Decatur Gets All Redistricted
Decatur Metro | August 21, 2011
All I can say is thank goodness for these AJC maps.
Sure, the Georgia legislature released their proposed new district maps last week, but it took a while before anyone really understood the implications. I thought about just throwing up the map and letting the more geo-politically minded explain the changes, but I figured someone would give me a nice, sweet little summary for Decatur/DeKalb that I could point to. Well, now it’s days later, and here’s the best thing I’ve found thus far - interactive AJC maps, where RED represents a “contested district” (two incumbents now represent the same district), yellow notes “new representation”, and green means the district remains unchanged.
Not a lot of green in ol’ Decatur when it comes to the House maps, as you can see from the above. The “contested” area in red is a new vertical district, where Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield’s district has been combined with Howard Mosby’s district to the south. Stuckey-Benfield said last week that her district had been “targeted by the Republican redistricting process” and that seems to have played out.
Elsewhere around Decatur, Mary Margaret Oliver would soon only represent a portion of the northwest part of the city (when before she represented most of the northside), while Rahn Mayo, who’s current district (PDF) is almost all south of I-20 would represent the largest % of Decatur voters, taking over the entire east side of the city. Rep. Stacey Abrams’ 84th district, who currently represents the southeast corner of the city would be shifted to the west and out of the city entirely.
Of course, all of this is pending a federal court battle, due to the Voting Rights Act, but unless the Obama Justice Department decides to reject the maps, this seems to be the new political reality.
Oh! And here are the Senate maps in case you’re interested, though for Decatur residents, Jason Carter’s District 42 continues to represent all of of the City of Decatur.
Latest from Decaturish
The House maps are terrible. Decatur and Druid Hills are each cut up into three districts. Chamblee and Doraville are split into 4 districts. Northlake is cut up into three districts. Needless to say Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Roswell and Alpharetta all have their own districts.
• Rahn Mayo’s new district (84) runs from Pangborn and Lavista to Henry County.
• Stephanie Benefield’s and Howard Mosby’s combined district (83) runs from Briarcliff and LaVista to Henry County.
These districts are very narrow ribbons. They are a stack of precincts, not communities of common interest. When the 83rd district crosses College Avenue in Decatur is about 10 blocks wide. The 84th is less than 5 blocks wide in some places.
• The 81st district which pairs Scott Holcomb and Elena Parent runs from Dresden Drive in Brookhaven to Norcross.
• The 86th runs from Shallowford to Covington Highway
• The 88th stretches Pleasantdale and I-85 to Redan
The GOP didn’t just go after white liberal representatives; they went after white liberal voters by dividing them into small pieces in which their influence, leadership and campaign contributions would be diluted.
I’m sick of the AJC and other commentators sayings “what goes around comes around.” If it was bad political behavior before; it should not be excused this time. This eye for an eye justice is a pretty stupid way to run a state.
Can we please have an independent, non-partisan group determine legislative boundaries. California has gone this route after their legislature repeatedly failed to accomplish the most basic legislative tasks. Iowa and other states have non-partisan methods of redesitricting. In the meantime, let’s hope the courts or the Justice Department will offer some relief.
Not ANY green in City of Decatur, right?
Very confusing even with the AJC maps. For example, if I’m understanding correctly, the part of Decatur to be put in Mary Margaret Oliver’s yellow “new representation” district of 82 was previously in her old district 83. So one may be in a new district but happen to have the same representative. Or not. As far as I’m concerned as Ms. Lay Public, government still has a long way to go before achieving transparency.
While bopping around and trying to understand this, I once again hit upon the fact that Clairemont West Polling District is directly east of Clairemont East Polling District. No how much I zoom in and out, I cannot see how Clairemont West extends west of Clairemont East. The polling place for Clairemont West (Lutheran Church) is close to the polling place for Clairemont East (First Baptist) but it’s still EAST of it. The only way I can make sense of the East and West designations is to turn DeKalb County upside down. Does anyone understand the logic or historical context to the mismatched directional designations of these two polling districts?
Redistricting is used by the majority party is to disrupt the minority party, leaving the minority party depleted and with a bench of future leaders the majority party thinks will be weak statewide candidates. Some minority party representatives, such as Rahn at the state level and Barrow at the federal level, are forced from their historical base. Other members are electorally eliminated by being drawn into the districts of other minority party members, such as is the case of Stephanie and Howard, or having their district eliminated altogether — as in the case of one of the kindest men, Senator George Hooks, of Americus. Finally, to the extent redistricting can achieve a political goal — creation of Milton County — the majority party will design its seats to achieve that end.
This is the way Dems used it and the Repubs are using it now. The idea of organizing districts around communities with common interests, at least in areas dominated by the minority party, is completely lost in the shuffle. The City of Decatur’s representation becomes simply an artifact of the grander designs of those pulling the levers for the R’s. With few exceptions, we are fortunate in DeKalb to have a very strong, intelligent delegation across all parties, but it is sad to lose the intellectual capital we built up with our previous representatives.
Let a computer draw the maps, based solely on population, and allow only minor adjustments by the Genral Assembly.
Redistricting is one of the worst impacts of political parties (other than the degree to which they tend to solidify beliefs and make people less open to change, of course).
Is there a functional alternative to political parties, e.g. in any other democracies around the world? Or at least smaller, more fluid parties? I remember being surprised as a child that the Republican and Democratic Parties weren’t in the Constitution since they seemed as powerful as any of our 3 branches of government.
And who will design the computer program that draws the districts? I’m not saying the current process works, it’s just that getting politics out of this process will be incredibly difficult to do.
Why Diebold of course.
“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
–Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin
Re: political parties, when imagining any system with political parties, I have trouble envisioning an associated culture in which the protection of that party is not at the top of the party’s priorities. My real concern is about the danger in personally identifying onesself with a group of idealogically like-minded people. And yes, that gets way outside politics too.
Re: computer systems, you are right that in a political environment there is basically no point in computerizing it. But I’m trying hard to de-program myself from political lala land, so I’ve got no problem thinking outside that box be it a difficult implementation or not. Without politics, the process would probably be fairly simple.
Questioin: does anyone not fascinated with politics care about the redistricting process itself, and I don’t mean their outcome of preserving the majority? I’m going to have a rep and a senator regardless. And whether or not my reps agree with me shouldn’t change my mind about issues should it? Maybe agreement will make my commitment easier because i can trust my rep more, but that is a short cut that could backfire on me if I am wrong.
a couple of reasons to care about the general characteristics of your district– as the house maps are in the new drawings, Decatur itself looses the focus of a dedicated legislator. With Decatur having 3 reps, 2 of which will have districts that are very narrow ribbon districts with lots of different communities, those reps will have so many different communities to try and represent, it is bound to happen that one piece of legislation good for one dot on the ribbon is not good for another spot within the same district. Also, legislators who have lost a substantial core of their prior constiuents also correlates to a substantial chunk of constituents who may have developed a relationship with their legislator that is now lost, frustrating even more the average voter who is trying to at least even know who their rep is.
If you mean one legislator who represented all of Decatur, then Decatur didn’t have a dedicated legislator before. Decatur has been in 3 districts as long as I can remember. You make a good point about being all in one district, but politics dictates otherwise. We are in one State Senate district, though. And, it looks like we’ll only have one Congressional district instead of the two we’ve had for 10 years.
Georgia legislators can’t draw maps based solely on population. They have to abide by the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which means race is a major factor in the process. Over the years, black Democratic and white Republican politicians have agreed to maximize their numbers at the expense of white Democrats. It will be interesting to see how DeKalb residents respond to the changes brought about by this redistricting.
For me the story to watch is how white Democrats in north DeKalb will adjust to having black Democrats from south DeKalb representing them. Howard Mosby, Rahn Mayo, and Coach Williams have had significant white populations added to their districts. Coach Williams’ district goes from 90% black to 65% black. Howard Mosby’s district goes from 75% black to 58% black. Rahn Mayo’s district goes from 65% black to 58% black.
I don’t know if they’ll be listed as incumbents in the new districts they represent, but if they aren’t then that will be their first challenge. White Democrats may run against them (Stephanie Benefield, for one) in the primary and could conceivably win with the help of Republicans who cross over and vote in the Democratic primary, since the Republican primary next year will be of little interest in DeKalb.
If these legislators are reelected then the test for them will be how to have good relations with a more economically, racially, and culturally diverse group of constituents.
In most advanced democracies there are many political parties and point of view available to discuss. Why are we limited to 2?
I always wondered that myself. When Mrs. Token and I were talking about how some European countries have a multi-party system (which I thought was pretty cool, given that there would seem to be more choices), she brought up an interesting point:
When you have a multi-party system, chances are high that a minority group is in power. For example, let’s say you have four major parties accounting for given percentages:
Party A – 35%
Party B – 30%
Party C – 20%
Party D – 15%
Now let’s say, during the election, Party B, which represents only 30% of registered voters, garners enough votes to win. That would mean a party with a minority membership would be the one in power. Thus, the end result would be the other 70% would fight against that regime (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), guaranteeing little to no progress.
The mechanics of the electoral system make a big difference here. For instance, in a lot of countries, for the national parliament, you vote for a party that fields a slate of candidates, and the number of seats the party gets is proportional to their percentage of votes. So Party D (e.g., the Greens or the Libertarians) would get about 15% of the seats, as opposed to zippo (or just a few, if they manage to gain a plurality in a few districts). “Instant runoff voting” is another interesting idea. It allows voters to ‘rank’ the candidates. If there were 3 candidates, Green, Blue Dog Dem, and Tea Party Guy, you could (for instance) rank Green #1 and Blue Dog #2. Then if the votes came out as follows
Tea party guy: 40%
Blue Dog Dem: 38%
Green: 22%
Green would be eliminated and her votes reallocated to the #2 preference. Assuming that most Green voters would prefer Blue Dog to Tea Party Guy, he’d get a majority of the votes after the reallocation. So I could vote for Green without worrying as much about throwing my vote away or letting into office somebody I find abhorrent.
We’re not limited to 2. It’s just that almost everyone votes for one of the two major parties and so the media pretty much ignores them.
There are a slew of things that make it pretty much impossible to even join politics in Washington unless you ultimately side with one party or the other. But mainly I think it’s financial in nature. To get the big contributions necessary to run a campaign, you need to pick a side. (There have been exceptions)
The exorbitant amount of money involved in Natl campaigns absolutely disgusts me.
And I despise the 2 party system because both sides wind up capitulating to the extremist kooks, and meeting in the middle is seen as capitulation, even when it’s the most reasonable solution. We need a party that’s willing to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Anyone with a brain realizes the government programs we have are not sustainable, but people should not be making laws solely based on religious beliefs, this is not a logical approach to lawmaking. Grrr…. Done with rant.
Well said, Rebeccab. The control over the center by the extremes on both sides is incredibly damaging to both the government and the people.
Yes, I call myself Decatur’s Token Republican, but can I truly, honestly support the party anymore? No, I can’t. I find it impossible to support a party that has been hijacked by religious zealots, bigots and hypocrites. Of course, that’s not a plug for the Democrats either. They are dealing with the same problems, but from a different source. I had high hopes for the Tea Party at the very beginning, but they have become the extremists they originally professed to despise.
So where does a fiscally conservative, pro-choice, limited government, gun-owning, gay-marriage supporter fit in? Nowhere.
We could call you Decatur’s Token Centrist, but I think that applies to more than half our residents.
Sounds a little libertarian to me.
Rural Vermont. They don’t spend if they don’t have the money, they don’t let their elected officials do anything without every citizen having a say at Town Meeting, they hunt during deer hunting season, and they consider what others are doing in bed to be none of their business.
There’s also absolutely nothing there to fight over
Ayup!
Actually, I think both parties are pretty much in the middle of the American electorate on most major issues (and this is not a good thing, in my opinion). They are both trying to capture the “median voter” who ultimately controls elections. Most fights we have in the national government are not fundamental disagreements, but disputes over matters of degree within the same accepted framework. Those with “extreme” positions — say, socialists on the left and libertarians on the right (just two examples) have had next to zero electoral success and are all but expelled from the major parties.
Take taxes. Obama wants a 39.6% marginal rate, the republicans want 35%. Where’s the “extreme” in that? The extremes on the left would probably want the top rate to be well north of 40%, and the libertarians might go to single digits. Neither position has, at this time, any real support in DC. Even the notion of lowering rates in exchange for eliminating deductions — wht one could call “extreme” reform in comparison to what we have today — has had almost no traction despite being recommended by Obama’s deficit commission.
The debt ceiling fight was resolved by an agreement that results in modest reductions to projected increases in future spending, and even those were backloaded. Almost no one suggested real reform or actual spending cuts. Indeed, the most glaring fiscal problem (medicare) was taken off the table entirely. And over this, you have both sides calling the other “crazy,” “extreme,” etc.
Gay marriage might be the best example. In places like Decatur it probably has support of 90% or more, but on a national level, it’s never polled nearly that well. Hence the democrats have not legalized it despite their recent control over both houses of Congress and the white house. Obama’s position has been incoherent, at best. He’s not hijacked by religious extremists, he’s responding to poll numbers. Republicans no doubt base their opposition on religion, but again, they’re also courting the same median voter who Obama does not want to offend.
Actually, gay marriage is now supported by a majority of Americans now:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521
And the younger the voter, the more support for equality.
Despite their recent gains in 2010, Republicans should be concerned by the fact that, on almost every issue, millennials (who are the largest age group now) are to the left of Republicans. And the myth that people change their party id and go Republican as they age is just that, a myth. Reagan won the youth vote in ’80 and ’84 and expanded the party. But the Republican nominee in 2012 has almost no chance of doing that, and that will be three presidential elections in a row that they have lost the millennial vote.
Ever since the late 1960s people have been warning conservatives to be worried about the up and coming liberals. Yet, since then Nixon was elected twice, Reagan was elected twice, Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, Bush won twice, and Republicans made the largest gains in the House in over 60 years.
Republicans have a majority of the governorships, control a majority of state legislatures, control the U.S. House, for all intents and purposes control the Supreme Court, along with conservative Democrats they form a majority in the U.S. Senate, and have a president who is more than willing to govern from the center-right.
Besides gay marriage and drug decriminalization or legalization, what is going to motivate the supposedly large contingent of liberal Millennials to defeat the already proven larger numbers of conservatives who actually vote in this country?
George Bush really won twice?
Yeah, and Democratic politicians should be thankful he won twice. Opposition to Bush did far more to rally liberals — and especially their money — around Democratic candidates than anything Democratic politicians actually accomplished while in office. Since Obama’s been in office what’s happened to all the liberal protests against the wars, Guantanamo, government spying, renewal of the Patriot Act, etc?
The point is where the trends are going–there seems to be no question that the country moved right politically since 198O…or did it? On social issues, things considered unimaginable even 25 years ago are accepted or on the way to acceptance. If conservatism means smaller government, nearly the opposite has taken place: beginning with Reagan, government has grown to be larger than it ever has been. The move toward the Republican Party and the right, to the extent that has actually occurred, has not been a triumph of conservatism, but of big business. Big business is not interested in small government, but pliable politicians.
Good question. Where did the “trends” say things were going after Obama’s victory in 2008? Many on the left thought it was the beginning of a new age, but look at what happened in 2010.
Your original comment was about Republicans, and I’m saying that Republicans have been very successful politically during the past 40 years, even as many people were saying boomers and now millennials were going to upset the political realm. Elections are one example, but Republicans also drastically lowered tax rates and reformed welfare and many New Deal programs. Socially and culturally boomers and millennials have changed things. You’ll get no argument from me there. However, politically Democrats have not been so successful.
The Republican party has always been about big business, from the time of its inception and first president. Now big business is deep in both parties’ pockets, it’s just that most Democratic politicians decry big business when it suits them politically.
Debating the achievements of liberals and conservatives is somewhat different than the achievements of Democrats and Republicans. Again, you think Republicans should be concerned about the impact millennials could have on their political fortunes, but I think Obama has done more to make millennials cynical about politics than anything Bush ever did. With Bush in office young liberals had an enemy to motivate them to a belief in Hope and Change. Now what do they have to believe in?
The left has been hijacked as well, by unions and various other special interests groups. There was a time when unions were necessary, but no longer. I personally think Scott Walker is dope, but the message shouldn’t be totally disregarded. And if you’re in the the system, or go into it for whatever reason and already have a couple of kids but decide you want more, you shouldn’t get an increase in benefits. You just have to do more with what you’re getting like everyone else.
The Libertarian perspective is interesting, but most of the people involved with it, don’t seem to be pro-choice and don’t want to leave that particular issue to the states. There are a few, but not many. Ron Paul is a smart man no doubt, but he is pretty out there. I’m not really down with his style of boot-straps ideas that he espouses. They are too extreme for me. That doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate a few of his points though.
I guess it’s just you and I on this island, DTR.
Abortion can’t be left to the states unless and until Roe is overturned, which doesn’t seem even remotely likely. Like it or not, it’s pretty much settled constiutional law at this point.
Somebody mention libertarians?
Certainly his position on the evil of militarism is right on.
You know, I consider myself a liberal, but I would actually vote for Ron Paul because of his opposition to unnecessary wars and military adventurism that is antithetical to a republic . I disagree with him on a number of issues, but I think this issue outweighs those on the importance scale. Of course, he will never get the nomination, so it’s largely a moot point.
@Jay
Point taken about Bush being a powerful motivating factor for liberals (but of course, Obama was the same sort of motivating factor in 2010 for conservatives). My original point was on the issues, and there the polls show that a big majority of millenials do not agree with what most Republicans are espousing right now. Whether that translates at the voting booth is another matter. And you are quite right about the difficulty in comparing Democratic / Republican and liberal / conservative. In my view, the only conservative gains domestically have been lower taxes, but those have been accompanied by massive deficits and a growth in the federal government overall–hardly conservative victories. On most issues, I see little nationally that my parents’ generation of conservatives would recognize as successes.
Oh, and I think it is a mistake to assume that Obama has lost that generation’s support. His approval numbers have fallen, but Republican approval numbers have fallen even further. It remains to be seen how that plays out in a general election.
Agree with Davis that legislative districts should be determined by an independent, non-partisan body. There are plenty of other issues the General Assembly needs to be playing politics with, besides this one.
Re. our two-party system, Thomas Friedman wrote a few weeks ago about an organization that is seeking a third way, Americans Elect. https://www.americanselect.org/
My advice to anyone asking is that they stay away from any operation where the most probable outcome is the sale of their personal information.
If you’re not familiar with the National Popular Vote bill that’s making its way through the states, check it out. It won’t solve the legislative redistricting issues, but it would change the dynamics of the presidential race.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
[...] Complaints are strong in my old neighborhood of Decatur with this map as Exhibit A: [...]
Redistricting, in my opinion, is one of the main causes of the partisan gridlock enveloping Congress and state legislatures. Ever since the process was computerized, it has been extremely easy for Republicans and Democrats alike to gerrymander. So now we have thousands of “safe” districts at the state and federal level in which an incumbent has to really screw up to get defeated. There are 435 House districts and in any given election, there are only 30 or 40 that are truly competitive. Consequently, we get a Congress full of ideologues who don’t have to compromise or even try to govern effectively to get re-elected. All the states should move to a model where an independent commission creates election districts. Iowa is often cited as an example because its districts, by law, are drawn by an independent body and based on population equality, contiguity, unity of counties and cities, and compactness. Incumbent protection is not considered.
Term limits would be a more effective approach to this, IMO. In the House, 3 terms and out, and get the Senators out after one term.
+ 1
Yes but term limits take away the will of the voter. If someone can prove time and time again in a competitive district that they belong in office, then the voter should have the ability to return them to office. There have been politicians who served many years in office and did a good job. Not all are bums. Do a lousy job and the voters will throw you out (Remember Wyche Fowler). Do a good job and the voters will return you to office (Sam Nunn — didn’t agree with all his politics but I never thought he was an ideologue only out for re-election).
Term limits are the political equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Along with a fairly good number of folks around Decatur, I served as a senior staffer in the U.S. Senate. Term limits simply transfer of power to agency bureaucrats and legislative staff, all of whom know more than and outlast any legislator. It takes months to learn your way around the committees and procedures of a legislature. It takes years to learn the laws, agencies and alliances that are critical to governing. I agree that re-districting should be handled by a “neutral” committee such as other states do. However, term limits render every member a rookie or near rookie and, whatever the benefits, the downside is far worse for me.
+1. We already have term limits. It’s when the majority of voters are done with you. Those performing should have every opportunity to keep performing.
“We already have term limits. It’s when the majority of voters are done with you”
Yes, and kind of sort, but not really.
So yes, technically speaking.
But when an incumbent is in a district that’s their party majority, it’s damn near impossible to toss them unless their district changes whether they go D or R.
Look at somebody like David Vitter, married and busted with hookers. He’s currently representing his state in Congress, and upholding the sanctity of marriage there!
Or Rangel and Waters, does anyone think they won’t be reelected. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I doubt it.
I don’t know what the limits should be, but when you talk about people who can’t be kicked out no matter what they do, term limits sound like a great idea.
I don’t care how great you are, no one should be serving for 15-20 years, just my opinion. By that point, they are more beholden to the lobbyists, than they are to their constituents, because that’s what happens with the lifers. You scratch my back, I write you a check.
I don’t necessarily go with the attitude “throw all the bums out” and start all over necessarily. But Congress is broke, and needs a monumental shakeup. When people are skipping their own swearing in Congress to accept checks in the Capitol building, that signals to me, something is terribly wrong, and it will take make more than a fine/slap on the wrist to fix it.
I thinking voting is the best term limit. The issue I have with the process is the out-sized influence of special interests and small minorities. Part of the problem is the system is outmoded. For example, twenty percent of the U.S. Senate is determined by less than three percent of the population. Two Senators per state may have been a good idea when there were fewer states, but not when there are fifty and huge differences in population size. A similar dynamic exists in Georgia, with small rural areas having a disproportionate influence on legislation.
It’s not quite as bad in Georgia because at least the Senate districts are drawn by population, although it hasn’t always been that way. And, the rural influence has diminished as Atlanta metro got a greater proportion of the state’s population.
Interesting info for the political novice. My natural instinct is the opposite–that term limits are good. I have advocated for them for School Board members (any School Board, any members, this is not an anti-CSD rant). Because children, families, innovations in education, neurobiological advances, the external environment affecting families, etc. all change so quickly, I think it’s easy to lose touch with the needs of the community. But I am not familiar with the reality of elected government beyond the hyper-local level of City of Decatur. And I have to admit that I don’t want Mayor Bill Floyd to ever leave, no matter what number term he is in. He’s the personification of a dedicated small city mayor. Perhaps the advantages of term limits do not outweigh the benefits.
` Perhaps the advantages of term limits do not outweigh the benefits.
Size matters – you know that.
+1 DSW.
I read that this Congress is the first to have the most liberal Republican be more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. Our system of checks and balances requires compromise to accomplish anything substantial. Parliamentary systems allow coalitions to drive substantial change quickly with the understanding that the public has the right to call an election whenever the government goes beyond their mandate.
Gerrymandering to stablish safe districts for both parties is the most important factor that has polarized our politics and made compromise a dirty word. This is compounded by the primary system and media fragmentation that have fed the moves to ideological “purity.”
Solving this problem is (theoretically) easy at the state level – require districts to be defined by a mathematical algorithm that minimizes the sum of the distance of districts’ borders from the center of each district. This will force to districts to be as “round” as possible, with nothing resembling a gerrymander.
The average district will then move to the ideological center, and we will find representatives who will swing votes to deliver appropriate compromises. Of course, this won’t solve the problem in Congress unless a majority of states do this.
Just got a look at the congressional districts. A little hard to tell, but looks like most or all of Decatur is now in the 5th District – incumbent John Lewis. We were split between 4th and 5th.
The DeKalb Democratic Party meets every First Thursday of the Month in Downtown Decatur. The District Party Postholders who live in and around the City are united in their opposition to the what can only be called a butchering of key communities of interest ion our neighborhoods.
Dekalb did not grow as fast as other regions and we knew seats would be lost. What was shocking about this was that the lines were drawn north to South rather than east to west. The seats in question will certainly remain in Democratic hands so that is really not the issue.
Decatur and Druid Hills has considerable political muscle in House Minority Leader Abrams, House Caucus officer Benfield and Veteran legislator Oliver. That political muscle for the City of Decatur and the Druid Hills HS/Fernbank Elementary Community has been terribly weakened by these new lines,
We are very interested in hearing from local residents on how they feel this impacts our community,
http://dekalbdems.org
http://www.facebook.com/groups/DekalbDemocrats/
Steve Perkins
District 86 PostHolder
Democratic Party of Georgia. State Committee (DeKalb District 6)
To avoid confusion, please note we are different Steves. His avatar is purple, mine is white and teal.
All I ever see is little red Xes so maybe you guys should be Steve Purple and Steve White.
Haha Steve. I will certainly defer to your seniority. Please note that my announcement for DeKalb Dems was, –though by it nature.. partisan– was civic-minded in tone. Though I am quite certain that those in Decatur of other political persuasion would share the concern about the destruction of local communities of interests. And Karass you can refer to me as Steve BLUE. Purple? No Way. LOL
LOL for me too.