Last month the Judicial Nominating Commission started accepting name submissions to fill the vacancy on the DeKalb County Superior Court (formally the Stone Mountain Circuit) caused by Judge Hancock’s resignation. Anyone can submit a name, and apparently, somebody submitted the name of Michael L. Rothenberg, and there is only one person by that name who is a member of the Georgia Bar.

If Rothenberg’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he has a long history with PeachPundit that includes trying to run for an office for which he was not qualified, dropping out of that race, then running again in 2010 and making the runoff before being sued in federal court and by the Securities and Exchange Commission for alleged fraud.

In 2008, Rothenberg ran for Superior Court and Erick questioned his eligibility.

After initially arguing that he was indeed eligible, Rothenberg later ended that campaign. Erick congratulated him on making the right decision and wrote, “I hope in 2010 he will run.”

Rothenberg did indeed run in 2010, and made the runoff against Courtney Johnson, who won the election. Between the general election and the runoff, Rothenberg was accused of running a ponzi scheme in a federal lawsuit seeking the return of $1.35 million “invested” with Rothenberg.

Rothenberg called the lawsuit “nothing more than a political hit job on me.”

He said the lawsuit’s allegations were “absolutely outrageous, slanderous and completely untrue, completely untrue.”

On November 18, 2010 the Daily Report ran a story that Rothenberg implied that his campaign was supported by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis and State Senator Jason Carter. All three of those elected officials denied having endorsed Rothenberg.

On November 29th, the AJC reported that State Representative Mike Jacobs withdrew his personal endorsement of Rothenberg based on concerns over the private lawsuit. That article also reported that DeKalb County Commissioner Elaine Boyer (R-Smokerise) denied having endorsed Rothenberg, despite her picture appearing on Rothenberg’s mailings under the heading “Endorsed By”.

Liz Carter, the Republican Candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, had the day earlier emailed  a number of DeKalb Republicans stating that she had not approved the printed endorsement that Rothenberg attributed to her and was asking people not to vote for Rothenberg in the runoff.

Both DeKalb Libertarians stood by their endorsement of Rothenberg.

After losing to now-Judge Johnson, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Rothenberg, alleging that his “investment” scheme violated the ’33 and ’34 Acts.

[As an aside, let this stand as a lesson to the political opportunists and scalawags who seek to destroy America by robbing Georgians of our God-given right to vote in runoff elections. Absent the runoff election, this might not have all come out and Rothenberg might have been elected. And it would have been your fault when a Superior Court Judge was indicted for fraud.]

According to the SEC complaint and press release:

The Commission’s complaint alleges that between at least February 2010 and March 2010, Rothenberg, through Four Five, used misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to induce investors to participate in a secret and allegedly risk-free trading platform or trading facility. This trading platform or trading facility purportedly involved transactions among international banks that would generate substantial return on a recurring basis. Specifically, Rothenberg represented that the trading platform would produce returns in excess of 300% every fourteen days. Rothenberg and Four Five also represented to investors, both orally and in writing, that the majority of their funds would remain at all times in Rothenberg’s attorney trust account, and that all funds invested, along with the profits, would be returned to the investors at the conclusion of the trades. [Emphasis added]

As a result of a settlement of the SEC charges, Rothenberg’s right to appear or practice before the agency has been suspended. His website also is suspended.

As part of the settlement, the SEC found that:

contrary to Rothenberg’s representations that investor funds would remain in his attorney trust account, Rothenberg began disbursing investor funds within days of receipt of those funds. Between March 2010 and October 2010, at least $210,000 in investor funds were transferred to a bank account designated for contributions to Rothenberg’s judicial election campaign. Rothenberg used another $190,000 of investor funds for personal expenses. Although Rothenberg ultimately returned approximately $910,000 to investors, he misappropriated at least $800,000 of investor funds. [Emphasis added.]

And according to the SEC’s press release:

Defendants were also ordered to pay disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty in amounts to be resolved upon motion of the Commission at a later date, and directed that for purposes of that motion, the allegations of the Commission’s Complaint shall be deemed true. Defendants consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission’s Complaint.

Rep. Edward Lindsey, an attorney, is regarded as one of the smartest guys in the House. He’s released an e-Newsletter this weekend covering the legal talking points on the House redistricting map that passed this week.  I don’t normally copy/paste things to PeachPundit, but this is essential reading for those who want more than a 30,000-foot aerial view of redistricting.

By Representative Edward Lindsey, Georgia House Majority Whip:

1.     Does the Redistricting Plan for the Georgia House of Representatives (HB 1EX) violate the Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA)? No

“The redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House on August 18, 2011, was created in accordance with guidelines issued by President Obama’s Justice Department and creates 49 African American “majority-minority” districts, which are the same number that exist at the present time. This will keep us in full compliance with the VRA. In addition, we will have for the first time a Hispanic Majority Minority district.

By contrast, the alternative proposal presented to the House Reapportionment Committee by the Democratic Party through its caucus leadership on August 16, 2011 only maintained 43 African American “majority-minority” districts according to the testimony of the House Minority Leader.  If true, their plan is likely retrogressive and in violation of Section 5 of the VRA. Furthermore, the alternative plan created by the Democratic Party has four districts with African American populations that are 80+%. This would also likely be considered unlawful packing under the VRA.

What legal rationale has the Democratic Party tried to use to justify its proposal and attack the plan passed by the Georgia House? It argues that the state of Georgia should move away from protecting “majority minority” districts and instead create more “cross-over districts” in order to comply with the VRA.

A “cross-over district” is a somewhat nebulous term defined as a district in which minority voters make up less than a majority of the voting-age population, but the minority population is potentially large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from majority voters who cross over to support the minority’s preferred candidate. How you prove this has occurred, however, is not clear and that is why such districts have been rejected as a legitimate barometer under the VRA both statutorily and in court decisions.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision Ashcroft v. Georgia (2003), Justice O’Connor allowed using such districts in analyzing compliance under section 5 of the VRA, but did not mandate their consideration in drawing new districts. However, in the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, the U.S. Congress amended Section 5 in order to legislatively overrule Ashcroft in regards to permitting consideration of cross-over districts. The legislative history contains the following statement from the House Judiciary Committee: “the committee makes clear that Congress explicitly rejects all that logically follows from Justice O’Connor’s statement; [that “cross-over districts” can be utilized in determining compliance under Section 5 of the VRA].

The Supreme Court returned to the issue of “cross-over districts” in the case of Bartlett v. Strickland (2009). This time the court looked at whether it could consider such districts when considering possible violations under Section 2 of the VRA. Justice Kennedy in Bartlett decided against expanding consideration under the act to include such districts. He reasoned that to do so “would require courts to make complex political predictions and tie them to race-based assumptions.”

Given the clear law to the contrary, why would the Democratic Party nevertheless argue for use of “cross –over districts” under the VRA? Simply put, it is desperate to cling to any rationale in order to protect the seats of its incumbents in areas that have lost population in the past ten years.

Of the 20 smallest districts in Georgia, measured by population, 19 of them are presently held by members of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, of the 10 largest districts in Georgia, measured by population, all of them are held by members of the Republican Party. This will naturally lead to a migration of districts to the areas of growth in Georgia –which is away from the Democratic Party’s historical geographic strongholds.

2. Does the redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House  (HB 1EX) unduly pair existing Democratic House Representatives? No

All total, 10 Democratic Representatives inside the perimeter (I-285) of metro Atlanta and two in rural east Georgia have been paired and will have to run against each other in Democratic primaries next summer. The reason is simple. According to the census numbers gathered in 2010, 8 of the 10 smallest State House districts by population were Democratic seats inside the I-285 perimeter in Metro Atlanta. Many more Democratic seats in this urban area were also in the bottom twenty five in population. In addition, Democratic districts in east Georgia also lost significant numbers of residents.

Under the guiding principle of one person, one vote, if an area loses population it loses seats. This is not partisan. This is not personal. This is simple math. In fact, the same thing is happening under the passed redistricting plan in rural South Georgia where 8 Republican legislators are being paired because of a loss of population in their area.

In contrast to the redistricting plan passed by the House, it is interesting to look at the alternative redistricting proposal submitted by the Democratic Party at the House Reapportionment Committee on August 16, 2011. By gerrymandering and slicing up suburban Republican areas, it found a way to protect its members and instead pair 16 Republicans and only one Democrat. The Republicans paired were Chairman Joe Wilkinson, Chairman Sharon Cooper, Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones, Chairman Mark Hamilton, Chairman Mike Jacobs, Chairman Ben Harbin, Rep. Barbara Sims, Rep. Jason Shaw, Governor’s Floor Leader Rep. Amy Carter, Chairman Penny Houston, Rep. Darlene Taylor, Chairman Jay Powell, Rep. Delvis Dutton, Chairman Greg Morris, Rep. Bob Hanner, and Rep. Mike Cheokes. Only Democrat Elena Parent faced a pairing.

It should be of little surprise that the Democratic Party took this path in 2011. It similarly paired 37 Republicans and only 9 Democrats in its redistricting plan in 2001.

3. Does the redistricting  plan passed by the Georgia House (HB 1EX) have unduly odd shapes and destroy communities of interest? No

Nevertheless, a mathematical analysis of the passed plan and Democratic alternative proposal was done using a well established formula called the “Polsby-Popper Test” The analysis is intended to determine the overall compactness of all drawn districts in a state’s redistricting map. The resulting measurements were virtually identical for each map, with the district map passed by the Georgia House being slightly better but only by a .001 margin.

Furthermore, with regards to splitting counties, the passed redistricting plan splits fifteen fewer counties than the Democratic Party’s alternative proposal and five fewer than the map drawn by the Federal Court for Georgia in 2004.

The AJC reports today on a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Michael Rothenberg, who ran unsuccessfully for DeKalb Superior Court in 2010.

The SEC complaint appears to originate with the same transaction that birthed a federal lawsuit against Rothenberg just before the December 2011 runoff election.

The SEC alleges that Rothenberg transferred $169,o00 of money from defrauded investors to his campaign account. In November, the Fulton Daily Report noted Rothenberg denying having transferred the funds in questions to his campaign.

But long before the November general election, there were other warning signs.

In 2008, Michael Rothenberg announced his candidacy for another seat on the DeKalb Superior Court. Erick Erickson, writing on Peach Pundit challenged Rothenberg’s eligibility. Rothenberg and his Campaign Manager/attorney responded in the comments with their version of his qualifications.

Two days later, Erick published a lengthy analysis and concluded that Rothenberg did not meet the statutory requirements to hold the office of Superior Court Judge at that time. This would not be the last time Rothenberg had no comment.

Rothenberg ultimately withdrew from that race over his qualifications. Erick wished him the best and said “[we] hope to see him run in two years.” Erick’s wish was fulfilled.

On November 18, 2010 the Daily Report ran a story that Rothenberg implied that his campaign was supported by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis and State Senator Jason Carter. All three of those elected officials denied having endorsed Rothenberg.

On November 29th, the AJC reported that State Representative Mike Jacobs withdrew his personal endorsement of Rothenberg based on concerns over the private lawsuit. That article also reported that DeKalb County Commissioner Elaine Boyer (R-Smokerise) denied having endorsed Rothenberg, despite her picture appearing on Rothenberg’s mailings under the heading “Endorsed By”.

Liz Carter, the Republican Candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, had the day earlier emailed  a number of DeKalb Republicans stating that she had not approved the printed endorsement that Rothenberg attributed to her and was asking people not to vote for Rothenberg in the runoff.

Both DeKalb Libertarians stood by their endorsement of Rothenberg.

After Courtney Johnson won the runoff election with 61% it wasn’t clear how much of her victory could be attributed to the last news cycles of the election.

But precinct-level returns shed some light.

Mike Jacobs’s district comprises eleven precincts in North DeKalb. During early runoff voting, Rothenberg ran the table here, carrying 66% of the vote and all but two of the eleven precincts. On election day, voters gave Courtney Johnson 56% of the vote, a twenty-three point gain over the weekend, and she carried nine of eleven precincts.

Courtney Johnson won the rest of the county handily, approaching 90% in a number of precincts. But it is instructive to view the sea-change in voter sentiment in reaction to a news story about candidate ethics.

Disclaimers: I was a consultant to Mike Jacobs during this drama. On November 1, 2010, I recevied a payment for robocalls from Michael Rothenberg’s campaign. That expenditure appears never to have been disclosed.

I’m not a lawyer, so a celebrity bear** is going to explain* former gubernatorial candidate Ray McBerry‘s lawsuit against Linda Pittman, Jeff Sexton and Thomas Knighton. Mrs. Pittman is the woman who accused McBerry of having an improper relationship with her 16-year-old daughter, Sexton and Knighton operate a blog called SWGA Politics. According to the AJC the suit charges that “Mrs. Pittman “stated falsely, with actual malice, that [McBerry] had committed the crime of child molestation” on a Facebook page.”

MH: Mr. McBeary, how can that be?

McBeary: I’m glad you asked! Libel is a legal term grown ups use when somebody calls somebody else a a really bad thing and that really bad thing isn’t true. But they can’t just say it, they have to write it  and publish it. If it’s not true, and it hurts somebody, and they write it in a book or a newspaper or on the Internet, then it’s called libel. There’s a special kind of libel called libel per se, which means that the thing that was said was SOOOO bad you know somebody got hurt, and that somebody can collect damages from the somebody who wrote it.

MH: Can the somebody who wrote the bad thing just write “sorry” and take it back?

McBeary:  No. The person who wrote the bad thing can say that they were telling truth, which is an “absolute defense” against libel, like a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Or they can say they were offering their opinion, or commenting on a “matter of public interest.” But truth is the best defense.

MH: So if the guy running for governor really was kissing and hugging and holding hands with Mrs. Pittman’s 16-year-old daughter, that would be child molestation and she and the blogger guys would be off the hook, right?

McBeary: No, dummy! In Georgia, the age of consent is 16. So all those things he did with that young woman were legal. McBerry can’t have committed child molestation with her, because she was

MH: What about if he was famous, like a public figure? Isn’t that a defense?

McBeary: Dude, he got 2.5% of the vote in a Republican primary! That ain’t famous.

MH: He carried Schley County.

McBeary: Do they have any Chuck E. Cheese’s there?

MH: I don’t think so. Look, are you telling me that McBerry might actually win a lawsuit against this woman and these bloggers?

McBeary: He might.

MH: What kind of sick, manipulative, vindictive, emotional bully would want to put an entire family through the whole mess again?

McBeary: Sounds like my kind of guy.

*There is no legal advice contained anywhere here. If you have legal questions, you should consult an attorney, not a blog.
**Not a real celebrity bear either.

That is the figure from WSB:

Because there were only two statewide runoff races and those were for appellate court judges, the state of Georgia predicted only about five percent of registered voters would go to the polls.

Poll workers around Metro Atlanta said that’s just about what they got.

“Turnout has been very low,” said Winston precinct poll manager Tina Martin. “But it’s basically what we expected.”

Lousy weather also played a part in the low voter turnout.

Things were a little better at Austell’s Trinity United Methodist Church where poll workers reported 50 voters by 4 p.m.

“Not as good as we wanted but more than we expected,” poll manager Stacey Waters told Elliot.

While she appreciated the 50 voters, she said it was a far cry from the 1,200 people who voted during the general election.

“We’ve been taking frequent snack breaks,” she said. “We’ve just been trying to pass the time the best we can.”

Some experts have estimated that because of the low turnout and high costs of setting up precincts, Georgia will have spent about $15 per vote in the runoff.

Secretary of State Brian Kemp and his commission on electoral reform need to take up the costs associated with conducting elections, and all options, including Instant Runoff Voting (even if it’s just for local elections), need to be on the table.

Are here.

As I type, 65% of the Statewide results are in. Nahmias and McFadden both lead 2-1.

This is an open thread, but first I’d like to offer the following suggestions:

1. Instant runoff voting using some sort of ranking system.  Make voting more fun!.

2. Random ballot order, especially in primaries and non-partisan races.  I don’t see why we couldn’t program the machines to do it on a per voter basis, but at the very least I know some other states do rotate who is on top by precinct or country or at least draw for the privilege.

3. An “I have no opinion” option.  In too many races, voters have no idea who the people they are voting for are.  Why not nudge them in the direction of just saying I have no opinion.  In my opinion, it’s better than a “none of the above” which implies a negative opinion about the candidates, but it also prevents someone named Michael Clinton or Billy Reagan who happens to be a total crook from winning an election that no one knows anything about.

Now…your ideas, predictions, dreams?

It’s Runoff Day. I voted at 8:50 AM and was voter #8 at my precinct in Lawrenceville. The poll workers had a contest amongst themselves to see if any voter with last names beginning in something other than a,b or c will show up. None have thus far.

Predictions I’ve heard say turnout will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% which would mean about 300,000 people voting statewide. Tell me again why we have runoffs?

What are you folks seeing out there?

As you know, each county has it’s own front page poster except for Hall.   That’s  just how we roll around here, and I’m the Cobb County guy, when I’m not the Fayette County guy.  Or the Fulton County guy.   Or,…

Anyway, I voted early last week as I’m out of town this week.   Voted for Nahmias for Supreme Court, and McFadden for Court of Appeals.   I’ll have to admit that there was one race I skipped on the general ballot as I didn’t know anything about the candidates, and didn’t start asking in time to get an informed answer.

The Cobb Young Republicans were able to direct me to the campaign manager for Jason Fincher for State Court Judge.   I’ve since learned he’s a lifelong Cobb resident, Kennesaw State graduate, has about a decade of experience with the Cobb County solicitor’s office, and has been endorsed by Sheriff Neil Warren and retired Sheriff Bill Hutson.

I like the profile of having support from both the sheriff’s office and the solicitor’s background.  More importantly, I was asked to vote for him.  I’m not even sure who he is running against.  They didn’t ask.  Fincher’s folks did.  

Basic campaign rules win.  I voted for Fincher on Wednesday.

The Political Insider points us to this radio ad being run by ‘Georgia Women Vote.’ The ad asks women to go to the polls tomorrow and support women candidates. Specifically Toni Davis for Court of Appeals, and Tammy Lynn Adkins for Supreme Court.

Personally, I’ll be voting for Nahmias and McFadden but not because they’re men. I feel they’re the best candidates for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals respectively.

Don’t forget that there is a special election tomorrow for two statewide offices, Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals, as well as some local races. These are both low-profile offices, but they are still very important seats. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered both of the these races last week.

The first article, published on Wednesday, covered the Georgia Supreme Court race between David Nahmias, the incumbent (appointed by Gov. Sonny Perdue in 2009) and Tammy Adkins:

On Nov. 2, Nahmias led a three-candidate field with 48.2 percent of the vote, not enough to win the race outright. He now faces Tamela “Tammy” Adkins, a Lawrenceville family law attorney, who got 35.2 percent of the vote even though she did not accept financial contributions or campaign during the general election.

Since getting into the runoff, however, Adkins has changed tacks. She is accepting financial contributions and has hit the campaign trail. And while Nahmias has the advantage of being the incumbent on Tuesday, Adkins’ name will be first on the ballot.
[...]

Nahmias graduated from Briarcliff High School, where he was a STAR student. He finished second in his class at Duke University and graduated magna cum laude at Harvard Law School, where he served on the law review with Barack Obama. He then worked as a law clerk for two of the nation’s leading conservative jurists, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Nahmias returned to Atlanta and served as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office before working at the U.S. Justice Department after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, becoming deputy assistant attorney general. In late 2004, President George W. Bush appointed Nahmias to be the U.S. attorney in Atlanta.
[...]
Adkins grew up in North Carolina and worked her way through Meredith College in Raleigh. She then moved to Florida and started her own commercial cleaning company, winning contracts to clean up government buildings. In running the business, she began taking paralegal classes to help her understand business law. But when an instructor encouraged her to take the law school admission test instead, Adkins decided that her calling was the legal profession.

She obtained her law degree at the University of Bridgeport (Conn.) School of Law (now Quinnipiac College), where she graduated cum laude and served on the law review. Adkins says she has tried thousands of cases since she opened up a family law practice in Lawrenceville 18 years ago. These “trials,” she said, involve the initial hearing in a divorce case, in which a judge decides which parent retains temporary custody of the children and which parent gets to stay in the family home, and the final trial on the case.

On Saturday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered the race for Georgia Court of Appeals between Toni Davis and Chris McFadden:

The nonpartisan Court of Appeals race pits Atlanta lawyer Antoinette “Toni” Davis, 59, against Decatur lawyer Chris McFadden, 53. Davis led the six-candidate field in the general election with 25.5 percent of the vote, and McFadden finished second with 22.6 percent.
[...]
Davis said she gained the experience necessary to become an appellate judge by working 14 years as a staff attorney at the Georgia Supreme Court, where she worked for three justices and reviewed death-penalty appeals.

Davis said she would model herself after retired Justice Hardy Gregory, for whom she worked for more than a decade. Gregory, she said, instilled in her the importance of being thorough — reading the entire record before deciding a case.

“She is one of the most self-effacing people I’ve ever met and can write as well as anyone,” said Gregory, now a Cordele attorney. “She has tremendous ability and the intellect to think things through and figure it all out.”

Being a member of the Court of Appeals bench, Davis said, “would give me the opportunity to marry my desires and passions — my love for the law and my love to write. Nothing excited me as much as helping to decide cases.”

If elected, Davis said, her goal is to write court decisions that are clear not only to lawyers and trial judges,”but also to regular folks so they can know what is expected of them.”
[...]
McFadden, president-elect of the Atlanta Bar Association, has specialized in appeals work for two decades. He co-founded the State Bar of Georgia’s appellate practice section and co-wrote the book “Georgia Appellate Practice,” which is used by lawyers and judges.

“I’ve never known any attorney who is more in love with appeals than Chris,” said Mike Mears, associate dean for the John Marshall Law School. “I think he brings the greater experience to the appellate process in this race, and he’s represented so many people on appeal he has that unique perspective as well.”

McFadden said he helped resolve a potential crisis earlier this year after lawmakers raised the cost of copying and preparing a case record for appeal from $1.50 a page to $10 a page. That boosted the costs of routine appeals to tens of thousands of dollars, making it too expensive for many litigants to pursue them. McFadden said he drafted a proposed rule that would allow both parties in a case to prepare a record for appeal and avoid the $10-per-page fees.

The State Bar of Georgia submitted the proposed change, which was adopted by both the state Supreme Court and, later, the Court of Appeals.

I’ll be casting ballots for Nahmias and McFadden.

Received this from the Chris McFadden for Court of Appeals campaign:

Chris McFadden, candidate for Court of Appeals has received the following endorsements from elected officials in Georgia.

Rep Elect BJ Pak
Rep David Casas
Rep James Mills
Rep Elect Buzz Brockway
Rep Ed Lindsey
Rep Elect Josh Clark
Former Rep Robert Mumford
Rep Jan Jones
Rep Chuck Martin
Rep Joe Wilkinson
Rep Mike Jacobs
Rep Ron Stephens
Rep and Labor Commissioner Elect Mark Butler
Rep Matt Dollar
Rep Earl Ehrhart
Rep Elect Lynne Riley
Fulton County Commissioner Elect Liz Hauseman
Former Fulton County Chairman Mike Kenn
Former Secretary of State Karen Handel
Rep Chuck Martin
Sen Elect Fran Millar
Rep Ben Harbin
Sen Jeff Chapman
Rep Don Parsons
Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren
Fayette Clerk of Court Sheila Studdard
Rep Jerry Keen

Don’t forget to vote Tuesday.

I was planning on voting on Friday.  Apparently, I can not.  And you can’t either.

If you’re going to vote in the Nov 30th runoffs, tomorrow or Tuesday are your last chances.

Please make a note of it.

Enjoy running for re-election with Obama at the top of the ticket.  He only won your district by 3,000 votes last time.

Open thread.

Updated by Charlie:  Jim Galloway says Ellis Black has switched too.

I know that Rep. Amy Carter (D – Valdosta) is considering a party switch after the shellacin’ that we Democrats received statewide.  Here’s what Carter had to say:

“As a moderate conservative, I am troubled by the recent direction that the Democratic Party has taken on a state level,” she said. “I fear they have become disconnected from rural Georgia. Ultimately, I have a lot to consider, but I will not make a final decision until I have had time to fully evaluate the desires of my district.”

Well, the good ole’ Secretary of State has released the county precinct reports, and this year all absentee and early voters results are actually reported by precinct.  So what we can do for Amy Carter is go see exactly how her constituents voted in other races.  In my opinion, the best way to evaluate the desires of your district would be to look at how your district voted in other races.  We had an election, everyone voted, and you can see how they voted.

In an exceptionally good year for Republicans, here’s how HD 175 voted in the top 3 races on the ballot:

Senate: Isakson 50.4, Thurmond 47.3, Donovan 2.2

Governor: Deal 44.2, Barnes 53.4, Monds 2.4

Lt. Gov: Cagle 48.6, Porter 48.9, Barber 2.4

So what you can see is that this is a pretty split district, but that Democrats slightly outpolled Republicans on average, winning the open Governor’s race by 9% (which is a very healthy victory), winning against one incumbent (Cagle) and losing against another (Isakson).  The average % of the vote taken by the parties in these 3 races in this district is 49.9 from the Dems, 47.8 from the Reps and 2.4 for the libertarians.

So, Amy Carter, if I were you I would not switch parties.  I would take your own words about “the recent direction that the Democratic party has taken on a state level” and look to your voters – when given a choice between the Deal/Cagle direction that Republicans are taking the state in and the direction that the Democrats offered, your voters preferred the Democratic way in both cases, overwhelmingly so in the Governor’s race.  Even Isakson, a Republican that “even Democrats like” barely outpolled Thurmond who signs the weekly paycheck of 10% of the state and ran essentially an invisible campaign.

So, if we’re really going to decide which party to be in based on what the voters of our district want, don’t switch parties.  If that’s just BS and it’s really just about political power, by all means go ahead and switch.  In Democratic districts (there is no way to spin this, that is what HD 175 is) we need people that are proud to call themselves Democrats and work to move the state in the direction that our parties and your voters want it to go in.

And Peach Punditeers, don’t take my word for it…go to the Secretary of State’s Election Result page and find the county results by precinct and double check my math.  Here’s the excel file (with definitions) I used to make this post…

Excel File Attachment

The AJC’s Maureen Downey is reporting that interim State School Superintendent Brad Bryant will be remaining with the Georgia Department of Education as General Counsel after John Barge is sworn in. 

There had been speculation that Perdue would return Bryant to his state board seat, which remains unfilled. But Bryant can probably be more helpful to DOE in the paid capacity of its top legal adviser.

Some folks suggested to me that Bryant would be the shadow agency leader, but he was vehement today that he is not going to be the head of  DOE in any way, and that he believes Barge’s long education background is vital now in the department.

Supreme Court Justice David Nahmias is receiving support from all corners of the state’s political spectrum.  The AJC is reporting four significant endorsements today:  Governor-elect Nathan Deal and Attorney General-elect Sam Olens from the Republican camp, and Former Mayor Shirley Franklin and Democratic nominee for Attorney General Ken Hodges.

Nahmias’ race verses Tammy Adkins will head the statewide ballot for the November 30th runoff.

We kid the College Republicans around here because, well, because we can.   We’re old and most of our college days are long behind us.   We’re jealous that they still get to enjoy the college lifestyle while also participating in our grown up games.   Today, however, we’ll acknowledge the hard work of the Georgia Association of College Republicans.    Students around the state gave up a few frat parties and games of flip cup to donate over 7,000 hours to get Republicans elected this campaign cycle.

With the official books now closed, the GACR’s can now claim they outworked every other state federation in the country.  In fact, the UGA chapter alone, were it broken out as a separate state, would have ranked 6th in total hours worked.  

Their press release is below the fold.  Please join in congratulating all those mentioned below and the many others unnamed who worked hard and generated demonstrated results this campaign cycle.

ATLANTA – The Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) announced today that it has finished first among all College Republican state federations in the nation for total campaign hours cataloged on behalf of GOP candidates during the midterm election season.

As part of the College Republican National Committee’s “Operation Red November” program, College Republican chapters from across Georgia completed over 7,000 hours of volunteer work during the general election campaign, the rough equivalent of 294 days or 10.5 months of continuous, around-the-clock campaigning.

“2010 was a banner year for Republicans in Georgia, and we’re proud to say that College Republicans played a significant role in our election victories,” said Chairman Andrew Laarhoven. “Thanks to the hard work of our College Republican members and chapters, Georgia’s young people are leading the way in our conservative grassroots movement.”

GACR formally kicked off its election-year efforts in early fall with the announcement of a comprehensive get-out-the-vote initiative to target competitive statewide and Congressional races in the state. Conservative college students participated in a series of 10 GACR-organized express trips for candidates like Senator Johnny Isakson, Governor-elect Nathan Deal, Brian Kemp, Sam Olens, Gary Black and more.

Individual chapters arranged phone banks, precinct walks and voter registration drives for local and statewide Republicans under GACR’s “Campaign Triathlon” competition. The program incentivized student participation in the midterms by awarding grants to high-performing College Republican chapters for their hard work to elect GOP candidates.

In particular, College Republicans focused their time and resources on the hotly contested 8th Congressional District race, backing GOP State Rep. Austin Scott, who upended the incumbent Democrat amidst a historic wave of Republican gains in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Without a doubt the support and assistance we received from College Republicans was invaluable in securing victory on Nov. 2,” said Scott campaign Finance Director and former GACR Chair Jade Morey. “The Georgia Association of College Republicans proudly made an indelible and noteworthy impact on our race and so many others in 2010.”

College Republican leaders were quick to acknowledge that the real work has only just begun — as one election season ends, another begins.

“Complacency is not an option for College Republicans,” said Chandler Epp, GACR Vice Chairman. “Our ideals and our principles are far too important to just put on a shelf until 2012. We look forward to continued strengthening and expansion of our organization over the next two years, so we can continue to elect good Republican officials and shape the next generation of conservative leaders in Georgia.”

The Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) is the Georgia affiliate of the College Republican National Committee and the largest such state federation in the Southeastern United States. GACR represents the interests of thousands of conservative college students on nearly 30 Georgia university campuses, serving as the first point of contact for students who wish to work directly with local and state political leaders and their election campaigns. Connecting campaigns with conservative activists and volunteers across the state, GACR demonstrates why College Republicans are in fact THE grassroots arm of the Republican Party. For more information and a complete list of chapters, visit http://www.gacr.org/.

Of course I’m talking about Bob Hanner and Gerald Greene, the newest members of team GOP.  Why are they problems?  The more the merrier, right?  Well, not exactly.  For one thing, the two newest Republicans both represent districts that Roy Barnes won.  In Hanner’s district, I estimate that Roy got 51% to Deal’s 47%.  I had to do some estimation for Lee County – don’t have the precincts there, but I do know that Hanner’s district has approx 29% of Lee county’s voters and it’s also twice as African American as the overall county, so I made some conservative adjustments to account for that.

Greene’s district is easy – 6 whole counties.  Roy got 50%, Deal got 48%.  So that’s obviously a problem, these are two districts that the GOP could have cast to the dustbin of history in redistricting (except for one problem – they are heavily African American).  But here’s the other problem – these districts are disappearing.  According to 2009 census estimates (which tend to undercount urban areas which means the numbers will actually be even worse) Hanner and Greene’s districts have a population of approximately 44,000 people each.  Well here’s the problem – Georgia’s population is estimated to be 9.8 million, and 1/180th of that is 54,606.  That means that each one of these districts will go into redistricting at about 80% of the population needed to make a district, meaning that they’ll each need to come up with an additional 15% or so (under Roy rules) or 19% (under Larios rules).  And you better believe I personally will file a lawsuit if the GOP dares go outside the +/- 1% variation, as my rights are likely to be violated just like the lovely Ms. Larios.

So how do you fix these guys in redistricting?  Well let’s look at the districts that surround them.  North?  Nah, African American Columbus districts.  Won’t help.  Northeast – Mike Cheokas, he’ll either switch too or maintain his base of Sumter county, won’t help.  Maybe you can help Hanner out in Lee county – but how many Republican activists that were hoping to have their own district to run in will you piss off?  Now to Greene…north, no sorry that’s Hanner and even if Hanner moves into Lee sorry game over play again these are majority AA counties.  East – Winfred Dukes AA district.  Southeast – sorry Republican Decatur/Grady county district and BOTH of these counties have failed to grow at the rate of Georgia overall, which means a Republican who isn’t a RINO will probably have first dibs on extra population.  What about South and West – thanks for playing but sorry that is Florida and Alabama.

Have fun with that guys.  Isn’t an independent commission or a judge starting to look pretty ideal right about now so you don’t have to settle these family feuds yourself?