A fair fight
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Special to the News
Submitted by Ken McFeeters
When I was in high school, we had a coach named Coach Finley. He was such a great man that after he passed away, they named the football stadium after him. Coach Finley understood what a fair fight was and how it shaped young men.
If you were caught fighting, Coach Finley would immediately break it up. Then he would put boxing gloves on both boys, gather the other students around, and let them have a fair fight. Both would slug it out while Coach Finley served as referee.
At the end of the match, Coach Finley would make the boys shake hands.
What he knew then – but what we didn’t fully understand until years later – was that after a fair fight, where both gave it everything they had, those two boys usually came away respecting each other. Many became friends. Some became lifelong friends. In the end, it never really mattered who won. What mattered was that both respected each other after a fair fight.
What happened yesterday [Sunday, June 14] in Balch & Bingham’s office was anything but a fair fight.
I believe most members of the Steering Committee have servants’ hearts and genuinely want what is best for Alabama and its citizens.
While I disagree with Tommy Tuberville on many issues, I believe he is a gracious and personable man. Before the hearing, he came over and shook my hand. I told him it wasn’t personal, that I had voted for him, and I believe we shared a sincere moment. After the hearing, I happened to run into him at a Mexican restaurant near Uptown. We both had a good laugh and joked that we weren’t following each other around. He even invited us to join him and his staff for dinner, but we politely declined.
Now, on to the fight.
Six months ago, when the residency issue should have been put to bed one way or the other, something very unusual happened. For the first time in ALGOP history, the authority to rule on candidate challenges filed with the Alabama Republican Party was effectively removed from its normal process.
A day or two before the Candidate Committee convened, an email was leaked showing that Balch & Bingham had categorized each challenge into one of four groups:
- Challenges that appear to be frivolous
- Challenges to be heard
- Challenges that would receive automatic ballot-denial letters
- Challenges that are facially defective
Yesterday [Sunday], David Bowser confirmed that the email originated from Balch & Bingham, though he would not disclose its contents.
The leaked email raises legitimate questions about whether conclusions regarding the Tuberville challenge had been formed before the Candidate Committee independently reviewed the matter, particularly given its classification as “facially defective.”
At the time, I was told by individuals within the ALGOP that a law firm had never before “pre-classified” candidate challenges in this manner.
To my knowledge, the Candidate Committee did not conduct an independent investigation into Senator Tuberville’s residency status during the relevant seven-year period. Based on the information available to me, the committee relied heavily on guidance provided by Balch & Bingham.
Fast forward to June 1, when I was shocked to receive an email from Balch & Bingham stating:
“The Candidate Committee voted to proceed with your contest, and it’s looking like it’ll be held on June 13 or 14 at Balch’s offices downtown.”
I was given roughly two weeks to prepare for this hearing.
The ALGOP Rules Governing Contests of Primary Elections provide contestants with important rights, including:
- Section 10(a), which authorizes up to five subpoenas to summon witnesses to appear and testify at pre-hearing depositions.
- Section 11(a), which authorizes up to five subpoenas for the production of documents believed necessary for a proper determination of the contest.
- Section 6(c), which states: The Hearing Officer(s) shall, for good cause, have the power to adjust the date of the Hearing.
We repeatedly requested a two-week extension from Balch & Bingham so that we could exercise these rights. We were denied.
I also informed Balch & Bingham that if they granted the extension, allowed us to depose witnesses, and we were ultimately ruled against, I would drop the challenge and not pursue an appeal.
Balch & Bingham refused.
They effectively tied our hands behind our backs at the “hearing.”
Before the hearing, my attorney, Jerry Roberson, expressed serious concerns about the fairness of the process, stating: “The fix is in.”
After the hearing, he remained convinced that the outcome had been predetermined. In his words:
“The hearing was theater. They were going through the motions in order to exonerate and legitimize Tuberville.”
Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it raises an important question:
Who was truly directing the process?
Roberson’s view was that the hearing officer did not exercise independent authority and that the key procedural decisions were being made by Balch & Bingham.
We were denied what we believe was a full and fair opportunity to utilize the procedures provided under the ALGOP’s own contest rules.
Does Balch & Bingham work for the ALGOP, or does the ALGOP work for Balch & Bingham? And ultimately, who is really selecting Alabama’s next governor?
From my perspective, this was not the fair fight that Coach Finley taught us to respect.
If I lose a fair fight, I will shake my opponent’s hand and show respect.
But when the other side is not playing by the rules, it does not discourage me.
It only strengthens my resolve to never give up.
