Letters to the Editors

Party ties matter even when a race is non-partisan

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 12, 2000

Re: Election manipulation, editorial, Aug. 9.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion expressed in the editorial on the non-partisan School Board race in Pinellas County.

Sure, non-partisan means no political party as you state, but it should not mean that a candidate is muzzled from voicing his or her political party affiliation. "No political party" should mean that a candidate's party affiliation does not appear on the ballot, that a political party cannot endorse a candidate or otherwise promote a candidacy through campaign literature or financial contributions. That's where the line should be drawn.

You suggest that School Board elections are non-partisan because "there is nothing Democratic or Republican about classroom sizes, teacher contracts or student assignment plans." Again, I disagree. Knowing a candidate's political affiliation does provide clues as to how that person sees the role of government, and I believe most people would agree that Democrats and Republicans do look at education policy differently.

I don't have any problem with de-partisanizing School Board elections but not when it comes to preventing a candidate from telling me which party better expresses his or her view of government. You state: "The reason for non-partisan elections is to eliminate party affiliations." Non-partisan elections may eliminate party identification from the ballot, but they do not and should not pretend that a candidate magically loses his party ID once he's a candidate or that that affiliation doesn't matter. It does matter.
-- Rick Carson, St. Petersburg

Flaws are in the election process

Re: Election manipulation, editorial, Aug. 9.

The Times is wrong to slam a Republican candidate for Pinellas County supervisor of elections for her efforts to recruit a write-in candidate to the race. The Times wants all voters to vote in this race, and that's commendable if beyond hope in our current election process. I'll take issue with what the Times failed to fully consider in its editorial.

1. Given the circumstances, a write-in candidacy was inevitable. Anyone (even myself) for any reason, can declare a write-in candidacy. Revision 11, passed in November 1998, coupled with an interpretation by the Legislature, virtually invites a write-in candidacy when only one major party fields candidates. No law was broken. In fact, the Legislature allowed this to happen. The Times' wish to see all voters picking between these two Republicans could have just as easily been prevented by a write-in candidate (or minor party) with absolutely no connection to either of them.

2. The supervisor of elections race is a partisan race. Had the Constitution Revision Commission made elections supervisors non-partisan as it did for School Board members (also in Revision 11), the current mess could have been avoided. But the commission didn't, and now we have only two Republicans on the ballot. The real problem is not that all county voters will not be selecting between these two Republicans. It is that no other candidates are on the ballot.

A solution to the problem would be to make it more politically attractive to a wider range of candidates to run and for more parties to be competitive. To anyone who would complain that they do not get a vote in this particular race: Become a Republican, or much better, give us all a choice in the general election and run yourself.

3. The Legislature is deaf to political reform. The Times urges residents to write their legislators to reverse the write-in loophole they created. Fat chance. The Legislature is composed entirely of major party partisans. Even if they did reverse it, our politics is still sick from a lack of choice. A multi- party system with an instant runoff provision would accomplish what is lacking in this year's supervisor race: an actual choice.
-- Larry Allred, Largo

System has been soiled

Re: Candidate's push forces closed primary, Aug. 8.

It's kind of ironic that Pat Baker, a candidate for supervisor of elections, wants to keep half of Pinellas County from voting in her race. Baker is running for the only elected office that has the purpose of promoting the benefits of voting in fair elections. She represents everything that is unfair about the elections process by her unethical decisions.

I pity write-in candidate Clyde Walters Sr. for the cruelty Pat Baker has put him through for her political gain. Walters and all of the voters of Pinellas County deserve an apology from Pat Baker for soiling the sanctity of our greatest democratic institution. But the only way Baker could truly apologize to the voters is by dropping out of the race.
-- Jennifer Westfield, St. Petersburg

Circumventing the will of the voters

Re: Candidate's push forces closed primary.

Is it illegal? No. But in this case, the English language offers other words: onerous, arrogant, obnoxious, dirty, self-aggrandizing, putrid, corrupt, contemptible, devious, untrustworthy (and hundreds more).

As a staunch supporter and statewide activist of the Constitution Revision of 1998, which permits a fair and accountable representation of registered voters to have their voice heard and their vote count, I tremble at the insidious act allegedly (emphasis added), perpetrated by this political wanna-be who has had the audacity to attempt to circumvent the will of a supermajority of the voting citizens of this state.

I know exactly what this revision is supposed to mean, is supposed to do and is supposed to accomplish. I am an expert on this issue because I worked within organizations that supported it, because I took the issue around the state educating the public and explaining the necessity of it, because I worked with Dexter Douglass and the members of the Constitution Revision Commission to introduce and implement this amendment. So I must state with perfect clarity to Pat Baker: You, madam, are the very reason why there is a need for constitutional changes such as Revision 11 to protect our democratic process.

And I openly state that any Republicans who can still support this candidate, and would vote for her in September, should be expelled from their own party.

This type action is the very reason why I, after 34 years as a solid Republican voter and activist, changed my registration to Independent, as did millions of others. Right here in Pinellas County, while the Republicans and Democrats have mired themselves and have been losing party registrants, the Independent numbers have grown to more than 100,000 during the past decade. Pat Baker's actions exemplify the reasons why.
-- Ernest Wm. Bach, executive director, Florida Action Coalition Team, Largo

A GOP shady deal

Re: Candidate's push forces closed primary.

On the national level, the GOP is pulling out all the stops in order to control the Supreme Court nominations.

In Pinellas County, 340,000 voters will be unable to vote for the supervisor of elections.

And the people involved in this shady deal were probably the first to call the president a sleazeball.
-- Paul S. Bridges, Clearwater

Merit retention gives voters a say

I was fascinated to read on your Web site Howard Troxler's column, Will voters or insiders build a better bench?

Troxler failed to mention that the voting public is now largely disfranchised from judicial elections. The vast majority of judges simply don't have opposition, and therefore the public is precluded from voting in most judicial elections.

Merit selection and retention will provide voters the opportunity to vote on every judge and not just those few who have opposition. In November, the public will have the opportunity to choose whether to expand their right to vote or to continue with the status quo. Judges should be held accountable for their knowledge of the law and the wisdom of their decisions. Merit selection and retention will provide the means to do so, while assuring that only qualified applicants reach the bench.
-- Scott J. Silverman, Circuit Court judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami

Just say no to hip-hop show

Re: Hip-hop trio delivers smokin' show, Aug. 4.

I was grieved to read the description of the Up In Smoke Tour show at the Ice Palace featuring Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg and Eminem. I lived through my own rebellious youth and have grown up and now work with high-risk youth. I'm glad none of them had enough money to attend the concert. Efforts to keep kids off drugs and help them reject rebellious attitudes can seem a waste of time and energy when rebellious "drug pushers" disguised as entertainers are welcomed into the city and are supported by people like Shaquille O'Neal who "emerged from their marijuana cloud to ride across the stage" during the show.

Proverbs 14:9 says that "Fools make a mock at sin . . . " but I wonder about the foolishness of the ones who booked this show in the first place. Don't they know and love any young people who could be harmed by attending such a show? Don't they love their city enough to want to bring in entertainers who encourage young people to do right instead of making doing wrong seem like great fun and a way to make millions of dollars? I'm convinced that rebellious attitudes picked up in the concert will be taken to the streets. Do the promoters want that?

I'm thankful your story was on the same page as the blurb about Robert Downey Jr.'s time in prison for drug charges. Maybe some kid who looked at the article on the concert will notice there are negative consequences to drug use.

I pray that these entertainers grow up and use their talents to make a positive change in our society. I pray also for the behind-the-scenes people who promote such acts. Maybe they're pot-smoking, Ectasy-taking, finger-flipping people themselves. At any rate with tickets selling for $60, I imagine the Ice Palace made a lot of money. But at what price to our young people?
-- Elaine Creasman, Largo

Connecticut's not all crabby

Re: Connecticut, the Find-Me State, Aug. 9.

I must protest your article about Joe Lieberman's home state of Connecticut (no one knows where it is and everyone there tends to be "crabby").

I was raised in the lovely and friendly town of Ridgefield, Conn., and the only crabby person I ever met there was Miss O'Hearn, my first-grade teacher.
-- Elaine Coffin, South Pasadena

No surprise in FAMU's attitude

Re: FAMU ranking baffles Tampa, Aug. 8.

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what is so baffling to Tampa officials that Tampa was ranked so low in desirable locations for Florida A&M University's new law school.

If memory serves me correctly, it was Tampa's business administrators who closed down at least one shopping mall during the Florida Classic football game between FAMU and Bethune-Cookman College for some idiotic and, ostensibly, race-related reason. Perhaps it is the undesirable and racially biased ambience of Tampa's business communities that sets FAMU's administrators on edge.

I've always understood that what goes around comes around. Touche, FAMU!
-- Julie A. Heath, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.