One of the things that made me decide to run for county board last year was an article about the selection of new voting machines. The first newspaper article I could find about the selection process for the new voting system was published a few days before the final vote by the county board when it was already a "done deal." That was too late for the average voter to play a meaningful role.
I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the lack of public involvement in selecting the new voting system. My letter received a defensive response letter from a member of the voting machine selection committee that, among other things, accused me of spreading conspiracy theories. I found that response odd because my letter never suggested anything remotely resembling a conspiracy theory or a plot to steal elections. The same "conspiracy theorist" name-calling continued to come from county Republicans whenever I raised the issue of public involvement with a decision that affected every voter in the county.
My concerns were later validated by documents I received after filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the County Clerk's office. The voting system selection committee made a deliberate choice to not involve the public until after their decision was made because it might "confuse" voters to present them with multiple options. Also, I received no copies of press releases or public notices of the committee meetings, which I requested. If there really were no public notices its possible that the committee violated the open meetings act since it included elected officials and county employees.
Far from being a conspiracy theory, this issue was about county governments' relationship with the voters and the paternalistic attitude that runs rampant in county government. The responses to my criticism was for the county clerk to repeatedly call it an open process (because the committee included a few Democrats) and for others to repeat the "conspiracy theory" accusations.
Clearly, the conspiracy theorist labeling was an attempt to de-legitimize the issue I raised and avoid a meaningful response. Given what I've heard from others, the reaction by local Republicans to any critical question about the new voting system is to immediately label the questioner a conspiracy theorist. So, I'm not surprised to see the same tactic used by Bruce Stratton in today's State Journal Register article about a serious mistake involving the new voting system.
I spoke with Mike Ziri about this issue recently and I heard no conspiracy theories of any kind. He seems to be raising a serious issue, documented by facts from the Clerk's office itself and concern from the board of elections, that should be discussed openly and publicly.
I find Stratton's comparison of this issue to 9/11 and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories ironic when he said, "As far as I know, nobody devoted any time or thought to any of that." Yet, earlier in the article County Clerk Joe Aiello says he spent time studying what happened and that, "a mistake that was made, and one that we take very seriously." So which is it? Is this something crazy not worth spending time on or is it something to take very seriously? Stratton and Aiello apparently disagree on that point.
The repeated use of the cynical "conspiracy theorist" name-calling tactic should raise a red flag with the public and reporters that some county Republicans are trying to deflect attention from the central issue and avoid answering questions. It also hints at the broader trend among some local officials who seem to think their work should be above questioning by outsiders.
Stratton is trying to erode the credibility of Ziri and Tim Bagwell, but the more local Republicans resort to that cheap shot, the more it erodes their own credibility. How many times can they cry wolf before the public and press stop buying it? There's a real issue here and it should be discussed honestly without the name calling.