Weakley County Tennessee ~ Republicans Feeling Their Oats !

The Tennessee Election Commission
Posted by newscoma Posted in Politics, Tennessee Posted on 28-05-2009
Posted by newscoma Posted in Politics, Tennessee Posted on 28-05-2009
Joe Lance takes a very detailed look at the Tennessee Election Commission.
Recently, a woman here who had been administrator of elections for a long while was replaced because she was a democrat. She’d been in office since the early 80s.
When we talked to the head of the local GOP party(DAVID HAWKS), he said simply, “It’s our time.”
Lance expands on this discussion. Here’s a question: Why are election commissions defined in partisan terms anyway? I get that it matters when one or the other party controls the actual legislative bodies, and, to a slightly lesser degree, the administration; and I understand that there’s a good chance that anyone interested in being a commissioner would likely have a personal party preference; but to spell out “there shall be one more of thesethan of those if these are in power in the House” and so forth seems wholly unnecessary in terms of selecting good, honest men and women to fill the role. And here’s the answer: The Tennessee Democratic Party, which did control the Legislature for generations, sought to extend its grip on power even further, and brought this partisan rule into existence. This occurred decades ago (citation needed, as the ‘pedia says), but, as surely all but the most optimistic realized, the tables would eventually turn; and now they have. The Republicans, for their part, are seeming just a little too eager to grab the electoral reins. Maybe they are hedging their bets against a possible loss in the 2010 elections. In that case, waiting until 2011 would do them no good. Maybe they’re just tired of waiting. It’s all a little disturbing, though. Do them no good ? What “good”? Why should either (no, make that any) political party expect an advantage to come out of the election commission? In many ways, it’s a game of chess. On the other hand, Lance questions the functionality of the election commission in his excellent post. Why should either party get to be the bully on the block? And here is a breakdown of the Tennessee Attorney General Ruling on the issue. The Tennessee attorney general issued an opinion last week that said “a court could find that the dismissal of a county administrator of elections solely on the basis of political party affiliation constitutes a violation of that individual’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.” The AG’s opinion went on to say, however, if a county election commission can show it has delegated “broad discretionary policy making authority” to the administrator of elections, a court could find that political affiliation is “an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of that particular administrator’s position.” I smell lawsuits for both sides of the aisle in the wind with that open-ended ruling from the AG.
Recently, a woman here who had been administrator of elections for a long while was replaced because she was a democrat. She’d been in office since the early 80s.
When we talked to the head of the local GOP party(DAVID HAWKS), he said simply, “It’s our time.”
Lance expands on this discussion. Here’s a question: Why are election commissions defined in partisan terms anyway? I get that it matters when one or the other party controls the actual legislative bodies, and, to a slightly lesser degree, the administration; and I understand that there’s a good chance that anyone interested in being a commissioner would likely have a personal party preference; but to spell out “there shall be one more of thesethan of those if these are in power in the House” and so forth seems wholly unnecessary in terms of selecting good, honest men and women to fill the role. And here’s the answer: The Tennessee Democratic Party, which did control the Legislature for generations, sought to extend its grip on power even further, and brought this partisan rule into existence. This occurred decades ago (citation needed, as the ‘pedia says), but, as surely all but the most optimistic realized, the tables would eventually turn; and now they have. The Republicans, for their part, are seeming just a little too eager to grab the electoral reins. Maybe they are hedging their bets against a possible loss in the 2010 elections. In that case, waiting until 2011 would do them no good. Maybe they’re just tired of waiting. It’s all a little disturbing, though. Do them no good ? What “good”? Why should either (no, make that any) political party expect an advantage to come out of the election commission? In many ways, it’s a game of chess. On the other hand, Lance questions the functionality of the election commission in his excellent post. Why should either party get to be the bully on the block? And here is a breakdown of the Tennessee Attorney General Ruling on the issue. The Tennessee attorney general issued an opinion last week that said “a court could find that the dismissal of a county administrator of elections solely on the basis of political party affiliation constitutes a violation of that individual’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.” The AG’s opinion went on to say, however, if a county election commission can show it has delegated “broad discretionary policy making authority” to the administrator of elections, a court could find that political affiliation is “an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of that particular administrator’s position.” I smell lawsuits for both sides of the aisle in the wind with that open-ended ruling from the AG.
Editorial : Mr. David Hawks is the current Chairman of the Republican party in Weakley County. The now in charge republicans re-placed the current election board administrator, with the former Republican County Chairwoman ! How is that for cronyism ? You would think that the Republicans would learn by now ?



0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home