V I E W P O I N T S
The 2016 presidential election has been a dog-and-pony show the like of which has never been seen in these United States. Political strife has polarized America, complicated family gatherings and thinned out Facebook friend bases as effectively as ary old bubonic plague. (And to think that when it came out, some of us thought "unfollow" was a silly word. This year, what would we have done without it?)
Dade County, like the rest of the nation, is keenly interested in the presidential race. Poll officials reported on Monday they had so far counted 1965 early voters and expected the number to hit 2000 today. That, they said, is heavy for Dade, heavier even than for early voting in either the 2008 or 2012 presidential elections.
Be that as it may, the presidential race is not The Dade Planet's problem. Let the great and mighty slug it out! The Planet's mandate is to focus on the locus, zeroing in on the center of the universe rather than spitting into the wind in the vague direction of Washington.
In this particular election year, though, political races in the locus The Planet is focused on--such as they were, and they weren't much!--were all settled in the Republican primary in May. So what's left to hold local interest?
The referendum questions, that's what. This year Dade votes not only on four proposed amendments to the state constitution, it has a special election referendum question all its own on liquor by the drink. On Tuesday, Dade must answer yes or no to the question:
"Shall the governing authority of Dade County be authorized to issue licenses to sell distilled spirits for beverage purposes by the drink, such sales to be for consumption only on the premises?"
For voters, it boils down to the question of whether restaurants--or, hypothetically, bars--should be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages in Dade County. How will Dade answer that question?
Dade said a resounding no in a similar referendum 20 years ago. The Dade County Sentinel reported in its Nov. 6, 1996, edition what it called "a rough estimate" of 2106 no votes to 1676 yeses in a liquor-by-the-drink question on the ballot the day before.
But that was a generation ago. How Dade will vote this time is anybody's guess. When the city of Trenton passed an ordinance in 2010--just six years ago--allowing restaurants within the town proper to serve beer and wine, church pastors and their congregations clogged city commission meetings waving Bibles and shouting protests.
This Dade referendum would give restaurants in the unincorporated county the right not just to serve up a mug of beer but to shake (or stir) a martini, pour a shot of whiskey or cater to their customers' cravings for any other hard liquor, neat or mixed--and so far, if the county's clergy have mounted any opposition at all to liquor by the drink, they have done so behind closed church doors. The Dade Planet, in any case, has not heard a peep!
Dade county commissioners have stayed largely out of it, too, almost unanimously proclaiming: "Let the voters decide." But at the last county commission meeting, District 3 Commissioner Robert Goff pointed out that the wording of the referendum question presents the county government, which is responsible for issuing liquor licenses, an opportunity to impose regulations and limitations on liquor sales. The county attorney, Robin Rogers, affirmed: "There's a lot of latitude given to local government." Goff's idea, he explained later, was to make sure Dade did not become a haven for "honky-tonks."
So if Dade voters say yes this time to liquor by the drink, will their elected officials step up with a "yes, but?" Will county commissioners in fact regulate the yes out of existence? Or if they don't, if the blue laws in Dade really do go away, how much difference will it make to ordinary life in the county? In Trenton, only two restaurants have so far taken advantage of the town's hard-fought permitting of beer and wine. Will it be the same story in the county, or will there be wild nights in Wildwood, gin joints in Jeffreytown, Rob Roys in Rising Fawn? For the answers to all those questions, stay tuned to The Dade Planet!
Meanwhile,here's a rundown on the four state amendment questions:
(1) "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?"
This amendment was a pet project of Nathan Deal, the Georgia governor, but many state educators have opposed it fiercely. Those "fer" says it gives the state needed authority to move in and take over terrible schools that nobody else is fixing. Those "agin" say it would grant the state the right to take local school tax money and use it however the state pleases, giving local voters and authorities no say-so about it.
Is this relevant to Dade? VOTE NO signs have sprung up here and there in the county, and The Planet has noticed teachers voicing opinions on it occasionally (mostly "no" opinions). On the other hand, Dade's school system is small, with just four schools--and none of them could feasibly be described as "chronically failing." Thus, voting yes or no on this question would not seem to have much direct impact locally one way or the other.
(2) "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow additional penalties for criminal cases in which a person is adjudged guilty of keeping a place of prostitution, pimping, pandering, pandering by compulsion, solicitation of sodomy, masturbation for hire, trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, or sexual exploitation of children and to allow assessments on adult entertainment establishments to fund the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund to pay for care and rehabilitative and social services for individuals in this state who have been or may be sexually exploited?"
This is a modern version of the old-style "sin tax," such as those that funded children's health programs by taxing cigarettes. In this case it sets up a stable funding source for the housing, education, psychiatric therapy, child care, job training, et cetera, of victims of sexual exploitation. That funding includes a new $2,500 fine on convicted criminals as described above, and a new annual fee of $5,000 (or 1 percent of annual gross revenue, whichever is greater) on "adult entertainment establishments"--i.e., strip joints, exotic dancing clubs and the like.
Proponents see this as a way to make sexual abusers pay for rehabilitating their victims. They say strip clubs give nothing back to the community and cause increased crime. Some even argue that looking at naked women while drinking alcohol causes men to rape children.
The rather obvious downside, especially for owners of "adult entertainment establishments," is that it it equates their legal businesses with sex slave trafficking and in fact requires them to pay double what the pimp or slaver would be assessed. There is already talk of a legal challenge, and rhetoric about nude dancing being protected under freedom-of-speech rights.
Relevance to Dade County, Georgia, which is not famous for its teeming fleshpots and dens of iniquity: Stag parties to Atlanta might cost a bit more as the hoochie-coochie clubs pass on their costs to customers? Well, The Planet is groping here. Vote your conscience!
(3) "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to abolish the existing Judicial Qualifications Commission; require the General Assembly to create and provide by general law for the composition, manner of appointment, and governance of a new Judicial Qualifications Commission, with such commission having the power to discipline, remove and cause involuntary retirement of judges; require the Judicial Qualifications Commission to have procedures that provide for due process of law and review by the Supreme Court of its advisory opinions; and allow the Judicial Qualifications Commission to be open to the public in some manner?"
Critics of this one say it would politicize the oversight of the state's judges and that it is in effect a power grab by nefarious elements within the state legislature. It would replace the current commission makeup of two judges selected by the Georgia Supreme Court, three lawyers appointed by the State Bar of Georgia and two citizens appointed by the governor, with all political appointees. The state bar would lose its three appointees and the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house would gain them.
Interestingly, a sponsor of this amendment is a former superior court judge who was forced off the bench by the Judicial Qualifications Commission for alleged sexual comments he made to female lawyers. The discredited judge then ran for and won a seat in the state house of representatives, from whence he has subsequently gunned for the Commission. This would seem to argue in favor of the critics of Amendment 3.
But others argue that, as currently composed, the Commission is itself power-drunk and misuses its might, and would thus benefit by a little reining in by the legislature.
Is this amendment relevant in Dade County? Well, Dade is currently under the jurisdiction of three judges who seem involved in such splashy power grabs and internecine bloodletting of their own, it is hard to imagine how any regulating commission over them could long remain uninterested.
But as to how the makeup of such a commission would affect the outcome, who can
tell? Not The Planet!
(4) "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the proceeds of excise taxes on the sale of fireworks or consumer fireworks be dedicated to the funding of trauma care, firefighter equipping and training, and local public safety purposes?"
This one, you don't hear as much argument about--who's not for funding firefighters?--but there is some.
The description of the amendment on the ballot says it refers to "existing taxes" as opposed to anything about imposing a new one. One internet commentator insists that the fireworks excise tax is, in fact, a new one, that the only reason it's called "existing" is that the Georgia legislature passed a bill attached to the amendment imposing the tax in the first place. If so, it certainly would seem sure to raise the price of fireworks.
Another possible downside is that, analogous to Amendment 2, it seems to be blaming trauma and fire on fireworks. Cases for and against that could be made--but not in the pages of The Dade Planet, which is seriously unqualified to pronounce one way or the other.
Is Amendment 4 important locally? Yes, it would seem that this amendment is as relevant to Dade as it is to any other county in Georgia. Dade likes its colored flashing lights as much as anywhere else in America come July 4.
Readers, this is an analysis article rather than an editorial. The Dade Planet does not presume to endorse or denounce any of the ballot measures, still less any candidate, for president or any other position.
Though The Planet imagines readers will take that sweeping statement of impartiality with a grain of salt. Possibly one licked from the rim of a Margarita on the rocks ...
Comments