Request to Declare the Recall Petition against T. Dianne Bellamy Small insufficient.
May. 28, 2007
Request to Declare the Recall Petition against T. Dianne Bellamy Small insufficient.
May 8, 2007
Based on a thorough review of City Ordinance Article 2 Sec. 2.7l (c) (2), Sec. 2.73.(1) (d), (g) and the petitions submitted to the City Clerk for the purpose of recalling Council member T. Dianne Bellamy Small, we are formally requesting that the City Clerk certify the petition insufficient.
Sec. 2.7l (c) (2) Voters seeking the recall of any member of the council shall proceed by way of a recall petition addressed to the council identifying the council member concerned, requesting his/her removal from office and stating the grounds alleged for his/her removal. With respect to any council member elected at large, any recall petition must be filed with the city clerk and must be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least 25% of the qualified voters of the city who voted at the last preceding election of city council members. With respect to any city council member elected from a district, any recall petition must be filed with the city clerk and must be signed by qualified voters of that council member's district equal in number to at least 25% of the qualified voters of such district who voted at the last preceding election for its city council member.
Sec. 2.73. (d) (1) Any petition shall be certified or determined insufficient which: (1) is validly signed by less than the required number of qualified voters of the city,
Sec. 2.73 (g) Upon receipt of a petition that complies with the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, the clerk shall examine the petition to determine whether, on its face, it is insufficient under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of subsection (d).
The bases of our request are as follows:
We found that there were 861 signatures submitted on the recall petition. The Board of Election has stated that they only certified 778 signers are registered voters in District 1. Of that number, only 166 signatures meet the definition of “qualified voters” of the District 1Municipal General Election November 8, 2005 which is less than the required 25% of the 3010 voters in the November 8, 2005 District 1 race because of this, we are requesting that the City Clerk declare the recall petition insufficient because it doesn't meet the requirements of Sec. 2.71 (c) (2).
There are also questions about some of the signatures of the original signers on the petition. There are a number of instances where it appears that 2 signatures may have been signed by one individual. There is also concern about one of the petitioners, James Haywood, who may not have been registered until March of 2006.
If this election is ordered, it will cost the City of Greensboro approximately $30,000 based on the cost of similar special elections; in addition to a Municipal General election to be held in Oct and Nov. of 2007.
If this election is ordered, it will cost the City of Greensboro approximately $30,000 based on the cost of similar special elections; in addition to a Municipal General election to be held in Oct and Nov. of 2007.
This request was denied on by City Atty. Linda Miles on May 8, 2007.
Their interpretation of Sec. 2.7l (c) (2) [the bold and underline section above] is that the use of the 25% of “qualified voters” was to determine the number of signatures need for the petition. The “qualified voters” who sign the petition can be any registered voter in the district regardless of whether they participated in the “last preceding election for its city council member” or were a registered voter at the time. The Guilford County Board of Elections certified that 778 of the signers of the petition were qualified registered voters of District 1 only and George Gilbert, Supervisor of the Board of Elections, agreed with the city’s interpretation. Their further explanation was that this is the way they have always done it.
Their interpretation of Sec. 2.7l (c) (2) [the bold and underline section above] is that the use of the 25% of “qualified voters” was to determine the number of signatures need for the petition. The “qualified voters” who sign the petition can be any registered voter in the district regardless of whether they participated in the “last preceding election for its city council member” or were a registered voter at the time. The Guilford County Board of Elections certified that 778 of the signers of the petition were qualified registered voters of District 1 only and George Gilbert, Supervisor of the Board of Elections, agreed with the city’s interpretation. Their further explanation was that this is the way they have always done it.
On May 9, 2007, Juanita Cooper, City Clerk, certified the petition to be sufficient. It will now go to the City Council on May 15, 2007 to “…fix a date for holding a recall election..” It must be held not later than 120 days from the date the petition is certified sufficient. Sec. 2.76(c)(d).
The Greensboro City Council set the date for the Recall Election for August 21, 2007 on May 15, 2007. The City of Greensboro must request Pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act Section 5. The Justice Dept. has up to 60 days to respond.
So what does this mean?
It means approximately 612 signers of this recall petition did not participate in the election process in November, 2005. The way this ordinance is written any one can avoid participating in the election process and call for any city council seat to be recalled after an election for any reason they want. This disenfranchises the entire voting process of all the people, who vote in a duly held election. This is not about denying a constitutional right, it is the principle.
Of further concern, is that the leader of the petition committee and most of the members are white and over 65% of the petition signers were white. The person who called for the District 1 representative to resign is white. District 1 is 66% African American and is under the supervision of the U.S. Justice Department’s Voting Rights Division to ensure minority representation on the City Council. The District system is only 25 years old, but it has allowed a diverse make up of the city council like it had never seen before. A majority should have the ultimate voice of who should represent a district.
Of further concern, is that the leader of the petition committee and most of the members are white and over 65% of the petition signers were white. The person who called for the District 1 representative to resign is white. District 1 is 66% African American and is under the supervision of the U.S. Justice Department’s Voting Rights Division to ensure minority representation on the City Council. The District system is only 25 years old, but it has allowed a diverse make up of the city council like it had never seen before. A majority should have the ultimate voice of who should represent a district.
The current District 1 representative has made every attempt to serve ALL of the constituents in her district. This process is divisive and should not be allowed to proceed if the voices and the rights of the true voters of District 1 are to be respected and adhered to. Please register to vote, be an informed voter and let your voice be heard.
Comments:
Billy The Blogging Poet
I'm glad to see you're finally able to tell your side of the story. Welcome to the Blogosphere.
Please check the facts with the correct source - Guilford County Board of Elections. Thank you.