It’s hardly surprising that the Daily Times is now supporting the sponsors of the recent unsuccessful referendum petition drive – Ireton and Mitchell – in their proposal to hold a referendum anyway on the city charter amendment about the City Attorney. After all, that so called newspaper actively supported their petition drive from the get-go.
What is ghastly surprising, however, is the absurd argument offered by the editors to support their position in the matter.
The editorial assumes that most if not all of the signatures on the petition forms were made by qualified voters because “without the validation process, there’s no reason to assume that is [not] the case.” It is impossible to make such an assumption – that’s why validation is mandatory in order to hold a referendum -- but that plain fact of logic has escaped the editorial board.
On the assumption that the signatures are valid, the rationale of the Daily Times’ editors is that because more persons support the referendum than voted in a recent election, the people have spoken and must be obeyed. That reasoning is equally ridiculous – the applicable legal requirement for referendum is 20% of all the registered voters, regardless of the number who bothered to vote in an election. They want to waive that requirement because the desire of something less than 20% of the voters (according to the editors) is the will of the people – another asinine assumption, putting it mildly.
Does anyone recall the Daily Times dispensing such drivel in 2007, when Bob Caldwell’s petition for a referendum – on a charter change that was required for Barrie Tilghman’s proposed double-digit tax increase – failed by a very narrow margin after the signatures were verified and we knew how many of them were valid?
The plain truth is that more than 80% of the voters opted not to support the referendum petition regarding the City Attorney despite the effort of the coalition of business types, landlords and born losers (Dunn, Cathcart, Barrie Tilghman and Louise Smith among others) who foisted the petition upon the public with the benefit of vocal support and much publicity in the Daily Times. Those “silent majority” voters, not the minority who signed the petition, manifest the real will of the people. Again, the editors, along with Ireton and Mitchell, cannot accept that reality
And, by the way, does anyone still take seriously the editorial pontification of the Daily Times?
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
I for one do not take the DT editorials seriously. The will of the people will be told in the next election.
ReplyDeleteI have confirmed that MANY of the signatures, (page after page) were NOT valid.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ireton, Mitchell, Shields and the DT's are saying is a LIE.
This thing wasn't even close, hence their not allowing the signatures to be validated.
More government scams with the help of the main stream media.
I've heard some people made up fake names even and just picked a house number out of thin air and signed.
ReplyDeleteThis verifies what I said earlier; I signed three times using three different names and three different addresses and I know others who did the same.
ReplyDeleteAn editorial is an opinion.
ReplyDeleteA blog is an owner's opinion.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Just because my opinion is different than your opinion does not mean either of us is wrong.
Just when I think not one more piece could possibly be written concerning the petition, I am proven wrong. I think everyone is so busy beating this dead horse to death they do not realize it is over, done, through with, finished, ended, completed, if you get my drift.
Now lets get on to more important things, please.
When I posted about signing the petition with fake names I forgot to mention that I don't even live in Salisbury. Not even in Wicomico County, either. And there is nothing illegal about it, either! Ha Ha, Laura.
ReplyDeleteI got asked 3 times and didn't sign any of those times. Does my "no" get validated three times?
ReplyDelete3:50 -
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that Ireton amd Mitchell, with the editorial support of the Daily Slime, are pushing to have a referendum process anyway, even though the petitionj failed?
anonymous 8:04, No, because 3:46 is an Idiot.
ReplyDelete3:50 An editorial is supposed to be an opinion but in this case they stated as fact something that is untrue.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there is anyway to force the validation of the signatures.
seriously? since when do the liberals let the facts interfere with what they believe?
ReplyDeleteThe DT's is nothing but a bastion of liberals who think they are so much smarter than everyone else. will be a wonderful day when that rag goes belly up. Where will they get a job? SU probably!
If they really want a referendum even though the petition failed have them cough up the signatures and have them validated. And add the double digit tax increase that was rammed through in 2007 with another referendum all at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThey don't want to have them validated because that would prove they had way less signatures than they claim.