WALB’s Karen Cohilas is reporting that there is one major obstacle to Arthur Williams bid to reclaim his Ward 3 City Commission seat: Approximately $100,000 that’s owed to the IRS that may well make him ineligible to fill the seat
Obviously, if he’s unable to run, then it’s smooth sailing for Chris Pike, who will be unopposed for the Ward 3 seat.
Financial bills are nothing new for Williams, who’s previous stint on the City Commission was filled with overspending on his city travel and expense accounts, as well as the money he currently owes to the IRS. Yep, he’s owed it for that long.
Even worse, he apparently intended to deceive by indicating that he did not owe back taxes on his application to run.
I don’t see how an IRS money claim can make a person illegible to run for political office. I don’t think the long arm of the IRS can deprive citizens of representation.
Maybe there is a local ordinance that speaks to that, but it’s one, AT FIRST BLUSH, I wouldn’t mind taking to the courts especially to the the Supreme Court in DC. They have some mighty fine restaurants there that the taxpayers of Albany might be paying for.
Is there a law that clearly states that “owing” taxes renders a candidate ineligible? If not then no worries, a little thing like tax obligation never bothered Arthur or his constitutes.
Article 2 Section 2 paragraph 3 of the State Constitution:
“a person is not elligible to hold office “who is a defaulter for any federal, state, county, municipal, or school system taxes required of such officeholder or candidate if such person has been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to owe those taxes”
But he may become elligible by:
“making payments to the tax authority pursuant to a payment plan”
Reportedly, the application to run specifically asks if the candidate is a defaulter for federal taxes and he checked “No”.
Into a little more detail on what Tim said:
If he’s making payments, he’s eligible. If not, then he’s not.
Also if, as Tim points out, he checked “no” on the question of if he’s defaulted, that may make in ineligible due to giving false information. I won’t be able to get details of whether or not he did until Tuesday unfortunately.
Also, there is a nice little tidbit to keep in mind. Ward 3 voters – any Ward 3 voter – can challenge the eligibility of Williams to run.
From Georgia Code:
The hat tip for this goes to a kind soul in the mainstream media who I’m not sure would want to be named
If he’s on a payment plan and he checked “no” then he’s fine. It’s not a “default” just to owe taxes.
I appreciate your take. Is this a professional opinion, or personal?
From Wikipedia the free enyclopedia:
“Default (law), the failure to do something required by law”
Great research.
I’d point out that the provision seems to read that the tax obligation has to have been established by a final court decision and then the taxpayer in waiting, after the adjudication, can run or hold office if he/she keeps up with a payment plan.
Nothing about keeping him from running before a court finding and judgment.
The IRS just can’t make a claim and then start to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, especially in one of the most hallowed areas…free elections in a democratic process.
After judgments, many other condtions begin to emerge. Similar to starting with, but not the same as, innocent until proven guilty. After a big G, lotsa stuff happens, including loss of voting and running (for election)
So if my reading is correct and the courts have not even further restricted the interpretion of this language, just owing the taxes without a court finding it so is not enough to disqualify Mr. AKW.
I’m told on good authority that Mr. Williams has registered with two addresses. Harken back to the 2003 federal city redistricting case in which I and my dear wife and a fine neighbor intervened with the support of many concerned citizens to present a fair district map. In that controversy, Mr. Williams’ testimony on where he resided was most interesting. He concluded that he resided in two places a few blocks apart, but on different sides of 3rd district boundry. It can happen, I guess.
Point is, if there is a challenge on eligibility, I would think it may come on the basis of residence.
BTW, Mr. Williams is said to have called that federal court decision his “Waterloo.” It shifted the racial balaance in the 3rd at that time closer to 60B-40W. Given historic turnout percentages, that can split historically can go either way in a straight up B/W candidate race.
It seems even the courts recognize that both black and white largely vote their color. And that color is the prime basis for redistricting.
And that’s our world.
Interestingly enough, this Constitutional Amendment was drafted because of Arthur Williams. I don’t know of any instance where anyone has been prohibited from running because of it. The Amendment shows that yo have to be adjudicated delinquent by a court and really nobody uses courts to collect taxes because they don’t need to….so it’s largely useless.
I guess if you were found guilty of evading taxes in Federal Court that’d prevent you from running for office.
I told you this would be entertaining.
I’m not a Constitutional Law lawyer, but I might wonder if the Georgia Amendment has been tested in the courts and how the US Supreme Court would rule. Even owing taxes (not criminal evasion) is a civil money matter…..I wonder, although I suppose the legislature fugued to check that out, so it would probably hold up, but…..
I guess persons running for office are held to a higher standard than simple voting.
If politicians are held to a higher standard, then how come so many……….. never mind.
You may be missing the point Peter. No one is claiming that an unpaid tax debt is a criminal disqualification. IIRC, the reasoning behind the amendment was: Why should a politician make budget decisions when he has not paid his fair share into the public coffers?