More than 60 provisional ballots will determine the outcome of Emporia’s public smoking ban.
When the final hand ballots were counted Tuesday night, those supporting a ban led with a razor-thin margin of 11 votes — 2,336 votes to 2,325 against the ban.
According to Lyon County Clerk Tammy Vopat, provisional ballots are ones that are challenged for some reason.
“If somebody has come in and they’re not on our registration poll books, then we find out why they’re not,” Vopat said. “If they’ve moved, if they’ve changed their name, if they’re out of precinct, there’s a lot of different things that could be in that equation.”
Vopat and her election staff will spend the next two days verifying the provisional ballots with the information she has in the clerk’s office. When the votes are canvassed Friday morning, she’ll have a report for the Lyon County Commission about which provisional votes can be tallied. If accepted, the votes will be added to results.
This morning, the clerk’s office said it had 86 provisional ballots. Of those, at least 61 were cast in the city, which could include the smoking-ban question.
According to statute, the county commission must certify the election results during the canvass. Teresa Walters, one of two new commissioners, also is an organizer of Clean Air Emporia, the group which pushed for the smoking ban. She will abstain from the canvass vote “to remove any possibility from any comments or any impression of influence.”
On Tuesday night, Walters said the Clean Air Emporia group is cautiously optimistic the ban will go into place.
“We know that it’s a small difference in the votes,” Walters said, “and there aren’t a whole lot of provisional ballots. It could certainly change the results either way, but the whole time we were concerned about public health. We hope that the facts that we provided for that went out.”
Walters said if the ban does get voted down by a few votes, Clean Air Emporia would not ask for a recount.
“We’re above that,” Walters said. “The voters decided, and it’s certainly something we can bring up again. It’s inevitable that the state will pass the law as well, so we know that the issue is still alive, and we’re still concerned about public health and we’ll continue to educate on that topic so that when we do bring this up again people will be better educated on the facts rather than the fiction of what was promoted by the opponent.”
Ban opponents haven’t given up yet, either, and won’t until all votes are counted.
“I thought it would be close, but not this close,” said Matt Slater of Emporia Open for Business, the group opposing the ban. “I’m really excited we had as good a turnout as we did, and I’m glad it was as close as it was.”
Slater said Tuesday night the group anticipates the final results, and ban opponents will continue to hope for a victory.
If the ban does pass, Emporia Open for Business plans to let the issue rest.
“We’ll go with whatever the vote says,” Slater said. “We’re just happy the people got to choose.”
If the ban does pass, it will take effect at midnight Friday night.
mashfan (anonymous) says...
Say the ban passes. You go into a bar or any other public place and smoking is still being allowed. What are your options, tell the person smoking to stop, tell the owner, call the police What?
April 8, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
louwho (anonymous) says...
Rumor has it, you call the police. Which will then lead to a $100 fine to that person. So, now that leads to that police officer to fine a person smoking rather then stopping the guy driving drunk down the road........ Hmmm, which one could kill someone faster?
But, that's just rumor.... Not fact....
April 8, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
I would think a friendly reminder that smoking is not allowed is the first step. Then you address it with the owner/manager/employee if you don't get any results. As a final result you would call someone else. I really doubt/hope that ends up being a big deal.
April 8, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
oops that was supposed to say I hope it does NOT end up being a big deal.
April 8, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
royals4life (anonymous) says...
What happens to all of the individuals that happen to live above businesses downtown? Are these people then expected to go somewhere else in order to have a smoke?
April 8, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
acerretti (anonymous) says...
You know if I don't like cigarette smoke I don't go to places that allow it. I understand the issues on both sides, but something I have been reminded of in this whole hul-a-ba-loo is that we are fortunate enough to live in a nation where we are given the right to choose, vote on the issue, (unless you live outside city limits) and the majority will determine as a democratic society was intended to be.
I WAS dissappointed in the fact that non-city dwellers were not allowed to vote on this issue. We shop, dine, and participate in Emporia functions. We are invited and encouraged to "shop Emporia first", but our vote isn't warranted to be of value in this question. Why on earth not? Can someone tell me why the non-city dwellers WERE excluded?
April 8, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
royals4life;
technically: if they are sitting by their open window and smoking within 10' of an entrance which many could be, they are breaking the law as written. I don't think the city would enforce it though. That is a good idea for the next ban though, apartment complexes.
April 8, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yellowdog (anonymous) says...
Answer to accerretti about why they are not included: It's real simple. The original ordinance was passed by the city commission and the ban issue applies to that ordinance. If it were originally a county ordinance, people living outside the city would have been able to vote on it. Simple boundaries. The city is not trying to exclude anyone, it is just a matter of where the ordinance originated from.
April 8, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gooseylucy (anonymous) says...
I think we should vote on wether or not county folks get to vote on city issues. I just isn't fair. We could form a group called CAE "Countians Are Excluded". And then another group could form called EOB "Emporians Only no Backwoodsers". What do ya think? Sorry, I think this long drawn out SHS issue has gotten me a little punchy! I'm just ready for the final vote count, so we can all move on. One way or the other.
April 8, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
“We’re above that,” Walters said.
OH MAN! Give me minute. Hang on. Oh my. Snort, chortle. Okay. I've stopped laughing. Now, that is funny!
"She (Theresa Walters) will abstain from the canvass vote “to remove any possibility from any comments or any impression of influence.”
And we know she won't be lobbying and attempting to influence the other commissioners until then. She's above that. Oh no! Hang on; here it comes again!
April 8, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
Louwho is right.
It would be tragic if someone was killed by a drunk driver because the police were too busy enforcing the ban on second hand smoke. If I were the family of the drunk driver's victim, I would definitely include the smoker in the subsequent civil suit. Afterall, it was his illegal action that forced the police to take the time to issue him a citation rather than allow officers to remain on the street and possibly catch the drunk.
I wonder if the family could sue the bar owner for not taken care of the problem before the police had to be called in?
April 8, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
Good Idea, Goose. And because residents of Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado spend money in Kansas, we should allow them to vote on state issues, too.
April 8, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Jesus would have voted pro-ban.
April 8, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Juan 8:44 (Nueva Versión Internacional)
44 Ustedes son de su padre, EL DIABLO, cuyos deseos quieren cumplir. Desde el principio éste ha sido un asesino, y no se mantiene en la verdad, porque no hay verdad en él. Cuando miente, expresa su propia naturaleza, porque es un mentiroso. ¡Es el padre de la mentira!
John 8:44 (New International Version)
44You belong to your father, THE DEVIL, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
April 8, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Yellowdog
What people are forgetting is your city is in my county so county folks should have voted.
April 8, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Jesus would have been against smoking.
April 8, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
It's all Led Zeplin backwards on an LP album to me, lol
April 8, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
imagine (anonymous) says...
since jesus has been drug into this let me share my favorite jesus line. "jesus was a capricorn he ate organic foods, he believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes, long hair, beard, and sandals and a funky bunch of friends, reckon they'd just nail him up if he came down again." in emporia they just might.
April 8, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"The voters decided, and it’s certainly something we can bring up again."
Please don't.
Matt
April 8, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"we’ll continue to educate on that topic so that when we do bring this up again people will be better educated on the facts rather than the fiction of what was promoted by the opponent.”
Before a County Commissioner calls people liars, they might want to make sure said people can't swing enough votes to get said County Commissioner recalled...
Matt
April 9, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
It simply proves emporia cant make decisions for themselves, they have to use the government to make the decision for them.
You know whats really retarded. Spending time on this bill. If smoking is so freaking bad why dont you go for banning smoking period, not the little bs ordinances that take rights away from business owners because the fact that smoking is still legal. There really is no point to define laws like this teresa walters, go for banning smoking period NOT pulling rights away from business owners for allowing legal activities.
As far as im concerned if you enter a restaurant that allows smoking whether you sit in the smoking section or not your going to be exposed to the smoke and you should know this when entering the building in the first place, It was your decision to enter the building that allowed smoking EVEN if you sit in the non smoking section and can still smell the smoke in the air.
As far as the it can kill you arguement.
A lot more than smoking can kill someone.
As far as smoking being still legal.
Why should it be illegal for a business owner to allow smoking when smoking is still legal its just flat out stupid and a waste of cash.
As far as the public health goes.
Worry about your own lifestyle and places you choose to shop and do business (The places that dont allow smoking) dont worry about mine and pulling my rights away unless your going to go after the source (SMOKING) Not Limiting places to smoke.
Why should the smoker have more rights than me?
He doesnt he can smoke in a restaurant that can allow smoking and you can sit in a restaurant that doesnt allow smoking and he cant smoke.
Oh and if its the kids arguement.
Simple make it 18+ to enter the establishment that allows since its the law that you have to be 18 to use tobacco in the first place.
Yeah so this sums it up.
As Long as SMOKING is still legal BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW SMOKING IN HIS OR HER BUSINESS.
When should the customer decide what a business does or allows?
When the customer spends the money at the establishment.
April 9, 2009 at 1:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Its like an adult store, if you dont like that sort of stuff you dont go inside the store.
If you dont like watching naughty videos you dont watch them.
If you dont like smoke. Ban it period. Dont limit peoples rights. And dont go to an establishment that allows it the smoke will be in the air anyways smoking or non.
If you dont like cartoons. You dont have to watch them.
April 9, 2009 at 1:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Oh yeah if your worried about your health you would not go into the restaurant that allowed smoking in the first place therefore you wouldnt need to worry about this ordinance because you can make your own decisions for yourself.
I dont want you worrying about my health, I can make decisions for myself thank you for better or for worse.
April 9, 2009 at 2:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
You also would not go eat fast food if your worried about getting overweight/getting obese and trans fats (AKA Worrying about health).
April 9, 2009 at 2:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Ok So today we have learned something.
If this ordinance passes it proves half of emporia cannot make a decision for themselves.
(Whether or not to put health at risk or not nope i cannot decide for myself so im going to have the government make that decision for me because i believe in big government is my daddy and im not really an adult because i cannot make my own decisions!)
Why not ban smoking overall. The ordinance itself is stupid. Protect public from smoking my rear. THEY WILL JUST SMOKE AT HOME. This ordinance is NOT ABOUT protecting the public its just another way of saying I dont like smoking so ban it.
April 9, 2009 at 2:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
IF YOU REALLY wanted to protect the public teresa walters you would go for ban smoking overall, because your ordinance is not big enough to "Actually" protect the public from smoking as if you really cared if someone smoked at home or not and are hurting his or her health as long as its not in your face you dont care.
Well it wouldnt be in your face if you were actually smart enough to make the decision not to go into the place that allowed smoking even if it had a non smoking section there is still smoke in there air and you know it so dont go into the business and spend your money.
April 9, 2009 at 2:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevelle_Joe (anonymous) says...
PocketKings has a very solid point. I'm a young non smoker, however I smoked cigarettes a lot for quite some time. I frequent the bars often. All of my favorite bars are bars that you are able to smoke in. When I quit I decided to for health reasons as well as financial reasons. But I do know full well when entering bars that I will be introduced to second hand smoke. I don't like the second hand smoke one bit and I DO know the health threats that it entails however I still frequent the same smoky bars without fail. Would I live longer and enjoy seeing the bars smoke free?? I surely would but I also realize the problem that arises when government has too much influence in the small everyday rights that have been prevalent for hundreds of years such as smoking cigarettes. I live within the city limits of Emporia and I have for four years. Before that I lived just a few miles out of town where my family for generations has always come to Emporia to shop and eat and support the town. I didn't vote on this particular question in the election because I do believe in banning smoke but I do not believe in the way the city is going about it just as PocketKings does. And not only that but the rest of my family who has been bringing their business to this town for two centuries cannot vote because they farm and spend more money and pay more taxes than most of the people that live among me in this town.
April 9, 2009 at 3:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevelle_Joe (anonymous) says...
I do find it interesting that the same issues were just as important in the late 1800's as they are now.. check out the article titled 'Topic of the Times' on this website listed below. It is the first article on the left hand side of the page about halfway down. It even mentions William Allen White. How crazy is that..
Sorry this website does not allow links so you have to copy it from here and paste it to your web bar.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-...
April 9, 2009 at 4:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevelle_Joe (anonymous) says...
Oh well I guess the link does work when you post it..
April 9, 2009 at 4:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
After over a year of experience here in Chicago, now that the fanfare has worn off and the lobbyists have moved on to other states, it's clearly obvious that trying to ban smoking in small neighborhood "shot and beer" bars is pretty useless. Many small bars in my area ignore the ban to keep their customers, neighbors, and local police (many are patrons when off duty) satisfied. In areas where real crime is an issue, the problem of undesirables being attracted by groups of people outside the bars and causing disturbances on the PUBLIC street, property that the owner has no control over, far outweighs the issue of people peacefully smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, All of the complaints are from neighbors of bars that comply. It's fading into history in many small neighborhood bars. The only places it becomes an issue seems to be in rural areas where local police have little to do except visit local bars and monitor their parking lots.
April 9, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
I've said it before, here it is again...Emporia has numerous laws that are never enforced, so even if the ban passes I doubt enforcement---or for that matter, compliance--- is going to be an issue.
There is a law prohibiting really loud music from cars, but it’s not enforced. It never has been.There is a law against littering, never enforced; I don't recall EVER seeing a littering ticket listed in he local paper.
Jay-walking is illegal and has been for years, burning rubber, running red lights, speeding, making “J” turns, drinking in public, graffiti, etc.
Remember after we were forced to build a skateboard park the then-acting chief of police saying that from that point on there would be zero tolerance for skateboarding on the sidewalks downtown? Yeah. Right. The only problem a skate boarder is going to have is dodging the bike riders...(also illegal).
The irony is that other cities are proving that ticketing violators existing laws, without using any Gestapo tactics, are a cash cow for revenue. But in Emporia and Lyon County its just easier to raise property and sales tax.
April 9, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"most people will fall in line without the need for enforcement."
Wow, you ARE a socialist!
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.
April 9, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...
“The only thing stopping some people from doing these things is that there is a CHANCE they could get caught and be punished. In other words, the risk of being punished isn't worth doing these things for many people.”
I'm afraid I wouldn’t say “many” people…some people, would be much more accurate…apparently the high-school aged fellow in the Ford pickup didn’t think so at about 1:45 this afternoon as he burned rubber at 6th and Commercial and was probably doing 50 before he screeched around the block up near the college. Fact is most kids know they the odds of violating traffic laws downtown are pretty slim. One sees some amazing things during the daylight hour’s right under our noses downtown and “some” of those people obviously feel quite safe pulling their antics.
Almost any Saturday or Sunday you can find about as many kids skateboarding at Capital Federal as you can in the park. I know the people at Cap-Fed have been trying to stop it for a long time…obvious liability issues, don’t you know. It would be easier if the cops simply wrote the kids, or better yet their parents, a hefty citation. It would increase the revenue of the city coffers and teach all involved that laws are passed---ostensibly---for good reason.
It will be 2, maybe 3 years ago this July when a Kansas law went into effect saying that if one’s windshield wipers are operating, then ones headlights must be on as well. We sat downtown one rainy day and counted HUNDREDS of people violating the law…a law that is actually a fairly good one and was enacted for the safety of drivers and pedestrians alike. We figured that even at twenty five dollars a ticket a policeman downtown could have generated thousands of legitimate dollars, doing no more than enforcing the law which is, after all, a patrolman’s job.
I see djdiablo’s point…it is wasted money. As an aside I read where Chicago is enforcing it’s generations old jaywalking statute…granted they are much, much larger than we, as a city, but it is amount to TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars of much-needed revenue DAILY. All for just doing what they’re supposed to do.
Amazing, eh?
April 9, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack
So if someone knows the consequence of breaking the law they should avoid breaking the law. That makes sense. Why then is it unreasonable to ask those that know the consequences of breathing shs to avoid it? It seems to me that all this could have been avoided almost as easily as shs is to avoid.
April 9, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Bloomsbury,
You said Chicago is enforcing jaywalking. I know Lawrence is doing the same (at least on Mass St.) We were there three weeks or so ago, and a group of about 6 people ran across the street, and all got tickets for it. Even at $20 per ticket, thats still $120, and paid for the cop to be out there for 3 or 4 hours.
April 9, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Wacky just plain Wacky!!
April 10, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )