Watchman South

Worley Watch: Contemptuous, Pt. 2

2006-10-11T13:44:00.000-07:00

As reported here, questions have been raised as to whether or not Nancy Worley is meeting the terms of the court order that stripped her of certain duties and gave them to Bob Riley.

The AP reported on October 6 that the judge overseeing the case has asked Worley why he shouldn't hold her in contempt:

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins ordered Worley Friday to respond to a report filed earlier by Riley's attorney that said Worley had refused to cooperate with a committee set up by Riley to manage development of the voter registration system. In the report, Riley's legal adviser Ken Wallis said Worley had indicated she would only deal directly with the governor and not with individual members of the governor's committee.

Watkins said he would consider Worley's response and comments from Riley and then decide if the secretary of state should be held in contempt of court.

"In making her responses to the court, defendant Worley is advised not to parse the words of the orders of this court, nor to test the court's willingness to utilize its contempt powers," Watkins said in a sternly worded three-page order.

It seems odd to me that a former teacher seems to consistently have problems following instructions and obeying rules.

Worley (again) Defends Pre-Election PSAs

2006-10-06T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Montgomery Advertiser reported today on a proposal to restrict incumbent officials from appearing in public service announcements within six months of an election. They cited Nancy Worley's federal-taxpayer-funded public service announcements that aired before the primary election as an example of what they want to stop.

Worley questioned the purpose of the proposed legislation. Money quote:

"Does an actor or actress have more credibility than someone for whom you voted?" she said.

The answer, of course (at least compared to Worley), is an emphatic "yes."

I'm reminded once again of Worley's own statement:

"It's always dangerous when people have a title and don't know what to do with it."

Worley Watch: Contemptuous?

2006-10-05T10:14:00.000-07:00

The AP released a story yesterday indicating that Nancy Worley is not cooperating with the team that Governor Riley put together to bring the state into compliance with federal law.

As reportered previously, a federal court stripped Worley of her reponsiblities regarding a new statewide voter registration system and assigned the job to Riley because Worley failed to meet the deadline imposed Congress. Now it seems that Worley is continuing to be obstructionist and persnickety about helping Riley's project team.

Meanwhile, Worley continues to claim she has done no wrong, claiming she is once again being subjected to political attack.

It's a shame that Worley continues to talk about her grand plans for the Secretary of State's office when she has not been able to comply with federal and state laws that are already her responsibility.

Caution! Worley Ahead!

2006-09-22T17:58:00.000-07:00

Looks like those highway message boards can be of some use!

Worley Watch: "Poor Management of Public Funds"

2006-09-21T17:23:00.000-07:00

The Sand Mountain Reporter published this story today. It appears that yet another county is experiencing delays in getting reimbursed by Nancy Worley for their purchase of voting machines:

"The Justice Department gave the state $23 million to fix this problem and we did our part. But now we’re having a hard time getting our money back. We can’t get her to take our phone calls," Cannon said.

Worley Watch: "a 39-cent stamp would do just as well"

2006-09-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

The Mobile Press-Register reported over the weekend about Nancy Worley's delays in paying counties back for the voting equipment they purchased this year.

It turns out that The Tuscaloosa News had the same issue in mind. It reported on Sunday that Bibb County submitted its claim for reimbursement on June 8th but still has not seen any check from Worley.

Mark Tyner, the Bibb County administrator, said the delay in being reimbursed may cause the county's general fund to go dry by the end of September. According to the article:

Tyner said the county has a line of credit that could be tapped to prevent the general fund from running on empty, but that would cost money to repay.

"As small a county as we are anyway things are awfully tight at the end of the year and it makes it difficult for us," Tyner said. Worley has been hand-delivering checks to counties as she drives around the state. Tyner said a 39-cent stamp would do just as well.

"We would be glad to see our check in the mail and the sooner the better," he said.

Opining on another issue of travel costs, even Worley's hometown paper, The Decatur Daily, questioned the practice of public officials traveling around the state to hand out checks:

Public officials also travel out of Montgomery to hand out money. Lester Sellers, legislative chairman of the Alabama Association of Boards of Registrars, filed an ethics complaint against Secretary of State Nancy Worley. It accuses her of traveling at state expense to present checks to counties so they can buy voting equipment, and of using these events to get publicity for herself.

Creditors wince when they hear "The check’s in the mail," but it ought to delight taxpayers when it staves off unnecessary travel.

Montgomery Advertiser: "Worley excuses now threadbare"

2006-09-17T08:20:00.000-07:00

The Montgomery Advertiser offers this editorial today on Secretary of State Nancy Worley.

Money quote:

[M]any of her problems in office are clearly of her own making, and she needs to acknowledge that instead of constantly trying to blame the criticism on politics.

Worley Watch: 'My heavens, has it been that long?'"

2006-09-17T05:07:00.000-07:00

The Mobile Press-Register reported yesterday that Nancy Worley, the incumbent Secretary of State, is just now delivering checks owed to the counties despite the checks having been printed in July.

Secretary of State Nancy Worley is personally delivering millions of dollars in reimbursement checks to counties across the state for voting machine upgrades required under federal law.

Worley, a Democrat seeking re-election to a second term, said she delivers the checks when she is in the area on business.

Worley's opponent in November, Beth Chapman, has stated that Worley could be serving the counties - and the taxpayers - better if Worley would mail the checks to the counties rather than waiting to present them personally as she travels the state.

Lester Sellers, a voter registration official in Coosa County, has filed an ethics complaint against Worley, alleging that Worley's state-paid trips to deliver the checks is an improper use of state funds. He has charged that Worley is staging the unnecessary trips with photo ops and other press coverage to boost her re-election campaign.

Worley blamed the delay in delivering checks on staff problems:

Worley said checks have been slow to arrive in counties, in part, because of the loss of key staff in her office, including an attorney and a finance director, who were working on reimbursements. She said her office is working to straighten out paperwork for the remaining counties.

However, that excuse doesn't explain the check that sat on her desk since July:

Worley said the check would not have arrived in her office July 20. That's the date the check was processed in the comptroller's office, she said. Worley said officials with Clarke County called earlier this month looking for the check and she responded promptly once she realized the check was sitting in her office.

Some counties have expressed concern about the delays in receiving the checks. They have expended large sums of money to purchase voting machines to comply with federal law, money that would normally go toward other county programs. The delays in reimbursements are apparently causing some counties problems with balancing their budgets for this fiscal year.

Worley's response, despite holding checks for months for her personal delivery:

Worley said she knows some counties are in a bind and are borrowing money. She said her office has tried to expedite reimbursement for those with the proper paperwork that are in a financial bind.

Worley Watch: Campaign Finance Revisited

2006-09-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

With the Mobile Press-Register recently placing the spotlight on Jim Sullivan's and Jan Cook's campaign finance reports, it's probably a good time to revisit a past posting on this blog. Of course, it has to do with Nancy Worley.

You can read here about Nancy Worley's apparent failures to comply with similar reporting requirements as Sullivan and Cook.

Worley Watch: Blast from the Past

2006-09-15T07:51:00.000-07:00

With Nancy Worley talking about witch hunts - and with Halloween not too far off - I was reminded of this article written by Elaine Witt of the former Birmingham Post-Herald. It was originally published in October 2004.

#####

Worley's tenure fit for Halloween

Yes, you're liable to see some creepy George W. Bush and John Kerry masks on the trick-or-treat trail this weekend. But with Halloween falling on the eve of an election in which both sides are spooked about ballot conspiracies, I'm planning to get a long black wig, wrap a wad of hair around my head, borrow one of
those Eddie Bauer SUVs and go as Alabama's scariest constitutional officer: Secretary of State Nancy Worley.

Only one of the state elections division workers who were on the job when Worley was elected in 2002 is still there. The others, as well as General Counsel Charles Grainger, have either resigned, retired or been fired, laid off or transferred under Worley. And the single remaining elections worker who was in the office when Jim Bennett was secretary of state, elections administrator Ed Packard, has a grievance pending against Worley with the State Personnel Board.

Few people outside Montgomery paid attention to these vanishings until Oct. 19. That's when Worley reportedly forced the resignation of Alabama's widely respected voter registration supervisor, Anita Tatum.

Now, Worley's own Democratic Party is abuzz with rumors about a primary challenge. And Alabama Republicans are smelling blood.

"The combination of the internal struggle she's having, even within the Democratic party, and then the controversy about the automobile has her pretty vulnerable," if she seeks re-election in 2006, state GOP chair Marty Connors said this week.

Oh, yeah, the automobile. That would be the special edition Ford Expedition Worley bought with state money during her first year in office. This shouldn't have been such a big deal — lots of public officials drive extravagant gas guzzlers at our expense. Worley just had the political stupidity to commit this gaffe in the midst of budget-related layoffs.

No political error, in any case, can match Worley's cumulative draining of the experience base in the elections division. If anything goes wrong on Tuesday — and if there's an election, anywhere in the world, you can bet there will be a glitch or two — Worley will get the blame.

Moreover, in the course of her various personnel actions, Worley has managed to tick off some key Democratic constituencies. One of the workers she ran off was on the board of the state AFLCIO. Stewart Burkhalter, president of the Alabama AFL-CIO, said Thursday he had no comment on Worley or her political future.

But Mac McArthur, executive director of the powerful Alabama State Employees Association, referred to Worley's behavior as "completely disturbing."

"I certainly believe Ms. Worley is in trouble, and her office is in trouble," said McArthur, who is seeking to have Tatum reinstated. You would think that Worley, a former president of the Alabama Education Association, would know better than to cross the state employees' unions.

But very little of Worley's behavior is making sense. The scariest possible scenario is that the brain drain in the state elections division will somehow affect the handling of election results from Alabama's 67 counties next week.

But that does not appear to be a great threat. Except for the advent of provisional ballots — part of a new procedure for handling ballots that have been challenged — this year's polling in Alabama is expected to be routine.

Scared you, didn't I?

#####

Worley Witch Hunt

2006-09-15T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Gadsden Times reports this morning that the Attorney General's office has issued seven subpoenas to various institutions regarding financial transactions of Secretary of State Nancy Worley.

While not providing details of the information sought, a spokesperson for Attorney General Troy King said that the subpoenas are "are instruments that allow law enforcement agencies access to information". The subpoenas were issued to Compass Bank, Wachovia Bank and Regions Bank as well as the State Comptroller's office. Additionally, a subpoena was served on the state's Information Systems Division, the agency that oversees the state's phone and computer systems.

Worley said she is unaware of the subpoenas. However, Worley claimed that King and Beth Chapman, her opponent for Secretary of State in November, want to use the subpoenas to hurt her politically.

Worley's rancor was not limited to King and Chapman. According to the article, Worley accused a reporter for the New York Times Regional Newspapers and one of her staff members of being on a "witch hunt" to get her.

Worley, speaking to the reporter said, "You have been on a political witch hunt since the day I took office. You have a special friend and totally have been on a witch hunt, you and (secretary of state elections division employee) Ed Packard."

Packard is reported to have responded, "Whatever that means, I'm not on a witch hunt out to get her. I've got a long record of public service, and if I've done anything, it is to assure the people of the state I'll assure accountability."

I guess it's natural for a politician to want to blame all of this on election year politics. It's a new twist, at least for me, to see that Worley is blaming a particular reporter and staff member of being in cahoots going after her.

As this blog has pointed out on multiple times, though, Worley has a pathetic record in office, a record that cannot be explained away as the product of mere partisanship, vindictive reporting, or a disgruntled employee.

It will be interesting to see how this development unfolds, to see what financial dealings the Attorney General is reviewing, especially since Worley has made proclamations of being a stern steward of public resources.

Which of these doesn't belong?

2006-09-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

On September 12th, Governor Riley announced his team (see here also) for bringing Alabama into compliance with the federal mandate for a new statewide voter registration system.

The four members of this team include former Secretary of State Jim Bennett; Lawrence County Probate Judge Rip Proctor; Sid McDonald, a former UA trustree and state finance director; and Trey Granger, former legal counsel to Secretary of State Nancy Worley.

Jim Bennet was an excellent Secretary of State and promoted election reform the whole time he was office. Judge Proctor is one of the best probate judges in the state and indeed is an expert on Alabama election law. I'm not sure what Sid McDonald brings in the way of election experience, but as a former state finance director, he should have useful knowledge of the state purchasing rules.

In my opinion, the weak link on this team is Trey Granger. Although he's Montgomery County's director of elections, he has worked in elections for only 3 years. But, worse than that, he served as Nancy Worley's attorney during the entire period that Worley should have been working toward complying with federal law.

There is no record that Granger worked to keep Worley and the Secretary of State's office in line with federal law. If anything, as Worley's attorney, we can speculate that he her on how to cover her abundance of behind the closer she came to being in violation of the federal mandate.

Worley was quite distraught at the prospect of Jim Bennett working with the governor on this project. I can only wonder if Granger, a former Siegelman appointee, was a bone thrown to Worley by the Republican governor.

Worley Watch: Unfinished Business - Attorney General Investigation

2006-09-09T08:51:00.000-07:00

As reported by The Huntsville Times in May, Ed Packard, Nancy Worley's opponent for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State, alleged that Worley had solicitated campaign contributions from her staff.

One would think that Worley, as the state's chief election official, would have known that such a solicitation is a violation of state election law. §17-1-7(c) says:

It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee to solicit any type of political campaign contributions from other employees who work for the officer or employee in a subordinate capacity.

To our knowledge, Attorney General Troy King has apparently not made a decision on prosecution of the alleged violation.

While we wait on word from King, you may wish to view this clip from Alabama Public Television's For The Record. The video clip is FTR's roundtable discussion of Packard's complaint and each panelist's take on Worley.

Worley Watch: Get Act Together

2006-09-07T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Mobile Press-Register has some pointed advice today for Secretary of State Nancy Worley: Get your act together.

Back in Action

2006-09-07T17:18:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe it's been 7 months since I last posted. Time can fly when the world grabs you by the collar and makes you pay attention to things you have to as opposed to the things you want to.

Last time I posted, I noted that the Democratic Party finally had a challenger for Nancy Worley in the primary. Of course, that's all history now. Ed Packard, even with his long history of service to the state as an elections specialist, was no match for Worley, the incumbent.

Worley trounced Packard about 3 to 1. I don't know about you, but I'm wondering why Worley seems to have such a strong following among Democrats. Are they ignorant of mismanagement in office?

There's a lot of politics to catch up on, at the state and national level, especially on Worley. So, look forward to some new posts.

In the meantime, as a public service to your state, you may wish to take a walk down memory lane and refresh yourself on Worley's shenanigans. In the coming days, I'll comment on her more recent follies.

Worley Watch: Illegal Immigrant Edition

Worley Watch: Felony Follies

Worley Watch: New Year Edition

Worley Watch: Challenger Surfaces

2006-02-20T09:40:00.000-08:00

A Democrat has finally stepped up to challenge Nancy Worley. poliscizac at AlabamaElections broke the story.

The Associated Press ran a story Friday night.

I'm glad to see that the Democrats are finally showing some sense about Worley.

Scott McClellan: Compassionate Conservative?

2006-02-14T18:09:00.000-08:00

Let me see if I get this straight. Scott McClellan said what today? From the Washington Post:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan was in fine fettle yesterday morning when he strode smiling into the briefing room and made a joke about Vice President Cheney's hunting accident.

President Bush, he announced, would be on the South Lawn to honor the national champion University of Texas Longhorns, whose football jerseys are burnt orange and white. "The orange they're wearing is not because they are concerned that the vice president will be there," the spokesman deadpanned.

The reporters, who had tormented a stone-faced McClellan about the episode on Monday, guffawed at his newfound levity. "Although," McClellan continued, pointing to his orange tie and eyeing the loaded-for-bear reporters, "that's why I'm wearing it."

At the time, McClellan was unaware (or at least he didn't acknowledge it if he was) that the victim of the shooting had developed complications and suffered a minor heart attack. But still, even without that knowledge, it seems very insensitive to me to joke about the misfortune that has befallen the victim.

And to think that conservatives were all up in arms when Tom Toles released his cartoon about Rumsfeld's "battle-hardened" army.

Maybe in their world, only the military deserves the compassion of conservatives.

Constitutional Conundrums

2006-02-12T18:16:00.000-08:00

Do we really have conservative Americans saying that Muslims should be tolerant of the Danish cartoons - even if the Muslims do not agree with the depictions made in the cartoons? Are these Americans actually preaching that Muslims should be respectful of freedom of speech and liberty and in general, when many conservative Americans have long argued against free speech when they don't like the speech and have long argued against individual liberty when they don't like the liberties being exercised?

Wiretapping, Part 2

2006-02-12T06:22:00.000-08:00

On this morning's edition of Meet the Press on NBC, I hear from members of Congress that they knew the operational details - some, if not all - of the wiretapping program that has drawn so much fire. So, I'll have to retract the comment I made yesterday about Bush not informing congressional officials about the program.

The more interesting part is that Senator Roberts, who has defended the president's authority to implement the surveillance program, said that the Bush Administration was targeting the calls of known Al-Qaeda operatives outside the country who were making calls into the United States. His comments seem to confirm Cal Thomas's position that the NSA was listening not to random Americans, but only to those Americans who have ties to known Al-Qaeda operatives.

If this is true, then - as I said yesterday - I'm glad to know the effort is more targeted than we may have originally been told. However, I'm still left wondering why, if the efforts are targeted, the NSA can't get approval from the FISA court in the 72 hour window allowed in the law after the surveillance has been conducted.

I also disagree with defenders of the president's program that disclosing the program has hurt national security.

I think that it's better that Al-Qaeda operatives know we have the technology to listen in on them - and that we are. Since they will never know when there conversation is the one to be monitored, they will chill their own communications and thus we can disrupts their plans.

This is not unlike our own military or intelligence services avoiding unsecured lines so they won't tip off anyone who may be monitoring those devices.

And frankly, I would much rather chill - or, preferably stop - communications between Al-Qaeda members rather than let it go on and hope that the NSA detects some information that may be of use in stopping an attack. If the NSA misses the information, then the effects can be devastating. But if we stop the communication - or make communication more difficult - then we may be able to stop the planning in its tracks.

Wiretapping

2006-02-11T14:53:00.000-08:00

Here's where my concern over the "wiretapping" scandal comes from: the Bush Administration will not give enough details about it, even to U.S. Senators and Congressmen & Congresswomen, so that a thorough assessment can be made of whether the surveillance program meets constitutional muster.

Despite Bush's tight lips, though, plenty of people seem to think they know what the program entails, presumably from leaks, most likely from speculation or wishful thinking.

For example, James Risen, who helped break the story for The New York Times, has described the surveillance program on MSNBC's Hardball. He told Chris Mathews that the program involves the government getting access to communications hubs or nodes and listening to the full conversations of up 500 people at a time. Apparently, according to Risen, these are randomly selected conversations.

However, others have claimed that the program targets only suspected terrorists or terrorist accomplices. For example, in today's paper, The Birmingham News printed a column by Cal Thomas in which he says that the government is listening to only those calls between suspected terrorists outside the country and other individuals inside the country.

As an average American citizen, I have no idea whose description is right. If it's Risen, I would be very concerned. Not because I have any secrets to hide. But our Constitution does provide us a right to privacy, and that applies even if I'm only talking about whether Auburn will beat Bama this next season.

If Thomas is right, then I would at least be a bit more relieved, knowing that the surveillance efforts are more narrowly focused and more reasonably targeted to serve the national security. However, it would seem that if Thomas is right, then the Bush Administration has no reason for not going to the FISA court to get the search warrants ahead of time - or in the 72 hours allowed after emergency taps are made. Well, unless the Bush Administration is wondering if it can trust the judiciary to protect national security and do the right thing.

Of course, here's the problem. We cannot even evaluate the merits or demerits of the program - to know whether Risen or Thomas is right - because Bush has cloaked the whole program in a national security "need to know" cloud and apparently is not willing to let even legislators with security clearances know the details.

Americans seem to continue to lose sight - more and more each day - of what the founders wanted to accomplish with the Constitution. And the importance of accomplishing those things.

But should I be surprised that many Americans take the attitude that they have nothing to hide and so they are willing to relinquish a level of privacy in the service of the national good?

Am I surprised that yet again, we are told that if a majority is willing to sacrifice constitutional rights or protections, we in the minority are ignorant or unconcerned about our country's safety?

And all of this from an administration that claims to believe in the rule of law, not of men.

(And in case you are wondering, Auburn will beat Bama by 5 this year.)

Worley Watch: Campaign Finance Edition

2006-02-04T06:22:00.000-08:00

I know you've been waiting for me to comment on this. So here it goes.

Candidates for public office were required to file their campaign finance reports this past Tuesday. Strangely enough, Nancy Worley (D-AEA) reported taking in only $14,400, compared to Beth Chapman (R) raking in about $94,000.

Even stranger was that about half of Worley's receipts were from a loan to herself. She reported loaning herself about $6,900.

It appears that Worley's reputation is making the rounds and her support - and funding - is drying up.

Battle-Hardened

2006-02-03T21:27:00.000-08:00

Tom Toles and the Washington Post has taken a lot of criticism for this cartoon:
Critics contend Toles is making light of the people in the military, especially those who have been wounded in the line of duty.

When I first saw the cartoon, that was not my reaction at all. When I saw it, I first noticed the wounded person. When I saw it was a cartoon about the military - because of the "Dr. Rumsfeld" - I knew it was a cartoon about all the service people, men and women, who are being maimed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I "got" the point Toles was trying to make by showing Rumsfeld label the soldier as "battle-hardened."

And what is that point?

Too often, the Bush Administration has issued comments that spin away the realities of war.

Remember Rumsfeld's comments about inadequate armor to protect our soldiers in Iraq? How he said you "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have"?

More recently, Rumsfeld claimed that the military is not having a problem recruiting or retaining soldiers. However, he didn't acknowledge the role of the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy on retaining soldiers or the effect of lowered standards (or should we just say "relaxed" standards?) on boosting recruiting numbers.

We all know that war is a horrendous experience for the men and women we send into battle. And even that description may be an understatement for those who come home terribly disfigured or maimed. We know it is an understatement for soldiers who come home dead - and for their friends and family.

However, respect and honor for our service members should not be used as a political tool to stifle dissent over how a war is prosecuted - or whether we should have gone to war in the first place.

Our military serves a democratic (albeit republican) form of government. Thus, the soldiers fulfill missions that are prescribed through open and free debate of their society's citizens.

To try to stifle that debate is to undermine the foundation of democratic self-governance - and to undermine the government that the military represents.

It seems that is the greatest way one can show disrespect and dishonor to our military.

Want a fry with that?

2006-02-02T16:16:00.000-08:00

The Birmingham News ought to know better than to call on the Legislature to fix the laws that allow Milton McGregor's sweepstakes operation.

And the public shouldn't want the Legislature to fix this problem.

Knowing the Legislature and the way it "handles" problems, legislators would end up outlawing the Monopoly game at McDonald's - and we just can't have that (with or without fries)!

Rolling the Dice

2006-01-29T18:09:00.000-08:00

The recent media reports about the sweepstakes challenge in Jefferson County reminds me that gambling is the one vice that our society has decided should be open to children but not adults -- unless the adult wants to play the children's games.

It's somewhat strange to me that a majority in our state wring their hands over gambling but then turn around and allow their children to gamble under the "Chuck E. Cheese" Law -- presumably because it's just harmless fun.

Riley Bucks!

2006-01-29T09:09:00.000-08:00

The Mobile Register reported this week that a political action committee funded by backers of a Huntsville project that was awarded a $50 million state incentives package has donated $300,000 to Gov. Bob Riley's re-election campaign. The report is based on campaign finance reports filed with the state.

The $300,000 donation to Riley came less than 6 months after Riley awarded the $50,000,000 to the biotech project.

They report. You decide.

Bush and Hamas

2006-01-29T08:57:00.000-08:00

It's good to see that Bush and Company are accepting the results of the Palestinian Authority election, even if grudgingly. We Americans can't say we are for democracy if we are going to criticize the will of the people voting and try to undermine their elections.

Of course, it didn't take long for Bush to address the Hamas leadership like other errant, elected governments and try to tell them how to run their government.

Worley Watch: Illegal Immigrant Edition (redux)

2006-01-16T17:57:00.000-08:00

I originally reported here on the Worley controversy over voter registration, illegal immigrants, and citizenship. In summary, it was alleged that Nancy Worley, the Secretary of State and chief state election official, instructed voter registrars that they could not follow-up on a person's citizenship status, even on a person who had marked they were not a citizen on the application.

Since Mo Brooks, a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, was cited as the source of the information that was presented to the Madison County Commission, I contacted him about this issue. He replied:

"The information [about Worley's instructions] is from the Madison County Board of Registrars. A transcript of their statements to the Madison County Commission on December 19, 2005 is attached.

"All the Mo Brooks Campaign for Lt. Governor did was send a very brief cover letter to a lot of people with the transcript attached. I sent it as part of an effort to further highlight the illegal alien problems we must confront, and confront soon.

"What Ala. Secretary of State Nancy Worley appears to have done (according to various Boards of Registrars members in three different counties) is wrong and must be corrected (either by an admission by Worley that she uttered the instructions and is rescinding them or a statement by Worley that she never intended to convey what the voter registrars say they heard)."

The transcript of statements made to the Madison County Commission are available here: Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

The Huntsville Times reported on this story 12 January 2006. In that story, Worley denied giving those instructions to voter registrars. The story states:

Worley and a secretary of state's office attorney, Adam Bourne, said federal law gives voter applicants a presumption that their voter registration forms are truthful. Registrars cannot arbitrarily ask applicants their citizenship status unless there is a compelling and specific reason to do so, Worley said.

Not surprisingly, Worley falls back on making excuses. Rather than consider that her instructions may have been unclear or, in fact, wrong, Worley stated:

"When I started getting calls about what he attributed to me that I knew were untrue, I checked out the source and figured it to be political grandstanding.

"It's an attention-getter because he's running for lieutenant governor."

It seems, however, that if the instructions she claims to have given were the actual instructions that Worley gave to the registrars, the registrars would not have felt that checking citizenship was off limits regardless of circumstances.

If Worley's comments were taken out of context or simply misunderstood, hopefully she has issued a clarification to ensure that the voter registrars understand what their legal obligations and options under these circumstances.

Somehow, though, Worley's track record does not inspire confidence. Remember, she has told voter registrars to ignore the state constitution regarding the voting rights of convicted felons - and is being sued over that issue - despite clear guidance from the Attorney General on what the constitution requires.

Sans Snitching

2006-01-16T17:25:00.000-08:00

I imagine that many whites and conservatives - and especially conservative whites - who do not normally agree with Cynthia Tucker will like her column that ran in the 15 January 2006 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In the column, she talks about black "thug" culture being a bigger threat to black communities than racism and she decries the "no snitching" attitude that runs throughout that culture.

Of course, I agree that "thug" culture is a bad thing for the black community. Just like I think the rough and tumble, violent redneck culture of "dew drop inns" is a bad thing for the white community.

I'm wondering though how many whites who read Tucker's column today will praise her for arguing against the "no snitch" aspect of "thug" culture, while at the same time saying the federal whistleblower shouldn't have outed the Bush Administration's secret surveillance of American citizens - or defending the Riley Administration's withholding of the security tapes showing Curt Lee in the state capitol before work hours.

Worley Watch: Contracting

2006-01-16T17:07:00.000-08:00

Newspapers didn't give it a lot of attention, but Nancy Worley has done it again. According to an Associated Press article, Worley didn't follow procedure when she contracted with attorneys to defend her against a personnel complaint. Worley did not present the contract to the Legislature's Contract Review Committee as required.

The article includes the following take on the situation by Representative Alvin Holmes, a staunch Democrat on the Contract Review Committee:

Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said he doesn't think Bolton can get paid for the work he has done for the secretary of state.

"The law clearly states that you have to go through contract review to get a contract approved and she didn't do it," Holmes said.

And, for bipartisanship, Senator Larry Dixon is reported to have said:

"I feel the secretary of state completely mishandled this situation. Since it involves a disgruntled former employee, I would think she would be careful to make sure she touched every legal base."

While I am obviously no defender of Nancy Worley, I do hope that the attorney she hired is paid for whatever services he legitimately rendered to the Secretary of State's office. Hopefully, though, that attorney, and other people witnessing Worley's magic once again, will keep her track record in mind during this year's elections.

Bible Literacy

2006-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:00

poliscizac over at AlabamaElections has a good post about the Bible literacy bill that was introduced in the Legislature this session.

Comments posted by readers of Zac's entry show the problem with the whole issue of religion in schools. (Let's set aside the fact that schools can already teach Bible lit classes. My high school had such a class when I was there.)

If people can't agree on the means of teaching a class on the Bible as literature, then how do they expect to find any meaningful agreement on prayer in school or teaching "intelligent design."

Even those of us who are Christians have honest differences of opinion on what it means to be Christian and what the Bible tells us.

If we can't agree on the Christian message we want to present to one another, why should we want to expose such a message to non-believers?

Judicial Activism? - One More Alito Thought

2006-01-13T16:16:00.000-08:00

CNN reported this:

Alito said following precedent is "very important," and "special justification" would be needed to overturn previous decisions.

Then, in the same article, CNN reported this:

Feinstein pressed for examples of what would qualify as a "special justification."

Alito responded by citing scenarios in which a rule "is proven to be unworkable" or when "changes in the situation in the real world can call for the overruling of a precedent."

"Situations" in the "real world" can call for striking down a precedent?

It would seem this statement by Alito should make conservatives squirm. Hasn't the complaint lodged against "liberal" justices been that they are too eager to make rulings to address "real world" "situations"? Haven't conservatives complained that "liberal" justices impose their own views of society on others rather than looking to the Constitution and the framers' intentions to discover how the document should apply today?

Of course, conservatives aren't squirming, since they take this as code meaning that Alito will affirm his pro-life credentials by voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Some Thoughts on Alito

2006-01-13T16:01:00.000-08:00

Based on reports from As CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, the Alito confirmation hearings weren't much to observe. Once again, we Americans were served up another dose of lofty language talking about the role of judges to be impartial in ruling on cases one-by-one based on the merits and the facts. Which is all fine. At least a nominee like Alito knows to say the right things. But I agree with Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) who has described hearings likes these as "kabuki dances."

I agree that prospective justices and judges shouldn't say how they would rule on a particular set of facts before the case even comes to them. However, I'm not so sure that I'm sold on the idea that judges can't speak freely about past decisions of the court or be more expressive about their judicial philosophy.

But even if we accept that they won't answer questions about hot issues, it would at least be nice for the Senate Judiciary Committee to probe the nominees to discover whether the nominee has the intelligence to be a justice or judge. If courts are the venue for seeking the truth, and the Supreme Court is the venue for determining what is acceptable under our federal Constitution, then I would feel much better knowing that the justice is smart and a good analyst. And I would hope that those skills would lead the justice to honest views on the Constitution.

Of course, I do not dismiss that personal values and political philosophy play a role as well. We all see things from a particular vantage point. It just seems better to me to have a smart ideologue on the court rather than a stupid one. I can respect a judicial decision I do not agree with if it at least has some logic and coherence.

Worley Watch: Felony Follies

2006-01-11T16:41:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Nancy Worley is critical of Attorney General Troy King for not responding to her request for a comprehensive list of felonies convictions that make someone lose their voting rights. According to the AP, King was working on the list but has put the work on hold because Worley has been sued over the issue of felony convictions and voting right. King says not that the matter is in litigation, he cannot issue an opinion and that Worley will have to wait and see what the court rules.

King is correct. There is no way to tell how the litigation will go. And since he represents the State of Alabama in these lawsuits, he cannot very well issue opinions outside of court that may affect or be affected by the litigation.

Worley needs to remember that it was her decision to ignore the plain language of the Alabama Constitution that got her sued and in this mess. King issued an opinion in early 2005 saying that not all felony convictions make a person to lose his voting rights. He even provided a brief listing of some of the convictions that do and do not cause disenfranchisement. Worley ignored the opinion and told the county voter registrars to continue business as usual rather than training them on what the law requires. So now Worley is in court, having been sued because she would not honor what the Constitution requires.

Worley is correct that the voter registrars need clarification of what felonies cause disenfranchisement. Registrars are not lawyers and need legal guidance. However, Worley handled the problem all wrong. Instead of telling registrars to conduct business as usual, she should have told them to follow King's 2005 opinion. If a type of felony was not covered in that opinion, then her attorney could provide guidance until King issued the comprehensive list.

But Worley is par for her course. She has - again - resorted to blaming someone else for her own mistakes and errors in judgement.

Cartoon of the Moment

2006-01-07T10:18:00.000-08:00

Worley Watch: Illegal Immigrant Edition

2006-01-03T19:30:00.000-08:00

Brad at the blog SuppressedNews.com has posted allegations against Nancy Worley. According to Brad's entry,

Worley is traveling the state in order to instruct local voter registrars to register illegal aliens to vote. What could be her motivation if not to register likely Democrat voters?

Brad bases his allegation on what is purported to be a statement from Mo Brooks, a candidate for Lt. Governor. In the statement, Brooks presents information from the Madison County Board of Registrars to the Madison County Commission about Worley's instructions on registering illegal, as well as legal, aliens.

We have not yet been able to corroborate this story with any press accounts or other sources. Anyone with information on this story is invited to e-mail Watchman with the details. All sources will be kept confidential unless attribution is desired by the source.

Worley Watch: New Year Edition

2006-01-03T18:31:00.000-08:00

As reported by the Montgomery Advertiser on 31 December 2005, Secretary of State Nancy Worley is now officially out of compliance with a federal mandate that required her office to implement a new statewide voter registration system by 1 January 2006.

Worley's problems in meeting this mandate are legion. They are documented here, here, here, here, and here. For a rough time line of this abysmal failure, go here. As the linked entries show, Worley has as many excuses as she does fingers for why she hasn't been able to meet the federal deadline.

Two of the more interesting sections of the Advertiser article:

Implementing the system stalled because of confusion over licensing agreements and intellectual property rights, officials said. Worley was confident Friday all the details can be ironed out and the system will be up by June.

And then:

"We have an antiquated system because it was not updated technologically on an annual basis."

These passages seem to strongly imply that the state will be purchasing a new voter registration system from an outside vendor.

However, Worley told the U.S. Department of Justice on 9 September 2005 that the current voter registration system (the same one that she tells the Advertiser is antiquated) is substantially compliant with the federal mandate. And although she told the Advertiser the new system would be ready in June 2006, she told the Department of Justice that her staff would have the final updates to the system made so that it would be ready to roll in March 2006. Page 3 of Worley's letter to explains this (page 1, 2, 3; thanks to MCNewbie for the DOJ letter).

Quote of the Moment

2006-01-01T04:19:00.000-08:00

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.-- Robert A. Heinlein

Magic City Migrants

2006-01-01T03:22:00.000-08:00

On 30 December 2005, The Birmingham News reported on the concerns expressed by Jefferson County commissioners Larry Langford and Sheila Smoot over Sheriff Mike Hale's plans to record and log information on illegal immigrants in their county. Hale's plan, as it has been reported by The News, would have each of his deputies record information about illegal immigrants they meet in the course of their job and then enter that information into a database that could be shared with other law enforcement officials.

Langord and Smoot are concerned that the program will lead to racial profiling. It is also reported that Smoot has said the county needs to look at the long-term consequences of keeping tabs in illegal immigrants. Two other commissioners have also weighed in on the issue. Gary White says he supports Hale's program as long as it is used to track only those immigrants with criminal records. According to The News article, Bettye Fine Collins is supportive of Hale's efforts to identify illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigration is becoming a growing concern in Alabama, at least as indicated by press coverage. Whether that concern is based on the "rule of law" and who has the right to be in America or racism - or some undefined mixture of the two - is anyone's guess.

It seems appropriate and necessary that Jefferson County deputies report what they know about illegal immigrants in their county. And in fact it seems that the Jefferson County Sheriff, and therefore his deputies, are required by law to report what they know regarding illegal immigrants. In the oath of office they take, the specifically say they will uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama.

While that oath does not make them enforcers of immigration law, it would seem to place an affirmative reponsibility on them to notify the proper authorities of evidence that someone is violating immigration law.

I do not support racial profiling - the stopping and questioning of a person by law enforcement for the sole reason that the person is in a targeted racial or ethnic group. However, if a person is stopped for a legitimate reason by the JeffCo sheriffs deputies, and the person is not in the country legally, I see no reason the JeffCo deputies should not report this information.

If racial profiling in this program does prove to be a problem, then the deputies should be dealt with appropriately, just as we should deal with illegal immigrants. The fear of one wrong should not lead us to overlook another.

Come one! Come all!

2006-01-01T03:15:00.000-08:00

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR) has sent out this invitation. I'm passing it along to you:

On January 4th Come to Montgomery !

Press Conference for bill Calling for Constitutional Convention

Rep. Demetrius Newton and Senator Ted Little will hold a press conference announcing the bill calling for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the 1901 Constitution on Wednesday Jan 4, 2006, 10 AM in the House of Representative Chambers, 5th Floor of State House , Montgomery Alabama.

The bill and summary will be passed out at the press Conference

All are urged to attend to show support in this first public announcement of the bill. Please pass this notice to your email list and urge all to attend.

Is there an English teacher in the house?

2005-12-29T07:57:00.000-08:00

Perhaps Attorney General Troy King should let retired school teacher and Secretary of State Nancy Worley proof his letters before he sends them out.

The Associated Press reported on King's letter to John Giles of the Christian Coalition. According to The AP, King said to Giles

"I invite you to roll up your sleeves and join us in the fight - ... in the Legislature - where it is hard work, not grandstanding or casting of unwarranted dispersions."

I'm pretty sure King meant call out the casting of an unwarranted aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark) rather than dispersion (the act or process of dispersing or the state of being dispersed).

Perhaps King is just getting in touch with his inner Bush.

Grimacing for the Gov

2005-12-28T13:52:00.000-08:00

The state of creative talent at Governor Riley's campaign has already been mentioned on this blog. However, a Montgomery correspondent has recently sent a new photo that draws that campaign's sense of style and panache into question.

Lucy Baxley's slogan ("We Love Lucy") has grown tired. Many thought it was catchy, despite being a cheap rip off of Lucille Ball's old television show. I'm not sure why at this point in the game, Riley would feel a need to co-opt the basic idea of Baxley's slogan, much less why he would do so in such a feeble way.

Governing Legal Authority

2005-12-28T11:50:00.000-08:00

Pete Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is wringing his hands over Don Siegelman's candidacy and court troubles. Turnham is worried about what the party must do if Siegelman wins the June 2006 primary and then is subsequently convicted in federal court. Turnham outlines a few options. The party's executive committee could hand-pick a replacement nominee. Or the party could call for a nominating convention to name a replacement nominee. Or, as Turnham seemingly prefers, the party could call for a new primary election to be held statewide. According to The Birmingham News article, such an election would cost around $3 million dollars.

Turnham didn't even speculate on the fourth option. Siegelman could voluntarily bow out of the primary election if his federal case is not completed by 6 June. Siegelman could then take the high road and say that he wanted to do what is in the best interests of Alabama's taxpayers. He could further explain that since he cannot speak for what the Democratic Party would do upon a conviction, he is making the only choice that is his to make: to step aside.

Of course, that option wouldn't preserve Siegelman's candidacy and would effectively usher in the close of Siegelman's political career, regardless of whether a federal jury convicts him.

What is more likely to occur, if Siegelman wins the primary and he is convicted, is that Siegelman will file an appeal to his conviction and will then claim that while his conviction is on appeal, the conviction is not final and does not affect his right to vote or his ability to be a candidate. And that's before we even get into the issue of whether his conviction (if it happens) is for a felony involving moral turpitude.

Worley Watch: Special Christmas Entry

2005-12-24T13:44:00.000-08:00

"May your Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, etc., be SUNNY - send MONEY!

"May your New Year be a blast - send CASH!

"Your contribution will be worth a bushel and peck - send a CHECK!

"This Secretary of State hopes you won't be late - please mail before January 10! Once every four years,a donation envelop falls out of your card which you may consider "tacky"; however, it saves me another stamp/letter asking you for campaign contributions."

And so goes Nancy Worley's holiday letter that she included in her Christmas cards this year.

And some thought Roy and Kayla were a bit crass and opportunistic in their holiday fundraising?

You can read the full text of Worley's Christmas message (Pages 1 and 2):

Worley Watch

2005-12-21T21:47:00.000-08:00

The Birmingham News reported Wednesday that Nancy Worley has been sued for alleged violations of voting rights.

The article states:

The suit says the state constitution is clear that people convicted of certain felonies including DUI and drug possession - unlike murder, rape or robbery - do not lose their voting rights and do not need to apply for an eligibility certificate from the board.

The situation is an interesting twist on the voting rights issue. On one side, Troy King, the Republican Attorney General, has stated that under the state Constitution, some convicted felons do not lose their right to vote. On the other side, Nancy Worley, a Democratic Secretary of State, insists that all felons lose their right to vote upon conviction.

Article VIII of the Constitution was amended in 1996 and now says this:

No person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, or who is mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights or removal of disability.

Originally, Article VIII said:

The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely: All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector.

A court has already issued an initial ruling suggesting that Worley is wrong. We'll have to wait to see how the courts sort out the issue.

Worley Watch

2005-12-20T06:09:00.000-08:00

According to The Huntsville Times, Secretary of State Nancy Worley admits once again that she will fail to meet the 1 January 2006 for implementing a new statewide voter registration system. However, she provides no explanation as to why she has shrugged off the mandate, offering only that she has set a schedule that will meet the deadline 10 months late.

Accomodating the Gimme Culture

2005-12-18T15:21:00.000-08:00

So, let's see.

When a city decides to call its "Christmas tree" a "holiday tree," Jerry Falwell had this to say:

"There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas."

However, when two large Baptist churches in Atlanta decided they would close on Christmas Day this year and not hold usual Sunday services, Falwell had this to say:

"It's a mistake. It clearly is an accommodation of culture. Some churches would justify that by that we're honoring the family by not interfering with home celebration. But there's no reason why you couldn't have both."

Is it just me, or is there a markedly different tone in Falwell's two sets of comments?

Falwell is much more outspoken against the "accomodation of culture" when it comes to having a "holiday tree." I guess we aren't supposed to be accomodating to non-Christians who take part in holiday festivities that are largely not Christian.

Falwell does say that it's wrong for the churches to be closed on a Sunday. But he appears to accept the "accomodation of culture" more readily when it's Christians wanting to stay home to receive and revel in their Christmas booty.

Perhaps Falwell is a bit more forgiving when the transgressor is a fellow minister as opposed to radical liberal elite secularists. One of the churches what will be closed is Atlanta's First Baptist Church, headed by Charles Stanley of InTouch Ministries national fame.

Cartoon of the Moment

2005-12-17T10:15:00.000-08:00

National vs. Spiritual

2005-12-17T09:43:00.000-08:00

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on his show that aired 15 December 2005. Rumseld, in talking about developments in Iraq, made a point that caught my attention. He said:

"And what we've got to count on is that the Iraqi people are, even the Shia, are more Iraqi than they are Shia and that they're not going to want Iran influencing their elections."

Did he really mean to say that he hopes that Iraqi citizens affiliate more closely with their national identity than with their spiritual identity?

Can you imagine asking Christians in America to consider themselves first and foremost Americans -- and then Christians?

Oh, wait. We have asked them to do that by respecting the First Amendment's mandate that government not be used to endorse or establish a national religion. And the religious right roundly rejects that they should honor that mandate.

Worley Watch

2005-12-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

As the Times-Journal out of Fort Payne reports, it seems Nancy Worley continues her efforts to alienate local officials.

BR ... 549?

2005-12-15T20:50:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or is this a weird sticker for the Riley campaign?

At least George W. Bush has the nickname "dubya." I have never heard of anyone calling Riley "BR".

If Bob paid someone to come up with that, he needs to get his money back and have that person committed.

"Bonk!"

2005-12-13T11:33:00.000-08:00

What image does that exclamation evoke? If you are like me, it usually makes me think of someone getting hit on the head.

So, it seems quite ironic that this guy with the last name of "Bonk" was charged with hitting his mother over the head with a steel pipe.

Money on Trees

2005-12-13T06:29:00.000-08:00

The Riley Administration reports that the Education Trust Fund may have as much as $300 million extra. As The Birmingham News reports, the Governor has suggested that the surplus could be given back to "the families of this state."

Governor Riley also said "We're going to fund education. We're going to fund our programs. We're going to do things that we have never done before."

Paul Hubbert (D-AEA) raised the obvious point when he questioned returning education dollars to taxpayers when Alabama spends less per public school student than most other states. I'm wondering, though, if Alabama should be sending this money back when so many schools lack funding to properly stock basic supplies like toilet paper.

As much as Alabamians may like the thought of getting some kind of extra refund from the state, it seems we should be meeting all of our obligations in schools before we reap some kind of personal windfall.

Some are more equal than others ...

2005-12-12T17:37:00.000-08:00

On tonight's O'Reilly Factor, Bill chastised a group who is encouraging people to protest Bush's State of the Union speech next month. They are calling for people to make a lot of noise when Bush's speech starts. Obviously, the general public who would do this won't be in the U.S. Capitol; so, apparently, the idea is for people to make noise wherever they are. Bill was complaining that these folks are trying to deprive Bush of his right to speak.

Now, I may be wrong. If I am, please send me a source that proves that - but I don't think O'Reilly has too much heartburn when the Secret Service does advance work to quarantine non-violent, peaceful dissenters, even when these dissenters are doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt or button.

Lit

2005-12-12T17:22:00.000-08:00

I was sitting at a traffic light in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to clear so I could proceed. A motorcycle cop was across from me, also waiting to turn left (in the other direction). Surprisingly, he turned his flashing lights on. I thought maybe he had seen someone do something something dangerous or who was speeding.

The traffic coming toward me cleared. He then proceeded to not return to the straight lane and pursue whatever he saw, but rather he made a right turn all the way from the left turn lane. He had to cross two lanes of traffic to turn into a different strip mall. I watched him as I turned in behind him, wondering who or what caught his attention to make such a turn. Oddly, he circled the parking lot, nonchalantly.

I'm thinking I observed something crazy. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps something was radioed to him and he had to scope out the parking lot.

Then, the brilliance of this came to me! I wish anyone who has a habit of making crazy turns into traffic - or who weaves in and out of traffic - or who pulls out in front of oncoming traffic - I wish these people would have warning lights they could flash just like this cop.

Worley Watch

2005-12-12T07:34:00.000-08:00

The Huntsville Times reported Saturday that Ms. Nancy will indeed miss the 1 January 2006 deadline for implementing a new statewide voter registration system.

With $43 million in pocket, Worley has had over 2 years to get the system in place, hasn't done it, and now she and her staff are blaming the problem on the governor's office.

Stay tuned.

Happy Holidays, Pt. 2

2005-12-11T16:19:00.000-08:00

Since various conservative groups have determined that the Christmas tree is an integral part of celebrating the Christian anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, will they now deem it sacrilege if anyone replaces an actual tree with a "rosemary Christmas tree"?

Since Christmas were originally evergreens, such as Fir, and the long-time tradition in America has been to use pines or firs ... can we really allow the subsitution of of an herb? Is this not yet another attack on the sanctity of the holy Christmas tree?

And an herb? Is it rosemary today, and then a much different "herb" tomorrow?

(And you are well-advised to not get me started on artificial trees, be they plastic, aluminum, or whatever else.)

Happy Holidays, Pt. 1

2005-12-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one who grew up thinking that the phrase "happy holidays" referred to the entire holiday season that begins with Thanksgiving and runs through New Year's Day?

Words Up (and out)!

2005-12-10T11:01:00.000-08:00

If schools are going to start suspending kids for talking Spanish outside of class but during the school day, can they also root out words like "bling bling"?

Of Tigers and Trees, Part 2

2005-12-09T10:15:00.000-08:00

The AU SGA president has sent this e-mail to the AU community.

---- begin AU SGA e-mail ----

Dear AU Community,

In 2000, Auburn University's Student Government Association (SGA) began
an official Holiday Tree Lighting tradition. Recently, false information
spread that the Auburn University Student Government Association changed
the name of this celebration from a Christmas Tree Lighting to a Holiday
Tree Lighting and banned a Christmas tree on campus.

No such banning or name change has occurred since this tradition began.
Furthermore, it is important to stress that Auburn originally chose to
call its celebration a Holiday Tree Lighting not to deny the beliefs of
anyone, but, instead, to be inclusive of all of its more than 23,000
students and their traditions and beliefs.

Now, because the facts of Auburn's celebration have been misrepresented
to certain well-intended individuals and organizations, Auburn finds
itself in a controversy it did not seek. Fortunately, this controversy
has caused Auburn's student leaders to begin to thoughtfully examine the
annual celebration in hopes that it can continue in a way that is
agreeable to all. This year's lighting has already taken place, so there
is time for an examination that is not hasty, but is deliberate and
intent on a lasting solution.

I can assure the Auburn family and others who have expressed their
concern that this examination has begun. I believe student leadership at
Auburn is intent on finding a way to hold a celebration and to call a
Christmas tree what it is - a Christmas tree - but, at the same time
embrace other faiths and belief systems.

I ask for patience in allowing the SGA to do its work. I believe that,
when our work is complete, everyone will be pleased.

Sincerely,

John Tatum
SGA President
Auburn University

---- end AU SGA e-mail ----

Of Tigers and Trees

2005-12-08T13:39:00.000-08:00

It's cliche' to invoke Mr. Harvey's signature line, but it seems we now have the "rest of the story."

The reactionary right has had a field day pointing out the evil perpetrated by men and women when referring to a tree formerly known as "Christmas" as a "holiday tree". For an example, see this. Even Alabama's beloved Auburn University has been dragged through the mud on this issue by conservatives that, apparently, jumped to a conclusion not supported by the facts they didn't jump from. The American Family Association went so far as to say that Auburn had banned the Christmas tree

The Birmingham News reported today that Auburn has, in fact, not renamed the "Christmas tree" a "holiday tree." Whereas protestors considered the lighting event a " 'holiday tree' lighting ceremony", Auburn has clarified that the event is in fact a "holiday 'tree lighting' ceremony".

For those of you who didn't benefit from SchoolHouse Rock and the like, the word "holiday" is an adverb that tells us when (during the holidays) a particular type of ceremony (tree lighting) is being held (during the holidays). Auburn was not holding a lighting ceremony for a "holiday tree."

Lee Johnsey of the SGA noted that everyone took for granted that it was a Christmas tree. He want on to say that "[w]e are in the holiday season and we are lighting a tree," he said.

Kudos go to the SGA for rejecting a petition that demanded the SGA rename the tree lighting as a "Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony."

Max Coblentz, an SGA senator and Code of Laws Committee chairman, is reported as saying that most senators were upset at the way the issue was raised. He also pointed out there will likely be some clarification next year that the tree is indeed a Christmas tree.

Perhaps Mike Adams would have benefited from doing the same reporter's footwork that Thomas Spencer of The Birmingham News did: actually talking to people involved to determine what the facts are before making strident accusations and wagging a finger.

By the way, Mike Adams needs to avoid using Auburn's proud imagery and symbols if he can't get it right. "War Eagle" is singular and people in the Auburn Nation are not called "War Eagles".

Trees and Bowls

2005-12-06T15:06:00.000-08:00

As we couldn't have guessed it would be coming, the cause celebre of this holiday season ... do I mean Christmas season? ... is the hand-wringing over the fate of the world because some places are calling their evergreens "holiday trees" rather than "Christmas trees".

Jerry Falwell is in a leather about. As are writers on the al.com Auburn Tigers "Free for All" forum. (It seems Auburn has chosen to have a holiday tree on its campus.) A search on Google using the phrase "holiday tree" and "politically correct" returned a listing of over 22,000 entries! (... in only .14 second, no less!)

If we really want to address the breaking down of traditions and community though, we should take on another change that was inflicted upon us many years ago. As our friend at Red State Diaries reminds us, college football bowl games were not always named for their corporate benefactors.

What happened to the good old days when bowl games were the cap on the college football season played at host sites that had their own aura of greatness because of the exciting match-ups that pounded out wins and reputations and legends on the gridiron?

Now we have the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The Capital One Bowl. The Nokia Sugar Bowl.

Whatever happened to the old time names followed by the "proudly sponsored by whatever corporation" message? Whatever happened to corporations being willing to let their ads do the talking, rather than believing they are the king in whose court our teams play.

Doing It Religiously

2005-12-06T00:04:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure what to make of the editorial that The Birmingham News ran today regarding a bill to permit public school teachers to sign on for a particular "Bible as literature" curriculum.

The News' basic point is sound; that teaching the Bible's influence on literature is fine as long as teacher's are careful to not infringe upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the prohibition found in the Establishment Clause.

However, the News' makes some comments that seem strange. Perhaps they are just the result of slopping writing or trying to meet an pending printing deadline.

First, the News' says that "more caution is needed when a public school teacher or administrator is involved in religious activities with students." Actually, if the Bible lit class is crafted properly and taught correctly, this curriculum would not be a "religious activity." Public schools do not exist to conduct religious activities and in fact are prohibited from doing so. The case Wallace v. Jaffree, which originated in Alabama, makes this point clear.

The News' also makes the point that public schools in Alabama already have the legal ability to teach "Bible literature" classes. (In fact, I remember my high school having such a class.) However, the News' editorial board goes on to say that "school boards that adopt the course in their bill would get help training teachers about how to teach the subject the right way," apparently suggesting that the bill provides for training that schools cannot get unless it adopts this curriculum.

It would seem odd to think that schools could only get specialized training on this area of First Amendment concern if they adopt some curriculum that has received the blessing of the Alabama Legislature. And, as a point of fact, the Attorney General provides guidelines for conducting religious activities in public schools.

We know that politicians (Guin? Hammett?) will use symbolic issues like this one to curry favor with particular groups of voters. So, it's not a surprise the pols would put forth some proposal for which there is no burning need.

It's not so clear why The Birmingham News printed what seems to be slip-shod editorial writing.

Taking a Chance on It

2005-12-05T17:59:00.000-08:00

The Birmingham News ran an editorial 3 December 2005 commending Jefferson County authorities for for "cracking down" on illegal gambling operations.

Regardless of whether you think gambling is an egregious sin or just a fun way to (maybe) make some quick cash, one can't help but take note of the "Chuck E. Cheese" law that permits games of chance for children. If you've been in a pizza establishment, like the law's namesake, or stopping in an arcade at your mall, you would have seen these games. They seem simple and innocent. What adverse affect could they have on kids.

Perhaps ... none.

But let's look at it from a different angle. Children are prohibited from participating in many of the serious vices while adults are allowed to participate at will: smoking; drinking alcohol; sex (read: statutory rape); reading pornography (softcore or hardcore).

Gambling is the one vice that our society has decided should be open to children but not adults -- unless the adult wants to play the children's games.

It's somewhat strange to me that a majority in our state wring their hands over gambling but then turn around and allow their children to gamble -- presumably because it's just harmless fun.

Zealotry

2005-12-03T07:18:00.000-08:00

In response to this entry I made on 30 October, a correspondent replied:

"Expecting the ADP blog to be objective is the basic misunderstanding I think. They are admittedly a Democratic schill, so I am not sure they can be rightly criticized for not attacking their own."

Another reader replied:

"Do you expect us not to be biased? It is the party blog after all. Do you think that AL GOP's website would be any fairer? I am a Democrat, I am easily more likely to take up for my brother than someone else, and my party before another one."

What continues to keep party politics in the gutter is these kind of perspectives.

Yes, in the real world, party folks are zealots for their cause and will say whatever is necessary to win. Trust me. I've been around politics long enough to know that.

Regardless, that doesn't mean I cannot make a prescription for elevating the discussion about government officials in hopes of being more statesman-like.

If accepting reality and rolling over is the proper protocol, then Democrats should accept that Bush's denials about the problems in Iraq - and with the very reason we went to war there - are what's to be expected of a sitting administration and stop compaining about it.

Bogeyman du jour

2005-12-03T07:13:00.000-08:00

A resident of Bessemer recently wrote to The Birmingham News' editorial page and commended the paper for its series on immigration. In her comments she said:

[Immigrants] come from many countries, and some of them are probably terrorists.

To reference an old saying, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Apparently it is not enough to encourage enforcement of immigration laws for the sake of immigration policy. We must now enforce the immigration laws because of all the terrorists slipping across the border from Mexico.

Now, I'm not saying that terrorists aren't smart enough to exploit a real hole in our nation's borders (although obviously we have not encountered waves of terrorism imported from Mexico). And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be imaginative when trying to determine our national security weaknesses.

But I grow tired of hearing that defeating the bogeyman du jour (e.g., terrorism, communism) is a primary reason for any and every conceivable action government may take.

Immigrant Workers Compensation

2005-12-03T06:42:00.000-08:00

I' m sure a wealth of 2-cents has been shared on this topic already. I'm a week or so late commenting.

The AP reported on 22 November that a state judge has ruled that an illegal immigrant is eligible for workers compensation benefits from his employer despite being in the country illegally. The worker, a teen, was paralyzed while working on a home construction site. The Home Builders Association of Alabama intervened in the case, citing the immigration status of the worker when it asked the judge to deny the benefits. The employer disagreed with the judge's decision but said it would not appeal.

Note note that is was not an "activist" federal judge but an popularly elected circuit judge who reached this conclusion.

As illegal immigration continues to be of growing concern, I think it is only fitting that a business who hires illegal immigrants must pay these kinds of benefits if the worker would otherwise qualify for them if he or she was in the country legally. One of the draws - the main draw - to America for illegal immigrants is the work and the money they can earn. It is illegal for employers to hire these individuals and they should use due diligence in doing so. And if they don't, then there should be penalties the business has to pay.

For the court to have said a legal American could have gotten these benefits but not an illegal immigrant would have given businesses just one more incentive to use foreign labor to replace workers who are here legally - by birth or by choice.

The article includes the following:

[blockquote]An official with the Home Builders Association, W. Russell Davis, said the organization encourages members to hire only legal immigrants, but added that there is no way for contractors to check the immigration status of everyone working on a construction site. Paying benefits to illegal immigrants, he said, "is just part of it."[/blockquote]

This guy wants to spin this issue both ways. First of all, that Association said that the worker wasn't eligible for the benefits. Then he states that since his businesses have "no way" to check the immigration status of every worker, he accepts the payment of benefits as a cost of doing business.

He is, of course, being disingenuous. There are ways for a business to exercise due diligence in determining a worker's immigration status. Yes, some prospective employees may have fraudulent credentials that can be used to scam an employer. But in general an employer is able to ensure the legality of its employees' immigration status.

In this case, it seems that this construction business should be investigated for immigration violations. Unfortunately, that will probably not happen; if you find it has, let me know. But at least the business will be punished by having to live up to its moral - and legal - obligation to this worker.

Compare and Contrast (mostly contrast)

2005-12-02T09:39:00.000-08:00

Looks like Nancy Worley could take a few lessons from the Department of Public Safety on deploying a statewide computer system and meeting federal compliance deadlines.

Read the report by The Huntsville Times here.

Colorado's Voter Registration System

2005-12-01T14:20:00.000-08:00

The AP reported yesterday that Colorado has cancelled it's contract with Accenture for a new statewide voter registration system. Colorado is now at risk of not complying with the mandate in the Help America Vote Act that requires that system be operational by 1 January 2006.

As readers of this blog will know, Alabama is running the risk of not being in compliance either. But at least in Colorado, the state has an argument that their vendor has not performed pursuant to its contract. Last we heard, Nancy Worley had not even signed a contract for Alabama's new system.

And you thought we had become distracted from following the antics of Surly Worley.

About the Iraq War, Pt. 2

2005-12-01T13:44:00.000-08:00

CNN reported that Bush, in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, stated that "[a]s Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

So, basically, Bush is stating that as long as their continues to be insurgent/resistance/terrorist activity that overwhelms the Iraqi military and keeps some some level of instability in Iraqi politics, America will continue to have troop presence in Iraq. For those keeping a scorecard, let's see how Mr. Bush's conceptualization of our military involvement in Iraq has evolved.

First, we were primarily launching a pre-emptive attack against a country alleged to be hostile to America and supposedly in possession of weapons with which that country could launch an attack on the continental United States.

Then, when the infamous weapons of mass destruction which threatened us could not be found, the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a vile, brutal dictator whose regime needed "changed."

We are now in the latest of these phases in which our military is being used to facilitate nation-building by providing homeland security for the metamorphosed Iraq.

Whether we consider each of these goals as attainable serially or in parallel, it seems that that we already have victory for items one and two. We have neutralized the WMD threat (okay, the threat was "neutralized" by Saddam no longer possessing such a threat) and we have removed the dictator and instituted regime change.

That leaves us with only the last goals of nation-building and and Iraqi homeland security. Victory with regard to these aspects is a bit trickier to define. But it's also debatable that the definition of victory for the Iraqis in this area is the same as the definition of victory for U.S. forces. At some point, Iraqis must take over full responsibility for their country and its government. Unless we are to make Iraq a U.S. territory, we have no responsibility to ensure comprehensive success of that country's political reform. Nor should our military be responsible for the national security of Iraq for some indefinite period of time.

Which of course, brings to the latest goal that the Bush Administration has woven into its story of Iraq: defeat of terrorists. Bush and Company have alleged that we must defeat terrorists in Iraq to prevent them from posing some threat to us on our soil here in America.

I guess things have come full-circle. We started out in Iraq to prevent an attack on America. And to this day, Bush contends we are still there for the same reason. We apparently are in pursuit of a goal so elusive that the only thing more elusive is the Bush Administrations credibility regarding this whole operation.

Osama bin Castro?

2005-12-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

I'm wondering if the Bush Administration's real strategy on Osama bin Laden is not to capture him or kill but rather to limit his sphere of influence by marginalizing him -- while also keeping him as the bogeyman who can be resurrected from time to time when Bush and Company need a terorrist scare to distract attention from his or his political party's problems.

About the Iraq War

2005-12-01T08:17:00.000-08:00

The Iraq situation will continue to fester as long as the general public has doubts about why we invaded Iraq in the first place and as long as they continue to be presented evidence that the post-war effort to stabilize Iraq has not been effective.

It is important to evaluate the justification for the war that was given to us before we invaded Iraq. Most certainly Americans will tend to support a military action to ensure our own safety and national security. But I don't think that they would have agreed to the invasion if our primary goal was mainly to topple Saddam so that a democratic government could be constructed. Americans have a tendency to address real problems but we do not usually have a stomach for imposing our vision of utopia on other countries.

The Bush Administration says that we need to remain in Iraq so that we can address the terrorist threat there. I generally agree with him that we need to do what we can there to ensure that Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists that could threaten our national security. But I also think that we need an honest assessment of the United States' role in making Iraq fertile ground for such breeding. And, unfortunately, we have done more than the Bush Administration wishes to admit in applying the fertilizer. I know I'm not the only one who sees a problem with our justifying our continued military presence in Iraq by citing conditions that were created largely by our own actions.

Yes, let's address those problems. But we cannot stick our head in the sand (no pun intended since we are talking about a country with abundance supplies of sand) and not hold accountable those who failed America in pre-war intelligence gathering and analysis and pre- and post-war planning.

It's easy to say we shouldn't point fingers and assign blame. The reality though is that you need to understand what went wrong to effectively craft a solution to address the failures. And though some may not like it, a side effect of finding out what went wrong is oftentimes finding out who did wrong.

There may be honest disagreement about the causes of the problems we are experiencing in Iraq. For example, was the intelligence supporting invasion manufacturered or cherry-picked to justify a predetermined course of action? Or did one or more people simply make a mistake despite good faith efforts to do the right thing?

When the government -- one that is allegedly by and for the people -- has a terrible record like the one in evidence in Iraq, only those officials with something to hide would insist that we avoid finding and correcting problems.

Talking about Ethical Lapses?

2005-10-30T20:13:00.000-08:00

Is it any surprise that the Alabama Democratic Party blogger, despite commenting on Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby and others, has not said a word about the Siegelman indictment?

And he claims that Beth Chapman is a hypocrite when talking about ethics in government?

Vote! ... if you can slip past me!

2005-10-26T18:55:00.000-07:00

Nancy Worley stated in the voter guide put out by her office in 2004:

"Your vote is important. In order for our democracy to be of the people, by the people and for the people, the people must vote... Join me at the polls on Election Day!"

It's kind of hard to vote when the state's chief election official is apparently taking steps to keep you from voting ... or so that is what is alleged in the lawsuit filed against her.

Shading the Truth

2005-10-24T18:44:00.000-07:00

I saw yet another letter to the editor in The Birmingham News today accusing Bill Bennett of being a racist for his comments regarding blacks, abortion and crime. (In case you've been fortunate enough to forget, he said that if all black babies were aborted, the crime rate would go down.)

Bennett and his apologists claim he isn't racist for saying these things because he pointed out how morally reprehensible such an idea is and that it would be wrong to implement it.

The thing is he's right. Blacks commit some percentage of crime, regardless of whether or not they do so disproportionately. And if no more blacks grew up, then those who perpetuate crimes would be gone and the crime rate would go down.

Of course, the same logic applies to whites, or hispanics, or Asians. All groups commit crimes. Do away with any one particular group and crime will go down by what percentage they account for of total crimes. Plain and simple.

What really makes Bennett sound bigoted or even racist is that for his example he automatically - as if by second nature - chose blacks to be the subject of the analogy he was drawing. He could have chosen any group. Or he could have followed the lead of the caller who didn't identify a group when he said that if abortion was illegal, those aborted babies could have grown up to be productive taxpayers.

Security Blanket

2005-10-24T18:43:00.000-07:00

The Birmingham News reports today that the State of Alabama has paid $125,000 to install retractable steel posts to prevent a truck bomb attack on the Alabama State House. The State House is the home of the Legislature and the Attorney General, as well as office space for several other agencies.

While the retractable posts will hinder a mad truck or car bomber from going down one ramp and accessing the loading the dock at that building, there is at least one other access point for vehicles which was not secured. Additionally, next to the State House is a parking deck which has a top-level with access points on the street that have not been secured except by an arm that drops across the entrance.

If a stopping a car bomb is the real goal, then these gaping holes should be points of concern. Further, it is quite easy to pull a car or truck up to any number of positions around the building, especially after hours when employee vehicles aren't parked alongside the building.

The chief of security for the State House commented that the building needs protection because "[i]t's a symbol of government." I guess the occupants of the Capitol Building (Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, and their employees) must take comfort that their building hasn't been targeted for security enchancements. Their building must not be a symbol of government or must have no security weaknesses.

Of course, it has been suggested that the Capitol Building already has some sophisticated security mechanisms in place that must be protected at all costs. I guess they should be sufficient.

Did we need a Yank paper to reveal that to us?

2005-10-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

Was Nancy Worley being uncharacteristically forthcoming with the Chicago Tribune earlier this year? She said that

It's always dangerous when people have a title and don't know what to do with it.

You decide.

Looking for a Good Value

2005-10-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

I wonder where the slippery slope lies?

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation which would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Proponents of the legislation say lawsuits holding the manufacturer liable for the actions of a criminal are frivilous, unjust and merely an effort to financially ruin the gun makers. Opponents argue that gun makers should be held responsible for misconduct that puts guns in the hands of criminals.

We are a blame society. Americans are almost constantly in a struggle to assign blame, usually to others and never to ourselves. We are constantly trying to demonize those with whom we disagree and show they are the source of our ills. Of course, sometimes what we say is true. Sometimes it's not. We may debate about who is to blame for something in particular, but as we know, someone is always to blame.

The interesting thing about the folks who support this particular legislation is they say the producers should not be responsible in any way for how their products are used. Even President Bush commented, saying:

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products."

Most of the supporters in the U.S. House are Republicans or conservatives. While Republicans are usually linked with notions of personal accountability (and their support for this bill reflects that), they are not always on the side of personal accountability.

Republicans and conservatives often strive to restrict the availability of certain products in the marketplace: "violent" movies and video games; "obscene" music; "pornographic" books, magazines and films. They allege the availability and use of these items leads people toward a wayward path, often times leading to criminal or otherwise undesirable behavior. Should the producers be prevented from making and freely marketing these items because of some correlation with bad behavior? Would that not be holding them responsible for the misconduct of others?

Conservatives would respond by saying that these other things (e.g., obscenity, violence, pornography) are inherently bad or evil and therefore any product incorporating those to any degree is bad news from the get go. The rejoinder, of course, is to contend that guns are inherently bad or evil, even if a necessary evil in some cases ( e.g., war).

But that is merely peeling another layer off the onion and revealing the deeper issues: whose values will dominate in our culture.

Teacher, teacher, try to teach me!

2005-10-19T19:01:00.000-07:00

One would think a retired teacher would know the lessons that are taught to all school kids: be responsible, do what is expected of you when it's expected, and don't lie to cover up your own mistakes, errors, or lack of judgement

Nancy Worley proves once again she has no shame ... and no real idea what she's doing as the state's chief election official. In the Monday, 17 October 2005, edition of The Huntsville Times, Worley is reported to have addressed the looming 1 January 2006 deadline for implementing a new statewide voter registration system.

To bring you up to speed if you don't already know this -- Congress in 2002 mandated that each state have a voter registration system centralized at the state level to help ensure the accuracy of voter lists used in each county. The state system is to be the official list for all elections for federal offices. Congress' action was prompted by complaints in Florida that in the 2000 presidential election the voter lists contained a significant number of errors.

In 2003, Worley began the process of acquiring a new system so that Alabama would be compliant with federal law. However, as reported by The Huntsville Times, two years later, and a little over 2 months from the federal deadline, Worley has not decided on a vendor and hasn't begun to install the system.

However, Worley has stated she has no intention of signing a contract on a new system until the legislature provides certain funds to her office. In press release, Worley

"explained to representatives from each of the companies [seeking the contract for the system] that Alabama will not enter into a software licensing agreement until long-term funding for the operation and maintenance of the system is added to the state budget...

"But Secretary Worley says she is confident that Governor Riley and the Legislature will come through for Alabama...

"Secretary Worley will submit her budget request to the Governor within the next month."

Worley has concerns over money because the system will have to be licensed from the vendors rather than purchased outright. Although her office is sitting on over $40,000,000, that money is not intended to cover licensing fees in later years.

Let's not forget though that 1 January 2006 is the deadline for having a system up and running that meets the federal mandate. Inquiring minds want to know how Alabama will meet that deadline if Worley is not going to buy or license a new system until after that date. Remember, the Legislature can't budget more money for Worley until it goes back into session after the first of the year.

Worley's answer? The current system, ALVIN (the Alabama Voter Information Network) is substantially compliant! According to her comments in The Huntsville Times, the only reason we need a new system is because ALVIN is built on old technology. She said:

"We may not have a brand-new system by Jan. 1, but we have substantial compliance with the law with what we currently have - one that is very outdated in terms of technology."

However, ALVIN is not the type of system Congress envisioned in its mandate. Congress said the statewide system must be the official voter list and all poll lists are to be printed using the data in the central system. However, as Worley stated to the Justice Department, a number of counties use county-based voter registration systems to manage their voter lists. By her own admission, they upload their data to the state only weekly or monthly. They print their poll lists using their county system, which for a period of time will contain names of voters not on the state list.

Even the Election Assistance Commission notes in its guidelines for statewide voter registration systems that this practice is not permissible under HAVA. The uploads are not frequent enough to comply the idea of a centralized, official voter list:

"If a statewide voter registration list is not hosted on a single, centralized platform, States must ensure that all information contained on local, satellite databases is uploaded (synchronized) into the statewide voter registration database routinely, such that the State database can be viewed as the sole, official list of registered voters. Similarly, States must assure that the data comprising the official list (maintained by the State database) is downloaded or sent electronically to local systems on a regular basis so that local officials may have immediate access to the official list. At a minimum, the statewide voter registration list should be synchronized with local voter registration databases at least once every 24 hours to assure that the statewide voter registration list contains the names and registration information for all legally registered voters in the State. In the same way, the State must electronically send or download the appropriate information in its database to local election officials at least every 24 hours, so that they have immediate electronic access to the official voter registration list."

By Worley's own statements to the Justice Department, Alabama has 28 counties that do not meet this requirement.

It seems that Worley knows she has problem on her hands. If she doesn't comply with the 1 January deadline, she will have the biggest failure of her term of office (out of many failures). It's no wonder she's straining credulity with her claims of "substantial compliance" with the federal mandates.

Bobby and Troy

2005-10-12T17:22:00.000-07:00

On 7 October 2005, Attorney General Troy King released the Lowder Opinion, which is sure to infuriate a large portion of the Auburn Nation. While King doesn't explicitly state that Lowder is able to serve on the Auburn University Board of Trustees until 2011, his statement of the law certainly dictates that conclusion.

Unfortunately, King's interpretation of the law doesn't stand up to scrutiny when applying the standards King's claims to be using. Some have argued the quality of King's legal reasoning was influenced by more than a sober reading of the law and keen analytical skills. There may be something to that. More on that later in this entry.

King begins his discussion of applicable law by citing the following statement by the Alabama Supreme Court:

"It is plain and unambiguous, and where this is the case, the framers of the constitution should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed and consequently no room is left for construction. Possible or even probable meanings, when one is declared in the instrument itself, the courts are not liberty to search for elsewhere... When the language is plain, no discretion is left to us. We have no right to stray into the mazes of conjecture, or to search for imaginary purposes." [The State vs McGough, 118 Ala. 196]

He then goes on, not to apply the law as plainly written, but to strain at a gnat to develop a legal argument that is not supported by the plain language of the constitution. Basically, his argument is that "term of office" refers to the length of time that a person may be a member of the Board of Trustees, not to some set time period that a term runs regardless of who holds the position. The constitution states that a trustee "... shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and shall hold office for a term of twelve years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified." [Amendment 161, Constitution of Alabama].

He further argues that since the constitution says a trustee shall serve 12 years, plus the length of time it takes to appoint and confirm a new trustee, then it is only logical that one trustee's term ends only when the succeeding trustee takes his or her seat. For example, if Trustee #1 has served her 12 years, but it takes 6 more months to appoint her successor, then Trustee #1's 12.5 year term is legal and Trustee #2's term begins at that point in time.

However, King's conclusion contradicts the plain language of Amendment 161. Amendment 161 provides that "[t]he board shall be divided into three classes, as nearly equal as may be, so that one-third may be chosen quadrennially", meaning every four years. This provisions continues the previous practice under Article XIV, §266, in which members of the Board of Trustees were also appointed for terms of 12 years with terms staggered so that one-third of the members would be chosen every four years. In fact, Article XIV, §266, even explicitly provided for when this system of staggered terms would begin.

"The board shall be divided into three classes, as nearly equal as may be, so that one-third may be chosen quadrennially... Successors to those trustees whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and three shall hold office until nineteen hundred and eleven; successors to those whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and five shall hold office until nineteen hundred and fifteen; and successors to those whose terms expire in nineteen hundred and seven shall hold office until nineteen hundred and nineteen."

Amendment 161 honors and leaves in place the staggered terms set up by §266:

"The members of the board of trustees as now constituted shall hold office until their respective terms expire under existing law, and until their successors shall be appointed as herein required."

In contrast to King's conclusion, the history of the appointment process for trustees to Auburn's board reflects the creation of set terms (12 years) with specific expiration dates (the end of the third quadrennium after appointment). While the constitution, both in §266 and in Amendment 161, states that a trustee serves until his replacement is appointed and qualified, it wouldn't appear that the constitution, or its writers, intended that post-12-year period to shift the beginning and end dates of a trustee's term of office. The constitution clearly states that new board members are to be chosen each quadrennium.

Of course, the drafters of §266 and Amendment 161 weren't as clear as they could have been regarding untimely confirmation of a trustee. They could have stated that the new appointee serves the remainder of the 12-year term, when the previous trustee serves over 12 years. Or they could have stated that the new trustee's term begins immediately upon confirmation. However, they didn't do either of these things. But they did state that a third of the board would be replaced each quadrennium. I suppose they didn't expect the Legislature to shirk its duty to provide timely confirmation of new trustees.

The question that we raise now is why did King go to such lengths to make the case for rolling beginning dates for trustee terms? I have no answer to that question but have found some interesting background information.

As reported by The Auburn Plainsman, King tried to avert any appearance of a conflict of interest by returning a $10,000 contribution to Bobby Lowder, the main trustee whose term is in question. However, some digging has revealed some other ties:

Bobby Lowder is the head of Colonial Bank.
Colonial Bank utilizes the services of Miller , Hamilton, Snider and Odom for lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of Miller, Hamilton, Snider and Odom's attorneys is Matthew C. McDonald.
Records on file with the Alabama Secretary of State show that Matthew C. McDonald is the registered agent for "Troy King for Attorney General, Inc."

Not quite a smoking gun. Too circumstantial for that. However, putting the dots together may provide some insight as to why King strained to make the legal case he put his name on.

Open Meetings Law

2005-10-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

The Alabama Legislature passed a new open meetings law during the regular session earlier this year. Aside from new provisions regarding when a governmental body must meet in public, the law went a step further in specifying methods by which those bodies must notify the public about their meetings. One provision specified that the Secretary of State's office must publish those notices on its web site. The law also says persons must be able to sign up to an e-mail list so they can receive e-mail notices published by agencies they are interested in. The web site and e-mail list had to be functional 1 October. You can access the web site and sign up for the e-mail list here.

The web site as a whole looks pretty good. It's good to see that Worley was able to get it up and running on time. However, for some reason there are some corrections and suggestions for the site:

1) State and local governmental bodies are not "companies." If you click the button to sign up for the e-mail list, you are presented a list of governmental bodies that hold public meetings. Worley has identified those bodies as "companies." I guess her programmers used an application set up for something else but forgot to finish customizing it.

2) The list of governmental bodies (read: not companies, agencies or commissions, etc.) is not in alphabetical order. If you don't see a particular agency or committee in the list right off the bat, look a little closer. The list of governmental bodies is not in good alphabetical order. This is a small point, but there's really no excuse for not having done it. It's not hard to alphabetize a list when populating it. Alphabetizing goes a long way to help the user though.

3) The list of governmental bodies contains an entry for the now-defunct Office of Voter Registration. That agency doesn't exist anymore since its voter registration functions were merged into the Secretary of State's office more than 2 years ago. Seems like Worley would know that, eh?

4) But, while including the Office of Voter Registration, Worley left out the Voter Registration Advisory Board. Perhaps that's no surprise since Worley ignored that body when she was considering a vendor for the new statewide voter registration system.

5) The list of meeting notices is in date order without any way to sort by governmental body. While I imagine a date-ordered list meets the letter of the law, it would be much more useful to the public to have be able to sort by agency or commission names -- if you really want to make the list work for people.

Perhaps Worley can get the site fine-tuned per these suggestions and help folks make better use of the web site.

"Best fit for all Alabamians"

2005-09-28T17:14:00.000-07:00

According to a report in the Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery County recently announced that its voters will use optical scan voting devices in upcoming elections. Optical scan voting machines utilize a paper ballot similar to the papers school kids use to take standardized tests like the SAT and ACT. The voter marks on the ballot and then the ballot is read by a scanner.

This technology is not new, but has proven to be a very stable method of voting in Alabama. Currently, 64 counties use the devices for election day voting and absentee voting. Another county uses it for its absentee voting but not at polling places.

While these devices have their benefits and have been used successfully, groups have questioned the ability of people with disabilities to use these machines without the assistance of someone else. The Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress in 2002, requires states to implement voting machines by 1 January 2006 that enable people with disabilities to vote like any other citizen: without assistance and in secret.

As stated here by the Disabilities Rights Education and Defense Fund:

"This is a system similar to the standardized tests given in school. The voter marks the appropriate position on the ballot with a number 2 pencil or other approved marking device. The names of the candidates may or may not be printed on the actual ballot, depending on the variety of the system. The ballots are counted on an optical scanning machine, either at the polling place or at a central location.

"Voters who are blind or have vision limitations that interfere with their ability to read cannot use this voting method either independently or privately. Similarly, voters with upper arm limitations may be unable to record their choices privately if they cannot hold a pencil."

Unfortunately, Trey Granger, Montgomery's election director, seems to have a tin ear about the concerns raised by people with disabilities. According to the article in the Advertiser:

"Granger assured [County Commissioner Jiles] Williams the change would not hinder accessibility for different segments of the population.

"'I think optical scan is the right fit for all Alabamians,' Granger said."

Granger's comments are even more surprising since he was formerly the attorney for Secretary of State Nancy Worley and advised her on steps the state must take to comply with the Help America Vote Act. He helped draft the state plan for complying with the federal law. The plan states up front on page 5 that voting systems

" ... shall be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence as for other voters."

Granger? Worley? Maybe the comments aren't surprising after all.

What mean this "incarceration"?

2005-09-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

The AP reports this story on its wire:

Recent reports of three convicted killers escaping from supervised prison work programs prompted Gov. Bob Riley on Tuesday to bar murderers and other violent offenders from leaving the work release and community work centers to go to jobs.

I thought the purpose of incarcerating convicted murderers and violent criminals is to prevent them from moving about society and thereby protecting the public.

Why are these folks part of a work release program or participating in community work centers? And, if the report is accurate, why is Riley barring them only from leaving the centers? Why isn't he making sure they don't leave the prison?

Just another reason for death penalty advoctes to question the wisdom of sentences of lifetime imprisonment.

Rally 'round Riley, Boys and Girls

2005-09-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

Although reports within the state indicate that Alabamians believe that Governor Riley handled Hurricane Katrina pretty well, it appears that one of his party colleagues in Congress is painting a different picture.

CNN reports that at a congressional hearing regarding the response of government to that hurricane

[c]ommittee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Virginia, cautioned against too narrowly assigning blame.

"At the end of the day, I suspect that we'll find that government at all levels failed the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and the Gulf Coast," said Davis.

While there probably were mistakes in Alabama's response to the storm (nobody's pefect, you know), we have not heard the same kinds of criticisms of Riley and Alabama's Emergency Management Agency that we have heard from people in our sister states.

Perhaps Alabamians need to let Congressman Davis know how we feel about his dumping Alabama into the cauldron of failure that was stirred up to the west of us. You can contact Mr. Davis here and here

Worley & the Fair Campaign Practices Act

2005-09-21T19:05:00.000-07:00

It seems that Nancy Worley (D-New Hope), despite having been a teacher, seems to have either a reading comprehension problem (can't be that, she taught English) or a problem following rules.

Some background first.

The Fair Campaign Practices Act is Alabama's campaign finance disclosure law. It requires candidates to report who gave them money and where they spent their money. With regard to expenditures, it specifically says they must report the name of

each person to whom expenditures have been made . . . within the calendar year in an aggregate amount greater than $100.00, the amount, date and purpose of each expenditure . . . [§17-22A-8(7)]

Apparently, candidates who were interested in using credit cards to pay campaign bills wanted to know how they were to report payments to credit cards. The Attorney General wrote in a 1995 opinion that listing a payment to a credit card company, rather than identifying the multiple payments or purchases, would not comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act. The AG said that expenditures should not be lumped together under a general entry for a credit card company; they should be listed individually.

The Secretary of State's office has published this information in its Candidate Filing Guide for at least the last two elections (see page 24 of both the 2002 issue and the the 2004 issue).

So what's this have to do with Worley, other than the fact that she is the Secretary of State and the 2004 issue of the Candidate Filing Guide was published under her supervision?

It seems that a review of Worley's campaign finance reports from 1998 to 2004 reveal that she reported payments to credit card companies without providing a breakdown as to who was paid with the credit cards. You can review the applicable pages here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

That's odd, since, as noted above, the Attorney General's opinion came out in 1995 and the Candidate Filing Guide for 2002 (again, see page 24) specifically mentions that expenditures cannot be lumped together as a credit card payment. She ran in 1998 and 2002 and should have been aware of her responsibility. And if she wasn't, well, ignorance is no excuse.

We're talking about approximately $8,300.00 worth of expenditures that Worley has not accounted for between 1998 and 2004. While that's not a large percentage of the total amount of money that went through her campaign during that time frame, it's still several thousands of dollars that Alabama voters have no clue as to who received it. Presumably, Worley spent it on legitimate campaign expenses. But she could have used it for other purposes. Who can tell, based on the public record?

And there may even be more money unaccounted for, since she has several additional entries listed for "BP/Amoco." We can't determine from the record if that's a gas charge card or one of the BP or Amoco Visa accounts that can be used for non-gas purchases at places other than gas stations.

It would be to Worley's credit if she would clarify the entries.

As a bonus discovery, it seems that in 1997 Worley received a contribution from a public school. This page from her annual report covering that year shows a contribution from Frisco City Elementary School. What's up with that? How can a school make a contribution to a partisan candidate for public office? Who has ever heard of such, since state law prohibits the use of public funds for campaign purposes?

Worley: Award Winner!

2005-09-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I'll be. It looks like Nancy Worley has won an award.

Worley and Diebold, Revisited (again)

2005-09-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

As discussed here and here, negotiations between Secretary of State Nancy Worley and Diebold, Inc., for the new statewide voter registration database fell through in August.

Worley said the failure to reach an agreement related to her insistence that the State of Alabama own the voter registration database software rather than license it from the vendor. As a result, there's a question as to whether Alabama will fully comply with the federal law requiring the system by the 1 January 2006 deadline.

Worley told The Huntsville Times that the state would be "substantially compliant" by 1 January. However, that is telling. It means that the state will not be fully compliant. In terms of forward progress, I wonder how Worley would define "substantially compliant". I'm also wondering, though, why we won't be fully compliant.

My previous posting on this issue describes the timeline of Worley's decision-making on this issue. It illustrates a breakdown in the process - and more, a breakdown in her management of the Secretary of State's office - that probably had us on a path toward non-compliance regardless of the latest developments regarding the Diebold negotiations.

A newly-obtained document, though, shows that Worley has apparently not been vigorous in protecting the interests of Alabama's voters and has put the state even further behind in meeting the 1 January deadline.

This document shows that Diebold, as of 15 June 2005, indicated its position that the software would be licensed to Alabama, rather than sold to the state. However, Worley didn't discontinue negotiations with Diebold until sometime in August. The document raises some questions that should be answered by Worley.

1) What representation was made by Diebold in its original proposal for the statewide voter registration system? The Request for Proposal (RFP) released by Worley specifically stated that Alabama required ownership of the software to be transferred to the state. Did Diebold meet that requirement in its proposal? If Diebold did not meet that requirement, it should never have been selected to enter contract negotiations.

2) If Diebold stated in its original proposal it would meet the ownership requirement of the RFP, why did Worley not hold the company to it? When Worley received the 15 June document from Diebold, contract negotiations should have been suspended until this ownership issue was resolved. At that time, if Diebold was unwilling to honor the RFP requirement for state ownership, Worley should have cancelled negotiations and selected an alternate vendor from others that submitted proposals. Worley should not have taken approximately two months to determine whether or not Diebold would meet the terms of the RFP, especially with the approaching 1 January deadline.

3) Did any other vendors meet the RFP's ownership requirement? If so, why did Worley release a new RFP, allowing licensing, in August rather than going with another participating vendor? If not, and Diebold indicated in June it would not comply with the ownership requirement, why did Worley not release the new RFP until August?

As important as these questions are, the answers to them - or lack of answers - will not change the fact that Alabama has about three and a half months to implement a new voter registration system statewide. Experienced voter registration officials and computer systems managers question the ability of the vendor and the state to fully implement and debug the new system and train officials to use it by the deadline 1 January deadline. Even Worley admits that she doesn't expect the state to be in full compliance by that deadline.

The federal law requiring this new system was passed by Congress in 2002. The original RFP was released in August of 2003. Therefore, Worley will have had over two years to get this project up and running before the federal deadline.

Ironically, with Worley being up for re-election in 2006, Alabama's voters will not have to wait long to hold her accountable if her mismanagement of this project creates problems with the voter lists next year.

Some thoughts on John Roberts' testimony

2005-09-15T18:29:00.000-07:00

He stated, in the context of the eminent domain ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court this year, that the Court merely said that legislatures have to option under the Constitution to take private property to be used for other private development as part of a redevelopment plan. He said the Court is not saying the legislatures of the states or Congress must use that power but rather it is a power that is available to them. He then went on to say that legislatures can be protectors of rights too:

"That leaves the ball in the court of the legislature. And I think it's reflective of what is often the case -- and that people sometimes lose sight of -- that this body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights as well."

The subtext here that is being smoothed over is that the Supreme Court stated that property owners do not have any real property rights when it comes to eminent domain in these circumstances. The Court said it will not recognize any property right on the part of an owner when a city decides a redevelopment plan requires the owner to relinquish ownership of their home.

Basically, he argues that the legislatures may themselves confer such a property right on their citizens if they so choose. However, as I would hope he would acknowledge, a right granted by statute is quite different from a constitutional right.

The Kelo v. New London decision on eminent domain is a perfect example of what John Roberts says the court is not supposed to do: make policy (or, more broadly labeled, "make law").

People on the left or the right are being disingenuous when they saw that judges or justices are merely in the business of interpretting law and should not make law. Granted, it's true, that judges and justices do not pass statutes into law. But, in the very act of interpretting a constitutional or statutory provision, they are deciding public policy that is binding on the citizens of the various states or the nation.

Judge Roberts expressly acknowledges this role of the court:

"Well, I think the framers, when they used broad language like liberty, like due process, like unreasonable with respect to search and seizures, they were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way down the ages.

"As they said in the preamble, it was designed to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity.

"They intended it to apply to changing conditions. And I think that, in that sense, it is a concept that is alive in the sense that it applies -- and they intended it to apply, in a particular way, but they intended it to apply -- down through the ages."

Who is to decide how the Constitution should apply in changing conditions? The U.S. Supreme Court justices, of course. And, regardless how you label it, that makes the Court a policymaker.

This method of establishing public policy is far different from the legislative process, since the courts should not create new policies out of whole cloth; a judge's public policy choices are, in theory, constricted by the plain language of the constitution or a statute and judicial precedents. However, in reality, their public policy choices are constrained only by their own understanding of issues involved and the degree to which they are able to subordinate their own ideological preferences to the "rule of law" through a process of rational consideration.

While Judge Roberts isn't necessarily captivating with any of this comments, some of the Senators quizzing him have made some interesting comments. Take this one from Senator Brownback of Kansas:

"... [M]y state is the proud home state host of Brown v. Board of Education."

I'm curious as to what, exactly, he's proud of? Is he proud his state was the one that was sued over - yet defended - discriminatory treatment of its school age citizens? Is he expecting us to find honor in that, since Kansas created the controversy that lead to the court case by which the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

Should my own state, Alabama, be proud of the beatings in Selma on Bloody Sunday because that event helped build support for and led to passage of the Voting Rights Act?

Saying Kansas is the "proud home state host of Brown v. Board of Education" distances the state and its people from the events leading up to and including the famous court proceedings that resulted in that momentous decision. It suggests that Kansas had no great role than to be a host for the event, but not a party to the event - and definitely not the losing party at the event.

Did it strike you as odd as it did me that Judge Roberts proclaims no real experience or knowledge related to First Amendment litigation?

"Senator, I haven't dealt with a lot of First Amendment access cases. I studied one about media access to prisons, for example; the issue about whether the media had a right of access to prisons -- they wanted to report on it. And so I'm not terribly familiar with the precise levels of scrutiny that apply." [emphasis added]

And First Amendment litigation is one of the most important areas of litigation covered by the Court.

Double Naught Stuff!

2005-09-08T17:34:00.000-07:00

The Huntsville Times reported today that the Department of Public Safety will not provide that newspaper a copy of the video tape showing Senator Curt Lee's early morning escapades in the State Capitol Building. Public Safety will also not release the card key records showing who accessed the Capitol.

Mike Coppage, head of Public Safety, says the tape isn't a public record. But then also claims that even if it was, he believes it is not subject to disclosure because they would reveal "the procedures and methods used to maintain security at these public buildings and their release could compromise that security."

According to the Times report, Jeff Emerson, spokesman for Gov. Bob Riley, said "There are certain security features in the Statehouse and the Capitol complex that we just don't comment on."

Why are these guys acting like the State House and the Capitol are protected by James Bond-style technology?

We know that part of the security features, obviously, are video cameras. The admission that there even is a tape reveals that method. Further, anyone with any common sense can determine where cameras are located in the Capitol complex.

Here's a fun game after you tour the Capitol: Find the camera locations! Pay particular attention to the small, black dome-shaped fixtures mounted on walls and ceilings and (did you miss them) on the outside corners on the tops of selected buildings!

As far as card keys go, admitting there are card keys reveals, again, that method of security. And anyone wanting to know more about it's usage only has to see if a door has a card reader. Not a lot of secrecy there.

Frankly, there's not a lot of sophistication in the security at the Capitol or State House. It's standard fare, from the strategic placement of cameras, selected doors protected by controlled-access locks, and the orange cones in the loading zone meant to repel a terrorist car bombing.

Governor Riley should give up the video tape and quit pretending that everything involving the Capitol has to be a state secret.

Where is My America?

2005-09-07T20:45:00.000-07:00

What happened to the American I was raised in?

How did we get to the point that so many Americans justify a failed response on the part of emergency management officials to help those in dire straits from a natural disaster?

I guess "shock" and "awe" are only for rapid deployment of soldiers in the Middle East, not for rapid deployment of responders to natural disasters at home.

From Small Minds

2005-09-07T19:12:00.000-07:00

I should not have been surprised, but I was. Fred Barnes, on Fox News Channel's "Special Report w/Brit Hume" made such an asinine comment today (7 September 2005). He said that anyone who did not evacuate from New Orleans before Katrina hit should not be given any federal relief payments or support.

I should be obvious to a man of his alleged intellect that not everyone was capable of leaving. Not everyone in New Orleans owns a car or had enough money to leave and stay in a hotel somewhere. But aside from that, even if these people had evacuated, the damage to their homes would have occurred regardless. Why should assistance for rebuilding be denied to them because they didn't have the means to leave?

Granted, there were some people who stayed who probably could have left. There are always people who will attempt to ride such storms, as there were in New Orleans, other parts of Louisiana, and even in Alabama and Mississippi. But again, why should they be denied assistance? There loss was not in their realm to prevent any more than it was for the people who did evacuate.

Another point from tonight's talking heads. Brian Williams and Chris Matthews, on MSNBC's Hardball, characterized the poor who didn't evacuate as being afriad of losing their government welfare or social security checks. This characterization would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.

You might have had some rare instances in which someone, due to personal conditions, might have weighed their government checks more favorably than their own safety. If so, these were probably people with some mental debilitation.

However, if you know of an interview where someone in reasonably good health and frame of mine claimed to have ridden out the storm so his or her government check wouldn't get lost or stolen, give me a citation by posting a comment.

Worley and the Voter Registration System, II

2005-09-06T07:45:00.000-07:00

Nancy Worley indicated to The Huntsville Time reporter that despite the failed effort to contract with Diebold, Inc., Alabama is ahead of other states in complying with the federal mandate for a new statewide voter registration system.

That's a strange assessment, given electionline.org reported over the summer that most states were well on their way in constructing their new databases. Beginning on page 15 of this report, you can read the breakdown of each state's progress.

Of course, electionline.org jumped the gun in stating that Alabama's database "is being built" by Diebold, since no contract had yet been signed between the state and the company.

Worley: The Feds Messed Me Up!

2005-09-06T07:01:00.000-07:00

Here's the timeline:

12 August 2003 - Secretary of State Nancy Worley releases "Request for Proposals" for new statewide voter registration computer system.

26 September 2003 - Deadline for vendors to respond to the "Request for Proposals".
27 May 2005 - Secretary Worley announces her decision of Diebold, Inc., as the successful vendor to be award the contract for the voter registration system.
August 2005 - Secretary Worley and Diebold are unable to reach agreement on the contract for the new voter registration system due to an issue over licensing versus purchase of the software for the system.
August 2005 - According to The Huntsville Times report on 4 September 2005, Secretary Worley apparently issues a new "Request for Proposals" (RFP). Unlike the original RFP, this modified RFP provides that the state may license the software rather than purchase it.
1 September 2005 - According to The Huntsville Times report, the deadline for the vendors to submit new responses to the revised RFP.

Worley stated that the modified "Request for Proposals" affects only the provision regarding the purchase or licensing of the software from the vendor. And, therefore, that appears to be the only part of the new responses she intends to review. She told The Huntsville Times:

"We don't have to go back and re-read all of the proposals; we've already read them," she said. "We don't have to go back, in my opinion, and have any kind of technical group evaluate the proposals because they've already been evaluated from a technical standpoint."

I wonder if she's having the vendors certify that they are not amending any other part of their response to the RFP. Or was she asking them to submit new information regarding only the licensing/purchasing issue? If they are resubmitting a complete response, then it is incumbent upon her to ensure that no other changes are made in the details of other sections.

Again, though, Nancy Worley has shown her incompetency to handle the business of the Secretary of State:

From the time she released the RFP, it took her 21 months to announce the vendor who would get the contract.
From the time she announced Diebold as the selected vendor, roughly 3 months passed before she and Diebold determined that Diebold was apparently not planning to comply with the RFP's requirement that ownership of the software be given to the State of Alabama.
When she realized that Diebold was holding firm on the licensing issue, Worley decided to reissue the RFP to allow for licensing.
When she selects a new vendor based on the revised RFP, she will have approximately 4 months to negotiate the contract, purchase computer hardware and have the system installed by 1 January 2006. She negotiated with Diebold for 3 months after selecting them from the original RFP.

My questions for Worley: Did the Diebold response to the original RFP specify it would comply with the transfer of ownership of the software to the State of Alabama? If it did, then why did this become an issue during the contract negotiation? If it did not, why did she choose Diebold in the first place?

It appears to me that Worley is trying to clean up a mess she created. In my opinion, she released a flawed RFP: she should have known that major vendors of election software would be unwilling to give up ownership of their intellectual property. Once involved in the contract negotiations with Diebold, that fact suddenly became crystal clear to her.

After discontinuing negotiations with Diebold, she chose to reissue a new RFP allowing for licensing. Does this mean that none of the original respondants were willing to transfer ownership of their software to the State? Or does this mean that Worley is finding a way to ensure that Diebold can get contract?

Robin Foster, the president of the Alabama Board of Registrars Association, told The Huntsville Times that this whole process could have been handled better. The Times indicated that Worley disagreed:

Worley disagreed. "Obviously this has been a flawed process from the federal level," she said, because the government was late in issuing directions for the state.

I'm not sure what the federal government's responsiblity was in this. It appears that Worley is trying to find yet another scapegoat for her mismanagement of the Secretary of State's office, just as she has blamed previous criticism on racism and partisan politics.

Jaded?

2005-09-01T19:13:00.000-07:00

So tell me why it is that President Bush was in Florida, handing out ice, 3 days after Hurricane Frances hit that state in 2004, but 3 days after Katrina hit Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, Bush is still in DC and there is little assistance in terms of food and water being given to the people left in New Orleans?

Am I jaded, or could Bush's quick attention to Floridians been borne of feelings for Jeb or for the voters in the then-pending presidential election?

Shock and Awe

2005-09-01T18:25:00.000-07:00

I am still taken aback by the developments in New Orleans.

Katrina was my sixth hurricane. Hurricanes Ivan, Fran and Opal, however, had a much greater impact on me, personally, giving me first-hand experiences with heavy winds, excessive rain, flooding, downed trees and power outages. Fortunately for me, my experiences were no where near that which has befallen the people of lower Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

I join with many others in focusing my thoughts and prayers on the survivors who have lost so much - loved ones, family homes, cities and communitites.

I disagree with those, though, who do not believe it is time to assess what has happened, especially in New Orleans, to figure out how the impact of a such a major storm could be minimized in the future. Part of that analysis involves taking notice of things that did not happen in the past that could have helped this time around.

As reported here, it appears that the Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana officials, among others, have been voicing concerns about the levee system around New Orleans for a while now.

My point is not to rehash the arguments in the debate that led to cuts in the proposed funding for strengthening the levees. However, I will make what should be an obvious point, but apparently isn't obvious enough.

Failures occur for two main reasons: 1) a mistake in formulating or executing a program, or 2) incomplete or erroneous knowledge about a prospective problem that affects the formulation of a program. If a failure surfaces because of cause #1, then it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the mistake so that we can better address similar circumstances in the future.

President Bush (R-Oil Fields), upon reviewing the disaster from aloft Air Force One, made the claim that

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will," he said.

As the article from the Chicago Tribune pointed out, people did anticipate the breech of the levees, at least in the abstract. Of course, no one knew in advance that Katrina would be the abstract made real to the detriment of New Orleans.

The fact that the Bush Administration was aware of the concerns in Louisiana over the levee system but characterized Katrina's damage as "unanticipated" is unconscionable and offensive.

True, nothing can be done to turn back the clock and prevent the damage. The water is under the bridge, or, shall we say, over the levee. That doesn't mean that we, as Americans, shouldn't take stock of the actions by our officials that contributed to the situation in which New Orleans finds itself today.

Sometimes resolving problems requires accountability. And accountability requires pointing fingers.

Advance and be Recognized

2005-08-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

Our friends at Red State Diaries took issue with Beth Chapman's support for requiring photo identification from voters. Alabamian wrote here that federal law prohibits such a requirement.

I guess he was surprised last week. As reported by the Associated Press, on Friday, 25 August, The US Department of Justice granted preclearance of Georgia's new photo identification law.

Of course, the Georgia law is sure to land in court. And who knows what the judges will rule.

Photo identification is currently in use in a number of states, despite Alabamian's claim on his blog, including Louisiana. However, as Dan Tokaji and other election law specialists point out in this letter, the facts in the Georgia scenario are such that court may well rule the law violates the Voting Rights Act.

Where's Worley?

2005-08-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

At left is a shot of the cover of the first "newsletter" that Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) had printed as secretary of state.

In case you missed the original release of this publication, allow me to present to you a scanned version of the document.

Click these links to view all 20 pages of the first "newsletter" released by Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) during her first year of office: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Worley's newsletter is notable for several reasons:

Despite claiming her respect for Alabamians and the tax dollars they pay to the state, she chose to put out what is more of a magazine rather than a newsletter.
She also chose to release this beast of a newsletter not just in black and white, but with color as well, which drives up the printing cost.
She mailed the magazine to over 7,000 people, according to state records.
She incurred the expenses for this publication, including printing 20 pages in color with photos and paying for the postage, at a time when the state, including the secretary of state's office, was laying off employees due to budget concerns. (Remind you of a certain SUV?)

Does that sound like the work of a frugal and responsible officeholder?

Interestingly, as far as I know, she has not yet released another "newsletter" since then.

Thinking out loud, I figure she put out her magazine in 2003, with no follow up, as a public relations effort leading people to think she was hard at work during her first six-months in office. Her supporters, such as yellow-dog Democrats, would eat it up. Meanwhile, she probably assumed that those people who objected to her extravagant taxpayer-funded self-promotion would forget about it before her 2006 re-election campaign.

TODAY'S CHALLENGE: Remember the "Where's Waldo?" books? See if you can find each instance of Worley appearing in a photo in her magazine.

BONUS CHALLENGE: How many of those photos relate directly to her job as secretary of state?

Sometimes Moore is Less

2005-08-26T19:25:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Lee P. for providing, via his blog abamablog.blogspot.com, a heads up on the anti-Moore blog, blogagainstroy.blogspot.com.

Lee, on his blog, and Slade and Collin, on the anti-Moore blog, share their views as to why Moore is unfit to serve as governor. My take is similar to theirs, but a little different.

I have no complaint with posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings as long as they are presented in a historical context. Although I do not believe that government should endorse any one particular religion or belief system, it is perfectly acceptable, in my mind, that government be able to acknowledge particular religions just as it might acknowledge other aspects of American culture.

Moore fails to get my support on two counts. First, he was clear in his stated intent that he didn't want just an acknowledgement of the role of Christianity in American culture. He wanted government to endorse the Christian God as the one and true God to the exclusion of other faiths. I do not think it's government's place to put its stamp of approval on any particular belief system.

Second, and more to the point of his fitness to serve in state office, his decision, as the presiding judge of the state's highest court, to ignore an order from a superior court showed extremly poor judgement and an extreme lack of respect for our constitutional system of government. I think a number of Christians who voted for Moore in 2000 and supported him on the Ten Commandments issue later split away from his ranks when they saw him, in his official capacity, defy properly constituted authority.

To make matters worse, Moore whined and complained about being victimized. Even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue, I can respect that person if he stands firm for his cause. I cannot support someone who practices civil disobedience but does not want to suffer the consequences in the name of their cause.

Civic Morality

2005-08-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

In today's issue of The Birmingham News, Joe Openshaw, a board member of the ACLU of Alabama, wrote in a letter to the editor that

"... by working to protect and expand the civil rights of all Alabamians (and Americans) who are oppressed - including children, minorities and the poor - the ACLU is actually preserving the moral foundation of our country."

I wish that various groups would quit acting like they are the authoritative arbiters of what is "moral" in America.

You might think I'm a moral relativist, but I'm not. I have some very clear and well-developed ideas of what is "right" and "wrong" - as I'm sure you do too. However, I also know that sometimes my standards may not square up identically to other people's standards.

I'm not talking about things like murder or theft. But when you get to hot-button issues like censorship, abortion, criminal rights, divorce, and same-sex marriage, to name a few of the hottest, our society reflects quite a number of rifts between various conceptions of "morality."

When we speak of "legislating morality," we should understand that it's not government's role, at least not under the U.S. Constitution, to codify any type of religious morality, per se, be it Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Muslim, etc. The First Amendment, if its establishment clause means anything, says that government shall not endorse (although it make acknowledge) any particular religion.

The government, of course, everyday defines things that are "right" and "wrong," "legal" and "illegal." But if anything, the law is a civic morality. The passage of laws governing socially acceptable behavior is the defining of morality through democratic mechanisms. It involves legislative processes within a constitutional framework rather than the words engraved on stone tablets or uttered by prophets.

This observation is not to say that religious people have no role in trying to shape civic morality. Indeed, they should be encouraged to bring their conceptions of right and wrong action into the political arena. Just as anyone from other schools of thought may propose policies for the government to adopt, so too may Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Similarly, though, they have to be prepared to jump through two hurdles. First, they have to convince others, a majority of others, to support their proposed policy. And, then, they have to ensure that the policy does not impinge on any constitutional rights.

Unfortunately, too many people do not understand the distinction between a religious morality and a civic morality in our constitutional democracy.

One - two - three - c'mon Mr. Lee

2005-08-25T21:01:00.000-07:00

So a state senator is caught in the capitol, long before business hours (pre-dawn, according to The Birmingham News report), with a woman.

I don't have much of a problem with the fact Senator Curt Lee (R-Jasper) was in the Capitol. He's a legislator and has access to that building. I'm not even sure I have a problem with the fact that he was there with an "unidentified" woman, although one wonders why he was alone with a woman in the capitol before dawn.

I am wondering, if the incident happened on 22 July 2005, as the News reported, why Lee was offering up an apology on 24 August. Did it take him a month to figure out that people might not look favorably on his antics?

(Being with a woman alone in the capitol before dawn surely has tongues wagging. It also looks very immature for a 35 year old man to be running away when Capitol staff spotted him and his woman friend, as reported by the Montgomery Advertiser.)

I guess though that if Stantis has his cartoon right, the woman in question wasn't Nancy Worley.

"Reverend Hit Man"

2005-08-25T18:07:00.000-07:00

John Haas, a citizen of Nebraska, writing to the Omaha World-Herald takes this insightful look at a cleric who advocates death threats on public officials:

"The Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's 'The 700 Club,' said on air, 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination. But if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.'

"When religious leaders from other nations such as Iran do the same thing, we call them supporters of terrorism."

Of course, we Americans are much more inclined to consider rhetoric like Robertson's to be hyperbole; or perhaps he was just misunderstood. Or, as Robertson would have us believe, his comments were misrepresented by that ever-present bogeyman, "the media."

It's strange to me that some Americans do not respond more strongly to such extremist comments, or even actions that go beyond the pale, if said or conducted by Americans.

We can't even look to our past and offer up own examples of atrocities. Take James Dobson. As reported by The American Prospect from his 3 August "Focus on the Family" show's transcript, Dobson commented about embryonic stem-cell research:

"... I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and, I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind... [Y]ou remove ethics and morality and you get what happened in Nazi Germany."

Or you get the American south when the federal government conducted the Tuskegee
Syphilis Experiment.

Certainly, the unconscionable experiment in Tuskegee was not on the same magnitude of Nazi atrocities during World War II. However, it seems we should learn not only from infamous actions in other countries but from our own moral failures as well. And we should stand ready to oppose those in our midst, like Robertson, who speaks favorably of atrocious actions.