Here’s the sample ballot from the Durham County Board of Elections:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/2009_Election/Ballots/Election/Durham%20%20Sample%20%28WM%29%201.pdf

In Durham’s Ward II race, GoLiberty endorses Matt Drew: http://electmattdrew.org/

Here’s the link to look up your sample ballot in Charlotte:
http://www.meckboe.org/AddressSearch.aspx

In Charlotte’s city council race, GoLiberty endorses Travis Wheat: http://www.electwheat.com/

If you’re not sure what ward or precinct you’re in, look up your voter registration at the following link, and click the “My Districts” link at the bottom of your search results to see all your municipal information:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/VoterLookup.aspx

Need to know where to vote? After you look up your voter registration above, it should tell you where to go vote. If you want to double-check, click the “My Districts” information to get your precinct information, and check one of the following links:
DURHAM: http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Polling_Locations.html
CHARLOTTE: http://www.meckboe.org/PollingLocations.aspx

Check out this article about the news from the John Locke Foundation.

Though Clement got 60% of the vote Tuesday, voter turn-out on November 3rd could potentially turn the tables. Campaigning is not over; if anything it is now as important as ever.

Durham residents in Ward II, vote for a voice of liberty on November 3rd! Vote for Matt Drew!

I’m excited for Matt, who is a co-member with me on the LPNC Executive Committee. A runoff is likely with voting this close, something that could easily be resolved with instant run-off voting.

Congrats to Larry Hudson in Raleigh who made an impressive showing in the mayoral race. Meeker was held to 62% of the vote. Unlike reports that state Meeker had no trouble getting elected for a fifth term, a few facts should be noted for that race:
* Only about 28,363 votes were cast, far less than 10% of registered voters in Raleigh
* A combined 38% of voters did not want Meeker to continue as mayor
* 115 voters made the effort to write in someone not already on the ballot

A better showing in local elections could be the answer to bringing more Liberty to the table. I think that Matt’s upcoming run-off and Meeker’s mere 62% in a poor voter turnout are both proof that more voices in local elections can make a difference.

Durham, be sure to get out and vote if there’s a runoff in the Ward 2 primary!

Endorsements? GoLiberty is not going to endorse anyone at this time. Had I been able to ask questions more directly related to Liberty, I think I could have done so with more confidence. Instead, I encourage readers to look at the candidates’ websites, think about the issues that are most important for you, and vote for the best person to represent your views. That’s what I will be doing.

So… who am I voting for? Well, I have taken some time this morning to read a couple of interviews and websites from candidates on the unofficial election results page that line up with my ballot. I’m in municipal (Raleigh) District C, and I am not in one of the school board districts with candidates running.

My first thought was to vote against anyone endorsed by New Raleigh. Why? Well, they clearly think “we all love” Meeker for his discriminatory actions to concentrate on new development and gentrification at the cost of the majority of citizens who live outside of the designated growth areas. As much as I like some of the articles in New Raleigh, I really cannot trust any endorsements from a group who makes such broad and assuming claims about its readership, or judging that he has "no real opponent" when three men have stepped up and done what they could (or could afford) to make their voices heard.

For Raleigh mayor, I’m voting for Larry Hudson. No, not just because he replied to my early blog post. He most represents me and my friends here in Raleigh, and he is removed enough from the downtown scene to see the needs of Raleigh at large. Kunz was my close second, and it sounds like he is in close touch with what’s going on in Raleigh government; he came in second only because he may be socially out of touch with those of us who live at lower incomes (most of Raleigh, actually). Enloe also has a few good ideas, but I think we need to steer away from the light rail dream.

For District C, my choice is between Charles Reisinger, James West (incumbent), or a write-in candidate.

I read this IndyWeek interview with Reisinger and really liked some of his responses. Certainly anyone who admits he does not want big government is at least on the right track. I also like his desire to make the council stronger and more accessible to Raleigh citizens. Reisinger’s one weak point, though, is his responses of “whatever the district wants me to do.” While it does sound like he wants to be a true public servant on the council (which I think was his intent), it comes across as a weak and unprepared response. For a stronger campaign, he would have been better to say “my district needs me to…” and fill in the blank with some well-researched response about District C.

have skimmed through this Southeast Raleigh Assembly information, a community organization effort by Dr. West. He definitely conveys awareness of his District, and he wants people in the community to be directly active in improving it. On the surface this sounds like a good thing. However, in my opinion, gathering a group of people who do some stuff and call it a success for the District may be little more than a “feel-good” strategy to win accolades for being the organizer. The true assurance of Liberty is not to organize some group to force change on individuals, but to take actions that might inspire individuals to make changes for themselves. I sincerely hope that’s the true goal of this organization, not just to get city money and continue to extend the bureaucracy sprawling forth from the Upchurch building.

For City Council District C, I will be voting for Resigner. It is time for the old bureaucracy to step aside.

The At-Large positions make me cringe for Liberty, but the fresh faces do have some sense of hope for Raleigh. For the sake of getting fresh faces in the fight against Meeker (who is likely to win because his sheeple will come out in flocks to vote for him), I will not be voting for Mary-Ann Baldwin or Russ Stephenson.

Lee Sartain’s website really conveys his vision for Raleigh. Though I think some of his ideas are not on par with Liberty and smaller government, he does want strong neighborhoods across the city. Candidates who will not leave behind certain neighborhoods in the overall vision are inclined to win my heart, whether or not they win my vote.

In this IndyWeek interview, Champ Claris conveys fiscal conservatism, which I think is important for Raleigh in our current economic climate. Though he does frighten me a bit with talk about providing incentives for private development, I think his response about ensuring the budget covers services first is an important statement about how he will contribute on the council.

Though on the ballot, candidate Bill Shakespeare did say he was pulling out of the race back in August. Be sure to reserve your two at-large votes for the other candidates.

For City Council At-large, I will be voting for Sartain and Claris.

Now… get out there and vote, people!

As I followed the speech, though, I spotted a few logical inconsistencies. I’m not sure if he has consulted with many economists on his plan, but it seems in direct contradiction to the “encouraging competition” goal that he claims is one of his guiding principles. Here’s a breakdown of what I mean:

(1) Obama said that he wants there to be no choice about whether or not an individual actually carries insurance. In short: he wants to see compulsory coverage. His reasoning was that it was the individuals without coverage that are costing everyone else more money.

This means, no matter what your income level or financial situation, you *must* have health insurance coverage. As this is not free, it means you have to shop for what you can afford. Without a public option, the financial outlook for individuals is frightening… with a public option, the economic outlook for healthcare is in danger (see #2 coming up).

Compulsory health insurance is a direct affront on liberty: forcing an individual to purchase something whether they want it or not. As such, anyone who reads my blog will know where I stand on that matter. The real solution to my not having to pay for someone who doesn’t have health insurance is not to require me to do so in the first place.

(2) Obama said that he wants a public health insurance option that will be self-sustaining and compete with other health insurance companies. What he isn’t telling you is that the federal government would be breaking its own rules: it would be competing across state lines while continuing to restrict private insurance from doing so.

This means, if you are in a state with unreasonably high rates, and the federal government offers something significantly less, they can gain thousands of customers where private companies are unable to come in. How Obama can call this competition is confusing: if the federal government offers a public option in the true spirit of competition, the only right thing to do would be to allow all private insurance companies nation-wide to compete on a level playing field.

(3) Obama said he wants employers to be required to provide health insurance benefits to employees. He did say there would be assistance for small and start-up businesses, but I’m not sure how he’s going to fund that without the aforementioned public option. I’d like to see more numbers on this. Again, though, any compulsory requirement like this is an affront to liberty. I don’t think there’s more I can say to that here… except that I hope this does not create further stagnation in the job market.

These are the three areas that are concerning me the most. Even a multipartisan bill will be a great source of personal frustration for me if it includes any of the items mentioned here.

For me, the true question is simple… and paints me as cold-hearted in some respects:

Is “health care” a right?

or further…

Is “good and affordable health care” a right?

How you answer those questions probably says a lot about where you stand in your own ideas of how healthcare and health insurance can be improved.

My answer? I have a right to pursue any health care as much as I have a right to refuse it… but I have no right to require or expect others to provide it to me.

Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “never.” Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status.” Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining “marriage,” and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What’s the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding.” Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a “common good” that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing “what’s best for everyone.” Libertarians believe that “what’s best” is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “repeal the laws against illegal drugs.” Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is “non-aggression.” The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
“I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS”

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.

Also announced this week: the Wake County Board of Education Candidates’ Forum will be held September 16, 2009, at 7 PM at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (2723 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, NC). We hope that Chris Augustine will be in attendance, and that we can learn more about other candidates. The forum is sponsored by: The League of Women Voters of Wake County, the Junior League of Raleigh, the YWCA of the Greater Triangle, the Wake County PTA Council, and El Pueblo. If you’re a Wake County voter, be sure to put this on your calendar!

Now, if I wanted to go somewhere within a one-to-two-hour drive, why would I take a Cessna? The last two flights logged from state-owned N122NC were trips I would have taken in a car. (Raleigh to Oxford? In a plane? Really?) Who is doing this? Are they just too lazy to drive and/or ride? I have contemplated a manifest to see who is wasting the state’s money taking a plane over taking a car, just to trim off an hour or two:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N122NC

UPDATE: Apparently Oxford is one place that small planes can go for their regular maintenance. I’ve learned a lot of interesting things about planes lately having friends who are small-craft pilots.

So here’s my early take on Meeker and on his three contestants for October:

Charles Meeker, incumbent
324 S. Boylan, Raleigh, NC 27603 – Meeker has been on the deed as owner of the 2,831-sqft single-family home since 1980, with a total current tax assessment value of $536,251, and a 2009 tax bill of $4,886.48.

Meeker currently lives in Boylan Heights, one of Raleigh’s oldest neighborhoods just southwest of downtown. Boylan Heights has continued rising in value since Meeker took office, with home renovations, new business like the Boylan Bridge Brewpub, and skyline view enhancements like the new convention center and RBC building. Boylan Heights is also across Western Blvd from Dix Hill, on which Meeker supports plans for Raleigh to purchase the mental-health land grant from the state and develop what he and the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park (FDDP) call a “world-class park.”

A look at Meeker’s accomplishments and goals for the City of Raleigh screams out one word: gentrification.

For example, if Meeker supports the FDDP plan (Dix 306) outlined in their whitepaper written by developers from Chicago and St. Louis, then Meeker seeks to apply tax-increment financing (TIF) to fund the initial project, which would surely pressure out the low-income residents around Dix Hill. The plan has no mention of ongoing expenses for maintaining a 306-acre park, and no suggestion of how developing a big new park is better than revitalizing the many community parks with walking distance of homes all around Raleigh.

In recent months, Meeker and the council have expressed a desire to redo Moore Square. Another downtown gentrification project? I think so: after all, it is well known that when there aren’t major events going on at Moore Square, it is a place where a dozen or so of Raleigh’s homeless often find some solace under the shady oaks. There is nothing wrong with Moore Square as it is now without hundreds of thousands spent in renovation… well, unless you are just trying to kick out the homeless.

It appears that the “Meeker Majority” in the City Council may be fast approaching an end. Residents outside of Meeker’s narrow vision of what “improvement” means for Raleigh are ready for the mayor and council to recognize and address their needs, too. Though I had hoped a libertarian candidate would step forward boldly to challenge Meeker this year, the fact that the mayoral race is non-partisan should make me feel better about supporting “the right person for the job” if any of Meeker’s challengers can present a better plan for Raleigh.

Mark Enloe, challenger
709 Daniels St, Unit C, Raleigh, NC 27605 – Mark Enloe has been on the deed as owner of the 566-sqft condominium since February 2008, with a total current tax assessment value of $100,450, and a 2009 tax bill of $931.58.

If you read through Mark Enloe’s site, it appears he has a vision not unlike Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. Mike Munger, McCrory’s Libertarian opponent in the 2008 gubernatorial race, once described McCrory as having an “edifice complex,” a pun poking fun at his pride in building things and taking credit (like Charlotte’s light rail). I’m not sure Enloe is aiming to be McCrory, but he does reference Charlotte’s light rail as a better development option than Meeker’s push for the new convention center in Raleigh. Personally, it is debatable on whether either project should have come at a cost to city taxpayers.

Currently living in the community north of Cameron Village, Enloe speaks about tightening spending and balancing the city budget while starting to make headway on our city’s debt. This includes eliminating useless high-paying “assistant” positions in the City Manager’s office and shifting resources and responsibilities to those who are experts in their field. However, some of Enloe’s other suggested changes, such as eliminating the free R-Line bus route, could mislead people to think he’s looking to stunt Raleigh’s growth.

I think Enloe needs to shape his message to talk about replacement efforts, not just cuts in targeted areas. He needs to present what he would elminate against what he would replace as an alternate way to address the need filled by that eliminated position or service. If the “need” is not actually something the city needs, but is just “nice to have,” Enloe should include in his message phrases that acknowledge the “nice to have” role, followed by reframing statements that remove the “need” label from the position or service. For example, instead of saying he wants to get ride of the R-Line, perhaps he should say, “Downtown residents have expressed appreciation for the R-Line, but ridership has been limited, and at a cost of [X] dollars to staff and maintain the route, Raleigh has bigger needs, like [Y], where those dollars could provide a larger benefit.”

So, does Enloe have my vote? Well, you know that hints of fiscal responsibility are music to a libertarian ear. Plus, if you follow my blog, you also know I am glad to hear him step forth and suggest that the Dix 306 project may not actually be the best option for Dix Hill, and that we should “hear from the people on what should be done with the Dorothea Dix Hospital property.” As for my vote, though? It’s still to early to say.

Gregg S. Kunz, challenger
800 Glenwood Ave, Raleigh NC 27605 – Gregg and Tracy Kunz have been on the deed as owner of the 3,378-sqft single-family home since June 2006, with a total current tax assessment value of $739,678, and a 2009 tax bill of $6,732.58.

I could not yet find a campaign Web site for mayoral candidate Gregg Kunz, but I did spot his Plaxo page. Kunz is a business executive who lives in one of the gorgeous houses on that stretch of Glenwood between Five Points and Peace Street. Between Plaxo and Spoke I can tell he’s a hockey enthusiast and supporter of getting kids into hockey. As I cannot find any Web sites indicating his political efforts or his plans for Raleigh, I will postpone any opinions about his run for mayor and plan for a future post when more resources are available.

Larry D. Hudson, II, challenger
5537 Roan Mountain Pl, Raleigh, NC 27613 – I could not find Wake County property information for this address, though Google will happily show you where it is on the map. Hudson’s voter registration actually indicates another address, so he may have only recently moved to the new address.

Filing on the last day (July 17), Hudson has not yet had any press as a mayoral hopeful. Personally, I am pleased to see a candidate who isn’t within the 2-mile radius of the Avery C. Upchurch Building downtown, and who will be familiar with interests of Raleigh’s residents outside the Beltline. Unfortunately, as with Kunz, there are no Web sites yet about Hudson’s politics or plans for Raleigh. I did find a Larry Hudson from Raleigh on MySpace who is most clearly a Mets fan, but I can’t yet confirm if that’s the same guy.

So far, this guy is my front-runner because he’s not in the public tax records. Okay, just kidding… it’s really because he’s not in the Beltline cloister and might see the bigger picture for Raleigh. However, as with Kunz and Enloe, I have to reserve my opinions for later posts.