December 14, 2011.
Jot that date down. We may need it.
That may be the “magic date” when the Cabell County Commission approved magisterial redistricting based on the 2010 census. At least it’s a start and gives us newfound hope.
Finally, I seem to be speaking the same language as Cabell County officials. Evidently they understand my “new” language and I get theirs.
Sometimes I apparently have not made myself clear. That 2011 date — or one similar to it — was a major question I’ve had since Democrat Cabell Commission President Jim Morgan openly declared that two county commissioners had been serving from the same magisterial district at the same time.
*And neither one of them was me,” he said to fellow Republican Commissioner Kelli Sabonya. With three members, that left just Sabonya and the late Republican Nancy Cartmill, who passed away since Morgan made his comment.
Morgan made the revelation a few weeks ago during a public meeting at the courthouse.
Cartmill, who suffered from a lengthy illness and attended that meeting by telephone days before passing, was not in the room when Morgan said what he did. Sabonya was but apparently said nothing in response.
Ramifications of that little piece of info went far and wide, nevertheless. For one minor thing, it’s ILLEGAL for more than one commissioner to serve from the same district at the same time.
For another, Cabell commissioners were embroiled in a new 2022 redistricting fiasco that could easily be affected by the 2011 version, if a reported 2012 date was inaccurate — or non-existent.
After several discussions with public officials, I was forced to accept the inevitable: there may have been no magisterial districts approved by the 2011/12 County Commission. We might be at 2022 with no standard to go by.
The 2022 redistricting might be fatally flawed if there was no 2011/12 version. There would have been no continuity either. That possibility concerned me. A lot of innocent people could look guilty of SOMETHING if we couldn’t start at ground zero in 2021. And this one didn’t appear to be starting at zero at all.
I’d referred to “a map” in nearly every conversation I’d had with community activists, public officials, you name it. Universally they’d develop a blank stare.
“Never saw a map like that,” they’d eventually say. I was constantly frustrated. How does the commission in 2022 “revise” a map that never existed before? Confusion reigned supreme. Maybe there was no 2911/12 map. Maybe there was no “starting point.” Had Cabell functioned for ten years by the seat of its magisterial pants with no districts? Possible I suppose; but not likely — or legal.
Then I asked the question the right way I guess.
In the midst of a cordial conversation with County Clerk Phyllis Smith, I hated to think of pursuing my next step of inquiry with her. But I needed to.
“I don’t want your employee searching a year or two’s worth of records just to try to find a map that may not exist,” I said to Smith.
It was then that Smith asked me to clearly explain what map I was talking about. I did. And I thought I did it just as I had at least three dozen times before (admittedly not one-on-one with Smith directly).
“Oh you’re talking about the map at Voters,” she said with obvious relief.
“Huhh?” was my only reply.
“You’re talking about the map at Voters. It’s been there since 2011, I guess. You know I wasn’t the clerk then,” was Smith’s immediate response.
Yeah. I knew Smith was not the clerk then. That didn’t change whether a map was approved that year or in early 2012.
I thought I was making it clear what map was needed from the beginning. I guess I wasn’t.
Now, fully understanding what map we’re looking for, Smith became a model of efficiency and cooperation.
To simplify, based on that conversation with the Clerk, i have now seen the map AND the resolution where it was adopted by the commission on that December 2011 day. I feel much better.
We clearly haven’t resolved all issues about 2022 redistricting. But we have, at least, got started on the same page. We do have a starting point. It’s hard to finish something if there’s no agreed-upon start.
Maybe we can clear up the remaining issues before the May primary takes place.
* * * * * *
Hopefully, we’ll continue in this positive mode. I’ll ask the right questions and get the correct answers.
Let’s hope it all works out. All we want is a fair and honest outcome for all.
* * * * * *
I often speak with public officials, those interested in politics and just ordinary citizens who have election questions. Somehow, many think that 50 years’ involvement in the industry gives me a level of expertise. I’m not sure they’re right.
Let me assure you that most questions are not as complex as the redistricting of Cabell seemed to be a week ago. Most are reasonably simple.
While I appreciate their comments and accept them as compliments, I often wonder if anyone really understands politics. Like many other endeavors, it’s often a game of luck more than strategy, I think. Decide to run for Governor, get three opponents that are unpopular and they make you look like the next George Washington.
When anyone wants to know how some weird issue in an election situation will be handled, my routine answer is, “who knows?”
It seems that the conduct of elections should be regular enough that those of us routinely around them are going to learn all the ins and outs. We apparently don’t. Another caveat I offer is that just because I know how some issue will be handled does not mean I agree with the answer about to given. I’m not sure, given all the “facts” we know through this weekend, that there will ever be a satisfactory answer to who’s “legally” serving on the Cabell County Commission right now. There may be answers; maybe not. As you can tell by the early tone of this column, I have more hope for clarity than I did two weeks ago.
I also feel this media site has provided insight voters might not otherwise have gotten about the appointment and special election processes.
* * * * * *
We started this downhill slide, in my opinion, in Mingo County. A fifth grade reading of state code SEEMS to be clear that the replacement of a County Commissioner must come from a pool of potential candidates who were of the same political party as the departing member. And that replacement must have been from the same party for 60 days prior to the vacancy occurring. That simply is what the code says.
Even when there’s clear language in the law, the practice does not always follow the code. It didn’t in Mingo in the case of the County Commission vacancy created by Gavin Smith’s tragic passing late last year.
State Republican officials were only too happy to advise Mingo officials to ignore the law and name Smith’s widow as a possible replacement despite not meeting requirements.
In Williamson, state GOP officials went along with a plot to install Audrey Smith, Gavin’s widow, even though she was an Independent not a Republican when he passed.
The law was clear and they were unsuccessful in the end but got more than halfway to being considered.
That may hsve set the stage for the nearly-successful Mingo effort.
* * * * * *
Then we have something new in Mingo County …
Mingo County? Is it ALWAYS Mingo County? Maybe so.
In Mingo now, Harold Davis has jumped in the 2022 race for County Commission. It’s where voters are to determine if Taylor earns another term.
Davis wants to unseat incumbent Taylor in the primary. I want him (or somebody) to unseat the worst county commissioner Mingo ever had (and Mingo’s had some bad ones). Thomas Taylor is a disaster. He needs to go.
But did you notice what I said? Harold Davis is running as a REPUBLICAN to beat Taylor.
Davis has ads that scream his “REPUBLICAN” affiliation and beliefs. They explain his solid GOP positions on all the “hot button” issues of the day. Abortion? Guns? He sounds like a far right wing Republican to me.
Only one problem in my mind: Harold Davis is a registered Independent. He’s not a Republican.
But after years of wrangling about even letting a registered Independent VOTE in a partisan party primary, Republicsns decided to go all the way and allow them to name their own party loyalty and RUN as partisans. There’s nothing right about that. So much for standing up for your party.
Every official I’ve mentioned this latest insult to party loyalty to has either chuckled, shook his or her head, or both. It might be funny if it didn’t undermine the very foundations of the American republic. What if all the Founding Fathers had declared their “independence”?
I can’t help but explain how strange I find this latest affront to the American party system.
Some say I’ve lost touch with the times.
As I’ve asked before … why have a Democrat or Republican party if membership offers no advantages? No organization? No benefits?
Davis SEEMS to be saying,”I’m an Independent, have done no grunt work for the GOP over the years and I’m suddenly a REPUBLICAN candidate”? How? Why? Why do parties even exist if you can declare yourself a Republican any time with no requirements to show that’s what you actually are???? No wonder Independents are the fastest growing of political affiliations.
Many Republicans said to me, “I like Walter Davis but Taylor already has an opponent (Doug Kirk, a REAL Democrat). And Walter isn’t a Republican.”
I agree with all that. Taylor needs to go.
Walter Davis would be a good replacement but, at this point, Democrat Doug Kirk is the only man for the job.
* * * * * *
Delegate District 19 is where we left off last time in our overview of the upcoming election contests. As we’ve noted, we are simply trying to capsulize each of the races for now.
Occasionally, we’ll throw in a predicted outcome where we think it’s obvious.
But this is not our famous “prediction page.” As always, it will be published two days before the primary. It will include predicted winners in every race. So, nothing here is yet written in stone, winner-wise. An expected outcome can change.
District 19 features another short time Republican Delegate appointee in Kathie Hess Crouse. She was just chosen by Justice to complete Joshua Higginbotham’s unexpired term.
Higginbotham gave up his House seat to run for state Senate. There will be a 19th GOP primary since Jesse Lovejoy filed in the delegate district along with Nick Withrow. They had fired up their campaigns before Crouse became the delegate.
Added intrigue to this contest comes from the fact that there had been bad blood between Crouse and Higginbotham, even before 2021/22. Crouse, primarily known as a home school advocate, accused Higginbotham of not being conservative enough when he originally ran for the House. She slowed down her own State Senate race to make Delegate district voters aware of her doubts about Higginbotham.
The two have likely learned a lesson in practical politics and will stay out of each others’ contests this time around. There’s nothing to be gained by getting involved in other races.
The Democrat contenders are Josh Martin and Seth
King in the 19th. Martin’s political background makes him the primary and general favorite, although some of that history is controversial.
Martin has run before and is the son of two former Democrat Putnam County Delegates — the late Dale Martin and his appointed successor, wife Helen Martin.
In an earlier contest, Josh Martin lost a State Senate bid to Republican Chris Walters that was mired in controversy concerning Martin’s pro wrestling career.
In a totally negative campaign, Walters’ supporters targeted Martin comments, as a professional wrestler, that were tasteless and obscene.
Martin maintained he was in the same position as any actor, repeating lines that were written for him.
There’s no doubt the negatives added up against Martin back then but he can claim youthful indiscretion and no doubt be forgiven. As mentioned, he’s the favorite both in May and November this time.
Then Republican Delegate Geoff Foster is being challenged by Jacob Losh in 20, where no Democrat has filed. Foster is the clear choice her.
More to follow soon.
Ron Gregory is a regular political columnist and reporter for LOOTPRESS. Contact at 304-533-5185; ronjgregory@gmail.com; or PO Box 20297, Charleston, WV 25362.