OUR COMPLAINTS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: Save Tucker! spoke with investigators today regarding the Nov. 3 election that resulted in the formation of the new city of Tucker.
Our complaints about the boundary changes and resulting confusion at the voter precincts were heard, but we were told that the boundary issue is mainly a "political" process and the elections office is bound by the legal descriptions provided in HB 520 for Lavista Hills and HB 515 for Tucker.
Changes that may have been suggested after the final bills were approved were nothing more than that ... suggested changes. They did not impact the boundaries in the legal descriptions that were approved in the legislature.
For maps that show detailed renderings of the Tucker boundaries and the local city precincts, we must now contact the county GIS department.
QUESTION: Why is it so difficult to get an actual map or accurate description? Does it seem fair to you that the public has this much trouble trying to figure out exactly what it was they just voted into existence??
ON A GOOD NOTE: The Special Investigator working on behalf of the Secretary of State's office was very thorough and sympathetic to our cause and concerns. He actually took his time and made sure he answered all our questions, unlike many of the politicians who just try to give the bare minimum answers and don't explain how the process is supposed to work. Our faith is somewhat restored that the Secretary of State's office will do a good job with their investigation of the facts related to this vote.
BEFORE: What we USED to call Tucker. AFTER: What we incorporated.
Clockwise from far right, districts 1, 2, 3.
|
Comments
Post a Comment