Ponser Turns Out Lights on Ward Rep. Trial

Thank god this trial is done, at least for the time being.

Judge Ponser decided to suspend the trial, at least until the election was over and the legislative process had taken it's course. What a novel concept: Let elected officials decide this issue rather than unelected judges! Ponser and I probably see eye to eye like a pair of feet, but my hats off to him, this is a great decision.

Since Ponsor's query, the petition has been assigned a bill number and was hustled to the Joint Committee on Elections. It could be scheduled for a hearing as early as Tuesday.

State law requires legislative approval of any change to a city charter.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Paul E. Nemser yesterday said he supported a stay, but did not believe their case was on the ropes, as City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula suggested.

Pikula argued against the stay, warning the interrupted trial could "cast a shadow" over the election.

Ponsor said he was unaware earlier in the trial that the City Council and Mayor Charles V. Ryan had approved a measure last summer to provide eight ward seats and five at-large. Nor did he know that a majority of voters approved a similar ward system in 1997, he said.

"The very body whose election system is under scrutiny ... has proposed change," Ponsor said.

The 1997 referendum got on the ballot through a signature drive. Though it was approved by 58 percent of the voters, the turnout was too low to satisfy the wording of the ballot question. The current proposal requires only a simple majority of voters for it to pass.

Although the plaintiffs supported the stay in testimony, several said yesterday they still considered the home rule petition unsatisfactory.

"I won't work against it getting through the Legislature," said Michaelann Bewsee, director of Arise for Social Justice, one of the plaintiffs. "But the plaintiffs are working for an all-ward system."

Of course ARISE doesn't like this. When you try to gerrymander districts and wards to insure the election of the candidates you support, that's usually the way it has to go.

'Reality Bites' in Ward Rep. Case

The Springfield Republican ran a headline today that read "Realities muddle voting rights suit". 'Muddle'?

No. More like "kills".

US District Judge Michael A. Ponsor sounded like he had enough of listening to the stupidity and questioned whether the proposal to create nine voting districts across the city would really advance equal voting rights, saying "It does collide with logic".

In perhaps the greatest moment of hilarity in an entirely hilarious proceeding, Judge Ponsor pointed out the one thing that no one seemed to touch on that would, you know, be important.

"I'm, frankly, surprised to see a proposal in which..... five of the nine districts are overwhelmingly white." He said. Ponsor also questioned whether this suit came in a little too late, as blacks and Hispanics now constitute a majority of the population in Springfield.

Fortunately Ponsor's bright enough to be setting aside the B.S. so we can get to the real reason we're wasting tax dollars on this trial, that being how far-left groups can insure that their candidates are elected without hassle to the city council year in and year out.

The best, I'm sure, is yet to come.

Ward Representation Trial Week 2

SPRINGFIELD - School Committee member Marjorie J. Hurst testified today that backing failed mayoral candidate Thomas M. Ashe in 2005 boosted her political career in by exposing her to more white voters.

Hurst, taking the stand in the second week of a voting rights trial in U.S. District Court, said Ashe's lopsided loss to Mayor Charles V. Ryan coincided with her strongest-ever showing in a School Committee race.

Underscoring the dynamics of race and politics at the center of the trial, Hurst said she concluded there was one explanation for her success.

"I attended a lot of events with a lot of white people," said the lawyer and four-term incumbent, who served as Ashe's campaign co-chairman.

Hurst was testifying in a lawsuit filed by Arise for Social Justice Inc. and other groups seeking to change Springfield's at-large voting system to district representation.

The trial, based on a lawsuit filed in 2005, is pitting some of Springfield's most prominent civil rights advocates against the city. U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor is overseeing the non-jury trial, which is expected to last two or three more weeks.

Responding to questions from plaintiff lawyer Paul E. Nemser of Boston, Hurst said her vote total for 2005 was second only to Ryan, who coasted to victory against Ashe, a School Committee member and ally of Hurst.

CREDIT: Springfield Republican

Huh? One would figure that with more than a year to put together a coherent case for Ward Representation, the plantiffs in this case could've done a better job.

Is Marjorie Hurst upset that she had to talk to *gasp* white voters? Any candidate would get a boost in their poll numbers by publicly backing a mayoral candidate, never mind co-chairing their campaign. What is she mad at or trying to prove here? That she had to compromise her values and try and work cooperatively with people she disagrees with? What the heck is the issue at hand here?

This entire trial has proven nothing, except of course, that socialist candidates feel that they should be handed city council seats on silver platters without having to do what everyone else is doing.

Ward Representation Circus Gets Goofier

SPRINGFIELD - A former black city councilor and a veteran campaign worker for black political candidates today told a federal judge they received chilly receptions from white voters during election years.

Carol Lewis-Caulton, who served on the council from 2001 to 2003, and Democratic City Committee Chairman E. Henry Twiggs, were among witnesses testifying in an ongoing voting rights trial in U.S. District Court.

"The feeling was pretty much .¤.¤. people did not make eye contact with you. They did not come over and chat with you," Lewis-Caulton said, referring to her experience at mostly white campaign events.

Twiggs testified he and longtime state Rep. Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield, were occasionally ordered off white voters' property when the two went door-to-door.

The court battle over ward representation, which appears on its face to be about simple numbers, has effectively called into question two decades of race relations in Springfield. According to plaintiffs suing the city to swap at-large City Council and School Committee seats for a district-based system, political opportunities for blacks and Latinos are sorely lacking.

But lawyers for the city have argued local politics are open to hard-working candidates of all races and ethnic backgrounds, holding up a handful of crossover candidates as success stories.

A jury-waived trial began Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor. Testimony will continue Monday.

Credit: Masslive.com

This 'trial' or whatever they want to call it has gone from absurd to plain ridiculous. Is this the undisputable evidence these people are talking about?

Carol Louis-Caulton was voted off the city council because she was a crappy city councilor. The question that isn't answered however, is that if her skin color was an issue during her re-election bid, then how come it wasn't when she WON election? Does she have polling data to back that up?


Then our good old friend E. Henry Twiggs, chairman of the Springfield city Democrats, said he and State Representative Ben Swan were chased off of white people's property. If Ben Swan came on my property, i'd chase him off too. The reason being that he's a crook and there are a ton of folks who know it. I'd chase Billy Bulger off my front lawn and about three quarters of the Massachusetts State Legislature. The difference between Swan and everyone else though, is that half his family is in jail, all as a result of being a little too free-wheeling with taxpayer money.

So as far as i'm concerned, there's really no case here. Nothing is documented, nothing is supported by data, evidence or anything. All it is is unadulterated whining over the fact that these candidates of this particular political bent can't get the job done and that they want the government to step in and set quotas to make sure they have a seat at the table no matter what.

Springfield Ward "Representation"

After a few failed attempts, advocates of Ward Representation in Springfield have gone to the courts, suing the city on the basis that the current at-large voting system used to elect city councilors has rigged the system to work against minority voters.

Hopefully, someone lays the smack-down on this before it causes serious, if not irreparable damage to democratic government in the city of Springfield.

Usually, I hate doing this “post a quote, post a response” method of doing things, but it’s late.

Springfield Urban League President Henry M. Thomas III told a judge that whites, for example, have more access to schmooze-ready venues, such as Rotary Club meetings and Catholic churches - both popular mines for politicians.

You mean to tell me that an Afro-American candidate wouldn’t be allowed to attend the Old Hill Citizens Council meeting? Or the Pine Point Citizens Council? They have access; they just need to do a better job of doing something WITH that access.

No one can do this stuff for them. If they want to make it easier, hire a consultant.

"Not everybody's like me," Thomas, long a political force, told U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor. "I have been able to transcend those artificial boundaries ... but not everyone can."

But that’s the point. Not everyone can have a seat on the city council. Not everyone can have health care, not everyone can have a personal jet, and not everyone can play in the NHL. Thomas broke the glass ceiling by competing and taking the right steps to insure he’d win and/or be successful.

Plaintiffs suing to change the composition of the City Council and School Committee have called former and contemporary political candidates, plus seasoned campaign workers, to support their argument that few minorities can penetrate the "white bloc" vote in Springfield.

But WHY is that? It’s awfully presumptive to assume that the underlying reason in this is all because of someone’s skin color. What issues do they support? Have they reached out? How much reaching out have they done in comparison to others? What are they asking for? What are they offering? These are all questions that aren’t being asked because it’s a great opportunity for a group to politically grand stand.

Civil rights groups and a handful of black and Latino residents sued the city in U.S. District Court in 2005.

The lawsuit followed several failed attempts to change the so-called "at-large" City Council, which requires candidates to run citywide for nine seats, to a district-based system. The plaintiffs also want to alter the at-large School Committee to include ward representatives.

The lawsuit contends the at-large system is stacked against minority candidates, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A jury-waived trial began on Tuesday after mediation talks fizzled.

The Plaintiffs in this case are worth mentioning, but as per the usual in the Repubican these days, they conveniently omitted their names. The first two players in this are two groups which endorsed the socialist party’s nominee for the Presidency; ARISE for Social Justice and Oiste? The third is an old friend of ours, the NAACP.

I’m sure they’re miffed about all of this. Save for 2 Republicans on the council in the last 10-15 years or so, the Council has been almost entirely stocked full of Liberal Democrats. Apparently, they’re not liberal enough. That’s the problem here, don’t kid yourselves. Smells like a quota system to me.

Believe you me, it’s not about the minority candidates not getting elected, it’s about the TYPE of minority candidates not being elected. I’ll bet my life ARISE and company wouldn’t be supporting a Republican or Hispanic minority candidate for dog catcher, let alone school board or city council.

The 90% Democratic city council saw through it, so they went to the courts to have un-elected officials make the decision for everyone, which is usually par for the course with groups such as these.

Lawyers for the city argue the political climate in Springfield is ripe for any hard-working candidate. City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula has argued ward representation will promote clannish thinking among neighborhood representatives.

Thomas, a former police commissioner and member of the state Board of Education, today testified ward representation could entice "disconnected" voters.

Springfield residents are thinking three things these days:

1.) They hate needless Taxes. The city council loves needless taxes. See Trash.
2.) They are tired of government waste and unresponsiveness. The City Council depends on it to keep their jobs. Thanks to them, a finance control board is in place to make sure they don’t drink their own pee.
3.) Springfield Residents are moderately conservative on social issues. Most on the City Council aren’t.

So sure, the climate is definitely pointing at a big change, which might come as soon as this fall, if Springfield residents bother to vote.

The problem with this from ARISE, Oiste and the NAACP’s standpoint, is that it’s not the kind of change THEY’RE seeking. They want the city council to increase taxes. They want the size and scope of what the city government can do to be much larger than it is now. They are also radically to the left on social issues.

Again, it’s political, not out of good will.

Thomas also told Ponsor minority candidates have difficulty raising money and winning endorsements from prominent whites.

Thomas also told Ponsor minority candidates have difficulty raising money and winning endorsements from prominent whites.

Idali Torres, a city resident and public health professor at the University of Massachusetts, testified she has worked on campaigns for two women of color: former School Committee member Carmen Rosa and former City Councilor Carol J. Lewis-Caulton.

Lewis-Caulton became the first black woman to win a council seat in 1999. She lost a bid for re-election in 2001. Torres said fund-raising and wooing endorsements proved difficult.

Raising funds are difficult. It’s not easy for candidates who aren’t incumbents to raise cash. Caulton lost her seat because the voters didn’t feel she was fit to stay there, not because she was a minority. She shared different views from the voting public. If there are folks out there who share and support her views, the onus is on her to activate those voters and make sure they show up at the polls.

When people don’t share your policy stances, finding money and support IS difficult. But in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, that’s sort of what you need to do; represent the interests of the people who elected you, not the people who don’t care enough to vote in the first place. Our government’s success hinges on the quality of participation on the part of its citizens. If they’re not going to contribute to the discussion or debate, then they shouldn’t expect to get anything out of it.

Rosa, on the other hand, won a School Committee seat by a landslide in 1993, after two years of knocking on doors and campaigning full-time. Torres also testified that Rosa, a Latina, does not look Hispanic.

"People used to ask if she was Italian," Torres said, adding she believes crossover candidates - City Councilors Jose F. Tosado and Bud L. Williams - have political connections that appeal to white voters.

This is precisely the point. What did Bud Williams do that made him different from the other black candidates that ran for city council? What did (Former City Council President, I might add) Jose Tosado do differently from other Hispanic candidates?


Politics isn’t Little League, where everyone, including the kid wearing the hockey helmet at the end of the bench, gets to play. If someone can’t activate enough voters to support his campaign in order to finish 9th place in an election, then I don’t want them on my city council. This is the test. You can’t just stuff the ballot boxes all you want until you get the desired outcome you please.

Receiving 25 votes in one ward and winning an election doesn’t speak to the concerns of the entire community, which is what the City Council should do. Instead of one representative, you have nine. Instead of 25 people making a decision that will effect thousands, thousands are making decisions for the 25.

If you’re considering running for city council or any elected office, you first need to figure out whether or not you’re a good candidate. Do your views line up with the population? What issues will resonate with voters? Do you have the money? Are you willing to spend everyone else’s money? These are all questions that should be asked before you even take out your papers at city hall. If the answer is no to most, all or even a few of those questions, then you are not a viable candidate and it would be a waste of your time and other people’s money to run. If you’re exceptionally committed, start campaigning and begin to set in motion the wheels of change. But just because you WANT to run, doesn’t mean you’re ENTITLED to win.

Heck, you need to come in NINTH place to win.

I understand and can even appreciate the arguments behind Ward Representation. In fact, if you’re looking at the two systems, the Ward system is entirely more appealing to me from a philosophical standpoint, but it HAS to be for the right reasons and it should be glaringly clear to all that the folks seeking ‘equal representation’ aren’t seeking ‘equal representation’. That’s the issue here that I think many advocates of Ward Representation are overlooking. It’s not the ‘what’, it’s the ‘who’s behind it and why’.

To the folks in ARISE, Oiste and at the NAACP, it’s about forcefully establishing a take over of the city government by people they choose and that they feel will better advocate for issues important to them. It is special interest at it’s most loathsome. It’s about insuring that their brand of politics is slammed down everyone’s throats, not through the Democratic process, but via un elected Judicial Activists in the Court System. To these people, it doesn’t matter if it breeds clansmanship in the city amongst neighborhoods. Socialists already operate that way. In their worldview, everyone is lumped into nice, neat little categories: gay clan, the lesbian clan, the Hispanic clan, the black clan, the white clan, the sub clans and we don’t need anymore. That’s what they want. They want irresponsible voters coming to the polls because it means they don’t have to be held accountable for their loony antics like supporting socialist candidates for the US Presidency, setting up tent cities in the major tourist areas of the city and being flat out odd.

This isn’t being done in the name of democracy, it’s being done in the name of replacing democracy with THEIR form of Democracy and that’s shameful. They’re willing to waste taxpayer dollars to prove it, too.

For once, the City Council did something good and ignored this lunacy. You should, too.