Lobbyist Boyd Pettit apparently recently advised the Bartow County School Board to appropriate $17,000 to begin to fund a suit on behalf of Lamar Grizzle, a School Board Member whose daughter is the Principal of Pine Log Elementary School, in Bartow County.

This is on the heels of HB 251, in which the Legislature asserts a rule against nepotism in School Board Elections.

According to Article VIII. Section V. Paragraph I, of the Georgia Constitution, all elections are held as provided by law, and since the General Assembly is the lawmaking body in the state, they would assume such a right.  Further, Article IX, Section II, Paragraph I (c) specifically states that the General Assembly has the right to take “Action affecting the composition, form, procedure for election or appointment, compensation, and expenses and allowances in the nature of compensation of the county governing authority.”

The suit states, among other things, that in order to be elected in Bartow County, Grizzle MUST be able to run as a Republican, a position which I cannot find the General Assembly attempting to assert anywhere, but it does open up the door for the suit:

The suit names everyone from the Secretary of State down to the local GOP- with one exception- the County Board of Elections.

Pettit, coincidentally, lists the Bartow County Board of Elections among his clients.

Watch his presentation to the School board here:

You Tube: Pettit Testimony 1/19/10

Here’s the first page of  the 73-page injunction, naming Grizzle as the Plantiff:

Bartow County has specific procedures for purchasing, requiring, in the case of big ticket items like this, three formal bids to be requested and approved through the purchasing department.

When asked about the bid process, a  Bartow Purchasing Manager told Aaron Coalson of Lobbyists for Life and Liberty that there were no bids, and that he assumed that the Superintendent had “handled it.”  The Manager went on to say he also assumed that they would use the regular attorney for the schools, Boyd Pettit.

Pettit’s name is found nowhere on this complaint.

The illegal alien is not taking tax money from the citizens of the State of Georgia.
The federal government is. And rather than fix the problems in their own bureaucracy and do their job, they would mandate the sovereign state of Georgia and her sisters force its citizens- the very ones who are paying for all of this- prove that they are who they say they are!

Our citizens work hard, and in working have been forced, under threat of imprisonment, to fund unconstitutional entitlements from public schools to medicaid.

We should be angry!  But not that someone would act like a free man and use these available resources, rather that we have been made slaves to a state who would now force us to prove our worth in order to continue to participate in the forced removal of our very property.

Should employers, who are already having a hard enough time maintaining their stated business purpose, be also made unpaid law enforcement agents in these difficult financial times?
How about shopkeepers? Should patrons be required to present your papers in order to purchase a gallon of milk?

Will the State of Georgia simply hand over her sovereignty to the Federal Government?

We should be upset. We have a right to be so upset. But not so much at the alien as our own civil government. Rather we should cut this problem off at the root- not the Rio Grande, but Washington DC.

Honorable Brian Kemp:

Due to a conversation I had yesterday with your legal counsel, Vincent Russo, I took it upon myself to do a little bit of research on Mr. Russo.

Mr. Kemp, according to the Georgia State Ethics Commission Website, Mr. Russo has made significant contributions to Gubernatorial Candidate Karen Handel, his former superior. Specifically:

December 16, 2009: $1000 contribution paid to Karen Handel for Governor, Inc.
June 25, 2009: $1000 contribution paid to Karen Handel for Governor, Inc.

Additionally, Mr. Russo has demonstrated that he is actively involved in supporting Ms. Handel for Governor by putting his name on a Host Committee for a fundraiser last Fall (not that there’s anything wrong about that per se), which may also indicate something more than just financial support:

“Young Professional Kick-Off Event a Huge Success

Last week we kicked-off the Young Professionals for Karen with an event in Atlanta. It was a huge success with almost 200 young professionals attending and showing their support for Karen.

We want to send a special thanks to the host committee for putting together such a strong event, and to all those who attended and joined Karen’s “Bring it On” campaign.

The hosts for the event were: Charlene Marino, Sarah Hawkins, Brian Stimson, Andrew Allman, Daniel Allman, Charlie Ozburn, Hunter Hill, Vincent Russo, Bo Keatley, Clay Cheshire, David Gordon, Andre Egros, Ginger DuBose, Rob Fortson, Steve Rickman, Danielle Simms, Jennifer Tommasello, Amy Salloum, Steve Butler, Jason Lunsford, Tray Guepet, Mike Kerfeld, Chris Wagner, Baoky Vu, Emily Culbertson, Craig Cancienne, Glenn Harvin, Amy Shultz, Lesley Newell and Chad Wingate.”

Source: http://republicancandidates.blogspot.com/2009/09/handel-for-governor-e-update.html

Mr. Kemp, I do not know what your office policy is, or if there is any state law regarding an employee being prohibited from contributing money to a political office, or actively participating in support of a candidate.

Whether there is or is not such a law is irrelevant, as I believe Mr. Russo, in any advice or counsel he gives you, will be giving you advice designed more to cover the actions of the former SOS (i.e., Karen Handel, and the person who originally hired him), than look out for your best interests.

I am also concerned with the possibility that he has been leaking information to the Karen Handel campaign about my (and anyone else’s) Open Records Requests sent to the SOS over the past few weeks.

In short, you may not have a general counsel in your employ who is truly looking out for your best interest. Please consider this a friendly notice whereby my only intention is to help protect your future endeavors as Georgia’s SOS.

Kindest regards,

BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT EVENTS

September 2008-October 2008 timeframe: Preparation for election commences with the checking-out process of the voting machines. Laura Gallegos (pronounced guy-AY-gos) and Gina Lofton (two Lowndes County BOE employees) placed each machine in pre-test mode and performed logic and accuracy testing (“L & A” tests) on the machines used for the general election as Gallegos had performed as trained for eight years. During the testing, Gallegos discovered that “Machine 17” would not print correctly. She believed that machine had a problem and marked the machine as needing repair to send to Kennesaw for repair as instructed by her supervisor, Lowndes County Elections Superintendent Deb Cox. Cox instructs Gallegos to mark the test card containing 947 test votes as a “bad card” and to place the card in a locked room. Gallegos applied a sticky note to the card and marked the note as the card being “bad” and not to be used, and placed the card in the locked room. Gallegos also notified Asst. Supervisor of Elections Susan Malkam about the card.

After she and Lofton performed all required testing, Gallegos proceeded to fill-out the L&A paperwork for the certification of the machine tests. At some time during this process of filling it out, she was called away from her desk, and she left the paperwork on her desk. That partially filled-out paperwork was removed without her knowledge and not seen again. (Note: this information on the election machine testing was derived from Laura Gallegos’s complaint filed with the SEB last December 8, 2009)

November 4, 2008 (Election Night): Gallegos was assigned to Precinct #21 at the First Christian Church. Supervisor Cox had sent only four machines to the precinct when the precinct had about ten thousand voters registered at that location. Poll lines were backed-up and people were being sent away to other locations by the poll workers. Gallegos remained at the precinct for the remainder of the day until after closing and tabulation was complete for that precinct.

At the Elections headquarters, someone performed the vote accumulation by uploading all memory cards into the machine. The Lowndes County Board of Elections later certified the results and uploaded the results to the Secretary of State.

Approximately two weeks after November 4, 2008: The county election office is notified by the Secretary of State’s office that there is a discrepancy between the number of votes received, and the number of actual voters who picked-up a ballot: The SOS claimed there were 947 extra votes that were included in the upload that could not be accounted for to match voters. Laura Gallegos worked on researching the issue and discovered that the card that had the 947 test votes on it (the one that was supposed to have remained in the locked room) were included in the actual election results during a re-accumulation. She reported it to Deb Cox.

Asst. Superintendent Susan Malkam asked Gallegos to complete the L&A paperwork regarding the machine testing (recall that the paperwork had been removed from her desk before Gallegos could finish it). Gallegos did as instructed, initialing the paperwork on behalf of both technicians who had performed the original testing.

Later, Malkam asked Gallegos to resign because of the problem with the test votes and Gallegos refused. Deb Cox requested the board to terminate Laura over objections from board member Cheryl Oliver. The board never questioned Gallegos about her actions and voted 2-1 to terminate her over the objections of Cheryl Oliver.

Deb Cox wrote a letter to the SOS-IG’s office stating that Gallegos may have “willfully interjected the bad card into the results, forged the initials of another worker, and maliciously purged a file to cover it up her failure to perform the L&A testing properly.” Cox also claims in this letter that Gallegos never told her about the bad card associated with “Machine #17″ as discovered back during the testing phase, pre-election time.

An investigator with the state elections division (Steve McBrayer) was assigned the case by either Shawn LaGrua or Chris Harvey. McBrayer proceeded to investigate the allegations and a report was written that laid all charges and the responsibility for the 947 extra votes against Laura Gallegos.

On June 2, 2009, a case was laid-out by Chris Harvey against Laura Gallegos. The SEB voted to bind the case over to the AG’s office for a probable cause hearing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rumors have it that in at least one circumstance (and, possibly, many others), former Secretary of State Karen Handel violated her oath of office by asserting authority she did not possess, and allowing Secretary of State Inspector General Shawn LaGrua free reign to initiate an investigation of a complaint of an election night irregularity without the Secretary of State’s office being given specific authorization from the State Elections Board (“SEB”) to do so, as is required by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(5).

PV’s Intro: Okay…our crack team of PV interns and legal researchers have done extensive research on this, and it looks like this rumor is a fact.

A warning to the reader: This story contains matters of state law, and not a whole lot of “political intrigue.” We will attempt to not put you to sleep (or ourselves).

BACKGROUND

Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia (“OCGA”) is referred to as the “Elections Code” which spells-out the law on all aspects of how elections are to be conducted in Georgia.

Title 21 also spells-out how the State Election Board is formed (i.e., how appointments are made for people to serve on the SEB), as well as the specific duties assigned to the SEB.

A crucial, relevant point to our story is OCGA 21-2-31(5), which states the following:

“It shall be the duty of the State Election Board to investigate, or authorize the Secretary of State to investigate [emphasis added], when necessary or advisable the administration of primary and election laws and frauds and irregularities in primaries and elections and to report violations of the primary and election laws either to the Attorney General or the appropriate district attorney who shall be responsible for further investigation and prosecution. Nothing in this paragraph shall be so construed as to require any complaining party to request an investigation by the board before such party might proceed to seek any other remedy available to that party under this chapter or any other provision of law;”

Note that it states that it “shall be the duty of the State Election Board to investigate, or authorize the Secretary of State to investigate”…essentially, any decisions to investigate any allegations of voter fraud or other types of election fraud (or “irregularities”) are made solely by the State Election Board.

A different section of Title 21, OCGA 21-2-50, defines the duties of the Secretary of State for elections. That contains a whole bunch of stuff, but it never spells-out anything regarding the SOS being allowed to initiate any kind of investigation on its own with regards to an election complaint.

One section of 21-2-50 that (ahem) has been claimed by the Office of the SOS in the past to be used by the SOS to “presume” he/she has the “right” to initiate an investigation on their own is 21-2-50(a)(8):

“(a)(8) The Secretary of State shall exercise all the powers granted to the Secretary of State by this chapter and shall perform all the duties imposed by this chapter, which shall include…such other duties as may be prescribed by law;”

Trouble is, there is no law “prescribed” anywhere in OCGA that grants the right to the Secretary of State of deciding whether an investigation is to be initiated.

Enough background…time for the heart of the matter…

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, after spending my morning watching the Georgia House of Representatives conduct absolutely ZERO business on the floor, I sat in on a House Judicial Non-Civil Committee’s afternoon meeting.   Its a good thing the full committee was unable to attend, as there are 21 members and the capacity of the room is a mere 32.  Those who did bother to show up were present to hear 3 bills:

H. B. 219 – Antifreeze; include aversive agent to render it unpalatable; provisions (Benton), H. B. 859 – Probationer duties; tolling of probated sentences; clarify provisions (Setzler), and H. B. 392 – Plea discussions; guilty or nolo contendere; certain requirements; provisions (Levitas)

The Committee began with the feel-good Antfreeze bill, HB 219.

According to the advocates, somewhere in the order of 30 states already have provisions requiring the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze.  There are only 2 manufacturers of this product in the entire US, the west coast manufacturer is already adding the agent to meet the market needs, and the East Coast manufacturer, from whence Georgia gets our antifreeze, is not.

My best understanding is that the east coast plant would like to add this agent, but needed a State Mandate (forcing the market to buy) and Full Protection (from any criminal and civil penalties) should any problems someday arise from this change.

This all, despite the assertions that it would mean only a $.03 per gallon increase, and that the product was completely safe.

Although there were many questions and concerns  from Committee members Franklin and Byrd (the only dissenting votes), noone bothered to ask why this bill was in a criminal law committee instead of  the Agriculture and Consumer Affairs or Industrial Relations committees…

—-

Secondly, Setzler’s bill, which would stop the clock on a probationer should he or she fail to appear before their probation officer.

Setzler sits on this committee.

Pretty cut and dry, and fitting neatly on 2 pages!  It passed through committee without a single dissent and very few questions.

—-

Lastly, HB 392, by Kevin Levitas.

This bill gives the state prosecutor the ability to back out of a plea deal if the Judge modifies the agreement.  Someone asked how frequently a Judge has modified a sentence down, which would be the only foreseeable reason for such an issue.  Levitas said he had, but noone else raised their hands.

There was much discussion among the many advocates for this bill that these provisions would “level the playing field” for the poor, disadvantaged state.

The State, who cannot be sued, who exercises the ability to take its citizens life, liberty, and property; needs to be able to back out of a plea deal and force a trial.

Sandy Michaels, of the GA Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was the lone voice of the People.   She said that the State should always defer to the rights of the citizens.  She tried, but really saw the writing on the wall. Her testimony fell flat on the room to all but Ed Setzler, Bobby Franklin, and Stacy Abrams.

Everyone seemed to agree that this bill will raise the tendency of prosecutors to “over” charge and expect to bargain down, and Setzler really did ask questions of the witness, seeking unintended consequences, while Abrams did manage to get some technical language changed to allow some protection to a defendant.   A small protection, before the bill passed, with only 2 dissenting votes: Abrams and Franklin.

Levitas, like Setzler, sits on this committee.

Franklin said after the meeting “It is interesting that all the people speaking for the bill were [civil] government employees, and the people speaking against it were representing the people; and “the People’s” representatives sided with the State!”

Setzler offered that he had hoped for a more compelling argument from the people.  He seemed to be sad that he, somehow, had to vote in favor of this bill.

Rumors have it that questions are beginning to surface regarding just how the Elections Division’s Office of the Inspector General was established under former Secretary of State Karen Handel’s administration, and whether aspects of it were legally operating under Georgia state statute.

PV Background: Prior to Handel’s administration, there was no “Office of the Inspector General” in the Secretary of State’s Elections Division. This was created, apparently, on the fly by Karen Handel when she took office in early 2007.

One other important thing to remember here: In 2003, when Governor Sonny Perdue took office, he established, by Executive Order, an office designated as the State Inspector General’s office. This office was created under the auspice of investigating allegations of government fraud and corruption within government agencies and departments. The “Office of Inspector General within the Secretary of State” is not connected in any way to the State IG’s office.

From here on out, to reduce confusion, PV will designate the IG’s office with the SoS to be “SOS-IG” and the State Inspector General’s office to be “SIG.”

PV has consulted with several Georgia attorneys who (on condition of anonymity) seem to believe that the SOS-OIG office itself may have been legally created…however one particular aspect of its operation may not be.
Read the rest of this entry »

Contact: Garland Favorito (404) 664-4044
garlandf@msn.com
http://www.voterga.org

January 18, 2009

ATLANTA, GA – All matters asserted against former Lowndes County elections technician, Laura Gallegos, were dismissed last Thursday during an administrative hearing. The State Election Board (SEB) had accused her of improper testing which led to the inclusion of 947 test votes in the 2008 Lowndes County election results. The case was investigated by the office of Shawn LaGrua, the Inspector General who reported to SEB chairwoman and former Secretary of State, Karen Handel.

The dubious facts of Mrs. Gallegos’ case have attracted statewide attention that helped her garner assistance from civic organizations including the Georgia Voting Rights Coalition, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Defenders of Democracy, Operation Restoration, Madison Forum, and VoterGA. VoterGA assisted Mrs. Gallegos’ attorney, Converse Bright of Valdosta, Ga, in preparing the defense and offered expert witness testimony on her behalf.

Testifying for the Georgia State Elections Board (“SEB”), Mr. James Long, a voting machine engineer hired from the Federal Elections Assistance Commission to support Georgia’s state elections, provided technical background for the case that was prosecuted by Deputy Attorney General Ann Brumbaugh.

However, during cross examination, he concurred with points made by Mr. Bright in his opening argument, including that:

* The voting machines will accept test votes while accumulating actual election night results;

*None of the testing that Mrs. Gallegos allegedly skipped had anything to do with the inclusion of the 947 test votes into the live results on election night 2008;

*The 947 test votes were included when an unidentified election official loaded a memory card during vote accumulation and ignored a warning indicating the card had test votes;

*There was no evidence that Mrs. Gallegos, who was not even present during the accumulation, committed any violation on election night;

* The machine malfunction that Mrs. Gallegos discovered during testing caused it not to clear the test votes from that card;

* It was not the responsibility Mrs. Gallegos for matching the poll book totals to the recap of votes cast to detect potential discrepancies on election night 2008, but the sole responsibility of the county elections superintendent;

Judge John Gatto dismissed the case after confirming another opening argument made by Mr. Bright. He determined from testimony by supervisor, Deb Cox that she had not properly sworn in Mrs. Gallegos as a voting machine custodian.
Read the rest of this entry »

J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 998 (01/08/10)

In the United States Senate, 2010 will be the year of change. Constitutionally, it cannot be too large since only one-third of the United States Senate is elected in any single election year. This year, actually thirty-six states, including Georgia, will elect their U. S. Senator in November. Thirty-four Senators make up the one-third up for election in 2010. Two Senators are appointees who face an election to fill an unexpired term of a Senator.

(Interestingly, there have been several recent appointments to the Senate. Three appointments resulted from the Presidential election with replacements for Senators Barack Obama in Illinois, Joe Biden in Delaware and Hillary Clinton in New York. One resulted from the death of Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, and one resulted from the resignation of Senator Mel Martinez in Florida.)

Currently, Democrats hold a commanding sixty vote majority in the Senate with fifty-eight Democrats and two independents (Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who caucus with the Senate Democrats. Under the Senate rules, the sixty vote threshold is enormous.

With sixty votes, Senate Democrats can control the calendar, pass legislation, and most importantly, end debate on legislation. This last issue can not be overstated. Without sixty votes, the minority can stymie the will of the majority with a filibuster. In that way, the sixtieth vote is actually as valuable as the fifty-first vote in the Senate when viewed in the context of actually getting things done.

Hence, even a one vote change in the balance of the Senate is a big deal. Because there are a couple of moderate Senate Republicans (Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine) who are prone to vote with Democrats on some issues, a three vote change would meaningfully change the balance of power in the Senate. A five vote
margin would of course be a huge change.

It happens. Just look at what happened over the last two election cycles. Heading into the 2006 elections, Republicans held a fifty-five to forty-five margin in the United States Senate. By the time the elections were over in November 2006, Democrats held a fifty-one to forty-nine margin. Just two years later, the Democrats (with independents) increased their margin from fifty-one to sixty in November 2008. In just four years, there was a fifteen vote swing from Republicans to Democrats.

As odd as it sounds given that Senators have a six year term, and only one third are up for reelection in any one cycle, things can actually change very quickly in the United States Senate. One thing that helps speed the change can be retirements. Winning a vacant Senate seat is much easier than beating an incumbent (although the elections in 2006 and 2008 prove that incumbents can be beaten in big swing elections.)

Of course, retirements can be a harbinger of things to come as incumbents decide that seeking reelection is not worth the effort. But not always.

In 2010, the actual numbers at risk appear, on their face, even. For example, eighteen of the thirty-six Senators up for election in 2006 are Democrats and eighteen are Republicans. There are ten retirements: five Democrats and five Republicans. Similarly, there are eighteen states in the country that appear safe: nine Democrats and nine Republicans (including Georgia – Senator Johnny Isakson).

The number of toss-ups range from eight to twelve seats. The remaining six to ten seats are at risk. The numbers for each (toss-ups and at risk) are about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

With these numbers, an actual change in control from Democrats to Republicans is possible although unlikely. (Since Vice President Joe Biden would cast the deciding vote in the event of a 50/50 tie, Republicans have to actually gain eleven to retake control.) Yet, in the context of the fifteen (15) vote two cycle swing in the last four years, anxieties for both parties are high.

The situational dynamics have added to these anxieties. The President’s political party typical loses seats in the midterm election. In addition, the President’s bold but unpopular agenda which includes the Stimulus packages, Cap and Trade legislation, and healthcare reform have led to plummeting approval ratings for the President and the Congress. The rising deficit, struggling economy, lingering Afghan and Iraqi wars and looming tax increases all combine to create a largely unhappy
electorate.

Yet, even some Republican incumbents appear to be struggling as an anti-incumbent (as opposed to anti-Democrat) sentiment emerges around the country. Amidst these numbers and dynamics, it appears that 2010 could be anybody’s game. The only thing for certain, with ten retirements and a handful of incumbent losses, is that the faces of the United States Senate will definitely change.

“I can remember driving three or four miles and having no idea what I had just done because of texting.” – Alan Peake

I can see him now, thumbing away at his crackberry:  ”Ohhhh hey guys!! I just had the BEST idea ever! Lets make a law on penalizing citiiizens when they txt n’ drive! lol!”

After he was observed last year “flying by a constituent, texting away and not paying any attention to what [he] was doing”, Alan Peake (R 137) got a much deserved reprimand from a constituent.

As a penance, Rep Peake has introduced a 111-line Act adding more confusion to our already HUGE uniform driving code.  HB 938 has over 50 co-signers, and with the packed “room” at Tuesday’s press conference, it appears that public sentiment will rule the Law in this case, and every GA driver will pay the price for his transgression.

He was joined by the Senior VP of AAA South, Rep Amos Amerson (R 9), and Rep Mary Margaret Oliver (D 83).

Here’s what they had to say, on the record, in front of the room full of reporters:

Although Peake’s bill does not exempt police officers, Amerson’s version does.

Peake weighed in on this exemption, stating it would be added to his, and that police officers receive special training in order to safely operate a vehicle while using a mobile device;  however, in his own press release, he cites a Royal Automobile Club Foundation study which found that text messaging reduced steering control by 91%.  Amerson, whose bill does include the exemption, cited the Obama administration’s new policy against mobile devices for ALL federal agents, on and off the job.

Although I do not believe that FBI and Secret Service vehicles  have actually been stripped of their on-board computers, it was cited at least 3 times in his speech…

Blackwell offered, “There is no instance where taking your hands off the wheel, where taking your mind and eyes off the road, is safe. The sooner this becomes a law, the better.”

We all know that Blackwell doesn’t make the laws, men like Peake and Amerson do, and although I’m sure AAA should be consistent in their position and lobbying against the police exemption, I doubt they will.

If 91% loss of control is unacceptable, what standard is applied to our enforcement officers, who not only use on-board computers, but often use them at an extremely high rate of speed?

If it is possible to train drivers to operate a vehicle safely while texting, why not provide special licensing to any driver who wishes to go through this training? Since the State will soon be in the business of licensing driving schools, this could be a real fundraiser in a hard economy.

In addition to citing Barack Obama, Amerson, whose bill “ups” the fine from Peake’s $50 to a whopping $300, also noted Oprah Windfrey’s recent show on texting while driving.  He even closed his statements by quoting the TV Diva: “Don’t tempt fate,” he said “the text can wait!”

Despite such statements from Amerson, and Peake’s citing a study which showed that “97% of people agreed that text messaging while driving should be illegal.” everyone supporting this bill was quick to point out that this was about public safety, not public sentiment.

Rep Oliver stepped up to offer her one and only reason for supporting this legislation: her 16-year-old granddaughter isn’t allowed to, so noone else should be either. When asked what other of her family government issues she would like to see the State adopt, she said “alot of them” but would not get more specific than that.

She went on to tell a reporter that the child’s parents track her text bill against when she’s driving to be sure that she complies with their rule.

This does raise the question of how this bill would be enforced: If a driver appears to be texting, or reading a text, how would the officer meet the burden of proof? Intercepting that message? Confiscation of the device? If they are looking at a time stamp, how would they go about proving that the driver was reading a text message, as it could be stored on my phone from an earlier time?

I have an iPhone. I use the iPod feature on it… just like any mp3 player, or car stereo. It just happens to be on my mobile device (BTW, an iPhone and an iPod Touch look exactly alike).

AAA says “hands free calling” is no safer for drivers, so one would assume this bill would be expanded to cover talk to text, a new feature on said iPhone. So, if the officer observes a driver talking, does that represent probable cause?

There are a host of other issues with this bill: All licensed drivers in the State of Georgia should know that if they cause an accident, they face certain consequences- up and to vehicular manslaughter, all of which has been used very effectively against drivers who have been shown to have had a reckless disregard for public safety.  Police officers and motorist alike know that if an officer observes you driving “recklessly”, he can detain you on the spot, certainly, since that is the officer’s discretion, agencies and officers can already, “in the interest of public safety” make texting stops fit the criteria without any new laws.

So, is this new penalty redundant?  Is it anything more than a tax?

In one section of this bill, under exemptions, there is provision for the driver to operate a mobile device from a vehicle “while the motor vehicle is lawfully parked”.  Will the State provide parking spaces along our interstates, so that drivers can comply with this bill?

That some assume that just because they were issued a drivers license by the state and know how to operate a FCC regulated instrument on a state maintained highway inside a vehicle that meets or exceeds NTSB regulations does NOT mean we should be employed in enlisting armed gunmen to harass those foolish drivers into a modicum of wisdom.  In our cash strapped economy, our government should be shrinking, not adding new $50 or $300 fines for NOT HURTING ANYONE (yet). Certainly texting while driving is dangerous behavior, just like driving while fiddling with the radio, eating, talking on the phone or to the kids in the back seat, but do we really want to go down this road?

Personal teleporters are a LONG way off, but they may be the only way to move about freely under such legislation and it’s ultimate end.

The mere “potential” to do harm should never be a reason for a new civil government restriction.

Stuart Rothenberg nails it:

“If you are looking for an analogy for a Republican victory in Massachusetts, the best one for Democrats may well be the stock market crash of 1929. Come Tuesday night, you could have Democrats jumping out windows and off roofs …”

Statement from Rep. Jim Cole Concerning the Secretary of State’s Position

“Governor Perdue has been a great friend and mentor for years now, and I have the utmost respect for him. While it was a great honor to be considered for the position of Secretary of State, after much prayer and reflection with my wife and family, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my name from consideration.

For the last six months, my wife Gaylyn and I have been planning to transition out of public service. Over the last several months, I have been exploring many different opportunities at Mercer University that would afford me more time with my young children and at the same time provide exciting career opportunities. We had planned to announce after the legislative session that I would not seek re-election in order to take one of these opportunities at Mercer.

The vacancy of the Secretary of State’s office and the Governor’s consideration of me for this position has been an unexpected whirlwind. At first, it seemed like the opportunity of a lifetime. Yet, as the emotions of the moment settled down over the weekend, Gaylyn and I thought through this issue carefully and knew that it would be best for our family to continue with our original plan.

This has not been an easy decision. I am profoundly grateful to the Governor for his confidence in me and the opportunities he has given me.

Serving middle Georgia in the House has been a tremendous honor. The future will hold many things, and I hope to return to public life when my most important priority – my children – are well on their way to success in life.

Jim Cole

Rep. Jim Cole
Administrative Floor Leader
Georgia House of Representatives
P.O. Box 787
Forsyth, GA 31029

—————————————————————————————-
Governor Appoints Brian Kemp Secretary of State

ATLANTA – Governor Sonny Perdue today announced that he is appointing former State Senator Brian Kemp as Secretary of State. Kemp, who served in the state senate from 2002 to 2006, is a current candidate for Secretary of State. He will serve out the remainder of the current term through the end of 2010. He will also continue his campaign this year and run for the full four-year term which begins in 2011.

“I have known Brian for several years, and he has shown a strong dedication and commitment to public service,” said Governor Perdue. “His leadership abilities and integrity will be a great asset to Georgia and the Secretary of State’s office.”

“I greatly appreciate the Governor’s confidence and am honored to serve the people of Georgia in this vital office,” Kemp said. “I will continue the honorable tradition of leadership demonstrated by Karen Handel, Cathy Cox, Lewis Massey , and others before them. I am eager to get started and deliver for the people of Georgia .”

Former Secretary of State Karen Handel stepped down last week to focus full time on her gubernatorial bid.

Kemp is a small business owner, specializing in real estate investments and property management, and serves on the board of St. Mary’s Hospital in Athens . In the state senate, Kemp served as Chair of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, Vice-chair of the Higher Education Committee, Secretary of the Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee, and on the Appropriations Committee.

Kemp is married to the former Marty Argo. They have three daughters and live in Athens where they are active members of the Emmanuel Episcopal Church. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia.