Another thing that this Voter Challenge made me realize - Granite Grok

Another thing that this Voter Challenge made me realize

Like I said here, we had a political ideologue by the name of Joe Wernig issue, in my opinion, a thinly veiled attempt of political intimidation by trying to keep local Libertarian activist Barbara Aichinger off the local ballot via a Voter Role Challenge (complete video here of the hearing, with more commentary above that post).  As the hearing slowly wore on, the thought hit me: how often is this now happening, where the most basic philosophies of American jurisprudence is being turned on its head?  Just like we are loosing our freedoms as the Government continues to loom larger and larger and inserts itself into more and more areas of what used to be off-limits.

All of us have been brought up believing “innocent until proven guilty” and that you should have the ability to confront your accuser.  This hearing, through no fault of the Supervisors of the Checklist, seemingly turned that upside down.  Joe Wernig had made sure that when he accused Mrs. Aichinger of not being eligible, she was out of the country on business.  He didn’t notify her of his press conference or his intention of going to the Supervisors in issuing that challenge.  He made sure that she could not directly confront him and his charges.

Yesterday, he doubled down – he was a “No Show” – but his baseless charge put all three Supervisors through hours of research during the 30 day interval.  Barbara had to spend hours in assembling her records in her own defense.  This political coward couldn’t muster the courage to even make a token appearance before skidaddling back to his secure government job.  He couldn’t face the person he challenged.  Yes, I meant that word: Coward.

So much for the Mrs. Aichinger being able to face her accuser: he simply ran away like when a bully runs up against someone who isn’t willing to back down.  In fact, I’m betting he really thought she’d fold – not a smooth move.

But in all this, the assumption was that Mrs. Aichinger was guilty.  It was not that Joe Wernig had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his assertion was correct but that Mrs. Aichinger had to prove her innocence.  The process seemed rather backwards – a breezily made accusation just floating on the air was sufficient to brand her to be off the rolls.  Instead of him advocating with piece after piece after piece of interlocking data items to prove that her domicile was not in our town, he skated.  He threw the political grenade and ran away.  Instead of being able to sit there and know that she would be on the roll until otherwise the data overwhelmingly convicted her, the opposite was true – she had to fight to stay on.  She was convicted and assumed to be guilty before the hearing was ever held – she had to prove her innocence beyond the shadow of guilt.

Certainly, she had the ability, the time, the motivation, and the wherewithal to do so – but what about the ordinary person who just wishes to participate in self-government?  I’m afraid that they may have not been able to show their innocence.  No, this has nothing to do with affording legal representation (although Mrs. Aichinger seemingly can) – this hearing showed “do you keep all of your paperwork around for years?  What if you don’t keep those credit card statements or utility bills or other indications of where you spend your time?

 

>