Category: Election

Alabama State Representative Candidate Questionnaire Responses

Tom Fredricks, Candidate State Representative for District 4

Tom Fredricks, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Tom Fredricks, Attachments and Full Answer to Question 1 and 16.

Proncey Robertson, Candidate State Representative for District 7

Proncey Robertson, Legislative Questionnaire Response

James Bowling, Candidate State Representative for District 9

James Bowling, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Charles Orr, Candidate State Representative for District 10

Charles Orr, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Craig, Lipscomb, Candidate State Representative for District 30

B. Craig Lipscomb, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Ted Crockett, Candidate State Representative for District 45

Ted Crockett, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Jim Carns, Candidate State Representative for District 48

Jim Carns, Legislative Questionnaire Response

James William McFarland, Candidate State Representative for District 61

James William McFarland, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Kelvin Williams, Candidate State Representative for District 69

Kelvin Williams, Legislative Questionnaire Response

John Harris, Candidate State Representative for District 83

John Harris, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Adam Parker, Candidate State Representative for District 87

 Adam Parker, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Joanne Whetstone, Candidate State Representative for District 90

Joanne Whetstone, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Rhett Marques, Candidate State Representative for District 91

Rhett Marques, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Charles W. Talbert, Candidate State Representative for District 99

Charles W. Talbert, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Shane Stringer Candidate State Representative of District 102

Shane Stringer, Legislative Questionnaire Response

Urgent Action Needed Now to Stop SB280: More than Half of Alabama Counties will Lose the Right to Free Elections for Superintendents of Education

SB280 sponsored by Senator Brewbaker seeks to eliminate local control of County Superintendent of Education elections in more than half the state. The map shows each county in blue that currently elects their Superintendent of Education, but if SB280 is passed each of these counties will be forced to appoint. SB280 is expected to come up for a vote before Thursday in the House. This legislation will have two horrible impacts on local education. First SB280 will force over fifty percent of the Alabama counties to stop holding free elections.

Counties that hold elections for County Superintendent of Education will be forced to have the local board of education hand pick the County Superintendent. SB280 removes current rights from local education leaders and parents who live in the county. That means these Alabama Counties with Elected School Board Superintendents will be forced to stop conducting elections all together for County Superintendent: Autauga, Bibb, Blount, Chambers, Cherokee, Chilton, Choctaw, Clarke, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Conecuh, Coosa, DeKalb, Dale, Elmore, Fayette, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Jackson, Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, Shelby, St. Clair, Tallapoosa, Walker, Washington, and Winston.

The second, critical impact of the SB280 is that it also removes local education rights from other counties in Alabama. Counties which currently have an appointed County Superintendent will not be able to hold elections. SB280 is modeled after legislation being pushed by special interests in other states to centralize education and reduce local control. SB280 centralizes power in the hands of a few and harms our communities.

All legislators should oppose SB280 since it completely removes your right to hold a local election for County Superintendent of Education, and SB280 prevents other districts from holding elections in the future. Contact your State Representative today. To find contact information for your Rep. go here ! Calls are needed now from individuals in each county! All will lose control of local election process in their county.

Seven Reasons why we need more citizen involvement and not a Constitutional Convention Resolution

Eagle Forum of Alabama opposes the recently introduced resolution HJR23 which pushes a Constitutional Convention as a way to obtain term limits for members of Congress. Term Limits via an Article V Constitutional Convention is a bad idea on multiple counts. We don’t need yet another call for an Article V Constitutional Convention, which according to former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and other Constitutional scholars, cannot be limited to any one issue and could become a Pandora’s Box.

There are many problems with HJR23.

1. We already have ‘term limits’, they are called “elections”, every two, four, and six years. Just because voters are derelict in their duty, does not mean we must change our process.
2. ‘Artificial’ term limits means giving the bureaucracy a LOT more power, in that institutional memory and experience is no longer available.
3. Voters are prohibited from voting for the person they believe is best for that office.
4. In the last term any official serves, without re-election on the horizon, there is no longer the accountability that was once there.
5. Term limits can prevent legislators from gaining the experience they need to become skilled lawmakers.
6. Term limits would give lobbyists more influence. 
In his presidential farewell address in 1989, President Reagan rightly pointed out that term limits are “a preemption of the people’s right to vote for whomever they want as many times as they want.”
7. Here’s a look at congressional tenure by the numbers: 9.1 Years of average length of service in the United States House of Representatives as of January 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service. Average length of service in the U.S. Senate as of January 2013 is 10.2 years.

The way to effectively reform Congress lies in supporting and voting for candidates who uphold the belief in a stronger local government rather than a stronger national government. Term limits will not achieve the reform that is needed in our federal government because term limits will NOT RESTRAIN the power of our federal government. The solution is for citizens to get involved with the political process at all levels. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated on May 11, 2015: “A Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea. This is not a good century to write a Constitution.”

Crisis In American Democracy

Dear Eagle Friends,

It is entirely appropriate that the short “Crisis in American Democracy” commentary below by Dr. Albert Mohler has come out today on the National Day of Prayer.

Please join in prayer for our nation:
“If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”  II Chron. 7:14

Please see the following Scripture suggested by TN Eagle President Bobbie Patray:
Restore us to yourself, Lord, that we may return;
    renew our days as of old
unless you have utterly rejected us
    and are angry with us beyond measure.
Lamentations 5:21-22 and Daniel 9:4-19

Please go to this prayer guide today and every day.

Blessings,
Eunie Smith

Crisis in American Democracy
In this essay, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. reflects on the on the current political scene in America and its implications for Christian faithfulness. Mohler writes:

“Political turmoil now marks the United Kingdom and also nations like France and other key American allies. Perhaps democracy itself is now facing a crucial hour of decision and a crucial season of testing. It is no exaggeration to say that democracy is being tested around the world; it is certainly being tested here at home. Yet if this is a moment of testing for democracy, it is also a crucial moment for Christian witness. This election cycle is going to be a particular test for American Christians-and we are about to find out if Christians are up to this challenge.”

To read the entire column. 

___________________________________________________________________________

Explanation of Amendments on the AL Ballot for the Election Nov. 4, 2014

Becky Gerritson, President of the Wetumpka Tea Party, has put together six short videos explaining each amendment that will be on the November 4th ballot.  Click below for her great explanations.

 

http://vimeo.com/channels/824801/109175872

Questionnaires/Sample Ballots for 6/3 election

Candidate Questionnaires and Sample Ballots
for Your Review

Recently, Eagle Forum of Alabama sent questionnaires to candidates for the following offices:

U.S. Congress District 6
Governor
Lieutenant Governor
Public Service Commission
Secretary of State
State Auditor
State House
State Senate
State Treasurer
State Board of Education

Those questionnaires that were completed and returned are now available for review on our website under the Resources tab.  We hope these responses will be beneficial in helping you make informed choices in the upcoming primary elections on June 3rd.

See Sample Ballots by County.

Candidate Questionnaires Ready for Review

Candidate Questionnaires Ready for Review

Recently, Eagle Forum of Alabama sent questionnaires to candidates for the following offices:

U.S. Congress District 6
Governor
Lieutenant Governor
Public Service Commission
Secretary of State
State Auditor
State House
State Senate
State Treasurer
State Board of Education

Those questionnaires that were completed and returned are now available for review on our website under the Resources tab.  We hope these responses will be beneficial in helping you make informed choices in the upcoming primary elections on June 3rd.

 

Choosing A Presidential Candidate

Although Eagle Forum of Alabama does not endorse candidates, we have put together a list of resources where you can go to find out about all of the presidential candidates and their records.  We encourage everyone to read up on the candidates, what they say now and what they have done in the past.  A well-informed electorate is the foundation of our republic.

Election 2012

Club For Growth–The CFG Presidential White Papers explore each candidate’s stance on pro-growth economic issues and their history of supporting pro-growth economic policies.

Cato Institute–The Cato Institute has put together a guide to the presidential candidates’ proposals on spending.

FRCAction–The Family Research Council’s action arm has put together a chart showing where the candidates stand on a variety of issues.

Post Libertarian–Slightly different in that this is a blog that contains the author’s take on all the candidates, but there are some good insights and relevant information you might not get on the sites above.

Washington Post–The WaPo has a 2012 Election Center that compiles the latest news, biographies on each of the candidates, and tools for evaluating the candidates.

This list is not comprehensive.  If you come across a helpful resource that is not listed, email us at alabamaeagle@gmail.com.

National Popular Vote Is A Bad Idea

Check out Phyllis’ latest column explaining why national popular vote is a bad idea.

National Popular Vote Is A Bad Idea

by Phyllis Schlafly

Moving quietly under cover of presidential debates and the enormous publicity given to the race for the Republican nomination is a plan to change how U.S. Presidents are elected. It would bypass the procedure spelled out in the U.S. Constitution which has been used successfully for over two centuries.

The Constitution prescribes how we elect our Presidents. It is a mirror image of the Great Compromise designed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which brought together the large and small states by means of a national Congress, with the House based on population and the Senate based on state sovereignty.

Likewise, when the presidential electors meet in gatherings known as the Electoral College, each state’s vote is equal to the sum of its House and Senate representation in Congress. Our Founding Fathers understood that America is a nation of both “we the people” and a federal system of states, so it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in electing our President.

NPV is an attempt to achieve the longtime liberal goal of getting rid of the Electoral College. Instead of proposing an amendment that would first need to be passed by Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states (38), NPV is a scheme to deviously bypass the grand design of our U.S. Constitution.

NPV lobbyists are trying to get state legislatures to enact identical bills requiring their own state’s presidential electors to ignore the winner of their own state’s presidential election, and instead cast all their state’s votes for the candidate whom the politicians estimate received the most popular votes nationwide. That candidate would not need a majority or any certain threshold–just more votes than any other candidate (i.e.-a plurality)

The NPV campaign lets people believe that NPV will elect Presidents who win the majority of popular votes, but that is false. Because of third parties, we’ve had many elections (including three of the last five) when no presidential candidate received a popular-vote majority. Abraham Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote and only our Electoral College system elected him President.

If the NPV lobbyists can get enough states whose votes in the Electoral College total at least 270, they will be able to steal votes away from some candidates, transfer those votes to another candidate, and thereby construct a fake majority in the Electoral College. Eight states and the District of Columbia (with 132 electoral votes; half of the 270 needed) have already joined this NPV “compact” to “activate” NPV: Vermont 3, Maryland 10, Washington 12, Illinois 20, New Jersey 14, District of Columbia 3, Massachusetts 11, California 55, and Hawaii 4.

The NPV slogan “Every Vote Equal” is dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing. For example, Texas or Louisiana could be forced to cast its votes for a candidate who won more votes in other states, such as New York.

If NPV had been in effect in the year 2000, Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush because Gore received more votes than Bush. It’s a mystery how any Republican could support NPV, and it’s no surprise that the Republican National Committee voted unanimously to oppose NPV because members saw it as unconstitutional and unworkable.

Remember our national trauma as we suffered through recounts in Florida where the margin between Bush and Gore was only about 500 votes? If the election is based on the national popular vote and it’s close, NPV would induce recounts in many or most of the 50 states.

Mexico uses a national popular vote system, and it’s a good illustration of why we don’t want it here. In Mexico’s last presidential election, the candidate with the “most votes” received 35.89 percent while his closest rival got 35.31 percent, a margin of just one-half of one percent. In the months that followed, Mexico was on the verge of civil war as the runner-up held mass rallies attracting millions of his angry supporters.

People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don’t even understand baseball. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory.

You Can Attempt Meaningful Reform And Live To Tell About It

Excellent piece from the Wall Street Journal about the recall elections in Wisconsin. Conservative Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators were under harsh attack from unions and left-wing organizations across the country and still managed to win with the voters of Wisconsin.

They called it Armageddon. They promised political revenge, and they said it would be the beginning of the end of the GOP ascendancy of 2010. Unions across the country threw everything they had to defeat Wisconsin state senators who voted for collective bargaining reforms for government workers, and on Tuesday the unions lost.

Maybe we’re not Greece yet.

In the six months since Governor Scott Walker introduced his reforms, Big Labor and Democrats have tried to make the Badger State a national demonstration that some political lines can’t be crossed. Union power, once granted, is sacrosanct. Even President Obama denounced Mr. Walker. The legislative brawl consumed Madison in European-style protests and turned a judicial election into a national spectacle before the law was upheld by the state supreme court.

On Tuesday, voters delivered another verdict, favoring Republicans in four of six state senate recall elections and keeping the GOP in the majority. The two losses came in races where the GOP incumbent was troubled for other reasons. Dan Kapanke lost in Democratic-leaning La Crosse, while Randy Hopper lost after he left his wife to take up with a barely-legal Republican aide.

The unions can’t say they didn’t go all-in. Spending in the recalls totalled around $28 million, only a few million less than total spending in the state’s 2010 gubernatorial election, and Democrats are widely estimated to have outspent Republicans two to one. For the bucketloads of cash, the political impact is negligible. Two Democrats face recalls next week and if they were to lose, the net senate recall effect would be zero.