at least be honest and vote NO on the resolution. But you did neither.

“PRESENT” tells me that you are more interested in what your Washington friends think than you are in what your constituents think. It also tells me that you are afraid to take a position. That is why you are in congress. It looks to me like you are only interested in holding your position in Washington rather than taking a position to represent your district.

You have an opportunity to change that perception. Take a close look at this picture of Mollie Tibbetts. Realize that this could have just as easily been a student from Columbus State University, Albany State University, Southwestern State University, Fort Valley State University, Middle Georgia State College or Bainbridge State College.

One of the bills coming before you in the next few weeks will include budget to support President Trump to build a wall and tighten border security. Do not merely vote “Present.” Do not make excuses. Do not offer Washington doublespeak. As your constituent, I have one simple request when it comes before you. Mr. Bishop, fund that wall!

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required








 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Brennan Doth Protest too Much, Methinks

Last week, President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan. Based on the reaction of Brennan and the media, one would think that Trump had erected a guillotine on the White House lawn.

Brennan served as CIA Director in the Obama administration and has been a constant critic of President Trump. Last July, Brennan tweeted that the President’s press conference in Helsinki, “rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.”

Brennan regularly appears as a paid guest analyst on network and cable news shows. He speaks with the authority of someone who has access to insider information that others in news organizations do not have.

Brennan reacted to revocation with defiance and righteous indignation. He called the revocation abnormal, dangerous, suppressing freedom of speech, and punishing critics. He compared the President to foreign tyrants and despots.

Others reacted in a similar fashion. John Kerry referred to the revocation as “banana republic behavior.” Congressman Adam Schiff went as far as to say that the President’s decision was unlawful.

These loud protests are based on the faulty premise that the revocation is the suppression of their freedom of speech. Mr. Brennan and his fellow supporters need to consider the irony of saying that the President is suppressing their free speech.

They are all freely communicating their positions on the matter through numerous means of social media, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, open letters, statements from the halls of congress, and any other means that they choose. Those media outlets are widely dispersing those opinions. I don’t see any censorship, redacting, or other suppression of anyone’s right to free speech.

The obvious question to ask is why these people should continue to have access to our nation’s secrets when they are no longer in an official government role. Why are they so indignant and outraged over losing access to information that is frankly no longer their business?

They do not have a need to know and one wonders why they would even want to know. If they are needed for ongoing consultation, that should be addressed on a case by case basis.

The real problem here is that everything got turned upside down. Somewhere along the line, the security clearance became a lifetime entitlement tied to the individual rather than tied to the actual mission and need to know.

A security clearance is not an entitlement. The President does not have to give a reason for revoking the clearance of someone who no longer holds a government position and therefore has no need to know. It is the other way around.

If there is a need for a former employee to maintain a clearance, then it is up to the current administration to determine if there is justification to maintain the clearance for the mission need. If the mission does not require a need to know, then the clearance becomes inactive the day the individual leaves the government role that required the clearance in the first place.

This is common sense that the average American understands. When you leave a job, you turn in your keys and your access cards, your e-mail account is inactivated, and you are removed from any other access that you had.

You can’t log on to check the company bank account just to see how it is doing. If you come back to the office for some reason, you get a visitor badge and, in some cases, may even need an escort to go to certain areas.

Only in Washington can there be such a firestorm over what should be a routine action. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Mr. Brennan doth protest too much, methinks.”

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Your Vote Counts

Your vote counts. It is so easy on election day to get busy or have something unexpected come up and, at the end of the day, you realize that you forgot to vote. Then you rationalize and tell yourself that it doesn’t really make any difference anyway.

Two candidates for Board of Education, District 3, Lanier County, Georgia will quickly tell you differently. In the Republican Primary held on May 22, three candidates ran for School Board, District 3. Phillip Connell fell just 9 votes short of winning without a runoff.

I do not live in Lanier County but I do know Phillip Connell. If I lived there Phillip would have received my vote.

In the July 24 runoff, when all the votes were cast, the result was a tie – 170 votes each. So they go another round on August 21, but there is yet another cliff hanger.

One of the candidates, JJ Strickland, is an attorney. He has filed a lawsuit “demanding” an injunction to stop the 2nd run-off and give one of his supporters an opportunity to cast a second vote in the runoff. Here is what happened.

On election day, Tyler Westlake, went to vote. He received a ballot for School Board District 4. Tyler Westlake lives in District 3. When he looked at his the ballot, the candidates for District 3 were not on the ballot.

I know you are thinking that the problem should be easily resolved. He simply had to call an election official and point out that he did not see the candidates from his district.

The election official could void the erroneous ballot and give a correct ballot, or at least a provisional ballot, until they can straighten out the matter of which ballot the voter should receive. Election officials will tell you that these questions come up in every election.

The voting machine itself has a large notice on the screen before the ballot is cast. After making all selections and before casting the ballot, there is a final large screen to make a final review before casting the vote. At the very top of the screen, in large letters is this notice:

Photo of Voting Machine with Notice

“Carefully read all instructions before proceeding. If you have any questions, DO NOT touch anything: contact a poll worker.”

Step 3 of the instructions clearly states, “Your vote is FINAL when Cast Ballot is touched.”

Westlake proceeded to cast his vote. It was only after he voted that he told the election official of the mistake.

Instead of contacting a poll worker, as soon as he saw that District 3 candidates were not on the ballot, Mr. Westlake ignored all the instructions and went ahead and voted. After he cast his ballot, he told the poll worker that received the wrong ballot.

Even with paper ballot voting, the rule is always clear: After you drop your ballot in the ballot box, the vote is final. It is too late to change your mind. It is too late to ask questions. All questions, concerns, doubts, are to be resolved before pushing the button on a voting machine, or releasing the ballot to fall into the ballot box.

Until that moment, a voter can change as often as he or she wants. But once the ballot is cast, it is cast and that vote is final.

Mr. Strickland’s lawsuit is a desperate Hail Mary pass. I suspect that there are more than a few voters in Lanier Board of Education District 3 who view this as grasping for some technicality instead of honestly doing the work to ask every voter for his or her vote.

Common sense and bold faced instructions are clear, “DO NOT touch anything: contact a poll worker.” One cannot change the rules after the game has been played. This sounds more like Democrats in 2000 and hanging chads or Hillary blaming the Russians than it does a Republican Primary in South Georgia.

From a political point, this stunt is an extremely unwise move. I predict that it will hurt Strickland in the 2nd runoff.

Lanier County is a small close-knit community. It is one thing for a person to choose to not vote in an election. Tell that same person that a candidate is asking a judge to take away his or her right to vote and “thems fightin words.”

Lawsuits like this are why lawyers are not held in high esteem in the first place. This “demand” to take the election away from the people and have a judge give Strickland’s supporter a second vote is ludicrous. This kind of thing only adds to the greasy reputation of the legal profession.

There will be a hearing on August 16 to make a determination. Strickland has already said that if the judge rules against him, he intends to file an appeal. Yet, another unwise move on his part. In the mean time, early voting has started and the election is still on for August 21.

I suspect that more than a few voters who voted for Strickland in the primary and first runoff, will not be voting for him in this one. There are probably a few who did not vote in either of the previous elections but will go vote in this one just to vote against Strickland. Voters do not like politicians who who try to find a technical loophole that robs them of their right to vote.

This November, you will have your opportunity to vote. Go vote. Your vote counts.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather