Alfie Oakes at his re-election announcement on April 4 at his restaurant, Food & Thought 2.
June 30, 2024 by David Silverberg
Two powerful groups within the Collier County Republican Party have taken opposing stands on the future of the local Party, endorsing very different slates of candidates for local positions in the Aug. 20 primary election.
In a break with past practice, the Collier County Citizens Values Political Action Committee (CCCVPAC, referred to here as the PAC) has chosen to make endorsements rather than rate candidates as it has in the past.
Many of these endorsements are at odds with those of the Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC, referred here as REC), the official county body of the Republican Party of Florida.
The REC is dominated by Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, a local grocer, farmer and extreme political activist and Donald Trump supporter.
“The local Republican Executive Committee (CCREC) has adopted a more authoritarian stance, aiming to oust many current elected officials, revoke charters of established Republican clubs, and implement divisive tactics against those with differing opinions,” wrote Mike Lyster, the PAC’s endorsement chairman, in a mass e-mail sent out Thursday, June 27 and again today. “This approach has driven away many long-standing members and could deter potential candidates, ultimately weakening our conservative representation.”
Mike Lyster (Photo: CCCVPAC)
The PAC “consists of dedicated, long-standing Republicans, including three former Republican Party chairmen and representatives from the five Collier County Republican Clubs active last year,” according to Lyster.
In response to what it perceived as the authoritarianism and lack of qualifications of the REC candidates, the PAC made its own endorsements to offer “conservative voters an alternative perspective that may differ from the CCREC. It’s important to note that the CCREC represents only a small fraction of Collier County Republicans.”
He continued: “While Collier County enjoys competent local governance, replacing experienced officials with angry, inexperienced individuals to address national issues could undermine our community’s standards.”
Chief differences between the PAC and the Executive Committee include the PAC’s endorsement of Melissa Blazier for county Supervisor of Elections over the REC’s endorsement of David Schaffel.
On the county School Board, the PAC endorsed Stephanie Lucarelli for District 2 and Erick Carter for District 4 in contrast to the REC’s endorsement of Pamela Cunningham and Tom Henning.
The PAC endorsed Vickie Downs for county Property Appraiser while the REC endorsed Jim Molenaar.
The PAC is also endorsing Douglas Rankin for state Committeeman. “We see Doug as the best opportunity to bring reason to the local party and lessen the deep divisions and rancor that currently exists locally, and also at the state and federal levels,” Lyster wrote.
Rankin served in the office from 2008 to 2020 when he was ousted by Oakes for being insufficiently pro-Trump. Oakes had intended to run for re-election to be state committeeman this year but was disqualified when he failed to file his candidate qualification forms on time.
During Oakes’ service he was criticized for missing numerous meetings. In contrast, Lyster pointedly noted that Rankin “never missed a meeting during his years of service.”
The PAC is endorsing Burt Saunders for county commission in District 3. “He stands head and shoulders above his Republican opponents,” wrote Lyster. The REC has not posted an endorsement for that seat.
It did, however, endorse Rick LoCastro for commissioner in District 1. Both groups endorsed William McDaniel for county commissioner in District 5.
The PAC also endorsed JoAnn DeBartolo for state committeewoman and Kristina Heuser for state committeewoman. Clarification from earlier reporting: Kristina Heuser was personally endorsed by Alfie Oakes, not the Collier County Republican Executive Committee.
In addition to these endorsements, the PAC endorsed:
Yvette Benarroch for representative, Florida House District 81;
Erik Leontiev for 20th Judicial Circuit Court Group 6;
Elizabeth Krier for 20th Judicial Circuit Court Group 28.
To receive a PAC endorsement, candidates had to receive a 60 percent vote of its members.
Efforts to reach Oakes for comment had not received a response at publication time.
Melissa Blazier, Collier County Supervisor of Elections, holding the election laws of Florida. (Photo: Author)
June 27, 2024 by David Silverberg
When I moved full-time to Collier County, Florida 11 years ago, I had very low political expectations.
After all, it was the deepest South, so I figured it was probably run by a bunch of good ol’ boys who arranged things for their own convenience. I expected elections to be rigged as a matter of course, just part of the culture.
But all that was before I met Jennifer Edwards, Collier County’s Supervisor of Elections. Over time I realized that this lively, energetic, outgoing woman really believed in the integrity of the election process, it wasn’t just a slogan for her. Her care and commitment infused the work of her office and staff. The statistics they produced were reliable and when elections rolled around the results could be trusted—even if I didn’t like the outcomes.
Now her legacy of electoral reliability and trustworthiness is under attack as is her deputy and protégé, Melissa Blazier, the current Supervisor of Elections.
Blazier is running this year to keep her position for another four years.
Whether Blazier can win another term in office will determine whether or not Collier County continues to have elections that are honest, accurate and lawful.
The path to perdition
Collier County is not unique in finding itself in the position of a contested election for a long-obscure and relatively overlooked county office that is suddenly in the spotlight.
In this it was carried along on currents that swept the entire nation.
In 2020 when he lost the presidency, Donald Trump alleged massive vote rigging and fraud. He began a chaotic campaign to discredit all voting results and the entire election system throughout the country. When all his court challenges failed he incited a violent insurrection to overturn the election itself.
Well after the election was decided and the results accepted by all parties, in September 2021 Oakes called for a recount based on a simple suspicion of machine-counted ballots that was then sweeping extreme election-denying circles. He offered $100,000 to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ campaign if the governor would sit down for two hours to hear Oakes’ argument that the 2020 election was fraudulent. DeSantis never took him up on the meeting.
Two years later the 2022 election results went unchallenged in Collier County but Oakes was still convinced that elections were amiss. In February 2023 he told The Paradise Progressive he would be challenging Edwards as Supervisor of Elections when her term was up in 2024.
Oakes believed the Supervisor’s office was corrupt even if Edwards herself was honest, and he wanted to do away with machine counts of ballots, which he didn’t trust but which are mandated by law.
Edwards announced her retirement in April 2023 and her place was taken by her deputy of 17 years, Melissa Blazier, who was duly appointed Election Supervisor by DeSantis.
Blazier, 46, is now up for election in her own right.
Election integrity and assaults on it
Americans have a clear and unambiguous example of attempted interference, fraud and manipulation of the electoral process.
On Jan. 2, 2020 then-President Donald Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. He alleged all sorts of fraud and criminality in the results that awarded the state to Joe Biden. After a lengthy, rambling tirade, he got to the real point of his phone call.
“All I want to do is this,” he said. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Over and over Raffensperger and the other Georgian officials in the room told Trump they had found no fraud, had recounted the ballots, certified the results and his wild accusations were false and delusional. They stuck to their data. They weren’t going to agree with any of his allegations or change the count. They also released a recording of the phone call (which even to this day provides for some shocking reading and listening).
In other words, honest election officials don’t find votes, they count them.
Today Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia for 13 charges of violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate his or her oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.
But the incident also provided a vivid example of how election interference really works; it’s not the grand conspiracy or the sweeping plot; it’s the phone call, the appeal, the threat, the request, even an outright bribe to change the results of an election.
In Collier County this year’s race for Supervisor of Elections revolves around the question of “election integrity.”
Given the example of Trump and the Georgians the question at the heart of the county race for Supervisor of Elections is this: If a rich, powerful, well-connected candidate calls the Supervisor of Elections and asks to bend the rules, will the Supervisor have the strength, the honesty and the integrity to say no?
Maybe the caller will want to find just enough votes to tip an election. Maybe the demand will be that the Supervisor bend the rules. Maybe the call will be a request to delay a certification.
The people running against Blazier are arguing that there’s something wrong with the Election Supervisor’s office and that she and the current election process somehow lack integrity.
But other than a sense of malaise and suspicion, they’re not specific about any problems.
Tim Guerrette
Timothy Guerrette (pronounced with a soft “g”), 57, a retired sheriff’s deputy with no prior election management experience calls himself “a proud patriot” for whom “God, family, and country come first!” He says that he will bring the county “safe, secure and ethical” elections. He argues that “no barriers should exist between the community and the Supervisor of Elections” and “Elections should never be held in the dark!” Under his leadership, he says, “the voting process in Collier County will ALWAYS be transparent to deter any concern of fraud and promote confidence.”
Of the candidates, to date Guerrette has raised the most money: $110,558 in direct contributions, and $26,374 in “in kind” contributions and has spent $80,399, according to his financial reports. He’s been actively campaigning, particularly among the law enforcement officers and first responders, where he’s best known and most familiar.
But is he being as honest and transparent as he insists he will make Collier County elections?
On his campaign Facebook page Guerrette is claiming support from various municipalities throughout the county. It’s a tactic that works for unsuspecting readers but it got some pushback from at least one person with personal knowledge of it.
When Guerrette claimed that “Everglades City stands with Tim Guerrette,” Michael McComas, a city councilmember elected in 2022 snapped back: “Who gave you the authority to speak for our City? You constantly claim that you were here for our last election which you know is untrue. How do I know this[?] I am a member of the City Council who was elected to office in that election and you were nowhere in sight during that process.”
Or consider this: the sudden presence of what is known as a “ghost” candidate.
When the candidate qualifying period ended on June 14, there was suddenly an independent write-in candidate in the Elections Supervisor race: Edward Gubala, a former firefighting captain and close ally of Guerrette.
Gubala had not previously campaigned for the office, spent any money or displayed an interest in filling the position. His whole reason for qualifying was to close the primary election to non-Republicans to benefit Guerrette.
Under Florida law, once a candidate from another party enters a primary that primary becomes closed to all but registered voters of that party. So in a stroke, Guerrette disenfranchised 119,115 independent and Democratic Collier County voters, 46 percent of the total, from voting in an election that affected them all—and this from a man who claims he wants to bring “ethical” and “transparent” elections that are never “held in the dark!”
Nor was there any doubt that Gubala was ghosting for Guerrette. He has no website or campaign material. He refused to make himself available for media interviews. He even proudly posed in Guerrette regalia at a Guerrette campaign booth.
Edward Gubala in Tim Guerrette campaign regalia.
As a campaign move, ghosting is legal under current procedures—but it’s also deceptive, restrictive and unfair. Moreover, this one is blatantly obvious. Guerrette and Gubala didn’t even bother to cover their tracks.
Given these factors, voters have to wonder: if Guerrette became Supervisor of Elections and a rich, powerful, well-connected person called him and said, “Tim, we just need to find another 50 votes to make this election come out our way,” how would Guerrette respond?
But it wouldn’t even have to be someone rich, powerful and well connected. Remember that the Supervisor of Elections oversees elections for fire districts, law enforcement and tax-related matters.
What if a fire captain, old friend and campaign donor called Guerrette and said, “Tim, we just need to find another 100 votes to up this millage rate so we can get some cash into this fire district. I know the voters don’t want their taxes to rise, but do you think you could help us out?”
That’s the kind of temptation and blandishment a Supervisor of Elections faces—and make no mistake, conversations like that do take place.
Dave Schaffel
David Schaffel, 63, is a former information technology technician, entrepreneur and consultant, who has lived in Southwest Florida for the past five years. He has no prior experience, either professional or volunteer, in election management or administration.
Schaffel is running on the same malaise and suspicion platform as Guerrette.
“Was our presidential election stolen?” states the opening line in his campaign video while dark and menacing music plays in the background. “American voters deserve to know the truth. The machines: can they be trusted? Mail-in ballots: were they all really legitimate? Joe Biden: did he deserve to be President? All across the country, moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas and patriots like you are wondering: will we never have a free and fair election again?”
Schaffel calls himself “a rock-solid conservative and America First patriot.” To date he’s raised $43,027 in direct contributions, $1,004 in “in-kind” contributions and spent $31,369, according to his financial reports.
Schaffel is backed by Alfie Oakes.
Schaffel promises to “rigorously monitor the accuracy of voter rolls and introduce new proven technological advances to identify fraud” and claims “my Information Technology career gives me unique skills to mitigate risk, provide real transparency, and restore voter confidence.” It’s unclear exactly what new technologies and skills he would apply to a process that is rigorously regulated by law. His questioning echoes past Trumpist mistrust of machine counts and mail-in voting.
While Schaffel focuses his attention on broad suspicions of procedures based on the 2020 national election results, it’s hard not to imagine election integrity challenges that are closer to home.
For example, how would Schaffel react if he was Election Supervisor and a locally prominent, well-connected businessman who had funded Schaffel’s campaign and promoted his candidacy called and asked: “Dave, I filed my candidacy papers a little after the deadline and some of the spots were left blank. Do you think you could cut me some slack and maybe fill in the blanks and backdate it to before the deadline? No one needs to know. Thanks.”
Or if a prominent state politician called and asked, “Dave, I could use a little help in Collier County. All I need to do is find 200 votes and we’re in the clear. There’s a lot at stake. Can you go in there and do that? I’ll make it worth your while.”
Or, perhaps most insidious of all, if someone called and said: “Dave, we need to get another rock-solid, America First patriot on the Republican Executive Committee and all we need are 27 more votes to do it. I’m sure they’re in your database if you look.”
The voters of Collier County would always be left to wonder: will we never have a free and fair election again?
Commentary: Why I support Melissa Blazier
Interestingly, despite all their suspicions and distrust of the current officeholder, when they were at the podium of the Collier County Board of Commissioners on April 23 to discuss an election resolution (which failed), and could have leveled accusations, both Guerrette and Schaffel actually praised Blazier’s oversight of the office.
Guerrette lauded Collier County and its current election staff for their dedication to “secure, ethical elections in Collier County.”
While Schaffel argued for less use of election technology, he admitted, “Yes, I think the way elections are run in Collier County, they’re run smoothly” and the staff “are doing their jobs in that office. They do a great job of running the election according to statute. And I want to make it absolutely clear that that is the case.”
So what’s the problem?
In light of the current campaigns and candidates it’s clear that Blazier is the best choice for Collier County.
It’s not just that she just successfully managed an election decided by a mere 22 votes for the City of Naples without any flaw or blemish, nor that she has over 18 years of experience in the field of election management, nor that she has more than ample certifications and testaments to her expertise, nor that she knows Florida election law thoroughly and completely, nor that she was taught by Jennifer Edwards, the best in the business.
The most compelling reason why Blazier should remain Collier County Supervisor of Elections is that shehas actually demonstrated election integrity on the front lines when it counts.
The others talk the talk but she actually walks the walk.
She qualified Edward Gubala despite the fact that it hurt her own bid and knew it was a sham candidacy—because she adhered to the law.
But the most important example of her election integrity came on June 14 when Alfie Oakes failed to turn in his candidacy qualifying papers on time and in full. Blazier adhered to the law and disqualified him—regardless of his standing in the community and his denials, protests, insults and personal allegations against her.
That’s what election integrity looks like.
If election integrity is the main issue in this election then there’s no contest. The challengers might as well fold up their tents and slink home.
Of course, they’re not going to do that. This battle will be fought out until the bitter end, which looks like it will take place on August 20, primary election day.
In the past, in normal times, election administration was something unquestioned, a sort of distant hum in the background, like air conditioning, part of the overall environment, functioning quietly and unobtrusively.
That’s no longer the case. Election integrity is not to be taken for granted. It’s precious. It’s threatened.
But every voter in Collier County should know election integrity when it stands before them—and in this place, at this time, Melissa Blazier is what integrity looks like.
The election laws of Florida, held by Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier. (Photo: Author, June 2023)
Melissa Blazier (right) fills out her own paperwork to qualify as Collier County Supervisor of Elections in July 2023. (Photo: CCSoE)
June 20, 2024 by David Silverberg
New details and strikingly different versions of events have emerged in the increasingly heated and vehement debate between Collier County Supervisor of Elections (SoE) Melissa Blazier and Republican Party state committeeman, farmer, grocer and political activist Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III.
The argument centers on the disqualification of Oakes from the Aug. 20 Republican Party ballot for state committeeman.
To briefly recap: all qualifying documents for candidates for the Aug. 20 primary—for all parties—were due by noon, Friday, June 14. Oakes’ documents were submitted after noon. Blazier sent Oakes a letter informing him he had not qualified for the ballot.
The details of the filing, disqualification and the reasons and motivations for it are at the center of their very different versions of events.
Facts: The Oakes account
According to a June 18 statement from Oakes on Republican state committeeman letterhead:
“I filed my notarized candidate oath and qualifying documents last week during the primary election qualifying period. These documents were accepted by Collier SOE staff, and confirmation of my successful qualification was given to multiple people on my team.
“Then, approximately ten minutes before the 12:00 PM filing deadline, I received a call from the SOE alleging that my qualifying documents did not meet proper standards. Despite this being blatantly untrue, I immediately hurried to the SOE office to sign the additional documents that they requested. All documents were accepted and processed by the SOE at 12:04 PM.”
Facts: The Blazier account
According to a June 18 press release issued by the Supervisor of Elections (SoE) office and quoted here verbatim:
“The law allows candidate qualifying documents to be provided to this office 14 days prior to the beginning of the qualifying period which was noon, June 10 through noon June 14 (prequalifying began May 27). Mr. Oakes chose to wait until after 11 a.m. on the last day of qualifying (the busiest time in this office during the qualifying period) to have a third party deliver his qualifying documents. No one in the Supervisor of Elections office confirmed to Mr. Oakes or any member of his team that he had successfully qualified as a candidate for State Committeeman at that time. Handing paperwork over to a staff member is not tantamount to being qualified.
“Immediately upon discovering multiple errors with his submitted qualification documents, my staff and I made several attempts to contact Mr. Oakes and his team beginning at 11:36 a.m., as documented in our call records. The calls were neither answered or returned until 11:51 a.m. when Mr. Oakes finally returned my call. Mr. Oakes then arrived to our office at 12:04 p.m., after the qualifying deadline, to submit the correct qualifying forms which were timestamped upon completion at 12:08 p.m.”
Following the closing of the qualification period, Blazier sent a two-sentence letter to Oakes stating: “Pursuant to Florida Statute 99.061 the candidate qualifying documents that were received in the Supervisor of Elections office were not properly filed. Therefore, you did not qualify for the Republican State Committeeman position.”
Motivations and disparagement
Oakes’ account did not stop at a factual recitation. He immediately made accusations, attacked Blazier personally and disparaged what he believed to be her motivations.
“The claim by Collier County Supervisor of elections Melissa Blazier that I failed to properly file my re-election paperwork for Republican State Committeeman is a flat out lie,” he stated. “This is the latest (but not the first) act of fraud by Melissa Blazier. The simple truth is that this is nothing more than a desperate attempt from Melissa Blazier to remove me from the ballot for one of her campaign’s mega-donors. It is downright despicable.”
He continued: “The fact is this: The qualifying documents I provided during the qualifying period more than met the standard laid out by the Florida Secretary of State as well as the Republican Party of Florida. Melissa Blazier is illegally using her position to circumvent the election process in favor of her campaign mega-donor, my opponent, Doug Rankin.
“Make no mistake: this is election interference at the highest level in Collier County. It is happening before our very eyes.”
Blazier was equally direct, if more formal: “The allegations Mr. Oakes is circulating which seek to place the blame on this office for his failure to qualify for Republican State Committeeman are unfounded and without merit.”
After her recitation of facts she stated: “Mr. Oakes, now irresponsibly, is blaming this office for his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his team in getting himself qualified in a proper and timely fashion. Mr. Oakes knew precisely what needed to be done and the timeframe to do it in, as exemplified by his timely and proper filing for this same position in 2020. The law and requirements have not changed since then.
“All decisions are objective. The role of this office in reviewing candidate qualifying documents is dictated by the law. Our role is ministerial. It is either right or wrong, timely or untimely.
“I have worked in this office for over 18 years in various capacities, including now as your Supervisor of Elections. This office has and will continue to have the highest ethical standards. Do not be fooled into believing that party rules take precedent over state statutes and state administrative rules. There is no fraud. There is no racketeering. All the actions taken by this office in this matter, and all matters, are justifiable and done in accordance with the law.”
Electoral considerations
Oakes, who has a long history of litigiousness, is now expected to sue the Supervisor of Elections office to get on the ballot. In the past he has sued the Lee County School Board, the Collier County School Board, and Collier County for decisions he disliked and this one is expected to be no exception.
“I intend to utilize every legal avenue available to stop this fraud and allow the voters’ voices to be heard in August,” he stated. “From top to bottom, this is the most important election in the history of our nation. We must fight back against the current corrupt administrative state that exists at every single level of government.
“We will continue our fight for our constitutional inalienable rights, and we will never back down!”
Blazier for her part was equally adamant: “As a constitutional officer, I am bound by the laws of the State of Florida. That is the ultimate responsibility in ensuring the integrity of elections. To bend to the outrageous and untrue statements being made about this matter would forever tarnish the reputation of this office and my position. The voters of Collier County expect that this office will uphold Florida’s elections laws and ensure the integrity of the electoral process, which is what my staff and I will continue to do.
“Do not be misled by Mr. Oakes’ attempt to cast aspersions on me and this office by deflecting. Mr. Oakes is ultimately responsible for his failure to properly qualify for placement of his name on the ballot.”
Analysis: Florida Rashomon
As of right now, Oakes is off the ballot and Blazier’s decision is final and supported by law.
If, as is probable, Oakes follows the example of his mentor and idol, convicted felon Donald Trump, he will proceed to court no matter how weak his case or how expensive the cost of litigation.
(It should also be noted that this is not the first time Oakes has evidenced inattentiveness to process and procedure. He has long been criticized by county Republicans for a lackadaisical approach to his committee responsibilities and missing numerous meetings, according to Party activists. At one point Party members considered writing to the state Party to call for his removal, but the letter never materialized. In Oakes’ case against the Lee County School District, it was revealed that the chief reason the District canceled his contract was because his company failed to file paperwork acknowledging that it followed any anti-COVID protocols.)
The situation is complicated by the fact that both parties are up for election to their respective positions.
Douglas Rankin, the attorney and former committeeman whom Oakes defeated four years ago, and who properly filed his paperwork and is on the ballot for the committee position, had no sympathy for Oakes.
“He is the one trying to get her to commit an election irregularity,” Rankin told Dave Elias, political reporter for NBC2 News. “The rules really do apply to everybody, including him. They had the good courtesy to move heaven and earth and call him to get his mouth down there, and do what he should have done days or weeks earlier,” he said.
Oakes’ other opponent, Frank Schwerin, was more forgiving: “My contention is that he submitted paperwork indicating a desire to run for a state committee position. It was notarized,” Schwerin told Elias. “The voters in Collier County should weigh in on who they want to represent them as the Republican Party of Florida. I’m running to give them a choice,” he said. (Note that Schwerin did not say the paperwork was proper or qualified.)
Blazier is facing her own challenges in the race for the Supervisor of Elections job.
Until Friday she was facing two opponents in the Aug. 20 Republican primary, Tim Guerrette, a former chief of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, and David Schaffel, a former information technology technician, who is backed by Oakes.
All were Republicans, and since the primary could have been the deciding election it would have been “universal” or open to all Collier County voters.
However, Edward Gubala, a former firefighting captain and close ally of Guerrette, applied and qualified at the last minute as an independent write-in candidate, thus closing the primary to all but Republicans.
Candidate Tim Guerrette (left) and supporter Edward Gubala (right) in Guerrette campaign regalia. Gubala qualified as an independent write-in candidate for Supervisor of Elections, thus closing the primary to all but Republicans.
In his own statement on Oakes’ disqualification, Guerrette called for an independent investigation of the incident, without drawing conclusions.
For his part, prior to being disqualified, Oakes had scheduled a discussion of election integrity for June 27 at the Naples Hilton. It is advertised as featuring Dave Schaffel, his candidate for Supervisor of Elections, and Douglas Frank, a prominent 2020 election denier and voting fraud conspiracist, who has been called “The Johnny Appleseed of election fraud.”
General admission tickets are $50.
The 2024 Collier County “I voted” sticker design by Alayna Gruber, a 7th grader at East Naples Middle School. (Art: CCSoE)
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall moves the resolution to oppose Amendment 4. (Image: CCBC)
June 17, 2024 by David Silverberg
Last Tuesday, June 11, Collier County, Fla., officially went on record opposing a woman’s right to choose abortion.
By a unanimous vote the five members of the Board of Commissioners voted to pass a resolution officially rejecting Amendment 4, a constitutional ballot initiative in Florida to guarantee a woman’s right to choose.
As a resolution the county measure does not have the force of law or impose penalties. However, it is an official expression of the county’s collective opinion.
How significant is this resolution both for voters in Collier County and in the efforts to either pass or defeat Amendment 4?
The context: Amendment 4
Titled “Limiting government interference with abortion,” the proposed Amendment 4 states: “Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
When it appears on the ballot it will also note that: “This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
The amendment has been approved to appear on state ballots in the November election. If it passes by at least 60 percent of the voters, abortion will be legal in Florida. Currently, no abortion can be performed after six weeks of pregnancy.
The Collier County resolution
The county resolution, formally titled “A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in opposition to Amendment 4, a proposed constitutional amendment concerning abortion,” simply concludes that the Board of Commissioners “expresses its strong opposition to Amendment 4.”
It’s in the preceding paragraphs, known as the establishing clauses that start with “whereas,” that the resolution lays out its thinking and justifications. (The full, final, engrossed resolution can be read at the conclusion of this article.)
Rather than opinions, the resolution falsely asserts that Amendment 4 will put abortions in the hands of unqualified personnel, that it will end parental notification, and that it will allow late term abortions. The third paragraph states that Amendment 4 would establish a constitutional right to abortion.
The next paragraph starts with a word almost never used in resolutions or formal legislative documents: “I.”
“WHEREAS, I believe that the language of the proposed amendment is vague, deceptive, and overbroad, and would strike already enacted protections instituted by the State of Florida by broadening the definition of healthcare providers to those not medically licensed, eliminating parental consent for minors, and allowing the life of the unborn to be taken right up to the moment of birth… .”
It then goes on to state that “the Board believes that the passage of Amendment 4 would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County and the State of Florida” and so it opposes it.
The debate and vote
The resolution was introduced by current Board chair, Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2). He is the “I believe” in the resolution.
The resolution was put on the county agenda with little to no fanfare or notice. Following public comments for and against it at the meeting the commissioners discussed its merits.
“I simply brought this forward because I believe this Amendment 4 is vague, it’s deceptive and it’s over broad at best,” Hall told the Board when they discussed the resolution. “There’s already a legislative process in place through our Florida legislators and it protects life already. And that’s the process we need to move and keep holy as representatives of the people.”
All the commissioners argued to some degree that they were seeking to “educate” voters with this resolution and were at pains to point out that people could vote any way they wished.
Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) pointed out that the resolution was merely an opinion: “This resolution doesn’t change any laws. It merely puts us on record as to our moral compass. I personally do feel that many things at the polls are very ambiguous and very confusing,” he said.
He pointed out that during the discussion “I didn’t hear one person say the word ‘adoption,’ which is also an option for an unwanted pregnancy. He characterized himself as “pro-life,” said that was his “moral compass” and while supporting “a woman’s right to choose, my strong advice would be to choose adoption.”
Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3) said that while he expected Amendment 4 to pass with over 60 percent, “I think this resolution is appropriate that it is our opinion that it is confusing, that it is overbroad, that it shouldn’t be part of the Constitution in the first place, that it is the Florida legislature that should be setting what the rules are dealing with abortion.”
“It’s a slippery slope when you start legislating a woman’s choice,” said Commissioner William McDaniel (R-District 4), meaning that choices have “life-long” consequences.
“My simple statement is: choose life in every opportunity that’s physically possible. Choose life,” he said.
Commissioner Dan Kowal (R-District 5) said that he didn’t know much about Amendment 4 initially but he learned that Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody had argued against it in the state Supreme Court and three female Supreme Court justices were confused by the language.
He asked how supporters of Amendment 4 could defend it if they couldn’t understand it.
The danger, he thought, was that “There are people out there who know how to manipulate our uneducated voters.” As he saw it: “This resolution is about educating everyone. Do your homework before you vote.”
Hall revealed that the deceptiveness he was so worried about was largely in the title and the words “limiting government interference,” which might be such an irresistible attraction to some voters that they would vote for it without reading the rest of the resolution.
As he put it: “And so in agreeing with all my colleagues to educate the voters, you can vote however you want to but I want you to be fully educated on what you’re voting on and I don’t want it to be deceptive. I don’t want you to look at it as ‘limit government control’ and think, ‘That’s awesome’ and then limit abortion and then get the results we’ve gotten. So with that I’m going to make a motion to join ourselves in solidarity and approve this resolution that says vote no on Amendment 4.”
Comment: Indoctrination versus education
The commissioners’ discussion of the resolution’s “education” is false and disingenuous.
If they truly wanted to educate voters, the resolution would have simply said: “Collier County encourages voters to study this and all other ballot initiatives carefully,” without taking a position for or against it.
But education was never the point of the resolution.
Nor was all the complaining about Amendment 4’s vagueness, deceptiveness or broadness relevant. These were the arguments that Moody put before the state Supreme Court in April.
In fact, the Supreme Court decided exactly the opposite from what the commissioners contend: the proposal met all the requirements for a constitutional amendment, it dealt with a single subject and its title and summary were sufficiently clear that any voter could understand it.
“In the end, the ballot title and summary fairly inform voters, in clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purpose of the amendment and they are not misleading. The ballot summary’s nearly verbatim recitation of the proposed amendment language is an ‘accurate, objective, and neutral summary of the proposed amendment,’” the justices wrote.
They continued: “Here, there is no lack of candor or accuracy: the ballot language plainly informs voters that the material legal effects of the proposed amendment will be that the government will be unable to enact laws that ‘prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict’ previability abortions or abortions necessary to protect the mother’s health. It is undeniable that those are the main and material legal effects of the proposed amendment.
“[W]e have also recognized ‘that voters may be presumed to have the ability to reason and draw logical conclusions’ from the information they are given.
“We thus presume that voters will have an understanding of the obviously broad sweep of this proposed amendment despite the fact that the ballot summary does not and cannot reveal its every possible ramification or collateral effect,” they stated.
Clearly the Florida Supreme Court has greater confidence in the intelligence, understanding and reasoning of Collier County voters than their Board of Commissioners.
So if the Amendment is actually clear and fairly presented, why pass this resolution?
One was Hall’s fear that the title “Limiting government interference” would prove too irresistible to some voters. However, he need not worry: not every Floridian instinctively salivates at the prospect of “limiting government,” so a stampede to approve the Amendment is unlikely on that basis.
Another obvious point of the resolution was both to put Collier County on the record opposing Amendment 4 and sway voters against it.
Because resolutions (as opposed to ordinances) are expressions of opinion rather than enforceable law, political observers tend to dismiss them as irrelevant. However, they do have some impact in expressing the collective opinion of a legislative body or jurisdiction.
But the Collier resolution doesn’t do this and it doesn’t do it in a most peculiar way: it’s that “I believe” in the third paragraph.
This resolution isn’t an expression of Collier County’s opinion as a whole; it clearly states that it is the expression of one person’s opinion and that one person is Commissioner Chris Hall.
One might have expected that “I believe” to be edited out of the final resolution, but it wasn’t.
So, although endorsed by all the commissioners, technically this resolution really expresses only Hall’s opinion, a commissioner who has openly stated that “there is no separation of church and state.”
Legislatively, it’s a poorly written and edited piece of work. There should never be an “I” in an expression of collective opinion. The “I believe” phrase dilutes its force as a legislative opinion.
Next, far from this resolution being a form of education for voters, it is an attempted form of indoctrination against a woman’s right to choose and a major purpose, of course, was to sway Collier County voters against Amendment 4.
Endorsing Hall’s opinion enabled commissioners to pander and placate their anti-choice constituents, whether the commissioners are truly anti-choice or not. This is especially important for those who are up for election this year: LoCastro, who is running against a write-in candidate; Saunders, who is facing four challengers; and William McDaniel, who faces one. Their fates will be decided in the August 20 Republican primary.
Will the resolution sway Collier County voters come November?
There is no polling or other reliable data to gauge its impact. Voters supporting Amendment 4 are not going to suddenly switch their votes because of this resolution. Voters opposed to abortion will vote against Amendment 4 anyway.
What it may do is possibly manipulate some “uneducated” voters against Amendment 4, although these are not the sort who pay attention to county resolutions. As Kowal put it: “There are people out there who know how to manipulate our uneducated voters”—although he was thinking of very different manipulators.
Most likely, the resolution will be used as a tool by anti-choice activists in the county in their campaign against the amendment. They will cite it to give weight to their anti-choice arguments. What election monitors and election law enforcers have to watch carefully is whether they illegally tell people this resolution requires people to vote against Amendment 4, which, as the commissioners noted, it does not.
As for Amendment 4, the available polling indicates that statewide it has the 60 percent support it needs to pass and become part of the Florida Constitution. A Fox News poll released June 7 showed that 69 percent of voters support it and 66 percent of voters also support Amendment 3, legalizing recreational marijuana.
In November, if the election occurs as scheduled and the votes in Florida are accurately and legitimately counted, all indications are that Amendment 4 will be approved and Florida’s women will regain the right to choose—no matter what Collier County commissioners believe.
The full, final, signed and engrossed version of the Collier County anti-Amendment 4 resolution.
Alfie Oakes announces that he will seek re-election at an April 4 event at his restaurant, Food & Thought 2.
June 16, 2024 by David Silverberg
Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, the prominent pro-Trump grocer and farmer and a central figure in Collier County politics, has not qualified for the Republican state committee seat he was seeking to retain.
Oakes is currently a Republican state committeeman and announced in April that he would run to keep his seat. Because he is disqualified, his name will not appear on the August 20 Republican primary ballot.
Qualifying forms for all candidates were due at noon on Friday, June 14. Oakes did not file his form until after the noon deadline.
As a result, “Pursuant to Florida Statute 99.061 the candidate qualifying documents that were received in the Supervisor of Elections office were not properly filed. Therefore, you did not qualify for the Republican State Committeeman position,” Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier stated in a two-sentence letter to Oakes.
According to one source, Oakes misfiled his forms, submitting a form for county commissioner and not correcting the mistake until 12:04 pm.
Efforts to reach Oakes by publication time were unsuccessful.
There will still be two candidates for the state committeeman seat.
Douglas Rankin will be attempting a comeback. A practicing Naples attorney specializing in elder law, Rankin began his Party activism with the Young Republicans in 1984. From 2008 to 2020 he was a Republican state committeeman until pushed out by Oakes for being insufficiently pro-Trump and anti-mask amidst the COVID pandemic.
Frank Schwerin, who will also appear on the ballot, has served as Chair of the Collier County Republican Executive Committee.
A State committeeman or woman represents his or her county on the leadership team of the Republican Party of Florida and serves a four-year term.
The proposed resolution by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. (The full resolution is below.) (Document: CCBC)
June 10, 2024 by David Silverberg
Tomorrow, June 11, the Collier County Board of Commissioners is poised to consider a resolution expressing opposition to Amendment 4, a proposed state constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose abortion, which will be on the ballot in the general election on Nov. 5.
In unusual wording for a county resolution, it expresses opposition in the first person, using the article “I;” meaning that it expresses a single individual’s opinion but puts it forward as the opinion of the entire county.
As quoted by the proposed resolution, the language of Amendment 4, formally titled “Limiting government interference with abortion,” states that “Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
The proposed Collier County resolution then goes on to state:
“WHEREAS, I believe that the language of the proposed amendment is vague, deceptive, and overbroad, and would strike already enacted protections instituted by the State of Florida by broadening the definition of healthcare providers to those not medically licensed, eliminating parental consent for minors, and allowing the life of the unborn to be taken right up to the moment of birth; and
“WHEREAS, the Board believes that the passage of Amendment 4 would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County and the State of Florida.
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, expresses its strong opposition to Amendment 4.”
Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) currently chairs the Collier County Board of Commissioners and is expected to introduce the resolution.
Collier County residents can express an opinion on this matter by writing or calling their commissioners. The resolution is listed as agenda item 10B and residents who sign up in person the day of the meeting can speak before the Board for 3 minutes. The Commission meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.
Rep. Byron Donalds at the Philadelphia “Congress, Cognac, & Cigars” event, stating that black families were stronger during the Jim Crow era. (Image: Office of Rep. Byron Donalds)
June 7, 2024 by David Silverberg
Not all gaffes are equal—some are major, huge, and potentially career-ending.
Perhaps when Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) said on Tuesday, June 4 that Jim Crow practices in the South kept black families together, it shouldn’t be counted as a gaffe, which is generally considered a mistake or a misstatement, usually of an impromptu nature. After all, it was clearly something he had considered and he expressed a genuinely held thought.
However, politically, it was much worse than a gaffe—it was a blunder.
The setting
Donalds was in Philadelphia, Pa., for a Donald Trump-related outreach event to black conservatives. Dubbed “Congress, Cognac, & Cigars” it was held at a club called The Cigar Code, which seeks to provide “a relaxing atmosphere where you can kick back and enjoy our high-quality cigars” along with drinks and food.
Organizers invited attendees to “Immerse yourself in the world of politics, premium cognac, and fine cigars. Enjoy a conversation about the Black Male vote, Leadership, and how Black Men will impact the 2024 vote.”
Donalds (who has sponsored legislation exempting premium cigars from tobacco regulations) was on stage with Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-38-Texas), a fellow black conservative Republican.
In keeping with the tenor of the evening, Donalds, cognac and premium cigar in hand, was clearly relaxed—and it’s at such times that he often provides his most truthful—and damaging—revelations. Like the time in 2021 when he admitted he had been drinking prior to addressing a press conference in the Capitol denouncing masking and President Joe Biden’s stimulus and pandemic relief bill.
This time his statement causing the uproar was this: “You see, during Jim Crow, during Jim Crow the black family was together. During Jim Crow more black people were not just conservative—black people were always conservative minded—more black people voted conservatively. And then, HEW, Lyndon Johnson, and then you go down that road and we are where we are.”
(HEW is the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which was changed in 1979 to the Department of Health and Human Services after creation of a separate Department of Education. Jim Crow refers to a character in 19th century minstrel shows that came to stereotype black people and then stand for the entire culture of racial segregation, discrimination and intimidation in the southern United States.)
When Donalds’ statement was reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, it created an uproar. The Biden-Harris campaign posted a 28-second clip on X with the offending statement and the notation, “Trump VP contender Byron Donalds claims life was better for Black Americans ‘during Jim Crow.’”
Donalds hit back, claiming in his own post that “1. You lied. I never said better. 2. Don’t clip my words. Play the whole thing. Let me help you.”
“I grew up with my Mom. My Dad and my Mom, things didn’t work out. As an adult, I look at my father and say ‘Bro, I don’t know what happened, but you’re my father and I love you. I don’t know what happened!’ I wasn’t there. But I’m going to tell you this: Growing up, one thing I wanted to do—and this is not about my father, this is about what I wanted to do—is I wanted to be a father to my sons.
“And so one of the things that’s actually happening in our culture, which you’re now starting to see in our politics, is the reinvigoration of black males with younger black men and black women and that is also helping to breed the revival of a black middle class in America.
“You see, during Jim Crow, during Jim Crow the black family was together. During Jim Crow more black people were not just conservative—black people were always conservative minded—more black people voted conservatively. And then, HEW, Lyndon Johnson, and then you go down that road and we are where we are.
“What’s happened in America the last ten years, and I say this because it’s my contemporaries, your contemporaries, you’re starting to see more black people be married, in homes, raising kids, because when you’re home with your wife raising your kids, and then you’re looking at the world, you’re saying: ‘Now wait a minute, time out. This does not look right. How can I get something to my kids?’ It goes back to the conversation about generational wealth. Not just a job, generational wealth. I’m looking at my kids be on my shoulders when they take off in life. That’s what’s happening.”
The reaction
House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries denounces Rep. Byron Donalds on the House floor. (Image: US House)
Whatever Donalds intended, the reaction was swift and severe.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-8-NY), the House minority leader, took to the floor of the House of Representatives to angrily denounce Donalds’ statement in a 1-minute, 4-second speech.
“Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a so-called leader has made the factually inaccurate statement that black folks were better off during Jim Crow. That’s an outlandish, outrageous and out-of-pocket observation. We were not better off when a young boy named Emmett Till could be brutally murdered without consequence because of Jim Crow, we were not better off. When black women could be sexually assaulted without consequence because of Jim Crow, we were not better off. When people could be systematically lynched without consequence because of Jim Crow, we were not better off. When children could be denied a high quality education without consequence because of Jim Crow we were not better off. When people could be denied the right to vote without consequence because of Jim Crow.
“How dare you make such an ignorant observation. You’d better check yourself before you wreck yourself.”
The Biden-Harris campaign didn’t just slam Donalds on X.
“Donald Trump spent his adult life, and then his presidency undermining the progress Black communities fought so hard for — so it actually tracks that his campaign’s ‘Black outreach’ is going to a white neighborhood and promising to take America back to Jim Crow,“ Biden-Harris spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement.
The Donalds statement blazed across the media landscape like an uncontrolled wildfire, with almost all headlines negative and emphasizing Donalds’ support for Jim Crow: The New York Times, “Byron Donalds, Trump V.P. Contender, Suggests Jim Crow Era Had an Upside;” The Washington Post, “Rep. Byron Donalds says Black families were stronger during Jim Crow era;” Politico: “Byron Donalds expresses nostalgia for the Jim Crow era, when ‘the Black family was together;” NBC News: “Trump surrogate Byron Donalds hearkens back to Jim Crow era when ‘the Black family was together;’ The Hill: “Donalds suggests Black families were stronger during Jim Crow era.”
Innumerable anonymous responses on X were far more extreme, pointing out, among other things, that Donalds would have been lynched for marrying—much less courting—a white woman during Jim Crow.
Donalds has tried to respond and clarify his remarks but his efforts have been comparable to trying to fight a firehose with a squirt gun.
Analysis: Twisted history
Byron Donalds and history don’t mix.
Whether it was the moment in 2021 when he said that Potemkin villages were invented by the East Germans to hide their side of Berlin from the West, to his rage about being sent a copy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, to this latest misstatement, it is clear that history is not his strongest subject.
Perhaps he’s right that there’s a discussion to be had about the strength of black families down through the ages.
But as Jeffries pointed out, during the Jim Crow era, the point of segregationist and discriminatory law was not to strengthen the black family. The negative impact of southern oppression on black families is more than amply chronicled in both fact and fiction.
But going beyond the argument over the impact of Jim Crow on families there’s Donalds’ assertion that black voters “were not just conservative—black people were always conservative minded—more black people voted conservatively.”
That’s just factually wrong.
Ending slavery was a radical cause in the United States before the Civil War and ending discrimination after it was part of the liberal agenda. After they gained the right to vote through the 15th Amendment black voters responded and were overwhelmingly not conservative, but Republican. “Conservatism” at the time meant returning to the situation during enslavement or something like it.
Although President Abraham Lincoln ended slavery, after emancipation white southerners tried to segregate the races, i.e., establish a Jim Crow society in the South. The Republican Party opposed and worked against Jim Crow laws and southern racial discrimination, winning black voters’ loyalty.
In contrast, the post-Reconstruction South was solidly segregationist Democratic and white politicians and racists did everything they could to suppress and deny black voting rights. Restoring and protecting those rights was a liberal cause, not a conservative one and politically active blacks responded accordingly.
Where blacks could not express their discontent in political activity or at the ballot box in the South they voted with their feet, resulting in a vast migration northward where there were jobs and far less overt discrimination. They were hardly “conservatively minded.”
After World War II and the victorious fight against Fascism, the wall of racial segregation began to crumble but not before southern politicians did absolutely everything they possibly could to stop civil rights for black citizens. In 1948 then-Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led a walkout of southerners from the Democratic Party to form his own, segregationist Dixiecrat Party and run for president. In 1964 he switched allegiance to the Republican Party—after President Lyndon Johnson, the president whom Donalds denigrated, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination. In 1968 President Richard Nixon launched his “southern strategy” to position the Party to pick up the allegiance of segregationist voters previously loyal to Gov. George Wallace of Alabama and position the Republicans as the party of disaffected white southerners.
The overwhelming majority of black voters were never “conservative minded” when conservatism meant maintaining Jim Crow, nor did they vote conservatively. Their clear and obvious interest was in moving society forward toward integration and non-discrimination. Indeed, Rev. Martin Luther King excoriated those moderate liberals who did not do enough toward this end in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”
So Donalds has virtually all of his history wrong. But that’s hardly anything new.
Analysis: The political fallout
As though to provide icing on a very sour cake, Donalds’ latest statement comes two weeks after the century anniversary of the 1924 Fort Myers lynchings, another feature of the Jim Crow South and something that occurred in his own district, no less.
But it also comes at an extremely sensitive time politically.
It comes when history in Florida is being officially re-written to teach school children that before emancipation, “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit,” thereby justifying bondage as beneficial to those enslaved. When Donalds argues that Jim Crow strengthened black families, he appears to be seeing advantage in a time when official discrimination and prejudice were the norm.
Step by step, school by school, library by library in Florida, Donalds, his Trumpist allies and cultural crusaders are normalizing social situations that existed back when America was supposedly “great.” One has to wonder where this leads. Was America great when women didn’t vote? When alcohol was banned? When lynchings were common? When race riots went unpunished?
“The Apprentice” redux
On another front, there is Trump’s reprise of his “The Apprentice” reality show in picking his vice presidential running mate and the role of Donalds’ remarks in his bid for the job.
The remarks come when Trump, who has made no secret of his racial prejudices, is threatening to make them the law of the land if he is elected president again. Is Donalds attempting to curry favor with a man who says that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of America and all Mexicans are “criminals” and “rapists?” Are these the kind of policies Donalds will pursue in the White House if he attains it? Does he believe that if he is elected Trump’s vice president he will promote Jim Crow policies to “strengthen” the black family?
All the candidates, no matter how remote their chances, are under greater scrutiny than usual (although nothing compared to what the winner will receive). Every gaffe, stumble and indiscretion is magnified and blasted across the media landscape.
They are also competing for the favor of a mercurial, unpredictable felon facing jail time.
Donalds is making his bid by showing his loyalty and spewing out a torrent of pro-Trump statements and postings. He traveled to New York to stand by Trump at the trial, he spoke as a passionate Trumper in the Bronx and he’s served as a surrogate for Trump elsewhere, which is why he was in Philadelphia.
But as the Trump vice presidential candidates are learning, unthinking and unblinking loyalty is not enough. The reality show is now in a phase where the wrong statement, the wrong move, an irritable moment or a passing gaffe is enough to disqualify a contestant. For example, when South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) revealed to the world that she shot an innocent puppy, she probably disqualified herself no matter how much Trump might approve.
Will Donalds’ seeming longing for what he regards as the family-friendly days of Jim Crow disqualify him from the Trumpstakes? Only Trump can know for sure. But even Trump, who no doubt himself longs himself for the days of Jim Crow, may experience a moment of hesitation given the strength of the reaction to Donalds’ statements.
However this plays out, it is another expression of Donalds’ sometimes incredible ineptitude as a politician. He may be able to fool some of the people in Florida’s 19th Congressional District all of the time, and he may be able to fool all Americans some of the time, but increasingly he is proving that, as Lincoln noted, he cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Rep. Byron Donalds and Rep. Wesley Hunt enjoy cognac and cigars at the Philadelphia event where Donalds discussed Jim Crow. (Photo: Brakkton Booker /Politico)
The motto on the West Pediment above the entrance to the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
June 3, 2024 by David Silverberg
On March 5, 1770 eight British soldiers opened fire on a threatening mob in Boston in what was then the Massachusetts Colony. Three people in the crowd were killed instantly, eight were wounded and two died later.
The incident is known in American history as the Boston Massacre.
It was an important event in America’s march toward revolution. But almost as important as the incident itself was its aftermath, when American colonists, intending to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of administering impartial justice in their courts, put the British soldiers on trial.
The man who stepped forward to defend the soldiers was John Adams, a prominent lawyer, patriot and no lackey of the king. But Adams fully understood that America, to be credible as a self-governing entity, had to show that whatever the political passions of the moment, law had to prevail over all.
Adams capably defended the soldiers. Six were acquitted; two were convicted of manslaughter and given reduced sentences of having their thumbs branded. The commanding captain, Thomas Preston, was tried separately and acquitted since he had not given an order to fire.
Adams faced intense criticism for his willingness to defend the soldiers but he understood the principle he was defending and its importance to America.
“The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough,” he wrote on its third anniversary. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.”
The Boston Massacre was an important step in America’s march to independence; but the Adams defense was almost as critical in laying the cornerstone for a nation and a new society founded on the principle of the rule of law.
So important is that principle that it is engraved on the pediment above the entrance to the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC: “Equal justice under law.”
Law and its impartial administration is both the roof protecting the United States from above and the absolute foundational bedrock sustaining it below, enabling a functional, rational, democratic society.
Now law itself—and everything that John Adams and the founding patriots worked to achieve—is under attack because of a verdict in a court case in New York that found former President Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
During the trial Trump lambasted and insulted the judge, the judge’s family, the prosecutor and the court system itself for a variety of what he considered sins. He, his attorneys, and his witnesses dripped with contempt for the whole proceeding and those conducting it. But when it was over and he had resoundingly lost and been found guilty, he attacked the trial as “rigged.”
Trump has always attacked anything that hasn’t gone his way as “rigged” and illegitimate—like elections. There is no surprise there.
The Florida enablers
But it’s not just Trump trying to bring down the very notion of law and justice. An army of sycophants, serfs and supporters are taking up his chorus and are seeking to discredit, overturn and destroy the rule of law—and Florida elected officials, including those from Southwest Florida, are in the front ranks.
Last Friday, May 31, eight United States Republican senators issued a statement.
The senators pledged not to vote for any increase to domestic appropriations or spending bills that “funds partisan lawfare;” they will not vote to confirm any political or judicial appointees; nor will they allow any “expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people.”
The reason for this stubborn refusal to do the nation’s business? As they put it: “The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways.”
Included among the eight were both of Florida’s senators: Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
This is richly ironic on a number of levels, most prominently because they are taking these steps precisely because President Joe Biden and the US justice system are defending the rule of law and the nation’s politics from un-American crimes by Trump and his minions.
It’s also ironic that what these senators term “lawfare,” a favorite term of Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) cultists, is the simple administration of justice. This supposed “lawfare” is applied to just one man—Trump.
(These protestations are also ironic coming from Rubio, who was so humiliatingly savaged by Trump in the past.)
The statement is a transparent and hypocritical attempt by these politicians to curry favor with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and the MAGA base. But it’s also an expression of the weird, circus-mirror world of Trump, where the application of law is “mockery” and an effort to enforce the rules and punish criminality is “un-American.”
The same impulses and hypocrisies appear to have driven Southwest Florida’s congressmen to similarly denounce the New York verdict.
Upon the announcement of the verdict Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) immediately stated on X: “A disgrace to our judicial system and constitutional protections of equal justice for all. Americans see right through the Democrats’ scheme. This is nothing but election interference. President Trump will get justice on appeal.”
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.), usually the most sober and moderate Southwest Florida representative, similarly fell into line.
“The case against former President Trump is an obvious and blatant travesty of justice and a political witch hunt,” he wrote on X. “This is a direct threat to our democracy. This case should never have seen the light of day.”
In a lengthier statement he denounced the trial as “a tactic commonly used by dictators against their political adversaries” and accused the Biden administration and New York prosecutors of “focusing on bringing down a former president and GOP candidate for president. It is clear that this political sham of a trail [sic] has been centered on destroying a candidate rather than fighting actual crime.”
But of Southwest Florida’s representatives, none was more voluble—or extreme—than Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.). He’s been sending out a torrent of propaganda on X and speaking on every media platform that will host him to firmly establish himself as a leading Trumper. In Trump’s vice presidential replay of his television show “The Apprentice,” Donalds clearly hopes that he’s still a candidate so he’s been trying to firmly establish his unthinking and unblinking loyalty to the now-convicted felon.
“What happened in NY is disaster verdict by a crooked judge and a crooked prosecution. Donald Trump is innocent. To hell with what the jury said,” Donalds stated on X immediately after the verdict.
He followed up in a later post: “What happened in NY is a TRAVESTY. Biden’s FAILED as president & rogue prosecutors are now persecuting his chief political opponent. This is not about Republican or Democrat. This is about the political weaponization of our courts, our future as a nation & the American people. America, this is what a political prosecution looks like. Remember in November!”
“You CANNOT respect this legal process when it was rigged from the jump,” he raged the day after the verdict. “REMEMBER: They could not even identify the underlying crime. This legal process was not fair to President Trump & did not protect his constitutional rights.”
Donalds’ denunciations were particularly interesting given his direct attacks on the American justice system: statements like, “To hell with what the jury said” or “You CANNOT respect this legal process” or his charge that the trial “did not protect his constitutional rights,” when Trump could have testified in his own defense and declined to do so.
But all this is especially ironic given Donalds’ reaction to the Trump mob’s invasion of the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when Donalds was in the building.
“We are a nation of laws that have governed this exceptional Constitutional Republic for more than two centuries, and no amount of anger should ever compromise that,” he wrote then. “Our party has always been a party that respects our brave law enforcement, the Rule of Law and the institutions that make America the greatest country to ever exist.”
Apparently three years later those truths don’t apply when it comes to Donald Trump—at least as far as Donalds is concerned.
Analysis: Past and future
This is not the first time in recorded history that a prominent politician has been charged with crimes he disdained and had his followers argue he is above the law.
In 49 BCE Julius Caesar was charged by the Senate with violating Roman law and ordered to return to Rome alone to face charges. However, he felt that his victories and his “dignitas,” his sense of self-worth, put him above the law.
Instead of obeying, he crossed the Rubicon River with his legions and marched south, captured the city and ultimately made himself dictator for life. At that point the only way he could be deposed was by death and he was assassinated in 44 BCE.
It was an example—and a warning—of where societies go when the rule of law is usurped.
But last week’s Trump trial, the verdict and the reverberations can be put into a much larger context.
Why does a world that seemed so stable, so invulnerable and so established now seem in such a deadly and uncertain flux?
The world being attacked is the one that emerged victorious from the defeat of Fascism in 1945 and the fall of Communism in 1991. That world was a rule-based, American-led, democratic, egalitarian, inclusive global order and culture protected by the military might and power of the United States.
But any order has its malcontents. Three individuals in particular led an assault to overthrow this global culture and the Pax Americana.
Osama Bin Laden attacked it with terror and tried to replace it with a Muslim theocracy. Vladimir Putin used the forces of the Russian Republic to try to topple American dominance and re-establish the Soviet Union. And Donald Trump tried to tear down the US Constitution, the US Congress, a US election and overthrow American democracy to assert his absolute dominance.
Today Bin Laden is dead and his movement shattered. Putin is bogged down in Ukraine and the outcome of his reconquest is in doubt. And Trump was stopped by the institutions emplaced to prevent a dictatorship, has been tried in accordance with the American judicial system and has been declared a felon by a jury of his peers.
All the politicians—whether in Southwest Florida or not—and enablers, sycophants and coconspirators disparaging the American system of justice, arguing that this man should have complete immunity from any kind of restraint, are trying to throw off the equality of all people before the law and are picking away at the bedrock foundations of the American edifice.
They know better but they do it nonetheless for petty, short-term gain.
What is worse, they seem to have no understanding of what will follow if they succeed in toppling the justice system they so hate. As noted before, the rule of law is like a sturdy building that protects its occupants from above and below. If it comes crashing down there will be nothing but rubble; no protection from any winds that blow or storms that follow.
What is more, these politicians will be every bit as vulnerable as everyone else—indeed more so. They will achieve equality but an equality of vulnerability amidst a hurricane of chaos. If they succeed in putting Donald Trump in power as a dictator, as they are ultimately trying, they will be even more subject to his whims, his rages and his retribution—and he always lashes out first at those closest to him.
President Joe Biden put it best in remarks he made the day after the verdict.
“The American principal that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself,” he said. “And it’s reckless, dangerous, irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years. It is a cornerstone of America, our justice system. The justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It is as simple as that. That is America. That is who we are. That is who we will always be, God willing.”
A lone American flag flies over a devastated Fort Myers Beach in the days after Hurricane Ian. (Photo: U.S. Air National Guard /Jesse Hanson)
May 29, 2024 by David Silverberg
As has been well publicized by now, this year’s hurricane season, which officially begins Saturday, June 1, is predicted to be an especially active one.
There are already reminders in various media for storm preparation: buy batteries, flashlights and water, make a plan and know your evacuation zone, among other measures.
But it also makes sense to plan to vote despite any hurricanes that hit—because this year there’s so much at stake and every vote counts, whether in primary or general elections.
What’s more, in Florida there’s an extremely important primary election on Aug. 20—the date when the hurricane season traditionally kicks into high gear.
“Now, storms can get going before Aug. 20, but this is typically about when they start,” Philip Klotzbach, a famous hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University told the Christian Science Monitor in 2011.
This primary will be a “closed” primary, meaning that only registered members of a particular political party can vote for the party’s candidates. But there will also be important “universal” races at stake, where all voters can make a choice and some of the races may be decided at that point. All voters, regardless of party, should be registered and eligible to vote on these universal ballot measures. (The universal measures will be covered in a later posting.)
This article will provide links and information to check your registration and apply to vote by mail in Collier, Lee and Charlotte counties. It will then provide some historical background regarding elections and hurricanes in Florida.
Bottom line on top: Voting by mail is your best option. Make sure you do what’s necessary. Now.
Registration and vote-by-mail applications
To vote in the Aug. 20 primary, you must be registered to vote by July 22.
Check to make sure you’re properly registered. This is worth doing because there have been allegations in the past of misregistrations. To check, click on the links below and fill out the forms:
The deadline to request a mail-in ballot for the Aug. 20 primary election is Aug. 8 at 5 pm (and that hourly deadline is very important! Nothing after that will be accepted.)
There are several advantages to voting by mail, especially in hurricane-prone Florida.
One is that you don’t have to vote by mail once you have the ballot. You can mail it back, put it in a drop box or take it to a polling station and hand it in there.
This is especially useful if voting is disrupted by weather. It gives you the flexibility to return your ballot several different ways and over a longer period of time.
Another advantage is that once you receive the ballot in the mail, you have the time and leisure to research and ponder items that you may not have previously considered, like judicial elections, amendments or more obscure, down-ballot races.
Also, by and large, voting by mail is reliable. You usually receive your ballot in the mail in a timely fashion and you can reliably return it and be confident that it will be received and properly counted—and you can check online that it has been received.
Even if storms strike, even if mail delivery is disrupted by a storm, voters can get their ballots into the system. The US Postal Service (USPS) makes strenuous efforts to deliver mail even in the wake of severe disasters.
Indeed, there have been times after disasters when the arrival of a USPS delivery truck or mail carrier on foot was the first indication of recovery and a return to normal. This dedication is a much-underappreciated aspect of USPS operations.
The Lee County Supervisor of Elections makes the point on his website that under a new Florida statute that went into effect in April, mail-in ballots will not be forwarded to an address other than the one on the voter’s registration.
(So, in other words, if you’ve requested a mail-in ballot and you’re away from your Florida address when the mail-in ballots go out, you will not receive it at any other address.)
This applies statewide.
Voting by mail only became controversial in 2020. That year it provided a safe way for people to vote despite the COVID pandemic. Then-President Donald Trump went to great lengths to disparage it as “rigged” despite no evidence that it encouraged fraud or tampering. Ironically, in prior elections, voting by mail had actually favored Republicans in Florida since so many were seasonal residents and voted from second homes in northern states. While the Republican Party tried to conceal or contradict Trump’s discouragement of mail-in voting, he created a deep suspicion of the practice that lingers to this day. So far this year he is encouraging voting by mail.
The storms of August
There are plenty of historical examples of hurricanes striking on or around Aug. 20.
As bad as August can be, even the general election on Nov. 5 is not immune from the influence of hurricanes. For example, in 2018 Hurricane Michael struck the Florida panhandle on Oct. 10, just before that year’s midterm elections and disrupted voting. Then, just two years ago in 2022, Hurricane Ian made landfall in Southwest Florida on Sept. 28, a day short of a month before early voting began in the general election.
In both cases, voting was disrupted as people tried to dig out and recover. No doubt voting was far from their minds in the immediate aftermath of the storm. A study of Hurricane Michael found that after the storm voting rates dropped the further voters had to travel to reach operable polling places.
In the event of disasters the governor can authorize special voting arrangements like mobile polling places and emergency election stations. Following Hurricane Ian, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) issued an executive order to officials in Sarasota, Charlotte and Lee counties giving them authority to open polling places wherever feasible.
Given the threat being predicted for the 2024 hurricane season, it’s time for everyone to start preparing. We’re not just protecting our homes and communities; this year like no other, we also need to protect our democracy from all threats foreign, domestic— and climatic.
The African-American neighborhood of Fort Myers in an undated photo.
May 24, 2024 by David Silverberg
This is a revised and updated version of an article first posted on May 22, 2019.
This Saturday, May 25th, marks 100 years since two African-American teenagers were seized by a white mob and lynched in Fort Myers, Fla.
The anniversary comes amidst a rise in hatred and racism in the United States and serves as a stark reminder of where bigotry ultimately leads. It’s also a demonstration of what happens when the rule of law breaks down.
It can happen here—and it has.
It’s also worth remembering; history does not have to repeat.
What happened
This account draws from two sources: One is an article in The Fort Myers News-Press on the event’s 90th anniversary. That article, “Lynching history spurs call for closure, 90 years later” by reporter Janine Zeitlin, was published on May 21, 2014. The account drew on people’s recollections and the work of Nina Denson-Rogers, historian of the Lee County Black History Society, who pieced together fragmentary information on the incident.
The other is the original, unbylined article that appeared in the Fort Myers Press on May 26, 1924, headlined, “Negroes pay penalty for horrible crime committed yesterday.” (Referred in this article as the “1924 account.” The article is posted in full below.)
According to Zeitlin, on Sunday, May 25, 1924 two black teenagers, R.J. Johnson, 14, and Milton Wilson, 15, (his name also given as “Bubbers” Wilson and the other victim is named as Milton Williams in the 1924 account) were spotted by a passerby swimming with two white girls on the outskirts of Fort Myers, then a segregated city of about 3,600 people. Lee County was home to about 15,000 people.
“The lynchings happened after R.J. and Milton went swimming at a pond with two white girls on the outskirts of town,” according to the Zeitlin article. “They were said to friends with the girls, maybe more. Perhaps they were skinny-dipping. There were rumors of rape, though one girl and her brother denied it.
“The two boys and girls lived near each other, were long familiar and played with each other as children, states Zeitlin. The swimming was reported by someone as a rape. The 1924 account simply states that the boys “attacked two young Fort Myers school girls.”
The black community first learned that something was amiss when evening church services were canceled. Just before sunset the rape report resulted in white residents on foot, horseback and in cars gathering at a white girl’s residence. From there they began invading black homes and yards in a search for the two boys. During the evening, chaos spread through the city as the search continued. At one point a gas truck was driven into the black community with the intention of burning it down if the boys weren’t found.
Lee County Sheriff J. “Ed” Albritton in an undated photo. (LCSO)
At some point R.J. Johnson was found. According to the 1924 account, he was arrested by Sheriff J.E. Albritton and put in the county jail.
“Hearing of this the armed citizens went to the jail and demanded the prisoner. The request being lawfully refused by the sheriff, he was overpowered, the jail unlocked and the negro led out,” states the 1924 article.
According to that article, once seized, Johnson was “taken before one of the girls” where he was identified and confessed. According to Zeitlin, however, one of the girls and her brother denied that there had been any rape.
In the Zeitlin account, Johnson was taken to a tree along Edison Avenue, hanged and shot. According to the 1924 account “his body was riddled with bullets and dragged through the streets to the Safety Hill section.
“The search then continued for Wilson, who was found at 4:46 am the next morning by a railroad foreman, hiding in a railroad box car on a northbound train. He was taken from the box car, hanged, castrated and shot multiple times. His body was then dragged down Cranford Avenue by a Model T.”
“It was like a parade, some evil parade in Hell,” according to Mary Ware, a resident who was quoted in a 1976 article in the News-Press. The crowd broke up when the sheriff and a judge appeared.
The headline in the Fort Myers Press.
On Monday the afternoon edition of the Fort Myers Press was headlined “Negroes Pay Penalty for Horrible Crime Committed Yesterday.”
On the same day a jury convened and absolved the sheriff, attributing the lynchings to “parties unknown.”
“That the rape had taken place, the black community definitely felt never occurred, that it was prefabricated by this white man who came across them swimming,” said resident Jacob Johnson in a late 1990s interview with the Lee County Black History Society, quoted by Zeitlin. “Everyone felt … these boys had just been killed for no reason, other than they were there with these white girls.”
In the United States, however, it evokes a particular idea: a racially-based, mob-conducted, illegal, unpunished hanging driven by hatred, prejudice and rage, usually based on unfounded accusations.
The era of American lynching is considered to have lasted from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, often known as the Jim Crow era. If one wishes to put specific dates on it, it arguably lasted from the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court decision of 1896 that enshrined segregation of the races as “separate but equal” to 1954’s Brown vs. Board of Education when the Supreme Court ended segregation in education.
But these are debatable dates. There were lynchings before these dates and after. They didn’t all involve hanging.
What’s more, not all lynchings were racially motivated. In the western United States, cattle rustlers and other accused criminals were strung up by posses on the spot regardless of their race.
Whatever the dates or history, it’s clear that lynching is where racism, blind fury and bigotry lead, the Fort Myers lynching no less than any other.
But the Fort Myers lynching is also a lesson on the rule of law. In 1924 the two accused teenagers had no rights, no protections, and no defense. They were never able to assert or prove their innocence. They were presumed guilty from the outset, never tried and were punished according to the whims of the mob.
As the rule of law is eroded in this country, every American loses the protections that law provides. The result can be something like a lynching—and can lead to the deaths of innocent people.
A century may seem like a long time ago, in a different age and this kind of behavior may seem ancient and unthinkable today. But the fury and hatred that led to lynchings is still very much with us.
Very recently, in our own time, on Jan. 6, 2021 an incited horde of insurrectionists invaded the United States Capitol. Outside was a crude gallows. Inside those imposing halls the screaming rioters demanded to hang the Vice President of the United States.
That was a lynch mob just as surely as the one that demanded the deaths of Bubbers Wilson and RJ Johnson.
In 1924, the mob succeeded. In 2021 it failed.
Even now, the only thing standing between mob mayhem and civilization is the rule of law and the willingness to apply, assert and enforce that law. It’s a precious gift that’s under enormous threat.
And if there’s any lesson that the Fort Myers lynching can teach, it’s that the rule of law needs to be defended as much today as it did then, 100 years ago—and it is just as threatened.
The gallows erected outside the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Tyler Merbler)
The full front page of the Fort Myers Press on May 26, 1924.
Below is the full text, with original capitalization and usage, of the article on the Fort Myers lynchings as published on the front page of The Fort Myers Press, on May 26, 1924:
NEGROES PAY PENALTY FOR HORRIBLE CRIME COMMITTED YESTERDAY
Two negro youths, “Bubbers” Wilson and Milton Williams, met death at the hands of “unknown persons” early this morning following their positive identification as the two negroes who yesterday afternoon had attacked two young Fort Myers school girls.
Within a few hours after word of the happening had reached town a systematic search was started independent of the efforts of Sheriff J.E. Albritton who with his force was on the job immediately upon hearing of the crime.
A general round up of suspicious characters by the sheriff’s office netted Wilson, who was lodged in the county jail.
Hearing of this the armed citizens went to the jail and demanded the prisoner. The request being lawfully refused by the sheriff, he was overpowered, the jail unlocked and the negro led out.
Taken before one of the girls he was identified by her and then taken away where he confessed to his captors, following which his body was riddled with bullets and dragged through the streets to the Safety Hill section.
The search for his accomplice was then carried out with increased vigor, all outlets from the city being carefully guarded. The hunted man was located about 4:46 a.m., on a north-bound train pulling out of the railroad yards. Following his positive identification, he met the same fate as the first negro.
The following jurors were sworn in by County Judge N.G. Stout, coroner ex-officio, this morning: C. J. Stubbs, C.C. Pursley, Vernon Wilderquist, Alvin Gorton, W.W. White and Thomas J. Evans.
Charged with ascertaining by what means the two negroes met their deaths, the jurors reported as follows: “the said “Bubbers” Wilson and Wilton Williams came to their death in the following manner, to-wit:
By the hands of parties unknown, and we herewith wish to commend the Sheriff and his entire force for the earnest efforts made by them, in their attempt to carry out the duties of their office.”
The Paradise Progressive 