JFP Endorsements: Vote TODAY for Progress in Jackson
Mayor: Vote Harvey Johnson
It seems likely that the Democratic Primary—contested for the most part between Mayor Harvey Johnson and businessman Frank Melton—will determine our next mayor. Knowing that, we felt that Melton had the burden of proof—he had to convince us, as voters, that he would govern more effectively than Johnson.
Yes, we laugh every week at “Election Man” by Marshall Ramsey in the Clarion-Ledger. But we’ve also started to feel that the label “Election Man” was more apt last time around than it is this time. What we’ve seen is a mayor who has slowly and steadily made progress in a city that has limited resources, to say the least. And that progress has been accelerating since he won re-election in 2001.
But if businessman Frank Melton had better ideas, we were ready to listen. In fact, we tried hard to hear them—with just two reporters and two photographers, we’ve been to every Melton appearance we could—including some of the events he’s cancelled or walked out on.
What we haven’t heard is a platform of great ideas. We’ve heard that Melton would fire Chief Moore, build the convention center between Two Lakes, divert the Pearl River into downtown, build a high-tech music studio on Farish Street and buy people houses.
Mostly, we’ve heard that he would provide “leadership.” But we’ve heard very few specific policy positions. We’re just supposed to trust him and his rhetoric.
But that trust is difficult to muster, because small fibs come a bit too easily to the former TV station owner and commentator. He said he took his homestead exemption in Jackson, but didn’t. He said he voted in Houston, where The Clarion-Ledger reported he wasn’t even registered. He said he’d brought Habitat for Humanity to his unannounced press conference at Mrs. Bobbie Johnson’s house, but he hadn’t.
No, those aren’t huge whoppers in and of themselves. But it’s a pattern that suggests Melton may be too apt to tell us “want we want to hear” (a point that’s also been made in “Election Man”) to engender much blind trust in his programs.
Frank Melton is a powerful personality and a living legend. We hope he will dedicate many more good years of service into continuing to improve Jackson and its neighborhoods. Indeed, we encourage him to do the things he’s promised regardless of whether or not he’s mayor—build a high-tech recording studio on Farish Street, encourage superstar entertainers to come sing in Jackson, put together the investment to build affordable housing and continue to criticize the city as he sees fit. He’s earned that right.
But we don’t think he needs to be mayor to do those things. And he hasn’t outlined a platform—or run a campaign—that leads us to believe that he does need to be mayor. His self-proclaimed strength—the ability to hire good people—hasn’t shown itself in his disorganized and difficult campaign staff.
For Jackson’s future, the JFP supports not one particular man, but men and women who promote progress—in particular, progress that benefits our readership of independent-minded city dwellers who want to start businesses, build careers, enjoy families and come together as a community to enjoy all that is unique and authentic about an extraordinary place called Jackson.
With that goal as our barometer, we believe that Mayor Johnson is the better choice, even if he’s missed a few pitches thrown his way. In particular, we encourage him to bring more young Jacksonians, of all races, into his administration and his citywide outreach. The campaign for the convention center proved that the Mayor could be part of a broad coalition that included many young Jacksonians and was driven by a strong sense of community purpose.
Let’s do that again.
Our vision is that, in the next 10 years, Jackson becomes known as the city that people want to move to so they can explore their gifts and ideas and passions. And it’ll be a place that Mississippians who have left the city (or the state) will want to return to, so they can enjoy the energy and spirit of creativity and authenticity—and reap the benefits of harnessing that spirit in business ventures and organizations.
Jackson has an open primary system, so you don’t have to be a registered Democrat to vote in that primary. Because Mr. Rick Whitlow is unopposed in the Republican Primary, even some die-hard Republicans are expected to vote in the Democratic Primary.
Of the three Democratic candidates for mayor, Harvey Johnson is the best fit for that vision. So, on May 3, vote for Harvey Johnson in the Democratic Primary.
But know this—whoever wins, we won’t let him or her get comfortable. Part of the job of Jackson’s mayor is to reach out to hard-working, community-minded Jacksonians—young and old, of all ethnicities and backgrounds—who want to build Jackson into a city known for its authenticity, uniqueness, fellowship and prosperity.
Encouraging that spirit is what leadership is about.
City Council: Incumbents
For Ward 1, Ben Allen runs unopposed.
For Ward 2, the JFP endorses incumbent Leslie Burl McLemore by virtue of his knowledge of the mechanics of city politics and by his growing talent as council moderator. During his stand-in as council president in Marshand Crisler's absence, the council suffered fewer bouts of infighting. McLemore has also made numerous—unsuccessful—attempts at bringing the council and the Hinds County Board of Supervisors into accord.
For Ward 3, the JFP endorses Kenneth Stokes by a slim margin over contenders David L. Archie and Stanley Amos. Stokes' work in the ward is apparent every time it rains and the ward remains above water. Stokes has worked hard in infrastructure and seems to know how to secure money in a world with less of it. Still, Amos and Archie are rapidly learning the issues, and if they develop more of a presence in the community Stokes—and his bombastic personality—may well be on the way out. We encourage him to attend more meetings and tone down the rhetoric. (Allen, too.)
For Ward 4, The JFP endorses William “Bo” Brown. Endorsing for this ward was a struggle but Brown seems to know that money doesn't fall out of the sky for home renovations or the removal of dilapidated housing. Contender Antonio Porter carries plenty of fire, but does not yet know enough of the issues. Still, the election is up in the air in Ward 4, and Brown might not walk away with his seat this year.
For Ward 5, the JFP endorses Bettye Dagner-Cook, likewise, because she understands that a council member doesn't just wave a wand and fix drainage problems. Campaign contender Charles Tillman has a level head and is well-spoken and Chris Gray is quickly getting his facts together on running a ward. Cook may have a serious run for her seat in the next election against either of them if she retains her spot this time around.
For Ward 6, the JFP endorses incumbent Marshand Crisler because of his outstanding ability to work with others and his emerging talent at tweaking the bureaucracy to get things moving. Crisler feels at home just about anywhere and could probably find comfort while sleeping on a bag of cats. The citizens of his ward generally speak well of him and he's good at returning calls, they say. He is also not afraid to call attention to concerns that alarm him.
For Ward 7, the JFP endorses Margaret Barrett-Simon. Ward 7 spans a wild variety of neighborhoods from South Jackson to the northern territory, and the variety of the citizenry in it has more color than a bowl of fruit loops. Barrett-Simon, for this reason, occasionally draws criticism for her inability to relate to all of her constituents. Still, her heart remains in the right place, and she carries more political expertise than either of her contenders this time around. That, and she tends to be a faciliator for the rest of the council.
COMMENTS
i'm probably being superficial here, and i know i keep bringing it up, but i CANNOT FATHOM having a mayor who resides in two towns and who hasn't ever really voted, and who has a wife who lives IN TEXAS.
THAT'S JUST CRAZY!
Kinda off thread, but the creative class and drinking game seem to be taking all the other space.
Did anyone think that Johnson has a real chance of a lopsided victory since all the GOPers and GOPettes will be in Canton on Tuesday...?
the creative class and drinking game seem to be taking all the other space.
You've just been away a week. Had you been here, you'd understand the drinking game. ;-)
However, I agree that today is a good day to talk issues. Why don't we use this thread to list positive, specific reasons to vote for the different candidates (Council, too). Ground rule for this one: Keep negativity out of it. This one will be reasons to vote FOR candidates, not to vote against against other ones. (We'll delete you if you negative on this thread.)
Ready, set, go.
   Posted by: ladd on May 02, 05 | 4:28 pm
Johnson because he is definitely the most intellectual, educated, and public policy oriented of the candidates for mayor. While that sometimes slows him down trying to take a lot of different issues into consideration, he is ultimately well balanced and farsighted in his approach.
And anyone that can put up with the antics of the City Council over the last 8 years and still show progress deserves another term.
Johnson for sticking to his values and continuing forward towards his goals despite the adversities that may confront him and the City.
Posted by: tortoise on May 02, 05 | 4:45 pm
As i understand it, (and cannot verify it) the polls (earlier) have consistently shown Melton with a strong lead. This city cannot produce the numbers I saw with the exclusive help of GOP'ers and dis-satisfied moderates weighing in alone. Excluding arguments of the qualifications of any of the candidates, I have to point out a few things:
This city, for good or ill, (i think) is tired of Johnson. Perhaps there's something about an executive office (particularly one presiding over a large populace) that makes people NOT want a politician to make a career out of the mayor's office. Comments were made earlier about how the onus was on Melton to prove his worth as a candidate. i think that is only part of the picture for electing a challenger. it certainly is a good way to start and a good REASON to elect a challenger, but it isn't necessarily WHY the population throws out an incumbent.
A re-election campaign is a referrendum on the job done by the sitting official. that doesn't mean it is fair or sensible. what it IS, is a test to see if the voting public likes him/her enough to want more. 12 years is a LONG time to serve if the public is luke warm with you in a seat that hasn't seen 3+ term tenures in decades. the people aren't used to that, and perhaps don't want it--regardless of just who the candidates are.
To me, this is the starting point of ANY challenge to an incumbent and the importance of a candidate's message or plan may grow or diminish based on how enamoured the public is with the incumbent. This is why (at least in part) you can see true shysters elected repeatedly over the interests of the public. being liked goes a long way.
Now i'm not saying Johnson isn't liked. I'm saying that he may not be liked well enough to have an easy ride here. What it comes down to (in my mind) is this:
Johnson's campaign is about saying "see how well i've done."
Melton's is about saying "is that good enough?"
no matter how well things ARE going, the answer to the Second question is what will decide the race.
Posted by: jp! on May 02, 05 | 5:24 pm
*Disclaimer:
I'm trying to give my observations, but it should be noted that i've worked in a small capacity for the Johnson campaign in 2001, dated (in the past) a member of his staff, and remain close friends with current staff. I'm certainly no johnson OR melton hater/lover.
Posted by: jp! on May 02, 05 | 5:27 pm
What we havenít heard is a platform of great ideas. Weíve heard that Melton would fire Chief Moore, build the convention center between Two Lakes, divert the Pearl River into downtown, build a high-tech music studio on Farish Street and buy people houses.
DIVERT THE PEARL RIVER INTO DOWNTOWN?
What planet is this guy from?
Oh, yeah, that's right: Texas. ;-)
Still, though. Geez.
Best,
Tim
But it's a great idea, Tim. We could all sell our cars and use gondolas instead. It'll be just like Venice! A little rough on the buildings, maybe, but as long as we make sure nobody's trapped inside them at the time I'm sure we would eventually adapt.
Get your swimsuits ready, everybody!
(I'm sorry; that was terrible. What would St. Lutheran think?)
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 03, 05 | 5:00 am
Well, you know, Tom, you could just dig the streets a few stories deeper and flood them. Move the utilities (water mains, sewer mains and such that are beneath the streets) out of the way ;-) and just flood the streets. Then the buildings wouldn't come to harm.
:-D
I don't swim, though, so when I visit I guess I'll have to rent a gondola. (With any luck that'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than what I pay to rent a car there....)
Best,
Tim
Would Melton have the power to take the convention center away from downtown? It's already been voted on and the site is set.
Would this man really have the authority to put it "between two lakes" in 20 years????
I doubt it, Millhouse, or I sure hope not. The point is: Why in the world would Melton make such statements showing such disrespect for Jacksonians who have worked so hard to increase downtown economic developments (thus, jobs and tourism and the tax base)??? Not to mention the two-thirds of Jacksonians who voted for the Convention Center to be DOWNTOWN.
I don't get pandering to Rankin County when you're running for mayor of Jackson. Sigh.
Posted by: ladd on May 03, 05 | 11:59 am
We need non-partisan municipal elections, just as the big majority of US cities already have. (These are popularly called "open primaries" in Mississippi.) 41 of the 50 largest US cities with elected mayors use non-partisan elections. Some Southern cities include Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas.
We also need non-partisan county elections. For more on the Voter Choice Plan, see the 10/15/04 post, "Is There A Republican Method Of Performing Autopsies?" at southerncrown.blogspot.com.
Gosh, Steve, what a good question. Is there a Republican way of performing autopsies? Hmmmm...
- Corpses aren't taxed.
- No openly gay coroners.
- All coroners buy their own equipment.
- Faith-based forensics ("Jesus told me he died of a fall").
- Body bags have "In God We Trust" mimeographed on the side.
Cheers,
TH
Posted by: Tom Head on May 06, 05 | 10:52 am
Actually, Steve, we already have "open primaries" in Mississippi municipal, county AND state elections.
"Open primaries" are classically defined as primaries in a political system in which voters do not register their political affiliation. In Mississippi (unlike some other states) one does not register as a GOPer or as a democRat when registering to vote. Where such party registration does take place, one can ONLY vote in the party primary for which they registered. If you register as an independent under that system, you may choose which primary (and subsequent runoff) in which you wish to cast your vote.
In Mississippi, you simply decide the primary in which you wish to participate on primary election day. What you are asking for is actually a non-partisan (where no candidate declares party affiliation) BLANKET open primary in which all candidates are on the same ballot.
steve, what you are talking about is not actually a "non-partisan municipal election" they are completely partisan and dominated by the 2 parties. the difference is that there's no primary, all candidates are tossed into a general election together w/ both parties and there is a run-off with the top 2 vote getters, regardless of their party affiliation.
any politician that would CHOOSE this method of running for office should be shot. running such campaigns are a nightmare.
Posted by: jp! on May 06, 05 | 11:39 am
jp!: Since there are no party primaries, there are no official party nominees. But each party is still free, of course, to support candidates. It's a non-partisan election because candidates don't qualify to run with a party and, in most cases, there are no party labels on the ballot.
GDIModerate: I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible. There are exceptions to what you've stated, e.g., Louisiana has voter registration by party, and yet its congressional, state, & local elections are non-partisan. (I'm only proposing that Miss. change to non-partisan municipal & county elections.) In MS's present system of municipal elections, there are cases where all (or all serious) candidates for mayor run in one party's primary, while all candidates in a particular ward run in the other party's primary; thus, voters in that ward have to choose between voting for mayor or councilman/alderman.
Assuming that you've already read "Is There A Republican..." (which actually is a 10/29/04 post), let me strongly suggest that you also read the 8/25/04 & 10/15/04 posts at southerncrown.blogspot.com. Then we can discuss this in greater detail.
Louisiana's elections are NOT non-partisan. They are an blanket open primary. Candidates are indeed affiliated with the political parties, just ask Mary Landrieu (D-LA).
What you want is the same blanket, non-partisan primary as Mississippi now has for judicial elections. Not arguing against it for municipal elections, just wanting the facts to be correct.
GDIModerate: Sure wish I could get you to read the articles on my blog, where I go into great detail on all this.
Primary Election: "A preliminary election in which voters directly nominate for office the candidates of their own party."
In Louisiana, the candidates' party affiliations are listed next to their names on the ballot. But the elections are non-partisan for 2 reasons: The candidates don't qualify with their parties, and the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates (caucus, convention, or primary).
The first election in LA is actually a non-partisan general election and, if no one gets a majority, there is a runoff general election. Thus, there are usually more than one candidate from the same party running against each other in a general election, which is not possible when the parties are able to nominate candidates. In LA, there have been instances of the national Republicans and the state Republicans endorsing different candidates in the same race.
steve, i understand what you are trying to say and you aren't exactly wrong. however, that doesn't make it a non-partisan race. in a non partisan race there is no party affiliation with the candidates. Take, for example, MS Judicial elections. THAT is a non-partisan race. whatever the case, any politician that'd CHOOSE that set up is insane.
Posted by: jp! on May 06, 05 | 4:54 pm
jp!: California has had non-partisan city & county elections for nearly 100 years, with no party labels on the ballot.
Everyone knows the 2 candidates in the May 17 runoff for mayor of Los Angeles are both Democrats. Similarly, the 2 candidates in the last several runoffs for mayor of San Diego have both been Republicans. The last runoff for San Francisco mayor featured a Democrat & a Green.
You don't know the party affiliation of ex-Chief Justice Ed Pittman?
As a former Louisiana resident, I feel obligated to weigh in.
Louisiana has open primaries for ALL offices except U.S. President. This is different from the Mississippi system, often called "crossover voting". Crossover voting is where the voters choose which individual primary to vote in, (i.e. Mississippians can vote for a slate of candidates WITHIN a party, but only one party is on that ballot. Louisiana's system is a true open primary -- ALL candidades run on the SAME primary ballot. That means there are no party barriers for the voters. Louisiana's system is definitely free'er, though it has advantages and disadvantages. With an open primary, a demogogue who appeals to social conservatives of all stripes (though economically they may be split between liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc), doesn't have a party firewall stopping him (as David Duke showed us -- to La's embarrasment). Also, the parties have less control over the candidates, which again can be both a good thing and a bad thing (Duke ran as a Republican pretty much repudiated by his own party, but the La Rep Party couldn't do a thing about it). Still, by the same token, the La system also has the potential to allow true reformers with crosssover appeal to compete and succeed without party filters.
The summary: a TRUE open primary has more freedom, but it's also more risky. Crossover voting and strict Party Registration voting is less free, but less risky. Should Mississippi adopt an open primary? That is up to you all to decide how much risk your overall political system can bear.
Philip: Hope you'll take the time to read the above-mentioned articles on my blog, where I trace MS's & LA's histories back to the 1960s. Since that time, the LA system has popularly been called an "open primary" in both LA & MS, though it's actually a non-partisan general election with a runoff, if necessary. (See especially the definition above of "primary election.")
Back to the main point: Miss. needs to change to non-partisan elections for municipal & county offices.
i just don't get it. "non-partisan" deals with political parties, not primary structure. i believe you are confused on your terminology and will leave it at that.
Posted by: jp! on May 07, 05 | 6:48 pm
jp!: We risk getting bogged down on terminology. I admire your sticking to your guns; bet you're a tiger in the courtroom.
In MS, most of our officials are chosen in partisan elections. We now have 8 political parties, & in a partisan election, each party has the right to nominate one candidate; there cannot be more than one candidate from each party for each partisan office in the general election.
Parties first used caucuses & then also conventions to nominate candidates. In 1903, MS began using party primaries statewide to nominate candidates for partisan offices. A candidate who runs in a party primary must first qualify with his party.
When an office is elected on a non-partisan basis, candidates are nominated either by getting signatures on petitions or by paying a fee to the government. The first step in a non-partisan election is the general election, followed by a runoff, if necessary. Thus, it's possible to have more than one candidate from the same party in the general election, and it's possible for the 2 runoff candidates to be from the same party, as noted in the California examples above.
You rightly noted that we in MS elect state & county judges on a non-partisan basis. Our elections for county election commissioners are also non-partisan, and yet the party affiliations of all 410 election commissioners are known.
As you also noted, parties frequently exercise their 1st Amendment right to support candidates in non-partisan elections.
|
