Anne-Marie Shaffer, a local member of the Flagler County Republican Club and the Ronald Reagan Assembly of Flagler County, filed suit last week against fellow-Republican Flagler County Sheriff’s Office candidate John Pollinger to boot him off the ballot as a Republican in the Aug. 14 primary. Shaffer until two weeks ago was the campaign manager for Ray Stevens, also a Republican candidate for sheriff.
Shaffer claims Pollinger was not a registered Republican for 365 days prior to filing for office as a Republican, as Florida law requires, because he was—until January—still a registered Democrat in new Jersey, where he lived until 2008. Pollinger moved to Palm Coast that year, and registered first as an independent, then as a Republican, beginning on Sept. 7, 2010, when the supervisor’s office issued him a registration card as a Republican. Pollinger says his New Jersey registration was nullified the moment he registered in Florida. His opponents don’t buy that argument, saying he knew he was still a registered Democrat in another state when he claimed to be a Republican here.
Stevens last week said Shaffer resigned because “she is passionate about this Pollinger issue and she wants to take action independent of my campaign.” Stevens has support in the Ronald Reagan Assembly but hasn’t yet been officially endorsed. He is clearly supportive of her efforts. “It is my hope that in order to preserve the integrity of this upcoming primary,” Stevens said, “that all the candidates are properly and legally qualified to appear on the ballot.” Pressed for more clarity on the degree of his involvement in efforts against Pollinger, Stevens stuck to a series of “no comment.” Shaffer did not return several phone calls.
Stevens and Pollinger are the two Republicans challenging two-term incumbent Sheriff Don Fleming, who is himself contending with several controversial issues that have put his leadership in question. Fleming’s vulnerability makes the Republican contest a far more competitive battle: if Stevens can get Pollinger out of the way before the primary, his chances of victory in August rise dramatically. Stevens claimed early in the race that Pollinger was a Fleming plant to divide the vote and let Fleming take the spoils. Pollinger’s lavish spending on the race, most of it from his own money, suggests otherwise.
The suit, filed in Flagler County Circuit Court by the pricey father-son team of Jon and Jake Kaney of Ormond Beach’s Kaney & Olivari (formerly of Cobb Cole in Daytona Beach), seeks not only to have Pollinger declared not qualified to appear on the Aug. 14 ballot as a Republican candidate for sheriff, but also to enjoin Flagler County Supervisor of Elections Kimberle Weeks from placing Pollinger on the ballot.
Pollinger, in an interview last week, knew that the suit was coming. He was not changing course. He’s retained Palm Coast attorney Michael Chiumento III, who’s already been in a duel of emails with Weeks.
The legal argument revolves around legal minutiae that most people never have to deal with, even as they abandon voter registrations in previous states—and never bother to inform their former state of their change of party, but continue to vote without a problem in their new state: who is responsible for notifying a previous state of a voter’s registration in a new state.
The Shaffer suit places that responsibility on Pollinger. But the law is not on Shaffer’s side, at least not in that regard.
Florida law clearly states that “Within two weeks after approval of a voter registration application that indicates that the applicant was previously registered in another state, the department must notify the registration official in the prior state that the applicant is now registered in this state.” The department in question is the Department of State, which handles state elections issues.
Florida law is just as clear regarding changes in party affiliation: “The voter registration official shall make the necessary changes in the elector’s records as soon as practical upon receipt of such notice of a change of address of legal residence, name, or party affiliation.”
New Jersey law also places the burden on New Jersey county officials, not on the individual voter, to ensure that the voter rolls are up to date. Individuals may, of course, inform New Jersey that they’re no longer registered there, and at that point it’s New Jersey’s responsibility to comply with the purge. But most voters who move don’t do that. New Jersey law recognizes the fact. New Jersey’s equivalent of the supervisor of elections is required by law to remove a voter’s registration from the rolls when, among other reasons, the voter has failed to respond to a periodic “confirmation notice” that he’s still a legal resident of that state. The confirmation notice appears to place the recorded burden of proof on the elections office, not on the individual, though that law is less clear than Florida’s, and would have no bearing at all in a Florida court of law. It only goes to Pollinger’s responsibilities as a voter.
Where the Shaffer case has stronger ground is Florida law’s quite clear requirement that “any person seeking to qualify for nomination as a candidate of any political party shall, at the time of subscribing to the oath or affirmation, state in writing: 1. The party of which the person is a member. 2. That the person has not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which the person seeks to qualify.”
In this case, Pollinger claims he was not a member of another party since his 2010 voter registration as a Republican proves it. But Shaffer claims he was a member of another party because Pollinger’s own letter to New Jersey officials, requesting that he be removed from New Jersey’s voter rolls, was dated January 2012 (Shaffer obtained the letter in a public record request).
Chiumento, separately from the Shaffer lawsuit, placed the responsibility of formalizing Pollinger’s registration status on the supervisor’s office in Flagler and election officials in New Jersey, not on Pollinger. In a May 7 letter to Weeks, the Flagler elections supervisor, Chiumento blamed Weeks for bringing “unnecessary scrutiny surrounding” Pollinger’s qualifications by determining that he was ineligible for the Republican ballot. In fact, Weeks had not made that determination, though she had conveyed to Pollinger a state elections attorney’s opinion that Pollinger could either run as an independent or have his status adjudicated by a judge. Pollinger decided to do neither, but instead to remain on the ballot as a Republican—and invite the third option that was presented to him: a legal challenge.
Shaffer obliged.
The case has rippled well beyond the question of Pollinger’s registration. Weeks, for example (a Democrat facing what’s likely to be a tough battle to stay in office, with four Republicans vying to replace her), made clear to Chiumento , almost in so many words, that she needs yet another controversy to shadow her re-election campaign like a hole in the head: “May I remind you this is not only election time for Mr. Pollinger,” Weeks wrote Chiumento on May 11, “but for myself as well, and I do not appreciate being dragged through the mud by Mr. Pollinger or your office for the appearance of impropriety, bullying or a personal vendetta against Mr. Pollinger. I can imagine Mr. Pollinger’s frustration; however, resolving this issue should be at the top of his priority list instead of engaging a blame war against me or my office and others.”
The Shaffer action is also the second lawsuit in four months brought by one faction of Flagler County Republicans against another, with members of the insurgent Ronald Reagan Assemblies powering both suits against members of the more established Republican Executive Committee. In February, more than three dozen individuals were named in a suit against the REC. The suit claimed the REC improperly denied them membership. A circuit judge ruled in April against inducting the snubbed members, pending the REC’s own election of new members next month.
“I know nothing about it other than what I read about it in the papers,” Bob Hamby, who heads the Ronald Reagan group in Flagler, said Monday evening of the Shaffer suit. “I am supportive of not having a person who was a registered democrat run in the Republican primary yes I am supportive of that.”
Of Stevens’ candidacy, Hamby said: “There’s no backing at this stage. We will be doing our endorsement meeting in July. It’ll be by a vote of all members. There’s not one or two members who decide who we are backing. I’m sure there are a lot of members who are backing Ray but as an assembly we have not made the endorsements at this time. “ He continued, regarding Pollinger: “This is my own personal feeling about Pollinger, not the assembly: he obviously knew in January that he was still registered, and if he did not, I do not feel that he’s qualified to be sheriff if he’s claiming to be ignorant of the law.”
Relevant laws discussed in this article:
Florida Statute 97.073 Disposition of voter registration applications; cancellation notice.—
(1) The supervisor must notify each applicant of the disposition of the applicant’s voter registration application within 5 business days after voter registration information is entered into the statewide voter registration system. The notice must inform the applicant that the application has been approved, is incomplete, has been denied, or is a duplicate of a current registration. A voter information card sent to an applicant constitutes notice of approval of registration. If the application is incomplete, the supervisor must request that the applicant supply the missing information using a voter registration application signed by the applicant. A notice of denial must inform the applicant of the reason the application was denied.
(2) Within 2 weeks after approval of a voter registration application that indicates that the applicant was previously registered in another state, the department must notify the registration official in the prior state that the applicant is now registered in this state.
New Jersey Statute 19:31-15 Removal of name from Statewide voter registration system; change of residence; confirmation.
19:31-15. a. Upon receipt by the commissioner of registration of a county from a registered voter of that county of a request that the name of the registrant be removed from the Statewide voter registration system, the commissioner shall so remove the registrant’s name. Notice by a registered voter to the commissioner of registration of a county that the registrant has ceased to reside in the State shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed a request for removal of the registrant’s name from the Statewide voter registration system.
b.The commissioner of registration of any county may agree with the United States Postal Service or its licensee to receive information provided by the Postal Service concerning the change by any Postal Service customer of that customer’s address within the county. If it appears from information so received that a Postal Service customer registered to vote in the county has moved to a different address, then (1) if that address is within the county, the commissioner shall cause the registration records of the registrant to be corrected accordingly and shall transmit to the resident by forwardable mail a notice of the change and a postage prepaid, pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information, or (2) if that address is not within the county, the commissioner shall undertake the confirmation notice procedure prescribed under subsection d. of this section to confirm the change of address.
c.The commissioner of registration of a county shall cause the name of a registrant to be removed from the Statewide voter registration system if the registrant (1) confirms in writing, by return of a confirmation notice as prescribed under subsection d. of this section or by other means, that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the State, or (2) has either not notified the commissioner or failed to respond to a confirmation notice as so prescribed and has not, in any election during the period beginning on the date on which the commissioner sends the confirmation notice to the registrant and ending on the day after the second general election for federal office following that date on which the notice is sent, (a) voted, or (b) appeared to vote in any county and, if necessary, correct the official record of the registrant’s address.
Other than as provided under subsection a. of this section, the name of a registrant shall not be removed from the Statewide voter registration system on the ground that the registrant has changed residence except as provided by this subsection.
d.A confirmation notice sent to ascertain whether a registrant continues to reside at the address from which that registrant is registered to vote shall be a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, which shall include: (1) space on which the registrant’s current address may be entered; (2) the statement “To any voter who continues to reside at the residence address to which this notice is addressed or who no longer resides at that residence address but continues to reside in……………… (name of county): please mail or personally deliver this postage prepaid card to the commissioner of registration to whom it is addressed not later than…………….. (calendar date of the 21st day preceding the next election to be held in the county). If you do not return this card by that date, then at any election held subsequent to that date and on or before…………….. (calendar date of the day after the second general election for federal office following that date), you may be required at the polls to affirm or confirm your address before you are permitted to vote, and if you do not vote in an election during that period, your name will be removed from the registry of eligible voters.”; and (3) a statement, the text of which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General, setting forth the means by which a registrant who has changed residence to a county different from that in which is located the residence to which the notice was originally addressed may retain the right to vote. e.The commissioner of registration shall correct the registry list of eligible voters in accordance with change of residence information obtained in conformity with the provisions of this section.
Shaffer vs. John Pollinger: the lawsuit
palmcoaster says
@Mrs Shaffer and Stevens, you are correct and hope you win the lawsuit and the law is enforced. Good luck
@Mrs Weeks: Great work done Kimberle to promote enforcement of our Florida laws on an elections process free from fraud. Your are the SOE we need to preserve! Risking it all, for clean cut elections.
@ Attorney Mr. Chiumento…being one of the elite good old boys, shame on you sir. Haven’t you made enough yet of the Flagler County Pie? When will your greed be satisfied finally, Mike? Step back and give us a break, from your premier balcony seat in your building in Town Center.
Eileen G. Miller says
Don’t politicians change there minds a lot..??? So what’s different in this…???
Linda H. says
The LAW.
Sam says
Hot stuff, isn’t it? Still registered as a Democrat, and Pollinger is trying to run as a Republican. Well I see two problems here for Pollinger. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans will never vote for him in the primary because the voters do NOT like to be fooled. Problem #2 is that I read the law, and it is quite clear that Pollinger will not be running as a Republican in this race. How ironic that a man who is running for Sheriff to uphold the law in our county, while on the other hand, has no regard for the law at all? Hats off to Ann-Marie Shaffer, the Ronald Reagan Republican Assemblies and all other concerned Republicans in our county that are looking out for their party, and refuse to stand by and let it be taken over by Democrat Moles and RINOS (Republican in name only). I heard that the Ronald Reagan Assembly is a force to be reckoned with, and puts the local Republican Executive Committee to shame. Over 150 members strong, and you can be sure, if you are a Democrat trying to run as a Republican in this county, they will sniff you out, make you famous and let the electorate know who’s trying to fool them. Good for them! As for the Stevens campaign…..he seems to be the only candidate in this race that has any sense of decency, honor, integrity and most of all, has respect for our laws. Folks, lets not put the blame on the messenger here. Lets not put blame on Ms. Shaffer who had the courage to stand up for what is right. Lets not blame the Ronald Reagan Assembly for being strong party loyalists. Lets not blame the Stevens Campaign, and call this what it is. An elite liberal Democrat thinking and saying that the Republicans are stupid, and they’ll never figure this out. Well, Pollinger thought wrong.
Linda H. says
Mr. Pollinger has known since at least January that he still had a valid voter registration as a Democrat (since 1970) in the state of New Jersey. By signing that statement that he has not been a member of any other political party, he is perjuring himself and he knows it.
He has known about the other registration.
Johnny Taxpayer says
what a circus. Stevens obviously feels he can’t beat Pollinger fairly, so ironically he takes page out of the democrats play book and sues. Meanwhile back at the farm the Flemming campaign are all high fiving each other thinking they couldn’t have dreamed up a better distraction to take the focus off of them if they tried.
Steve says
I was registered as a Republican in New York in the 1970s. I have been registered as an Independent in Connecticut and Florida since then. Am I still a member of the New York Republican Party? When you change residencies you give up all your rights in the prior state, including voting. If you cannot vote, then how can you be listed as a party member? Appears to me to just be a cheap trick to keep a challenger off the ticket.
Linda H. says
Read the law, Steve. No cheap tricks here, only someone standing up for the law and what is right.
FlaglerGal says
Looks as if a lot of Stevens supporters are on here; however, I wonder why they are so worried about Pollinger if their candidate is the better one. All I know is that I don’t like this infighting going on and as a Republican I will not be voting for Stevens should he win this batte. I find it darn right dirty politics going on.
I don’t know Pollinger, not too sure about him either, since there was what appears to be controversy with his job up in NJ. But, in all fairness I am willing to do more research on him before I will say I won’t vote for him.
It just appears to me that Stevens is using dirty political tactics to get rid of his rival.
Maryjoe says
I don’t know why any republican would want a lifetime Democrat to run on their ticket. Generally when people change up like that it’s not because their philosophies have changed, they do it because they feel they can’t win on the Democrat ticket and it’s more advantageous for them to change.
k says
Stevens makes you feel like you need a shower after talking to him.
What is it with this party hopping stuff?
Pollinger was a Democrat
Stevens ran as an independent four years ago
On the Clerk side Mazzie ran as Democrat last time and hopped over to the Republican side.
All that says to me is these people have no strong convictions and will pander to whoever they think will give them votes.
Linda H. says
Folks, Mr. Pollinger is more than welcome to run in this election. But he is not a Republican. He campaigns for Democrats AGAINST Republican candidates.
He can run as an NPA and was offered that option. He and Mr. Chumento would rather bully our Supervisor of Elections.
Invite him into your party. We don’t want him. He is unethical. I would think you would want better for a Sheriff.
Johnny Taxpayer says
If he’s not a republican… convince the republican primary voters of this and let them decide in August when they vote! We’re voting for someone to lead an agency in a county of less than 100k, not set policy for the nation! I could give two craps what his party preference is. Does the RNC and DNC national parties have platforms on small county sheriff’s departments?
They must have a out-brief when Cops retire up north that tells them all to find a small county in Florida and run for sheriff as a great way to supplement the retirement. Seems like every 4 years a fresh crop shows up just in time to qualify for residency and run.
Lisa M says
Stevens ran Independent last time….and lost. The people will not be fooled by his slimy tactics. How scared he is of competition.
Don’t speak for me Linda, as I am a Republican that backs John Pollinger 100%.
deana says
This whole race is a mess. We have a democrat running as a republican, an independant running as a republican and a Volusia resident running in Flagler. Does the word carpetbaggers mean anything to anyone?
Ralph Belcher says
Hmm… Attacks toward the Incumbent… Attacks toward Manfre… and Pollinger. That leaves two candidates not smeared. Hmm… interesting.
deana says
Ralph, if you are referring to my post, I was speaking about, not attacking, Pollinger, Stevens and Tozzi. Facts are facts…Pollinger and Stevens have both changed their parties and Tozzi actually lives in Volusia and owns a rental home in Flagler. It’s just very odd that most of the candidates have major issues.
Joe A. says
Oh Linda, By your standards, Ronald Reagan couldn’t even join your club. The way all of you have acted, I don’t think he even would. The attempt to divide and conquer the party for personal benefits is shameful. The Great Communicator is probably rolling over in his grave to see his name being used invane.
If Mr. Stevens loses the primary to either Mr. Pollinger or Sheriff Fleming, will you stand with the parties candidate? Who will you support?
In all seriousness, in the positive way possible (without bashing any of the other candidates). Tell me why the candidate you support should be elected?
Linda H. says
Joe A., President Ronald Reagan was a strong fiscal conservative who did not support or campaign for Democrat candidates once he changed his party affiliation. He was also a strong believer in the laws of this land. I knew his staff quite well and worked for his former general council in Washington.
You have Republican candidates who have run for office in Palm Coast who support and campaign for Democrats and you have board members of the Tea Party doing the same. They are a bipartisan organization, so what they do is up to them.
Nobody is attempting to divide and conquer here. We are asking Mr. Pollinger to follow THE LAW.
The issue here is THE LAW. I am not going to support a candidate, particularly one running for sheriff, who is trying to skirt it.
You are free to vote for whomever you wish.
palmcoaster says
Perfectly presented by Linda.
As per my personal opinion we have a candidate here, that used to be our good Sheriff and is an honest citizen, an exemplary family man, an experience law professional and his name is James Manfre ! We need constitutional officials like Mr. Manfre, Mrs Weeks. Mrs Suzanne Johsnton and Mr. James Gardner that represent us well, work hard for their compensation, do not waste our hard earned taxes and treat the employees that help them to succeed, (some that have many years of service in this county) with respect and offer them job security ! Never mind their parties affiliation! There are outstanding citizens among, Reps, Dems, NPA’s that can still work together for us all. Then, lets concentrate on these candidates skills and integrity for Flagler County Sheriff.
BW says
@Linda and @palmcoaster,
You both mention “the law”, but it seems to me that Mr. Pollinger in no way violated the law. The law clearly states that it is not the individual registering voter’s obligation to notify another state. It seems to me he was only “registered as another party” simply because of a clerical mishap. Is it really reasonable to think anyone would follow-up with their prior state’s voter registration once the person is approved as a voter in Florida two years ago? Is it reasonable to suggest that the person still is a valid voter in that state simply because one of the two state departments made a clerical error? Should the individual be punished and blocked from running for office?
It’s obvious that this is not really about “the law” but more about someone having a viable chance to win that doesn’t appear to be a “born and bred” member of a certain party. So it’s really about trying to use “the law” as a “gotcha” and twist it up enough to make it stick. And all that money spent on attorneys and court fees might have been better spent supporting winning an election.
At the end of the day one really important thing needs to be realized in my opinion . . . the negative effect on the Republican brand. As November looms closer and closer the Party is simply making more and more headlines locally and often times nationally as becoming more and more divided. The general public is seeing two very different Republican Parties and that is not a good thing if you want to win elections. So the real question becomes . . . is it really worth it? Here’s the other alternative that will most likely result from this ordeal . . . simply re-elect Flemming.
Linda H. says
This individual cannot use that argument that he did not know. He has known since January.
The law may protect someone who did not know, however, in this case there is proof that he knew. And he is not being blocked or punished.
There are 6 candidates in this race. Pick one. But don’t expect Republicans to support candidates who campaign for Democrats. That’s what is dividing our party.
Lisa M says
Linda, you use the same line over and over again, but you never state that you, or anyone else, has seen John Pollinger openly campaign for Jason DeLorenzo. If the two said hello at a function, you consider that campaigning?
The people will vote for their candidate, regardless of slime tactics.
B. Hamby says
BW,
The LAW is what the elected Sheriff is supposed to know and uphold. Mr. Pollinger obviously knew the LAW when he tried too late to remove his name form the NJ voter roles but now claims ignorance of the law. Either way Flagler County cannot afford the luxury of having a Sheriff who’s ignorant of the LAW or willfully will violate the LAW.
Joe A.
Ronald Reagan changed parties because of a belief in limited Constitutional government and not political opportunism. We welcome all who like President Reagan decide that only one political party offers hope for America to return to the principles of limited Constitutional government at all levels.
palmcoaster says
@BW. No way Fleming again! Now one more reason, with brave BOCC Milissa Holland pointing at abuses on the Sheriff budget of $14,000 on bottled water. How many bottles is that. Can most of our unemployed tax payers pay and drink bottle water? Sorry BOCC Nate McLaughlin, but Milissa is not micro managing anyone, instead she is uncovering financial abuses that you, after elected by us, want to sweep under the rag.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2012/05/23/sheriffs-water-budget-draws-queries.html
palmcoaster says
We all need to learn what is not sufficiently published day in and day out around us and affects our safety and quality of life.
Kirt Smith was riding his bike with reflectors along with a friend last year In Seminole Pkwy and a drunk driver killed him!
So far got away with it…to keep drinking!
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2012/05/23/flagler-man-on-probation-in-fatal-dui-jailed-after-alcohol-check.html
When is justice to be served for Kirt and safety enforced for our children and any other person on foot or a bicycle in our roads? When is illegal to ride a bike in our roads or take a walk/jog in a shoulder and be run over by an impaired/addicted driver and let him go him/her free?
dontbesoparanoid says
The driver was charged.
BW says
Linda and B.,
I understand your frustration but I still disagree. Here’s some of the problems that are coming out in this that are actually damaging the political party each of you obviously care about so much:
1. Is someone “Republican enough” and if they don’t pass the “Ronald Reagan litmus test” then get lost. You can do that, but you will continue to lose attraction to the party of not only quality candidates and subsequently lose elections. I love the memories of the Reagan days too, but in all honesty he was not a 100% perfect President (huge spending, increasing national debt, Iran-Contra affair, etc.). Also many many people change political party affiliation over time and it is unreasonable to think everyone that is a Republican today has always been registered as a Republican because they all haven’t. And that mindset could cost good future candidates.
2. Linda is 100% right that members of a party do not have to support a candidate. It’s called not voting for them. I personally do not think the best thing to do is to wage a costly law suit against them over a not so black-n-white law as you seem to want everyone to think it is. In all honesty, my interpretation of what Mr. Pollinger did was follow-up on a clerical error to tie up what he thought was loose ends to ensure he was in compliance (which he was). That to me shows awareness and is a good quality in a Sheriff. I have issue with a candidate that has an “employee” (or volunteer) carrying out covert vendettas with that candidate’s knowledge and then not wanting to own up to that. That’s a much much larger issue to consider in a candidate for Sheriff.
3. This type of internal “wars” within the Republican Party is NOT good for Party image. The Party is actually showing signs of imploding upon itself. It has run the last 3 and a half years yelling at everyone that “We are right and you are wrong.” and backing itself into corners with conflicting rhetoric. When everyone else stopped listening, you have all begun turning on each other. And while you are wasting precious and valuable time bickering and quibbling over silly issues among yourselves, the candidates and party you wish to beat in elections is gaining more and more traction with voters that are on the fence.
As for Kim Weeks . . . totally inappropriate. This practice of her’s (and creating an public office culture of such) to go out of her way to try to publicly humiliate candidates is despicable. The issue with Alan Peterson and now Mr. Pollinger. What she has done would never be acceptable professional behavior anywhere. She goes out of her way as well to create confusion and attempt to either look like a “hero” or play the victim. This issue, the Peterson issue, her lack of respect for tax payers and finances, and the whole timing of the voting location changes at the 100% wrong time.
Lisa M says
Well said BW!
Joe says
Kimberle Weeks does her job, and does it well. She is not a good ol’ boy and stands up for what is right. I agree that first Peterson and now Pollinger incidents are embarrassing, but it was their own unprofessionalism that brought them the embarrassing press coverage. Only difference between the two is Pollonger doesn’t know when to stop. Peterson and Pollinger both have not treated Weeks with respect, and she has let both know she won’t tolerate it. Weeks has done a fine job, follows the law, and will stand up to those as these two.
Palm Coast Mom says
Republican, Democrat, whatever!! The law is the law. Just ask yourself one question, Shouldnt’ anyone running for any office have knowledge of the law before they run and abide by it. Done end of story. Just ask yourself that question.
JimN says
While many have commented, and I understand the controversy about their feelings, there is something fundamentally wrong here also. Unlike Florida which has normal expirations, if you are not active and actually voting, New Jersey once registered, you are considered registered for life, unless your address changes, or you are convicted of a felony.
I think many are looking past the fact, that a person may be registered as one party and actually vote during any election for the candidate they want regardless of political party. Clearly Mr. Polinger states he registered as a Republican Voter, in 2010 long before any of this came up. It is not his responsibility to make sure that a state where he no longer resides does their administrative correctly when he is no longer a resident of that state.
Government is supposed to be about doing the right thing and being clear about what you are doing. I don’t see anything here that says Mr. Pollinger was trying to be deceptive at all. He didn’t follow up on something that none of us would ever never 2 seconds thought to do. It doesn’t hurt to remember that political parties also change their stance over the years also…
In 1860 the Democratic Party supported slavery…
The Republican Party Noiminee who was elected, not only opposed it, but abolished it, and lived to watch American Citizens kill in excess of 500,000 of each other. More than have died in all wars combined since.
Think first, act second says
JimN,
Here is a copy of the oath of party that has to be signed by a Democrat or Republican candidate, according to the SOE site.
STATEMENT OF PARTY (Section 99.021, Florida Statutes)
I am a member of the Party; I have not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which I seek to qualify; and I have paid the assessment levied against me, if any, as a candidate for said office by the executive committee of the political party, of which I am a member.
X
( )
Signature of Candidate
Telephone Number
Email Address
Address
Now if Mr. Pollinger signs this oath is he being honest. It clearly says “I have not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which I seek to qualify” How much more specific can this be. It does not say that I was a registered voter in Florida and New Jersey did not remove me but it is not my fault, it say I was not a registered member, period. To sign an oath where he clearly knows he was a member of another party is not honest.
I also believe, like you, that he is not the cause of the error, but he also now knows the facts and knows that signing this oath is not truthful. That is the point of the entire posting, the fact that he knows and will possibly still sign this oath saying that he was not a democrat, whether it is his fault or not!
palmcoaster says
Our current law enforcement … defend and protect:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2012/05/25/fhp-flagler-sheriffs-deputy-clips-pedestrian-with-cruiser.html
dontbesoparanoid says
Hmm….was the deputy charged? No. He was not found to be at fault by FHP. And what does this have to do with this discussion?