Comments on: “No Legs” to Cooper’s Election Complaint

By: Mayor Langford Has Election Challenge Dismissed

Mayor Langford Has Election Challenge Dismissed — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:40:47 +0000

[...] An elections lawyer told the Parlor over a month ago that Patrick Cooper’s challenge to Larry Langford’s election to the Birmingham mayorship had “no legs.” Today, Circuit Judge Allwin Horn granted Langford’s motion to dismiss Cooper’s challenge. Cooper’s challenge claimed that Langford did not meet the residency requirement to qualify be on the ballot, but Horn did not agree. [...]

By: Travelogue: The other Patrick Cooper

Travelogue: The other Patrick Cooper — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:29:14 +0000

[...] It’s looking like he’s going to be safely back in the driver’s seat soon enough, that is according to a conversation had recently by Danny over at Doc’s Political Parlor with a lawyer about the contest. [...]

By: Bhmhomeboy

Bhmhomeboy — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:26:44 +0000

If Langford didn’t meet the residency requirement his name should not have been on the ballot in the first place.

By: ptclearer

ptclearer — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:33:26 +0000

I agree it should have been challenged before the election (not after). I think Cooper would have won if he had done it before the voting started. What amazes me is how lightly Langford took this requirement. He always knew he had a good shot of winning. And he knew he needed to establish residency. He SHOULD have known that a residency challenge was likely and made sure he established himself appropriately. It’s not like it would have been that hard . . . put his other house on the market and move to Bham. Let the dog stay with a friend until after the election or something. Instead, he was sloppy and did not follow the rules. It might not cost him the election, but this certainly could have been avoided.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:10:36 +0000

The problem for Cooper is, it seems like sour grapes. Why wasn’t it challenged before the election? Why wasn’t it raised as an issue in ads? Now it just seems like he couldn’t beat him straight up, so he will try for a technicality, and it will let Langford grandstand about living in the city, etc….TERRIBLE MOVE.

By: ptclearer

ptclearer — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:16:06 +0000

While I agree that the challenge is probably a bad political move . . . and might not end up working . . . I think there is
certainly a strong legal argument for the challenge. I read the briefs by both sides and did a little research on Alabama
Supreme Court rulings. The standard for residency seems to be where you are “domiciled”, which requires much more than just
voter registration. The Supreme Court has said a person needs to leave there former residence and actively be living in the
new residence. The law seems pretty clear on this and I think if the judges followed the law strictly Cooper would win.
That said, it seems unlikely they would thwart the will of the voters that directly, and so I imagine they will do every-
thing they can to not have to void the election.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:04:22 +0000

I’m hearing similar comments from non-attorneys who live in the city and are involved in politics. These are people who backed Cooper but think the challenge is a bad move. I confess to being torn — if Langford were otherwise squeaky-clean, it would be easier to let this slide and say he made a good-faith effort. Given his reputation, I’m not sure the citizens of Birmingham are wise to let him get away with anything else. It just encourages him. I don’t live in the city, but I would love to see better regional cooperation. Time will tell if Larry is committed to that.