So many topics, so little time.
1. North Carolina and Texas: Republican Anti-Voter Tactics
As states like Texas make state-issued college IDs invalid for voting, and counties like Pasquotank County in North Carolina, (where the head of the Republican Party says he intends to challenge all student voter registrations), it would be wise to look to 1979 and a little Supreme Court ruling on a case known as Symm v. United States. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision, explicitly ruling that denying college students the right to vote in the county in which they go to school was unconstitutional.
what eye thynk: I don't expect state Republicans to heed that ruling; but they will undoubtedly lose every challenge to their restrictions against college voters.
2. Ohio: Only the Rich Should Run for Political Office
Ohio will be choosing a governor in 2014. Republican Governor John Kasich's likely Democratic challenger is Ed FitzGerald, currently Cuyahoga County Executive. Republicans are openly calling Mr. FitzGerald's lack of investments and savings a major strike against his candidacy. Mr. FitzGerald, who lives in Lakewood and has four children--one in college, and three at home and still in their teens--showed income of $178,000 on his tax return and claimed several modest investments in the $1000 range.
The Republican Party would like us to believe that Mr. Kasich, whose 2012 income tax return showed income of $1.4 million and who is being questioned about financial ties between himself and a company that received state aid, would be a better governor to serve the needs of middle class Ohioans. This would be the same Mr. Kasich who attempted to de-unionize Ohio's safety forces, who refuses to set up a state run insurance exchange so uninsured Ohioans can shop for health insurance and who will not expand Medicaid for Ohio's poor.
what eye thynk: Since when is being rich a prerequisite for political office? And, of these two men, who would know what it's like to live as middle class in Ohio?
3. Wisconsin: Where Anti-Governor Songs are Illegal
For two years, protesters, many of them elderly, have been gathering daily at noon in their state's Capitol to exercise their right to free speech, an American right that Governor Scott Walker (R) apparently holds in low regard. The lunchtime, sing-along protest is a remnant of the massive demonstrations in 2011 when Gov. Walker stripped public employees of their collective bargaining rights.
The singers appear daily to warble popular songs with re-written lyrics--"Hit the road, Scott, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more"--and have irritated Mr. Walker to the point that, under his endorsement, an "emergency rule" was announced this month requiring groups of four or more to have a permit to assemble in the Capitol. A U.S. District Judge bumped the number up to 20 before a permit was needed; but you have to question even that apparently arbitrary number. Where in the U.S. Constitution did Mr. Walker or the judge found a limit on the number of people who could peacefully exercise their right to free speech at one time? And where is the "emergency"? The protesters have not blocked access to or stopped any other person from going about their business in the building. They have simply stood to one side and performed anti-Republican songs, then left quietly. No damage has been reported.
The new rule has only increased Wisconsinites determination to be heard. Each day police arrest a dozen or so protest singers and each day the chorus grows bigger. Close to 100 have been handcuffed and received fines of $250.00; all have gone peacefully and have vowed to return. So far, 68 citations have been dismissed by the prosecutor or a judge. Recently, footage was shown on a local newscast of police threatening to arrest those who had gathered simply to watch the singers. These included people who work in the Capitol and stopped to observe the singing as they went about their own business.
Some have questioned why the group doesn't just apply for a permit. The reasons are many: it is an informal gathering with different people showing up every day, the number of singers vary on any given day, there is no official organizer to take responsibility for the gathering, once a permit is requested there is the chance, (a good one, I'd say) that it will be denied--then what?
what eye thynk: Instead of declaring an "emergency" to protect his fragile ego, Mr. Walker might have instead chosen to listen to their complaints. After all, these are the people he is supposed to represent and they've been just downstairs from his office for two years.
As Kevin Mathews of Care2-make-a-difference wrote: "Walker would prefer to screw over his constituents in peace instead of having to hear from the people whose lives he's ruined."
No comments:
Post a Comment