It seems too bad that any candidate would be barred from standing outside a mall to shake hands, pass out brochures and meet people. I can understand if they were really pushy or guilty of littering, it could be a problem, but in my town we always had people outside a lot of popular businesses during campaign time and I liked meeting them that way. Far better than having people always knocking on my door or phoning at all hours, especially candidates I know have no interest in supporting. It would seem having one day inside the mall with tables for any of the candidates who wanted to canvas there would be a commnity service. Maybe I'm not aware of problems that surfaced previously, but I don't see why the mall wouldn't want to support public access to the candidates in some way. It is the logical place to contact a whole lot of people.

BTW the first link doesn't seem related to voting?

Scroll down in the text window to "Anywhere voting ahead for Knox"

I hated having to go to the mall to vote. The parking is not convenient, there is the long trek either through the mall or through Penny's. But first one must penetrate the wall-of-smoke from the dozen smokers hanging out at the entrances. The kiosk vendors are more obnoxious than any campaign worker in my experience. The new voting place next to the old Food City is much more convenient and has closer parking. I am more likely to need to go to the grocery store, KMart, or Sally's than anything at the mall.

Betty's column missed the basic point, that state election law requires that polling places allow candidates access to speak with voters. In this particular case the polling place was on private property and the propery owner, Simon Malls, has a nationwide policy against solitications.

It's also my understanding that other candidates had worked that location before. They just did it under the radar and weren't running against a well-connected opponent.

So the choices were:
a) Change state law
b) Expect candidates to honor the wishes of the private property owners
c) Talk the company into changing their policy
d) Move the polling place

So while it was Amy's campaign that exposed the problem, it was not her fault that the solution was to move the polling place. "d" was the only viable option wasn't it?

Oh and it's my understanding that the East Towne polling place was there before the state law was in place that allowed for solicitation. The polling place was just not moved when the law was passed.

It's also my understanding that other candidates had worked that location before. They just did it under the radar and weren't running against a well-connected opponent.

Name them.
Indya Kincannon talked to some people in the Mall when she ran but quit because it was not effective. Most people were not in her district. Call her and ask her. I never even knew she was doing it, nor did the Mall.

Who else?

This idea that solicitation was allowed in the Mall until some candidates who challenged the "status quo" tried it is pure hogwash.

Oh and it's my understanding that the East Towne polling place was there before the state law was in place that allowed for solicitation. The polling place was just not moved when the law was passed.

Paul I,m sorry to say it but this makes no sense. What law are you referring to? There is no law that "allowed for solicitation."
Do you think that people were not allowed to solicit for candidates until some law was passed few years ago?

Please cite the law, and name "other candiates" while you are at it.

That is enclosed in a building is a pain in the rear. I truly avoid them except for very specific reasons and things that can't be accomplished elsewhere. When I moved back to Tennessee in 2004, I was bemused by the very idea of voting in the mall. Who in their right mind would voluntarily do such a thing?

Last year when the problem arose with Broyles' campaign folks at East Towne (everyone still calls it that even though they changed their name), I understood Simon's stance and further understood Broyles' stance. If candidates can be outside other polling places (with distance provisions taken into account) then the idea of not being allowed to be at one of the polling places is, simply put, unfair.

I'm sorry that Mr. MacKay thinks the mall is a grand place to vote. He clearly needs to get over that so he can save his and everyone else's blood pressure. Get up in arms about low-voter turnout in general, not the specific problems of moving this site.

The more interesting thing is this vote anywhere trial. It sounds like a very good idea. Can't wait to hear more.

pgs

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

I like the rumor that Anderson County will be part of the "Convenience Voting" experiment (easier voting is a good thing), but it's hard to visualize how a 3-county test could be done for the 2009 municipal elections, since the various municipalities in Knox, Anderson, and Loudon Counties hold local elections on different dates through the year.

I guess this is one of those items for which we should plan to "stay tuned for more information."

-- Ellen Smith

Greg,

From Amy's original email last year on the subject:

As many of you know, there can be no campaign activity within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place, except if the 100 foot line extends over private property. If that is the case, campaign activity cannot be restricted in that area, but you must have the permission of the property owner. If the property owner will not grant permission, the Election Commission must move the polling place. It is the Election Commission's responsibility to inform the property owner about this ahead of time, and to move the polling place, if necessary. This was not done by the Election Commission.

Is there anything inaccurate about this statement? If it's not accurate then why was the polling place moved?

As to naming the other candidates, you just named one, why should I name another? You just confirmed exactly what I stated.

I'm sorry that Mr. MacKay thinks the mall is a grand place to vote.

It's not Greg Mackay who thinks so. It's a few thousand early voters who DID like East Town Mall as a voting location. A few of you might not like it, but it was a very popular polling place. All you have to do is look at the vote returns. What Paul and others don't see to 'get' is that East Town was popular with voters (mostly older folks who do like malls), Simon was gracious enough to give Knox Co. the space and lots of voters liked it.

I'll be interested to read Greg's reply. But, let's assume a strict interpretation of the 100 foot rule requires that candidates be allowed to campaign face to face. So, Amy Broyles and her supporters would rather thumb their nose at those voters to enforce the technical rule. It's also interesting that dozens of candidates managed to get by in several elections without campaigning in the mall. That's not the kind of person I want in elected office.

Question. I also heard Amy Broyles raised cain about some alleged problems at the Downtown West early voting site. No problem was found. The rumour I heard was that the Amy and some of her Democrat friends believed early voting trending Republican and in an effort to curtail early voting (and, hence, Republican votes) set about to cause problems at early voting sites. Anyone else hear this? Any truth to it? And, if your a Broyles supporter, please disclose that when posting a comment.

By the way, I served on the panel assembled to provide input for convenience voting. I will be interested to see the results of the Baker Center's research. There will be those against it (because we'll be getting rid of voting at community precincts), but in the long run it will likely make voting easier for more people.

T.C.A.
2-7-111. Posting of sample ballots and instructions — Arrangement of polling place — Restrictions.

(a) The officer of elections shall have the sample ballots, voting instructions, and other materials which are to be posted, placed in conspicuous positions inside the polling place for the use of voters. The officer shall measure off one hundred feet (100") from the entrances to the building in which the election is to be held and place boundary signs at that distance.

(b) (1) Within the appropriate boundary as established in subsection (a), and the building in which the polling place is located, the display of campaign posters, signs or other campaign materials, distribution of campaign materials, and solicitation of votes for or against any person, political party, or position on a question are prohibited. No campaign posters, signs or other campaign literature may be displayed on or in any building in which a polling place is located.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If Simon had allowed campaigning in the parking lot (100 feet from the building entrance) then we could have stayed.

Paul's position has consistency. I think he is saying that if a private entity wants to restrict our citizens right to free speech then we need to take our voting elsewhere. That has been his contention all along and the State election office agrees with him.

What gets me is someone saying we need to close it for constitutional reasons and then four months later saying something completely different.

Hi Folks,

Thought it was time to join the conversation. Actually, Greg, I have talked to Indya about her campaign experiences (she was one of the first people I talked to when I was thinking about running last year). And in fact, I first met Indya when she was campaigning during early voting at the mall.

Your assertion that “most people were not in her district” is, to use your term, hogwash. Before the new eSlate voting machines, it was impossible to separate early voters by district. We simply did not have access to that data with the old ShupTronics. However, it stands to reason that most people will vote at the location closest to them. The mall was the only early voting location in the Second District, so it would make sense that most of the folks voting there reside in the Second District.

Paul (and others) are right that the main point is that state election law requires that polling places allow candidates access to speak with voters. It is also unfair to allow candidates at some locations and not others - as several people have recognized - which is why we pushed this last year. And thanks for giving me so much credit Betty, but I wasn't working alone – I had the help of Mark Harmon, Jim Andrews, and the rest of the Orange Ballot Crew. Preventing candidates from interacting with voters on their way to the polls benefits incumbents, who rely on name recognition, and lazy candidates, who don't deserve to win anyway. Our opponents, who were the term-limited (and often lazy) incumbents, knew this – which is why their supporters kicked up such a fuss about us being there.

Although I have covered this material before, I will repeat it for old-time's sake. We had actually spoken with mall management and gotten their OK to be there; unfortunately, the supporters of the term-limited incumbents made Dell's life miserable to the point where he had no choice but to invoke the anti-solicitation rule and ask us to leave. Which we did, by the way, which often gets reported incorrectly. That location was not shut down during voting, either, another point that often gets reported incorrectly. Betty is also wrong that I threatened to sue Simon Mall. I was far too busy and too poor to engage in legal action, even if I had wanted to.

Last year when we were researching this issue, I had a conversation with someone at the State Election Commission, who told me that the mall voting site was one of the oldest – how long had we been using it, Greg, do you remember? - after the Courthouse and Downtown West. According to the person at the State, these locations were all set up by Greg's predecessor, and before there were specific rules governing the 100-ft rule and early voting sites (I think that is what Paul was referring to). When the laws were updated (or if this person was also wrong and it had always been law), Greg's predecessor should have either made certain that the mall would allow campaigning or changed the location. Greg inherited someone else's mistake, and to his credit, as soon as he realized it, he fixed it. But the bottom line was that the early voting location was changed to comply with election law. That was the basis of my answer at the Fountain City Forum; it is a shame that you weren't there to hear it, Greg. You would have also heard me praising you and the Election Commission for all your good work, and for securing a grant to explore your Convenience Voting Plan.

Quite frankly, Greg, as much as I love you I think you are being a bit hypocritical on this one. Before you were Administrator of Elections you would have been out there with us, leading the charge. I don't know anyone who is more committed to free and fair elections than you – unless it is your sidekick David Twiggs. (Wait a minute - I am imagining a Superhero-themed voter education program – how are you in tights?) It would seem from Betty's column that you are more concerned about convenience than fair elections – but I know you, of course, so I know that is not true.

Last year I was very disappointed by those who were more interested in securing an advantage for their term-limited incumbent than they were in advocating for fair elections and equal application of the election law. That is a very un-Democratic thing to do. It is also these same, tired folks who keep trotting this issue out, forum after forum, hoping to make me look bad.

I invite everyone to visit my website to get a more accurate picture of my service to voters:
http://www.electamy.com/service_to_voters.php.

Chad, I can always count on you for some light relief! It is amazing, really, what is attributed to me. Perhaps I should add a Snopes page to my website.

In my opinion, what we should really be concerned about is the lack of information available to voters about the candidates. I think a discussion on that would be much more interesting and helpful. In fact, I was speaking with a fellow member of the League of Women Voters today who would like to explore a partnership with the Election Commission and a local newspaper on producing an in-depth, comprehensive voter guide – something better than what appears in KNS, and that would reach more registered voters. Would you have any interest in working with the League on something like that, Greg, Betty?

Everyone have a good night!
Amy

Voters hate poll workers. It's a major turnoff to run the gauntlet from car to the 100 foot marker, ducking, dodging, nodding, keeping feet moving. The practice is so offensive that several polling places have voluntarily banned it on a handshake between party leaders.

Voting inside the mall was a major convenience, especially for older people.

The poll workers who insisted on their "rights" to accost people (voters or just shoppers) put their politicking ahead of voter convenience. And now the polling place is someplace else. -- s.

I hate to veer so far off topic from the discussion of East Town Mall, but the original post and Sandra Clark's article bring up a question:

The Convenience Voting Model would permit voting over a twelve-day period across twenty locations. Would this eliminate early voting, overlap with it, or what?

~Russ

Paul (and others) are right that the main point is that state election law requires that polling places allow candidates access to speak with voters

Will someone please show me this law.
What is the TCA citation?

Quite frankly, Greg, as much as I love you I think you are being a bit hypocritical on this one.

Election Coordinator...feelin' the love.

It is amazing, really, what is attributed to me.

No denial or mention of the complaints made about the Downtown West voting location.

I had the help of Mark Harmon, Jim Andrews, and the rest of the Orange Ballot Crew

More reason to vote Bolus or Piper.

The Convenience Voting Model would permit voting over a twelve-day period across twenty locations. Would this eliminate early voting, overlap with it, or what?

This would replace everything we now know (precinct-based voting on election day as well as early voting), I believe.

It would also chew on poll workers -- it's easier to get volunteers on one day for 100 places than for 12 days at 20 places.

Greg Mackay, a Democrat by the way, is incredibly innovative. The anytime voting has nothing to do with any candidate. It's just a great experiment toward more convenient participation. -- s.

Very interesting Carole. So, as opposed to being some 'right' to campaign or talk to the public face to face which is granted by law, it's rather a prohibition against campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place. This seems to run contrary to the assertions that there is some right which was being violated at East Town.

I know it's the private property aspect of the Mall which creates the problem. But, don't we have precincts which are on private property (both in early voting (Halls Shopping Center) and on election day (churches)? Sandra, you should be glad Amy and her cohorts didn't attack Halls. I believe I know who owns the center out there. He might decide he had enough like Simon.

How about schools? Can candidates conduct all manner of campaigning on school property? Seems to me there are or could be restrictions at these places. Also, isn't the 100 foot line usually measured from the entrance to the building where people vote (as opposed to the actual ballot boxes or room within which the election is being condicted? So, the 100 foot line at East Town would be from the nearest entrance/exit?

As the Burson case points out, there are some limitations to free speech. Clearly there are a vast array of other opportunities for candidates to exercise their rights other than within East Town Mall. But, to heck with that and all those dang voters who did like to vote at the Mall. There's a principal here...uhh, well, at least I thought there was. (sarcasm, of course).

Were candidates handing out orange ballots inside the mall? Just curious. The way the law reads, any campaigning inside the building at all would be off limits.

As Greg pointed out earlier, it's not a specific law but the State Election office's interpretation of the law concerning the 100ft line. So yes, if Chad's buddy up in Halls decided as a private property owner to keep all candidates out, then the polling place would need to be moved.

Out of curiosity, what if the private property owner decided he didn't want candidates of a particular political party, or better yet, didn't want one particular candidate on his property? Would that be ok? Should candidates respect his wishes or expect the polling place to be moved?

Somehow the way this veered into a personal attack on Amy Broyles suggests the East Town Mall incident was only a trigger for deeper feelings.

You’ve got that right Carole.

The assumption that the Knoxville Center early voting site was popular because it was located in the mall is not logical. It may or may not be true; however, the only logical assumption that can be drawn is that an East Knoxville early voting location is popular with East Knoxville voters. Personally being an infrequent visitor to Knoxville Center, I find it confusing and inconvenient to access and to exit.

That aside, TCA 2-7-111, quoted by Greg Mackay, specifically refers to entrances (plural) to the building in which the election is to be held. Barring an exemption for indoor malls, it would appear that the officer would have to mark a boundary at each entrance including those leading directly to individual stores. I suspect that would be unacceptable to both Simon and the anchor department stores and would therefore disqualify Knoxville Center as a voting site.

As for any rumors that Chad has heard from any undisclosed source, I have to assume that Chad has signed on to Brian’s Truth Squad and take the required oath of loyalty.

The one good thing about being pessimistic is - at least it shows you understand the situation. -- Unknown

I don't understand how Amy Broyles gets the blame for the polling place being moved. It was the mall's decision that forced the move. What the Orange Ballot crew was doing was legal and had been cleared with mall management. Only when incumbents started complaining did trouble arise, and their complaints had no basis in civil law, but were appeals to the private rules of a facility that had agreed to have a public polling place located on the premises.

The mall filched on its promise to provide a public polling place, and they did so at the behest of incumbent power. While it is obvious that a number of people want to pin the move on Amy, their argument strikes me as emotion overtaking reason. There is only one character in the tale whose intent was aligned with the outcome.

not a fact and a extremely illogical attempt to connect Amy to Black Wednesday.

Submitted by Renee Hoyos (not verified) on Tue, 2007/11/20 - 6:27pm.

Amy,
The fact still remains that you put your own self interest ahead of our community's right to vote. It's that type of self-serving behavior that got us to Black Wednesday.

Renee

http://www.tcwn.org/about/staff.php

As for any rumors that Chad has heard from any undisclosed source, I have to assume that Chad has signed on to Brian’s Truth Squad and take the required oath of loyalty.

My source is a prominent local Democrat.

And if you think I'm a member of the Truth Squad, you've clearly not read this blog or Brian's Blog for very long.

Probably one of the "prominent local Democrats" that backed David Collins over Mark Harmon last year. I know the crowd well.

I will not sit by while people allege that I selectively enforced the law, favoring one side or the other. Nor will I stay quite while anyone says it was my decision to close the early voting center at East Town.
No candidate or candidates ever publicly campaigned at East Town until the Orange Ballot crew did it last year.
Their actions violated state law (T.C.A. 2-7-111).
The Mall management agreed to allow a “voter education” effort. When they realized it was a direct solicitation for votes they pulled the plug.

If you feel, like Paul, that your right to free speech was being violated then say so. I can respect someone who stands in front of a crowd and says” Yes, I supported moving the voting center because it was a violation of our right to free speech.” The State Election Coordinator agrees with you.
If that is how you feel then have the courage to say so.

That is all I have to say.

Calm down Greg. I've not accused you of anything of the sort. Nor have I been the least bit unclear on my position. A position on which, I believe, the state election office agrees with me. That past the 100ft boundary I have a right to speak and if my rights conflict with the rights of the property owner then the solution is to move the polling place.

It was not your decision to put the polling place at East Towne. It was not your decision to limit speech on Simon Mall property. It was not your interpretation of state law. However, it still ended up that it was your responsibility to find a new polling place.

At the same time it was not Amy's (or Mark's or any of the Orange Ballot folk's) fault that we came to this point either. The mall manager was fine with their activities until certain unnamed parties called to complain (again, probably in the same crowd as Chad's "prominent Democrats"). Culminating in them enforcing their corporate policy which caused you to have to do what the state election office told you to do.