|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Kotheimer
Email: herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (verified) |
20 Feb 2005
|
|
--Meanwhile, Tim Johnson's home subdivision remains unincorporated. |
In a highly unusual move, business-as-usual Democrats and Big Business republicans seem to be planning an act of civil disobedience this week, as incumbent Mayor Tod Satterthwaite of Urbana advocates that Republicans ILLEGALLY cross over to raid the Democratic primaries this Tuesday.
According to the News-Gazette (http://www.news-gazette.com/localnews/story.cfm?number=7587), "Pat Freeman, director of elections for the State Board of Elections, confirmed that election law prohibits those who have signed petitions for one party's candidate from then voting in the opposing party's primary that election." Yet, Mayor Tod Satterthwaite claims that enforcement of current election law would constitute a "disenfranchisement" of his Republican crossover constituency.
It seems Tod and the Satterthwaite campaign are advocating that Republicans (as the statute defines them) should go ahead and BREAK THE LAW on Tuesday by showing up to vote in the Democratic party primaries.
And, to insure that those Republican crossover primary raiders vote the way he wants them to, Mayor Satterthwaite has doled out $1.6 million in development handouts, all within the past few months leading up to the primary. The lion's share of these handouts went, of course, to regional REPUBLICAN real-estate moguls.
Meanwhile, Tim Johnson's home subdivision just south of Urbana (which one would presume contains a good number of Republican voters) remains an unincorporated part of Urbana township. Why is that, you may ask? Because, while he was a state legislator, Tim Johnson had a law passed which states that his home subdivision shall NEVER be incorporated into the City of Urbana.
Similarly, unincorporated Yankee Ridge enjoys a private path accessing Meadowbrook Park, and they enjoy it TAX-FREE, of course.
Seems like, what with its hiked-up property taxes and all, Republicans prefer to stay out of Urbana, clustering together in sprawling country club subdivisions out in the Township--EXCEPT when it comes time to vote in Urbana's Democratic primary. Then, according to Mayor Satterthwaite, Republicans need all the access they can get, right up to the point of breaking State election laws!
If Republicans want more "enfranchisement" in Urbana City politics, there would be a few LEGAL ways of doing so. One would be to work to overturn Tim Johnson's exclusion law and get the country club subdivisions incorporated into the City, thus providing tax revenue the City needs. Another would be to advocate policies that a majority of Urbana's citizens actually support.
Last time I checked, that's how a democracy works in America. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by '^'
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Feb 2005
|
|
It is the way any primary works currently. If you want to change it, you should lobby for reforms, but you are not going to succeed now opposing this procedure in upcoming Urbana primary. No legal basis for it currently. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by Get your facts right
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Feb 2005
|
Paul wrote:
"Meanwhile, Tim Johnson's home subdivision just south of Urbana (which one would presume contains a good number of Republican voters) remains an unincorporated part of Urbana township. Why is that, you may ask? Because, while he was a state legislator, Tim Johnson had a law passed which states that his home subdivision shall NEVER be incorporated into the City of Urbana. "
Ummmm. . . WRONG.
Congressman Johnson lives in the Berringer Commons subdivision, which happens to BE IN THE CITY OF URBANA.
Funny, the Laurel people don't even know where the city limits are.
And, there is no state law excluding Tim Johnson from living in an incorporated area. The idea that any such law is on the books is insane, like most Prussing supporters. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Feb 2005
|
> The idea that any such law is on the books is insane, like most Prussing supporters.
You've got a funny idea of what it means to get your facts straight.
Election law needs to be reformed, including the partisan restrictions on who can sign what petitions. It really is a kind of disenfranchisement, since the restrictions make it more difficult for candidates to get on the ballot. If the law is changed, it will benefit third parties like Greens and Libertarians more than it will benefit moderates from the dominant parties, notwithstanding Tod's current attempt to dig up votes from between his couch cushions. |
|
Getting My Facts Right |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Feb 2005
|
Dear "Get your facts right":
I admit I messed up one detail in my account of Tim Johnson's stealth statute. It protects the subdivision he USED to live in during the 1980's, not the one he CURRENTLY lives in.
Cunningham Township Assessor Joanne Chester (367-7059) has the exact information I need to back up my claim. I'll post that information here as soon as I get it.
Then I won't be insane anymore, right?
----
Meanwhile, my argument still stands that if Republicans who live INSIDE Urbana want a better shot at having a say in elections under the current system, they could do that LEGALLY by urging their party-mates OUTSIDE the city limits to JOIN THE CITY.
That, for better or for worse, will never happen. Republicans out in the County will continue to try to control Urbana by controlling the money-flow in back-room deals and golf-course schmooze sessions, rather than by participating in the democratic process as equals with us commoners inside the city limits.
Also, my argument still stands that Tod's $1.6 million in development handouts constitutes election-season grandstanding, and Democrats should be on notice that the lion's share of that money went to Republicans.
Finally, the fact still stands, as quoted from the News-Gazette, that "Pat Freeman, director of elections for the State Board of Elections, confirmed that election law prohibits those who have signed petitions for one party's candidate from then voting in the opposing party's primary that election."
This means that when Tod's supporters advocate that Republicans should cross over and raid the Democratic primary on Tuesday, those supporters are advocating that Republicans BREAK CURRENT ELECTION LAWS.
The Green Party, as Joe Futrelle has pointed out elsewhere, has some great strategies for making election law more fair to minority parties like Libertarians, Greens, Socialists--and Urbana's Republicans.
Maybe "Get your facts right" should go to a Green Party meeting to find out more about how to revolutionize our democratic system with proportional representation. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by Get Your Facts Right
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Feb 2005
|
Actually, only the 196 persons who signed Republican petitions need not vote on Tuesday - and most of them wouldn't anyway.
That leaves about 5000 eligible Republicans who can LEGALY cross over to the Dem. primary - similar to the Dems who voted last March for Bruce Ratcliff in the State's Attorney race. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by person with a calculator
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2005
|
> That leaves about 5000 eligible Republicans who can LEGALY cross over to the Dem. primary -
OK, so how many votes is that? Not every Republican will cross over; let's generously assume a crossover rate of 30%. Let's further assume that voter turnout is the same as last primary election, 7%. That's 105 votes. Anyone else care to run the numbers? |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by Longtime Voter
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2005
|
I think the extreme dislike of Laurel Prussing among Republicans will draw a lot of voters - more than 7%.
I don't think the casual observer knows how much hatred Republicans (even Urbana Republicans) have toward her. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by person with a calculator
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2005
|
Longtime voter, I think you've got the wrong cell in your Excel spreadsheet. 7% was the total voter turnout last time, not the turnout of Republicans crossing over. My generous estimate for Republican-crossover was 30%. What do you predict?
It's time to can the rhetoric and start betting real money on this horse race. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by Longtime Voter
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2005
|
Sorry, the cold medicine has gone to my head. Not reading clearly.
I would think that your 30% estimate is a good number for the Republicans, but I think the overall turnout will be much higher - perhaps 26-28%, simply because there will be nothing worth voting on in April. So, roughy figuring, maybe 400 Republican votes on Tuesday.
I personally know of several people, mostly who I'd consider Democrats, who usually don't vote in primary elections who are going to vote Tuesday. They are split evenly between Tod and Laurel.
It will be close, but I think Tod will win thanks to cross-over votes. Laurel and Shirley will receive no cross-over votes, that is for sure. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite and Urbana Republicans cry "Disenfranchisement" Again |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2005
|
Here's the corrected link to the NG story:
http://www.news-gazette.com/localnews/story.cfm?Number=17714
@%< |
|
