This letter is in response to the Sept. 26 article in regards to the partisan city election resolution that was passed in December 2012. My first thought was that the resolution was aimed at Mayor Debe Hollingsworth because her opponents accused her of being a Republican. Numerous times throughout her campaign she addressed that issue. Opponents searched for proof that she was a Republican but always fell short of producing documents they “claimed” they had.
My thoughts are that her opponents “profiled” her as a Republican because she is a white female business owner.
I’ve read numerous times in the PBC that the sponsor of the resolution commented that the resolution did not have anything to do with the Hollingsworth victory but that it was representative of the “personal preferences” of its proponents.
So that being said, this resolution must be about socio-economic status. Perhaps an unintended consequence but it will discriminate against low income people who want to run for municipal offices and who may not have the financial means to pay for or raise funds for filing fees. Think about it, from gathering signatures to paying over $1,000 to run for office? This resolution will eliminate a portion of the voices of concern in our community and will place a financial barrier on representation at the local government level that is totally unnecessary. It will further divide the haves and have-nots. It will create exclusion instead of inclusion and it will limit participatory democracy.
Is it really important that we know a political affiliation of our local government representatives at this cost? What purpose does it accomplish? I am interested in knowing the rational of those who voted in favor of this resolution, especially considering it was simply noted as their “personal preference.”
Kymara H. Seals