1-3-03, Political Footnotes
Politicizing the
Election Commission Investigation
By Stuart James
IPS Features
A coalition of African American leaders called for the
state elections director, Brook Thompson, to launch a full-scale investigation
into recent events surrounding the Hamilton County Election Commission.
The investigation, as requested, would cover (a) inaccurate information provided
to Joe Rowe and to Johnny Horne, (b) Fran Dzik’s testimony in Chancery Court
earlier this month that voter reconciliation reports from the May 7 local
primary are missing, and (c) the dismissal of Rita Jones, long-standing Election
Commission employee.
Unfortunately, the coalition, in calling for this
investigation, missed an opportunity to show true leadership. Instead of calling
for an objective, unbiased, fair investigation, the coalition called the current
investigation a smear campaign against Hamilton County Commissioner William
Cotton. Additionally, the coalition failed to ask for a complete investigation
that must include former election administrator Carolyn Jackson. In order to be
fair and unbiased, any investigation must be broad-based answering questions
that concern every voter in Hamilton County– the inability to have our vote
counted.
By leading off with a politically charged statement, the
coalition missed an opportunity to bring members of the African American
community together--calling for a fair and unbiased investigation. The press
conference surrounding the coalition’s effort appears to be an effort to draw
fire away from the investigation of Mr. Cotton. In all actuality, the
coalition’s efforts may further fuel the fires surrounding Mr. Cotton.
The coalition is led by Mr. Floyd Kilpatrick. As a
lawyer, Mr. Kilpatrick is trained to look at issues objectively. As a lawyer,
Mr. Kilpatrick should know that Mr. Cotton’s cell phone records show that Mr.
Cotton called an Election Commission employee, Rita Jones, more than 150 times
from April through October. Additionally, during a hearing on Miss Jones request
for reinstatement, Mr. Cotton’s testimony was refuted by three witnesses –
none of them who are motivated to lie. One, who is a political new comer, did
not know Mr. Cotton.
Faced with these facts, Mr. Kilpatrick should call for a
complete investigation into Mr. Cotton’s conduct and into voting
irregularities—even if the request means looking into Ms. Jackson’s tenure
as election administrator. Such a request, if truly fair and unbiased, will
place Mr. Kilpatrick in the position of being a credible leader for all voters.
Mr. Kilpatrick, however, missed that opportunity to lead.
Mr. Cotton, unfortunately, added “salt to the wound”
created by Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Cotton said “there is still no evidence I’ve
done anything wrong . . . I know nothing about documents or election
fraud.” The issue with Mr. Cotton’s statement that there is “still no
evidence I’ve done nothing wrong” ignores two important factual
questions—(a) the 150 phone calls to Miss Jones and (b) the testimony of three
election volunteers stating Mr. Cotton did distribute election information that
was found not authorized for public use.
These two factual questions create two very important
questions to be answered—(a) why did Mr. Cotton call Ms Jones over 150 times
from April through October and (b) why are volunteers stating Mr. Cotton
distributed election information when Mr. Cotton denies distributing the
information?
The evidence does suggest that Mr. Cotton may know more
than he wants to admit.
In any event, Mr. Cotton should state that he supports a
full, fair, and impartial investigation giving him the opportunity to tell the
truth. Mr. Cotton’s statement that he believes this is a smear campaign
undermines his credibility.
Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Cotton should follow the lead of
Mr. Joe Rowe. Mr. Rowe stated that he supported continued scrutiny of
Election Commission and “this might be our only opportunity to see true
democracy . . .”
Mr. Rowe is correct. Any investigation into Mr.
Cotton, or the Election Commission, is an opportunity to see true democracy in
action. It is an opportunity to find the truth and to protect our right to
vote.
As a society, we have the right to choose our political
leaders through the vote. The right to vote is our strongest form of free
speech. This investigation must preserve that right to vote. Most
important, it must preserve our right of free speech.
Mr. Kilpatrick must call for an investigation that
preserves the right to free speech, calling for those conducting the
investigation to abide by the laws of this State and this Nation. As a
lawyer, Mr. Kilpatrick should demand that justice remain blind preserving
everyone’s right to equal justice under the law, regardless of their race.
Mr. Kilpatrick, unfortunately, failed to do either.
Stuart F. James
-30-