published Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

Chris Anderson recall has no merit

  • photo
    Chris Anderson has filed suit to halt a petition calling for his recall.
    Photo by Tim Barber.
    enlarge photo

It's a shame Chris Anderson had to file a lawsuit against the Hamilton County Election Commission because the body couldn't or wouldn't do its job, which is to determine whether there is legal and nondiscriminatory cause to permit a recall and charge taxpayers for an extra election.

Anderson, the District 7 Chattanooga councilman, is the city's first openly gay council member, and he has been serving only nine months. The petition to recall him states simply: "...we have not been properly represented" by him. The recall effort was mounted by Charlie Wysong who does not live in District 7 and who is a long-time anti-gay voice in Chattanooga. He started the recall after the council voted to extend city benefits to domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships.

Although state law does not define the "proper form" that it requires county election commissions to uphold on voter petitions, it's certain that "proper form" would not be discriminatory, let alone just absurdly vague.

By this logic, should Hillary Clinton become president, she should be careful not to propose or support any legislation pertaining to women.

Aside from common sense thinking, the election commission plainly owed it to Anderson and Chattanooga voters to look deeper than the vague petition preamble. Even recorded in council sessions and news stories were comments from Wysong and other petitioners that should have made this recall effort one for the round file.

7
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
conservative said...

Whine, whine and whine some more.

February 19, 2014 at 7:55 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

conservative, I always look forward to your insightful and well thought out comments. I may have to rethink my stand on this matter after reading your opinion here.

February 19, 2014 at 9:07 a.m.
LibDem said...

This sentiment appears on both the right and left sides of the psper and 'conservative' finds himself awkwardly bisexual.

February 19, 2014 at 10:25 a.m.
Ki said...

What the people in District 7 don't get. The deceitful nature behind the individuals they've teamed up with.

Arizona Bill: excerpt ajc: The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and others, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

please not the term:

AND OTHERS

Where does it end? That includes anyone. Remember "No coloreds allowed?" "Whites Only?" The Crippled/handicap. The mindset of these Arizonians are no different from the locals outside of District 7 pushing this.

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/top-news/house-to-debate-right-to-refuse-service-bill/ndWCs/

February 20, 2014 at 10:01 p.m.
cooljb said...

I have a question. What about the dependent family members of city workers? Are they not being discriminated against? Take for instance a city worker that has a disabled parent, brother, sister, adult child that is totally dependent on the city worker? Why were they not included in the law so that the benefits could be included in those family members lives?? Instead Anderson only targeted live in lover's of a specific time frame to give city worker benefits to. I dare say that actual blood family members dependent upon city workers for their care and keeping are more deserving than unmarried boy friends or girlfriends. That my friends is discrimination against the actual needy and disabled family members of the actual city workers. Should not those folks be taken care of BEFORE a boyfriend or girlfriend that could actually fake a relationship so they could take a free ride on the tax payers dime. The law he proposed is putting an unrelated friend/lover ahead of actual family dependents, now is that not putting a selfish, personal agenda ahead of the family members? I find it amazing that family is jumped over for his agenda.

February 21, 2014 at 2:11 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

that editorial was from the right side of the paper, conserve

February 21, 2014 at 3:31 p.m.
fairmon said...

Why should tax payers provide benefits for anyone other than the city employee? People seem to forget who is paying for all this feel good benevolence. No city job is so difficult and critical that retention is important other than fire and police personnel. Those objecting due to the life style have no valid complaint. All those country club style council members supporting the additional spending and not addressing the liberal government compensation need to be recalled and allowed to concentrate on their day jobs. It is a fiscal issue not physical.

February 21, 2014 at 6:59 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.