Alabamans vote to KEEP segregation.

[Tmy]

More like they voted to keep the language in their constitution. Silly red state.

(note: there was also a tie in about free public education. Who wants that?)

Alabama segregation amendment unchanged

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- A statewide recount showed that Alabama narrowly voted to keep language in the state constitution supporting segregation and poll taxes, according to unofficial totals released Friday.

Secretary of State Nancy Worley said voters defeated the amendment by just 1,850 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. The original vote count showed the amendment lost by the same margin, or 0.13 percent.

The amendment would have erased unenforced language from Alabama's constitution that required segregated schools and poll taxes, which were designed to keep blacks from voting.

But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools.

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Georgia's state motto: "Thank God For Alabama."

 

[TragicMonkey]

- Georgia's state motto: "Thank God For Alabama."

Alabama isn't that bad. My boss is from Alabama, and he's quite enlightened: "It's not that I hate the n*****rs, it's just that they act like they have all these rights and ◊◊◊◊."

 

[BPSCG]

Alabama isn't that bad. My boss is from Alabama, and he's quite enlightened: "It's not that I hate the n*****rs, it's just that they act like they have all these rights and ◊◊◊◊."

Sounds like moving north has made him soft...

It's really silly to leave that language in the state constitution; it's all null and void because segregated schools and poll taxes are against the U.S. Constitution, either explicitly (the latter) or by Supreme Court ruling (the former). It's like having "I'M STOOPID" tattooed on your forehead long after you've gotten your PhD. in biochemistry.

 

[aerocontrols]

The key language that turned the vote is the attempt to strike the clause saying that there is no right to an education. The fight here is whether to raise the education budget. The people of Alabama say 'no' and that language enables them to keep saying 'no' in the face of lawsuits.

What happens is that parents sue a local school district because the facilities aren't adequate, or whatever. The school district *wink, wink* 'fights' against the suit in court. The school district, of course, 'loses', and the judge decrees that next year the school district must spend $X more. Taxes, then, *must* be raised to pay for the new money appropriated to the schools by judicial fiat. It seems to me that the taxpayers ought to get a say in this process.

Perhaps you think that schools always need more money regardless of how much is already being spent, perhaps you think that not enough is being spent, and if increased budgets can't be achieved with legislation, then they should be achieved through the courts. In any case, most people prefer that the decision on how much a state spends on education stay with that state's legislature.

Those who opposed this bill are already moving to strike the segregation and poll-tax language from the state Constitution, while leaving in the 'no right to an education' language. That's what the governor originally wanted, and it would have passed overwhelmingly.

Maybe the 'no right to an education' language is objectionable to you, or you think it's secretly racist. (it would suprise me if it was not added originally for racist reasons)

MattJ

/been spending time at NASA Huntsville...

 

[Tmy]

Well now. We couldnt have Alabama lose its perch atop the "crappiest education systems in the country" list now can we!

 

[aerocontrols]

Well now. We couldnt have Alabama lose its perch atop the "crappiest education systems in the country" list now can we!

Is that where Alabama sits?

Is this your subtle way of hinting that you think that if the Alabama legislature won't pony up more dough, the courts ought to force them to?

 

[Hutch]

Well, as someone who resides in alabama, let me add a comment or two...

The 'fear factor' on taxes was raised by a coalition including Judge Roy Moore (he of 10 Commandments in the courthouse fame) and others, but most scholars said that was a load of hooey (in a scholary fashion, of course) and that removing that language would not permit anything different than what now exists (you have to figure whoever wrote the amendment talked to a lawyer or two).

But demagogues have always been popular in Bama (G. Wallace wasn't anywhere near the first) and Judge Moore managed to rally a substantial portion of LA (that's Lower Alabama for the uninitiated) because anything dealing with State Income or Property taxes, no matter how worthy or necessary, will meet an almost inevitable defeat--a legacy, I'm told, going back to the Civil War and Reconstruction.

And some of it is probably racist--to believe that all the folks who supported George Wallace in the 60's all had the same conversion ol'George did and raised there kids to be racially sensitive is not likely.

And for a state to say that "no child has a constitutional right to an education", well, that will make hi-tech and companies looking toward the future just thrilled to jump into business here, won't it?


Alabama Motto: TGFM--Thank God For Mississippi

PS--aero, PM me next time you come up to Huntsville. I think we'll disagree on most politics, but that won't prevent me from buying you a beer....

 

[aerocontrols]

PS--aero, PM me next time you come up to Huntsville. I think we'll disagree on most politics, but that won't prevent me from buying you a beer....

The current plan is for me to drive there tomorrow morning and stay until Friday evening. I'll send you a PM when I find out my room number at the hotel.

MattJ

 

[Tmy]

Is that where Alabama sits?

Is this your subtle way of hinting that you think that if the Alabama legislature won't pony up more dough, the courts ought to force them to?

On the same lines as Hutch, I think the taxes thing is a pretextual excuse for racism. THey do have public schools so they are open to the same suits as any state that does have a constitutional promis of education. ( I believe most do.)

Its not like the other education line states are at the mercy of teh schools and must give them whatever they want. Every year there are school prop overides that get voted down. You just cant go to court and force the state/city to give you money.

 

[Tmy]

Is that where Alabama sits?

Is this your subtle way of hinting that you think that if the Alabama legislature won't pony up more dough, the courts ought to force them to?

On the same lines as Hutch, I think the taxes thing is a pretextual excuse for racism. THey do have public schools so they are open to the same suits as any state that does have a constitutional promis of education. ( I believe most do.)

Its not like the other education line states are at the mercy of teh schools and must give them whatever they want. Every year there are school prop overides that get voted down. You just cant go to court and force the state/city to give you money.

 

[aerocontrols]

On the same lines as Hutch, I think the taxes thing is a pretextual excuse for racism. THey do have public schools so they are open to the same suits as any state that does have a constitutional promis of education. ( I believe most do.)

You may believe most do, but that does not make it so. You also may believe that the 'no right to education' language does not offer any protection from lawsuits, but that does not make it so, either.

Its not like the other education line states are at the mercy of teh schools and must give them whatever they want. Every year there are school prop overides that get voted down. You just cant go to court and force the state/city to give you money.

Can't? It's happened all over the country, in various forms.

Nevada:

Of course, O'Connell and Davis' new plan to circumvent the state budgeting process through judicial fiat was inspired by an outlandish recent decision from Nevada's Supreme Court, which high-handedly ruled that a constitutional duty to fund education had more legal weight than the constitutional requirement for a 2/3 vote in order to increase taxes. Never mind that the Nevada Supreme Court blithely diluted both the legislature's and voters' votes, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution - or that their action is a textbook definition of depriving Nevadans of their property without due process of law.

Ohio:

The legislature and Gov. Bob Taft last week continued a years-long trend of massive investments in both instruction ‘and school construction. Since 1991, state spend- ing on education has jumped more than 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. The $17.2 billion education budget Taft signed last Tuesday included not only increases planned earlier, but also $416 million in additional money from an income-tax reduction fund.

Two years ago, the state’s high court ruled Ohio’s school funding system unconstitutional. After some grumbling, state government responded with massive spending increases - as well as measures to improve fiscal and academic accountability. This year, Perry County Common Pleas Judge Linton Lewis evaluated those responses, and found the state’s effort inadequate; indeed, he even derided the idea of imposing accountability along with all of those dollars. Lewis’ decision disregarded ample evidence to the contrary, choosing to lift education above all other state concerns by judicial fiat.

New York City

New York City's budget is riddled with judicially created sacred cows. The largest one mandates the operation of special education--and the $2.7 billion-a-year special-ed budget dwarfs that of every other city department except police and social services.

In 1979, the Board of Education consented to a court order controlling special education. Now, 24-years, three mayors, and nine chancellors later, the special-ed budget is still protected by judicial fiat.

Court orders work magic at budget time. The mayor can cut the number of police on the beat because there are no court orders requiring a set number of patrolmen. But, thanks to court orders, he can't cut the number of special-ed personnel without the court's permission.

Yeah, I can't imagine why the voters of Alabama would worry about being placed in a similar predicament.

 

[aerocontrols]

And for a state to say that "no child has a constitutional right to an education", well, that will make hi-tech and companies looking toward the future just thrilled to jump into business here, won't it?

Hi-tech companies are like any others - they look for low taxes first.

 

[Tmy]

Yeah, I can't imagine why the voters of Alabama would worry about being placed in a similar predicament. [/B]

Well you cant have an uncostitutional funding scemes ect... Thats what most of those suits are about.

There are lots of state benes that are not written into the constitution. BUT if a state is giving something out they have to do so in afair way. You cant get around equal protection just cause you CHOOSE to have a certain program.


High Tech compaines look for low taxes first? Then how do you explain silicon valley?

 

[aerocontrols]

Well you cant have an uncostitutional funding scemes ect... Thats what most of those suits are about.

No one would argue that constitutionality of funding schemes is not the basis for those suits. The people of Alabama might argue that what the lawsuits are about is circumventing the will of the people and expanding the education budget.

There are lots of state benes that are not written into the constitution. BUT if a state is giving something out they have to do so in afair way. You cant get around equal protection just cause you CHOOSE to have a certain program.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust the judiciary more than the legislature. Does that description of New York City's judicially-mandated special education budget sound reasonable to you?

High Tech compaines look for low taxes first? Then how do you explain silicon valley?

I would explain silicon valley as being an exception to a general rule that is not always true, but more true than Hutch's implied "high-tech companies look for areas with good schools" rule. Of course, neither of us has any evidence that one plays more of a role than another, but it's always tax incentives that companies look for when deciding where to move jobs, right? Who ever heard of a company that demanded that a community spend $X million more on their schools in order to convince the company to move a facility there?

MattJ

 

[geni]

Sounds like moving north has made him soft...

It's really silly to leave that language in the state constitution; it's all null and void because segregated schools and poll taxes are against the U.S. Constitution, either explicitly (the latter) or by Supreme Court ruling (the former). It's like having "I'M STOOPID" tattooed on your forehead long after you've gotten your PhD. in biochemistry.

I don't know the uk has a load of non functional legistaion on it's books. It doesn't appear to cause much of a problem

 

[geni]

I would explain silicon valley as being an exception to a general rule that is not always true, but more true than Hutch's implied "high-tech companies look for areas with good schools" rule. Of course, neither of us has any evidence that one plays more of a role than another, but it's always tax incentives that companies look for when deciding where to move jobs, right? Who ever heard of a company that demanded that a community spend $X million more on their schools in order to convince the company to move a facility there?

There would be no point it would years for the people who had had more spent on education to come thorugh the system.

 

[Tmy]

I would explain silicon valley as being an exception to a general rule that is not always true, but more true than Hutch's implied "high-tech companies look for areas with good schools" rule. Of course, neither of us has any evidence that one plays more of a role than another, but it's always tax incentives that companies look for when deciding where to move jobs, right? Who ever heard of a company that demanded that a community spend $X million more on their schools in order to convince the company to move a facility there?

MattJ

High tech companies need and educated workforce. The property tax implications of a huge tech complex probably are a drop in the bucket compared to amount of money they bring in in big contractural work. Its not like the company has to pay the income tax levied on its workers.

Im sure youll find most of these compainies are located in high tax states. What good is locating your company in the hills of South dakota if you cant find enuff qualified engineers to work there.

 

[RussDill]

I would see this as someone wanting to increase funding for education by amending the constitution. And how can you make sure your measure passes? Remove the racist language at the same time. Anyone who disagrees with you is then a racist.

I hate ballot measures like this. If you want to fund education, fund education. If you want to remove racist language from the state constitutions, do that. If you want to fund freeways, do that, if you want to fund mass transit, do that, if you want to fund kids sports, do that, if you want to fund a new stadium, do that.

All these ballot measures with a pretty face that makes it easy to villify oppenents, "you don't support the children!" and easy to support campaign signs, "Expand the freeways"

 

[aerocontrols]

There would be no point it would years for the people who had had more spent on education to come thorugh the system.

I wonder how many high-tech companies are staffed by locals. My impression is that tech companies, like aerospace companies, tend to have a pretty highly mobile workforce.

It seems to me that the decision would be more of a recruiting issue. Come (to Alabama, in this case) and work for us because your salary stretches further. High tech companies don't hire high-school graduates for engineering and software development positions, they hire college graduates.

High tech companies need and educated workforce. The property tax implications of a huge tech complex probably are a drop in the bucket compared to amount of money they bring in in big contractural work. Its not like the company has to pay the income tax levied on its workers.

Yes, they really do. I'm leaving Georgia Tech pretty soon for industry. Do you think I'm not considering the tax implications of moving to California? Salaries have to be higher in California than here in Atlanta, for cost-of-living, including taxes. Does anyone believe that companies in zero-state-income-tax states don't use that issue to recruit? The same way they'll use "and we've got good schools" - I'm just claiming that one has a lesser effect.

Im sure youll find most of these compainies are located in high tax states. What good is locating your company in the hills of South dakota if you cant find enuff qualified engineers to work there.

Will I? It's not so obvious to me.