Alabama? NO!
Via Atrios, we see that Alabama voters have decided they want to retain the segregation-era language that is a part of their constitution:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to separation of schools by race and repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education, and to repeal Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109 relating to the poll tax. (Proposed by Act 2003-203)
More here.
Does this really surprise anyone?
Update: Anonymous (Marc? Don?) in comments says its actually about taxes... the argument goes that if the 1956 provision regarding the lack of a constitutional right to education was removed, then taxes would have to be increased in order to pay for more schools, etc. in order to meet the requirements.
Hogwash. Let's take the argument at face value... this certainly doesn't mean taxes will definitively be raised. For example: Why can't spending priorities be shifted? How many children in Alabama are not actually being offered an education? Furthermore, neither the Repubican Gov. Riley (the original author) nor the Democratic legislature nor the Southern Poverty Center agree that this would cause higher taxes via the courts or otherwise. Besides, the original 1956 language was inserted in order to try to make an end run on the Brown vs. Board of Education, so it is not like this is some sort of stealth provision. Finally, look who has been against this measure: governor wanna-be and former Chief Justice Roy Moore. Nice.
And none of this even matters... considering the hateful language this gets rid of, and the fact that the educational system in Alabama is piss-poor to begin with (see here), who cares if it might raise taxes for the educational system?!?
posted by DHP @ 10:43 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
It didnt have anything to do with the race issue. The reasons the Alabamanians refused this amendment, was because the second sentence stated on the ballot relating to our governments favorite topic (taxes) and of course it was raising taxes.
Too much pork!
Ummm... not really. The component you are refering to is in regards to a 1956 amendment that says the state residents don't have a consitutional right to an education. That in and of itself does not raise taxes.
It is arguable that it might lead to higher taxes in order to guarantee a certain level of education for all its residents, but considering the state of its education, that certainly doesn't qualify as "pork"
Post a Comment
<< Home