Thanks, coach. :-)
Dave: Well, that's part of the problem with this snafu, isn't it? I'm not sure if they can sort out votes from Candler Park residents who got Lake Claire ballots. Is that what they call an "over count"?
Regarding the comment on the other article that you asked about in your previous comment: I didn't mean to let the SOS office off the hook. I just don't know how the "human error" in Kemp's office occurred. Until we see evidence to the contrary, however, I think it's fair assume it wasn't intentional.
But I did see with my own eyes the arrogant defensiveness of the Epworth polling place manager. I also saw how her impulse to treat disenfranchised voters as petty annoyances caused many more voters to be given the wrong ballots -- at least two more than three hours after we'd brought the problem to her attention.
Sorry if I didn't explain my point clearly enough, Dave. I'll try to be clearer here (and apologize in advance for the length):
All of Candler Park is in Council District 2 (Kwanza Hall, who's unopposed) and School Board District 1 (Grant vs. Muhammad). The voters who received the bad ballots appear to be those who live in the eastern and southern parts of Candler Park (there are two Candler Park precincts, and the other CP precinct seems to have gotten the right ballots).
The problem with the bad ballots that some CP voters received was that they actually were identical to the ballots of nearby Lake Claire, which means they replaced Hall's Council race with the Archibong-Enterkin-etc district, and replaced the Grant-Muhammad race with the School District 3 (which is uncontested for Matt Westmoreland). So voters who were supposed to be able to vote in contested Grant vs. Muhammad board race didn't get to vote in that race, but did get to vote in the contested council race for Archibong's seat.
This is likely to harm Grant and help Muhammad because Grant is expected to do much better in Candler Park. But it could also help Archibong and harm Enterkin, because voters who didn't go to the polls expecting to see that race would -- at least theoretically -- be more likely to punch for the incumbent, particularly in a multi-candidate race.
That's her point, at least. All that said, I frankly think the impact on the Archibong race would be marginal and I doubt Enterkin will be close enough to Archibong for the Candler Park foulup to have made a difference. But it could make a difference in Grant-Muhammad race. This is assuming they don't find a way to sort out the bad ballots, which would help clarify the Enterkin-Archibong contest but still leave Grant short of her rightful votes. Does that make sense?
(Enterkin said something later about her name not appearing at all on some ballots. I'm not at all familiar with that claim. The above merely references the mis-programmed ballots in Candler Park.)
To address a question above: Enterkin's concern is that voters from a precinct unfamiliar with the Archibong-Enterkin-et al contest will push the button for the incumbent because, if they have no other information, that's what voters tend to do. That seems a reasonable concern ... if the contest is close.
Thanks for covering this, Max. I do want to correct something that Mr. Barron said, because it's incorrect: Fulton County actually failed to switch over to provisional ballots until quite some time after the problem had been clearly identified for them shortly before 8 am. I know this because I was there.
In fact, for about 40 minutes during the early morning voting rush, the site manager specifically declined to address the concerns that very earnestly were brought to her attention by multiple voters. The provisional ballots eventually were brought out — only through the efforts of a very on-the-ball assistant manager.
As late as 11:30 am, however, many people still were given cards containing the wrong ballots, and initially weren't directed to the provisional ballots. Who knows how many people were disenfranchised in this fashion AFTER the problem had been identified because county officials were unprepared and indisposed to address such a mishap.
Thank you, Joeff. Few people can say they've really made a difference. Looks to me as if you really have done something to turn Georgia into a better place.
While basing one's argument on pitting generations against each other isn't particularly productive or well-founded, I agree with Saba's position on T-SPLOST.
More bus and rail options will benefit every age group in metro Atlanta, particularly the elderly. They will benefit drivers as well as transit users, because the infrastructure will encourage higher-quality, more compact development, and because additional transportation options will ease congestion.
Raising the gas tax would be a more sensible funding mechanism, but it simply ain't gonna happen: The Georgia Constitution bars spending gas money on anything other than roads, and the troglodytes in the Legislature -- not to mention Georgia voters -- aren't going to vote to change that.
The process and project list for T-SPLOST aren't perfect. But the bottom line is that it's the most promising mechanism for improving metro transportation in 40 years. Plus, if we vote it down, we're basically telling employers and cultural creatives that we don't want either, which would be a really bad thing for those of us who care about this city despite its faults.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation