Hey you, vote Tuesday

Yeah YOU. Did you know that there's an election on Tuesday? That's OK - I forgot too.

A handful of registered Democrats and independents who remember to go to the polls across North Carolina will be selecting the nominee for Commissioner of Labor. But more interestingly (to me, anyway) voters in the newly-created northern district of Orange County will be selecting their first County Commissioner to represent District 2.

Steve Yuhasz and Leo Allison finished the primary with 37% and 27% respectively. Yuhasz' failure to get over 40% qualified Allison to ask for a run-off.

Unfortunately I'm out of town, or I would drive around Hillsborough and parts north this weekend and see what going on. Are people talking about the election? How many people will vote on Tuesday?

The results will come in at: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/Orange/4609/6585/en/summary.html



I figured that whichever commissioner candidate contacted me in some semi-direct way and made a good pitch would get my vote as well as maybe 25 other votes I'm sure I could drum up. I still don't know if it's even worth my while to vote. You would think that anyone qualified to be a commissioner would have the native intelligence to contact other campaigns in the county and take advantage of the ready-made networks.

Plus it just seems stupid that we don't have instant run-off voting. Where are the ever-whining so-called fiscal conservatives on this?

LOL...I could certainly be considered by many accounts "fiscally conservative" (and maybe even "ever-whining"), and I'm all for instant run-off voting.
I meant to vote today when I was up in Hillsborough.  I even thought about it when I was headed down King St. but had something else to do first and then never got back over there.  Guess I'll have to vote on Election Day for the first time.  Steve Yuhasz' office abuts the back of our store so perhaps I have a slightly skewed perspective, but it seems from my observation that his signs (and button-wielding supporters) outnumber Leo Allison's by at least two to one. Overall, though, it seems like things are pretty quiet. I'm glad that Leo has made the effort to come out to a number of public meetings that didn't seem to attract the other candidates, even when there were four, but I hope he has been campaigning more than I know about or I'm afraid he won't stand much of a chance on Tuesday.

If you are at Hog Day today, stop by and meet either candidate. They both will have booths set up. Personally I think Steve Yuhasz is the right candidate at the right time. As I put it in my endorsement letter published in several papers this week, including today's CH Herald,

"The most pressing issues confronting Orange County concern its fiscal health and the need to diversify the tax base. The commissioners will soon adopt a new comprehensive plan. The next slate of commissioners will establish the guidelines for how Orange County develops over the next 20 years.

Steve Yuhasz's 25 years experience as a land surveyor in Orange County make him uniquely qualified to advise the commissioners on using the plan and its enabling ordinances as tools to guide desired residential and commercial development in a sustainable fashion"

to read the full letter, check out http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A259861

For the OP audience, I'd like to explain more fully why I think Steve's 25 years experience as a surveyor makes him uniquely, and best, qualified to represent District 2.

Over the year’s Steve has represented hundreds of rural families, farmers and small business owners before the County Commissioners in land-use and zoning issues. He’s drafted conservation plans that now preserve many Orange County farms. He’s been a Planning Board member and served on the Economic Development Commission when the Economic Development Districts were designed.

Simply put, Steve has substantial historical and current in-depth knowledge of how the county’s rules and regulation shape the county's growth and conservation efforts. This knowledge can be put to good use now when it is needed to put the new Comprehensive Plan into action.

Allan Rosen

Anybody else get a Yuhasz card in the mail? His only issue was to remind people that he opposed the transfer tax.

The Weekly Independent asked the following question on its candidate questionaire to the OC commissioner candidates, "The BOCC voted to put the land transfer tax on the ballot this spring. Do you personally support the land transfer tax as a revenue option for the county? Please explain why or why not."

Allison answered, "The county does need another revenue source. However, I think that it is a personal matter for the voters to decide whether or not to vote in favor of the land transfer tax as that revenue source. The voters need to make their decision based on real facts and not emotion and misinformation. I applaud the commissioners for implementing a voter education process so they can make an informed decision." (see his complete questionnaire at http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A256796)

Yuhasz answered, "I am opposed to the land transfer tax. A tax designed to raise general use funds by taxing only a small proportion of the citizenry is fundamentally unfair. This tax is generally unpopular among the citizens of District 2."  (http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A252828)


Allan Rosen

I live in District 2 & voted FOR the transfer tax. My property taxes are too high already.
So who are folks supporting? And why?
So why do you care about the Dist. 2 race? According to Ms. Sinreich the "newly-created northern district of Orange County" which is "Hillsborugh and parts north" on the map. Did you move, or are you still in southwest Orange with me?
Regardless of where folks live in the county, they ought to be concerned about the District 2 race.  We all get to vote for every seat in November.  And even were that not the case, these folks are still going to make decisions that affect us in both districts.  That said, I don't think districting is going to change anything about the end results of commission votes, though it may make for some more raucous debates depending on who is elected... one of the many reasons I opposed this district plan from the beginning.

The commissioners are elected in the primaries. Game over.

That's another reason this district plan is broken, if only in practicality.  Of course, hypothetically if Republican filing continues to be nil, a progressive could switch parties, get a free pass on the primary and make for the first of their life in the general election with the whole electorate in play.  It's make for a good movie, anyway.  Of course, no matter how die-hard a Democrat I may be, I'd love to see a solid independent or third-party run for a seat sometime.
There will be many thousands of voters voting for Obama who won't even know the names of one county commissioner candidate and will vote a straight ticket. Then the commisisoners who won the Democratic primary and were elected by a relative minority of county voters will claim a mandate and the press will play along while the Democratic Party insiders wink. 

#1--President is not included in straight ticket voting, so those only wanting to vote for Obama and no one else can easily do so.

#2--Yuhasz is in no way an "insider" and while Leo is active in the party, he is was not prompted in any way to run by party leaders or activists, even though many of us support him as individuals. I only wish we "insiders" had anywhere near the power Mark gives us.

I voted at Efland at 9:15, I was number 33.  



Paul Falduto

It was very obvious that Leo Allison was "the establishment's" candidate of choice.  When the chairman (Jack Sanders) of the OC Democrat Party openly endorses a candidate in a Democrat Primary by participating in an advertisement in the News of Orange County, that is almost all anyone needs to know.  Of course, the usual cast of downtown Hillsborough regulars and Barry Jacobs showed their preference towards Allison as well.

Yuhasz's win is particularly sweet because he was the more conservative of the two candidates and because he will represent RURAL Orange County ... not Chapel Hill or Carrboro or areas outside of District 2 ... as it should be.

Some of you believe that an elected board who shares the same view points and goals make government work best.  I couldn't disagree more.  Diverse viewpoints provide discourse and thorough discussion that would not occur otherwise.  I look forward to nexts year's BOCC meetings.


This link will take you to the County's distric map. 


maybe someone who knows how can post the map on line

We recently had a discussion as to where Bingham Township aka Southwest Orange County was in the north vs south orange county debate. Ms. Sinreich define the north as Hillsborough and points north, thereby putting Bingham Township in the south. I wish we would ban the north/south terms and refer to the areas of the county as city and rural.
I think he was supporting your point, PL.  No need to get testy with him.
I just wish we in Bingham would succeed and join Alamance Co. :)
amen to that
not succeed
You missed the pun allan.
I was Voter #34 in the Eastside Precinct (Ephesus Road School) at 4pm.
Over here in Raleigh, I voted at 8 am on the way to work and was voter #1 in my precinct, 90 minutes after the polls opened.  943 voted in the Democratic presidential primary in my precinct (not counting early voters in either total)

At 12:15, I was voter 23 at the Weaver Dairy precinct. The poll workers are getting lots of reading done and amusing themselves by figuring out their average number of voters per hour.

Mia Burroughs

I was voter #16 at N Carrboro at around 11:30. The woman working the poll said there was good turn out from my neighborhood. That impression may be because voter #15 was my wife who voted about an hour earlier.


So, only 2,669 voters decided our District 2 commissioner (Yuhasz won, 1,486 to 1,183) following District 1 being decided by the electoral version of a consent agenda?  It's amazing that this could take place in the same election cycle as the highest turnout primary in history.

2669 voted in the District 2 runoff, which was a bit more than I expected. That was still only about 1/4 of those who voted in May. Yuhasz beat Allison by 56-44, about 300 votes. (Dislclaimer here: I supported Allison).

Allison won early voting (about 1/4 of all votes) as well as Hillsborough, West Hillsborough, Grady Brown, Patterson and Cheeks. Yuhasz won Efland, Caldwell, Tolars, Cedar Grove, Orange Grove, Coles Store (by one vote), Eno, St. Marys, White Cross and Cameron Park. Carr Store was a tie.

Turnout was (relatively) high in precincts Yuhasz won and low in those Allison won. For example, 203 voted in Caldwell, which Yuhasz won 168-35, almost half his winning margin. In Cedar Grove 125 voted and Yuhasz again won big, 103-22. In Efland, Yuhasz won 97-53. Those three precincts, which were among the four that had turnout of over 10%, provided Yuhasz with 85% of his winning margin. Allison won the other precinct with over 10%, Hillsbourough, by 57-50. 

These are just election day and doesn't count early voting, which Allison won 310-238.  I would guess most of these votes were from the Town of Hillsborough-area precincts, three of which went of Allison on election day althought the fourth, Cameron Park, went heavily for Yuhasz (120-43). In summary, counting most of early voting as Hillsborough-area, it appears that Allison slightly won this 4-precinct area. Yuhasz slightly won the four "southern" precincts (Coles Store, Orange Grove, White Cross and Patterson).

It was the rural northern Orange precincts that carried Yuhasz: of those 8, Allison won only one (Cheeks) and they tied in Carr Store. Efland, Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Tolars, St. Marys and Eno were the precincts where Yuhasz won the race: his margin in those 6 precints (369) exceeded his overall margin of 303 votes.  Again, turnout was generally high in precincts Yuhasz won and low in those Allison won. For example, my home precinct of Efland (which Yuhasz won by 44) had 150 vote on election day, Cheeks (which Allison won by 20) had only 168, even though it has twice as many voters as Efland.

Paul Falduto




Okay, Mark M, now I'm a total convert to the instant run-off alternative.  I'm glad Yuhasz won, but his time is too valuable to waste on yesterday's puny show of redundant support. 
For every vote cast in Orange County it cost $20 plus dollars on Tuesday. It was reported in the press earlier that the election cost for both races was $75,000 and there were 3727 votes cast. Always looking for a way to save money instant runoffs seem to be a way to save. As a worker at the polls it will be hard job to education the voters but I am willing.

it's really a lot more complex, confusing, expensive and time consuming than you know.

Since there is no software to tabulate IRV elections on our equipment, we would have to do it all by hand. The Wake BOE states that it took 6 hours to set up and tabulate a little over 3000 ballots in October 2007. You couldn't start tabulating the 2nd and 3rd choice ballots until you got the 1st column votes certified. We didn't get that done until May 22 - 2.5 weeks after the May 6 election. If you started tabulating (sorting/stacking and counting) the 150,000 Democratic votes in Wake County, it would take you 7.5 weeks to do - finishing up on or about July 16 - 3 weeks from now. And that does not include the time it would take to do an "audit" to make sure you got it right - and that would mean doing the whole tabulation all over again.

If you want some more information about IRV - check out the following websites:

Center for Range Voting http://rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html

Libertarian Reform Caucus http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/runoff.php

North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting http://www.ncvoter.net/irv.html

The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv


And also - http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf


Chris Telesca

-- Sign the Petition to Restore Election Integrity in NC by opposing IRV http://gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-instant-runoff-voting.html

Except for the Durham AL BOE race, where the second-place finisher won (and big, with over 80% of the vote), the other runoffs that I know of (OC BOCC District 2, state Labor Commissioner, one state senate primary, one state rep primary) made no difference as the first-place candidate in May won again. In none of these cases was it close; our own BOCC race was the closest and that was 11% difference. There may have been other local runoffs, but I'm not aware of them. That said, none was a complete blowout, so I don't blame the second-place finishers from requesting runoffs. And since John Brooks requested a runoff, the lege and local races that had a runoff cost very little additional money since every precinct in the state had to conduct a second primary . Spending $3-4 million statewide for one election runoff for an office that shouldn't even be elected, in my opinion, (I won't go there now, in another post perhaps) and one that only about 1% of voters came out for, is ridiculous. We had 5% turnout in Orange, but that was overwhemlingly due to the BOCC race; otherwise we'd have been at about the statewide turnout  of 1.8%. That was true in other areas too: almost 9000 voted in Pitt, Lenior and Wayne counties in a state senate Democrat runoff and Durham added close to 8000 more due to their BOE runoff. Those two counties alone accounted for 25% of statewide turnout.   

Cary has IRV, we should ask for it for OC and its municipalities too, and also for the state to adopt it for Council of State and state legislature races.


They only participated in a pilot project that expired this year with no counties participating.  The SBOE knew in March 2007 that IRV posed a risk to the May 2008 election.  It would be foolish and irresponsible to recommend extending the IRV pilot or even trying it out until you know exactly what the risk was and if it is possible to eliminate it.  


-- Sign the Petition to Restore Election Integrity in NC by opposing IRV http://gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-instant-runoff-voting.html

Other than ignorance, why would anyone oppose IRV? I'm curious as to why this isn't as easy as falling off a log.


It requires more thought (awareness?) than most voters are likely to have for every race subject to runoff. In the Orange County District 2 race first primary, there were 2700 undervotes (ballots that did not mark any oval for the race). 2700 voters that couldn't decide who their FIRST choice was, much less their second, third or fourth. Given the minimal opportunites for educating voters about the candidates (no countywide radio, the expense of print advertising, the small number of public forums), asking them to make informed choices at that level is just not reasonable.

I agree that the current runoff system needs to be fixed. The runner-up has no incentive NOT to call for a runoff. He knows that the turnout will be a fraction of the first primary, and that a concerted effort among a relatively small group of dedicated supporters MAY negate the choice made by the much larger group of voters in the first primary.

There is a simple solution: Carry the votes from the first primary into the runoff.

Where the vote is close (as in the Durham School Board election- 1400 votes - less than 2% spread) the runnerup might reasonably expect to be able to make up the difference with even a 5% turnout. Where the difference is substantial (e.g. the C of L race) the near impossiblity of overcoming the winner's lead should discourage unnecessary runoffs.

This scheme would appropriately reward the winner of the first primary while still allowing a second chance vote where the outcome of the first primary may not truly reflect the will of the voting electorate. It eliminates the possibility of a small group overturning the choice of a much greater number of voters. It recognizes the difficulty of ranking, with very little information, candidates who may have very similar views and positions. And it requires no change in the way elections are run.

How would this proposal stand in a court of law, and can you name anyplace in the US where this is done?  The way I see it a voter who votes in the second primary will have their vote counted twice.

I perfer and encourage people who are unsure who to vote for to skip that race.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Instant Runoff Voting Not Constitutional says St. Paul MN City Attorney - not obligated to place the proposed IRV charter amendment on ballot

June 18, 2008. St. Paul Minnesota.

A proposed amendment to require St. Paul to conduct local elections using instant runoff voting is not constitutional, according to John Choi, City Attorney for Saint Paul. The City Council may put the amendment on the ballot but it is not recommended.

At issue is a petition that is deemed to have sufficient signatures on it. Joseph Mansky, the Ramsey County Elections Manager expressed five issue of concern with the petition's substance.

City Attorney Choi answers in a letter today to City Council President Cathy Lantry, some excerpts below:

Questions presented:

1. Does the City Council have the legal authority to not submit a charter proposal to the voters?
2. Is whether the recently filed petition for a charter amendment that proposes Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) constitutional and without any legal defects?
3. As the City's chief legal officer, please share with us any legal advice about best managing the City's liabilities and other legal considerations that you may deem important for the City Council to consider in determining whether to put the proposed IRV petition on the 2008 Ballot.


This office has anticipated these questions and over the past eighteen (18 months has thoroughly researched, reviewed and considered all of the legal issues associated with IRV. During that time, I enlisted the resources of two assistant city attorneys and the deputy city attorney of the civil division for independent analyses of IRV's legality. Although it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty the judicial response to IRV, all three attorneys independently concluded that IRV is more likely than not to be determined unconstitutional and suffering from other legal defects by a reviewing

...I am keenly aware that voters in the City of Minneapolis recently approved IRV and the parallel that plays regarding the extraordinary effort put into gathering the petition signatures to place IRV on the ballot in Saint Paul. I am also aware of the intense local public interest in IRV in Saint Paul. It is, however, not this office's role to consider the policy wisdom or popularity of IRV but only to answer the legal question you have presented.

Accordingly, it is the professional opinion of the City Attorney's Office that for the reasons stated herein, IRV is more likely than not to be determined by a reviewing court to be in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. In addition, a reviewing court would likely rule that the City is precluded by Minn. Stat 205.02 from enacting IRV as its voting system. If the City Council so chooses, the City is not obligated to place the proposed IRV charter amendment on the ballot. ... Case law, however has long recognized a city's right to refuse to place a manifestly unconstitutional charter amendment on the ballot.

Legal considerations the Council may deem important to consider in determining whether to put the proposed IRV petition on the 2008 Ballot:

The Council is faced with two permissible options: to place the IRV petition on the ballot; or to refuse to place it on the ballot. While most petitions are placed on the ballot as a matter of course, the Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized a city's legitimate need to avoid"a futile election and a total waste of taxpayer's money." Davies, 316 N.W.2d at 504.

This concern is particularly compelling for two reasons: First, as described in Mr. Mansky's letter, IRV's cost is particularly high; and second, the City of Minneapolis is currently in litigation over the validity of an IRV provision adopted by its voters. That case, likely to be appealed regardless of the outcome at the district court level, should resolve the question of IRV's legality and constitutionality. The Council could reasonably conclude to wait for a decision in that case before placing the IRV petition on the ballot....


Based on the foregoing, we answer your questions as follows: The City is not obligated to place the proposed IRV charter amendment on the ballot. The City is expressly precluded from enacting IRV as its voting system by Minn. Stat 205.02 and it is not impliedly authorized by the Minnesota Constitution. The Council, to avoid "a futile election and a total waste of taxpayer's money", could wait to act until it knows the outcome of the pending litigation regarding IRV.

A group of citizens called the Minnesota Voters Alliance is currently challenging the constitutionality of IRV. They are prepared to take the issue to the US Supreme Court.

IRV has been promoted heavily by Fair Vote in North Carolina, but a recent pilot program had meager participation, ballots were difficult to count, and the pilot program expired. More information about the IRV experiment in North Carolina at the website of the NC Coalition for Verified Voting, NC Voter.


-- Sign the Petition to Restore Election Integrity in NC by opposing IRV http://gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-instant-runoff-voting.html

How hard could it be to tell voters to list the candidates in order of preference? Sometimes I think we try too hard to visualize stupidity.

 Your scheme leaves voters who did not vote for either of the candidates who made the run-off without a vote.

In 2006, North Carolina's General Assembly approved a pilot program that allowed communities to test the use of the so-called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV is a form of ranked-choice voting where voters casting a ballot to rank from one to three choices for each office in races with more than two candidates

The pilot program was supposed to be managed by the NC State Board of Elections, but our legislature didn’t appropriate any extra funding. Several non-profit advocacy groups took advantage of that funding vacuum to “assume” a great deal of responsibility for the IRV pilot program. Two non-profits even paid for an SBOE staffer to travel overseas to observe Scottish ranked choice elections. No one kept track of the value of all that in-kind “volunteer” support.

The political parties were not allowed to participate in the planning of the IRV pilot. Before the elections, Democratic leaders asked for but were not provided with information before the election about how the program would be conducted and evaluated.

Many communities were asked to participate, but most refused outright. 4 voted NO, but only 2 - Cary and Hendersonville – participated in the IRV pilot in 2007. Only one single contest in Cary involving a little more than 3000 votes in 8 precincts went to the instant runoff. That is statistically insignificant compared to 5.8 million voters in 2800 precincts in 548 municipalities in North Carolina’s 100 counties! Supporters claim the pilot was a success, but no counties volunteered to participate in the 2008 pilot.

NC passed some of the nation’s toughest election laws in 2005 after paperless DRE touchscreen voting machines lost thousands of Carteret County votes in the 2004 General Election. Our highly praised and hard-won election laws created tough standards that are key to protecting 5.8 million North Carolina voters from harm caused by uncertified software, counting errors, and unscrupulous vendors.

But now those standards are under attack from IRV that is being misrepresented as election reform. IRV advocates want IRV to be an option for the future, and are asking the General Assembly to extend and expand the IRV pilot. Many of their claims about IRV are simply not true once you look beyond the hype and the sophistry.

IRV does not ensure majority winners in one single election. The winner of our state’s single "instant runoff" contest took office with 1401 votes – less than 50% plus one vote (1512) of the 3022 votes cast. Our state’s current election equipment won’t tabulate IRV ballots, so the IRV ballots had to be tabulated by hand with workarounds that violated state election laws. And one small error in that tabulation cascaded info a recount that was done another day when the public could not observe it. In the 20 IRV elections in San Francisco held since adopting IRV, any elections going into an IRV “runoff” were won with less than a majority.

IRV only saves money if you consider nothing more than a single IRV election being cheaper than two elections (original plus runoff). While runoff elections are very rarely needed, IRV would require new & more expensive programming, additional voter education and training for poll workers and election administrators, and increased ballot printing expenditures. Candidates would need to spend time and money educating voters. We might need to purchase new voting machines. All those costs would have to be paid for even if no races ever required an instant runoff!

Other states have considered and rejected IRV once they researched the high costs of implementation – something our state has yet to estimate. MD estimated costs of $3.08 to $3.52 per registered voter for start-up costs, and 48 cents per voter every subsequent election year. Once you factor the extra costs of implementation and administration of IRV for all our 5.8 million registered voters, NC might need to spend $18 million up front to implement IRV and millions every election year thereafter. Over a 33 year time frame that adds up to an additional $40 million above and beyond the cost of holding rarely needed runoff elections.

IRV supporters claim that we could have avoided the June 24 statewide runoff by using IRV in the May primary. As far back as March 2007 our own State Board of Elections considered IRV too risky to use in the May 2008 primary due to heavy turnout in the Democratic primary and the use of the new Same Day Registration at Early Voting sites. Had NC used IRV in the May 2008, we might have suffered a Florida-style election meltdown.

IRV supporters claim that many people and organizations support IRV, but how many of know both sides of the issue? And how many more oppose IRV in silence?

You won’t hear IRV advocates tell you how hard a hard time they had getting two out of 548 NC municipalities to be IRV guinea pigs. They won’t tell you that 4 municipalities voted not to participate in the IRV pilot once they knew about the risks. What did those 4 know about IRV that the other two didn’t know? Those 4 knew the risks and got public feedback before taking their votes.

-- Sign the Petition to Restore Election Integrity in NC by opposing IRV http://gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-instant-runoff-voting.html

So $55 dollar per vote statewide on Tuesday is a good use of taxpayer dollars?


Progressive Pitbill, are you playing with a full deck?

How about the person with the most votes wins, with no 40% threshold. Take the labor race, I don't care that Mary Fant Donnan only received 27% of the vote. She won! She beat out three other very good candidates. Why have a do-over?

One man with courage makes a majority.

- Andrew Jackson

From today's N&O:


Just got this message from DemocracyNC:

Please immediately contact your state Senator and Senate leaders with this Alert message: Support the pilot program to let cities use the Instant Runoff method to avoid costly, low-turnout elections.

The pilots worked in Cary and Hendersonville in 2007. A bill (S-1263) to continue the pilot passed the House, but the Senate may gut it TODAY unless you act now.

We’re not asking for Instant Runoff Voting everywhere – just in a few communities that want to see how it helps their elections.

IRV can save voters the trouble (and taxpayers the money) of a second election. It works this way: You pick a top choice and also mark one or two back-up choices in case a runoff is needed and your top choice gets eliminated. Your top-ranked candidate always gets your vote if he or she is in the race; your back-up choices are only looked at if a runoff takes place and your top-ranked candidate is not in it.

Please Click HERE to Act Now so communities have a chance to use this method.


Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.