NationStates Jolt Archive


Alabama votes for Segregation!

Soviet Narco State
04-12-2004, 17:54
People from the South always tell me how the South has changed, and then something like this comes a long...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/index.html

Alabama segregation amendment unchanged

Friday, December 3, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EST (2319 GMT)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- A statewide recount showed that Alabama narrowly voted to keep language in the state constitution supporting segregation and poll taxes, according to unofficial totals released Friday.

Secretary of State Nancy Worley said voters defeated the amendment by just 1,850 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. The original vote count showed the amendment lost by the same margin, or 0.13 percent.

Worley cautioned that the totals are unofficial until the votes are certified next week. "But this is an indication it is not going to turn around," she said.

The amendment would have erased unenforced language from Alabama's constitution that required segregated schools and poll taxes, which were designed to keep blacks from voting. Supporters of the amendment said the language is a painful and embarrassing reminder of the South's divisive past, and makes Alabama look bad to companies who might want to do business in the state.

But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools.

Gov. Bob Riley said Friday he will ask the Legislature in its February session to approve a version of the amendment that would remove only the constitutional language on segregated schools and poll taxes. That is what he originally wanted, but the Legislature decided to expand his recommendation before presenting it to voters in the November 2 election.

"Despite the defeat of Amendment Two, I'm confident the vast majority of Alabamians support removing segregationist language from our constitution," the governor said.

Most counties had close to or exactly the same totals they had on November 2, but some saw variations of hundreds of votes.

County election officials attributed the differences to some ballots not being counted by electronic scanners because they were too wrinkled, and voters marking the ballots with their personal pens rather than those provided at polling places. In a few instances, counties misplaced some ballots between the election and the recount, election officials said.
The milky lake
04-12-2004, 17:56
...idoits - whats not stupid about failing to pass that ammendment might I ask?
Jamaica Reborn
04-12-2004, 18:01
...idoits.

The irony......
Superpower07
04-12-2004, 18:01
I am in 'Shock and Awe'
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:05
So, they tied the removal of segregationist laws to a huge tax hike? Makes sense it didn't pass.
Soviet Narco State
04-12-2004, 18:10
So, they tied the removal of segregationist laws to a huge tax hike? Makes sense it didn't pass.

The tax hike was becasue the state would be legally required to have PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Stupid stupid stupid hillbillies!
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:11
The tax hike was becasue the state would be legally required to have PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Stupid stupid stupid hillbillies!

Well it makes sense that the people voted it down. They don't want to pay more taxes.
Jeruselem
04-12-2004, 18:12
So, they tied the removal of segregationist laws to a huge tax hike? Makes sense it didn't pass.

Sounds like a scam to me, so the segregationist laws don't get removed.
The Force Majeure
04-12-2004, 18:12
So, they tied the removal of segregationist laws to a huge tax hike? Makes sense it didn't pass.


But why think when we can just jump to conclusions?


But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools.



EDIT -

Reminds me of that family guy episode:
"ok, no more slaves...but we still don't have to read books."
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:12
But why think when we can just jump to conclusions?


But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools.


Thanks mom.
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:13
Sounds like a scam to me, so the segregationist laws don't get removed.

It strikes me as such as well.
Soviet Narco State
04-12-2004, 18:14
Well it makes sense that the people voted it down. They don't want to pay more taxes.

Argghh!!! no public school? No civil rights? If Alabama was a nation on this website they would clearly be labled "Psychotic Dictatorship".
Drunk commies
04-12-2004, 18:15
If they tied it to a big tax hike, maybe they didn't WANT it to pass.
The Force Majeure
04-12-2004, 18:15
Thanks mom.


Umm...what?
Myrth
04-12-2004, 18:15
You really expected better from Alabama?
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:15
Argghh!!! no public school? No civil rights? If Alabama was a nation on this website they would clearly be labled "Psychotic Dictatorship".

Listen, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that I can see the rationale of the people of Alabama not wanting to pay more taxes.
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:16
Umm...what?

I'd just like to thank you for the veiled jab at my intelligence.
The Force Majeure
04-12-2004, 18:19
I'd just like to thank you for the veiled jab at my intelligence.


I wasn't talking to you - I was restating your point.
Sdaeriji
04-12-2004, 18:20
I wasn't talking to you - I was restating your point.

Oh. Then I apologize.
Spoffin
04-12-2004, 18:23
Anyone here from Alabama?

Hey, gimme six
Soviet Narco State
04-12-2004, 18:27
Listen, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that I can see the rationale of the people of Alabama not wanting to pay more taxes.

Yeah I actually do see what you are saying but it still makes my head explode reading abou this. For example our main federal civil rights law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to only provide equal rights for people of different races, religions and national origins but a Southern senator added on sex as a "poison pill" to try to kill the whole thing based on the reasoning that no man would vote for equal rights for women.

Perhaps a racist legislator added on the legal recognition of the right to public education as a poison pill or perhaps some desperate teachers thought this was the only way they could ever hope to get school funding.
Armed Bookworms
04-12-2004, 18:29
The tax hike was becasue the state would be legally required to have PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Stupid stupid stupid hillbillies!
Last time I checked poll taxes and segragation were illegal anyway at the federal level.
Collegeland
04-12-2004, 18:36
Those laws don't affect anything anyways. Any form of segregation is illegal at the federal level and as any basic American Government class should teach you if a federal law and a state law contradict the federal law wins out. They wanted to remove the laws simply for symbolism, to make their state look better. And if I had to choose between my state looking better or lower taxes I would choose lower taxes.
Armed Bookworms
04-12-2004, 18:36
Yeah I actually do see what you are saying but it still makes my head explode reading abou this. For example our main federal civil rights law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to only provide equal rights for people of different races, religions and national origins but a Southern senator added on sex as a "poison pill" to try to kill the whole thing based on the reasoning that no man would vote for equal rights for women.

Perhaps a racist legislator added on the legal recognition of the right to public education as a poison pill or perhaps some desperate teachers thought this was the only way they could ever hope to get school funding.
Actually all it did was make it illegal to discriminate against women in jobs. It's still perfectly legal to make laws banning stuff they can do. If the CRA of 1964 had done what you say the ERA would never have come up.
Soviet Narco State
04-12-2004, 18:42
Actually all it did was make it illegal to discriminate against women in jobs. It's still perfectly legal to make laws banning stuff they can do. If the CRA of 1964 had done what you say the ERA would never have come up.
correct, I should have added "with regards to hiring and employment benefits". IF they really wanted to shoot down the Civil Rights Act they should have added sexual orientation.
Colchus
04-12-2004, 19:20
I'm from Alabama.

It's sad to see how many rednecks and idiots we have in my state, but please remember that North Alabama is not like South Alabama.

I'm actually from Huntsville which is ranked in the top ten in the US for the best places to live. We have one of the highest GDP per capita in the country. So please dont associate us with this stupid legislation.