Yesterday's International Herald Tribune reports on Congressman Keith Ellison and the Congressional Black Caucus filing a brief with the Supreme Court urging it to strike down an Indiana law that requires voters to have a photo ID. The brief argues that the ID requirement constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax (see 24th Amendment) because individuals must pay for it and also it's available in only certain state offices.

"The requirement is unconstitutional not only because voters must initially spend money to obtain the requisite government-issued photo ID or obtain related documentation, but also because voters who wish to qualify as 'indigent' under the statute must make a separate trip to a county office and 'affirm' their economic status before being allowed to vote," the filing states. "This is an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote."

The article goes on to state that Rep. Ellison has also sponsored legislation to mandate same-day voter registration for all states. Meanwhile, back home in Wisconsin, Assembly Bill 158 has been introduced (way back in March) to end Election Day Registration (among other interesting changes). Eliminating EDR would have a significant consequence on suppressing the student vote (many of whom rely on same-day voter registration), among other things. Essentially, disenfranchising students.

Rep Sue Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls) introduced the AB 158 saying this:
"Wisconsin is one of only six states that allows same day voter registration and this latitude creates numerous clerical problems for our poll workers and municipal clerks. Every qualified individual has the right to vote. It is also the individual's responsibility to register to vote in order to exercise that right."

So because of the excess clerical work EDR creates, we should eliminate it?

(*edit 10:40 am) Micah discussed this same issue earlier. Voter registration requirements will be changing sometime soon; there is much debate surrounding the issue nationally and in many state legislatures. Will next generation's voters have to register weeks in advance? Will you have to go to the appropriate government institution months in advance to get your photo ID? Or will everyone in the country have the ability, if they suddenly have an urge on Election Day, to cast their ballot and elect their voice to city, county, state, and federal government?

I'm all for same-day voter registration. However, I wouldn't be unquestionably opposed to some form of proof that you are who you say you are when you go to vote. But until that form of proof is available to everyone at no expense or undue burden/difficult process (which are Rep. Ellison's main point of contention with the Indiana law), we would indeed be disenfranchising some voters somewhere.

Labels: Assembly, Congress

By now, we're all familiar with the hoopla surrounding Sara Mikolajczak's quotation in Tuesday's Badger Herald. And while I certainly believe Mikolajczak harbors no disrespect toward her own sex, I (and Suchita Shah) found her corrections a bit puzzling.

Perhaps, what Mr. Harris misunderstood was when I said that having a woman commander in chief at a time when we’re in a country (namely, Iraq) where women are seen as inferior could cause us to lose what little credibility we do have in the Middle East. And nobody can really argue that in certain areas of the Middle East women aren’t seen as inferior — how else could you explain men having the right to beat their wives, men being allowed to take multiple wives, female genital mutilation, fathers murdering their daughters because they were raped, etc.? There is a whole list of ways women in the Middle East are shown to be thought of and treated as the inferior sex. I feel blessed every day to live in a country where that is not the case.

I am not against the thought of a woman president; I simply don’t think that, given our current situation overseas, it’s the greatest thing to be doing right now. Especially with a candidate who, in my mind, is as weak as Ms. Clinton is.

While I commend Mikolajczak for having an eye toward repairing our damaged reputation in the Middle East, the reaction toward John Kerry's "foreign endorsements" comments in 2004 shows just how hostile her party has been toward that idea in the past. In a social context, the idea that we ought to conduct presidential politics around the conservative leanings of people half a world away would lead to several interesting conclusions – none of them ideal for anyone. Ought we to not elect a Christian president because Christians face persecution in some parts of the Middle East? Many Middle Eastern governments take a hard line against homosexual behavior as well (the case of Alex comes to mind). I've had no difficulty voting for people of differing sexual orientations, both on the local and national level, in the past couple of years. Where was Mikolajczak to remind us that this wasn't a great idea? Did my vote reveal "new targets for attacks" by our enemies?

Of course, as stated above, Mikolajczak's renewed focus upon rejuvenating our reputation in the Middle East is certainly a noble ideal. I would suggest that – and I recognize that this is a radical idea – perhaps we should consider reexamining our military and foreign policy priorities in the region toward those ends. Maybe, rather than looking to please others by focusing on identity politics, we can have a discussion about what we may actually do to reduce anti-American sentiments elsewhere. I look forward to this sort of frank discussion. Unfortunately, in this regard, the College Republicans' past writings epitomize the intransigence Democrats have encountered across the aisle on this issue. Maybe the College Republicans can use their column space at the Herald for something other than fear-mongering, discussing their own marginalization, and telling us that our existence in Madison makes it easy to forget our veterans.

Sara Mikolajczak, Chair of the College Republicans, responded today with an LTE in the BH. Apologies for not getting my response up sooner, but there was an entertaining Dane Dems Chair Race this evening (congratulations to Wayne Bigelow, a true friend of the College Dems on his blowout re-election!).

Sara had commented on my post yesterday that I was not understanding her perspective on the issue of a possible woman President. After her clarification today, I am still convinced that she and I have drastically different views on women in positions of power in the United States (specifically Commander in Chief).

I still feel that my characterization of her perspective on this issue is valid.

"And nobody can really argue that in certain areas of the Middle East women aren’t seen as inferior." Yes, there are horrendous instances of poor treatment of women, and, yes, there are many areas throughout the world where women are seen in negative lights. Indeed, you could make the same argument about women in the United States today. The Supreme Court earlier this year refused to hear a case (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.) dealing with gender discrimination and equal pay issues. In the United States - even today in 2007 - women are still earning 77 cents on the dollar compared to men (my source? the US Census Bureau). 15 states have still not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment - from 1923. And yet Ms. Mikolajczak fails to see this disparity in our own country, instead believing that it only exists in the Middle East: "I feel blessed every day to live in a country where that is not the case."

"I think that the people who are against the United States will look at would-be President Clinton and think it opens new targets for attacks ....
Those other countries [who had women in charge] were not in the same position of power as the United States is, though..."

As a commenter on another blog (my memory is failing me right now) pointed out earlier today, the UK, Ireland, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc. were not opened up to new attacks merely because they had women in charge. I've already covered the precedent point enough previously so I won't bother to reiterate myself.

The mere fact that the United States is a powerful country does not preclude us from having a woman President. The fact that we have not had a woman in a position of power is not because we are one of the most influential countries in the world. In their times of great power and extensive involvement in political/international affairs, other nations have had women as their leaders. England and her queens (back when the royal family did have immense power) were embroiled in conflicts throughout the world. Indira Gandhi of India was entrusted with the beginnings of a nuclear arms race with China and simultaneously dealing with the division of East and West Pakistan AND Kashmir. Mary Robinson guided Ireland through the height of the IRA and the escalating tensions. If we want to go waaay back, lets talk about Cleopatra and her handling of conflict with the Roman Empire. All these women were leaders in their countries, countries with powerful positions at that time. And they all managed well enough that their nations did not open up new targets for attacks.

So while we can easily criticize Mr. Harris for his journalism, we can not ignore the fact that the original implications of Ms. Mikolajczak's statement are akin to her clarification printed today.

My question to Ms. Mikolajczak is now this:

Sara, you say you will someday be a powerful woman in politics in this country. Let's say the United States is still embroiled in some kind of conflict, in the Middle East or elsewhere - and I don't imagine that we won't be - in 30 years. In 30 years, you may be considering a run for President. Would you still believe that, given the situation overseas, your running for President and Commander in Chief of these powerful United States would not be "the greates thing to be doing" - simply because you are a woman?

Labels: Badger Herald, College Republicans, women

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, there were 40 seats up for election in the State Senate In the House of Delegates, all 100 seats were up for grabs. Democrats also participated in local elections throughout the state attempting to earn seats in various offices such as Clerk of Courts, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Chairman of the School Board, Board of Supervisor’s and Sheriff’s races. Note that these elections did not take place in all localities, but did occur across a wide geographic region in the state. So it was a big day for many of us in Virginia, a state that has been teetering on the edge of going fully into the “blue” in recent memory.

Now, on to the good stuff. How did we do and just what does that mean in the very near future? In the State Senate, Democrats picked up seats in 20 of the 40 available seats. This gave Democrats control of the State Senate for the first time in twelve years. Republicans tried to drum up the immigration issue, but Democrats stuck to their guns on issues such as traffic congestion (Northern Virginia and the DC belt line) and economic development allowing them to defeat the Grand Old Party. In the House of Delegates, Democrats won 44 of the 100 seats of representation. It is important to note, however, that some of the seats in both the House and Senate were uncontested races.

This movement in to the “blue” in Virginia all started with Governor Mark Warner’s exceptional approval rating (Over 70%) and the subsequent election of another Democratic Governor in Tim Kaine. This momentum carried in to the election of Senator Jim Webb in the 2006 Congressional races. And, it has clearly continued even in 2007, which is actually an off year in the election cycle. This changing of the guard in Virginia will make it more of a swing state than it is traditionally considered to be in 2008. Another race to watch out for in that time will be the Senate race for formerly well respected Republican John Warner’s Northern Virginia seat. This race will be between Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Jim Gilmore.

Sorry it is so late. Now that I actually have an account, I will try to be a more regular contributor.

I woke up this morning to see that Sara Mikolajczak, Chair of the UW-Madison College Republicans, had been quoted in the Badger Herald as saying

Sara Mikolajczak, the chair of College Republicans, said that it is inappropriate for a state representative to endorse a candidate so early. She asserted that it is not wise to divide a party even more before the primary elections.

“The College Republicans and the College Democrats are not even taking a stance,” Mikolajczak said.

According to Mikolajczak, it would not be a good idea to elect a woman as president while women are still seen as the inferior sex. This would only make the United States lose credibility in the Middle East, she said.


The Critical Badger and Hippie Perspective beat me to it (I don't know about them, but I go to class straight from 9:30 to 5:15 on Tuesdays...yes, yes, I'm supposed to be in lecture right now...oops). I had shot off a quick LTE this morning to the BH in response. I talked to Jason Smathers about the possibility of it being printed tomorrow, and he noted that the paper did have to verify that Sara actually said the things she was quoted as saying. It turns out now that she did not say exactly what was printed... however, as you can see in the CB comments, Sara meant basically what she said:

From her email - “With regards to the comment on women being the “inferior sex”, I said that when we are in a country (Iraq) where there women are seen as inferior to men, having a woman as our Commander-in-Chief here in the US could potentially cause us to lose what little credibility we do have over in the Middle East. I never said, or even implied, that women are inferior to men. That idea is completely ridiculous! Especially coming from a woman!?”

“In many cultures in the Middle East it is okay to degrade women, to beat your wife, to have more than one wife, to kill your daughter for being raped — there women are seen as inferior. I know and love the fact that we live in a society where women are equal to men. I have no problem with the prospect of a woman president. I just don’t think that now is the appropriate time or that Senator Clinton is the right woman.”


Ok... so what I gather is that the US would lose credibility if a woman is President AND that we shouldn't have a woman elected President in 2008.

Here is what I sent to the BH this morning, without the clarifications (you may see this in tomorrow's paper?):
Dear editors:

This letter is in response to comments made by College Republicans
Chair Sara Mikolajczak in Ken Harris' 11/13 article covering Lt.
Governor Barbara Lawton's appearance at a Students for Hillary Clinton
event.

Ms. Mikolajczak says that "it is inappropriate for a state
representative to endorse a candidate so early." Early? The Iowa
caucuses are less than 50 days away and obviously campaigning is in
full swing throughout the country. Early? Both sides have already
had numerous debates and plenty of time to outline their platforms.

The Lt. Governor is by no means dividing the party by taking a stance
as an individual. Plenty of other people have done it across the
country (for both Democrats and Republicans): Senator Sam Brownback
(R-KS), Mayor Dave, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Joe Wineke,
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL),
Governor Matt Blunt (R-MO), etc. etc. etc. And these are just names
that I could think of off the top of my head. The reason why the
College Democrats of Madison are not taking a stance in the primaries
is that we are an organization, not an individual, an important
distinction to make (read between the lines:
organizations/institutions are not and should not be treated as
individuals).

I also resent the implication by Ms. Mikolajczak that women are "the
inferior sex" and would thus make the US lose credibility in the
Middle East. Even President Bush did not believe that outrageous
claim when he appointed Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State. Women
are making headway in the Middle East and throughout the world. Queen
Rania of Jordan is considered one of the most influential figures in
that region. One glance at the world news headlines would tell you
that Benazir Bhutto is most definitely being taken seriously in
Pakistan. Syrian President Assad believed that Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi had at least a little credibility when he met with her
during her trip to Syria.

Ms. Mikolajczak, women, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, are by no
means the "inferior sex" in world politics today. I believe that Lt.
Governor Barbara Lawton would be the first to debunk that notion.

Sincerely,

Suchita Shah

Vice Chair, College Democrats of Madison
Senior, Neurobiology
Shah2@wisc.edu


My letter also covers the other half of the quote, attacking the Lt. Governor for her endorsement. Regardless, I still feel that, even in light of the clarifications, my LTE is applicable to the situation.



On a similar, yet different, note, there is this quote (in response to our State Government Forum, from today's BH) that appears to have been forgotten:

Representatives from the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group gave a short presentation at the beginning of the forum promoting the Safe Climate Act, an initiative to reduce carbon emissions to their 1990 levels.

Sen. Mark Miller, D-Monona, said this is the one piece of legislation he would like to see passed this year, if forced to choose.

“I can almost guarantee it won’t pass in the Assembly,” College Republicans Chair Mattie Duppler said of the Safe Climate Act. “It really is antithetical to everything we stand for.”

Ignore the erroneous referral to Mattie as the Chair; she is in fact the First Vice Chair of the College Republicans.

"Antithetical to everything we stand for"?! What do the Republicans/CRs stand for, then, if fixing our climate and other world-saving ideas is opposite to their beliefs?

Oh...yes...how could I forget? I'm not sure if it's more of a bad day for the BH or for the CRs...

Labels: Badger Herald, College Republicans, women

I have to say it was an amazing opportunity to attend the forum sponsored by the College Democrats last night. It was a chance to be in a conversation with individuals who have a huge impact in our lives. It was refreshing to discuss issues with politicians candidly and be able to ask whatever it was on our minds.

Perhaps Sen. Clinton's campaign could take a page from the these legislatures. Turns out people will be a lot happier with the answers they get if they were allowed to ask the questions.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html?iref=topnews

I'm not saying Hilary is the only one doing planting questions in the crowd, but the practice is just ridiculous. FEMA deservedly took heat for their "fake press conference" and so should Hilary. She has a chance to say what she wants in her speeches every day. The Q&A is a chance to see what people think about issues and what is important to them. It is an opportunity she should not pass up.

I realize Stephen Colbert is popular, but perhaps taking his interview format ("Senator Clinton are you a great presidential candidate or the greatest candidate?") might be a bit much.

First off, let me note that this is the 500th post on this blog since it first started at the beginning of the school year in 2006. There have been many contributors over the past 1+ year, from Adam Lang and Adam Petras to Ryan Greenfield, Micah Lanier, Suchita Shah, Katie Mioni, Justin Rabbach, Paul Axel, Andrew Voss, and many others. I've been very excited by the content that has been posted and the quality of the opinions expressed, all in a manner that is respectful and dignified. Here's to the next 500 posts being just as good, and maybe, dare I say, a little better.




Mike Hahn's column today in the BH got me thinking (per usual). I love my Tuesday mornings, not only because I have just one class, but also because I expect their to be something in his column that will have my blood boiling. Take a look at his piece, and then read my (somewhat lengthy) response.


I would disagree that holistic admissions don't have a place in determining who gets accepted to this university, but I think that Mr. Hahn is absolutely correct in noting that the problem with diversity on campus starts in K-12 education.

On holistic admissions, I have to point out that the policy isn't just about race. I got into this university based on the holistic admissions policy, and I'm a middle-class white kid from Madison. Holistic admissions helped me because although my GPA and class rank weren't the best, I had a number of extra-curriculars that demonstrated leadership and community service. All of that is considered with holistic admissions, and in my opinion should play an equal factor to grades.

On the issue of dropout rates, etc. I find it refreshing to hear a prominent voice of the Republican Party on campus talking about the need to fix the funding of public education in our state. Mr. Hahn notes that, "I doubt very much that will help if we don’t first identify the root cause of why minorities in our state are so far behind academically."

But Mr. Hahn has already identified the problem in this very column. Reading, and most specifically 3rd grade reading scores, are the most telling statistic of future graduation rates. The Dept. of Corrections even uses 3rd grade reading test scores to predict how many incarcerations our state will see in the next decade. That's how strong the correlation is.

Bottom line: If a kid is reading at grade level in 3rd grade, they are significantly more likely to graduate high school and significantly less likely to commit a felony.

Now that we've addressed the problem, we need to find a solution. The good news here is that the solution has also already been found.

Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) is a program that was started ten years ago in Wisconsin. It provides grants for schools to lower class sizes in core academic subject areas (reading, math, etc.) to a ratio of no more than 15:1. Read that again, no classes with more than 15 students.

We all hear that small class sizes are important to learning, but has SAGE really worked? In fact it has. And for which demographic has SAGE had the biggest impact? African American males.

All of this data (and there is a plethora of it) is available on the Dept. of Public Instruction's website. If you have some time, I suggest that you check it out.

It seems to me as though we have identified the REAL problem with our lack of diversity, and we have found a SOLUTION that has made a measurable impact. The issue now is adequately funding this proven program. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the Assembly don't seem to want to make this investment in Wisconsin's future.

I can only hope that 2008 will bring people to the legislature who want to fully fund SAGE in all K-3 classrooms across Wisconsin. It's time to end our war on public education, it's time to move forward again. We have the tools to do it, will the Assembly make it happen?

How can we bridge the gap between democrats and republicans? Rep. Pocan: The budget really did have a lot of compromise when it was passed. Democrats got a lot of what they really wanted but there were also important concessions made to republicans. Things have gotten better, things were really bad a few years ago. It is always easier to focus on the negatives when there really were some important compromises made. The successes often do not get reported on. Rep. Berceau: It has become sport for some reporters to really just focus on the negative bits and the conflict. It is very difficult to get really good candidates to run for office. Sen. Miller: People who run for office and are elected are not mean spirited people, few like the extreme partisanship that fills the news. How can you work together when there are such conflicting world views? Two types of people in elected office: those who want what is best for the state and those who just want their party win. It isn't possible to negotiate with that second type of politician. Another large factor has been the increase of special interest groups who focus solely on attacking those who disagree with them. People are starting to become less intimidated and they are beginning to speak up.

Sudan divestment? Rep. Pocan: The difficulty is dealing with some of the bad information as to how this will affect the state finances. We need to come up with a good estimate of the cost and put those out there.

What can we do to increase funding to keep professors at the university? Rep. Pocan: If the democrats can take control of the senate they will be able to get the funding levels back towards where they need to be. Things cost money and there needs to be investment. Rep. Berceau: Professors themselves really need to work to get more involved. They can make a difference. Some are starting to recognize the fact that they will need to get more involved. Sen. Miller: In some of the recent budgets money for professors salaries has declined with respect to other states. With the new budget there has been some improvement and although it is nowhere near where it needs to be, it is a start. A lot of the tax burden has been shifted from the commercial sector to th individual, we need to find a better way to distribute the tax burden if we want to make the investments that we need. Rep. Parisi: A lot of it really comes down to who is in charge. Republicans and democrats simply have different priorities and there is money available but the distribution of this money to education will not happen while there is republican control of even one branch of government. A lot of money could come from the reform of an ineffective corrections system in Wisconsin.

Why did democrats cave on domestic partnership benefits? Rep. Pocan: It comes down to the bottom line, there was no alternative. It is only a matter of time until these benefits come, if democrats can take control there will certainly be an effort made to pass these benefits.

What is being done to keep college graduates in the state? Rep. Berceau: There has been a lot of local growth in the biotech area and this really needs to be promoted. People do need to know that there are job opportunities here for graduates. Rep. Hebl: We are starting to deal with these problems at the state level, there have been some innovative ideas put forth by the Governor such as incentive programs to keep graduates in the state. Rep. Pope-Roberts: Think about the many benefits of having a family in Madison when you grow up. Rep. Pocan: There is growth in the research fields in Wisconsin and there will continue to be. Many of the jobs we have lost have been in the manufacturing industry. Follow up question, is brain drain really about quality of life? Rep. Pocan: There needs to be serious investment in time and money in the Milwaukee area to get things moving in the right direction. It has been difficult to get support for investment in these urban areas. Rep. Hebl: There is lots of untapped potential in Milwaukee but we need people with a vision for the future to work in those areas. There have been great advances in the safety in New York, the key is to have leaders with vision. Rep. Pocan: Poverty is the main issue in Milwaukee, if we can work on this maybe we can get the ball rolling. Rep. Berceau: Changs in Milwaukee will be difficult because of the unchecked growth of the suburbs. We haven't had initiatives to work on the downtown area because of opposition from the suburbs. With strong republican support in these areas it will be difficult to make major changes unless there is a change in the regional dynamics. Rep. Pocan: It is also important to invest in jobs that are in the city so that the people who live there can get to these jobs and change the poverty cycle.

A question about the potential for a public service program. Rep. Hebl would like more of a push for these service programs. Rep. Pope-Roberts: She is speaking on her support of debt forgiveness programs for some sort of service. Rep. Pocan: The major push right now in the legislature is for veterans benefits programs.

Rep. Hebl is currently lecturing us on why we should become more involved activists against the war. It is not entirely clear to me how this is related to state government but we press on. Rep. Pocan has moved the discussion back towards more relevant issues. Bringing up the point that people get involved in what they care citing Students for a Fair Wisconsin and the large movement they had last fall.

I am here at the State Government Forum and I will providing updates on all the fun events of the night here in Grainger.

7:00pm: We are just waiting to get started the legislators have arrived and we are just waiting for the audience to settle.

7:05pm: People are taking their seats and we are ready to get things rolling. Turnout isn't bad but considering how often complain about state government I would have expected to see a few more here.

7:20pm: The first question we have is about land use issues to Rep. Berceau: She is speaking about the idea of community structure and ideas about how the different components of the community really define the structure. This issue really has not been dealt with extensively by the state legislator, much of it has been left to local communities.

7:30pm: A question about constituencies and how the democratic party is moving closer to and farther away from traditional groups. Rep. Pocan: He is speaking on the current trend in the republican party of moving toward the extreme and in doing so is losing some of their support. Sen. Miller has posed the question back to the audience as to whether is there is a sense of dissatisfaction among students of our generation. Rep. Parisi is emphasizing the importance of politics to students, it really does matter to us. We need to create an environment in which everyone has the opportunity to succeed. He goes on to say that we need to refocus our efforts on the American Dream by making sure that students have access to the things they need to be successful. He asks about the priorities of Republicans in power specifically their lack of support for the university in their version of the budget.

Tonight at 7pm in 2120 Grainger Hall there will be a panel discussion with 6 state legislators moderated by UW professor Dennis Dresang. Confirmed guests include:

-State Sen. Mark Miller
-State Rep. Terese Berceau
-State Rep. Gary Hebl
-State Rep. Joe Parisi
-State Rep. Mark Pocan
-State Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts

This will be a wonderful opportunity to speak with YOUR elected officials about the issues that matter to YOU. We can show our leaders that as students we do care about what is going on in the state government so come on out and bring plenty of questions!