City of Madison mayoral candidates speak to News 19 ahead of Aug. 26 election
MADISON, Ala. (WHNT) — In just two months, voters in the City of Madison will elect a new mayor. This comes as long-time Mayor Paul Finley is not seeking re-election.
The Madison Municipal Election is Tuesday, August 26th. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. that day, and one of the races on the ballot will be for mayor.
Dates to remember for Madison municipal elections
So far, three candidates have filled out their qualifying paperwork and told News 19 that they are officially in the race. Those candidates are: Ranae Bartlett, Margi Daly, and Steve Smith.
Voters may recognize Bartlett's name as she is a sitting city council member and previously served on the school board.
Bartlett told News 19 that she hopes voters recognize the leadership qualities she says she could bring to the office.
'I'm the only elected official who is running for mayor, and I think that people trust me, that I'm honest,' Bartlett said. 'Being financially responsible is a key component of being mayor.'
'Our market is resilient': Madison County housing market shows promise amidst national market slowdown
She said, if elected, she would focus on improving infrastructure and keeping schools strong.
'I think for the next administration, what we really need to focus on are roads and traffic and answering those concerns of our citizens,' Bartlett said. 'When we look forward to what we will be focused on, we're going to look at roads and schools.'
'I believe that Madison deserves leadership who listens intently, plans strategically, and delivers results for the people who elect them to serve,' she added.
Madison resident Margi Daly tells News 19 that she is a 'for the people' candidate and that she is running a 'grassroots campaign' for mayor. She said fiscal responsibility is her top priority.
'I'm for the people,' she said. 'I'm tired of watching the money be wasted, every council we're spending millions of dollars, and it's going to be on the backs of 19,000 rooftops,' Daly added.
Daly said improving infrastructure and quality of life in Madison would be a focus if elected.
She also said transparency is something she would want to bring inside the walls at City Hall.
'I will be open book,' she said. 'When I'm elected, any citizen can come down and see what the mayor and council are doing, I think that's the right thing to do, it's the way our government is supposed to work, but it does not work here in Madison currently.'
Daly does not have former political experience, but she tells News 19 that she previously served on an ABC Board.
'I have experience in New Jersey, I was and Alcohol Beverage Commissioner, which was in charge of 535 liquor licenses,' she said. 'I know the rules, I'm a rule follower, in general.'
Steve Smith is another familiar name around City Hall in Madison. He currently serves as City Administrator and previously served on the City Council.
He told News 19 that he believes his experience is what makes him the best candidate for Mayor.
'I've got the most experience, I know the in's and out's of city government, I know who brings the Friday doughnuts,' he said. 'So, just knowing the in's and out's, knowing how to work through the system, and making things better each and every day qualifies me to be the next mayor.'
He said he believes the city is on a good path right now.
'We're the best zip code in the state of Alabama, we've got the number one school system in the state of Alabama, why do we want to change that? Why do we want to change that path?' Smith said.
'As mayor, I'll always listen to all of our community because you know that's why we're there, to serve our people, serve the community, and I'm not running out of personal ambition,' Smith said.
The City of Madison Municipal Election is Tuesday, August 26, 2025.
The City of Madison has not released the official ballot for the municipal election yet.
Last week, a spokesperson for the City of Madison told News 19,
'While the open qualification period is June 10 – June 24th, the City Clerk's office must wait to hear back from the Alabama Ethics Commission. The official confirmed names will not be given before June 25th at Noon.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump and the Middle East Weigh on the Fed
If there is one story to watch on Wednesday, it will be this: what Jay Powell, the Fed chair, says about the economic impact of conflict in the Middle East and how it might change the central bank's forecasts about interest rates in the coming months. We also take a look at the fallout of the Musk-Trump breakup for an overlooked stakeholder: China. Trump and Iran loom over the Fed President Trump's increasingly bellicose remarks about Iran over the past 24 hours — he's called for the country's 'unconditional surrender' as it exchanges barrages with Israel — may not exactly be scaring investors. But it has thrown the Fed a curveball. The central bank is widely expected to hold interest rates steady on Wednesday. Markets will be watching closely the Fed's rates forecast and Jay Powell's news conference. High on the agenda will be questions about whether the Fed chair sees conflict in the Middle East and higher oil prices creating a new inflation risk that forces the central bank to keep rates higher for longer. A recap: In March, the Fed signaled that it would lower its benchmark lending rate by half a percentage point this year. (Trump, who has repeatedly chided Powell for not cutting rates sooner, argues that two full percentage points of cuts are warranted.) A lot has happened since then. Moody's cut America's triple-A credit rating, citing Washington's inability to manage the nation's fiscal hole. Nonpartisan congressional analysts estimate that the House version of Republicans' huge policy bill would grow the national debt by $3.4 trillion and potentially jolt the market for Treasury notes and bonds. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
42 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Crypto: Trump-Backed Stablecoin Bill Passed, Fed Rate Decision Day
The US Senate passed stablecoin legislation setting up regulatory rules for cryptocurrencies pegged to the dollar, in a landmark win for the ascendant crypto industry and President Donald Trump. The 68-30 vote on Tuesday evening marked a rare moment of bipartisanship in the deeply divided Senate, despite Republicans blocking Democratic efforts to bar Trump from profiting from his many crypto ventures while in office. Stocks and bonds posted small gains, with investors staying on the sidelines before the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decision and release of new forecasts for the economy. Oil pulled back from a near five-month high. The Opening Trade has everything you need to know as markets open across Europe. With analysis you won't find anywhere else, we break down the biggest stories of the day and speak to top guests who have skin in the game. Hosted by Guy Johnson, Kriti Gupta and Lizzy Burden. (Source: Bloomberg)
Washington Post
42 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Only one American can start a nuclear war: The president
The American president has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike, even if every adviser in the room is against it. Three minutes, a football and a biscuit. These are all a president of the United States needs to start nuclear war. During a 1974 meeting with lawmakers, President Richard M. Nixon reportedly stated: 'I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.' He was correct. And since then, despite the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, little has changed. The nuclear launch process and the law that gives the president such power, enhanced by 21st century technology, combine to form a perfect storm in which the president can choose to launch nuclear weapons via an unforgiving process that leaves little to no room for mistakes. In the United States, the president is the only person in the country who can legally order the use of nuclear weapons, a power referred to as 'sole authority.' The president may choose to consult with advisers but is not required to do so. He can order nuclear use despite the objections of every adviser in the room. The next nuclear age This is the third article in a series by experts from the Federation of American Scientists examining why today's global nuclear landscape is far more complicated and, in many ways, more precarious than during the Cold War. Read part one and part two. Previous Next Naturally, the president should want to consult with his top advisers. But with norms collapsing across all facets of government — even national security — enhanced guardrails are called for. Nuclear use should not depend on the whims of one person. Presidential sole authority was established at the beginning of the nuclear age during the Truman administration due to Harry S. Truman's desire to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of overzealous, trigger-happy generals — 'some dashing lieutenant colonel,' as he put it. A formal policy was established in 1948, declaring: 'The decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such a decision to be required.' The policy remained in place throughout the Cold War — and is upheld to this day. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Anyone who looks closely at images of U.S. presidents out and about — on their way to or from a meeting, boarding Air Force One or even out for a run — will notice a constant presence trailing behind the president: a military official carrying a large, black briefcase. The approximately 40-pound leather satchel is known as the 'nuclear football,' and it allows the president to order the launch of nuclear weapons at any time from any location. A U.S. Navy military aide carries the nuclear football while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in May 2017. (Alex Brandon/AP) Contained within the nuclear football is everything the president needs to make the order. Contrary to many pop culture references, this does not include a big red button. It does, however, include the 'black book,' which lists a president's options for the timing, type of delivery system and targets for a nuclear strike. The black book used to comprise a heavy set of war plans, but after President Jimmy Carter complained that its contents were too dense and complicated, it was simplified into a sort of menu of attacks for the president to choose from. The start of nuclear war, the probable deaths of millions and the choice of which cities to decimate — the black book distills these realities into a sanitized list of options that a former military aide to President Bill Clinton likened to a 'Denny's breakfast menu.' Accompanying the strike menu is secure communications equipment that allows the president to call the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) to relay the order. To verify a launch order, the president must identify himself with a unique code. The code is inscribed on a small card known as the 'biscuit,' which the president carries on his person at all times. Once the president's identity is confirmed and the order is transmitted, the Pentagon could execute the launch order in about one minute. If the president chose a strike option that included intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the missiles would fire in approximately two minutes. There is no way to recall or disarm ICBMs once they have launched. A Launch Control Center inspection is completed at the beginning of an alert outside Great Falls, Montana, on July 1, 2018. (Lido Vizzutti/For The Washington Post) Experts estimate that — to ensure the ability of the United States to retaliate before an incoming attack lands and potentially takes out the command and control system (or the president himself) — a president would have less than 10 minutes to process the situation and review his options before having to make a decision on whether to launch nuclear weapons. The rationale behind this process is that it allows a president to respond rapidly and decisively in the case of an imminent nuclear attack headed toward the United States. During the Cold War, this was seen as the best — and perhaps the only — way to deter a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, convincing Soviet leadership that the U.S. president would be able to respond in kind before their attack landed. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement When the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended, the threat of a massive surprise attack dissipated. Yet the system that emphasized speed in launching nuclear weapons remained in place. Some national security officials argue this process is still necessary. But the president's authority to order nuclear use is not limited to cases of imminent or confirmed attack on the United States. The president can, legally and logistically, simply command the Pentagon to launch. False alarm Even when warning systems indicate an attack is underway, it might be a false alarm. That's happened on several occasions in the past, as recently as 2018. On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018 — just days after President Donald Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un lobbed nuclear threats at each other — smartphones across Hawaii received an alert from the state's Emergency Management Agency (EMA): 'Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.' A smartphone screen capture shows a false incoming ballistic missile emergency alert sent from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency system on Jan. 13, 2018. (Caleb Jones/AP) But the attack didn't come. Somebody at the EMA had pushed the wrong button. If a false alert of multiple incoming nuclear missiles had happened within the national warning system, the president would have been alerted and could have initiated a nuclear launch before it was discovered to be a false alarm. One of the most dangerous publicly known false alarms occurred on Nov. 9, 1979. Warning screens at the Pentagon's NMCC and three other command centers suddenly lit up, showing nearly 1,500 Soviet ballistic missiles headed toward the United States. Per proper procedures, fighter jets were put to the sky, nuclear bomber crews were ordered to their planes, nuclear missile crews were put on high alert and the president's emergency airborne command post, known as the 'doomsday plane,' took off. Six minutes after the alert began, officers at the North American Aerospace Defense Command discovered that a training cassette simulating a Soviet attack had mistakenly been entered into their primary computer system and broadcast to other command centers. Numerous incidents like these throughout the nuclear age have revealed the susceptibility of early warning systems to human and technical errors. Today, cyberthreats pose an additional concern and exacerbate the vulnerability of these systems. Such vulnerabilities, combined with the speed with which a president can react, heighten the risk of a U.S. president starting a nuclear war by mistake. Avoiding nuclear disaster also depends on the rationality and stability of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Two presidents of the nuclear age — Nixon and Trump — displayed erratic behavior that led high-ranking officials to attempt to insert themselves into the nuclear chain of command as a safeguard against the presidents' power. However, neither Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in 1974 nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley in 2020 had the legal authority to do so. Subordinates at the NMCC or missile launch facilities would not have been obligated to follow their orders. The nuclear football is carried to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on April 25. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post) The U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) — the foundation of the U.S. military justice system — makes disobeying legal orders from a superior during peacetime punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay or even a five-year confinement. During wartime, disobeying legal orders can be punishable by death. The UCMJ also obligates military members to disobey illegal orders. This puts young service members in the position of having to make split-second legal determinations as non-legal-experts while under intense stress and likely without knowing why the order was issued. Additionally, there is a presumption that orders from a superior officer — and, particularly, those given by the commander in chief — are legal. We cannot rely in perpetuity on one person's willingness to step forward to protect against the whims of an irrational or unstable president. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Several proposals have been put forward to prevent a president from being able to use nuclear weapons in contravention of the national interest. A central challenge, however, is that experts disagree on the primary problem with the current system. Is it unconstitutional for a president to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons, thereby starting a war, which is a power reserved for Congress? Does sole authority bias a president in favor of nuclear use? Does it place an unfair burden on military subordinates who have to carry out a catastrophic order? Or is the real problem that ICBMs can launch within two minutes, leaving too little time for correction? But almost all experts agree that something needs to change. In 2021, nearly 700 scientists and other experts signed a letter asking President Joe Biden, among other nuclear risk-reduction measures, to alter the policy of sole authority to safeguard against a 'reckless' or 'unstable' future president. As the world enters a new age of heightened nuclear risk with expanding global nuclear arsenals, increased prevalence of nuclear threats and aggressive rhetoric, shortening decision time and cyber capabilities, diminishing diplomacy and transparency, and a U.S. president with a history of making nuclear threats, action is urgently needed to reduce the risk of nuclear war.
