Would-be commissioner candidate convicted

[aleonard]

Andrew Gant (andrewg@nwfdailynews.com)
DeFUNIAK SPRINGS - A jury found would-be Walton County Commission candidate Greg "Charlie" Burke guilty of voter fraud Wednesday, months after Gov. Charlie Crist suspended him from another county post.

Burke could face a five-year sentence and thousands of dollars in fines.

He was convicted on two counts of voter registration fraud and falsifying documents to the Walton County supervisor of elections office.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/burke_8593___article.html/commissioner_walton.html

[wrobert]

Andrew Gant (andrewg@nwfdailynews.com)
DeFUNIAK SPRINGS - A jury found would-be Walton County Commission candidate Greg "Charlie" Burke guilty of voter fraud Wednesday, months after Gov. Charlie Crist suspended him from another county post.

Burke could face a five-year sentence and thousands of dollars in fines.

He was convicted on two counts of voter registration fraud and falsifying documents to the Walton County supervisor of elections office.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/burke_8593___article.html/commissioner_walton.html


So I guess it will no longer be relevant where he stands on the issues affecting the county.

[aleonard]

I was wondering yesterday if he was convicted of a felony he can't vote but could he still run :blink:

[danna B]

He cant do either, he has to have his rights reinstated. He is disinfranchised. :clap:

[DuneLaker]

When and where a candidate lives is relevant. How one can work around this varies. But, it is a relevant discussion that should take place in all kinds of races. For Burke, it was criminal. For others, the intent and degree is up for debate.

[aleonard]

When and where a candidate lives is relevant. How one can work around this varies. But, it is a relevant discussion that should take place in all kinds of races. For Burke, it was criminal. For others, the intent and degree is up for debate.


Hi DL,

I have a special on election laws coming out after the 20th when qualifying ends. It will include this topic. :wave:

[DuneLaker]

AL. Good. Can't wait to read. Once in Texas, a guy from Houston ran for a congressional race in Dallas -- about 300 miles away. Sure, he could do it. But, one has to ask if this is the "right" thing to do. He ran by the way because he could and had enough money to do so. Also, his last name was the same as the incumbent of another party. He even admitted he was running because his name was the same!! He actually won the primary against a very fine candidate. The incumbent eventually beat him in the General Election as he (the incumbent) had the time and the money after the Primary to expose him and beat him soundly. Details vary. So each race deserves a closer look.

[aleonard]

AL. Good. Can't wait to read. Once in Texas, a guy from Houston ran for a congressional race in Dallas -- about 300 miles away. Sure, he could do it. But, one has to ask if this is the "right" thing to do. He ran by the way because he could and had enough money to do so. Also, his last name was the same as the incumbent of another party. He even admitted he was running because his name was the same!! He actually won the primary against a very fine candidate. The incumbent eventually beat him in the General Election as he (the incumbent) had the time and the money after the Primary to expose him and beat him soundly. Details vary. So each race deserves a closer look.

Thanks DL. I would also be curious to hear how voters feel about the difference between electing someone from outside the county vs appointing or hiring someone from outside the county.
Case in point, the Sheriffs race. We have one person who was raised here but lives over one county and is running and planning on returning which is totally legal. We have another who returned after being hired by the DFS city council to a LEO post. Does the group of 5 on the city council have a greater understanding of outside hiring than the voters do?

I consider them (PERSONALLY:biggrin:) to not be any different in my mind. If one can appoint (hire) from outside the county then one should be able to run for election as well. But my opinion only counts as a vote. I would be curious if anyone else sees no difference between appointment or hiring and being elected:idontno:

[DuneLaker]

Good intentions versus intentional fraud are sometimes impossible to prove or discern.

[aleonard]

Good intentions versus intentional fraud are sometimes impossible to prove or discern.
Agreed :wave:

[sowalgayboi]

Aleo I think this goes all the way back to why we wouldn't elect a President who is Canadian or Mexican. ;-)

[aleonard]

Aleo I think this goes all the way back to why we wouldn't elect a President who is Canadian or Mexican. ;-)

SGB, I don't see it like that. I saw a poster complain in another thread that we have a candidate that grew up here and is a registered voter in Florida but shouldn't be able to run and on the other hand we have a candidate who wasn't living here but grew up here as well but got hired or appointed in a LEO post and that is cool???? I think they should be able to appoint/hire/elect/ whoever is the best for the job. Whether they live here at that time or not for this specific position. They all have to live in the county by the time they take office :idontno:

[DuneLaker]

From ALeonard --I consider them (PERSONALLY:biggrin:) to not be any different in my mind. If one can appoint (hire) from outside the county then one should be able to run for election as well. But my opinion only counts as a vote. I would be curious if anyone else sees no difference between appointment or hiring and being elected:idontno:[/quote]

One difference to consider is that there are laws that govern residency requirements for a candidate or an elected official. Hiring is another matter. In Texas, the School Board hires the Superintendent. They are often hired from outside the district from what is now a large professional pool. We are a county and country of laws. Some follow laws better than others. However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral or the right thing to do. Laws change. What is considered normal, good behavior also changes. :wave:

[aleonard]

From ALeonard --I consider them (PERSONALLY:biggrin:) to not be any different in my mind. If one can appoint (hire) from outside the county then one should be able to run for election as well. But my opinion only counts as a vote. I would be curious if anyone else sees no difference between appointment or hiring and being elected:idontno:

One difference to consider is that there are laws that govern residency requirements for a candidate or an elected official. Hiring is another matter. In Texas, the School Board hires the Superintendent. They are often hired from outside the district from what is now a large professional pool. We are a county and country of laws. Some follow laws better than others. However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral or the right thing to do. Laws change. What is considered normal, good behavior also changes. :wave:[/quote]

I agree. I just question why we go along with appointments/hires from another county or halfway across the state and then some get up in arms about elections :idontno: That was the only point I was trying to feel out. Why do people view them differently would have been a better way of asking the question:blush:

[scooterbug44]

The people we hire for jobs typically then have to become residents for practical reasons.

The people we elect need to already be a resident so that they can properly represent their constituency and understand the area.

I'm not a fan of hiring people/firms from outside the area for jobs that require them to represent the area/understand it. Laundry list of examples for that one.

[ShallowsNole]

It almost gives me the giggles when it is suggested that because Tony currently lives barely in Bay County that he doesn't understand Walton County. Or, that when Mike was hired as chief in DFS, he was "not local."

They BOTH grew up here. I'd hate to think that if I moved off for a few years to further my opportunites, that I'd stop understanding Walton County.

[sowalgayboi]

Am I missing something here? Did we just decide today as a community that the rule of law no longer applies? :idontno:

If someone who is required to be a resident to run is not then they are breaking the law. If you really have a problem with it, go thru the proper (and really long) channels and change it, don't excuse it because they were born here.

For the record SN you'd have to move first, and I doubt that's happening anytime soon. :biggrin::wave:

[aleonard]

Different offices have different guidelines for residency. I believe most all(will have to go back over my notes) require you be a resident of Walton except for Sheriff. But if someone is removed from an elected office then that position will be appointed or hired and then the residency rule doesn't apply.?? This is what I've been trying to figure out:idontno:

For the Sheriff's race you just have to be a registered Florida voter, is my understanding. I bet Wrobert could enlighten us more, please.:wave:

[DuneLaker]

Going back to Burke's conviction, maybe he can get some of Brannon's lawyers and lobbyists and drag the thing out for two years. This way Burke might get elected and serve at least two years before the conviction catches up with him.

[ShallowsNole]

Am I missing something here? Did we just decide today as a community that the rule of law no longer applies? :idontno:

If someone who is required to be a resident to run is not then they are breaking the law. If you really have a problem with it, go thru the proper (and really long) channels and change it, don't excuse it because they were born here.

For the record SN you'd have to move first, and I doubt that's happening anytime soon. :biggrin::wave:

Hey, you never know. Ask me again in November. :cool: