Posted by 
Gov. Bob Riley’s recent appointee to the Jefferson County Commission, George Bowman, is telling people that whenever an election is held for his seat, he will run as a Democrat. The special election scheduled by the Jefferson County Election Commission for February 5 looks to be on hold now that Riley claimed the authority to appoint the successor to the seat vacated by Larry Langford.
Like a similar case in Mobile, this one will wend it’s way through court. Motions for injunctive relief were filed today in federal court as a part of Plump v. Riley. Fred Plump’s original suit sought to prevent Gov. Riley from filling the seat.
State Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham said today in a release, “This case is not about the distinguished record or character of General George Bowman. However, it is all about thwarting the democratic process that was already underway with an election set for February 5th. Now Governor Riley has pushed the issue into federal court and the aftermath of these actions only serves to rile the electorate and call into question his true motives.”
In the similar Mobile County situation, Riley appointed Republican Juan Chastang to fill a vacant County Commission seat. A special election was held this year after Montgomery’s U.S. District Court ruled that Riley’s appointment violated the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act. That case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Ed Still has served in both the Mobile County and Jefferson County cases.
I think it’s fair to say that Democrats object more to the process than they do to the result.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I think all Democrats welcome and thank General Bowman
for agreeing to serve on the Jefferson County Commission. I have heard nothing but good things about the General and certainly believe he will do a great job for the people of his district. I do, however, object to the Governor’s efforts to do away wih the people’s right to elect their representative. Free and open elections form the basis for our democracy and anytime someone attempts to take way this right, all good Americans should take notice. I have no doubt that General Bowman agees that protecting the right to vote is job one for members of the Commission.
The fact the Democrats didn’t object when Siegelman appointed someone to fill a vacancy on the Jefferson County Commission in 2001 shows their criticism and complaints and lawsuits are purely political.
This is 2007 not 2001 and Riley is not Siegelman. The fact that General Bowman wants to run as a Democrat proves he knows the will of the voters is being ignored by the Governor.
bhmhomeboy – you obviously have no idea at all what you’re talking about or even what this issue is about.
The Alabama Democratic Party claims Riley is violating the law by appointing someone and that the law instead requires a special election. But the law is the same as it was when Siegelman appointed someone. So Democrats’ criticisms ring hollow. If it was wrong for Riley to appoint someone, why wasn’t it wrong for Siegelman to do the exact same thing? Are you and other Dems saying the laws don’t apply when Democrats do the appointing, or are you saying the law doesn’t require a special election?
I’m saying the LAW requires an election.
Danny, what is your personal opinion about this process? Yes, it is obvious it is about the process itself, as you said, and not about the person chosen. Do you think this process violates any democratic principles, as Mr. Turnham thinks it does?
If you want the real difference between Siegelman and Riley’s appointments, it is this. Of course, Democrats would not object publicly to a Democrat appointing an individual as opposed to a Republican. Arguing this point is ridiculous.
A Democrat appointing this position would consult local Dem party members to determine a choice. Furthermore, there would be no real concern of appointing someone with ideology different from the majority of those being represented. However, if a Republican appoints this position, they would be likely to appoint someone with an ideology more similar to their own, (See Juan Chastang), regardless of their race or supposed party affiliation.
That being said, it is possible that if Dems were not happy with another Dems choice, they would not take their case to the press. Republicans are no different in either of these situations.
Finally, Dems should be vocal about this after those they represent were disenfranchised in Mobile. Saying that something is purely political has become a way for people to disregard any comment they disagree with. How is it possible for politicians, that work in politics, to not be political? If we want to stop “pure politics” then lets do away with party labels and begin to elect statesmen based on their positions.
The Alabama Legislature says the LAW requires an appointment.
I agree Trvld. Let the voters decide who they want to represent them, not the Governor.
Do you folks have any earthly idea how many appointments the law REQUIRES a governor to make? And, how many of those are positions that are usually elected? What do you think would happen if one of our US Senators were to leave office this afternoon? This situation is the same – the governor must appointment a replacement.
The Jeff Co local law was ruled unconstitutional, and was not revived by a later court ruling. Until Jeff Co passes another local law calling for elections instead of appointments when a county commission vacancy occurs, then the law REQUIRES not just this governor, but any governor, to appoint someone to fill the vacancy.
Since we are playing the what if game, what if a Democratic Governor were trying to “appoint” a Democrat to replace a Republican? The laws governing the replacement of U.S. Senators aren’t covered in the VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
I don’t know what JeffCo law you are talking about being ruled unconstitutional. I do know that federal law supercedes local and state law.
if you say the law requires an election, again I have to ask: why didn’t you get upset when Siegelman appointed? Seems clear your criticism is simply partisan griping.
What do you have aganist a fair and free election, that is the question. I’m quite sure if the situation were reversed and there was a D (Democrat) where there is a R (Republican) you would be singing a different tune.
Don Siegelman is also in a Lousiana Prison cleaning toliets. Why are you trying to blame Riley’s actions on Don Siegelman?
If you want to call believing that the people that live in the district should be able to choose who represents them on the Jefferson County Commission “partisan griping”, so be it.
Bham. I think Anonymous is trying to address the hypocisy (sp) of crying foul when a governor in the other party makes an appointment but not complaining when the same action is taken by a governor in one’s own party. It’s not about Riley and Seigalman, it’s about choosing to make a fuss according to the party of the individual who makes the appointment. If it’s wrong for a Republican to do it, then it’s wrong for a Democrat to do it.
You are right Margaret, there is more than a whiff of hyprocrisy. You are also correct this in not about Riley or Siegelman. It’s about the WILL of the VOTERS. But who cares about the will voters, right? Everyone knows the voters in the district in question are to stupid to decide who represents them on the Jefferson County Commission, after all they ELECTED Larry Langford didn’t they? Governor Riley and Republicans know who is best for them, blame Don Siegelman.
Bhm, Again you miss the point. No one is blaming Siegelman. I think, however, that you are missing the point on purpose and trying to muddle the argument. If one person does the exact same action as another person, then both people are either wrong or right.
The point is, there should be a VOTE of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.
God bless America.
I haven’t disagreed with you on whether or not there should be a vote. To be honest, I don’t know what the laws are regarding this matter. I do think it is strange that you can’t address the issue that was raised and I have attempted to discuss with you about whether is right for one politician to do something and wrong for another politician to do the exact same thing.
Margaret, please refer to post#7 for the difference between what Siegelman did and what Riley is attempting to do. Riley is attempting to disenfranchise the voters in the district by appointing their representative instead of letting them decide who their representative is. Riley is not Siegelman, Siegelman is in prison in Lousiana cleaning toliets. That is the difference.
Anon in 6, sorry to overlook your question… Generally if someone is appointed to a position that is meant to be held by an elected official, then “democratic principles” I suppose take a hit. The issue here of course is not about the principles, it’s about the law. This is a legal matter to be decided by the legal process. Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says about the Mobile County situation, though that will be several months away.
It will be interesting to see what the Roberts/Bush Supreme Court decides in the Mobile County situation. It will also be interesting to see what the Fuller 3 judge panel decides on the Jefferson Country situation.
Some people evidently do not research things before posting on them.
It is correct, the LAW REQUIRES that an appointment be made by the Gov. Anyone that doesn’t like that needs to work to have that changed. Claiming it isn’t so and a “Court Decision” doesn’t change the facts.
A couple of other things….I know Riley and Bowman both personally. Bowman has never been a registered Dem, he has always been a Dem without the label….remember, he is a Retired Army General. There aren’t a lot of Dem Army Generals out there. Also he did not have any problems with Riley appointing him, SINCE THE LAW REQUIRES Riley do what he did. Running as a Dem had to do with Bowman’s political beliefs, not anything to do with Riley.
Anonymous in 22, I believe it is fair to say that what the law requires is a matter of dispute . If it were not a matter of dispute, it would not be in the courts.
:)
So everything that goes to court is in dispute where the law is concerned? I think not. One can take another to court for anything they want. Just because someone takes something to court it does not mean they have any chance of winning or there is anything questionable. Too many Judges try to legislate from the Bench these days and it is more than just a State issue. Their job is to interpret the Law, not make or change Law.
Bowman could take Plump to court for Plump going to court, that would not mean Plump’s right to go to court would be in question.
As the Law stands now, the Gov is supposed to appoint, this was thoroughly researched by many in the Legal field. There have been appointments made numerous times without issue, the one difference this time is the time left on Langford’s term. This appointment was made with a much longer term than most.
Yes, it is in dispute, at least for one party, until the court resolves it.
If Bowman did as you said, then the law is in dispute, at least for Bowman, until the matter is settled in court. The court may agree with Bowman in your example, or it may say his concern was frivolous and without foundation. Until then, the matter is in dispute, at least for Bowman.
The fact that courts and parties disagree on the Mobile case to the point that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear it indicates that this is a matter of considerable dispute.