Readers write

No need to know candidates’ religious preferences

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust. Despite that, several of our current state and local candidates feel compelled to tell us in their commercials, print ads and yard signs that they are Christians, thereby, providing the answer to those voters who want to bypass the letter and intent of our Constitution.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson uses the embarrassingly absurd line, “I don’t care if you’re a Muslim or a Mongolian,” as if his gift for alliteration means he’s a tough guy. He might just as well say, “I don’t care if you’re a Catholic or a Canadian, a Hindu or a Hawaiian, a Jew or a Jamaican.”

Brad Raffensperger’s taglines always begin with “Christian.” He would be much better served by saying, “I stood up to Trump and stopped him from stealing the 2020 election.” It might have shown that he has the character and the gumption to be a good governor.

DAVID HORGAN, KENNESAW

Easy to spot political leanings of judicial candidates

My favorite sentence in “Judge will not unseal high court candidates’ suit against commission” (May 13) is: “Judicial races in Georgia are nonpartisan.”

In reality, candidates’ judicial philosophies typically serve as proxies for their political leanings. If that’s not enough for voters to discern political party affiliation, the party and politicians who support the judicial candidates are a dead giveaway.

For example, “Republicans, including Gov. Brian Kemp and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones are backing the incumbent justices (Charlie Bethel and Sarah Warren).” On the flip side, “Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have endorsed (Jen) Jordan and (Miracle) Rankin.”

As for the judge’s ruling to keep the contents of Jordan and Rankin’s lawsuit against the Judicial Qualifications Commission sealed, here’s my second favorite sentence in the article: “The judge is the sister of former Georgia House Democratic leader Stacey Abrams.” ‘Nuff said.

GREGORY MARSHALL, MARIETTA

Unlimited campaign spending is destroying system

Who do politicians work for? Not the average American. Politicians work for themselves to get re-elected (obvious solution: term limits).

Between 1867 and 1935, a number of laws were enacted to curb the corrupting influence of money in politics; then, two Supreme Court rulings in 1978 and 2010 opened the door to virtually unlimited, anonymous spending on political candidates. Money corrupts politicians because their allegiance is to the donors who get them elected.

Now, the rich pour money into politics because they get a better return on investment buying votes than stock. Then, with gerrymandering, the party in power further consolidates its voting bloc by selecting voters, not the other way around.

With primaries, the candidates of the party in power are virtually assured of winning the election. Herein lies the problem: primaries draw out the more radical elements of the electorate, leaving the average voters with no clout at election time.

Lastly, the Electoral College system and senatorial elections give voters in smaller states (money flows there) more clout than those in larger states. We no longer have a representative democracy. Wealth disparity is now obscene. Sad!