The first two days of early voting for Winston-Salem City Council have seen Democrats voting in proportionately higher numbers than their Republican and unaffiliated counterparts.
As of Friday, only 393 people had voted in total, with 61.8 percent of them being registered Democrats. In comparison, Democrats make up only 44.2 percent of the registered voters. Conversely, Republicans have made up 24.7 percent of the early voters, compared to their 31.7-percent share of the overall electorate.
The numbers aren't entirely surprising considering that Democrats tend to take advantage of early voting more than Republicans, but it adds to the challenges for Republican candidates trying to break through and win seats on a council that is overwhelmingly Democratic.
Based on voter registration numbers and candidate quality, Republicans have the best chance to pick up a seat in the Northwest Ward, where Lida Hayes Calvert is running on the GOP ticket.
We'll have more detailed coverage of the challenges faced by Republican candidates on Wednesday, along with a voter guide and endorsements.
Early voting is open through Nov. 2 at the Forsyth County Government Center, located at 201 N. Chestnut St. Hours Monday through Friday are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The site is open on Saturday, Nov. 2 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The official election day is Nov. 5.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
USDOJ sues North Carolina to block restrictive election law
The US Justice Department filed suit in an attempt to block North Carolina's new election law in Greensboro today.
The civil complaint filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleges that the HB 589, which was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory on Aug. 12, "was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of African Americans to vote on account of their race or color," in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
"Against a backdrop of the state's history of voting discrimination against African Americans and a dramatic increase in the state's African-American voter turnout rates during the November general elections in 2008 and 2012, North Carolina enacted HB 589 with knowledge of the disproportionate effect that numerous provisions, both singly and together, would have on the equal political participation of minority voters," the lawsuit contends. "These provisions include the reduction of the early voting period, the elimination of same-day voter registration and the imposition of voter photo identification requirements without reasonable safeguards for voters who face barriers to obtaining such identification."
The federal government argues that members of the NC General Assembly were aware of the state's history of voting discrimination, the dramatic increase in black turnout through early voting and same-day registration and the disproportionate effect of the recent changes when they voted to approve the legislation.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis reacted swiftly to the lawsuit in a prepared statement.
"The Obama Justice Department's baseless claims about North Carolina's election reform law are nothing more than an obvious attempt to quash the will of the voters and hinder a hugely popular voter ID requirement," the said. "The law was designed to improve consistency, clarity and uniformity at the polls and it bring North Carolina's election system in line with a majority of other states. We are confident it protects the right of all voters, as required by the US and North Carolina constitutions."
Berger, a lawyer in Eden who represents Rockingham County and part of Guilford County, has been running an online video campaign ad promoting the voter ID law that attacks President Obama and US Sen. Kay Hagan for the past three weeks. Berger has flirted with an election challenge against Hagan, but the ad identifies him with his current post in the NC Senate. Tillis has already announced plans to run against Hagan.
"Voter ID prevents fraud and protects the integrity of our elections," the state senator says in the ad. "It's common sense."
The NC NAACP applauded the Justice Department's intervention.
"The Southern strategy of the well-funded, nationally-coordinated ultra-right has convinced many Republican moderates that the only way they can hold on to political power in Washington, and the South, is to drastically suppress voting rights for minorities," said William J. Barber II, president of the NC NAACP. "We need every resource, including the US government, to help us expose the national conspiracy behind this movement to suppress targeted constituencies in the new Southern electorate."
The US government argues that North Carolina has a history of voting-related suppression against African Americans that leads up to the present, which the lawsuit contends is "long-standing, well-documented and judicially recognized." The lawsuit cites Gingles v. Edmisen, a 1984 case heard in the Eastern District of North Carolina that concluded that the state "officially and effectively discriminated against black citizens in matters touching their exercise of the voting franchise... from ca. 1900 to ca. 1970."
Supporting the claim that "race continues to be a significant and, oftentimes, divisive factor" in North Carolina elections, the government argues that "the continued effects of discrimination on African-American citizens in North Carolina, including their markedly lower socioeconomic conditions relative to white citizens, continue to hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process in North Carolina.
The complaint adds that "racial appeals have characterized certain political campaigns in North Carolina" (no specific examples are cited, but "White Hands" comes to mind) and argues that "many elected officials in North Carolina have not been responsive to the particularized needs of African Americans."
In addition to arguing that HB 589 was motivated by a discriminatory purpose — the harder climb for the plaintiff — the government also argues that the implementation of the new law will have a discriminatory result.
The lawsuit notes that the new law reduces the number of days in early voting and eliminates same-day registration — both of which black voters have used to a greater extent than their white counterparts. The complaint also notes that black voters are more likely to cast out-of-precinct provisional ballots — a practice that will be eliminated under the new law — and disproportionately lack photo IDs — a requirement under the law.
"The process of obtaining valid photo identification under HB 589 will impose a substantial and disproportionate burden on thousands of African-American voters in North Carolina who are disproportionately poor and disproportionately lack access to transportation," the lawsuit argues.
"Several changes mandated by HB 589 — including, among others, the reduction in number of early voting days, the elimination of same-day registration, the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots, and the imposition of a voter photo identification requirement — will act in combination to produce an even greater discriminatory impact on African-American voters than would each individual change standing alone," the complaint continues. "These provisions will operate in concert, resulting in unequal access for African-American voters to the political process."
The civil complaint filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleges that the HB 589, which was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory on Aug. 12, "was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of African Americans to vote on account of their race or color," in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
"Against a backdrop of the state's history of voting discrimination against African Americans and a dramatic increase in the state's African-American voter turnout rates during the November general elections in 2008 and 2012, North Carolina enacted HB 589 with knowledge of the disproportionate effect that numerous provisions, both singly and together, would have on the equal political participation of minority voters," the lawsuit contends. "These provisions include the reduction of the early voting period, the elimination of same-day voter registration and the imposition of voter photo identification requirements without reasonable safeguards for voters who face barriers to obtaining such identification."
The federal government argues that members of the NC General Assembly were aware of the state's history of voting discrimination, the dramatic increase in black turnout through early voting and same-day registration and the disproportionate effect of the recent changes when they voted to approve the legislation.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis reacted swiftly to the lawsuit in a prepared statement.
"The Obama Justice Department's baseless claims about North Carolina's election reform law are nothing more than an obvious attempt to quash the will of the voters and hinder a hugely popular voter ID requirement," the said. "The law was designed to improve consistency, clarity and uniformity at the polls and it bring North Carolina's election system in line with a majority of other states. We are confident it protects the right of all voters, as required by the US and North Carolina constitutions."
Berger, a lawyer in Eden who represents Rockingham County and part of Guilford County, has been running an online video campaign ad promoting the voter ID law that attacks President Obama and US Sen. Kay Hagan for the past three weeks. Berger has flirted with an election challenge against Hagan, but the ad identifies him with his current post in the NC Senate. Tillis has already announced plans to run against Hagan.
"Voter ID prevents fraud and protects the integrity of our elections," the state senator says in the ad. "It's common sense."
The NC NAACP applauded the Justice Department's intervention.
"The Southern strategy of the well-funded, nationally-coordinated ultra-right has convinced many Republican moderates that the only way they can hold on to political power in Washington, and the South, is to drastically suppress voting rights for minorities," said William J. Barber II, president of the NC NAACP. "We need every resource, including the US government, to help us expose the national conspiracy behind this movement to suppress targeted constituencies in the new Southern electorate."
The US government argues that North Carolina has a history of voting-related suppression against African Americans that leads up to the present, which the lawsuit contends is "long-standing, well-documented and judicially recognized." The lawsuit cites Gingles v. Edmisen, a 1984 case heard in the Eastern District of North Carolina that concluded that the state "officially and effectively discriminated against black citizens in matters touching their exercise of the voting franchise... from ca. 1900 to ca. 1970."
Supporting the claim that "race continues to be a significant and, oftentimes, divisive factor" in North Carolina elections, the government argues that "the continued effects of discrimination on African-American citizens in North Carolina, including their markedly lower socioeconomic conditions relative to white citizens, continue to hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process in North Carolina.
The complaint adds that "racial appeals have characterized certain political campaigns in North Carolina" (no specific examples are cited, but "White Hands" comes to mind) and argues that "many elected officials in North Carolina have not been responsive to the particularized needs of African Americans."
In addition to arguing that HB 589 was motivated by a discriminatory purpose — the harder climb for the plaintiff — the government also argues that the implementation of the new law will have a discriminatory result.
The lawsuit notes that the new law reduces the number of days in early voting and eliminates same-day registration — both of which black voters have used to a greater extent than their white counterparts. The complaint also notes that black voters are more likely to cast out-of-precinct provisional ballots — a practice that will be eliminated under the new law — and disproportionately lack photo IDs — a requirement under the law.
"The process of obtaining valid photo identification under HB 589 will impose a substantial and disproportionate burden on thousands of African-American voters in North Carolina who are disproportionately poor and disproportionately lack access to transportation," the lawsuit argues.
"Several changes mandated by HB 589 — including, among others, the reduction in number of early voting days, the elimination of same-day registration, the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots, and the imposition of a voter photo identification requirement — will act in combination to produce an even greater discriminatory impact on African-American voters than would each individual change standing alone," the complaint continues. "These provisions will operate in concert, resulting in unequal access for African-American voters to the political process."
Republican candidate for mayor in the race, after all
James Lee Knox, who announced last month that he would withdraw from the Winston-Salem mayoral race, is running after all.The Republican candidate never took any action to remove his name from the ballot, and last week his campaign manager was handing out a flier outlining Knox's platform at an event sponsored by Forsyth County Republican Women on the topic of Common Core educational standards.
Knox withdrew from the race in August after the Forsyth County Republican Party formally withheld its support because of Knox had used the racial slur "n*****" in reference to an election worker during the 2012 election. Knox's criminal record also surfaced as a liability during the campaign.
Singletary said that Knox completely acknowledged having made the slur.
"He has apologized," Singletary said. "The idea that he's a racist is ridiculous. Many of his clients are African American.... He spoke in error. He spoke in the heat of the moment."
Singletary said Knox suspended his campaign to protect his family and mitigate dissension within the county party.
"However, there needs to be a Republican on the ballot, so there is a choice," Singletary said. "James may not fit your image of a mayoral candidate, but he epitomizes a small-town mayor, family man, and small business owner who's made mistakes like the rest of us."
Knox is challenging Democrat Allen Joines, who has served as mayor since 2001.
No controversy expected from Guilford County Board of Elections
Local Republican-controlled election boards across North Carolina — especially in Elizabeth City, Watauga County and even right in Forsyth County — are being watched closely due to attempts to alter or limit access to voting. But in Guilford County, there's no gawking press or outraged public, just a quiet, calm meeting in a large room at the old county courthouse. As the three-member board met last week, with lone Democrat Dot Kearns participating on speakerphone, the biggest "controversy" was whether to reappoint a long-serving Democratic chief precinct judge who said he was unsure he wanted to continue in the position.
[Republican board members Don Wendelken and Kathryn Lindley voted not to reappoint him but to continue discussing the issue with him in case he decided to keep serving. Kearns said he should be appointed and could choose to step down instead.]
[Republican board members Don Wendelken and Kathryn Lindley voted not to reappoint him but to continue discussing the issue with him in case he decided to keep serving. Kearns said he should be appointed and could choose to step down instead.]
 |
| L to R: Don Wendelken, who ran unsuccessfully for county commissioner last year, Board Chair Kathryn Lindley and Elections Director Charlie Collicutt last week.
As the board aimed to appoint judges and chief judges for precincts throughout the county, the main problem arose from previous appointees declining to serve and both the local Republican and Democratic parties failing to provide a sufficient list of names to fill all of the vacancies. In several instances at the board's meeting last week, the three members elected to take no action.
We'll continue to watch the Forsyth and Guilford County Election Boards, but at least for now, all's quiet on the eastern front (of our coverage area, that is).
|
Breakdown: How new NC voting laws will affect you
The North Carlina General Assembly has passed so much legislation recently that many of our heads are still spinning. Voter ID is among the most publicized changes to state law, but do you have any clue how it will affect you or what the changes actually are?
Here's a quick overview of what the state legislature passed and when those changes will be implemented. Below, we've included a document that runs through the new requirements in more detail. The short story: You probably won't be impacted by new voting laws for the Greensboro or Winston-Salem city council elections this fall.
The only change that begins in 2013, according to Guilford County Elections Board Director Charlie Collicutt, is pre-registration for people who are 16+. The previous law allowed people who were 16 or 17 to register to vote beforehand and the elections board would hold their registration until they were legally allowed to vote. Pre-registration will end on Sept. 1, though anyone who is signed up before that date will remain in the queue.
The changes will be implemented more fully at the beginning of 2014, including the elimination of same-day registration. Collicutt said 6,000 people in Guilford County used same-day registration in 2012 (which is more than some other elections because there was a presidential race). The 17-day early voting period will be reduced to 10 days, but a late amendment to the bill requires election boards to be open for the same number of early voting hours. Collicutt said the hours requirement wouldn't be difficult to meet, forcing them to either add sites and/or hours to the site over the 10 days. In 2012, 160,000 people voted early in Guilford County, about twice as many as Election Day, Collicutt said.
There's been some confusion about whether the NC General Assembly eliminated Sunday voting, which opponents said would disproportionately disenfranchise black voters. Collicutt said the early voting restrictions don't limit specific days but reduce the overall number of days, as far as he knows.
Voter ID will take full effect in 2016, but in 2014 election boards will ask voters who don't volunteer specific identification to produce one. If a voter doesn't have one, the new law requires board employees to provide them information on what ID will be required in 2014 and have them sign an affidavit that they received the information, Collicutt. To be clear, you will still be able to vote without an ID in 2014, but the board will provide voters without one information on how to obtain proper ID for 2016.
The state legislature also mandated that elections boards use voting machines that produce paper ballots in 2018. Guilford County uses electronic machines, but Collicutt said the board would probably be buying new machines around that time anyway.
"If I had to replace it right now it'd be about $2.5 million up front, plus the recurring cost of paper," Collicutt said, adding that he can't predict the cost of new equipment in 2018.
Read more about North Carolina's new voting laws here:
Here's a quick overview of what the state legislature passed and when those changes will be implemented. Below, we've included a document that runs through the new requirements in more detail. The short story: You probably won't be impacted by new voting laws for the Greensboro or Winston-Salem city council elections this fall.
The only change that begins in 2013, according to Guilford County Elections Board Director Charlie Collicutt, is pre-registration for people who are 16+. The previous law allowed people who were 16 or 17 to register to vote beforehand and the elections board would hold their registration until they were legally allowed to vote. Pre-registration will end on Sept. 1, though anyone who is signed up before that date will remain in the queue.
The changes will be implemented more fully at the beginning of 2014, including the elimination of same-day registration. Collicutt said 6,000 people in Guilford County used same-day registration in 2012 (which is more than some other elections because there was a presidential race). The 17-day early voting period will be reduced to 10 days, but a late amendment to the bill requires election boards to be open for the same number of early voting hours. Collicutt said the hours requirement wouldn't be difficult to meet, forcing them to either add sites and/or hours to the site over the 10 days. In 2012, 160,000 people voted early in Guilford County, about twice as many as Election Day, Collicutt said.
There's been some confusion about whether the NC General Assembly eliminated Sunday voting, which opponents said would disproportionately disenfranchise black voters. Collicutt said the early voting restrictions don't limit specific days but reduce the overall number of days, as far as he knows.
Voter ID will take full effect in 2016, but in 2014 election boards will ask voters who don't volunteer specific identification to produce one. If a voter doesn't have one, the new law requires board employees to provide them information on what ID will be required in 2014 and have them sign an affidavit that they received the information, Collicutt. To be clear, you will still be able to vote without an ID in 2014, but the board will provide voters without one information on how to obtain proper ID for 2016.
The state legislature also mandated that elections boards use voting machines that produce paper ballots in 2018. Guilford County uses electronic machines, but Collicutt said the board would probably be buying new machines around that time anyway.
"If I had to replace it right now it'd be about $2.5 million up front, plus the recurring cost of paper," Collicutt said, adding that he can't predict the cost of new equipment in 2018.
Read more about North Carolina's new voting laws here:
Montgomery, Diggs first to put names on the ballot for Winston-Salem City Council
 |
| Derwin Montgomery and Brenda B. Diggs |
Montgomery, who is defending his seat against former East Ward representative Joycelyn Johnson, arrived at 11:20 a.m. He drove straight to the election office from South Carolina, where he had been visiting family for the July 4 holiday, without stopping at home. Diggs arrived about 15 minutes later with an entourage of 18 people that included family, friends, community supporters and a designated photographer to commemorate the event.
The Northwest Ward seat sought by Diggs is currently represented by Mayor Pro Tem Vivian Burke, who could not be reached today for comment about whether she intends to file.
Diggs approached Montgomery about 10 minutes before noon.
"Derwin, you've done this before," she said, "but this is a history-making moment for me."
 |
| Montgomery files with help from election worker Judy Speas |
He gave no indication of entertaining the possibility of deferring the honor.
Jacob Wright, an election worker, broke the polite standoff by offering to get Diggs started with her paperwork at another computer terminal down the counter.
 |
| Diggs celebrates her candidacy with supporters. |
By noon, Montgomery was ready to put his signature on his paperwork. Diggs finished in quick succession and convened with her family, which included two grand-nieces, in the lobby for photographs.
UPDATE: Joycelyn Johnson has for the East Ward and Councilman Robert Clark has filed for re-election in the West Ward. Clark and Montgomery said Mayor Allen Joines plans to file on Monday.
Southeast Ward Councilman James Taylor Jr., South Ward Councilwoman Molly Leight, Southwest Ward Councilman Dan Besse and North Ward Councilwoman Denise D. Adams have also said they plan to file.
Research candidates for Winston-Salem City Council at YES! Weekly's online voter guide, Triad Elections '13.
Mayor Allen Joines announces reelection campaign
Mayor Allen Joines kicked off his reelection campaign this morning at Medicap Pharmacy on Liberty Street on the east side of Winston-Salem.
"What we're really all about at city government is listening to folks in the community and trying to address problems," Joines said. "And we've done that. Up here on Liberty Street, we've made significant investment in the public infrastructure all along here with sidewalks, new lights, landscaping to create a positive environment for business. We've worked with the Liberty CDC on acquiring land and flipping land and getting buildings redone. I know there's more things that we can do. We just talked about that — that we might need to jazz up our small business loan program a bit."
The campaign event was hosted by Joines' campaign co-chair, Jim Shaw, who is president of the Liberty Community Development Corp. The mayor is making the rounds throughout the city, accompanied by political consultant Mike Horn, today to speak with small groups of business and community leaders. He was scheduled to stop at Chelsee's Coffee Shop & More on Trade Street at 10:15 a.m. and with the Minister's Alliance at a church at 11 a.m. The mayor makes his official reelection announcement at noon today on the steps of City Hall.
Councilman James Taylor Jr., who represents the Southeast Ward was among about a dozen people present for the campaign event, including Forsyth County Commissioner Walter Marshall, NAACP leader Stephen Hairston, Piedmont Propulsion Systems General Manager Sammy Oakley, publicist Carroll Leggett, former councilman Fred Terry and Brenda Diggs.
Taylor said he also plans to run for reelection for the Southeast Ward seat.
"With James' leadership we really developed a very strong RUCA program — Revitalizing Urban Commercial Areas — where we took $2.8 million of the money we got back from Dell," Joines said. "We got all our money back. We used a portion of that to help with areas like Liberty Street and Waughtown, King Plaza over in James' ward, and the Polo-Cherry area. We're working with the business community to make improvements in those areas. We haven't got it all done yet, but we're making good progress."
The mayor said the has lost 15,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction over the past 12 years, but has replaced them with 17,000 new jobs in advanced manufacturing, information technology and the medical sector. He cited Piedmont Propulsion Systems, where Oakley told him the company employs 45 people at Reynolds Airport. Joines also said the city remains focused on the social goals of reducing childhood obesity and increasing recycling.
The mayor fielded a question about what the city is doing to provide employment opportunities for young people as construction continues on Piedmont Triad Research Park on the eastern flank of downtown. Joines said he and East Ward Councilman Derwin Montgomery recently met with park President Eric Tomlinson to discuss the matter.
"How do we get the word out about the types of jobs that are being created so young people can start preparing for them?" the mayor asked rhetorically. "One, we're going to have a town-hall meeting with Eric and talk about some of those things. The other thing is change the website — young people, that's one thing they know how to do — with a section about the different types of jobs that are being created and will be created, and the type of skill sets that will be needed, so young people can see that to create a career path. The other thing we're going to do is have more communication with our school system so they understand the kind of jobs that are being created there, and they can communicate that to the students through their counselors the types of courses that they'll need to take. We acknowledged we haven't done a good enough job."
A political-season appeal to YES! Weekly readers
Eric Ginsburg and I have interviewed dozens of candidates each in this political season. On a weekly basis we file at least one story apiece that involves thorough reporting on the political races in Guilford and Forsyth counties that examine the candidates' histories and campaign styles and compare their positions on issues that are important to our region, state and nation. We attend candidate forums and piece together which hopefuls are informed and thoughtful, and which are making desperate rhetorical ploys.
With the help of intern Karen Phillips, we've put together exactly 100 candidate backgrounders for our online voter guide, and that doesn't even count the candidates that were knocked out of contention in the primary. The next issue of YES! Weekly will feature a story about changes in Guilford County's state legislative delegation. I'll have two companion pieces about the congressional races in North Carolina's 5th and 12th congressional districts. Between Eric and I, we've already filed stories about two Guilford County Commission district races, Forsyth County state Senate and House races, campaign stops by Mitt Romney and Pat McCrory, and the mayoral and at-large races for High Point City Council.
We put in long, grueling hours conducting interviews, compiling information and carefully assembling stories so that they are fair and comprehensive. We do it because we believe that a functioning democracy requires an engaged electorate. We do it even though we know that media literacy and newspaper readership are on the decline. We do it because we believe citizens need a base line of facts to make wise decisions in the midst of a political landscape strewn with partisan flak. We do it because we need this kind of reporting now more than ever.
We know there's an audience for this work because each candidate backgrounder has received somewhere between 200 and 1,000 page views. Eric's story about the Republican primary for the new Guilford County Commission District 6 seat is the second most read online Dirt story in the history of this publication, while my story on the 12th Congressional District Democratic primary ranks sixth.
But we don't know who's consuming all this information because, to be frank, we don't get a lot of feedback from you. We have no idea whether the audience for these stories is ordinary voters or primarily political candidates and their entourage of managers and consultants. We don't really know what kind of information is helpful to you in making decisions at your polling places.
So I'm asking for your indulgence. Please write a couple words about a particular candidate or political contest -- something you like or dislike about them, or just find significant. Let's leave aside the marquee race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. How about Walter Dalton vs. Pat McCrory, Virginia Foxx vs. Elisabeth Motsinger, Howard Coble vs. Tony Foriest, Mel Watt vs. Jack Brosch, Linda Coleman vs. Dan Forest, Trudy Wade vs. Myra Slone, Ed Hanes Jr. vs. Charlie Mellies, Paul Gibson vs. Jeff Phillips.... How about Bernita Sims, Chris Whitley, Coy Williard and Tammy Holyfield in the High Point mayoral race?
We'd like to get a political pulse on the region we serve to understand how ordinary voters are processing information about candidates. So please, no campaign managers and professional political consultants. And please provide your name and hometown so we can get a sense of where you're coming from. You can weigh in by commenting on this blog. Or find us on Facebook and Twitter, and comment there.
We’d love to hear from you.
With the help of intern Karen Phillips, we've put together exactly 100 candidate backgrounders for our online voter guide, and that doesn't even count the candidates that were knocked out of contention in the primary. The next issue of YES! Weekly will feature a story about changes in Guilford County's state legislative delegation. I'll have two companion pieces about the congressional races in North Carolina's 5th and 12th congressional districts. Between Eric and I, we've already filed stories about two Guilford County Commission district races, Forsyth County state Senate and House races, campaign stops by Mitt Romney and Pat McCrory, and the mayoral and at-large races for High Point City Council.
We put in long, grueling hours conducting interviews, compiling information and carefully assembling stories so that they are fair and comprehensive. We do it because we believe that a functioning democracy requires an engaged electorate. We do it even though we know that media literacy and newspaper readership are on the decline. We do it because we believe citizens need a base line of facts to make wise decisions in the midst of a political landscape strewn with partisan flak. We do it because we need this kind of reporting now more than ever.
We know there's an audience for this work because each candidate backgrounder has received somewhere between 200 and 1,000 page views. Eric's story about the Republican primary for the new Guilford County Commission District 6 seat is the second most read online Dirt story in the history of this publication, while my story on the 12th Congressional District Democratic primary ranks sixth.
But we don't know who's consuming all this information because, to be frank, we don't get a lot of feedback from you. We have no idea whether the audience for these stories is ordinary voters or primarily political candidates and their entourage of managers and consultants. We don't really know what kind of information is helpful to you in making decisions at your polling places.
So I'm asking for your indulgence. Please write a couple words about a particular candidate or political contest -- something you like or dislike about them, or just find significant. Let's leave aside the marquee race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. How about Walter Dalton vs. Pat McCrory, Virginia Foxx vs. Elisabeth Motsinger, Howard Coble vs. Tony Foriest, Mel Watt vs. Jack Brosch, Linda Coleman vs. Dan Forest, Trudy Wade vs. Myra Slone, Ed Hanes Jr. vs. Charlie Mellies, Paul Gibson vs. Jeff Phillips.... How about Bernita Sims, Chris Whitley, Coy Williard and Tammy Holyfield in the High Point mayoral race?
We'd like to get a political pulse on the region we serve to understand how ordinary voters are processing information about candidates. So please, no campaign managers and professional political consultants. And please provide your name and hometown so we can get a sense of where you're coming from. You can weigh in by commenting on this blog. Or find us on Facebook and Twitter, and comment there.
We’d love to hear from you.
Research candidates on Guilford and Forsyth ballots
As we move into the last month before the most important election of our lifetimes — or at least until 2016 — you might be thinking that you should start familiarizing yourself with the candidates on the ballot.
To my knowledge, no newspaper in the Triad has an online voter guide as comprehensive as YES! Weekly. Yes, I'm bragging because I've earned the right to. Since filing opened for most races in February, staff writer Eric Ginsburg, intern Karen Phillips and I have been calling every candidate who will be on the ballot in Guilford and Forsyth counties to get their data.
From president of the United States down to register of deeds and school board, we have information about the candidates' electoral experience, the endorsements they've received and who they've hired as campaign consultants. We also have information about High Point City Council candidates. And every time we file a story or publish a blog post on any of the candidates, a link is added to their page, so that all of our election coverage is compiled in one central location.
So visit us often at triadpolitics.info (Triad Elections 2012).
To my knowledge, no newspaper in the Triad has an online voter guide as comprehensive as YES! Weekly. Yes, I'm bragging because I've earned the right to. Since filing opened for most races in February, staff writer Eric Ginsburg, intern Karen Phillips and I have been calling every candidate who will be on the ballot in Guilford and Forsyth counties to get their data.
From president of the United States down to register of deeds and school board, we have information about the candidates' electoral experience, the endorsements they've received and who they've hired as campaign consultants. We also have information about High Point City Council candidates. And every time we file a story or publish a blog post on any of the candidates, a link is added to their page, so that all of our election coverage is compiled in one central location.
So visit us often at triadpolitics.info (Triad Elections 2012).
Commissioner Paul Gibson won't play ball
UPDATE: Paul Gibson sent in a completed survey at 8:34 pm tonight (later the same day) and included an apology for having inaccurate information. A politician who can apologize or admit they made a mistake is rare in my experience, and I commend him for it. The original post is below.
Calling candidates to complete our voter guide is one of the less exciting parts of my job, but it's important nonetheless to provide readers with some basic information about the names that will appear on their ballots in the upcoming general election Nov. 6. Candidates usually greet our requests for a head shot and a completed survey with similar enthusiasm, but Guilford County Commissioner Paul Gibson was the exception.
I've interviewed Gibson before, and my editor Jordan Green told me we've endorsed him in the past. When I called Gibson last week, he was angry to say the least, accusing our publisher Charles Womack of donating to his opponent and saying the donation jeopardized the journalistic integrity of our paper. I couldn't get a word in edgewise and was baffled by the entire conversation.
It turns out that my publisher did not donate to Gibson's opponent in District 5, and didn't seem to know who Jeff Phillips was. When I called Gibson back today to tell him this, he insisted that someone from YES! Weekly did, and that he was almost certain it was Womack. So even though Jordan had already looked at the campaign finance reports I checked again, even going over reports from Don Wendelken, who Phillips beat in the Republican primary. No donation to either candidate from anyone affiliated with YES! Weekly was listed.
So I called Gibson again. He was just as short as in our previous conversations, insisting Charles donated to someone and that it was on par with the head of CBS donating $100,000 to a Republican PAC. The assertion of a right wing bias at YES! Weekly is probably just as funny to anyone who knows our paper as it is to our editorial staff (all of whom, by the way, are registered independent, including myself) because we are routinely accused by conservative candidates of being too left wing.
It turns out Charles donated to Tony Wilkins, a Republican who ran for County Commissioners in a different district than Gibson. Charles said Wilkins is an old friend, and I'll also note that he was probably the most centrist or left-leaning (Wilkins might reject that characterization) Republican in the primary race. Linda Kellerman, who won the Democratic primary for the same race, had announced that she was dropping out of the race.
The most confusing part of the entire interaction is that I was calling Gibson for a candidate survey, not an article. The most controversial question on the survey is probably the fact that we ask candidates their age — there is no space for positions, it is just background information on the candidates. Every candidate answers the same questions, and we print exactly what they give us. Bias is an impossibility unless we only included some candidates (and of course we include everything we get back).
Our publisher doesn't have anything to do with our elections coverage — and invite you to prove me wrong. I challenged Gibson to point to an example of biased elections reporting in our paper, and I extend the invitation to the public. We report the facts and usually represent candidates in their own words. Our goal is to give voters accurate information about candidates so they can decide, and while we occasionally weigh in on who we think deserves our vote, we keep the endorsements and opinions separate from the news content.
There is still time for Gibson to change his mind. I emailed him the survey anyway, pointing out that it was voters (and not us) who were hurt by the lack of information.
Calling candidates to complete our voter guide is one of the less exciting parts of my job, but it's important nonetheless to provide readers with some basic information about the names that will appear on their ballots in the upcoming general election Nov. 6. Candidates usually greet our requests for a head shot and a completed survey with similar enthusiasm, but Guilford County Commissioner Paul Gibson was the exception.
I've interviewed Gibson before, and my editor Jordan Green told me we've endorsed him in the past. When I called Gibson last week, he was angry to say the least, accusing our publisher Charles Womack of donating to his opponent and saying the donation jeopardized the journalistic integrity of our paper. I couldn't get a word in edgewise and was baffled by the entire conversation.
It turns out that my publisher did not donate to Gibson's opponent in District 5, and didn't seem to know who Jeff Phillips was. When I called Gibson back today to tell him this, he insisted that someone from YES! Weekly did, and that he was almost certain it was Womack. So even though Jordan had already looked at the campaign finance reports I checked again, even going over reports from Don Wendelken, who Phillips beat in the Republican primary. No donation to either candidate from anyone affiliated with YES! Weekly was listed.
So I called Gibson again. He was just as short as in our previous conversations, insisting Charles donated to someone and that it was on par with the head of CBS donating $100,000 to a Republican PAC. The assertion of a right wing bias at YES! Weekly is probably just as funny to anyone who knows our paper as it is to our editorial staff (all of whom, by the way, are registered independent, including myself) because we are routinely accused by conservative candidates of being too left wing.
It turns out Charles donated to Tony Wilkins, a Republican who ran for County Commissioners in a different district than Gibson. Charles said Wilkins is an old friend, and I'll also note that he was probably the most centrist or left-leaning (Wilkins might reject that characterization) Republican in the primary race. Linda Kellerman, who won the Democratic primary for the same race, had announced that she was dropping out of the race.
The most confusing part of the entire interaction is that I was calling Gibson for a candidate survey, not an article. The most controversial question on the survey is probably the fact that we ask candidates their age — there is no space for positions, it is just background information on the candidates. Every candidate answers the same questions, and we print exactly what they give us. Bias is an impossibility unless we only included some candidates (and of course we include everything we get back).
Our publisher doesn't have anything to do with our elections coverage — and invite you to prove me wrong. I challenged Gibson to point to an example of biased elections reporting in our paper, and I extend the invitation to the public. We report the facts and usually represent candidates in their own words. Our goal is to give voters accurate information about candidates so they can decide, and while we occasionally weigh in on who we think deserves our vote, we keep the endorsements and opinions separate from the news content.
There is still time for Gibson to change his mind. I emailed him the survey anyway, pointing out that it was voters (and not us) who were hurt by the lack of information.
Tony Wilkins files to run for District 6 County Commissioner
As the clock ran out on filing for a few remaining County Commissioner seats yesterday — a deadline which was extended due to a court proceedings which temporarily suspended the filing process as the NAACP challenged the legality of the commissioner redistricting — veteran conservative Tony Wilkins filed for District 6.
Wilkins will run against fellow Republicans Hank Henning and Jeremy Williams, but he wasn't the only candidate to file before the final deadline at 5 p.m. March 9. Democrats Dan Miller of Greensboro and Linda Kellerman of High Point both filed yesterday for District 6 as well, bringing the number of candidates from two on Thursday up to five.
In a press release, Wilkins emphasized his service as Executive Director of the Guilford County Republican Party for two years and the facts that he spent his entire life in the county and experience running a furniture business. "He pledges to work tirelessly for jobs, economic growth, and public safety," the release said.
There is no incumbent running for the new seat.
Also yesterday, Republican Noah Messick of Gibsonville filed for District 4 Commissioner, running against Republicans Jerry Branson of Julian and Douglas Williams of Greensboro, who filed two days prior. Incumbent Kirk Perkins is the only Democrat running for the seat.
As filing closed for the County Commissioner races, Democrat Ray Trapp was ensured victory in District 8, as no other candidates filed for the seat.
For more filing information, visit the Board of Election's filing list.
Kicking into high gear
September is over. Pretty much! And we're kicking our election coverage into high gear this week, beginning with this week's editorial, which you'll note ends with a call to all candidates for personal interviews with our endorsement committee before we make our picks in the Nov. 2 issue of YES! Weekly.
I'll be booking these interviews beginning today — open to all, and yes, participation does count in our figuring.
We haven't done this in years, frankly because we're overworked as it is. But we're bringing it back this year because it really helps to have some face time with the candidates before making our choices.
First round of calls goes out this morning. Or if you're a candidate and are the proactive type you can contact me directly at 33.316.1231 or editor@yesweekly.com to schedule a time.
I'll be booking these interviews beginning today — open to all, and yes, participation does count in our figuring.
We haven't done this in years, frankly because we're overworked as it is. But we're bringing it back this year because it really helps to have some face time with the candidates before making our choices.
First round of calls goes out this morning. Or if you're a candidate and are the proactive type you can contact me directly at 33.316.1231 or editor@yesweekly.com to schedule a time.
Does race matter in elections?
Does race still matter in elections? By law it does, at least in jurisdictions such as Guilford County that are covered under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some (1, 2) are suggesting the county should avail itself of the act’s “bail-out” provisions, and one commentator, Joe Guarino of Greensboro, has called it a “bad law.”
A popular conservative blogger, Guarino drew a parallel between North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District, which is drawn to ensure minority representation, and the 13th Congressional District, which is drawn to the advantage of a Democratic candidate by packing liberal constituencies in Greensboro and Burlington into what would otherwise be a conservative-leaning district.
“I would conflate the situations in those two districts under the banner of self-serving Democratic behavior,” Guarino said.
First, some background on why North Carolina jurisdictions such as Guilford County — others are Caswell, Cumberland and Rockingham counties — are under federal supervision and require review from the US Justice Department before redrawn political districting maps can be put in place.
The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965 to remedy the disenfranchisement of minority voters, particularly in the South, where blacks had been systematically excluded and discouraged from political participation since the turn of the century. Through Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a formula was established to determine where “racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent… and to provide more stringent remedies where appropriate.”
Section 4 established three criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction should be covered under the Voting Rights Act:
So is the Voting Rights Act still needed in Guilford County? After all, an African-American man holds the most powerful political position in the county. Blacks hold three out of 11 positions on the county commission. They hold two out of nine positions on the Greensboro City Council, albeit down from the traditional three slots and the city’s first black mayor was voted out of office after only one term. And three out of eight members of the Guilford County delegation to the NC General Assembly (excluding two state senators whose districts bleed across county lines) are black.
To be eligible for bailout, a jurisdiction must essentially keep its nose clean for 10 years, including having “no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination.” I’m not aware of Guilford County missing the mark on any of the items on the laundry list, although questions have certainly been raised in recent weeks about the dilution of the minority vote in effect and intent in Greensboro.
From the Justice Department website:
The once adopted and then withdrawn Rakestraw redistricting plan was opposed by citizens on the basis that it would make minority voters worse off.
Southern Coalition for Social Justice voting rights attorney Allison Riggs testified before the Greensboro City Council on Tuesday that
Notably, among the requirements of eligibility for bailout by a jurisdiction is that “no change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General.”
I don’t know whether, in a legal sense, this matters in terms of preclearance of a redistricting plan or bailing out of the Voting Rights altogether, but it’s not hard to observe that the atmosphere in Greensboro, as in many parts of the state, has become racially charged.
The conservative, white majority on council has made decision after decision that has antagonized minority constituents, whose concerns have been championed by the council’s two black members and one of its white members who draws significant support from the minority community. Most significant is the decision on Tuesday to reopen the White Street Landfill, but other decisions include reducing the period when additional early voting sites are available before this year’s general election, redirecting federal funding for energy efficiency from an area of the city that is majority black and economically depressed and moving the speakers-from-the-floor segment back to the end of the meeting at a time that is inconvenient for the public.
Sharon Hightower, an east Greensboro resident, raised the question of whether black citizens have a voice in city government:
Where might the US Justice Department’s interest in equitable redistricting plans come into play here?
For starters, the decisions of the conservative, white majority on council is likely to inspire a backlash by black voters and their progressive, white allies, energizing them to participate in larger numbers in the next municipal election. The current majority faction on council holds an interest in maintaining power and naturally would like to insulate itself against an electoral backlash. If a redistricting plan submitted to the Justice Department such as the discarded Rakestraw plan were rejected because it appeared designed to thwart the will of the black electorate, how might that appear to federal officials. What does the fact that a four-member majority of council initially supported the plan and passed it without any public explanation say about intent?
Greensboro is not necessarily unique in North Carolina in its experience with racial turmoil and political representation. Witness the division and emotion surrounding the push by the newly elected conservative majority on the Wake County School Board to discard the school system’s nationally recognized policy of achieving socio-economic balance in schools in favor of an assignment policy that keeps students closer to home.
On a statewide level, Politico reports that Republican lawmakers are using race as part of a mapping strategy to enhance their own political prospects by pushing black voters out of districts that Republicans want to win.
Whether such tactics should be regarded with the same level of concern as the classic voter suppression tactics of the Jim Crow era that gave rise to the Voting Rights Act in 1965, one thing is clear: The atmosphere in North Carolina is racially charged.
NC NAACP President William J. Barber II condemned a remark by US Rep. Patrick McHenry to the effect that creating a third black influence district would help the Republican Party pick up three seats in the next election in a statement yesterday.
From there, Barber looks back to the 1898 Wilmington massacre, when the party of white supremacy — then the Democrats — used violence, intimidation and later legal codification to drive a wedge between black voters and progressive allies.
Is the Voting Rights Act still relevant in North Carolina? The answer to that question might have something to do with your political ideology, party affiliation and race.
A popular conservative blogger, Guarino drew a parallel between North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District, which is drawn to ensure minority representation, and the 13th Congressional District, which is drawn to the advantage of a Democratic candidate by packing liberal constituencies in Greensboro and Burlington into what would otherwise be a conservative-leaning district.
“I would conflate the situations in those two districts under the banner of self-serving Democratic behavior,” Guarino said.
First, some background on why North Carolina jurisdictions such as Guilford County — others are Caswell, Cumberland and Rockingham counties — are under federal supervision and require review from the US Justice Department before redrawn political districting maps can be put in place.
The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965 to remedy the disenfranchisement of minority voters, particularly in the South, where blacks had been systematically excluded and discouraged from political participation since the turn of the century. Through Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a formula was established to determine where “racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent… and to provide more stringent remedies where appropriate.”
Section 4 established three criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction should be covered under the Voting Rights Act:
The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of person of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964.
So is the Voting Rights Act still needed in Guilford County? After all, an African-American man holds the most powerful political position in the county. Blacks hold three out of 11 positions on the county commission. They hold two out of nine positions on the Greensboro City Council, albeit down from the traditional three slots and the city’s first black mayor was voted out of office after only one term. And three out of eight members of the Guilford County delegation to the NC General Assembly (excluding two state senators whose districts bleed across county lines) are black.
To be eligible for bailout, a jurisdiction must essentially keep its nose clean for 10 years, including having “no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination.” I’m not aware of Guilford County missing the mark on any of the items on the laundry list, although questions have certainly been raised in recent weeks about the dilution of the minority vote in effect and intent in Greensboro.
From the Justice Department website:
Before being allowed to "bailout," the jurisdiction must have eliminated those voting procedures and methods of elections that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. It must also demonstrate that it has made constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register and vote and expand opportunities for voter participating, such as opportunities for registration and voting, and to appoint minority officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all levels of the stages of the electoral process. The jurisdiction must also present evidence of minority electoral participation.
The once adopted and then withdrawn Rakestraw redistricting plan was opposed by citizens on the basis that it would make minority voters worse off.
Southern Coalition for Social Justice voting rights attorney Allison Riggs testified before the Greensboro City Council on Tuesday that
There are significant reasons Plan B — the Rakestraw plan voted upon at the last city council meeting — is retrogressive. Plan B reduces the African-American voting age population in District 1 from nearly 71 percent to 66 percent. Alone, that significant reduction in voting age population may be enough to warrant a finding of retrogression. But when you pair that with the fact that Plan B moves high-performing African-American precincts out of District 1 and moves high-performing white precincts into the district, this is even more persuasive evidence of retrogression. In a jurisdiction where voter turnout is already low, this is significant. The moving of even one high-performing precinct can change the outcome of an election. If you change the political performance of a district such that minority voters have diminished ability to elect the candidate of their choice, you have created a retrogressive redistricting plan and the Department of Justice will object.
Notably, among the requirements of eligibility for bailout by a jurisdiction is that “no change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General.”
I don’t know whether, in a legal sense, this matters in terms of preclearance of a redistricting plan or bailing out of the Voting Rights altogether, but it’s not hard to observe that the atmosphere in Greensboro, as in many parts of the state, has become racially charged.
The conservative, white majority on council has made decision after decision that has antagonized minority constituents, whose concerns have been championed by the council’s two black members and one of its white members who draws significant support from the minority community. Most significant is the decision on Tuesday to reopen the White Street Landfill, but other decisions include reducing the period when additional early voting sites are available before this year’s general election, redirecting federal funding for energy efficiency from an area of the city that is majority black and economically depressed and moving the speakers-from-the-floor segment back to the end of the meeting at a time that is inconvenient for the public.
Sharon Hightower, an east Greensboro resident, raised the question of whether black citizens have a voice in city government:
Redistricting, early voting, landfill, $5 million grant they took from the east and made it a citywide issue, — these are serious issue, serious issues. Not only are they racist issues, they’re classist issues. Because if you’re lower income, you’re disenfranchised. And that’s the way they treat us. We make money. We spend money. We pay taxes. We buy homes. We got mortgage payments, car payments. We are valuable people, too.
Where might the US Justice Department’s interest in equitable redistricting plans come into play here?
For starters, the decisions of the conservative, white majority on council is likely to inspire a backlash by black voters and their progressive, white allies, energizing them to participate in larger numbers in the next municipal election. The current majority faction on council holds an interest in maintaining power and naturally would like to insulate itself against an electoral backlash. If a redistricting plan submitted to the Justice Department such as the discarded Rakestraw plan were rejected because it appeared designed to thwart the will of the black electorate, how might that appear to federal officials. What does the fact that a four-member majority of council initially supported the plan and passed it without any public explanation say about intent?
Greensboro is not necessarily unique in North Carolina in its experience with racial turmoil and political representation. Witness the division and emotion surrounding the push by the newly elected conservative majority on the Wake County School Board to discard the school system’s nationally recognized policy of achieving socio-economic balance in schools in favor of an assignment policy that keeps students closer to home.
On a statewide level, Politico reports that Republican lawmakers are using race as part of a mapping strategy to enhance their own political prospects by pushing black voters out of districts that Republicans want to win.
The redistricting wars are about to hit North Carolina, and Republicans in the Tar Heel State are considering a controversial but well-worn strategy that has worked elsewhere in the South: Create a new majority-minority district while destroying other districts occupied by white Democrats.
Whether such tactics should be regarded with the same level of concern as the classic voter suppression tactics of the Jim Crow era that gave rise to the Voting Rights Act in 1965, one thing is clear: The atmosphere in North Carolina is racially charged.
NC NAACP President William J. Barber II condemned a remark by US Rep. Patrick McHenry to the effect that creating a third black influence district would help the Republican Party pick up three seats in the next election in a statement yesterday.
When he says “minority-influence district” he means the tea party wants to draw new lines around black areas, and lump us all into a third segregated voting district. Their aim is to remove progressive black voters out of surrounding areas, where we can create a strong voting majority with the growing number of white and brown progressives to get our anti-racism, anti-poverty agenda passed. McHenry and the extreme ultra-conservative tea party Republicans want to defeat our progressive agenda, and take us back to their good old days. John Tedesco wants to keep us in our “neighborhoods.” Ron Margiotta wants to keep “the animals” in our “cages.” McHenry wants to re-segregate our voting districts so the tea party can win nine out of 13 of North Carolina’s congressional seats and pass their regressive agenda.
From there, Barber looks back to the 1898 Wilmington massacre, when the party of white supremacy — then the Democrats — used violence, intimidation and later legal codification to drive a wedge between black voters and progressive allies.
Is the Voting Rights Act still relevant in North Carolina? The answer to that question might have something to do with your political ideology, party affiliation and race.
Forsyth elections director accused of inappropriate remark
The Forsyth County elections director is alleged to have used the term "MILF" in reference to a female employee. The charge has caused sufficient concern that the State Board of Elections sent its top lawyer to Forsyth County last week to meet with the former employee, Forsyth County Board of Elections Chair Linda Sutton and director Rob Coffman.
Breaking news at YES! Weekly's home page.
Breaking news at YES! Weekly's home page.
Triadpolitics.info
Now that filing for the 2010 elections have officially closed, get caught up at YES! Weekly's campaign site, triadpolitics.info, which will be updated continually throughout the poltical season.
Face Time
I almost didn't accept Nancy Vaughan's lunch invitation.
My reportorial style is based mostly on observation and research — I prefer to judge people more by their actions than their words, though I'm not above dropping a well-placed question or two.
But when the Greensboro City Council candidate who just scored the most votes in the at-large primary offers some face time, well it's my professional responsibility to show up.
A report on our lunch meeting will follow.
But first, because of the principle of equal time, I must extend the same courtesy to every city council candidate in both Winston-Salem and Greensboro. (And yes, I am aware that newspapers are not bound by this principle, but our newspaper is.)
If any council candidate wants 45 minutes or so of my time, I will make myself available to that candidate -- to my best ability, of course. I still have a paper to put out, and I like to see my children from time to time.
I could be in for quite a ride, as there are 32 candidates in the two cities.
Be aware: I do not accept free meals or small tokens of gratitude, no matter how shiny. And sometimes I'm a little late, though I usually call first.
I will post reports of every meeting here at the YES! Weekly blog, and the results wll carry some weight in our endorsement process. I hope they will prove enlightening for our readers as well.
Our office number is 336.316.1231. My e-mail is editor@yesweekly.com.
I am officially available for face time.
— Brian Clarey
Editor, YES! Weekly
My reportorial style is based mostly on observation and research — I prefer to judge people more by their actions than their words, though I'm not above dropping a well-placed question or two.
But when the Greensboro City Council candidate who just scored the most votes in the at-large primary offers some face time, well it's my professional responsibility to show up.
A report on our lunch meeting will follow.
But first, because of the principle of equal time, I must extend the same courtesy to every city council candidate in both Winston-Salem and Greensboro. (And yes, I am aware that newspapers are not bound by this principle, but our newspaper is.)
If any council candidate wants 45 minutes or so of my time, I will make myself available to that candidate -- to my best ability, of course. I still have a paper to put out, and I like to see my children from time to time.
I could be in for quite a ride, as there are 32 candidates in the two cities.
Be aware: I do not accept free meals or small tokens of gratitude, no matter how shiny. And sometimes I'm a little late, though I usually call first.
I will post reports of every meeting here at the YES! Weekly blog, and the results wll carry some weight in our endorsement process. I hope they will prove enlightening for our readers as well.
Our office number is 336.316.1231. My e-mail is editor@yesweekly.com.
I am officially available for face time.
— Brian Clarey
Editor, YES! Weekly
Rachel Lea Hunter reprimanded by NC bar
Recent disciplinary actions by the NC State Bar:
"Rachel Lee Hunter [SIC] of Cary was reprimanded by the [Disciplinary Hearing Committee] for referring to herself as 'Madame Justice' on her campaign website after the Grievance Committee issued a Letter of Warning telling her that the reference was misleading and a Rule violation."
"Rachel Lee Hunter [SIC] of Cary was reprimanded by the [Disciplinary Hearing Committee] for referring to herself as 'Madame Justice' on her campaign website after the Grievance Committee issued a Letter of Warning telling her that the reference was misleading and a Rule violation."
Coverage of Oct. 31 candidate forum in Greensboro
One of the drawbacks of being a weekly newspaper — particularly one that hits the streets on Tuesdays — is that our print edition misses a lot of the action as campaigning runs down to Election Day. I covered the candidates forum at Trinity AME Zion Church last night, and because it will be old news by the time our next issue comes out I've posted it on our website. Here's the story. In an otherwise quiet campaign, this forum brought some sharp distinctions to the fore, and highlighted issues important to east Greensboro.
Hagan: I’m running against Liddy, not Jim
The announcement by NC Sen. Kay Hagan (D-Guilford) that she will seek the US Senate seat currently held by Republican US Sen. Elizabeth Dole comes three weeks after a staffer confirmed for YES! Weekly the accuracy of an Associated Press story stating that she would not run for US Senate.
In the meantime, Chapel Hill investment banker Jim Neal entered the race. Neal is running on a platform of fiscal conservatism and ending the war in Iraq, but what generated the most attention was Neal’s frank and unapologetic admission that he’s gay.
Here’s what Neal’s website says about his stance on Iraq:
In broad strokes: “Our troops have done everything we asked — and I don’t want to see any more of them die.”
The bold position: “It’s time to bring them home to the heroes’ welcome they have earned, to rejoin their families, resume their careers, and be part of their communities again.”
The caveat: “To guarantee we don’t have to send them back in a few years, we need to redeploy small strategic units in the region to counter terrorism and train Iraqi security forces.”
So why did Hagan change her mind and decide to join the fray?
“I’ve been inundated by requests from Democrats and Republicans throughout North Carolina to reconsider my position,” she told me in a phone conversation today. “I think that people don’t see her and don’t know what she’s done for them. The mood around the state is that we need change. I want to be that fresh voice in Washington.”
Hagan is critical of Bush’s handling of the Iraqi war — as are virtually all Democrats and most Republican these days.
“We need accountability to end the war in Iraq so we can reinvest those resources here at home,” she says in her official announcement. “How can Washington reject healthcare for 123,000 North Carolina children, while continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this mismanaged war?”
Hagan indicates that she does not favor Congress cutting off funding for the war.
She told me: “First and foremost, the president got us in the war, and it’s up to him to decide when to bring the troops home. I come from a military family, and I want to emphasize that I want to be sure that the men and women in the military have all the equipment they need.”
Hagan stresses her political stewardship as a state lawmaker.
“I’ve spent nine years in Raleigh,” she says. “I think I bring accountability to the budgetary process, and I’m a results-oriented leader. I want to bring those qualities to Washington on behalf of the people of North Carolina.”
Should anyone wonder (as I did) whether Hagan’s running to keep her Democratic rival, Jim Neal, from winning, she transfers the focus to the finish line — Election Day 2008.
“I am running against Liddy Dole,” Hagan says, “so that Kay Hagan can be the next US senator from North Carolina.”
In the meantime, Chapel Hill investment banker Jim Neal entered the race. Neal is running on a platform of fiscal conservatism and ending the war in Iraq, but what generated the most attention was Neal’s frank and unapologetic admission that he’s gay.
Here’s what Neal’s website says about his stance on Iraq:
In broad strokes: “Our troops have done everything we asked — and I don’t want to see any more of them die.”
The bold position: “It’s time to bring them home to the heroes’ welcome they have earned, to rejoin their families, resume their careers, and be part of their communities again.”
The caveat: “To guarantee we don’t have to send them back in a few years, we need to redeploy small strategic units in the region to counter terrorism and train Iraqi security forces.”
So why did Hagan change her mind and decide to join the fray?
“I’ve been inundated by requests from Democrats and Republicans throughout North Carolina to reconsider my position,” she told me in a phone conversation today. “I think that people don’t see her and don’t know what she’s done for them. The mood around the state is that we need change. I want to be that fresh voice in Washington.”
Hagan is critical of Bush’s handling of the Iraqi war — as are virtually all Democrats and most Republican these days.
“We need accountability to end the war in Iraq so we can reinvest those resources here at home,” she says in her official announcement. “How can Washington reject healthcare for 123,000 North Carolina children, while continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this mismanaged war?”
Hagan indicates that she does not favor Congress cutting off funding for the war.
She told me: “First and foremost, the president got us in the war, and it’s up to him to decide when to bring the troops home. I come from a military family, and I want to emphasize that I want to be sure that the men and women in the military have all the equipment they need.”
Hagan stresses her political stewardship as a state lawmaker.
“I’ve spent nine years in Raleigh,” she says. “I think I bring accountability to the budgetary process, and I’m a results-oriented leader. I want to bring those qualities to Washington on behalf of the people of North Carolina.”
Should anyone wonder (as I did) whether Hagan’s running to keep her Democratic rival, Jim Neal, from winning, she transfers the focus to the finish line — Election Day 2008.
“I am running against Liddy Dole,” Hagan says, “so that Kay Hagan can be the next US senator from North Carolina.”
Woodard and Coffey endorse Clinkscale
This morning, Luther Falls convened a formal press conference to announce that he would endorse neither candidate for District 1. See blog post here
Fellow District 1 candidate Charles Coffey and at-large candidate Greg Woodard — both similarly eliminated in the primary — were there also. At the urging of several community leaders, including NC Rep. Earl Jones, they joined Falls, expecting to put forward a united front in support of Clinkscale.
"When he said he wasn’t going to endorse anyone, that caught me and the rest of the community leaders off guard,” Woodard told me in a phone conversation following the press conference. “We were shocked.”
He added: “I just got through talking to Earl Jones and some of the church leaders. He said, ‘Go ahead and share your statement.’”
Here’s what Woodard said about his support for Clinkscale: “I think we need the most professional and best-qualified person to work with the community leaders and not cause strife and pit one group against another…. I feel that we gave [incumbent] Dianne [Bellamy-Small] four years to try to improve our community and it’s time to let someone else have a chance.”
I called Coffey at Industries of the Blind, and he echoed Woodard’s sentiments.
“I just feel [Clinkscale] would be the better choice of the two,” he said. “I think that she’ll be able to work with the other council members better than Dianne would. Dianne takes a one-person approach and that’s not working.”
Here’s Woodard’s formal statement:
“In the past two week, I have received numerous phone calls from community leaders and business owners in District 1 (black and white). The topic of conversation was the state of our community and how displeased everyone is with the current representative. We all agreed this community needs a representative that will represent all the people, be it black, white, Hispanic, whatever the race. We all bleed, we all cry, we all face problems, we all live here and we all die here. But more important we all want the same thing: a safe place to live, enjoy life and grow old.
“They all talked about Tonya Clinkscale. How Tonya presents herself as a professional businesswoman; in dress, mannerisms, communication and understanding between people with different points of view. I kept hearing one word: Professional. She acts and carries herself in a professional manner.
“Throughout this campaign, I have watched her. She has shown a willingness to work with community leader and individuals in District 1. After talking with Tonya myself, I believe Tonya is attuned to the community needs, desires and wants, and therefore is the right person to represent District 1.”
Fellow District 1 candidate Charles Coffey and at-large candidate Greg Woodard — both similarly eliminated in the primary — were there also. At the urging of several community leaders, including NC Rep. Earl Jones, they joined Falls, expecting to put forward a united front in support of Clinkscale.
"When he said he wasn’t going to endorse anyone, that caught me and the rest of the community leaders off guard,” Woodard told me in a phone conversation following the press conference. “We were shocked.”
He added: “I just got through talking to Earl Jones and some of the church leaders. He said, ‘Go ahead and share your statement.’”
Here’s what Woodard said about his support for Clinkscale: “I think we need the most professional and best-qualified person to work with the community leaders and not cause strife and pit one group against another…. I feel that we gave [incumbent] Dianne [Bellamy-Small] four years to try to improve our community and it’s time to let someone else have a chance.”
I called Coffey at Industries of the Blind, and he echoed Woodard’s sentiments.
“I just feel [Clinkscale] would be the better choice of the two,” he said. “I think that she’ll be able to work with the other council members better than Dianne would. Dianne takes a one-person approach and that’s not working.”
Here’s Woodard’s formal statement:
“In the past two week, I have received numerous phone calls from community leaders and business owners in District 1 (black and white). The topic of conversation was the state of our community and how displeased everyone is with the current representative. We all agreed this community needs a representative that will represent all the people, be it black, white, Hispanic, whatever the race. We all bleed, we all cry, we all face problems, we all live here and we all die here. But more important we all want the same thing: a safe place to live, enjoy life and grow old.
“They all talked about Tonya Clinkscale. How Tonya presents herself as a professional businesswoman; in dress, mannerisms, communication and understanding between people with different points of view. I kept hearing one word: Professional. She acts and carries herself in a professional manner.
“Throughout this campaign, I have watched her. She has shown a willingness to work with community leader and individuals in District 1. After talking with Tonya myself, I believe Tonya is attuned to the community needs, desires and wants, and therefore is the right person to represent District 1.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)