Sound Off: Do You Have Issues? (Section #4)
[NOTE: This thread of the blog is full. You can continue to review the comments made to date. However, to add your comments or start discussion on a new topic or issue, please go to: "Sound Off: Do You Have Issues? (Section #5, April 1)".]
We are starting a fourth section of “Sound Off”. Our third section has accumulated many comments, and we want to make it easier for you to review and post comments. Please use this section to discuss issues you want to “Sound Off” about that are not yet covered on our Politically Homeless blog.
The “Sound Off” section is provided for anyone who wants to start a discussion and/or offer an opinion concerning an important topic or issue. Our question of the month and other postings may not satisfy your interests or concerns. You don’t need to wait for the Blog Master, or someone else, to bring up a discussion topic. You can start your own open discussion forum right here.
You can review the issues and comments that have been covered in the past, just go to “Sound Off: Do You Have Issues? (Section #3)” and click on the “Comments” thread.
Let us hear from you.
posted by Blog Master @ 7:13 PM
99 Comments:
The county commissioners decided today not to put the book “Lolita” in the Library “book jail” (restricted access area).
What do you think about their action: a landmark local library decision or a big waste of time?
Randy Harris is not on my favorites list, but I have to agree with his take on the book challenge: game playing. However, I would add game playing by the far right and far left. How interested am I? I’m off to play golf.
Article published Jan 20, 2006
Marion County commissioners voted 3-2 Thursday to uphold the decision to place "Lolita, " a novel by Vladimir Nabokov that addresses the themes of pedophilia and incest, on the open shelves in the adult section. They also ordered County Attorney Gordon Johnston to review the book.
A new chapter
Fate of 'Lolita' falls into hands of county attorney
Terry Blaes addresses the Marion County Commission in her appeal of library director Julie Sieg's decision that the book "Lolita" was bought and placed correctly on the open shelves in the adult section of the public library. ALAN YOUNGBLOOD/STAR-BANNER
SUSAN LATHAM CARR
STAR-BANNER
Marion County Attorney Gordon Johnston has a new job: he is now the county's book reviewer.
And he wound up with that job Thursday after Marion County commissioners saw that their policy and procedures for addressing concerns about the appropriateness of books in the public library is inadequate.
The commission considered an appeal of Library Director Julie Sieg's decision that the book "Lolita" was bought and placed correctly on the open shelves in the adult section of the public library. It voted 3-2 to uphold Sieg's ruling.
Commissioners Randy Harris and Stan McClain were the dissenting votes, not because they disagreed with Sieg's decision, but because, they said, they felt more action needed to be taken.
"That motion, by itself, is inadequate to bring closure to the issue," Harris said after the meeting.
McClain said he agreed with Sieg "to the point she followed procedures," but, nevertheless, he voted against her decision.
"That's correct," he said. "Because I wanted to move it one more step further and that's what we did."
That "one more step" was the commission's unanimous vote to have the county attorney review the "Lolita," a novel by Vladimir Nabokov that addresses the themes of pedophilia and incest, to determine if it meets the state law's definition of "unsuitable for minors."
Meanwhile, Terry Blaes, who filed the appeal, is left feeling that the commission side-stepped her concern that, perhaps, "Lolita" was unsuitable for children and unsuitable for the library or, at least, for the open shelves in the adult section of the library.
"They dodged the issue of whether a book that they might consider unsuitable for minors ought to be removed from the adult section of the library," Blaes said after the appeal hearing. "They don't seem to be willing to consider whether parents are really responsible for either accompanying their children to the adult section or keeping their children in the children's section.
"Instead, they want the county attorney to decide whether a book is unsuitable for minors and, therefore, unsuitable for adult browsing in the library."
Whether the commission was dodging the question is open to debate, but they were following their procedure.
"There has been no decision whether that book is harmful for minors or not," Johnston said. He said there is no policy to address that.
"That's why the policy is flawed as it is written," Johnston said.
"If they wanted something done, what they should do is request that the board change the policy," he said, referring to Blaes and to Eddie MacCausland, who also filed an appeal of the "Lolita" decision.
MacCausland did not attend Thursday's appeal hearing because, he said, he had to work.
Blaes had followed the procedures that exist for challenging a book. She filed a Statement of Concern about "Lolita" to the library director.
The director and a committee the director appoints may only consider whether the book was purchased and placed on the shelves correctly. They may not determine book's appropriateness for children.
So, Blaes appealed Sieg's decision, hoping to get the County Commission to determine whether the book is unsuitable for children and should be removed.
But the only matter the commission legally could address under the appeal was whether they agreed with Sieg's decision. Under the procedure, the commission could not address the issue of the suitability or unsuitability of the book for children and whether it should be removed from the library's shelves.
So, they directed Johnston to make that determination, based on state law.
Despite the appeal, Blaes does not oppose Sieg's decision. Instead, Blaes wanted the commission to address the question of what it considers unsuitable for minors under the county's new "restricted access" policy.
MacCausland, on the other hand, wanted "Lolita" in the restricted area, where children would not have access to it. He sent a three-page letter outlining his concerns, which the commission did not consider during the appeal.
Johnston said MacCausland's letter would not be admissible because Sieg did not see it before she rendered her decision, so it was not part of her decision, which was under appeal.
The commission also halted Blaes from raising her concerns and limited her discussion to Sieg's decision, which she did not oppose.
Harris previously had accused Blaes of "playing games" and Blaes - a former member of the Library Advisory Board, which was dissolved by the commission - told the commissioners she had children and grandchildren who use the library.
"To say that I don't see the importance of helping children to develop in a decent way is just not quite fair," Blaes said.
Harris challenged that statement, saying that Blaes has argued publicly that the "public library should be open to anyone and have access to any knowledge without any restrictions at all."
Blaes replied: "I have spoken in the past about keeping books in the library. I have never said I don't want to protect children, only that it's up to the parent to provide that protection."
She can appeal the commission's decision to circuit court.
A great article to point out the stupidity of all those involved in the issue. I agree with Critic from
Belleview, game playing that is a waste of time.
I thought the Star Banner article was rather neutral versus its usual anti-commissioner slant on the library. Common sense over politics, a refreshing change.
if you want to see something unusually fair and balanced by the banner about the library check out todays editorial.
'Lolita' Could Be Pulled From Library's Shelves
POSTED: 4:46 pm EST January 19, 2006
UPDATED: 6:56 pm EST January 19, 2006
OCALA, Fla. -- A 50-year-old classic novel about forbidden love is shaking things up in Marion County.
The controversy centers on the book "Lolita" and whether it's obscene under today's standards, WESH 2 News reported.
"Lolita" is a famous novel full of pages and pages of sexually explicit material about pedophilia.
"I believe that you, at least hypothetically, could read this book and consider it obscene," said Terry Blaes, of Dunnellon.
She challenged the Marion County Commission to determine whether they should pull "Lolita" from public library shelves, as they have the right to do so.
"I want you to think about the effect of literature on the people who read it, children and adults," she said.
In an odd twist, even though Blaes sounds opposed to "Lolita" on the shelves, she actually wants it to remain. Her challenge really questions what Marion County Commissioners think.
"If there's something illegal there that children can't be exposed to, then we need to remove it," said County Commissioner Randy Harris.
On a 3-2 vote, the County Commission determined "Lolita" will stay on the adult fiction shelves, but they also ordered the county attorney to come up with his determination on whether "Lolita" is indecent for minors.
Blaes believes "Lolita's" fate should be a community-wide decision.
"I think that's the American way of dealing with controversial books," she said.
The attorney will recommend to the commissioners whether he thinks the book is unsuitable for minors. They still would have to vote to determine if "Lolita" remains on the shelf or is hidden behind a desk.
No date has been set as to when the attorney must make his decision about "Lolita."
The 3-2 decision says it all. Three commissioners who want to move on and two who do not.
Yes, let's have a community vote on every book that someone feels is inappropriate for the library. You can't be serious!!!
I'm all for a community vote on Lolita and several other books in the library. People might be surprised at the results. You might see quite a right wing turnout for a vote on library books. Great idea Ms. Blaes.
The commissioners voted to abolish the library board so they could make book decisions. The commissioners established the restricted section to they could place books there. The commissioners have wasted countless hours and taxpayer dollars to place the decision with the county attorney.
If you can't see the politics here, if you truly fail to see the point in making them look ridiculous, you deserve the good old boy system you have put in place. Congratulations.
I'll take care of my children's reading material from the Library. I don't need anyone making decisions for me. Lolita is not something I'm worried about for me or my children.
Anyone know how many people showed up for the hearing on the book? I heard a rumor that it was standing room only.
I vote for a big waste of time.
Someone wanted to know how many people attended the “book hearing”. It was not a standing room only situation. Take out the county staff and media, and about 6-7 citizens were there. So where is all the community concern?
Randy Harris and Terry Blaes should keep their noses out of library policy. Let Julie Sieg and her librarians do their jobs, which they are doing very well I might add.
Deleted duplicate comment.
Don't blame Blaes too much, Harris started this whole mess.
You want book controversy, check out our public school libraries.
If the issue is really the restricted access policy, why waste time on reviewing the book “Lolita”? Trying to make a couple of commissioners look ridiculous may not be the smartest thing to do and it doesn’t seem to be working.
Why not have some influential folks approach the commissioners and convince at least three of them to repeal the restricted access policy. Behind-the-scenes influence might work much better than publicly irritating ALL of the commissioners. Many Library users are also getting fed up with the Library being a tool for a useless showdown between left/right-leaning hardliners.
All said, discussions with the commissioners may have passed the point of being productive.
I'm not sure Harris "started this whole mess". The mess was started by a couple of members of the abolished library advisory board.
It's difficult to comprehend how intellectual freedom can be referred to as "this mess". Equally mystifying is how anyone could defend any of the commissioners for their radical censorship views OR their inability to extricate themselves from the controversy by ending the nonsense of restricted access. One should not have to stoop to "behind-the-scenes" pep talks to show them what is the correct course of action. Harris' grandstanding has made Marion County a laughingstock. Commissioners removed the public input on library issues and then complain that they have to spend time considering library issues, then appointing the county attorney Library Director defacto. If anyone is playing games it is Harris and his new puppet.
So Ursala, I guess you don't like Randy Harris. Well you have your chance this year to remove him from office--go to it.
So Ursala, or whatever your name is, quit bitching about the restricted access policy and get off your butt and get it pulled! As someone said, it only takes three votes.
What's your plan? Maybe some other people from the blog will want to join you.
Harris did in fact start this whole "mess". He was instrumental in placing Pat Strait and Eddie McCausland on the Library Advisory Board in 2000 with the plan to find "objectionable material" in our libraries. It was Eddie McCausland who brought the first "objectionable" book straight to Randy Harris' office. Despite being a member of the Advisory Board (obviously not having read the manual outlining the procedure that applied at the time for "Requests for Reconsideration".
Eddie and Pat were tasked with taking down the Library Advisory Board. Once they performed their task they headed for parts unknown.
Any more questions???
LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING: GOOD PROGRESS
Back on September 12, there was a thread on our blog discussing the redistricting amendment. At that time, there was much blogger support for this idea. However, it was not given much chance of getting through the petition phase. Surprise, surprise it is now going to the Supreme Court! There is still Republican opposition to it; with a challenge to the amendment when it goes to the state’s Supreme Court.
"Redistricting Measure Heads To High Court"
By Aaron Deslatte
CAPITOL BUREAU
It's official: Backers of a constitutional amendment to take a nuclear bomb of partisan politics away from Florida lawmakers have gathered the voter signatures to do it.
With Supreme Court approval, voters in November will be asked to set up a new way to draw district boundaries with a proposed constitutional amendment.
The Committee for Fair Elections wants to give the once-a-decade job of redrawing state legislative and congressional districts to an ''independent'' commission whose members would be appointed by Republicans and Democrats, along with the Florida Supreme Court's chief justice.
The theory is that they will draw fairer maps that don't load districts too heavily with one party's voters to make them uncompetitive in elections.
The group announced earlier this week it had collected 900,000 signatures - well above the 611,000 needed statewide. And now elections officials have certified that signatures have been gathered from enough geographic regions of Florida to qualify the amendment.
Well, Blog Master, it is interesting that some of the blogs have talked about how you are a "Republican operative," are "ultra conservative" etc, yet the State GOP Committee woman blasts the "liberals" and "greens" who got the 900,000 plus signatures to force the issue and take this to the Supreme Court, where the state GOP and the House Speaker will challange it and try to keep us from having the chance to vote.
So which are you ... the GOP operative who forces your candidates down our throats or a closet liberal who is also a "green environmentalist'?
If I am called "liberal" for signing the petition, so be it; I have been called worse and by professionals. I am proud of my support of this issue, trying to correct such a farse of redistricting that the GOP legislature did in 2002. Perhaps the next try under this ammendment will be worse, but I doubt it.
-- pwf
The Redistricting Amendment is not about liberals versus conservatives. It’s about what is the right approach for the 60-70% of voters who are unhappy with partisanship in the redistricting process and government in general.
All you bloggers who want to keep talking about the library...boring.
Suggest you find something to do. Post your resumes at http://www.monster.com and get a job.
I’ll also vote for the amendment. Hope it doesn’t get buried by my own party.
An important Amendment, unlike some in the past. I’m a Republican and I’ll vote for it.
Why not try something different? Citizens may do a better job than our elected politicians. Probably won't be any worse.
PWF,
Your Question: Is the Blog Master a GOP operative, ultra conservative, closet liberal or green environmentalist?
Answer: None of the above.
My bet, this will get killed by the republicans. I have said it before and still believe that’s what will happen.
Al, I think you may be wrong. I believe there may be quite a bit of bi-partisan support for the redistricting amendment. Would not have said that a few months ago.
I’m amazed the amendment got this far. It is a better way to redistrict. Politics isn’t completely removed, but won’t be as influencing to the final result as the legislature handling the process.
-The State of the Union Address: BORING
-The Democrats Response:BORING
-Electing Libertarians: PRICELESS!
I agree!
I think the Democratic response by Governor Kaine was excellent. He represents what I believe the Democrat Party should be. Unfortunately, there was much dissatisfaction among the liberals about him giving the response to the President’s speech. The Governor is pro-life, and a fiscal conservative in a Republican state. If the Party continues to discount people like Governor Kaine, 2006 will not be a good one for us.
You're a dreamer! Democrats like Kaine will never survive in the Party.
I agree with Femdem. There "IS" going to be a place for Democrats like Mr. Kaine as voters get more and more disgusted with the left wing of the party.
We had the following e-mailed to us and are posing the situation to our bloggers:
The City of Ocala, or someone in the City, has proposed selling 8 lots adjacent to the Muni golf course. They are located on the South side, north of the Ft. King roundabouts. What do you think about the City’s proposal?
Bad move by the city. Keep this land for future recreational or city use. The county made a big mistake selling the fair grounds and the city is about to do the same. If more money is needed for the golf course operation, get it in another way.
Sell the lots before the bottom falls out of the local real estate market. I would also sell the entire golf course.
I think the issue is that the golf course isn't making enough revenue to help cover the expense. So don't sell the land, just work on something to increase the revenues. That is what a business would do--of course most politicians don't think like business people.
Golf Course
I think this is where things are;
Revenue. The proposed sale money is to be used to pay for the renovations to the club house, done some time ago, and not been repaid from the course to the city (left pocket to right pocket)
It has been suggested that no proceeds will be used for operations. The unpaid balance is somewhere between $450,000 and $500,000
Sale amount. It is estimated the sale will bring in excess of $1 million dollars. 8 lots.
Land: The proposed lots are currently staked off for all to see. The lots are of no use to the course for current operations. It is out of, out of bounds.
Restrictions. City council can use deed restrictions to limit development, for ex., single family, house size, restrictions on fences, etc.
So what happens to the half million dollars difference (gain) between paying for the clubhouse renovations and what is recieved from the sale of the lots?
The Overage, This is up to the council. I have been told there is sentiment to earmark the "excess" money for the purchase of capital recreational/open space, and not "operations", and that any attempt to use the money for business as usual will erode support for the sale. Hmmmmmmmmm... That should be a political promise that is easy to track.
Old Ocala outlines some good points about the sale of the lots. If they can be sold and the money goes back into capital items (not maintenance) for the golf course or city parks and recreation, then I would not have a problem with the decision.
Ditto for me.
Some one pointed out the mistake the county made in selling the fairgrounds.
Marion County was sitting with several hundreds of acres of land within the city (that most people beieve is overdeveloped), and this land was undeveloped. So what have we done . . . we sell it to developers who create more congestion and demand for services, didn't get what the land developers knew it was worth (hence the doubling of price in 12 months) and we didn't even require they set aside land for parks, fire, libraries or anything
else. And we took the money from the sale "to pay down debt" -- loans at 3 or 4 percent. And as interest costs rise, we will borrow to expand to provide the services demanded by these developers of our lands, and pay 6-7-8 percent or so . . .
We did the same thing at the Dunnellon Airport . . .
I disagree with my friend Randy on this one. It was one of the worst decisions we have ever made in the 48 years I have been here.
--pwf
If I read between the lines, I believe PWF is saying don't sell the lots...we don't need the development.
I agree, we don't need the development. Keep the land for the future.
A comment from an observer is to the effect:
If some developer owned these lots and came to the city and offered them to us for the (assumed) million dollars, would we be in favor of purchasing? His point is that by not selling, the City is in effect, buying these lots for the million dollars.
An interesting perspective, and it sure makes me think twice.
re PWf and the county sale:
Development close to the city has the benefit of reducing traffic (the inhabitants don't have to drive 15 miles in from Top 'O Da World), saving energy, and environmental issues.
Hosptials, schools, sewer systems, parks, libraries, fire and police are already available.
Hell, Pwf, this desision seems far behind the Garbage Machine debacle/fiasco.
If developing the 8 lots creates no infrastructure or transportation problems, then I say sell them. The extra tax revenue will help the city (as small as the revenue may be).
It looks like the Florida Supreme Court hearing to review the wording of the redistricting amendment has turned into Republicans versus Democrats. According to today’s newspaper reports, the Republicans seem to be winning in convincing the Court that the amendment’s wording is not clear. Questions from the judges would lead you to conclude that the wording is not going to be acceptable.
You can't always count on how the Court seems to be leaning.
You may be right. I'd still bet it doesn't pass muster.
Anyone interested in discussing Brian Creekbaum's letter in the Star Banner about the Library and the "pussy cats" on our county commission?
Sure, I'll discuss the op-ed: It's about time someone pulled the nonsense off the commissioner pussies pretending to protect children during election canmpaigns. The commissioners are not qualified, interested, nor trustworthy. The library should be run by librarians.
Adam
Are you the long haired guy who used to speak at the commission meetings as a defender of our library books? If so, I want you to know I think you are so, so cute. I also just love the way you write your comments and use that “naughty” word.
Sounds like Adam and Mr. Creekbaum have been sniffing from the same glue tube. Amazingly similar points of view. Do you guys know one another?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Removed duplicate comments.
Here is a thought that is perhaps more interesting than the library discusion. I saw the following idea the other day as a way to get more people to vote:
"Many people have fought, and are fighting now, to protect our democracy.
A democracy only works well if the citizens take the time to vote.
Voting should be considered a duty of all citizens, and there should be a fine for not meeting your duty. This would be a small price compared to those who serve in the military and do their duty to protect our right to vote.
Encourage voter turn-out by having a fine of $65 for those citizens who do not vote. The funds from the fine should be directed to go into a pool to help Florida hurricane victims.
This non-voter fine is used in Australia and results in a significantly higher voter turn-out than in the U.S."
Think this would work?
The ACLU and the lawyers would have a ball with this.
Would probably clean up the voter registration lists if the fines are only to those registered voters who don't vote.
I'd be sure some of the fines collected get used for education also.
I can't see a fine for people not voting ever working. It would collect a lot of money. Look at the city election last year.
You can bet the number of democrats registering to vote would be less. Many of them could not afford the fine. Those big money republicans would not care, even if they were registered and didn't vote.
Where does Dan Owen stand on the sale of the 8 lots on the city golf course? Anyone heard?
You won't anger me. I think there are good reasons to sell the lots over keeping them.
That "crazy" idea about fining people who do not vote is currently the 3rd highest rated idea among about 50 or so on the Innovative Ideas website.
Don't see a problem with selling the 8 lots.
Councilman Owen makes a good point. I didn't even realize a home had been built on the lot he mentioned.
So according to the Star Banner poll it looks like the commissioners made the right decision in expanding the downtown courthouse. Everyone agree?
Probably the right decision.
But it should be built for say $30-35 million not $40-45-49 million.
Funny how it expanded so quickly in price over what was budgeted three years ago.
--pwf
Wait until you see what it will cost when they get around to starting the project!! Have you ever seen any county project of late that didn't have a cost overrun?
Some of you folks don't understand the economics of local construction cost inflation. Built a house lately?
They better get moving on the courthouse project. The figures will be even higher come Monday AM!
Perhaps the business community has a point on guns. But Bibles!!! This is going too far. I hope Mr. Miller wasn’t serious but in this day and age he probably was.
On the morning of February 22, 2006, in a conference room in the Florida Capitol, Representative Dennis Baxley met with lobbyists representing The Florida Retail Federation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association.
In an outrageously revealing statement, the Florida Retail Federation boss, Randy Miller, told Baxley that business owners have the right to BAN BIBLES in private vehicles in business parking lots.
And it was a specific statement in which Baxley asked Miller "do you think you have a right to tell me I can't have a Bible in my vehicle in your parking lot?" Miller responded with an emphatic YES!
UNBELIEVABLE!
For once I agree with the Star Banner. Don't sell the eight lots on the golf course.
If the sale proceeds go to operations, I'm against the sale. If they are used for capital improvements, I'm for the sale.
Lots saved by 3-2 vote.
City Council for the time being is not going to sell the 8 lots.
A new subject.
Not good news for state tests of students’ academic proficiency. Nationally, students are doing worse on a tough federal exam (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) than they do on state exams in reading and math. These results raise serious questions about whether state standards are preparing students for the challenges of college, work and the real world (from an Education Trust report).
Maybe instead of discussions about scrapping FCAT, there should be discussion of how to make it, or some other testing technique, tougher to pass. Let’s get competitiveness back into the process of learning; just like it exists in work and other facets of life.
I imagine the Florida Retail Federation is having to do some "cover" on Randy Miller's statement. I bet he did make the statement that Baxley claims.
Maybe the answer to the inflation of FCAT results versus the U.S. test is to quit “dumbing down” our State test. FCAT needs work.
if you ever needed proof of the star banner’s anti-republican leanings, just check out today’s opinions section and related columns of the paper. of course as someone said they are the only game in town.
I'm shocked!
I last read the Star Banner in 1995.
What's happened to local control?
Welcome to the 2006 Florida Legislature, where the Republican mantra of "local control" espoused by Ronald Reagan looks a bit out of date. Dozens of bills have been filed by the Republican majority this session that, if approved, would usurp local governments' authority on everything from municipal sewer systems to zoning matters. The trend has left local government officials, even Republicans, baffled.
One proposal would fine cities for planting a tree within 350 feet of a billboard. Another plan would ask voters to mandate that county school boards spend 65 percent of funds in classrooms. And other proposals would undercut local governments' authority in growth management, property tax assessments and property condemnation.
Bad news for the Redistricting Amendment. The Republicans got what they wanted!
A proposed constitutional amendment that would have stripped
lawmakers of their power to redraw legislative and congressional districts was knocked off the ballot Thursday by the Florida Supreme Court. The justices in an 6-1 opinion ruled the proposal failed to meet requirements to address no more than a single subject and have clear and unambiguous ballot language.
St Pete Times has a couple of great columns that nail the GOP legislature to the wall. If the independent redistricting proposal the Supreme Court tossed is not a perfect example of how the GOP has turned out to be just as bad as the Dems were when they controlled the legislature, I don't know what a good example would be.
As long as we have a bunch of politicians deciding where their district lines will be, we -- all of us -- are going to get shafted. One of my good friends is Larry Cretul, and the GOP created a district he could run in and win, and I love him and wish I could vote for him (I'm not in his district) but the way the district was created was wrong, wrong, just plain wrong.
Look up the St Pete Times and read Howard Troxler and I forget the other column, but they were good.
But remember, aint neither one of these parties going to be for us. They are for themselves, first, second, middle and last!
--pwf
agree with you pwf. however, it just proves those in power do control the way districts are drawn. remember it was also that way under the democrats.
You are correct. The Dems were just as worthless in providing districts that are fair and representative. Look at the Congressional district they drew that Corrine Brown now occupies.
It started in Orlando and ended up in Ocala via Jacksonville Now you can get to Orlando by driving South via Leesburg and drive 80 miles. It is 100 miles northeast to Jax and then 175 miles south to orlando. Nobody but a politican protecting their backside would ever do it, but the Dems did. Makes Cretul's district the GOP did with a finger into Gainesville to reach Perry McGriff's house look pretty good when I look at others. But it is still wrong to do it the way we allow the GOP (and then the Dems) to do it. Representation? No. Protection of your hinney? You bet!
--pwf
I hate to say I told you so, but the redistricting amendement was doomed from the get go.
Too bad the amendment didn't make it. Maybe next time.
Article published Mar 28, 2006 in the Gainesville Sun. Think PWF wrote the article?
“Defeat For Democracy”
Hopes for competitive legislative and congressional elections in Florida took a big hit Thursday when the Florida Supreme Court rejected a proposed constitutional amendment designed to take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature.
Proponents of the amendment already had obtained 611,000 signatures, more than enough to put it on the 2006 general election ballot. But in its preliminary review, the court threw out the amendment by a 6-1 vote, voiding all the petition signatures and requiring advocates to begin the process anew for 2008 or later.
It was a bitter defeat because 2008 could be too late. The Legislature already has placed a proposed constitutional amendment on this fall's ballot that would require that any new initiative amendments be approved by a supermajority of 60 percent of those voting instead of a simple majority. If adopted by the voters, very few controversial issues are likely to be approved in the future.
Currently, the Legislature draws district lines for itself and for the state's congressional delegation. Because the Legislature is heavily Republican, its district lines maximize GOP chances at the polls by "packing" many districts with lopsided Democratic majorities. That enhances Republican chances in the remaining districts.
If the districting amendment doesn't pass in some form by 2010, the GOP-dominated Legislature will draw gerrymandered districts for the next 10 years. Republican leaders oppose the redistricting amendment, which provides for an independent commission to draw the districts, but favored the idea when Democrats ran the Legislature.
Although the decision is disappointing, it appears justified under the constitution's requirement that any amendment be limited to a single subject, and that the ballot summary be free of misleading language. The defects should be easy to correct in a new petition campaign.
The only way the people will ever get a fair shake in choosing their legislative and congressional representatives is if they take the matter into their own hands. Lawmakers pay lip service to democracy, but not when it interferes with their own political interests.
Post a Comment
<< Home