Weekend update: Presidents Day edition
A few tidbits from the weekend papers and beyond:
- If you logged on to talk about the minimum wage hike or see the survey results, Click here
- The church directory story goes national in its own way.(reg. required)
- The N+O's Rob Christensen uses his Sunday column to detail how the Speaker of the House became a position of over-arching influence.
- Filing for the May primary and November general election runs through noon on Feb. 28. Check our updated nightly list of candidates who have filed for Guilford and Rockingham races here. If you're a glutton for punishment, the SBOE has posted a PDF for all races across the state here.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Mark, I have a question. Down here in Republican Country (excuse me, I meant Randolph County), the world almost cracked open when Litchard Hurley announced his decision not to run for Sheriff again.
Of course, "The Party" (as it's called down here) had someone immediately in the wings, and Maynard Reid, a sheriff's officer, filed to run.
There was a huge, above-the-fold picture of Mr. Reid filing his paperwork at the Board of Elections, accompanyed by Sheriff Hurley and a literal "posse" of uniformed deputies.
Now, several folks who saw the picture have commented to me that this Mafia-like display of on-duty, local political firepower in support of a candidate is illegal.
What can you tell us about that?
Posted on February 20, 2006 8:09 AM
Mary:
Without seeing the picture or knowing much about the circumstances under which it was taken, I can't say much.
In general, it's poor form and probably (i think it is I just can't lay my hands on a citation for it at the moment) illegal for on-duty officers to carry out political activities. The situation you've described to me seems a bit fuzzy - those officers could have been off duty, coming on or off shift or on a break. And unless one of the deputies complained they were ordered to pose in the picture, you probably don't have anything other than an over-played photo-opt.
That case seems to me more indicative of the problem inherent in having a key law enforcement position elected rather than appointed. Should and incumbent sheriff (or an active duty cop seeking the sheriff's office) even be allowed to pose in his or her uniform, which is in some cases tax-payer funded and a mark of government authority?
A brighter-line case - AND THIS IS MERELY AN EXAMPLE - would be if you found out your deputies are out hanging door knockers while on the clock or in a sheriff's car.
Is there a challenger to the heir apparent? He or she could at least argue for the same level of coverage when they go to file their paperwork.
Posted on February 20, 2006 8:56 AM