Committee turns in more petitions

Beth

According to the Supervisor of Elections Office, an opponent of this amendment has already asked if they can have the names of the signers of the petition so they can contact the signers and ask them to RESCIND their signature, just as John Thrasher's special interest PAC did at the state level against the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment. This of course is not allowed in our local Charter, but look for the next Charter Review Commission to look for similar ways to make it more difficult for citizens to do charter amendments.

I'll not bet my life because I was not there, but I don't think this request was quite as sinister as you make it sound.

I believe that the request was more on the line of, 'is it possible to have people rescind their signature?'. You are correct that this is not allowed under the charter. I'm a little surprised that we didn't automatically follow state policy when that passed.

I'm not against being able to rescind my signature if I sign a petition. Obviously the legislators thought it was a good idea. I see this as the same thing as a group trying to collect signatures.

I'm not wild about Thrasher and some of his ways either, but you make it sound like his is the only 'special interest' PAC out there. They are ALL special interests. That's what PACs are.

I can't see where this is going to make it harder for citizens to change the charter. If the best you can do is get just enough signatures I'm not sure that is a ringing endorsement for change.

Mike Heemer

It's all about the rules and how they play the game. Case in point:

Hometown Democracy did not make the ballot not because they didn't have enough signatures. It was because the rules of the game let them wait until the last minute to turn in signatures they collected.

The PAC who opposed the amendment was getting the names and sending misleading letters to those who signed the petition to get them to rescind their signature which is the rules of the game.

So the HTD folks wanted to wait until the last minute to turn them in to avoid that tactical maneuver which is rules of the game.

In the meantime the PAC that did not have enough signatures and knew it would not make the ballot. So they dumped a bunch in the Supervisor of Elections office to verify at the last minute and overload the office. This was a tactical maneuver which is rules of the game.

They could not verify all the signatures in time for the deadline so they stopped and neither made the ballot.

However it was the result the opposing PAC wanted anyway.

Simply because I think they knew if it make the ballot it would pass.

It had nothing to do with the amendment, or if it was a good amendment for the taxpayers, or if it would have been passed if it made the ballot.

Gaming!

Hey Pi,

Nice try but like Mike H said, there was nothing sinister in my phone call to the SOE. Even if there was, all's fair in love and politics. And like the old adage goes, "If you can't stand the heat, it's probably not a good thing to train as a chef."

There's that gander and goose adage too...(that's three colloquialisms in one blog - not very original. Sorry lilyslore).

Gaming? Of course it's gaming! Sometimes the one that blinks first loses. I think the HTD people miscalculated. Thrasher bluffed and they blinked.

I believe it would have been much better to have just turned in the signatures and let Thrasher give it his best shot. If he got 10% to change their mind he probably would have been lucky.

I think they played right to his strength and he knew how to play the game better than they did. He got just what he was paid to get and it did not cost nearly as much as it should have. Not a ringing endorsement, but I think a true statement.

Mike Heemer

The good thing about being able to take back your signature is it helps to keep people more honest.  If anything gets a little "misrepresented" it provides the voter an avenue for their own damage control.  I do wonder though how messed up things can get with signatures going in and out of the revolving verification door.  I also wonder those who rescinded on HDA, did those have to get verified as well?

To bad we don't have something like that attached to our State and Federal elected officials so we could boot them out rather then having to wait for elections. 

Marsha I think you have hit it right dead between the eyes. Wouldn't it be great if a year into their term we could say 'excuse me; I want a do-over. I've changed my mind and I'm pulling my vote for you'.

Won't happen but one can dream. As to the rescinded signatures, I don't believe they have to be 'verified' per se. Just that it will no longer be in the mix to be verified as a registered voter.

My understanding is that it is not a revolving door. You sign the petition and your signature has to be verified. You sign a rescission and your name is pulled whether or not it has ever been verified. Once you sign the rescission, you can't go back and say 'I changed my mind again; I really do want my name on list as having signed the petition'.

It's do-over, but not an over and over. I may be incorrect but that was the way I understood it.

Mike Heemer

There is one thing wrong with rescinding charter petition signatures---It's illegal. The Charter provides 3 ways to propose amendements--BCC, CRC, and citizens. Only the citizen method is being targeted, a method which requires thousands of signatures to be placed on the ballot, as opposed to a simple majority (3 of 5 BCC and 8 of 15 CRC) of the other two methods.

To answer Mike H's question: It will be extremely cumbersome to meet the required to allow the revoking of signatures because of the required deadlines. There is a finite amount of time in which to get signatures. If Thrasher's legacy holds true in Clay County, those revocations would be held until the last minute, making it impossible for the Supervisor of Elections Office to verify and certify signatures before the deadline.

As far as Clay County goes, remember that our Charter provides for the amendment process. To alter this process would require a charter amendment, which would have to be approved by voters. To equate this process with the legislature simply passing a law does not do justice to the involvement of thousands of citizens.

A member of the CTLAC recently told me that a lady, as she was signing their petition, mentioned that she had also signed the FHD petition, but that someone called her and told her that the developers and builders were supporting the FHD. She therefore, rescinded her signature based on a lie.

The balance of the scale should always weigh on the side of the citizens.

We do have a provision to recall our elected officials in the Charter.

If there is not a provision to verify signatures to rescind then we need to contact our elected officials and demand that be made part of the law they enacted.

Some groups could go get the names of the people who signed petitions and then rescind people's signatures for them. To leave it up to the voter to have to go and may sure you were not rescinded by someone else is not in the best interest of the citizens.

It seems to me that both would need to be verified in order for there to not be some type voter fraud or the potential for some shady activities.

I have seen some shady lobbyist in my time.

I was speaking hypothetically, I understand that the way things are at the moment signatures cannot be rescinded within the county.  I just don't have a problem with it in theory.  It worked against HDA but one never knows in the future it might serve a greater purpose in another situation.