Alabama Politics in
Doc’s Political Parlor
& Home of Lawn Mower Repair

The perennial battle to get our Legislature to face up to the need for constitutional reform is joined once more. And once again, the Alabama Farmers’ Federation and the Christian Coalition of Alabama have joined forces to fight them.

On the surface, these two groups don’t seem to have that much in common. You don’t see many folks from the CCA out there demanding that the state protect hog farms. Nor do you see representatives from ALFA lobbying against gay marriage.

When it comes to opposing a constitutional convention or anything else that might change the Constitution to make life better for most Alabamians, however, these two sing from the same song sheet.

ALFA has made it clear that it plans to “stop attempts to revise the Alabama Constitution by convention.”

If the Constitution is to be revised, ALFA wants it revised by the Legislature, where ALFA has the power to preserve the advantages the current Constitution gives agribusiness.

Protecting corporate farming, not family farming, is ALFA’s goal. When a plan was proposed that would preserve the breaks for farms of the size most Alabamians consider “family” but eliminate the advantages the large farming corporations enjoy, ALFA fought and defeated the package.

And the Christian Coalition of Alabama was right there to help it, even though keeping the constitutionally mandated tax structure that ALFA favors works to the disadvantage of people who are the CCA’s core constituency.

The Christian Coalition also parrots the ALFA party line in warning a convention would bring “uninhibited home rule” to Alabama. Now home rule is hard to count as a faith-based issue, but it easily fits into ALFA’s agenda.

And what is the CCA getting in return for this support?

Well, a few years ago, when the CCA fought efforts to set up a state lottery, ALFA jumped in to help them.

But some folks think the CCA is getting something else — money.

There has been a great deal of speculation about where the CCA gets its financial support — speculation heightened by revelations that Indian casino money helped fund the CCA’s anti-gambling efforts. And much of that speculation centers on the ALFA-CCA connection.

Could it be that ALFA is underwriting the CCA’s campaign against constitutional reform?

We don’t know.

Last year, efforts to require public advocacy groups like the Christian Coalition to reveal the sources of its funding failed because of a filibuster carried out by Republicans, many of whom had strong ties to ALFA.

Of course, there is an easy way to prove all this speculation wrong. The CCA could open its books and let the public see.

So why don’t they?

Good question.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King says the state’s inadequate care for the mentally retarded is our problem, not the federal government’s. In a recent constituents’ letter, he wrote that the state Legislature and Gov. Bob Riley bear the responsibility for ensuring enough money goes to this vulnerable segment of our population.

Well said, Mr. Attorney General. If over the past six decades or longer, such strong-willed words had been matched by resolved action, Alabama would not be viewed nationally in the crudest of stereotypes.

Let’s hope the attorney general can indeed cut short the lawsuit filed on behalf of mentally retarded Alabamians who claim a poorly funded state Department of Mental health has exiled them to a frustratingly long waiting list. Let’s hope the statehouse will hear King and respond with enough green to make sure services are provided quickly and sufficiently.

The attorney’s general’s spokesman told the Florence Times Daily that King is “in a terrible position, [seen] as a person insensitive to the needs of these individuals when he actually wants the same thing — services for them.” Let’s hope lawmakers feel the same and are appropriately moved.

History has proven hope, sadly, to be a shaky proposition when it comes to state government doing the right thing. As much as Attorney General King might not like federal intervention, it is the very taskmaster that has applied the whip to countless Alabama government agencies that for whatever reason would not do the right thing. Often, if we do meet federal regulations, it is at a bare minimum.

It’s too bad for King that he must live with that legacy. Unfortunately, minds and attitudes don’t change so easily. Trust must be earned.

A good start down that course would be for King to use his powers of persuasion with the Legislature so that it does what he desires — deliver robust serves to the mentally retarded in Alabama.

With that notch on the attorney general’s belt, the entire statehouse can launch a serious-minded attempt at providing quality government services, even surpassing what the feds demand.

With that, Alabama will become a fairer and more prosperous state. And someday, thanks to the work of Troy King and a host of others currently in leadership, a future attorney general can tell the federal government to butt out. We have proven we know how to properly take care of our own, that future attorney general could proudly boast.

Much has been made of the way our state income tax penalizes the poor and benefits the rich. And there is a lot of back-patting going around now that the governor has finally, partially, addressed the issue.

However, the income tax is only part of the burden borne by the poor. As far as folks in lower income brackets are concerned, Alabama’s sales tax system may hurt them even more. As a recent article in The Star revealed, Anniston families making around $25,000 a year pay just under 10 percent of their income in sales taxes while a family making $108,000 pays about half that.

Which, of course, is not fair.

But unlike the income tax, which is pretty cut and dried, sales taxes in this state are complicated by varying percentages, extensive exemptions and a host of exceptions that will make any reform effort difficult to explain, much less pass.

In addition, the sales tax system as it currently exists is supported by two powerful groups which, for very different reasons, will not be friendly to reform.

Most of the money from state sales taxes goes to education. Reducing the tax burden on the poor would mean reducing the already insufficient amount available for our schools, which would make it all the more difficult for the poor, through education, to rise from poverty. We call that giving with one hand while taking with the other.

But fear not, the Alabama Education Association will oppose any reduction in money going to the Education Trust Fund unless it is offset by money from other sources — such as an increase in property taxes, which in Alabama are among the lowest in the nation, or the removal of most of the sales tax exemptions.

As you would expect, the Alabama Farmers Federation will fight any change in the property tax structure. But ALFA will also oppose any change in the exemptions because so many of them favor agriculture.

So with AEA and ALFA less than enthusiastic, if not outright opposing, sales tax reforms that will help the poor, the chances of change are small indeed.

Being poor is bad enough.

Being poor in Alabama is even worse.

This past week the Alabama Poverty Project, a nonprofit organization committed to ending poverty in Alabama, released its long-awaited study of the poor in Alabama. The report, titled “The Picture of Poverty,” reveals a grim and frustrating view of people in need. And while it is clear that poverty in Alabama is not as bad as it could be, it is nonetheless far from being acceptable.

The study was prepared by the Auburn University Montgomery Center for Demographic and Cultural Research under the direction of Don Bogie. The study gleaned Census data from the years 1990 and 2000, along with a plethora of other sources. The picture of poverty offered by the report makes it tragically obvious that poverty will be a significant part of Alabama’s future.

Overall, the number of Alabama residents living in poverty fell during the economic growth of the 1990s. But even with these gains, many rural counties continue to have poverty rates over 30 percent.

For example, the state’s poorest county, Wilcox, has nearly 40 percent of residents living below the poverty level. This includes 47 percent of the children in the county. Compare Wilcox to Shelby County, which has the lowest poverty rate, 6.3 percent. Statewide, the poverty rate is 16.1 percent.

The picture of poverty has many different angles. For instance, the poverty rate statewide among children 17 and under is nearly 22 percent. For families with a female head of household, the rate is nearly 45 percent. The percentage of Alabamians eligible for Medicaid is right at 16 percent.

Wayne Flynt, an Auburn University history professor and president of the board of the Alabama Poverty Project, notes that the greatest poverty in Alabama is among our children. “In a state where evangelical Christianity is by far the dominant religion,” Flynt said in a press briefing, “these numbers are hard to accept.”

Dr. Flynt’s reference, of course, is to Jesus’ admonition that his followers show particular care for “the least of these in your midst.” Children and the elderly are in fact singled out in the Scriptures for special attention — the so called “widows and orphans.”

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Flynt writes, “What does it say about the moral values of a society when its poorest, least powerful, most neglected people are its children and its senior citizens?”

A copy of the study was hand delivered to every state legislator and to Gov. Riley.In a statement on the steps of the statehouse last Friday, Dr. Flynt said, “Never again will the leaders of our state be able to say, ‘I didn’t know that!’ concerning poverty because they did know that, because we’re going to give them a copy of this.”

Of course, changing the picture of poverty in Alabama will require a concerted effort by all its citizens. It will require a substantial enactment of Jesus’ admonition that we “love our neighbor as we love ourselves.” And it will take some awareness of the scope of poverty, which means taking stock of just how many folks qualify as “the least of these in our midst.”

To that end, the Alabama Poverty Project will make the “The Picture of Poverty” available to anyone who would like a copy. There is a free download of the study available at the group’s Web site, alabamapoverty.org. To obtain a hard copy of the study, call toll-free 877-782-5867 and ask for “The Picture of Poverty.” The price of the hard copy is $20.

James L. Evans is pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church and is on the board of directors of the Alabama Poverty Project. He can be reached at faithmatters@mindspring.com.

Twenty years ago, Mike Rogers, a 28-year-old attorney from Saks, became the youngest member and first Republican member of the Calhoun County Commission.

Over the ensuing two decades, he’s asked voters to invest their trust in him. His most recent success was the 2002 election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Thursday, he asked voters to do it again. Rogers announced his campaign for reelection to the 3rd Congressional District at the monthly Anniston Kiwanis Club meeting. He told members that his staff delivered qualifying papers to Birmingham Wednesday night.

“Hopefully, we’ll have good success,” he said.

According to the latest campaign-finance reports filed Sept. 30, 2005, Rogers had received $639,487 in contributions and still had $597,369 cash on hand. Much of Rogers’ contributions come from the health care, banking and insurance industries, as well as contributions from other political action committees.

Among the largest contributors for 2005 were Alabama Power Company Employees’ Federal Political Action Committee, $10,000; American Dental Political Action Committee, $10,000; Americans for a Republican Majority PAC, $10,000; BAE Systems United Defense Employees PAC, $10,000; ELECT – The PAC of the Alabama Farmers’ Federation, $10,000; Keep Our Majority PAC $10,000; National Association of Realtors’ PAC $10,000; Together For Our Majority PAC, $10,000.

An independent candidate, Mark Layfield of Auburn, is compiling a petition for ballot access. He needs 5,000 verified signatures by the April 7 qualifying deadline, and as of Thursday had about 4,400, according to the Secretary of State’s election division.

The Alabama Democratic Party said Thursday that no Democratic candidate had filed yet to run against Rogers.

In his Kiwanis speech Thursday, Rogers laid out the Republican agenda for the coming year. He said the agenda includes reforming the ethics policy for lobbyists, making tax cuts permanent, and immigration reforms.

Rogers said immigration reforms undoubtedly will stir the most debate among the parties.

“It’s become a real problem from a national security standpoint,” he said.

He spoke of a trip to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where he learned just how easy it was for Hispanic immigrants to get across the border. It could be just as easy for terrorists, he said.

“We know there are people out there who want to come into our country and do us harm,” Rogers said.

He advocates construction of a high security fence along the border.

“We know the fence won’t keep them out, but it will slow them down,” he said.

He said he wants immigrants to register legally. He understands the poor conditions they live in and the need for jobs, he said.

“They need to work, and frankly, we need the labor,” Rogers said.

Rogers said after the meeting he was pleased with many of the projects he’s been able to work on during his first term. He cited $22 million earmarked for the Eastern Bypass and a successful trip through BRAC hearings.

Rogers said that in the future, he would like to work with the Center for Domestic Preparedness to offer mobile training sessions. He feels the training could benefit volunteer fire departments and EMS personnel who can’t leave their full-time jobs for two weeks to train at the McClellan center.

He also wants to expand the use of dogs for security and drug-detection purposes. He said many of the dogs are bred and trained In Europe rather than the United States.

Auburn University’s Canine Detection Training Center is at McClellan.

Rogers is a member of the House Armed Services, Agriculture, and Homeland Security committees. He is chairman of a committee investing the funding of Sept. 11 projects.

Rogers’ first elected office was as county commissioner at age 28.

In 1994, he was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives. He was reelected and became the House Minority Leader in 1998.

Rogers previously worked as an attorney in Anniston.

He graduated from Saks High School and earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Jacksonville State University.

He graduated from the Birmingham School of Law in 1991.

Rogers lives in Saks with his wife, Beth, and their three children.

Star Capitol Correspondent Brian Lyman contributed to this report.

MONTGOMERY — You have to take up the tacks before you take up the carpet.

And before you take up the state constitution, you have to take up the tax.

State Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, introduced bills Thursday that would eliminate the federal income tax deduction and the sales tax on groceries, raise personal and dependent exemptions and increase the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $12,000.

Bedford said attempts to reform Alabama’s Constitution of 1901 have generally run into opposition because of questions over what a new governing document would do to taxes.

“I’ve come to the conclusion we better tackle the hardest part first, and that’s taxes,” he said.

Bedford’s tax proposal is the third to be considered by the legislature this year.

Gov. Bob Riley has proposed raising the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $15,000 over a five-year period, as well as increasing the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions.

Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery, has introduced legislation to repeal the state’s federal income tax deduction, increase standard deductions and personal exemption to their federal equivalents, and raise the minimum tax threshold to $22,800.

Alabama Arise, an advocacy group that has endorsed Knight’s plan, estimates that Riley’s plan would save families approximately $350 per year when fully implemented. It estimates Knight’s plan would save families approximately $700 per year. Bedford said his proposal would save families between $300 and $400 a year.

The federal income tax deduction is written into the state constitution through Amendment 225, passed in 1965. Bedford’s proposal hinges on voters approving another constitutional amendment to repeal Amendment 225.

Bedford says repealing the deduction, which generally favors the wealthy, would bring an additional $270 million to state coffers, which he said would cover the cost of repealing the 4 percent sales tax on groceries. The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates that cost at $275 million. The money would come out of the Education Trust Fund.

Riley’s tax-cut plan would cost approximately $233 million in state revenues. Bedford’s and Knight’s plans are “revenue neutral” – they would not cost the state anything.

The $12,000 threshold would be below the federal poverty level, but Bedford said the difference could be made up by the repeal of the sales tax.

If the repeal of the deduction passes, however, nothing in Bedford’s plan would require the state to repeal the sales tax.

“My preference is there would be a link, but I heard from House members and senators (to) let the voters speak first,” he said.

Sen. Del Marsh, R-Anniston, has introduced legislation to repeal the sales tax on nonprescription drugs and medical equipment, from eyeglasses to wheelchairs.

“I’d like to see it first,” he said. “If the numbers work, I’d be supportive. But I’d have to see it first.”

MONTGOMERY — A new Wal-Mart Super Center in Demopolis opened Tuesday. That same day, Demopolis Mayor Cecil Williamson said, a Wal-Mart closed in nearby Livingston.

That one-step-forward, one-step-back mentality has dogged rural communities for years, and economic development was one of the chief reasons Williamson, rural officials, professors and legislators were at a press conference Tuesday to support a proposed Center for Rural Alabama.

“Any time we can partner with an agency that has the time and the access to corporate sponsors and funding, we really relish that partnership,” Williamson said.

State Rep. Frank McDaniel, D-Albertville, and Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, have introduced bills in their respective houses that would establish a center to coordinate federal and state rural programs, create strategies to assist rural development and keep information on the topic.

“We’ve got pockets in this state, as all of you know, that are doing very well,” Barron said at the press conference. “They’re mostly in urban areas. And we’ve got 1.4 million people living in rural Alabama that aren’t doing so well.”

Barron pushed a similar bill last year, but it did not become law. He estimated the cost of setting up the center at $200,000. That money would come out of the Education Trust Fund budget. Additional money, he said, would be secured through private sources.

Supporters of the center said it not only would help bring business into rural Alabama, but it also would help rural communities survive economic shocks.

While the state has been successful in attracting automobile manufacturers, Tallapoosa County commissioner Thomas Coley said, rural Alabama has faced textile job losses. A center, he said, might help rural communities absorb such blows.

“If that’s our future, what better way for Alabama to be prepared for the next economic hiccup than by having a Center for Rural Alabama?” he said.

Joe Sumners, director of the Economic Development Institute at Auburn University, said “great” programs to help the state’s rural areas already are in place.

“What we lack is a crossroads to give us the biggest bang for our buck,” he said.

The proposal is modeled on centers in North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Virginia. Barron cited the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, which he said has helped to secure loans for more than 1,000 businesses in rural communities, as the model for Alabama to follow.

The president pro tem expects the Senate bill to come to a vote within three weeks. A House hearing on McDaniel’s bill is expected next week.

Several rural communities already have formed a Black Belt Mayors’ Association, which attempts to coordinate strategy for that area, Williamson said.

Her rural communities do not want to become cities like Tuscaloosa, she said.

“We just want to be rural, but we want to be better,” she said.

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform has called for a rally in Montgomery today to support a constitutional convention.

A public hearing on House Bill 109, which calls for a convention, runs from 8 to 11 this morning in the Capitol Auditorium.

ACCR will rally on the Capitol steps at 11:15 a.m. to present more than 60,000 signatures on a petition to the Legislature for a rewrite of the 1901 constitution. For more information about the group, go to www.constitutionalreform.or

Statehouse lawmakers continue to debate a real no-brainer — whether to remove segregationist language from the state Constitution. Meanwhile, we expect tourism bureaus in Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and — say it ain’t so —Mississippi to continue to gleefully smile.

In 2004, the last go-round at deleting the racist provisions from the Constitution went by the extremely pedestrian name of Amendment 2. After it lost by 1,846 votes, a better handle would have been The Tennessee-Florida-Georgia-Mississippi Tourism Improvement Act.

Perhaps whether a national organization books a convention in Alabama does not hinge on the state’s inability to remove the hate speech from its Constitution, but it most certainly cannot help.

Yet, what we’re hearing from Montgomery is the same tired arguments that confused the debate last time. Removing a 1956 amendment, opponents say, would allow a judge to unilaterally raise taxes to better fund Alabama schools.

Do we really want to go here again?

The 1956 amendment, records and media accounts from the time show, was written as a reaction to the 1954 Supreme Court order to integrate public schools. Alabamians riled by the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision approved an amendment telling any public school that the Legislature reserved the right to pull government funding if it got the notion to obey the high court’s order.

Ugly stuff.

The current debate is whether that section of the Constitution should go away. Foes say doing so will enshrine a right to public education. And what’s the problem?

It seems that timid lawmakers not willing to support editing out all racist language are in a bit of a bind.

They surely can’t publicly support the authors of the 1956 amendment, who were fighting to keep blacks and whites from attending the same public schools.

Who on Goat Hill is ready to stand up and forcefully declare to Alabamians that they have no right to a public education? Which lawmaker will be the first to look hard-working Alabama families in the eye and say that their children aren’t entitled to a public school education?

That leaves the phantom tax Amendment 2 opponents scared folks with in 2004. As Gov. Bob Riley has correctly pointed out, Alabama law prohibits state judges from unilaterally raising taxes for schooling.

It’s way past time for the state to remove this foul-smelling dead letter from its governing document. Both the Democrats who don’t want to talk about it this session and the Republicans who want to only partially edit racist language owe Alabamians an explanation. Either put forth the amendment as offered in 2004 or explain why you won’t.

MONTGOMERY — Opponents of Gov. Bob Riley’s school spending proposal say it’s politically motivated. Riley insists it’s not.

Whatever the reasons for the governor’s $500 million capital improvement plan, some observers believe it will be an asset for him in the November election, and perhaps in the June primary against former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Riley’s proposal will first run the legislative gauntlet, and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate already have criticized the size of the plan and its timing in an election year.

Still, the proposal has supporters on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Gerald Dial, D-Lineville, said his constituents strongly supported Riley’s plan at a recent public meeting.

"They want see conditions changed," said Dial, who supports Riley’s proposal. "The governor’s offered a positive plan to people who understand it, so if the legislature fails to act on it, for whatever reason, then it’s the legislature’s fault we haven’t fixed the schools."

Riley has proposed taking $500 million from the state’s Education Trust Fund to spend on repairs, expansions and upgrades of school facilities around the state.

About $250 million would go to K-12 schools; the remainder would go to colleges, universities and other educational institutions. Each school district would get a minimum of $200,000 for capital improvements, with additional money awarded based on enrollment.

"I just think we need to be more conservative," Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, the Senate president pro tem, said on Monday. "I think we should not play politics at this time.

"It certainly smells of election year politics, and I don’t think we should play politics with our children and their future."

Democrats have zeroed in on the governor’s proposal to abolish one of the state’s two rainy-day funds and spend the money on education. Barron proposes to spend $250 million on capital improvements this year, place the remainder in the state’s statutory rainy-day account, and issue a $1 billion bond issue next year to fix state schools.

Savings have become a mantra for many Democrats on Goat Hill. Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, chairman of the Senate Education Finance and Taxation committee, and Rep. Richard Lindsey, D-Centre, chairman of the House’s Education Finance and Appropriations committee, expressed reservations Monday about Riley’s plan.

"I’m sure the governor hopes he’ll get benefits from spending all the money, but that’s not fiscally conservative," Sanders said. "I’m not sure how that’s going to weigh with the public.

"I do think this is about politics through and through."

Sanders supports a larger salary increase for teachers and says Riley’s plan to give money to every district takes money from districts that have greater needs than others. Lindsey said Riley’s plan was "good," but that he had concerns about its use of projected revenues for funding.

"If we have a downturn in the economy, we may not have these dollars to spend," Lindsey said.

Like Sanders and Barron, he favors saving the extra money. "I think it’s much more prudent, much more conservative, to have any even bigger capital program to address true needs of the school systems," Lindsey said.

Riley’s staff and his legislative supporters deny that his proposal is aimed at the governor’s re-election, and argue that the Democrats want to spend the money on teacher raises favored by Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert, vice-chairman of the state Democratic Party.

"This $500 million for school renovations is one-time money," said Jeff Emerson, a spokesman for Riley. "What the AEA, what Paul Hubbert, wants to do is spend it on recurring expenses.

"You can’t spend one-time money on that."

Emerson also noted that Democrats last year opposed a Riley proposal to float a $1 billion bond for school improvements.

"So now they’re back to wanting a bond issue all of sudden," he said. "It doesn’t make much sense."

Riley’s budget removes the $234 million statutory rainy-day fund — essentially a state savings account — but funds the constitutional rainy-day fund, a line of credit that must be repaid, to its maximum of $248 million. Dial said that’s enough money to cover future shortfalls.

"We’re either going to have $250 million in a rainy-day account or $500 million," he said. "If you take half of that, you’d have to have a terrific downturn in the economy and a pretty liberal spending legislature to spend that money into proration."

While Riley insists no political motives fuel his proposal, some see benefits from it.

"All voters want to save for a rainy day, but all voters want to reap the benefits of a good economic climate," said David Lanoue, chairman of the University of Alabama’s political science department. "In a sense, Riley’s selling the syrup, and the Democrats are selling the medicine.

"It seems, in a political sense, that gives Riley an advantage."

Riley also has stressed the benefits his plan would give to rural schools.

Natalie Davis, a political science professor at Birmingham-Southern College, notes that Moore is expected to do well in the rural counties of Alabama, where his message of fundamentalist Christianity and low taxes should play well, and where Riley’s negatives "are more pronounced."

"And in fairness, those (rural districts) are probably the ones that need the most help," she said. "In rural districts, they can do more with base amount than they could do in affluent school districts."

Moore has called for the extra $500 million in the Education Trust Fund to be returned to taxpayers. J. Holland, Moore’s communications director, called Riley’s education spending plan a ploy.

"We feel like it’s another political election year way to get attention and lure voters," he said.

Emerson said Riley has been interested in rural areas, particularly the Black Belt, throughout his term.

"The election has nothing to do with this," he said. "Governor Riley has been addressing needs of rural Alabama since he became governor."

Those inside and outside the Legislature doubt Riley will get $500 million. Randy Wood, R-Saks, strongly supports the governor’s proposal, but expects it to change significantly as it goes through the process.

"I’m sure it’s going to change 180 degrees once it comes out of the education committee," he said.

Lea Fite, D-Jacksonville, agreed.

"That package will probably change 10,000 times before we vote on it," he said. "All you see is a very basic roadmap about where we will possibly end up.

"There’s gong to be a lot of heated discussion. I’ll bet the governor won’t recognize the end result."

That’s expected, Emerson said. "It’s not a my-way-or-the-highway situation," he said. "Governor Riley wants to work with the Legislature."

On Wednesday morning, an Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform rally in Montgomery will present a petition to legislative leaders calling for the House and Senate to let the people vote on whether the state should call a convention to rewrite Alabama’s antiquated Constitution.

But even before the rally at the Capitol steps, ACCR members will be hard at work. Earlier that morning, the House Constitution and Election Committee will discuss the proposal. Without the committee’s endorsement, the measure will not move forward.

Here, for ourselves and for our children, is democracy at work.

We are guaranteed by our federal Constitution the right to publicly assemble and to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Those rallying Wednesday feel that few of our grievances are greater than the burdens placed on Alabama’s people by their state Constitution.

There are, of course, those who do not want the Constitution changed. They have prospered under the current system, so they will not be at the rally. Instead, they will be lobbying legislators to keep the people from voting — working against democracy.

ACCR and its supporters will be lobbying legislators as well and we urge senators and representatives to listen — especially Rep. Steve Hurst from Mumford who sits on the Constitution and Election Committee. The position of those calling for a vote is simple and clear. If the people can be trusted to put legislators in office, those same people can be trusted to vote for or against a constitutional convention.

Under the bill being proposed, the people will get three chances to vote on the issue. First, they will vote on calling a convention. If they vote yes, then they will vote for delegates to that convention. And lastly, they will vote on the document that the convention writes.

In essence, this is a rally for democracy. We urge our legislators to stand up for democracy and let the people vote.

MONTGOMERY — Two families buy the same food at a grocery in Anniston. The same box of cereal. The same cuts of meat. The same brand of milk.

They travel to a clothing store and buy the same shirts. The same pants. The same dresses.

They pay the same 8 percent sales tax on those items – just a part of the total taxes they’ll send to Montgomery in a year.

However, by the end of that year, one of those families – making $25,000 annually – has handed 9.6 percent of its income over to state. The other family – making more than $108,000 a year – has paid a little more than 5 percent.

And when the year-end tally of the family tax burden comes, the poor will have paid the bigger percentage of their tax dollars on the goods and services they buy.

How high are Alabama’s sales taxes? Consider this: Anniston’s 8 percent sales tax – 4 percent state, 4 percent city – is only slightly lower than New York City’s 8.38 percent. And Gotham removes its city sales tax from clothing purchases under $110 and removes sales tax completely from groceries. Alabama does neither.

The state’s taxes tend to fall hardest on those making the least amount of money, and nowhere is that more evident than in the state’s complicated sales tax system. Officials and tax-reform advocates say taxes on necessities like food and clothing help drive disparities in tax collection around the state.

But with the state’s Constitution of 1901 severely restricting property tax levies, Alabama’s educational system derives most of its income from sales taxes. And tampering with the rate – or even creating exemptions for items like groceries – could be costly, according to revenue analysts.

That’s why some groups prefer to address disparities through the state’s income tax. Gov. Bob Riley has proposed raising the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $15,000 over the next five years, at a total cost of about $200 million. While some groups would like to see that number go higher, most say it’s the most realistic way to create a more equitable tax system – even though the sales tax creates most of the disparities.

Equitable taxes

Sales tax rates vary from county to county, and even from commodity to commodity, with separate rates for rental properties and automobiles.

The state imposes a 4 percent sales tax on general items. Counties and cities can impose their own tax rates on other items. Calhoun County, for example, lays a 2 percent sales tax charge on general items, while the city of Anniston charges 4 percent.

The charge goes across the board, and can create deep pain, especially for the lowest level of income earners. Susan Pace Hamill, a law professor at the University of Alabama, suggests looking at a family that makes $15,000 a year. That family might spend about $8,000 on food and clothing, and could pay, on average, $727 in sales taxes on those necessities.

“The point is, we’re approaching $750 of sales tax just to scrape by, and feed and clothe a family,” she said. “You add to that $500 of income tax … We’re taking from them in the neighborhood of $1,200 in the sales and income taxes, (money) that they desperately need to survive. That’s disgraceful.”

A family making less than $13,000 a year could pay up to 10.6 percent of its income in taxes, said Kimble Forrister, state coordinator of Alabama Arise, an advocacy group for the poor.

“The sales taxes are what really push that up for the lowest income earners,” he said. “Sales taxes make up 7.3 percent of that (10 percent).”

Ideally, said Jim Williams, executive director of the Public Research Affairs Council of Alabama, a high sales tax would be offset by larger exemptions in a state’s income tax, but Alabama starts income tax rates at $4,600.

“What you should do is design them both where they will fit together well,” he said. “Georgia, which has a really low sales tax, can get away with $15,000. Mississippi, with higher sales taxes, goes to $19,600 to make a break-even proposition.”

Riley’s proposal to raise the minimum income tax threshold is considered a step in the right direction by advocates of tax reform. Forrister said it would not fix all the disparities in the system, but it was the most realistic option at this point.

“Since it’s an election year, when it comes to what Riley and a lot of us consider an immoral income tax threshold, the only achievable, winnable options are revenue neutral or a tax cut,” he said. “You can’t go for an overall tax increase.”

Built in

But cutting the sales tax without using anything to make up the shortfall would create its own problems. The state sales tax alone brought $1.8 billion into state coffers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Sales taxes on everything except auto sales go into the state’s Education Trust Fund; the state currently puts 60 percent of auto sales taxes into the General Fund, and 40 percent into the Education Trust Fund. Not surprisingly, the Education Trust Fund depends on the sales tax, and even minor tweaks could lead to huge costs. The Legislative Fiscal Office, which gathers revenue data and information for legislators, has estimated that removing the state sales tax on groceries would cost the state roughly $275 million.

Tax reformers have focused mainly on the state’s income tax. The governor has proposed a bill that would create a sales tax holiday for the first full weekend in August of each year, but that would focus mainly on retail rather than tax relief.

“He’s just not made any proposals about sales tax except the sales tax holiday,” said David Ford, a spokesman for the governor. “He’s more focused on the income end.”

The state does exempt prescription drugs from the sales tax. State Sen. Del Marsh, R-Anniston, has introduced a bill that would exempt nonprescription drugs from the sales tax, as well as medical items like eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, wheelchairs and other devices.

“Poor families should not have to pay a tax on medicine and food,” Marsh said. “Those are necessities of life. But it’s not just for those who may be at poverty level. I think all individuals should be spared taxes on the necessities of life.”

Marsh said the bill would cost the state $5.5 million. While he favors a repeal of the grocery sales tax, Marsh said he knows the lost revenue from that would have to come from some other place.

“I don’t know where it needs to be, but I’d be for looking at the formula, and making it more fair for the less fortunate,” he said.

The income end may be a better place to tackle the problem, Williams said. Adjusting income tax thresholds would better help poorer families than cutting sales taxes, which would immediately benefit everyone.

“It provides that benefit to everybody, even those at the upper income scale, and it costs a lot of money to do that,” he said. “It targets the tax relief better if you do it through the income tax.”

The best long-term solution, say advocates, would be constitutional reform that directly addresses the property tax structure created by the Constitution of 1901, which requires most property to be assessed at no more than 10 percent of its real value and limits the amount of property tax that can be collected.

“In order to make the sales tax more fair, you have to get property taxes to pick up some of the slack,” Hamill said. “And I hope (the property tax) is not on mobile homes and old cars, but large land holdings and those with expensive homes.”

It’s time! Indeed, it’s past time to let the people vote for a constitutional convention to rewrite Alabama’s archaic, unfair, unjust and immoral 1901 Constitution. This document enshrines an inefficient, unwieldy and costly system of governance, encourages racial division, perpetuates economic injustices, shackles education advancement, handicaps local governments and reflects a profound mistrust of the citizens of Alabama.

The state Legislature will hear this message from concerned citizens and a coalition of organizations gathering Wednesday at 11:15 a.m. on the state Capitol steps along Dexter Avenue in Montgomery.

At the Let the People Vote Rally, sponsored by Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR), constitutional convention proponents will present lawmakers with more than 60,000 petition signatures, all urging the Legislature to begin the process of rewriting Alabama’s 1901 Constitution.

As proposed statehouse legislation declares, a new Constitution “should provide a fundamental law by the people, for the people and of the people of the great State of Alabama, with an enduring legacy of fundamental rights of liberty and justice for all, firmly developed by the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and the guidance of Almighty God.”

The first call for reforming the 1901 Constitution began early in the previous century, not long after it was ratified. A true people’s movement, however, began in earnest with the creation in 2000 of ACCR, a nonprofit, bipartisan, grassroots organization.

Last year, members of the Huntsville ACCR chapter decided it was time to stop talking and take action. Hence, the petition drive began and quickly spread through volunteer efforts at local voting polls, public events, churches and other organizations. Wednesday’s rally is the culmination of the people’s vision to let the people vote.

House Speaker Pro Tem Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, and Sen. Ted Little, D- Auburn, answered the people’s call by sponsoring the bills. If passed, the proposed legislation will place the convention question before Alabama voters this November.

If that ballot initiative passes, then citizens will vote in April 2007 in nonpartisan elections for convention delegates — one male and one female — from each Alabama House district. A constitutional convention would convene in July 2007 and continue through April 2008.

In November 2008, Alabamians would then have a final opportunity to accept or reject the proposed Constitution. The 1901 Constitution would remain in effect until a new one is approved. If ratified, a new Constitution would become effective in January 2009.

Hence, Alabamians could vote three times before a new Constitution becomes effective. What on earth could be controversial in our great democracy about letting the people vote?

Alabama has had six Constitutions. Thus, there’s nothing unique about a people’s constitutional convention, and certainly nothing to fear about letting the people vote. Alabamians have done it before. They are wise enough to do it again. Just as citizens are asked to trust legislators when voting for them, the citizens are asking the legislators to trust them to vote.

Demagoguery and lies, familiar Alabama political fear tactics by status-quo special interests, will no longer hoodwink the electorate.

The proposed legislation, developed by the people and the sponsors together, is rooted in truth and trust with safeguards against special-interest control, including:

• Prohibiting lobbyists from giving anything of value to any convention delegate.

• Prohibiting any delegate from receiving any political contribution from any one source in an amount in excess of $100 in cash or in-kind.

• Prohibiting any post-delegate election contributions.

• Applying all Fair Campaign Practices Act and Alabama ethics law requirements to the delegate elections and Convention process.

• And requiring all lobbyists to register and file reports during the convention to ensure that it’s the people’s voices, and not special interest money, controlling the convention.

Wednesday’s historic rally will begin and end with Alabama students reading the 1901 Constitution and its nearly 800 amendments while standing on the Capitol steps. The reading starts at 9 a.m. and ends at 9 p.m.

Every legislator has been invited to attend, and the House and Senate leaders have been asked to welcome the people and to receive the petitions.

Courageous sponsors of the 2006 Let the People Vote legislation (HB109 and SB52), Rep. Newton and Sen. Little, are the rally’s featured speakers, along with co-sponsors Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, and Sen. Hap Myers, R-Mobile.

So, now this drive is in the hands of the Legislature. Will Montgomery trust the people of the State of Alabama and pass legislation to let the people vote? The sponsors and cosponsors of HB109 and SB52 have gone on record as trusting the people. Will your legislator trust you?

House Constitution and Election Committee Chairman Randy Hinshaw, D-Huntsville, has also heard the call and scheduled a public hearing on HB109 on Wednesday at 8 a.m. in the Capitol auditorium.

Sen. Wendell Mitchell, D-Montgomery, chairman of the Senate Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics and Elections Committee, has also responded by agreeing to schedule a public hearing on SB52 in February. Both chairmen have also been invited to address Wednesday’s rally.

The drive for a new Constitution has begun in the minds and hearts of Alabamians. Wednesday’s Let the People Vote Rally is the first step in creating an exceedingly great army of citizens and public servants, together as one and in unity of purpose, invoking the favor and the guidance of Almighty God, to birth a brand-new day for Alabama.

All citizens are urged to attend the rally. To sign a petition, available on ACCR’s Web site, visit www.constitutionalreform.org. And encourage your state legislator to attend the rally, and, ultimately, to