Category Archives: OrangeCounty

Election Signs 2006, Care And Feeding

Maintaining election signs feels like an art form.

During the 2005 election season, I plotted various energy saving routes to “care and feed” for my signs as I drove around town on regular errands. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I didn’t just fix my own signs. Heck, at one point I’d repaired or reset more of Ed Harrison’s signs than mine and every other candidates combined! Why? While to some the signs are just so much roadside rubbish, to me they represent not only a major campaign investment ($2-$8 per sign) but a valuable, if limited, form of communication.

Folks gained name recognition from my catchy slogan, read various intended and unintended meanings into my “daisy” design and followed my website URL ( now campaign.willraymond.org ) to find out more about my positions (and to get a real-time report on my finances).


Election 2005

Every candidate, as long as they follow the generally reasonable rules of signage, deserves the courtesy of publishing that limited message without interference. Sure, the “message” is sometimes lost due to poor implementation – like Ed’s short-staked slanted signs that easily tilted and wilted and fell under the merest of pressure – but, unfortunately, the weather doesn’t account for all sign damage.

While focusing on sites with Judge Baddour’s and Anderson’s signs, I’ve continued to repair all candidates’ signs – whether I support them – like Ellie Kinnaird – or don’t – like Steve Acuff. Baddour’s signs, some up for the whole duration, have weathered well. To date, my worst problem has been keeping ones up both on the corner of Estes/MLK and at the end of Mt. Bolus Rd. Those signs, unlike others I find in the woods or ditches, vanish. Anderson’s have done fairly well, though the cardboard they’re made of seems to get awful droopy in the wet.

Continue reading Election Signs 2006, Care And Feeding

Vote No on Orange County Districting Referendum, Another No from Katz

A resounding NO from former Orange County Democratic Party chair Barry Katz in his Oct. 28th LTE to the Chapel Hill News:

I will vote no on the ballot referendum to restructure the Orange County commissioners.

First, there hasn’t been enough public debate on the merits of change, and I oppose change without voters’ understanding its consequences. Second, since the mid-1930s, The Chapel Hill News has reported countywide contests between candidates in favor of funding schools, health clinics, etc., and candidates who oppose raising taxes to fund such services. Most years the pro-funding candidates win and they do it with support from all parts of the county, albeit with greater support in southern Orange. So this is an old story.

Third, my six years on the county Planning Board suggests to me that underlying the push to change how county commissioners are elected are residents who are concerned about “restrictive” land-use planning and the rights of landowners to do what they want with their land. I joined the board as a skeptic regarding land-use planning and left a confirmed proponent of strategic land-use planning. We have only to look at Wake County to see how unregulated growth leads to urban sprawl, a lack of public transportation and too little public open space.

Orange County has been in a decades-long urban-suburbanizing transition that will continue past my lifetime. Agriculture now accounts for about 1 percent of the county’s economy, but the value of agricultural land has skyrocketed in recent decades due to residential housing demand. “Recent residents,” i.e., people whose grandparents weren’t born in Orange County, constitute a strong majority of voters and now determine the outcome of local elections, as is only proper. Not only would new and future Orange residents benefit from planning, but agricultural landowners would enjoy sustained maximum land values if the quality of life stays high in the county, as would occur under a thoughtful land use plan.

I hope landowners recognize the practical truth in this notion. — Barry Katz, Chapel Hill

Vote No on Orange County Districting Referendum

Thank you Orange County League of Women Voters for sponsoring tonight’s forum.

There were 15-20 folks in the audience this evening, including former BOCC candidate Artie Franklin, current BOCC candidate Jamie Daniel and Superior Court District 15B candidate Chuck Anderson.

Fright-night, referendum style, came a day late as Moses Carey pretty much reprized his earlier “debate” performance pulling out the legislature as bogeyman. In Moses’ scenario, the legislative demons will swoop in if the referendum dies, reject the voters will and steal our ability to choose alternatives.

Backing off an earlier claim that independent runs would be easier, tonight he just claimed it would be slightly easier. It won’t be. Technically it’ll take %5 of 88944 registered voter signatures to even get on the ballot. Strangely enough, that’s more signatures than it would’ve taken to win a District 2 spot in this year’s primary.

Once again, he asserted the best way to unite the county is to divide it, contrary to the lunacy our southern neighbors in Chatham county are going through…

Though he acknowledged helping craft a 1993 recommendation to use this alternative voting method, he characterized my claim that cumulative voting opens doors to minority voices as pure speculation. Further, he rejected my claim, once again saying it was pure speculation, that evidence to the contrary and in spite of wide usage throughout the world – our country – in corporate governance, the method is better than districting in apportioning representation.

He did recant and admit that the expansion of the board and districting could be voted on separately.

He also agreed that the “1 person, 1 vote” didn’t accurately capture the real exercise of voting power – a side-effect which allows fewer voters in District 2 to elect a candidate than candidates in District 1 (this given that winning the Democratic primary is “de facto” winning the general election).

Moses did surprise me with his suggestion that Orange County citizens weren’t up to understanding cumulative voting – that it was too confusing – and that they couldn’t be educated.

After presenting the only option in defeat as sticking with what we have, I asked him directly what would stop the BOCC, 24 hours after the referendum’s defeat, from starting over and incorporating the best ideas for selecting and electing a diverse slate of candidates.

He ducked that direct question and a subsequent one from the audience: “What will you do if the referendum is defeated?”

When asked the same question I made the following pledge:

If the referendum is defeated I will appear at the first BOCC meeting after the election and ask for:

  • Expansion of the board to seven members
  • Non-partisan elections
  • Cumulative voting
  • Immediate implementation of rural and urban super-precincts

If we pass this referendum, additional reforms will not be implemented. If we pass this referendum, rejecting proven and practical alternatives which emphasize coalition building, then we’ll have consciously created a house divided.

Please don’t be fooled by the sugar-coating, board expansion, around this bitter pill, institutionalized divisiveness and disenfranchisement.

Vote NO on the Orange County districting referendum.

Judge Calabria, FairJudges.net and the problem of 527 monies

From todays New & Record (11/01/06):

An independent political organization called FairJudges.Net began airing the ad this week. By promoting four Supreme Court candidates, it upsets a system meant to create a level playing field in judicial contests. Watchdog groups are up in arms.

“Democracy North Carolina believes the activities of FairJudges.Net are a disturbing and unhealthy development for judicial elections in North Carolina,” director Bob Hall said.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education called on “those responsible to stop airing these advertisements,” executive director Chris Heagarty said.

Even a beneficiary, Chief Justice Sarah Parker, wasn’t pleased. “If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to run my own campaign and plan my own strategy without unsolicited help from outside parties,” she said. “It would suit me fine if the ads did not run.”

The ad promotes “fair judges,” naming Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Robin Hudson.

Judge Calabria is so far the only judge to respond to my email on the possible deceptive campaigning practices over at Morehead Planetarium.

The injection of big money in judicial races is a concern – that’s why NC switched to “voter-owned” judicial elections (at least for some judicial positions).

The complaint puts a major test on the state’s public financing system, adopted two years ago and touted as a way to remove partisan and big money influence from the courts.

Participants in public financing are allowed to raise a maximum of about $70,000 in contributions. The state then chips in, giving candidates for Court of Appeals about $144,000 and Supreme Court chief justice hopefuls about $217,000.

WRAL5, 11/01/06

The end-run, legal though it may be, around these limits is troubling – something acknowledged by the chair of the organization former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell:

FairJudges.Net, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, says its mission is to provide “positive, accurate, bipartisan information about judges.”

That isn’t how Levinson sees it. In asking the state for additional funds, he protested that 527 spending bypasses “public financing restrictions and guidelines …”

He’s right. The playing field has tilted. This also pushes judicial politics into a potentially troubling realm, where special-interest groups can spend millions to sway voters.

In West Virginia two years ago, a 527 group funded with more than $2 million from a coal company executive helped defeat a Supreme Court justice. It prompted the legislature to enact tougher restrictions. North Carolina might have to do the same, at least barring 527s from pouring money into last-minute ad campaigns.

Mitchell conceded Wednesday that “527s generally should be of concern to people” but defended the ad as “nothing but positive.”

It may be, but the prospect of big-money, special-interest influence in judicial elections should raise a hue and cry every time.

N&R, 11/02/06

Fool me once, shame on you…: Possible Republican Judge Election Trickery

According to WCHL1360 some kind of organized tomfoolery is going on at the Morehead Planetarium polling place

Some students from UNC Chapel Hill are working to get votes for Conservative judges, but are not always transparent in their efforts.

Chapel Hill attorney Bob Epting says a young woman approached him outside the polling place and asked if he was a Democrat.  When he said yes, she gave him a list of candidates.

The implication was the list was of progressive judges (essentially Democrats) in this non-partisan race.

Fred Black relates the following over on OP:

Yesterday when I voted at Morehead (#996 since Oct. 23d), there was a young lady on the edge of the parking lot. She asked me if I was going to vote and I replied that I was. She handed me a small piece of paper that listed Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud. With the DTH and the WCHL story as background, I asked if the named people were all Republicans. She said that she thought so but their’s are nonpartisan races. I asked her what organization she represented and she said she was just helping her friend who was in class.

More information on this BlueNC and OrangePolitics threads.

With the current vote flipping problems in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Florida – all biased towards Republican candidates – one has to wonder if the Morehead trickery is the least of election 2006 problems.

That said, I’ve gone ahead and contacted the campaigns of Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud in case they weren’t aware of folks scamming the electorate in their name.

Their handling of this mess will be a great indicator of their willingness to cultivate public trust both in the election and judicial process.

Contact information:

  • Judge Duke – www.rustyduke.com judgeduke@rustyduke.com
  • Justice Martin – www.justicemarkmartin.org mmartin@justicemarkmartin.org
  • Judge Levinson – www.justicelevinson.org campaign@justicelevinson.org
  • Judge Calabria – www.calabria4judge.com amcalabria@nc.rr.com
  • Judge Bailey – www.judgekrisbailey.com judgekdb2006@nc.rr.com
  • Judge Stroud – www.judgestroud.com JudgeStroud@aol.com

Mailto link: MAIL the JUDGES.

My email:

RE: Apparent organized effort to deceive Orange County voters
TO: Judge Duke, Justice Martin, Judge Levinson, Judge Calabria, Judge Bailey, Judge Stroud

According to local media reports (WCHL1360 – http://www.wchl1360.com/details.html?id=2124 ) and several eyewitness reports ( http://orangepolitics.org/2006/11/republicans-attempt-to-deceive-orange-county-voters/#comment-65383 ) , an organized effort is being made in Orange County to deceive voters in your name. A list of your names is being presented to Democratic voters in a fashion meant to mislead uninformed voters into voting for you.

Given your current standings as judges, given the responsibility you’ve been entrusted with, given the tenor of all your campaigns, I imagine this tomfoolery comes both as a surprise and a disappointment.

Now that you are aware of the problem, would you please publicly ask the participants to desist? A quick resolution to this problem will serve the public well.

Thank you for your prompt attention,

Will Raymond
Independent, Orange County

Nov. 1st: Carey, CitizenWill and the 2006 Redistricting Referendum in Hillsborough

I’m once again on the hot seat tomorrow as pro-referendum Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey (and legions of staffers) try to counter my pro-democracy arguments against local election redistricting 😉

Seriously, if folks walk away understanding how this redistricting actually diminishes “small d” democracy, distorts voter-power, potentially overweights rural influence and that other, better, alternatives were not adequately entertained, I’ll be satisfied.

Since the last “debate”, Commissioner Carey has reversed his previous assertion that the expansion of the board to seven members and the districting must be done together – it doesn’t. He did assert, evidence to the contrary (look southward to Chatham for instance), that districting isn’t divisive and that this referendum is the best way to promote minority representation. Again, alternatives, like cumulative voting, do a much better job promoting minority voices without sacrificing “small d” democracy.

Finally, based on this WCHL1360 [MP3] interview, Moses appears to have no idea or desire to carry forward with increasing local democratic access to our government if this referendum should fail.

Hey, at least he didn’t use the NC legislature as bogeyman argument.

ELECTION FORUM — The League of Women Voters-ODC will host an educational forum on the November referendum on district elections for Orange County commissioners at 7 p.m. in the Orange Water and Sewer Authority conference room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro. A second forum is scheduled for Nov. 1 at 7 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E. Margaret Lane in Hillsborough.

Map to tomorrow’s meeting.

Superior Court 15B: Prompt Financial Disclosures from Baddour and Stein

Superior Court 15B candidates Judge Baddour and Attorney Stein are first out of the blocks with their 3rd quarter campaign reports.

  • Judge Baddour’s report (as data, image to follow) is here.
  • Attorney Stein’s [amended] report (again, as data) is here.

[UPDATE: 1] Leon Bryant is Baddour’s grandfather.

[UPDATE: 2] As of 1PM, Nov.2nd neither Fox’s or Anderson’s reports are posted at the SBOE.

  • Judge Anderson’s report will appear here.
  • Judge Fox’s report here.

The promptness of Stein and Baddour (and possibly Fox and Anderson) is quite encouraging.

I hope that since the Oct. 22nd – Nov. 7th reports will be in too late to matter, the candidates will consider pre-releasing their contributions leading into Nov. 7th on the 6th.

Breakdown of 3rd quarter reports:

Judge Baddour’s

Expenditures of: $55248.77 (of $105506.85 overall).

Contributions based on the summary report for the 3rd quarter: $76144.50 which includes $25,000 loan from the candidate, a $4000 loan from his father and $1150 from Baddour relatives (might be more relatives).

Based on the detailed receipts report, $85885.19, of which $55589.50 was individual contributions, came in over the period in amounts and numbers of:

$8.19           1       loan
$10.00          1
$20.00          2
$25.00          21
$30.00          6
$35.00          1
$40.00          2
$45.00          1
$50.00          39
$60.00          3
$75.00          9
$97.50          1
$100.00         160
$150.00         8
$187.50         1       loan
$200.00         9
$250.00         21
$280.00         1
$300.00         2
$442.00         1
$450.00         1
$500.00         19
$700.00         1
$750.00         1
$800.00         1
$1000.00        8
$1100.00        1       loan
$2000.00        1
$4000.00        1       loan
$4000.00        1       contribution from Leon Bryant [UPDATE:] Baddour's grandfather.

Individual contributions came in amounts over time as:

$2015 in March
$2100 in April
$230 in May
$100 in June
$850 in July
$13255 in August
$17270 in September
$19769.50 in October

Contributions to-date: $139626.76 which includes a total of $30599.86 in loans.

Attorney Stein's

Expenditures of $36864.34 (of $93877.54).

Contributions based on the summary report for the 3rd quarter:  $42652.00, no loan proceeds.

Based on the detailed receipts report $51742 came in over the period of which $5000 was a loan from the candidate, $46793 were individual contributions.  The amount and number of contributions break down as:
$10.00          3
$15.00          1
$20.00          5
$25.00          38
$35.00          3
$40.00          1
$50.00          56
$60.00          1
$75.00          7
$90.00          1
$99.00          1
$100.00         130
$125.00         10
$150.00         10
$200.00         11
$250.00         41
$300.00         3
$500.00         14
$828.00         1
$1000.00        3
$2000.00        1   from David Byrd
$5000.00        1   loan

Contributions came in over time as:

$500 in February
$2500 in March
$5840 in April ($5000 loan)
$100 in May
$150 in June
$9019 in July
$11253 in August
$15015 in September
$7365 in October

Contributions to-date: $125084.00 which includes a total of $5000 in loans.

What does this all mean? Further analysis to follow…

Soundbite: Carey, CitizenWill and the 2006 Redistricting Referendum

WCHL1360 caught a small taste [MP3] of Wednesday’s “debate”.

I’ve since heard the radio ad promoting,to some small extent (and, hopefully, unintentionally), the referendum. Besides surmounting all the advertising – radio, print – the layout of the ballot will probably prove to be the hardest obstacle to overcome. As someone (thanks) pointed out to me, most folks will read the first sentence describing the expansion of the board to seven members – something I agree with – and skip all the rest of the legalese. My concern? That on this strategic layout alone will the referendum be decided.

Homestead Twins: Joint Hearing Oct. 19th

Homestead Road is becoming quite the corridor. Stretching roughly east-west along the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban boundary, the road, already servicing several developments and schools, will become a vital connector to UNC’s Carolina North (whether we want it to or not).

Tonight the Town Council and Orange County Commissioners will hold a rare joint zoning hearing to review a proposed development, Homestead Twins, on the corner of Seawell School Rd. and Homestead. While the development, with its 72 “twin” townhouses – some sized over 2000 sq./ft. – will obviously add to the traffic load on Homestead, the applicant has made a fairly decent case for pedestrian transit. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes walkability, and with nearby schools, Homestead Park and the new Senior center, residents should have plenty to do within a quick jaunt.

Further pluses are the developers commitment to set aside %20 of the units for affordable housing and preservation of over %60 of the 21.5 acres as open space.

Further information for tonights 7:30pm hearing is here, background on the application is here [PDF].

Oct. 18th: Carey, CitizenWill and the 2006 Redistricting Referendum

I’m on the hot seat tomorrow as pro-referendum Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey (and legions of staffers) try to counter my pro-democracy arguments against local election redistricting 😉

Seriously, if folks walk away understanding how this redistricting actually diminishes “small d” democracy, distorts voter-power, potentially overweights rural influence and that other, better, alternatives were not adequately entertained, I’ll be satisfied.

ELECTION FORUM — The League of Women Voters-ODC will host an educational forum on the November referendum on district elections for Orange County commissioners at 7 p.m. in the Orange Water and Sewer Authority conference room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro. A second forum is scheduled for Nov. 1 at 7 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E. Margaret Lane in Hillsborough.

I’ll be the long-haired, bleary-eyed, referendum rebuker.

BTW, I might not be able to make the Nov. 1st meeting. Anyone else interested in publicly countering the referendum?

Here comes the Judge: Superior Court District 15B Oct. 16th Bar Forum

There were 20+ folks tonight – with a couple from the media – maybe 4 or 5 organizers – some town staff and the balance being interested citizens. I was already convinced that District 15B voters have a heck of slate of candidates before them – tonight I was more impressed than ever.

Very simply – we can’t lose. Of course, we have to pick and the candidates did a good job differentiating their philosophies, approaches, procedures and performance.

Due to what turned out to be poor placement of the camera and some technical issues I botched Adam Steins opening statement. In my defense, I set my camera up early – on a tripod as per BrianR’s excellent recommendation – well away from onlookers and the moderator. But then “dancin’ Doyle” decide to move stage right. By that point, my bobbing photographic nemesis for the night had taken the high ground.

Opening statements in reverse order appearance on the ballot. Essentially, Adam Stein reviewed his service before the bar, his work on the Mel Watt and Daryl Hunt cases and laid out his career as per the first forum.

I apologize for cutting Judge Fox off during question on political parties influence: essentially he gave a reprise of his answer on parties and politics from the 1st forum.

Some interesting highlights.

  • Anderson on reforming the system for selecting judges – especially the perception of the public about what the effect of money has on jurisprudence.
  • Anderson on keeping current with the law.
  • Stein taking up the transition challenge with his closing statement.
  • Stein on why he’s punctual now – great story of his youth.
  • Fox on managing high profile cases.
  • Baddour on how a short term can hurt our system of justice.
  • Baddour on direct outreach and keeping the “common Joe” in the picture.

Again, I apologize to the candidates for weaving around, botching the focus, not anticipating “dancing Doyle” and, in Mr. Stein’s case, completely zapping a segment. I’m working to get better at this vLog business.

And to my readership, thanks for the feedback. I wasn’t sure if these videos would have any utility.

Oct. 16th Superior Court 15B Forum: Opening

Opening statements. I botched Mr. Stein’s statement. Later this week I hope to retrieve a video copy from the cable telecast.

youTube link to opening statements.