Parsing some key state, local votes

Much has been and will be written about a presidential election that sends Donald Trump to the White House. There’s more than time enough to get in on that discussion between now and January.

For now, let’s take a look at some of the state and local votes on which Tuesday’s results might have shed some revealing light, or perhaps raised some further questions.

The Georgia congressional and legislative races on area ballots appear to have been decided clearly, and pretty much as expected. Sen. Johnny Isakson and Rep. Sanford Bishop will be returning to Washington and state Sen. Josh McKoon to Atlanta; and former West Point Mayor Drew Ferguson IV easily won the House District 3 seat vacated by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

By far the most interesting local race is the one for sheriff, in which incumbent John Darr, running as an independent, is headed for a Dec. 6 runoff with Democratic challenger and former deputy Donna Tompkins. Unofficial results as of Wednesday morning showed Tompkins with a lead, though far short of a majority in the four-candidate race: Tompkins had polled approximately 44 percent of the vote to Darr’s 32 percent.

Then there is the issue — or rather, issues — of four proposed constitutional amendments on Georgia’s ballot. Two of them — targeting certain fees and fines to services for sexually exploited children, and earmarking fireworks taxes for public safety and trauma care — were easy voter calls.

The one that clearly got the most attention — roughly 60 percent of it negative, by voter verdict — was Amendment 1, the so-called “Opportunity School District” measure. This would have authorized a non-elected state agency to temporarily take over failing public schools. The proposal provided few if any details about what some yet-to-be-known executive entity’s plans for educational improvement might look like, or exactly where federal, state and local taxpayer money targeted for local school districts might go. Amendment One’s risk-reward ratio didn’t pass the political math test.

The other troublesome amendment, which did pass, was Amendment 3, which placed oversight of the state’s judges in the hands of the legislature. The potential for political manipulation of the judiciary is all too obvious, and how this plays out will demand close scrutiny.

Finally, there is the matter of “thawing” the Columbus property tax freeze — a proposal that, once again, was soundly repudiated by the voters. The freeze has now withstood repeated challenges both legal and political, and while we aren’t qualified to say how “close” the legal contests have been, the political outcomes haven’t really been close at all.

With due respect to all involved for their civic commitment, maybe it’s time to let another generation of homeowners and taxpayers decide whether to fight this battle again. Opponents of the freeze might or might not be on the “wrong side of history,” as the phrase goes, but they (we) are clearly on the wrong side of taxpayer conviction.

This story was originally published November 9, 2016 at 4:25 PM with the headline "Parsing some key state, local votes."