A cup of coffee with Joe Vignola
So recently I had the opportunity to sit down with Joe Vignola and a couple of other progressives over a cup of coffee. I had never met the guy before and I am a recent enough resident of Philadelphia to mostly know him in his former capacity as the head of PICA.
Of course I know that Joe was swept onto City Council with Rendell on Rendell's first win as mayor - back in the days of symbolically cleaning the toilet in City Hall. Back when they inherited a city many didn't believe had a viable economic future, a city with an operating budget $250 million dollars in the hole, with a bond rating in the toilet and host of infrastructure problems. Somewhere in the back of my head there was some vague stuff about City Controller and an unsuccesful long shot race for Senate against the vast Heinz personal fortune.
But in terms of the present, of what he was actually about, how he fits into the picture of the many of us who are younger and both passionately believe in the inclusive, fair, progressive values we think the Democratic Party at its best embodies and also feel that in many ways that same party at a local level and a state level has simply failed to live up to that promise - in terms of that he was a mystery.
I have to say I was impressed and surprised beyond my expectations. Many of us have innate distrust of anybody who has been around Philadelphia or PA government for a while just because even the best have been involved with so much "sausage making" of the more unsavory variety and a lot of the others seem to be involved in transactions that should have led to criminal convictions. Or at least some degree of shame.
Joe's different from all that, though he's someone whose been around enough to know how the patronage system leads even the well meaning astray. As well as its ultimate costs to us as citizens, taxpayers, willing or unwilling participants in the functioning of government.
One of the lasting impressions you are left with after chatting with Joe Vignola for more than a few minutes is that he's a guy who genuinely loves making government work better, do more with limited resources. He loves the challenge of figuring how to make it deliver on its promise to improve citizen's life, especially when its gone astray, even in dire fiscal circumstances. Maybe especially in dire fiscal circumstances. He's not just proud of the work he's done in recent years helping get Pennsylvania city after Pennsylvania city back on track in terms of sound, sustainable fiscal policy. He actually likes it.
I mean it makes sense - a liberal who knows that government can make a positive difference in regular people's lives and believes in it in theory should be better at tweaking the timing, fixing the plugs, tuning the engine of government to make it run better than a conservative who claims to only be interested in taking that engine apart. Its still a little surprising though when you see that idea boiled down and embodied in front of you in a coffee shop. Its hard to describe the sparkle in his eye when he talks about sitting down with Rendell and David L. Cohen and saying "how are we going to make the city's payroll this month?" He loves the business of figuring it out in the same way somebody who say works on motorcycles for fun will tell you about the time they were broke down 300 miles from a parts supplier and figured out a way to make it work well enough with what was on hand to get home. When we left the meeting, I turned to one of the other progressives there and said "Wow. Somebody you actually want in government, who should be there."
In terms of the question of who we, as progressives believe in better government, should look at to replace Vince Fumo, the one thing Fumo apologists inevitably trot out out is that "Well he gets stuff done, he knows how to work the state budget process", etc. And to a point, we should actually admit there is a litte truth there. Fumo, I believe, will be convicted, he will be forced to step down should he be reelected - its inevitable. He is in fact, in my reading of the indictments, a criminal many times over. But he is criminal who does have a certain noteworthy expertise in the ways of state and local budgets, an expertise he has worked a little too reliably for his and his closest cronies benefit, unfortunately. But lets be fair, he has also done many good things for Philadelphia and the state.
When we go shopping for Fumo's replacement, ideals matter - a lot. But nearly just as much, we should be honest, so does experience and competence. I left my cup of coffee with Joe Vignola with the strongest impression possible that I had just met the likely candidate who possesses the best of both.
so...
is he running or no? is it Dicker v Fumo, or is Joe muddying those waters? this was a nice post but didnt address what we all want to know - is he gonna pull the trigger, and if so, how does he plan to win?
I don't know
I don't know this Vignola but he sure sounds interesting. What I know about Fumo, I don't think he should be re-elected, but with all respect, Anne Dicker isn't really much of an option. No one seriously considers Dicker a viable alternative, do they? I thought she was just running to get him to fight casinos. I have followed the anti-casino thing and repsect her work. But she has zero experience and just isn't viable. I'd like to see a serious candidate make a run against Fumo. Someone with a real understanding so we don't lose all the clout that Fumo claims to have. Dicker has been very good for the anti casino movement but she isn't State Senate material. Not yet. Sorry.
I have met Joe and like him,
I have met Joe and like him, but what is the point of this post? Is the man running or not?
---
Check out my website!
Can't speak for the man
Vignola, I think will declare when he feels the time is right but the impression I had was that if he wasn't asking me and several others to volunteer on a campaign, then those Jehovah's Witnesses handing me Watchtower do not really want me to come really want me to come to their church either.
Anne Dicker
Sean--what is your analysis of Anne Dicker?
What are the boundaries of
What are the boundaries of Fumo's seat?
Also, how old is Mr. Vignola?
Let me be perfectly clear that I don't have a horse in this race, if it is one.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
I like her. I like Kareem.
I like her. I like Kareem. They are good folks. I admire her determination and her bravery. I thought the bid on Fumo's mansion was brilliant.
Its a tough call but Fumocrats brag about having something like $4 million in the bank just for this race. Anne has never actually been elected to any office yet, has never written a single piece of legislation yet. I'd very much like to see her run for State Rep. again and win this time.
Vignola himself spoke very warmly of Anne in our conversation.
In all honesty I think someone who has history going back to Rendell's early days, who has run at least competitive races state wide before, who also has friends and fundraising contacts state wide from his work at PICA simply has a much, much better chance of actually beating Fumo.
I don't think it reflects badly on Anne at all to say that, its simply the likely truth of the situation in my opinion.
Fumo will be convicted and he will be forced to step down but it will be after the primary is over. Its vitally important to have the strongest candidate possible in primary so that he doesn't simply appoint someone in the special election scenario to run his empire by proxy from first the unsuccessful appeals court and then from jail.
Annoucement=fund raising time
So how is he going to raise the money to beat Fumo--or at least show well--if he does not announce soon?
I know very little about the man, but this sounds like a very insidery-entry to the race. Like Mike, I don't have a horse in this race. I know Anne best, and I met with her and Karim to learn more about the race, but it is very early days yet.
I dunno Sean, I am pretty surprised to hear you be so pro-Vignola. Neither you, nor I, live in the District, and I am curious to why it is important enough to be on your radar screen.
If your argument is that someone needs to run now, who won't win, but can show strong, so that they are likely to be the nominee selected by ward leaders in a special election, I am not sure I agree.
If you or others progressives already think this race is a done deal, then we should be focusing our energy NOW on changing the special election process so that an open primary is possible.
And regardless of whether Fumo can be beaten in a primary or not, in a district that has been so outraged and impacted by casino development, aren't Vignola's ties to the Governor and other politicos a liability?
Also, In a state senate race, which is about equal in size to a City Council district, money is important, but so is field. I am not sure what network Vignola brings to the table to get out the vote, especially assuming many ward leaders will sit this one out or endorse Fumo.
I am way over my head here
I know more about the 'young' and 'Philly' parts than I do the mechanics of politics, but...
Ray has really good points. Ray, though, do you think that this:
is a conversation that should absolutely be happening now regardless? I mean, shouldn't as big a push as possible be made to open the primary, since (turning it around) at this point unseating Fumo is what is clearly not a done deal.
sure
and indictments are always lurking, so it's not just Fumo's seat we need to worry about. I defer to you though Jennifer, as a lawyer needs to be involved. I think the legal questions is if a political party in a municipality has rules that require a primary vote on a candidate in a special, is the municipality obligated to pay for the cost of the election?
Am I missing something here any of you know-it-alls?
Oh, no, another research question!
I have no existing knowledge on this but if I get any you will get a full report.
you shouldn't be a lawyer
if you don't want to look up the law! your city needs you jennifer, get to work.
I hearby retract all my tortured posts about corporate lawyering
I definitely don't make my firm ANY money, I do nothing but impossible public housing eviction defense cases and research projects for the Ray Murphy-things-that-really-should-change-in-the-state-of-Pennsylvania project!!
Special Election scenario
The rules about elections for state and local elections are the same. If Fumo wins the primary, he will win the general as the trial starts in September and will likely stretch on for at least 6 months. We are talking 139 counts including obstruction of justice, with several codefendents. Lots and lots of arguments about what evidence can and can't be introduced.
If Fumo comes out victorious in the primary, he will be reeleted before the trial ends. Then the ward leaders pick his replacement nominee just as they did with Mariano. One self-proclaimed Fumocrat over on PB says it will be DiCicco with his son taking the City council seat. I'm not sure how much stock I put in that but its been posted, amidst some vicious anti-Dicker tirades so there it is.
Whether its Dicker or Vignola or even someone else, they have to beat Fumo in the primary - otherwise he hand picks his succesor via the ward leaders.
The Senate District is larger than the First councilmatic district and more Center City-ey so there is more chance for a progressive (whomever) to win without a lot of ward support a la Nutter but obviously having a lot of candidates split the anti-Fumo vote cuts into each of their chances.
We know the rules are the same
That is not what Jennifer and I are discussing. We are asking if the party changes its rules to require members to vote on special election candidates, if the state is then obligated to pay for a primary vote (rather than allowing the party to subvert the primary process and allow ward leaders to just pick).
The key would be to just
The key would be to just have the elections in May and November. Ie, if the vacancy happens between Nov and May, then the special primary is in May, special general in Nov. If it happens after May, then you have the special primary in Nov, general special in May. No additional costs.
aren't you a lawyer too?
what we need is a brief describing these options to use when we go to the party and demand a rule change. last time, they tried to dodge their own role in making these changes hiding behind state election law.
No, doofus, I am not. In
No, doofus, I am not. In fact, actually, neither is Jennifer.
semantics
you are certainly as arrogant as any real lawyer i have met ;)
I don't Vignola's age, about
I don't Vignola's age, about the same as Rendell, I assume -'50s.
He spoke a lot about PHEA and how to fix it. He talked about sitting down and doing an in-depth study of last year's state budget by himself before he declares. I asked him why the state of Penssylvania doesn't have the equivalent of a GAO and he laughed and quoted the "corrupt and contented" line.
He talked about how the casino mess in his mind originates from a boneheaded sticking to the original Riverboat gambling plan by Rendell that left waterfront development stilted and it was clear that despite the fact they are personal friends it was an issue he would tell Rendell to go pound sand on, if need be.
He went into some depth about the how the whole Fumo-PECO thing came to pass, how even then he as the fiscal expert had tried to get the press interested in covering it and how back then they were uninterested in nibbling, much to his chagrin.
I kind of wish I had taken notes, now. The guy's knowledge of the fiscal aspects of government are truly expansive.
Re: Strategy
After one cup of coffee I'm hardly so "inside" to comment heavily on why the delay in declaring but my impression is that he is a guy who is very, very fastidious and focused when it comes to running for office. He mentioned repeatedly that in virtually all of his former campaigns it had been a race with 3 or 4 candidates. I sort of got the impression he would not be terribly surprised if besides himself and Dicker that yet someone else even jumped in the race and that it did not deter him.
I think its likely the announcement is sooner rather than later.
this is not just about your impression
On Vignola, you made a very strategic point:
And I guess I am not convinced that Vignola is the strongest candidate or that I want ANYone to be strong enough to be appointed rather than elected through our crappy special election process.
fyi
Joe's 58 but can bike from Philly to Atlantic City and back with people 25 years younger.
Im not an election attorney
You'll both pass the bar soon enough. Im not an election attorney (strictly real estate development here) but I think if the Party asked for an open, spcecial election, they'd get it. When State Senator Stinson went to jail in 1994, the ward leaders asked for an open special primary election and got it. Harvey Rice ran against Tina Tartaglione. Granted, the ward leaders got their candidate anyway, but at least progressives had a shot.
We just have to convince the ward leaders and the Chairman to change the rules. I think this is more likely with Michael Nutter as the leader of the party now.
As far as this particular Senate race is concerned, we should all work towards ensuring that April 22nd is the incumbent's last election. If we miss this opportunity, it hurts the party, the city and the state. Of course, I am more than a little biased.
did i miss something?
when did Michael Nutter become the leader of the party? Nutter did not come out against special elections in 2006 until it was way too late. I hope he'll come around for the future, but there is still Bob Brady and 68 other ward leaders to convince.
I am all for trying to
I am all for trying to convince Brady. But, I suspect a push from our newly elected mayor would be pretty big.
yes it would
did not mean to imply that it wouldn't. however, Vern's implication that Nutter could make it happen no matter what and that Nutter would be in support. His record on special election process is shaky. And, even if he does come out, ward leaders have not had a problem in the past opposing the wishes of a Mayor.
The Nutter Butters
Here is one area where Mike Nutter supporters, and those who have his ear, can probably really have an impact. There will be a lot of people telling him to forget about it, and those in favor of the status quo will be pushing hard to just keep things the way they are.
Historically, the mayor
Historically, the mayor leads the party, regardless of who is chairman. In some cases, mayors run (or try to run) chairpeople out if they don't like them. John Street, in ways in which only he could, completely botched that. You missed nothing Ray. You witnessed it over the last 8 years. Nutter, however, has a mandate for change and beat the chairman to boot. He could push for this reform better than anyone.
Never said he could make it
Never said he could make it happen no matter what. I said:
"We just have to convince the ward leaders and the Chairman to change the rules. I think this is more likely with Michael Nutter as the leader of the party now."
"More likely" means likelier than it was before Nutter was elected. Just a better chance now than we have had in 8 years. Nothing happens quickly in this city's Democratic party, believe me.
And I think I should buy you a cup of coffee with Joe Vignola, Ray. I think the conversation would be an education for both of you.
Special elections again
Defenders of the special election process where ward leaders pick the party nominee falsely claimed during the last council special elections that the process was dictated "by state law". Actually picking the party nominee could be by whatever process the party determined and you all will recall Nutter suggested investigating a caucus of some sort for his former seat, which Carol Campbell did not take kindly to. "Stab me in the back" was the words quoted in the paper I believe.
Its possible that we could push to change party rules in the future but considering that it was Fumo that put Brady up to run for mayor, I seriously doubt Brady would ever endorse a process other than ward leaders picking Fumo's replacement nominee in a special election process.
Vern's right in the wider picture though. If Fumo is going to be beat it realistically can only happen in the spring - before the trial starts.
Nutter, Special Elections & Moving On- Nutter isn't issue here
From Philadelphia Magazine (of all places):
As has become my refrain of late (despite helping to get us into these weeds) this really has got little to do with Nutter.
There is a process that we progressives could put into place to try to change special election rules in the D party. This race is just one of many reasons to do.
I get that there are other priorities, but Sean basically suggests supporting Vignola because he is well-qualified and because even if he loses in the Primary, a good run helps give him a boost in the special election process.
I am strongly opposed to the special election process and feel totally uncomfortable using a candidate's viability in that inherently unfair process as a justification for supporting him.
Sean--you put that idea out there. If you want to retract it, great. Let's focus on Vignola and other candidates who emerge in this race based on their ideals, their skills, and their viability.
Special Elections
Special elections are governed by State law, not by Party rules. Go talk to your legislators. It is hardly inconceivable that an independent could run and win in a special election.
special elections favor
whoa
Ray, forgive me but I didn't get the same message from Sean as you did regarding a special election and Vignola's chance to win it under its current process. In fact, actually knowing the first district as well as I do, quite the opposite is true. And I'm serious about that cup of coffee.
As I think ya know, You need to be an insider to win the special election as the process is now. If you knew anything about the first senate district (its actually almost 2 times the size of a council district) or Joe Vignola, you'd know he wouln't make their short list. A special election plays to the incumbent's favor. In this case, the incumbent will decide who follows him -- no one else. The ward leaders will be told for whom to vote and the Party chairman will suport his ward leaders. For obvious reasons having to do with the casinos, even Rendell will support that process.
Which is why it is critically important to beat the incumbent on April 22nd. We can blog about it or we can do it. I say lets do it.
Full disclosure here: I'm a friend of Joe's for over 14 years. He is a mentor of mine. If he decided to run for office, I'd support him.
I wasn't talking aobut the
I wasn't talking aobut the special election scenario except to point out how should Fumo win the primary that it would be the likely result after his eventual conviction. In that case Philadlephians get the worst of both worlds because Fumo is replaced by a handpicked place-holder. The Democratic caucus in Harrisburg is tarnished by the open secret of a now-convicted Fumo calling the shots by proxy and Philadlephians don't even get what good Fumo himself brought to the table in terms clout and legislative experience. Lose-lose all the way around.
I think that even in a multicandidate race, Vignola is the one most likely to beat Fumo outright in the primary and I think its very important to avoid the scenario I describe above.
BTW- I know you guys don't tolerate the level of mudslinging they have over PB but at least for the entertainment value of their ridiculousness you might check out some of the comments of my ahem dear friend barstonb. He lays out the idea of a placeholder as the whole point of Fumo's winning the primary for at least some members of Team Fumo.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/630220-post12.html
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/617530-post20.html
Enough about special elections
Well almost. Lou, the state election law specifically states that the parties shall determine for themselves how they select their candidate for the special election. It does not dictate how the parties decide how the parties pick the candidate they put up in the general election. At no point does state election code dictate the the ward leaders have to pick the candidate - that's internal party rules. On the same token, state law does not dictate paying for a special election primary either, so if the Democratic Party were to ever change its rules, it would be footing the bill for the caucus, or unofficial primary or what have you itself.
In other words, although in theory I would support making the special election process more competitive in some way, I understand why there is a snowball's chance in hell of the Democratic Party volunteering to pay for such an alternative process.
So lets all agree to kill the discussion of the special election process for now and go back to Joe Vignola, Anne Dicker and whoever else might choose to run for run for Fumo's seat. I notice on PB there is a thread currently hyping Sheila Ballen as a potential candidate so who knows.
sort of agree Sean; no Lou
Sean, I am very happy to watch a debate about the merits of the candidates in the 1st. As I said, I don't really have a horse in the race. I do think it's an important race, but I also resent the intense competitiveness of the Center City and South Philly races when there are so many other sets that should be in play--like the 3rd Senate district here in West Philly.
However, although it need not be mentioned anymore in the context of the 1st senatorial, we absolutely need to talk about changing the special election process. Sean, I understand your skepticism, but unless we want to get serious about creating a viable third party, in a one=party town, we are being absolutely bamboozled by the special election process.
There are rumors of coming indictments in other offices, Fumo, and Lynne Abraham may retire early--in other words more than one opportunity for the party to anoint, rather than allow party members to elect, replacements for public officials who leave office before their terms is up.
Finally, Lou, you are flat out wrong. The Special Election process is not governed by state law. Look it up. You are a ward leader, you should know that you and your fellow ward leaders alone could change this unfair process.
progressives should oppose undemocratic special elections
I agree with Ray here. The undemocratic special elections are something progressives should oppose.
I think the voters would be with us here. Although it’s tough to get voters focused on political process issues, I think this one could be framed in way that resonates with regular folks.
Almost sure Lou is right
I almost sure Lou is right, Ray.
Think about it. To hold a primary you have to put the election machinery into operation and pay for it. That election machinery is under the control of the state and run by state (The PA State Department) and city (the commissioners) officials. And it is paid for by the government.
If you remember how primaries were created, this would be pretty clear. They were created by state legislatures under pressure of citizens. They began first in Western states, mostly because those states had weaker voter allegiance to political parties and a weaker party machinery.
If I’m right, then there are only two ways to open the special election process.
The first is to change the law. Perhaps one of our progressive state legislators can introduce such a bill and then we can lobby for it. How about it Mark Cohen, Babette Josephs, Cherelle Parker, Tony Payton and others? I don’t, however, recall any state legislator or candidate for the state legislature—other than me—who has ever raised the issue publicly.
Second, the relevant Democratic Party committee could decide not to nominate someone for a special election. That would create an open special election in which all candidates would have to quality for the election as an independent by means of the petition process.
In this case, the relevant agent is, I believe, City Committee which always follows the decision of the ward leaders in a district, who in turn cast votes equivalent to the number of their division in the district.
I have very little hope that we have any means to convince City Committee not to nominate a candidate.
Alternatives
I suppose another alternative would be for the party to set up another informal process to pick a nominee.
It could, for example, invite every Democrat in a district to the convention center to have a convention.
Or it could set up an on-line voting system.
Or do what CFP did and create its own ballot boxes.
Or some combination of the three.
Of course, the party would have to pay for all of this.
look it up Marc/paging Jennifer or Dan
Marc, I am pretty sure when our little ad-hoc coalition came together last time to oppose the special election, someone did the research and found that, as Gaetano points out below, that it is the party that makes the rules on how to deal with nominating a candidate to run in a special.
You are right that once the party nominates a candidate (and maybe this is what Lou is thinking) that state election law takes over (except potentially in the case of First Class Cities or federal election law depending on the the office).
My point is that before that point, it is the parties that decide, and the City Committee could easily change its own rules (or maybe the State Committee would have to be involved too, but no matter) to allow for a vote among members of the party for who the nominee should be.
Again, for political neophytes, the reality of our current special election process is that when vacancies arise, our local Party leaders hand-pick someone to run to fill a vacant office. The person Democrats pick runs against a Republican, and in a city where 3 of 4 people are Democrats, that means that they win.
It's instructive that the last time the party did this (for City Council elections) 2 of the 3 people they picked--Dan Savage and Carol Campbell--could not win the first time they had to run for real. In other words, the party;s choice was pretty obviously not the people's choice.
Not sure we are disagreeing, Ray
The party could change the rules for nominating a candidate in a special election. But it can't cancel the special election and it can't force the state to role out the voting machines for a primary prior to the special election. As I pointed out in my second post, it could call a convention or create it's own ballot boxes like the anti-casino groups did. Or it could just not make a nomination and create an open special election.
Unless you are arguing that the party can force teh state to hold a primary--which I don't think is your point--we are not disagreeing at all.
point of clarification
Here's what you say:
If you scroll up, I beg Jennifer to research this point.
If the party wanted to, it could hold a special election primary: the important question is whether or not the state (or city) would pay for the poll workers, voting machines, fees for the space, etc. If not, then the party would have to pay for this on its own which would then make your suggestions come into play.
However, the first step is researching the law and figuring out what kind of precedent there is and if you could force the state to pay.
You are right that we don't disagree on the main point which is the City Committee could do something other than what they currently do to nominate a Dem to run in a special election.
Maybe we are disagreeing
on one point. But it is is the point I'm pretty certain Lou is right about. But it has been about thirty years since I studied the law on this subject and I'd be curious to see if there are some legal precedents that point the other way.
As I pointed out above, primaries were created initially by state law, not by changes in party rules.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, as private associations, political parties have a first amendment right to set up their own rules. But there are many examples in which state laws trump party rules.
First, the Democrats and Republican Party rules both prohibit states from having primaries earlier than New Hampshire the first primary state. But if states decide to hold a primary earlier, the party rules can't stop them. Nor can party rules force states to have primaries according to a their own schedule. The parties can, however, decide not to credential delegates or allow delegates to vote if they have been elected in earlier primaries.
Second, the white only primary was overturned in southern states when the courts ruled that state governments or party rules could not ban blacks from voting primaries. If I remember correctly, even though party rules still disallowed blacks from voting, they were trumped by state law. The Supreme Courts rule that even private associations meant to influence primaries—I think the group in question was the jaybirds somewhere in Texas although might have both the bird and state wrong.
Third, after a successful referendum, Washington State adopted what they called a blanket primary in 1935. A blanket primary is one in which voters can vote for a candidates in any political party, without being registered in either party and without declaring allegiance to any party. Republican and Democratic rules called for a closed primary in which voters could only vote in the primary of the party in which they were registered. The parties sued to overturn the law in US Supreme Court and lost. If I recall correctly, the court ruled that state law takes precedence over party rules.
Fourth, the Supreme Court ruled in America Party Texas v. White, 415 U. S. 767, 781 (1974) that states can force a party to select its nominees by means of a primary or a convention or vice versa.
On the other side, however, the Supreme Court in 1974—in California Democratic Party v Jones (530 US 567)—overruled proposition 198, a referendum that created the blanket primary in California. The grounds were that proposition 198 overturned the freedom of association of the Democratic Party to limit its nominating decisions to party members.
This case departs from the Washington State and, I think, other precedents. But it is one thing to regulate who votes in a primary and another thing to require the state to hold a primary.
A final, telling point, people who want to reform the presidential nominating system by, for example, holding a national primary, are looking to Congress not the political parties to create such a system.
So, my guess is that there is no way that City Committee can force the state to hold a primary election before a special election, even if City Committee agrees to pay the cost of such an election (which, by the way, I don’t think it can afford to do.)
The party could change the rules
The party could change the rules for the special election. For example, they could convene all of the committeepeople to vote, from every ward and division, rather than just the ward leaders. That, at least, would be more small-d democratic by one degree, both since more people would be able to vote and since the committeepeople are elected by Democrats as their direct representative with the party.
I have no idea whether this has ever been discussed.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
As you know, the party could
As you know, the party could just agree to nominate no one.
Second, even for a real primary, it does not need to cost the City money.
The City Council President calls elections for vacancies, right? So, pass a law that that takes away that power, and instead says that following a vacancy in office, the next held regular election - the third week of May or the first week of November- is a primary for the special and the next election day is the general. Offices would be vacant a little longer, but, I think it would be worth it.
Good ideas
Ray and I both suggested the first one above.
The second would work, as well. But I believe Ray was looking for a way for the party to act independently of passing a new law changing the way we fill vacancies.
I don't think anyone here is objecting to the cost of a primary for a special election. The issue is who would have to act to require a primary.
The Council President calls elections for vacancies in council. I believe that the Senate President Pro Tem calls elections for vacancies in the Senate and the Speaker of the House calls elections for vacancies in the House. To require a primary, either a month or so before the special or at the next regularly scheduled primary would require action by the General Assembly and Governor in the case of state offices. For city offices we might need a change in the home rule charter or a new state law. I'm not sure which.
to boil this down
we're getting lost in details here.
a change in state law may need to occur, but even if it does, the easiest way to make it happen is for the party to force it so. if the party changed its rules so that nomination of a candidate required a vote by party members (rather than just wards leaders) state would law would catch up if need be.
currently however, ward leaders are justifying an unfair and undemocratic process by blaming it on the state rather than themselves.
Probably true but perhaps not the most direct strategy
If City Committee were to ask Philadelphia area state representatives to change the law for nominating candidates in special elections, they would probably introduce and support such a bill. And it might well get through the House and Senate. (No guarantee about that, but if the strongest party committee in the state made such a request, it would carry some weight, I would think.)
But City Committee is not going to make the request because the creative use of special elections increases the power of ward leaders.
It will take a lot of pressure to get City committe to change its mind. So, why don't we go directly to our state representatives and senators, as well as to city committee, with our request?
I don't get it Marc
Marc, you are still getting lost in detail. The most important point here is that the City Democratic party does not need to wait for the state to take action to make the process more fair.
They may have a vested interest in keeping the process unfair (and thus easier for them to control), but last time around the party leaders claimed that they had no control over changing the special election process. That was a mis-truth, and one we must correct, especially for the media folks who will be reporting on this the next time a special election occurs.
Whether they decide to hold a full primary election vote to pick from a field of qualified Democrats or use one of the stop-gap solutions you suggest, the party can and should change the current unfair special election nomination process.
We're having this conversation as if we were in charge of the party, and we needed to figure out how to implement a goal we mutually agreed to. In case it's not obvious to you, we're NOT in charge.
As such, I am less interested in figuring out how to make something happen at the detail level than I am in pointing out the options party leaders have and specifically highlighting mis-truths and bad information, like the one Lou Agre repeated last week, about the party and special elections.
One more time, just for fun, our unelected ward leaders can, all on their own, vote and change the rules so that when vacancies come up in various offices, every day Democratic party members (you know, the people who actually constitute all the votes the party is so proud of "turning out") get a chance to pick the person who will run against a Republican, and likely win.
I wonder if anyone can help me name other special election nominees the ward leaders have selected in the past, who then lost in the first election they actually had to win on their own. I'll start with:
-Dan Savage
-Carol Campbell
Ray-Contact me directly
Ray, I do not know you, but if you want to call me a liar at least call me one to my face. My number is in the book and my email address is accessible. I realize that I am not "one of you" on this site but I did not misrepresent how a special election works. If you ever bothered to check my past you would see I have a long history of helping working people and my community. Further If I have a problem I go right to the person. I would have sent this to you directly but your Email is not in your profile.
My email Lou
is raym at localnet.com. I will be sure to add it to my profile as it is no secret.
And I have no doubt that you have a long history helping people and your community. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is what you said on on Wednesday, 11/21:
You are wrong Lou. Your statement is a mis-truth. Maybe you did not know that, and so you will note that I never called you a liar, but what you say is not right either.
And again, since you ARE a ward leader, and it is in your power, and you have been around inside the party, I wonder what you personally plan to do to make the special election process more fair.
State law and for city
State law and for city races, the city charter point to the party rules. The rationale being, the part won the seat and should keep it until the end of the term. So, it is, in a derivative way, governed by law.
I am basing that on the last special election go around and, generally, the legal research I did then.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Special elections are
Special elections are innately undemocratic we all seem to agree but the best way to avoid them is to make sure an incumbent who is very, very, very, very likely to be convicted of serious acts of fraud doesn't get re-elected.
Ray as an aside you said a couple of interesting things. Lynn Abraham indicted? I've never heard a whisper of that. I think Seth Williams was clearly the better candidate last time and I am quite sure he will be the best candidate next time but I've never heard a whisper of Abraham indictments. Got proof?
Also you threw me for a loop with that reference to the 3rd Senate district. Thats Shirley Kitchen in North Philly. In West we have Hughes (7) towards the north and you and I are served by Tony Hardy Williams (8). There maybe some indictments headed shortly toward the (cough, cough) 3rd Council district but thats another story.;)
The most exciting happening I hear in state races west of the Schuykill is that Hughes may actually (gasp) face a challenger! Candidates on our side of the Schuykill are very used to running unopposed basically for life, and you can unfortunately see the results of that complacency on many West/South West streets. I do have to send sincere thanks to Sen. Williams for bringing world class hip-hop for free to my hood every year but not always all that much beyond that- oh except for Kingsessing Heights - that might interest you, Ray.
Fumo's race casts a shadow much, much larger than his State Senate district's outlines and it would be incredibly naive to pretend otherwise. I work in the First and whoever replaces Fumo will likely have a far greater role in how future PA state budget negotiations affect all Philadelphians than 9 out of 10 State Senators - particularly if its someone like Vignola who brings years of fiscal expertise and a long personal history with the Governor to the table.
Ya got me Sean! And a Key Clarification on Abraham
I confused my state senate district with my Councilmanic district--my bad.
I also omitted some really important text (which I have gone back and corrected above): I have not heard any rumors that Lynne Abraham will be indicted--I have heard rumors that she may retire early which would either spur a special election or an appointment (someone else should say which will happen).
However, my main point above stands:
No doubt that the Fumo race is important. But, there are other Senate and House races--that are not in Center City-- that should be in play because the people who occupy them don't do much.
The fact that we have so many folks who generally vote the right way, but can't seem to leverage their power effectively beyond that is a big waste (which as an aside: I am actually surprised you mention Hughes as he is Senator who HAS done great stuff. He was a great friend to PUP where I used to work--he introduced the JOBs bill and has been a great leader on health care in the senate).
So as exciting as the back and forth between Joe and Vince and Anne and Larry and Babette, et al will be, I want to say early on, that they will be taking up a lot of space, often out of proportion to the power of their current/prospective seats in comparison to the whole of the Philadelphia legislative delegation.
I am interested in also focusing attention on recruiting and supporting challengers in places like the 2nd or 7th Senatorial district, or against Rosita Youngblood, or checking out the challenger in the Curtis Thomas race, or even better getting rid of those damn Republicans in the Northeast.
Another priority will be supporting Tony Payton as he faces his first election as an incumbent.
The list goes on...
There are a lot of reasons these aren't a big focus of attention from "progressives", but looking at the big picture--especially when you think about how much money we pay legislators--they should be.
Imagine a unified Philadelphia delegation--about 25 state reps and I think 9 senators who push a really clear progressive agenda in Harrisburg every day. Imagine funding these folks' campaigns via local donations so that they can afford to oppose the more moderate state party on key issues.
I truly believe that Democrats will not regain the majority in the state senate or create a more powerful majority in the house without becoming progressive populists. This go-along, to get-along attitude is still too prevalent.
I understand this is a idealistic vision, and that it might not happen in my lifetime--or ever. But, in the short-term I think there is room to expand progressive power.
No diss on the "other" Vince
No diss on the "other" Vince - or none was intended.
I was more trying to make a more general point about how even the best legislators "sharpen their game" a little when faced with challengers. So yes I agree all our races, including ones outside Center City are important. I have to admit I have not followed Vince Hughes as closely as I could have as of late but I do tend to think he has the best position or at least the least bad position on how to settle the whole issue of 4601 Market/the Youth Study Center.
Speaking of "sharpening their game" if today's Inky is correct, our esteemed Party chair may be doing a little of that shortly.
And to bring it back to Fumo, I have little doubt that facing strong progressive challengers will give Fumo the incentive to finally introduce that domestic partners legislation he's been threatening for so many years but that until well probably a month or two from today because it's never been "the right time". Thank goodness for contested primaries, huh?