Issue #166: Why Tallahassee Republicans are furious about City Districts
Looks like I was right
Several weeks ago, I wrote a newsletter about a debate raging in Tallahassee, Florida. The capital city was in the middle of a debate over whether to move its commission races from at-large to single-member districts. I covered the city demographics, politics, and history in the post below. In it, I came out firm against moving to districts.
In my post, I pointed out several key reasons I didn’t support the change.
Politically, commissioners already represented a diverse mix of electoral coalitions, something districts would risk undermining
The city, currently 30%+ black, has demonstrated it will elect black candidates and in all at-large elections black voters are seen as an important voting block.
Every geographic zone of the city has chosen the winner in multiple contests. No area is perpetually ignored.
The size and population of the city is similar to other jurisdictions that still elect commissioners at-large
The major pushers for the district plan are right-wing Republicans who desire a ‘token’ seat and are angry they always have to chose between the most moderate Democrat.
In the end, that effort came or nothing, as the charter review board finished its last meeting with no action taken on the proposal. I opted to go to that meeting and spoke on the points I’d laid out in my article. The pusher of the measure, Jared Willis, a Republican operative and lobbyist, pulled it before it could go down in defeat. In pulling it, Willis complained that the political divide within the city made fact-based discussion impossible. As I laid out in my issue, Willis had distorted facts in his arguments for districts.
Later that evening, and through the next several days, Republicans got angry. Very angry. Angry at me. Jared Willis was fuming, but I will discuss him further down this article. Another figure to lash out was Steve Stewart, the conservative radio host and 3x failed city commission candidate I discussed in my first issue. Stewart came at me over a specific issue - residency districts.
“Residency districts?” You may be asking, “what the hell are those?” Well it turns out a lot of people, when I asked, weren’t really sure what Steve was talking about. So, first thing I’m going to discuss Stewart’s complaint and why it skirts around the real issue at hand. Then we will delve deeper into the political debate going on within the city.
Residency vs Election Districts
In my post on single-member districts for Tallahassee, I pointed out that Tallahassee’s population and land size were similar to other cities that were also at-large. I made a table of the cities, show Tallahassee is in the same range as other areas with at-large elections. In cases of single-member districts, I even pointed out why a city might be might be using districts. This table became a major source of consternation from Stewart. In his ranting, Stewart discussed the fact that cities in the table, like Cape Coral, have what are known as “residency districts.” I’ve attached one of his tweets below (which includes my table), along with a Cape Coral map I pulled up.
Now Steve is right, Cape Coral does use residency districts, which are exactly what they sound like. Commissioners must run at-large, but they must live in a designated district for the seat they have filed for. Many cities use these.
Now, considering the debate around charter review was about single-member ELECTION districts, NOT residency, I stand by the table and the article. Why on earth would I have delved into a government system not being debated at all? Especially when I was already having to cut it down to ensure it wasn’t too large for substack’s email system (a problem I have in almost every issue cause I am long winded).
The idea that a residency scheme is not still “at-large” is disingenuous and reflects how air-tight my article was; as all he could do was grasp for straws. When the broad public think of election systems: whether multi-member, at-large, single-member; we are always thinking of “how are voters casting ballot.” For example, lets look at how the elections for each county commission are conducted. The map below shows which counties hold at-large elections, district elections, or a mix of districts and at-large seats.
So 38 counties, a majority, are at-large for their county commission. However, Steve Stewart would insist this map is a lie. Why? Well under Florida law, counties that use at-large elections must have residency districts. This is such an obscure fact, something that only matters to people running for the seats, that few know it.
Now there is one other issue of residency I want to discuss because it is a special case: the City of St Petersburg. Unlike EVERY other city in Florida, St Pete uses a duel system. In short, the city has residency district elections AND at-large voting. Let me lay it out
August primaries are held within the residency district. The top 2 candidates advance to a November runoff. Getting over 50% in August does not matter.
The November runoff/general is held citywide. No one can become an elected commissioner without this citywide vote.
This scheme has created tension, with black voters expressing dislike for the at-large elections. Up until 2021, no black candidate had every defeated a white candidate in the citywide runoff. Instead, efforts had to be taken to ensure two black candidates from a residency district could both advance. This made St Pete at serious risk for a lawsuit and led to a 2021 charter referendum to go to single-member districts. That measure failed, though it won the black vote. However, that same day, Ken Welch became the first black mayor and Richie Floyd, a black progressive, narrowly won a runoff. I covered all these races here, which at least for now have put challenges to the duel system on the backburner. While Stewart tried to say me classifying this as at-large was a lie, I think the facts above support my case, as at-large voting was needed to become a commissioner and was subject to scrutiny.
Through ALL of this, I want to reiterate that the notion of residency districts has never been discussed with the charter review. On his radio show last week, Stewart said that the lack of districts means all commissioners could live in the same neighborhood. I told Steve if he wants to push for residency districts, I won’t stand in his way. However, that is not what the debate has been about, and he knows it. The fact is, Stewart does not care about where commissioners live, he wants election districts.
The Leon County and Tallahassee Debate
As I delved into in my last article, the debate around districts for Tallahassee is not new. In the 1970s, different city commission candidates were arguing for district elections, namely with the goal of aiding black voters in winning elections and getting their issues heard. I am through Part 4 of a series on black candidates in historic Tallahassee elections, and at that time, the more conservative, southern city was hardly the racially progressive place it is today. Through the 1970s, only black candidates who could avoid the appearance of being ‘too black issue centric’ had a chance of winning. Even after the election of James Ford in 1971 as the first black city commissioner, a districting system still had valid arguments from a racial representation perspective. However, as black candidates gained more support and were winning more races, thanks to the city growing more progressive with the expansion of the state agencies and university system, the district push largely died as a debate point.
While the city issue would effectively die in the early/mid 1980s, the story was different at the county level. By the 1980s, Leon County had still not elected a black county commissioner since Reconstruction despite many strong candidates; including bids from James Ford himself. The county, which had more rural, conservative voters, proved to be a major roadblock. At the time, like many at-large counties today, Leon only had RESIDENCY districts. See the 1979 map below.
In 1983, the Leon NAACP made their position clear - they would sue if the county did not move away from at-large elections. This suit was similar to many filed across Florida, challenging at-large systems as violating the Voting Rights Act. After several years of hearings, negotiations, and attempts to change the county charter, the NAACP and Leon County Government came to an agreement in 1986 to establish a single-member ELECTION DISTRICT plan. The agreement set up the 1986 elections to be held under a 5-2 plan; 5 single-member districts and 2 at-large seats. The plan would have one black-majority district and one black-access seat.
The agreement did not end legal challenges. The NAACP wanted the two at-large districts gone, but the courts ultimately backed it up. That same year, Henry Lewis III won District 1, becoming the first black county commissioner since reconstruction. In 1990, the school board went to single-member districts as well. The saga of Leon County going to single-member districts is long and very important. I do plan to cover that process in more detail as my City Commission History Series gets from the 1970s (where I am now) and into the 1980s. That history will also delve more into the fading of the issue at the city level.
The last piece of my original districts article focused on why changing to districts in Tallahassee now would only hurt minority voting power. Go back to read that for the numbers, but the long and short of it is, currently 2/5 commissioners are black; and in EVERY ELECTION the black community, which is heavily clustered in the south and central part of the city, is a critical constituency. No candidate, unlike decades past, can run antagonistic to non-white voters. Right now, 4/5 commissioners owe their elections to support from the black community.
This is VERY different from the politics of Leon County in the early 1980s or the City of Tallahassee in the 1960s and 1970s. All a districting system could do is confine the vast majority of black voters into perhaps two districts, in essence constraining black voting power. Despite this glaringly obvious problem, Stewart and his right-wing cronies have complained that I and “the progressives” have injected race into the discussion. They conveniently ignore the facts behind my argument, or the fact my argument came because the pusher of districts, Jared Willis, brought up “protecting racial representation” for why districts were a good thing.
The Republicans are MADDDDDDDD
It struck me as no coincidence that starting the very evening the last charter review board ended, the knives started to come out. As I laid out in my first article, and my testimony, there were selfish people pushing a districting system. Steve Stewart has been pushing this issue for good deal of time and has teamed up with far-right radio host Preston Scott, who is currently advocating the northside try to LEAVE the city over this issue. As I pointed out before, Stewart and Scott argue that the Northside upper-income suburbs, which are more Republican, don’t have a voice. Here is party registration in the city, go to Issue 160 for many more maps.
Stewart, Scott, and other right-wing figures claim those Northern Republicans need to have a commissioner representing their interests. They claim the North does not get the attention it deserves and he directly calls out this as a PARTY issue, saying their are no Republicans on the city or county government. I’d imagine Stewart and company would want a district that looks something like this.
Depending on the lines, this would be a more GOP-leaning seat. Though even here this district backs most Democrats. However, city races are formally non-partisan and maybe he thinks in that dynamic a more steadfast conservative like himself could win. I would like to remind folks that 4/5 commissioners WON the northern suburbs in their elections. The lone commissioners who lost the North, Jeremy Matlow, still topped 40% in the area. Similar to the city’s black community, the Northside benefits from an at-large system because they are a critical block in all races. This is not some politically isolated region. That claim is just a lie by Republicans who’d be willing to confine the northern suburbs to one district that maybe they could win.
And that, my readers, is really what this comes down to. After all, Stewart has wanted to be on the city council since 2010. Steve Stewart ran for citywide office in 2010, 2012, and 2014. An initial strong showing for Mayor, challenging a scandal-tagged incumbent in red wave year, was followed up by worse and worse showings. I wrote about this ALL the way back in 2014: “The Spectacular Self-Destruction of Steve Stewart.” You can see each of his election efforts below and read about the campaigns in that link.
Stewart’s campaigns started with him running as an anti-corruption outsider, which allowed him to come very close, dominating in the city’s north. However, an attempt to beat ALSO scandal plagued former Mayor Scott Maddox did not work. Then in 2014, he ran as a zealous ‘democrats suck on crime’ candidate, losing every precinct to incumbent Nancy Miller. Both 2012 and 2014 saw race-baiting tactics that he got called out for at the time. All details in the article.
As I mentioned at the start, charter board member Jared Willis also lashed out. He and Stewart both took - coincidentally - the same talking point: that I must have been PAID to write my article or offer my testimony. Some twitter exchanges can be seen below, I can’t include it all, because again substack has space limits. I did not even try to be nice about this either and treated them with the contempt they deserve. Jared hit peak sad when he brought up the fact that I, a political consultant, took campaign work from progressive candidates/officials back in 2018.
Jared’s argument, which is laid out in a news article here, was that since I’d taken what amounted to a grand total of $2600 six years ago from people/groups that don’t like districts either, I must be on the take. When pressed for proof, he stuck to “well you might be getting paid still and we just don’t know” and then finally settled on “well the article was so bad there is no other explanation.” It got really sad through when Jared paid for twitter ads to promote his “proof” tweet. I wish I was joking.
This pay claim did not hold up well, especially since I have a reputation for being the polar-opposite of a money hungry operative, and my bank account reflects that. Basically after bills, the extra cash I ever have goes to research books, data orders, and so on. Hey sign up for my $5 Patreon of you wanna support my research expenses; you have no idea about how much old books cost. Trust me, if I wanted to sell out and be a paid shill, I’d have taken countless GOP offers a long time ago. You can blame my Lutheran upbringing for installing a severe allergy to pursuing wealth.
Why I Do This
I was pleased to see the smear effort go over like a lead balloon, because as I said in the exchanges, my drive for things like this newsletter is for advocacy. In the rare instance I am paid to write something, I say so. I even point out conflicts where I’m covering a campaign I may have worked on. If I’d been paid or financially incentivized to wade into the Tallahassee districting fight, I’d have just said so. The people who know me, even those who don’t like me, know this. Some will call me passionate, some will call my a raving lunatic, no one calls me a shill. Steve Stewart does call me a potty mouth because I told him to F- off on twitter. No kidding he complained about my language on his radio show. Square.
The problem is, for people like Willis and Stewart, who’s whole lives revolve around money and power, its impossible for them to imagine someone who would do what I do for free. I think its very hard for these people to believe me when I say my advocacy around racial equality, liberal democracy, and civil rights, is driven by a firm Christian belief that this is “my vocation.” This is what I am good at: processing data, researching history, and visualizing complex issues for easy reading. I strive to use these skills “for good,” for what I believe is right, not for money, not for power, and not for clout. Trust me, 90% of the time I’m sick to death of politics and would love to flee into the mountains. But I believe, in what little role I have in the grand ballet of existence, this stuff is the best use of my mind.
So when I saw this debate over districts gear up, I hoped it wouldn’t get far and I could just not get involved. I’m busy enough with the work I take to - you know - “live” - and I don’t actually like wading into every local fight in my city. However, when it became clear this issue was serious and would be bad for everyone not a far-right Republican, I begrudgingly, and I mean that, got involved. That took time away from my Tallahassee series, the Ukraine coverage I’m working on, and a bunch of other projects. To be clear, I don’t regret getting involved, because the visceral reaction proves just how much these right-wing operatives wanted this change - confirming my worries.
Now, reasonable people can disagree over Government structures. People opposed to at-large Tallahassee elections are not bad or nefarious. However, Steve Stewart, who’s right-wing rag has employed an alt-right, Christian nationalist, pro-confederate commentator, is nefarious. Jared Willis, who works with right-wing Republicans in his desperate quest to matter, is nefarious. They are no better than that sniveling pile of black ooze of a Republican Presidential nominee that is trying to sell Bibles for $60 a pop. I will gladly debate issues about government structure and racial representation with people. I will not be lectured too by power-hungry charlatans.
Now with that out of the way, I am going to get back to writing Part 5 of my series on the history of black candidates in Tallahassee election. Don’t worry Jared and Steve, I’m not being paid to write it, those old birthday checks from my grandma have nothing to do with this.