Law’s ambiguities don’t excuse Phenix City’s electile dysfunction

Speaking as a disenfranchised voter in the Nov. 14 Phenix City special election, I was hoping for more action by my elected officials than a wink and a nod and a letter to those who voted illegally.

Granted, there is ambiguity in Alabama voting law on what constitutes a person’s “residence.” Based on Alabama’s current case law, business owners, under certain circumstances, can use their business address to vote because of their “vested interest” in that business.

But those circumstances clearly do not extend to office staff or the cleaning lady. Nor can it be legally applied to a vacant lot, an empty business address, someone else’s business address or living outside the county or even the state. This smacks of collusion and it’s clear Alabama voting law was violated by some or most.

I’ve heard, “I was told …” as a one justification. Any police officer will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse. Many of the alleged perpetrators are college educated and carry state certifications in their respective fields, not itinerant field hands susceptible to some fast-talking carpetbagger. The other excuse, “I’ve been doing it for 40 years,” is even more contemptible. It means the law was violated for 40 years.

Obviously, the Alabama Legislature needs to clearly define one’s domicile. They also need to drop this legalese malarkey that allows business owners to pick and choose where they vote. No one else in the state is afforded that luxury. And no one other than those who actually live in a particular district have a more “vested interest” in determining who represents them.

In the interim, those of us who live in District 2 are awaiting justice from our elected officials. We’re waiting and we will remember.

Critical issue

I appreciate McClatchy's effort build trust in journalism. ("Can you trust what you read?" by Anders Gyllenhaal.) Over the last decade, our society has fallen prey to special interests who manufacture propaganda and distribute it as a substitute for truth.

Helping Americans verify articles may be the single-most important issue facing our nation. It is imperative that we learn how to detect truth from lies in this hyper-segmented digital world. This teachable skill is more important for humanity than mitigating climate change, or even population control. We will never have the chance to deal with the challenges of the future if we as a society can't agree to trust common agents of reportage and to hold them accountable when they fail.

‘Victim’ wasn’t

I would appreciate responding to a writer criticizing my letter concerning one of Roy Moore's accusers, Jaime Nelson. I said I believed she was lying, but he insinuates I was attacking the victim.

In my 39 years in town, I have had conversations with about 10,000 people a year. Not all of them tell me the truth and, I have become adept at noting certain "tells" that an amateur liar exhibits when lying. One of them is a tendency to overplay their hand and exaggerate their feelings.

This lady, on TV, did exactly that, pretending to weep over an alleged assault 40 years prior.

Well, it now appears I was spot-on.

Read on zerohedge.com an article where her stepson, Darrell Nelson, says she is lying and is not trustworthy. You can also google "How Washington Post exposed effort to peddle phony allegations against Roy Moore."

This lady was not a victim, she was a fake victim, and some people believed her outright. Whatever happened to "innocent till proven guilty" in this country?

While some of what the writer says is valid, it did not apply to my point that whatever Roy Moore did or did not do, it did not involve Ms Nelson.

Public disservice

I do not know how this city is able to operate. Frequently bus drivers let passengers on and off between designated stops. The name plate is missing, which alone violates federal requirements. Never mind the fact I have not seen police write citations for parking on public sidewalks. When did they last write one for window film too dark, running traffic lights, speaker volume to loud, temporary disabled permit hanging from mirror?

If you think you receive a reply on a complaint, forget it. If it comes, do not be surprised if it is from someone not contacted, which is treated as spam. If you do desire a reply, do not criticize more than one time. Not one time per year, but one time, period. Does the person contacted not have moral responsibility to respond?

I cannot leave out how many times response has not been demonstrated from codes and inspection. On the issue of locked designated exits, can the city show a little more care then simply informing stores? Is there logic in not giving outright $800 citations?

Since many an employee this city does not seem to tolerate complaints, I suggest they quit. We have the right to complain I wonder if they are simply deleting messages without reading them. Then again, do they have a system set to automatically delete message from “undesirables”?

This story was originally published December 12, 2017 at 2:35 PM with the headline "Law’s ambiguities don’t excuse Phenix City’s electile dysfunction."