Alabama rejects removal of segregation language from state constitution

[Dionysos]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- Election officials will begin recounting votes Monday on a narrowly rejected ballot measure that would have removed segregation-era language from the state Constitution.

The amendment was defeated by 1,850, or .13 percent, according to the final vote tally. Alabama law requires an automatic recount if the margin is within a half percent.

The amendment would have removed un-enforced language mandating racial segregation from the state Constitution, which was written in 1901.

Secretary of State Nancy Worley said she doesn't expect the recount to change the final election results, "if all the correct procedures are followed." She said most counties will finish the recount in one day.

Most of Alabama's 67 counties use ballots that are scanned into machines and the recount would simply require poll workers to run the votes through the machines again.

Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools. Proponents said it would erase segregationist language many consider embarrassing.

Several legislators have promised to reintroduce the measure if it fails, removing the language that some believe would leave the door open for tax increases.

[question]

Yeah Johnny, I posted an article about this a while back. It turned into a multi-page argument about abortion after 2 posts.

I find it rather pathetic that people can be convinced to keep racist laws on the books with fear of a tax increase.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by question

Yeah Johnny, I posted an article about this a while back. It turned into a multi-page argument about abortion after 2 posts.

I find it rather pathetic that people can be convinced to keep racist laws on the books with fear of a tax increase.

My mistake, I don't frequent the boards as much these days. I must have missed it.

[question]

What a moderator you are then =p

Originally Posted by Dionysos

My mistake, I don't frequent the boards as much these days. I must have missed it.

[Satchel]

how embarrassing

[question]

Funny, all the articles that I read didn't say anything about that. Cite your sources please.

Originally Posted by E-brake

Its a shame that the Democrats didnt care about the language in that law until it got in the way of their tax increases. The Govenor already told them that they can have all racist parts of the law removed and recieve bi-partisan support as long as the law protecting them from increased taxes stays in place.

Its amazing that they can convince people that it is about race when they realy just want to increase taxes.

Originally Posted by E-brake

Its a shame that the Democrats didnt care about the language in that law until it got in the way of their tax increases. The Govenor already told them that they can have all racist parts of the law removed and recieve bi-partisan support as long as the law protecting them from increased taxes stays in place.

Its amazing that they can convince people that it is about race when they realy just want to increase taxes.

nobility has its limits E-brake!

[question]

Okay, where does it say *DEMOCRATS* because it very much so does not in that article. The word "demo" is not even in that article.

Originally Posted by E-brake

gunna take me just a bit to turn it up, but this was something that they wanted to address when they removed the racist language from the marriage laws in 2000. They easily changed the law to legally allow interracial couples to be married without revoking the law and the same was proposed for the education laws but they never followed thru with it because they saw a chance to finally tax property owners for education, something that they cant due without fully removing the law instead of just changing the racist parts.