Thursday 2/16/2006 DAILY NEWS DIGEST
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114008542950010.xml&coll=2 – Governor appoints two attorneys to lead Department of Corrections.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114008516150010.xml&coll=2 – Advocates for disabled, elderly support Money Follows the Persons proposal at legislative hearing.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114008540150010.xml&coll=2 – Riley blasts critics of his income tax reform plan at legislative hearing.
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/114008542949980.xml&coll=3 – House committee refuses to give constitutional convention a favorable report.
http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114008537249980.xml&coll=3 – Editorial critical of Mobile area legislators who case “no” votes on constitutional convention proposal.
http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114008509150060.xml&coll=1 – Editorial critical of state’s failure to provide for services for developmentally disabled.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060216/NEWS/602160348/1001 - Legislature considering whether to retain second Pardon & Paroles Board.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060216/OPINION01/602150355/1012/OPINION - Editorial raises questions about state’s expanding practice of sending prisoners to private, out of state facilities due to prison overcrowding.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060215/APN/602151027 - Montgomery County judge plans to seek seat on Court of Civil Appeals.
FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:
EDITORIALS
The undemocrats
In our opinion
02-16-2006
This just in: A committee of the state House just killed an effort to allow the people to vote on whether or not we should have a constitutional convention.
Oh, and here’s the worse part of it, our own House members, Steve Hurst the Democrat from Munford and Randy Wood the Republican from Anniston, voted NO.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
Remember that, good people of Alabama, remember that these two men voted against you having the opportunity to decide. They voted against the democratic process.
Rep. Wood told our correspondent in Montgomery he went against the measure because he feared that a convention would be controlled by — now get this —the special interests.
Oh, what a riotous statement that is.
Rep. Wood, are you really that naîve, or do you actually think we are that stupid.
OK, we’ll choose to believe, for the moment, that you don’t understand that the Legislature is controlled by the special interests, the likes of ALFA, the trial lawyers, big business, big tobacco, all the usual suspects. A constitutional convention, anyone with walking around sense and untethered to special interests understands, is an attempt to break that stranglehold.
The constitution, the dear old messed up, broken down, out-of-date, decrepit, racist, 1901 Constitution, is the root of all of our problems here in Alabama. It is a document that favors special interests. So the special interests do not want it changed. It took ALFA and the other forces of darkness more than a century to get the thing the way they want it, so why on earth would they want to allow a constitution convention that would set about rewriting it?
As for Rep. Hurst, he voted no in part because a “number of” his constituents came to him and asked him to oppose the constitutional convention.
Of course, we have to assume that a number of his constituents feel otherwise.
That’s not what one might call leadership.
Whatever reason these two give, you can’t get around the fact that what they have done is undemocratic.
This is a victory for the powerful, monied special interests in the state, and it is most decidedly a defeat for not only the people of Alabama but also the democratic process.
A version of the convention bill is still alive in the state Senate. Let’s hope that the committee members in the Senate show some backbone and are willing to stand up to the special interests, unlike their colleagues in the House.
… Speaking of conventions
In our opinion
02-16-2006
Now to push the point a little further: A funny thing happened between then and now.
Back then, back when Alabamians overwhelmingly defeated Amendment One (the attempt to overhaul the tax structure), surveys taken after the ballots were counted showed that the biggest reason for that NO vote was that Alabamians did not trust the political culture of Montgomery — legislators, the executive branch, the multiple agencies, and the lobbyists — to spend the money as it should be spent.
That’s right, they didn’t trust the system, they were sick of the status quo.
Gov. Riley and others responded, by setting up avenues of accountability. But as they were doing that, a small group of influential interests saw a chance to twist the results to their own agenda. They stepped up and announced that the people had not voted against “Montgomery,” they had voted against taxes.
Now of course, for some voters, taxes were the issue. Those who, under the Riley plan, would have seen their low taxes rise a bit didn’t like it. So they set about to convince everyone that the other Alabamians who voted NO, did so for the same reason they did. This bit of historical sleight of hand allowed them to talk grandly about how Alabamians voted to reject the “biggest tax increase in history” when in reality that wasn’t what the people said.
But these folks don’t want the rejection of Amendment One to be seen as a vote against the status quo, because they love the status quo.
And that is why they do not want to let the people vote on whether or not to hold a constitutional convention.
For a vote for a constitutional convention will be a vote against the status quo.
No one who has benefited from the old constitution wants it changed, but they are not sure they can convince voters that what benefits the anti-convention interests benefits the general public. Indeed, they are afraid that after years of hearing and reading how our current constitution spawned the sorry system in Montgomery, people may have finally concluded that nothing will change until the constitution changes.
And they would be right.
If there has ever been a chance for Alabamians to show supporters of the status quo that they are fed up with business as usual, this is it.
Which is exactly why opponents of a convention don’t want the people to vote. It will be a referendum on the status quo and they are afraid the status quo will lose.
Got that, Reps. Wood and Hurst?
Coalition backs Nabers, Stuart, Murdock for Alabama Supreme Court
The Associated Press
02-16-2006
MONTGOMERY
The Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee has thrown its support to three Republican candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Drayton Nabers.
Chairman Tom Dart said Thursday the group’s political action committee also decided to back incumbent Supreme Court Justice Lyn Stuart and civil appeals court Judge Glenn Murdock, who is seeking a vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
The committee is also supporting Judge Craig Pittman for re-election to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
“These jurists have established themselves as strong conservatives who have helped change the reputation of our high courts from ridicule to praise,” he said.
Murdock faces former Supreme Court Justice Jean Brown in the Republican primary on June 6. The Civil Justice Reform Committee has supported her in past races, but Dart said the committee had been encouraging Murdock to run for the open seat on the Supreme Court long before Brown announced her candidacy.
The Civil Justice Reform Committee is a coalition of more than 100 groups representing business, industry, agriculture, and medicine. Dart said the group will probably make more endorsements after the April 7 deadline for candidates to qualify.
