The Most Important Legislative Special Election in the History of Alabama
The broadest and most striking storyline about tomorrow’s special election between James Fields (D) and Wayne Willingham (R) is whether or not a black man can win an election in an almost entirely white district. While this is the most obvious element to the race for some, it is not the most interesting or immediately politically important. Fields already bested two white opponents in a primary and the general election against Willingham, a county commissioner, is thought to be a toss up. I’ll let others wax eloquent about what the contest means about race relations and any other concerns of societal import.
What I am going to address (and what most people who visit the Parlor want to read about) is politics.
The larger results of this race will need little interpreting after a winner is declared Tuesday night. Either Republicans have started their march toward legislative majorities in 2010 or Democrats will have again thwarted Republican hopes and expectations and look poised to hold the Alabama legislature into the next decade. While this one election will not determine which party controls the statehouse when the new legislature convenes in 2011, it doesn’t feel like hyperbole to say this is the most important legislative special election in the history of Alabama.
Why? Former HD 12 Rep Neal Morrison was a conservative Democrat who held this Cullman County district easily but was a well-liked local figure who often strayed from the party line and had as much support from ALFA as he did from AEA. When Morrison resigned his seat to take over the interim job of President of Bevill State Community College, Republicans immediately started salivating over the prospect of taking his open seat. Democrats contend, not altogether without merit, that Bradley Byrne did his erstwhile allies in the legislature a favor by getting Morrison out of a seat on which Republicans have long had their eye.
From the moment the seat opened Republicans expressed the importance of this election and optimism that they will win this seat.
Right here on the Parlor, GOP Chair and House Republican leader Mike Hubbard told Danny, "House District 12 is going to be critical. It is very, very important…"
Hubbard was also quoted in the Huntsville Times on the race…
The Jan. 29 special election in House District 12 to replace former Rep. Neal Morrison, D-Cullman, could also be a turning point for the Alabama Republican Party, said Hubbard.
A victory by GOP nominee Wayne Willingham over Democratic nominee James Fields "would be a milestone for us to reach," he said.
Quoted in the Cullman Times, Governor Riley got in on the act…
“I want you all to pause and understand just how important what we’re doing tonight is,” he said to the Republican supporters at House District 12 candidate Wayne Willingham’s fundraiser dinner, held at All-Steak Restaurant.
In a GOP press release after the primary, Mike Hubbard went as far to predict victory…
“Regardless of the outcome of the runoff, we are confident that a Republican will prevail on January 29th.”
So why is this race so important to Republicans? This is a great example of a seat the GOP has to hold if they want to reach a majority in the State House. Republicans have said for the past few cycles that they’ll pick off these Republican leaning seats once the incumbents retire. And they’ve won a few but they’re progress has largely stalled since the mid 90s. 1998/2002/2006 were all largely status quo elections, which is not good for Alabama’s legislative Republicans.
HD 12 might not be the most Republican leaning district held by a Democrat, but it’s close. And at the risk of being repetitive, Republicans have to win districts like this if they want to be in the majority.
If Republicans win, the Democratic majority is reduced to 61-44, with the ambitious Republican 2010 effort looming over the political landscape. A Republican pickup in 2010 would be an ideal kickstart to their effort and would help convince the "smart money" crowd of a sense of the inevitability of Republican control of the legislature. A Republican victory in HD 12 could result in a party switch or two, maybe the retirements of vulnerable Dems, and a slow, but sure shift towards Republican success in 2010. The Republicans will finally have the chance to break the back of the AEA and its influence in the Alabama legislature. Moreover, the last bastion of Democratic control in Alabama state government will have slipped from their fingers, as Alabama joins many of her neighbors as two-party states but where Republicans are running the show.
But what happens if Republicans lose a seat that seems perfectly set up for them to win? If Fields beats Willingham, legislative Republicans will have had their hats handed to them twice in the past year. Initial Republican optimism about taking over the HD 22 after Democrat Albert Hall’s death gave way to a double digit Democratic victory. If the same things happen here and Republicans fumble two seats away that they by all accounts could have won, why would any neutral observer believe they can take the House in 2010?
Democrats will be emboldened. Wavering incumbents will run for another term, instead of retire. Potentially strong Democratic recruits in competitive races will be more likely to run with a trail blazed with recent Democratic successes in swing districts. Lobbyists and interest groups will saddle up and ride with the Dems once again, providing the Democrats with resources to compete and potentially outspend Republicans.
Republicans will spin a loss as the result of a quirky special election and complain about being outspent by "liberal special interests". But Republicans nominated who was thought to be their strongest candidate and there is no reason that Willingham shouldn’t be financially competitive with ALFA and the entire GOP establishment behind him. Make no mistake about it, a Republican loss in Cullman will reverberate far and wide through state politics in months and years to come.
This is by all accounts a toss-up election. The winners and losers of this race will be more than single individuals though. Several powerful and ambitious people, and perhaps one political party, could be seriously wounded as they lose an important battle in what is an even more important war.
Danny - it appears that Fields did, in fact, fail to file his final disclosure report in violation of Alabama election law.
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I agree completely Danny. This is an absolute must win for the Bama GOP. I once heard Mr Blount make the comment that when Venable,Starkey,Hall and Carter left the House they would win all four of those seats. Well they only won one of those four and thats just inexcuseable when compared to what the GOP has done in the neighboring states. In Tennessee,Georgia and Mississippi, they have won numerous rural House seats this decade that had been represented by Democrats since the civil war.
Comment by dan t — January 28, 2008 @ 10:58 am
No 5 day report for Fields posted. Have to wonder what is being hidden before the vote.
Comment by JD — January 28, 2008 @ 11:54 am
I am told that the delay is in the SoS office, that the report was hand-delivered before the deadline.
Comment by Danny — January 28, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Danny - if you hand deliver a FCPA report right before the deadline it often means you don’t want voters knowing what is in that report. How Beth Chapman - who wants to ingratiate herslf with the GOP bigwigs for consideration for higher office - did not get that report posted is beyond me. It could be a major blunder by Ms. Chapman.
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
sounds like that report needs to surface before tomorrow.
Comment by cooper — January 28, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Anonymous - If you hand deliver a FCPA report right before the deadline it ALSO often means you have complied with the law. If I were a candidate, the only way I would deliver a report is by hand delivery to insure my opponent couldn’t take a potshot at me if there was a problem with the mail.
Comment by polibabe — January 28, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
If you hand deliver a FCPA report right before the deadline it means you don’t want a $10,000 AEA contribution to show up until after the election!
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Nobody except hard core partisans in Cullman care who takes money from the AEA and who takes money from ALFA. And they’ve already made up their minds. In every important close race, AEA will pony up for the Democratic candidate and ALFA will pony up for the Republican. No one cares.
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Cooper wrote:
sounds like that report needs to surface before tomorrow.
or what? We all fuss at Beth Chapman?
Anonymous in 8 wrote:
If you hand deliver a FCPA report right before the deadline it means you don’t want a $10,000 AEA contribution to show up until after the election!
LOL… I think you’ll find that is not the reason it was hand-delivered at all. I don’t think it means that at all.
Anonymous in 5 wrote:
if you hand deliver a FCPA report right before the deadline it often means you don’t want voters knowing what is in that report
I think it can mean that you prefer to wait until the last moment to reveal to your opponent how much money you have for the campaign and where you are spending it.
A lot of paranoia at work today… I guess we’ve been conditioned for it.
Comment by Danny — January 28, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Actually most campaign finance reports aren’t handed in until the last minute. Sometimes to be secretive about how much money a campaign has on hand and what sort of buys they ahve made. More often because everyone in a campaign is so busy that it does not get done until the last day.
If it was in on Thursday, it the Chapman’s fault that it isn’t available. It’s not like they have hundreds coming in to be scanned.
Comment by Anonymous — January 28, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I’m not so sure this is a bellweather election for 2010. Special elections tend to draw a very small number of voters, especially down-ballot ones such as this one.
Still, I think Mike Hubbard and the ALGOP come away looking like big victors if Willingham wins this.
Comment by Terry — January 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Someone at the Sec of States Office needs to be fired for not posting that report until this afternoon. It doesn’t matter much, the contributions have be laundered better than most mafia income. None of the regular Democrat contributors listed, moeney either shows up in end of the year report or more than likely moves through the State Party.
Comment by JD — January 28, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
No State Democrat Party filing of their expenditures posted at the Sec of State Site either. We know from Fields report that they spent money on the campaign
Comment by JD — January 28, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
This race is unique. It is definitely the most interesting special election in my lifetime. However, there are a lot of local issues playing out in this election that are different or non existent elsewhere.
Comment by SamfordDem — January 28, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Of the $16,000 raised reported by Fields, over $10,000 of that came from outside the district and that heavily from Labor. That may explain the late filing.
Comment by Over $10,000 from outside — January 29, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Re comment #16…
I find it odd that Fields’ disclosure filing is referred to as “late” when it wasn’t.
I find it odd that a commenter finds it worth mentioning that Fields had $10,000 of contributions from outside the district, but doesn’t think it worth mentioning that Willingham also had that much (and more) in contributions from outside the district in his last filing.
Tough crowd…
Comment by Danny — January 29, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Not a tough crowd, just a argumentative one. Do find it odd though, that no one (yet) has taken the time to tout their candidate’s virtues.
Comment by waltm — January 29, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Hey Danny - the reason I didn’t say anything about Willingham is he apparently mailed his stuff in without any diversionary tactics - I was pointing out the primary reasons apparent from the forms for a late filing from Fields, who was the one who had someone (Party official? Union rep?)come in just before closing with his forms. I think that the “media buy” is not the motivating factor behind Fields’ report coming in at the last possible moment. Quite frankly, 24 hours earlier in this race would not have made any difference on that, and besides, he couod easily report his media buy on his NEXT disclosure - just like many candidates (such as Republican Jay Love, for instance) have done in the past to hide things. Of course, Love also hid $25,000 in Labor Union donations from the voters by using the disclosure just after the election - and Fields could be dooing that as well. It makes the “last minute” stuff of this week seem kind of unneccessary actually . . . .
Comment by Over $10,000 from outside — January 29, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Danny - just peeked at the disbursements on Fields form and he DID hide his media buys - he isn’t showing any expenditures since January on his forms - so the buys will be on the NEXT report. Also, his big AEA contributions (at least that he is reporting so far) are in the “in-kind” category along with a pretty hefty effort from the state Demo exec committee . . .
Comment by Over $10,000 from outside — January 29, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Wow… comment 19 is really eager to assume the worst about motives - on something done entirely properly.
In politics, we often assign the worst motives to our political opponents, and I’m just pointing out that we are on safer ground to talk about things we know, not things we speculate on.
And I’ll simply point out that Fields and Willingham both did what was asked of them, and that if the Secretary of State’s office had posted them promptly, you wouldn’t have thought twice about it.
You say his report was delivered in a way to hide what was on it, but Willingham’s report had the very things (to a greater degree) that you think Fields wants to hide. And again, if the SoS office had posted it promptly, there would have been no issue.
Comment #20 is interesting. Your point up to now has been that Fields’ report was delivered later than you would like because of what he was hiding on it. But now that’s not it at all… you are convinced that he’s hiding the expenditures made in January.
But there are expenditures made in January on the report.
I go back to my original point. I think many folks in politics assign bad motives to others’ actions when we don’t know enough. I can think of 5 good and entirely proper reasons why a candidate might wait until the deadline to turn in a report. I think casting about trying to spin it in a negative way is the nature of politics, but I think it’s more productive to talk about the things we know.
I was going to pass on responding to 19, but then combined with 20, it felt like a real effort to make something look negative when we really don’t have a known basis for saying that.
I think transparency is good, I’m all for it, and I’m happy to join you in promoting strong laws that promote transparency. PAC-to-PAC transfer ban, anyone?
:)
Will be real interesting to see how HD12 turns out!
Comment by Danny — January 29, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Amen, Danny! Why assume the worst?
Comment by polibabe — January 29, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
The law is the law. I know for a fact that both
parties use the existing rules/laws/procedures/
twisting of advertising for their own benfeit.
The thing that bothers me the most is the hypocrisy
on both sides. Having been an active member of many campaigns I have seen the facts distorted to suit
the negative aspect of campaign ads. Ex. I had a friend who answered a national questionare and he stated”that he was pro-life except in cases of rape
and incest”. His Republican opponent ran a tv ad that said “my friend supported abortions in certain cases”.
Of course the certain case was in very small print.
Ladies and gentlemen when you get to down it. There’s not a dimes worth of difference in the campaign tactics of both parties. As a conservative Republican one only has to look at the lack of fiscal constraints and the failure to address illegal aliens in the 12 years of the Republican contolled congress.
Comment by poljunkie — January 29, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
I’m going to have to disagree with your premise that both parties are guilty of resorting to negative campaign tactics. Democrats tend to try and fight fair and square for the most part. A lot of Democrats think that is the problem and wish Democrats would grow a spine. Democrats are protrayed as “Girlie Men” by Republicans. Someone said on this blog the other day that it was “laughable that Democrats we campaiging on moral values”, as if Republicans were the only ones with moral values. Now they are trying to say the Democratic District 12 candidate has something to hide or is doing something illegal regarding his campaign finance report. So what if Fields recieves campaign donations from AEA? Why make AEA the issue?
Actually Democrats aren’t pro abortion. Democrats are pro choice, there is a difference. If your friend had said he was pro a woman’s right to choose insted of trying to parse his words,his Republican opponent couldn’t have twisted his words to imply he was pro abortion.
Comment by Anonymous — January 29, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Anonymous in #24, for fun look up Claude Pepper’s first run in Florida, where he was trashed as a “flagrant heterosexual” and “fierce monogamist” in the democratic primary or whispering campaigns Wallace was famous for, or look back on last year’s democratic primaries in this state. Campaigns are blood sports and those involved need to remember that.
As an side, would recommend reading “The Paranoid Style in Alabama Politics” published in the Alabama Historical Society’s journal about five years ago. Should be findable at any large library.
Comment by walt moffett — January 29, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
#24 should have seen the “literature” sent out by the Barron campaign in the last election. Not only did he tell out right lies about his opponent, he even sent out pictures of the man with pig manure smeared on his face. He over laid the manure over the opponents picture. The nastiest one I saw had a cartoon of the opponent standing in the pig pen squirting manure/mud out of his hands. Mr. Barron’s fliers were some of the dirtiest I have ever seen.
Comment by Margaret — January 29, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
A question. How do you define the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion? It seems to me to be the same thing.
Comment by Margaret — January 29, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Pro choice means you are in favor of a woman having the final choice concerning her reproductive system. I don’t know anyone that is “pro abortion”. The difference is that it’s a womans right to choose if she wants to have an abortion or not.
Question: How can you be pro life and pro death penalty?
Comment by Anonymous — January 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
I’m not. I am not really in favor of the death penalty. But I still don’t see your difference, anonymous. You are either for a woman being able to choose abortion or not. If a person supports the right to choose abortion, then he is truly for abortions. Similarly, if a person says we have a right to own guns, he is said to be pro-gun. Don’t assume I am totally against the right to choose abortions (as I can’t really make up my mind what is best) but I think it is less than splitting hairs when you say pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
I thought of another nasty ad from the last election. The Democrat who ran against Arthur Orr actually accused him of causing a little girl to get cancer. The ad showed a little girl about 4 years old in her swimsuit and made a claim that some gas station Orr has a connection to gave her leukemia. I don’t think there was any basis for the claim. Both parties are guilty of running nasty and untrue attack ads and it is naive to think one party is not participating in this sort of behavior.
Comment by Margaret — January 29, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Margaret,
You said “If a person supports the right to choose arbortion, then he is truly for abortions”. First of all, “HE” can never choose have an abortion. If a person says they are in favor of the second amendment/ the right to own guns , it means they are pro gun rights. I think it’s splitting hairs to say that pro choice means pro abortion. No one can make anyone have an abortion that doesn’t want to have an abortion, just as no one can make anyone carry a gun that doesn’t want to carry one. It’s about a womans right to have total control over her reproductive system.
Comment by Anonymous — January 29, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
I chose the masculine because it is usually the proper gender to talk in when discussing no person in particular. I don’t quite follow your sentence about the second amendment issue though. So should we call people who want others to have the choice to carry guns pro-choice (as to guns) too? Although I am not totally certain what the government’s role should be in regulating abortions, I think the life of the fetus should have some bearing also. To tell the truth, I was stronger pro-choice until my first ultra-sound and seeing that child raised hard to answer questions about the right to kill an unborn child.
Comment by Margaret — January 29, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Most laughable comment by Mike Hubbard, maybe the worst GOP chair in history, regarding James Fields election (Fields and African-American who won in a 95 percent white district).”Tonight a Democrat seat stayed the status quo.” I don’t think Fields’ election can remotely be called status quo. Maybe Hubbard should have doled out some of those 3500 football tickets he gets free from Auburn. Hubbard doesn’t get it. His brand of hate politics is out of style.
Comment by John — January 30, 2008 @ 7:01 am
After having lived in this state for over 60 years and participated in politics for most of that time, I think the election of James Fields in Cullman Alabama is one of the most significant moments since George Wallace stood in the school house door. As the saying goes, “We’ve come a long way baby!
laddi
Comment by laddijones — January 30, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Margaret,
How do you “kill an unborn child”?
Comment by Anonymous — January 30, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Answer: abortion including partial birth abortion. Just because a child is in the womb doesn’t mean it’s not alive yet. Thousands of children who are born prematurely prove that life begins before 40 weeks of gestation.
Comment by Margaret — January 30, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Margaret I respect your right to believe that a child in the womb is alive, you must also respect the right of women to have a different belief. You can’t force your beliefs on others anymore than they can force their beliefs on you. Every woman should have the right to make her own choices. That is the difference between being pro choice and pro abortion.
Comment by Anonymous — January 30, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
I have stated above that I am not certain what the law should be when I said that I don’t necessarily know what the role of government should be. So I don’t think I am forcing anyone to do anything. However, the fact that a child is alive before 40 weeks gestation is not really under dispute. Have you ever seen a pre-natal ultra-sound? These babies move their arms and legs around, they take in nutrition, they excrete waste, they have times of being awake and being asleep, etc. The question is not whether they are alive. The question is whether the rights of privacy of the mother super-cede the rights of a child because he is still in her womb. BTW, the government forces all sorts of stuff on us and there are groups trying to force all sorts of new stuff on us. I think it is interesting that this issue gets such special wording as “choice.” Aren’t all the issues really about choice? The choice to bear arms, the choice to use drugs, the choice to have an abortion, etc.
Comment by Margaret — January 31, 2008 @ 7:50 am
I should have added that no one HAS to respect anyone else’s beliefs. If a person thinks capital punishment is murder, then he doesn’t have to pretend that the opposite view could be correct. Do you respect a Jihadist’s view that non-believers should be murdered? The same goes for a person who thinks abortion is murder. How can you expect a person who thinks an act is murder to say, “but I respect your view that murdering unborn, innocent, and helpless children is just fine.” Again, I don’t know what the answer is, but I think this issue is a lot more nuanced than you present it as an issue only of control over one’s reproductive system.
Comment by Margaret — January 31, 2008 @ 7:59 am