Who Is John Atkins, Really?

Atkins 5                                          Atkins 4 Atkins 3                                        Atkins 1Atkins

 

Well in fact, all the above photographs are of,  “A” John Atkins, but only the last one of the comical Leprecon is “THE” John Atkins that we here in Delaware have come to know and well, no I can’t exactly say respect, we’ll just say we know him.

But do we really know him? He is so fond of telling people that he is this ultra conservative legislator, but is he?

This is but the latest in an ongoing series of post concerning the voting record of John Atkins in order to demonstrate to the voters of his district, that would be the 41st Representative District of the state of Delaware, that he is anything but a conservative. Oh sure he votes against gun bills, and he is always out there making sure that school buses can have flags on their bumpers. But is he really a conservative?

I’ll let the readers decide. I know that there is a large number of 9/12 Patriots in Mr. Atkins district, and I know that they are ever concerned about constitutional issues, both state and national. In fact the 9/12 Patriot movement was born in that area of the state.

So one has to wonder how the Patriots feel about Mr. Atkins voting yes to amend the state constitution?  What you say? John “CONSERVATIVE” Atkins would never vote to amend the state constitution. He certainly wouldn’t vote to amend the state constitution in order to give more power to the Legislature in Dover, no, not BIG JOHN CONSERVATIVE ATKINS.

But that friends and neighbors is exactly what BIG JOHN NOT HARDLY A CONSERVATIVE ATKINS did.

On April 16, 2013 the Delaware House of Representatives voted on an amendment, HB 20 of the 147th General Assembly,  to the state constitution, the amendment would have removed  from the Delaware Constitution the requirements as to when a person may vote by absentee ballot. And would have given the power to alter the date to the Legislature. This means that which ever party may have been in power at the time could play around with the dates to their benefit.

This was a vote requiring a 2/3 vote and thanks to the Republican caucus this lame brain idea was defeated.

So does amending the state constitution in this way sound conservative to you? Not to me my good friends. It sounds like someone who voted with his party of the day. One can’t tell the party affiliation without a score card with Mr. Atkins.

So here is the link to the bill, read it and decide for yourselves whether or not you think a true conservative would have voted for this.

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS147.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+20?Opendocument

Oh, and Happy St. Patrick’s Day Mr. Atkins!

 

6 Comments on "Who Is John Atkins, Really?"

  1. waterpirate says:

    Teflon John is a master at constituent services on the local level, that is what voters want. Elected officials that can and will help them when the weigt of red tape or injustice is upon them. John gets a A+ on those criteria.

    Without a candidate to talk about in the 41st, this feels like a vendetta? All good orginazations understand that to be effective and continue on, the people in charge must groom other younger people to be their replacement. Term limits would have put John out of office years ago, without having to debate his conservative voting record.

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    WP, I have given Mr. Atkins credit for his working of his constituents, oh sorry, I meant working for.
    As for a candidate to run against him, I do believe that Rich Collins will run again, and remember how close he came to defeating Atkins last time.
    As for this being a vendetta? Well I have admitted that Mr. Atkins threw down the gauntlet, I simply picked it up, but unlike his personal attacks on myself and others, I am keeping this about his voting record, Lord knows that his personal life has supplied more than enough material for attacks if I so chose.
    I challenge those who wish to defend Mr. Atkins voting on this issue to not focus on why I am pointing it out, but tell us why this vote was a good idea for the citizens of the state of Delaware.

  3. Rick says:

    First of all, there is nothing “conservative” or “liberal” about amending the constitution. The framers provided an amendment process for a reason.

    Under current law (Delaware constitution, Article V Section 4a, 4b), the legislature already has to power to qualify absentee ballots:

    Article V., § 4A. General laws for absentee voting.

    The General Assembly shall enact general laws…

    Article V., § 4B. Uniform laws for absentee registration.

    The General Assembly shall enact uniform laws…

    So the proposed amendment conveys no more power to the legislature than what already exists.

    Here is the text from the current constitution, regarding absentee ballots;

    “…any qualified elector of this State, duly registered, who shall be unable to appear to cast his or her ballot at any general election at the regular polling place of the election district in which he or she is registered, either because of being in the public service of the United States or of this State, or his or her spouse or dependents when residing with or accompanying him or her because of the nature of his or her business or occupation, because of his or her sickness or physical disability, because of his or her absence from the district while on vacation, or because of the tenets or teachings of his or her religion, may cast a ballot at such general election to be counted in such election district.”

    Obviously, the framers intended to include all possible reasons why a voter would need to vote by absentee ballot. And obviously, they failed.

    For example, what if someone from Delaware were a witness in a lengthy criminal case in Virginia? It’s got nothing to do with “service to the US or Delaware,” nothing to do with “business or occupation,” nothing to do with “sickness” and so on. So technically, they couldn’t vote by absentee ballot. There are hundreds if not thousands of other scenarios.

    All the proposed amendment does is eliminate a recital of what are supposedly all of the reasons necessitating use of absentee ballots. What is the problem?

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, you seem to be invested in defending Mr. Atkins, so much so that you can’t see that by striking the actual enumeration of circumstances by which a person can use an absebtee ballot, and replacing it with a vague term such as “The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing the circumstances, rules and procedures by which registered voters may vote by absentee ballot.” empowers the Legislature with unlimited authority to change at will who can or cannot use an absentee ballot and when.
    But of course I forget, you like giving unlimited authority to elected officials.
    This amendment would have removed this sentence, “The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered,”, so what if the Legislature decided that you didn’t have to be duly registered? Or even a qualified elector?
    Might this not have been the first step in implementing same day registration? They could have done away with any and all rules for voting by absentee ballot, maybe you could have even walked in on the day of the election and cast an absentee ballot.
    We need to be very careful when our elected officials want to boil down real definitions into small phrases left wide open for interpretation. Oh hell there I go and forgot again how much you like that idea.

  5. Rick says:

    Rick, you seem to be invested in defending Mr. Atkins, so much so that you can’t see that by striking the actual enumeration of circumstances by which a person can use an absebtee ballot, and replacing it with a vague term such as “The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing the circumstances, rules and procedures by which registered voters may vote by absentee ballot.” empowers the Legislature with unlimited authority to change at will who can or cannot use an absentee ballot and when.

    Have you read the Delaware Constitution, in particular, Article V Sec. 4a and 4b? It’s included in my previous post. If you had, you’d know that they already have the power to enact “general laws,” to wit;

    The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered..

    What is being deleted by amendment is the recitation of what can only be construed as an incomplete list of those “eligible” to vote by absentee ballot.

    This amendment would have removed this sentence, “The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered”…

    And replace it with this…

    The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing the circumstances, rules and procedures by which registered voters may vote by absentee ballot.

    Personally, I prefer “registered” to ‘qualified,” and I also prefer that all voters who are indisposed on election day for reasons other than “vacation, illness” and so on are eligible to vote.

  6. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick if you are good with having the constitution amended in this manner and allowing the Legislature to make up the circumstances for absentee voting as they go along, well then I guess that is your right. I would prefer that we know the rules ahead of time. Mr. Atkins seems to share your view that there is no need for openness.
    But ask yourself this, what benefit for the voters would have been derived from this change? How would voters have been better off? Was anyone being denied under the current terms?
    Or is it more likely that the Democrats saw some opportunity to manipulate the voting to their favor?
    But hey Rick, you are the guy who is always saying that the socialist Democrats can’t be trusted, but I guess this is the one time they were doing the right thing, huh?

Got something to say? Go for it!