Law, Order, and Common Sense: Avoiding Distractions and Refusing to Engage Controversy

Tonight the Worcester Elections Commission will hear a petition brought forth by conservative activists against the progressive community organization Neighbor 2 Neighbor. The petitioners are asking the Commission to hold a "fact finding hearing" to ultimately limit the ways in which N2N can aide voters on Election Day, including the prohibition of T-shirt's bearing the organization's logo. This petition stems from earlier allegations by Tea Party affiliates that N2N members were engaging in "electioneering" by assisting voters at the polling place.

The Secretary of State's office examined the allegations and found that no wrongdoing or legal violations had occurred. The instructions to the Commission were to focus on future elections and engage in dialogue explaining what the law states about the prohibition of political activity within 150 of a polling place. Essentially, the Commission should "look forward" and use this opportunity to educate the public about what is in the statute rather than continuing to engage in past allegations based on hearsay.

I am extremely disappointed that this non-issue has re-surfaced again, earning it's spot in the headlines. This created controversy has become a distraction from the real concerns in our city regarding civic participation, electoral justice, and community engagement. What should be noted is that this complaint is from one interest group targeting another; it originated from campaign affiliated poll observers rather than official poll workers. The fact that some see our city's Election Commission as a venue for divisive politics is not only disheartening, but dangerous if we are seeking to engage more individuals in the process. This precedent of singling out a specific group in a public venue (especially after a resolution has already been reached) discourages new organizations from seeking to mobilize their constituencies. Especially for non-profits, where funding is always an issue, this creates a tense and divisive atmosphere where the logical choice (sadly) is to not assist voters for fear of public criticism.

The entire discussion as to whether or not an organization's logo constitutes campaign material is more than just a stretch. Especially for non-profits, who have the right to work on ballot questions, this impedes the voting rights of their employees and their ability to serve their constituents. For example in 2010 the YWCA took a No position on all 3 state ballot questions and staff helped coordinate outreach activities. If the petition were accepted by the Commission as is, anyone with a YWCA logo would be prohibited from entering the polling place as it would be considered "electioneering." Prohibiting an individual from entering into a polling location to assist a voter, or even vote themselves, because an organization's logo is now deemed "campaign material" is not going to uphold the integrity of the process, but rather create extra hurdles for people who want to exercise their rights.

Luckily, our City Solicitor has noted that common sense needs to be used by the poll workers to determine whether or not the use of the logo is intended to actually influence voters. There is a big difference between an individual wearing a particular T shirt assisting voters and a group of five poll watchers wearing the same shirts and leering at voters.

The petition further states that an individual assisting a voter should be prohibit from speaking to a poll worker and questions whether or not an assistant should be allowed to hold a sample ballot for the voter. The MA voter's Bill of Rights clearly states that a voter may request anyone of their choice to assist them and may bring with them into the polling booth any campaign material of their choice, including sample ballots, to help make their decision.

I applaud the City Clerk's Office for steering the discussions away from all of these distractions, and focusing the discussion on the statute. If anything positive is going to come out of this ordeal it is that more public information about state campaign law and it's application will be available to the community.

Elections should be an avenue for empowerment. Our city, and our country as a whole, is tired of the partisan bickering. We as a community need to focus on education, dialogue, and, most importantly, common sense.

Vigilante Justice and the post-Casey Anthony era

For the last three years the American public has been held hostage by the distraction that was the Casey Anthony trial. I cringe every time I change the channel on the TV or turn on the radio and hear a conglomerate of talking heads going on and on trying to rationalize the jury's verdict, the "real theory" of the crime and what is going to happen next for the defendant.

The death of any child, especially if that death is alleged to be caused by a caretaker, is horrific and reminds us of the constant presence of suffering in our society. What is equally as disgusting is the way in which this tragic case has been used to make a mockery of our justice system and to financially benefit agitators who are promoting vigilante style resolutions.

First off, how many children are murdered every year? How many children are still missing? While I don't have those exact statistics, I can assure you that it was certainly not 1 in the last three years. The only reason why this case has blown up to the level it has is because of the fact that commentators like Nancy Grace and Jane Valez-Mitchell used yellow journalism tactics to try the case in the court of public opinion. Think of how much money Grace made for her appearances on morning television, the sponsors from her show, and the radio spots. Each of those "experts" who was called in to give their opinion and outlook was compensated in some way (either financially or by receiving 15 minutes of national fame). No one would have know who Casey Anthony was if there wasn't an attention seeking profit driven media personality culture pushing the case down the throat of the American public. Unfortunately our society swallowed the wrong pill, and we are going to have to stomach the implications.

I know a lot of people are thinking it, and hesitant to say it, but let's be real- if the Anthony's were any other ethnicity than Caucasian, I am sure the coverage, would have been a lot different (most likely non existent).

The Casey Anthony case has also shed light on the ineffectiveness of our media. Think of all of the things that have been going on in the last three years that we haven't had serious discussions about because of the fact that we devote space and airtime to this trial. Wars, debt, growing inequality, an education crisis, a couple of genocides, the struggle for equal rights and equal pay, those have all been put on the back burner. We have gone back to an era of sensationalism where we would rather talk about birth certificate rumors instead of the hard topics such as why children in lower income neighborhoods do not have access to adequate health services (never mind that public health department we once had in Worcester that is off the radar screen). We function in a system of innocent before proven guilty, yet the talking heads have already condemned defendants to death. Grace lamented that Casey Anthony would become a millionaire becuase of her fame from the trial- well you are the one who made her rich! Unrelated to the trial, but just because someone is arrested does not mean they actually committed the offense. We need to wake up. Despite universal acceptance of constitutional rights and protecting freedom, we are operating in a public mindset similar to the Salem Witch trials. We cannot live in a just society if we do not operate in a just way. This particularly applies to the media and the way in which we have made the reporting of crime a profitable operation. For every time I read about a shooting in the Telegram and Gazette I can give you 5 positive things going on in that neighborhood. Yet will we ever read it? Most likely not unless it is spun in a way that triggers flurries of comments and controversy.

Getting back to the Anthony Case, I watched Nancy Grace tear apart the jury saying they reached their verdict because they were not from Orlando and "not connected to the community." No Nancy, it was because they were doing their civic duty as a jury and keeping their emotions out of the case. How sick is it that we have "reporters" going on national TV slamming a group of people who each gave up a month of their lives so that they could enable our justice system to function. This is the exact reason why we have juries and facts, and evidence, and the standard of reasonable doubt, so that we can prevent tyranny and vigilantism. As William Blackstone said "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

Connecting this to the larger picture- this media frenzy and revolt against social order is a pattern we are seeing in our country with the rise of efforts such as the Tea Party movement. While a lot of people portray it as a libertarian revival, what we are seeing is a pattern of vigilante mob tactics being lead by instigators who are sitting behind an anchor's desk rather than burning witches at the stake. What is being burned down is the progress we as a nation have made in standing by the rule of law, crafting institutions that defend equal rights, and behaving in a manner where we put the welfare of our people above personal profit and fame.

There are so many victims in this tragic case. Let's hope the American Justice System does not become one of them