Predictions Surely To Be Wrong

My batting average is usually more Ted Simmons than Ted Williams, but I have been on a bit of a hot streak lately.

Predictions Surely To Be Wrong:

Larry O'Neal will be the next Speaker of the House - Despite the chirping of the bloggeratti, the status quo usually wins and O'Neal is as status quo as status quo can get.

Nathan Deal will drop out of the Governor race - Let's see, what happens when you combine no name recognition with anemic fundraising and a brewing ethics complaint? Oh yeah. You duck and cover as fast as you can. What this means for Tom Graves campaign in the 9th, no one knows.

And John Oxendine won't be far behind - Numbers stalled. And now this. He'll bow up and fight for a while but eventually all these ethics body blows will take the wind out of him.

Eric Johnson will survive for now - He always survives and he'll slip through the current crap storm relatively stain free. However, when the rubber hits the road or rather the grease hits the palm, Johnson won't have enough of the green Crisco to fry the bacon. Which leaves...

Karen Handel will be the Republican nominee - It's a good time to be a constitutional officer not named Oxendine. Handel isn't even in the same neighborhood as the current Republican mess. Welcome to the Democrat's worst nightmare. Because although they won't admit it in public, they all know their history. And history shows that all Madame Secretary has ever done is win.

#1 On My Top Ten Blog Stories Of The Year won't be hard to guess - Number 1 was pretty clear until about three weeks ago. Look for the list to start dribbling out of my brain over the next week.

Who Benefits?

We know the ones who are trembling like possums in a room full of cats. But will anyone benefit from the Capitol cluster conflagration?

There's one who might.

From the Barrow Journal reporting on Karen Handel talk with county Republicans:

In 2003, Handel was elected chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners... “At my first meeting, I faced a $100 million budget deficit, a proposed three mil tax increase and a democratic majority,” she said...Despite these obstacles, Handel avoided increasing taxes, balanced the budget and implemented stringent ethics laws. (emphasis mine)

The 2003 Fulton Chair race may now be the "Rosetta Stone" for the 2010 Republican Primary.

What I Miss

While some of us were cutting grass in the hot south Georgia sun, strange tales of politics still swirled in Georgia

-Andre was kicked off the front page of Peach Pundit...again. His sin this time was the use of profanity. His potty mouthed tirade consisted of one naughty word contained in a quote by Peach Pundit publisher Erick Erickson - a quote Erick won't retract and proclaims pride in having said. Failing to disclose payment for praising articles will get you temporarily banned, reporting false stories will not get you banned at all, but quoting the foul slander of your publisher will get you banned toot sweet. These are the editorial standards of Peach Pundit.

-Speaking of Erick and his merry men, RedState endorsed Karen Handel for Governor of Georgia. Three things: 1. So much for the "moderate" Republican. This may hurt her with independents. It will certainly hurt her with a certain constituency of one. 2. Given RedState has also endorsed the soon to be trounced Marco Rubio in Florida, this may not be a blessing. 3. We can finally put to rest questions about Erick Erickson being a shill for campaigns (since sarcasm doesn't always translate to the internet, just imagine it dripping here).

-Nathan Deal is a birther...sort of. While the candidate doesn't flat out state he believes President Obama was born in Kenya, his mush mouth response to the question is akin to responding "we should look at all possibilities" when asked about creationism. It's funny how the party of strength and courage and morals skitters and jumps at the appearance of a shadow from the nearest loon.

-Democrats are not happy with John Barrow being....John Barrow.

What else happened?

My Afternoon Jay

Would we all wade so deep in the minutiae if it were something about which we did not care so deeply?

Now, Jay Bookman is taking Karen Handel to task over those pesky voter database searches.

So, casting the state’s policy in the best possible light, Handel’s approach may have found as many as 30 illegal voters. But that is far outweighed by the invalidation of hundreds of legal votes cast by U.S. citizens, and by the fact that thousands of additional citizens were effectively discouraged from voting by additional obstacles put in their way.

Hundreds.

Thousands.

You know I expect this kind of stuff from Cynthia Tucker, but despite CB's howling, I expect a little more sense from Jay.

One of the problems with the left's arguments about these purges is even when they're right (which technically Jay is), they end up making people shrug.

Jay has a valid point that ultimately the database search produced somewhere between 30-300 potential voter fraud cases. As has been said before, Handel is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

But in explaining how he arrived at that number, Jay presents the breakdown of how many voters were actually affected by these database queries.

About 4700.

Out of 4 million around 600,000.

That's .1% .5%

But that's not all. What was required of those 4700?

They had to go down to the registrar's office before the election and show proof of citizenship.

Wow. That sounds tough. So tough, that 2000 actually passed through the struggle and accomplished the task.

So what happened to the other 2700? Well, 600 showed up and were required to complete a challenge ballot. They were also required to show citizenship within 48 hours. Amazingly, 370 were able to accomplish this monumental task.

So what is the final tally? About 2300 people out of 4 million were arguably disenfranchised from their right to vote.

But too often this is the way of things with liberals - if ain't perfect, we gotta pursue it with a thunderous righteous fury. And I guarantee you, sometime in the next week, when I am arguing with one on this very subject, even if I agree that there is some injustice, when I point out it is a fight they will never win because people will see those numbers as absurd, they will still angrily disagree and search for another windmill to stab.

CORRECTION: As Sara pointed out in the comments my numbers were off because I was doing vote totals from the last election instead of new registrants during the last cycle. The numbers above reflect this change. But as I indicated in the comments, it does not change the figures so drastically that my perspective or point has changed.

The Competency Constituency

Rarely has a state candidate so polarized the two wings of our major political parties. And certainly never on issues rarely considered outside the realm of lawyers and inside baseballers.

To the Republican base, Secretary of State Karen Handel is a stalwart defender of the most sacred rite of voting - a beacon of purity scouring the darkness of fraud which must exist.

To the Democratic base, Secretary Handel is a cold, calculating political assassin intent on disenfranchising the poor and minorities through callous law enforcement and illegal tactics.

Of course - they're both wrong.

Even though laws requiring identification at polling places and proof of citizenship at registration are sensible, voter fraud in the state of Georgia is as rare as a Republican turning down a Chamber of Commerce breakfast. Handel's support and rigid enforcement of certain laws have always been answers in search of a problem. To pretend these actions are safeguards against hordes of fraudulent voters intent on mad rushing poll workers instead of red meat to fire up her party base is laughable.

More sad than laughable is the Democrat's efforts to paint sketchy database purges and grannies who have to drive across town to get a free picture id as the equivalent of poll taxes, literacy tests and Jim Crow.

More than usual, independents may decide Handel's fate. Whether elephant leaning or donkey leaning or just plain ornery, the uncommitted generally ignore the hoots and hollers of the loons in order to seek competence over ideology.

Fairly or not, Handel is perceived to have been an effective administrator as the Chair of the Fulton County Commission. Despite the howls of Democratic activists and the occasional sidestep such as the Jim Powell mess, she is also seen as an effective Secretary of State.

But those who pay no attention to the howls of the absurd will not remain silent forever. They will seek an answer for Powell being removed from the ballot the day before the election, sending polling places into chaos. They will demand to know why a voter database triggered a political fight (and possibly another costly court room battle) with the Feds.

They will not be placated by press releases with catchy phrases from cheerleader movies or clever videos of bovines yanked by brass rings.

While others quake earth and pulsate veins, the competency constituency will seek to answer the only question in their practical calculus - is this a leader who is trustworthy to grasp the reins of state?

Confusion Rules On Justice Dept. Ruling

The AP did no one any favor with its report of the U.S. Justice Department's smackdown of Secretary of State Karen Handel's "voter verification" processes.

The news service reported

The Justice Department has rejected Georgia's attempt to require prospective voters in the state to provide proof of citizenship...Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the bill last month making Georgia the second state in the nation to require newly registering voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before casting a ballot. Under the Voting Rights Act, the state was required to get preclearance for the measure from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The accurate part of these two paragraphs is that the Governor signed a bill - it was Senate Bill 86 which requires a person to present proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Then, Aaron Gould Shienin of the AJC reports:

Handel and her aides created the system in 2007 under the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act. The law requires states to verify a voter’s identity at the time of registration, but not necessarily to verify citizenship. In creating the system, Handel’s office extended the verification process to include citizenship; something the Justice Department said was “discretionary on the state’s part.”

This paragraph is referring to Secretary Handel's controversial scanning of the voter database in search of anomalies resulting in many registered voters being purged. It does not refer to SB 86 which was just enacted.

Or maybe it does. Neither article clearly defines if the Justice Department was talking about the previous practice, the new law or both.

Given the glacial pace of the federal government, it's doubtful they acted so quickly on a law which won't affect an election for 15 months. It's very likely they finally moved on a policy executed in the last cycle. In other words, it is a good bet the local boys and girls got it right and the wire service got wrong.

Either way, someone needs to answer for shoddy work.

Karen Handel's Opening Salvo

Firstly, it's a little strange but pretty funny.

Secondly, as Rusty and I discussed yesterday, Secretary Handel's going to be a force to be reckoned with. She's never been afraid to bare the knuckles in a fight and this weird little vignette just put everyone on notice.

Also, check CB's take on the video. As usual, it's funny and insightful. Bonus points for the Fringe connection.

Jason Pye Interviews Karen Handel

As we all learned this election cycle, voting law is byzantine, strange and hardly comprehensible. It's also arguably the most important code in the book.

The face of election law in Georgia is Secretary of State Karen Handel. With the whirlwind of early voting and a PSC race causing a near Constitutional crisis, the Secretary's office finds itself receiving attention usually reserved for Governors and such.

If Secretary Handel decides to throw her hat into the Governor's race, 2008 might be simply the entr' acte of a much bigger play.

As we pause before potentially larger storms, all should take the time to get to know the office and the current office holder.

In a half hour interview with Jason Pye, Handel reveals her thoughts on the Powell case, early voting and even budget issues - all issues on the daily plate of an agency head but also indicators of how a person would handle a job a few rungs up the ladder.

Listen here.

(Editor's note: This was written before your scribe heard the shout out from Madame Secretary)

Georgia Politics Podcast Episode 19

It got a little wild and wooly.

Newcomers Jason Pye and 81st Democratic candidate Chris Huttman joined regulars JosepG, Grayson and myself for the Georgia Politics Podcast.

Things get a little heated when everyone's favorite lightning rod Karen Handel came up.

I think Jason's presence got me a little more excited than usual.

Listen here.

Powell On The Ballot

Once again the Ginger Flash is too quick for your humble scribe.

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled Democrat Jim Powell will be on the ballot as a candidate for Public Service Commission.

Not surprisigly as my legal sources had predicted, the ruling is based on "error of law". A little surprisingly, it was a unanimous ruling.

Can't wait to read the opinion.

UPDATE: Having now read the decision, I can honestly say it's a good one. They threaded the needle. I'll let the legal people get into the down and dirty analysis.

UPDATE II: You can read the decision for yourself here.

Impressions From The Powell Case

I rarely rely on single, anonymous sources, however I did receive something from one that I consider impeccable. Also, the information is opinion and not fact. However, you as the reader should consider these factors.

According to the source, an observer (one learned in the law) at the Powell hearing indicated the Justices seemed inclined towards the Handel arguments.

The manner in which Justices question attorneys is usually an indicator of their thoughts, but not always. This may mean nothing or it may mean everything. We will have to wait and see.

UPDATE: The AJC has a good report on the hearing.

“We’ve had absentee and early voting and it’s been going on for three weeks,” said Justice Robert Benham. “Why is this not moot?”

That's a very good question. Here's the way it may go down. The Court hates to muck around in elections but also hates leaving statutory powers in limbo, so it may come down to which they hate more. If they decide since the election is already under way the matter is moot, Powell wins. If they decide to actually issue a ruling clarifying the law, Handel wins.

Either way, here's a tip for future candidates - for Gods sake, change your homestead before you qualify.

Powell Case In A Nutshell

The Ginger Flash has uncovered a succint summary of the arguments in Powell v. Handel.

I still believe Handel's arguments are more compelling, however, after speaking to several attorneys, I believe an argument can be made to support Powell. Ultimately, this case may be a precedent setting moment in determining the limits of an executive officer's statutory authority. That may sound dry, hell that is dry, but it is a fundamental of how government works and that is very important.

Powell Goes To Court

Creative Loafing is reporting the Supremes will hear the Powell Case next monday.

Been a while since I've been down to those esteemed chambers. Might be time for another visit.

Powell Continues

The Powell case is starting to feel like trench warfare.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the strange little case of Powell vs Handel. In November. We also have a little thing called an election in November. This all might seem weird and disturbing but then again, we are the state that once had three governors.

One quick note. After discussions with some level headed attorneys, I can see how Powell could justifiably win. Thusly, I've lowered the odds to 5-4.

Powell Wins?

Creative Loafing is reporting Jim Powell, the disqualified Democratic PSC candidate, won his appeal at Fulton Superior Court.

A few things to note if this is true.

A. These things happen. These hearings are not like normal proceedings and can happen at the drop of a hat.

B. Given the narrow scope of the court's powers under the statute, I can't wait to read this ruling.

C. It appears the change of judges benefited Powell.

D. Next is the Court of Appeals which has been known to smack around wayward judges.

UPDATE: The Fort Mill Times has the story. There was an oral hearing and the judge was Wendy Shoob. By my count she's the third different judge assigned to the case.

UPDATE II: The Fort Mill Times is in Fort Mill, SC. Either they cribbed an AP report or they somehow scooped everyone in Atlanta. What makes this more bizarre is I can find no connection between Fort Mill, Georgia or the PSC. What gives? This is very strange.

UPDATE III: AJC has more including a quote from Judge Shoob. "That is the worst argument to me because you are telling me I can just move, but if I didn’t withdraw that homestead exemption, I didn’t move". That's a rather strange statement since this isn't about whether someone moves or not but whether they legally change their residence. Since, O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 clearly states "The specific address in the county or municipality in which a person has declared a homestead exemption, if a homestead exemption has been claimed, shall be deemed the person's residence address", it's bizarre to say homestead is irrelevant.

Powell Hearing Scheduled

Creative Loafing has the details.

Jim Powell’s appeal has been scheduled for Monday, Aug. 4 at 3 p.m. in Fulton County Superior Court.

No word if the hearing will be open. If memory serves they are but usually no one shows up because no one cares. This time might be a little different.

For background on the PSC story check here, here and here.

Let's Get A Few Things Straight

Karen Handel Is Not Katherine Harris - And this is not 2000. And the PSC sure as hell is not the President Of The US. It would be simple to say Harris is an idiot and leave it at that. But Kitty is also a meglomaniacal, crazy idiot who clearly placed party above policy in such blatant fashion that even hard-core Republicans blanched and in later years left her to wander in the wilderness. Handel, although arguably just as partisan, is far more clever.

Also, despite the wailing, what Handel did was clearly legal. Harris, the Florida Supreme Court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court actions in 2000 were, to be kind, dead in the gray.

And just to repeat, the PSC is not the President. If you want to make the argument that this is another example of a Republican trodding on long standing traditions of the roles of Constitutional arguments then you've got a winner. If you get overwrought with outlandish rhetoric to the point it turns people off then it will lose steam. Just some friendly advice.

Of Course It Is Partisan - I've only said it three times on my own blog and on several other blogs. Even called it dirty. Some are building a case that it is the latest in a series of partisan moves by Handel and that appears to be a strong argument. That's good! That is absolutely a fair issue and should be used against any future Handel candidacy. Blatant partisanship is pure red meat to independents like myself.

But continuing to ignore where I acknowledge this fact because you perceive I should be more upset is like a cold shower to an independent. The more you compare Handel's move to [insert dictator here], the more likely am I to dismiss your entire argument as the lunacy of the unbalanced.

Powell and the Law - I wrote that piece for two reasons - I have some experience with that system and it is a byzantine area where I believed some clarity for all would be helpful. For that, I was called a "shill for Handel". Thanks. Now, I have another answer when someone ask me why I'm not a Democrat.

UPDATE: And since this is now popping up on the other side's corrals, let me add, saying that there is no possibility of political motivation in Handel's decision is just as stupid as comparing the Secretary of State's office to Iran. You guys are probably going to win and everybody likes a winner. But nobody likes a gloater. A mistake Republicans frequently make.

Powell and the Law

The frenizied howling over Secretary of State Karen Handel's rejection of Democratic PSC candidate Jim Powell continues.

For some of the firebreathers, the rhetoric has moved beyond comparisons to infamous Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to an affinity with third world dictators.

Fueling some of the anger is the apparent weirdness of the situation. So, let's take a layman's look at what the law says and if it answers three of the more popular inquiries.

Why would Handel submit the case to an Administrative Law Judge if she was just going to reject the decision?

Simply put, because the law requires it. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 states "Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State."

Now here is where it gets weird. The law also allows the Secretary to modify or completely reject the Administrative Law Judge's finding. O.C.G.A. 50-13-41(e)(1) states "A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision." In this case the "reviewing agency" is the Secretary herself. As strange as it sounds, she doesn't have to abide by anything the ALJ says.

So why have the Administrative hearing at all?

Because that particular hearing is the last place where evidence can be entered into the record. An ALJ has the power to subpoena, call and question witnesses. The hearing is the record of all evidence in the case. Following the hearing, that record is only item reviewed. No further evidence can be entered.

So what's next?

As we saw today, Powell exercised his right to petition the court for a stay. Once again, we return to O.C.G.A. 21-2-5: "The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State." Powell was granted the stay and now has the right to a review. There is no jury. There is no one present unless the judge wants them. The judge only reviews the record from the hearing. Critically for Powell, the judge is not allowed to contradict the Secretary of State's determination of the weight of the evidence. In fact, the judge is only allowed to either affirm the decision or remand for further review unless there has been a pretty drastic violation. A reversal is allowed only if the "substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are: In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state; In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State; Made upon unlawful procedures; Affected by other error of law; Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

Clearly tests 1-4 are not applicable. Test 5 (erroneous view of evidence) is where the Powell case lies and that's going to be a tough row to hoe.

So, the bottom line is what Secretary Handel did could be labelled partisan, even dirty, but based on the evidence so far it certainly was within procedure. And given the fairly high standard for reversal, Powell's chances of remaining on the ballot seem to be slim.