1 comments.
State Dems agree: Perdue's plan is no good
Here's what they said, in part:
“This approach continues the Republican ‘top-down’ method of governing,” said Jane Kidd, Democratic Party of Georgia Chair. “The Republican plan hatched by Perdue, [Rep. Jerry] Keen and [Sen. Bill] Heath sounds more like a plot to limit democracy and ignore the Constitution.”
In past years, Georgia’s Republican leadership has purged voter rolls and introduced red tape into voter registration. “Republicans are now limiting the very positions that our citizens can vote upon. Georgians like their elected public servants to be autonomous and answerable to the people and not be one of the governor's best friends, cronies or political allies,” Kidd continued.
Senator Heath defended the policy by stating, “in the election process it’s not always the most qualified person who wins,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Governor Perdue rarely appoints people based upon being ‘most qualified,’” said Kidd.
“His proposal goes against every democratic principle that our great nation was founded upon,” she concluded. “I reject their argument entirely. It shows contempt for Georgia’s voters.”
It's good to see my old bosses taking this one on. Here's hoping the House Democratic Caucus will follow suit and kill this thing on the floor.
Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Thurbert Baker also had something to say, specifically:
“The Governor’s proposal to take away people’s right to vote for four constitutional offices is simply wrong. In a state where the right to vote was fought for and advanced, it is insulting to propose taking that right away from people, especially for critical policy making positions that affect so many lives. These offices exist to serve the people, not to be political trophies for the politicians who would like to control them.”
It should be noted that Baker's office isn't one of the ones under the axe, so I'm glad to see him jumping into the fray as well.
Photo credit here.
I already talked about it
Submitted by Johnathan McGinty on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 1:45pm.I already talked about it here, but this is a poor line of argument.
It's nonsensical to argue this is going to 'limit democracy' given that we don't live in a direct democracy ... or that, at the federal level, similar positions are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I understand there are rational arguments against appointing constitutional officers - the threat of cronyism, consolidation of power, etc. - but this limiting democracy thing just doesn't fly.
Not the line of arugment I'd use, but...
Submitted by Martin Matheny on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 7:31pm.It's not thoroughly invalid, either. A big part of democracy is, you know, the right to vote. You don't get a vote on your next Ag Commissioner... well, connect the dots.
Personally, I'm kind of uncomfortable making statements about whether something is more democratic or less democratic, when you're dealing in fairly close gradations (obviously America is more democratic than, say, Soviet Russia in the 1960s), but that's just me.
The big thing I'd say is that, well, there's the US Constitution and the Georgia Constitution, and the two are different in some ways. For example, the Georgia Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than the US Constitution, and that difference was a fairly large, yet not widely understood, issue in the Voter ID case. So, while DPG might have wanted to be more clear (or might not have picked up on the nicety at all), there may be a misunderstanding here.
I've been clear from the outset that, for a variety of reasons, comparing state government to federal government is convenient, and while they are similar in a lot of ways, there are also significant differences between the two structures.