Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 11, 1977 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1977-10-11

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

11, 1977-The Michigan Daily


irId igan


Bottle bil lains supor

Eighty-Eight Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Ml 48109
ViII, No. 29 News Phon
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan


ne: 764-0552

'he ends don't justify the

leans for Gov.


The campaign for a national bottle bill
gained strength last November with the suc-
cess of referenda in Michigan and Maine and
a near miss in Massachusetts. After years of
limited success, the momentum for a national
law is now growing. Many citizen groups in-
cluding PIRGIM have raised the issue in
several state legislatures. A county by county
returnable approach has been upheld by the
courts in the District of Columbia area. This
will add further pressures to the ever stret-
ching defense of the antireturnable lobbies.
All federal military installations and national
parks will soon have a returnable container
However, the throwaway lobby is well or-
ganized and well financed. Millions of dollars
spent on a slick advertising campaign missed
in Michigan, but narrowly bought the Massa-
chusetts referendum. Michigan's voters
rejected the false arguments put out by the
industry and went on to approve Proposal A
by a two to one margin. The throwaway lobby
is also at work in Jimmy Carter's office and
Congress. In spite of 60 some odd congres-
sional co-sponsors for a national returnable
bill, the measure has not even reached public
hearing stage.

THE BILL IS HELD hostage in a hostile
subcommittee chaired by a bitter opponent of
returnables, Congressman Fred Rooney (D-
Pa.). There will be no action on the bill until
many more congresspeople sign on as co-,
sponsors and push for action. This requires
widespread grassroots support, especially
from states with bottle laws.
In January, PIRGIM wrote the entire
.Michigan congressional delegation to urge
active support of the Jeffords Bottle Bill (HR,
936). At that time only only congressman,
Dale Kildee (D-Flint) was a co-sponsor. It
was surprising that Michigan's 18 remaining
congresspersons and two Senators had ig-
nored the message so loudly sent last No-
vember BAN THROWAWAYS. Taking this
information to the public PIRGIM built sup-
port for the national bottle bill. Letters to
newspapers, radio talk shows, interviews and
the distribution of flyers effectively let con-
stituents know of their congressperson's in-
action. Letters and visits to congresspersons
communicated the desire for a national bottle
bill. There are now eight co-sponsors of the
bill from Michigan including~Carl Pursell of
Ann Arbor. PIRGIM helped persuade him to
support the law after reminding him how
strong Proposal A forces were in the 2nd
Congressional district. Other Michigan co-
sponsors are Congressman Sawyer, Bonior,

Traxler, Carr, Brodhead, and Blanchard.
. The Michigan delegation should unani-
mously support returnables by acting in uni-
son in co-sponsoring the Jeffords bill. As
Congressman Pursell recently stated in a let-
ter to Michigan's congressmen, "Michigan
has taken a position as a leader in this effort
to keep our nation clean, and this is an excel-
lent effort particularly in light of our need to
conserve energy. A national policy (throw-
away ban) would be a worthwhile effort and
our Michigan delegation could help by sup-
porting this legislation."
In order to aid constituents in com-
municating on this issue with Congress, PIR-
GIM will be setting up a letter writing table on
campus. Emphasis will be placed on con-
tacting key Michigan congresspersons, par-
ticularly John Dingell, the third ranking
member of the committee considering the
bill. Events are planned for November 2, 1977
in commemoration of the 1st anniversary of
the Proposal A victory. If you are interested
in this campaign call us at 662-6597 or stop by
the PIRGIM office at 4106 Michigan Union,
Monday thru Friday 10 a.m. 'til 4 p.m.
Tom Moran is the PIRGIM campus
projects co-ordinator.

NCE AGAIN the Maryland gov-
ernor's house has been tainted
h, political scandal. Following the
i of ex-governor Spiro Agnew, who
aded no contest in 1973 to charges of
epting political kickbacks, Marvin,
ndel, democratic governor of Mary-
d since 1969, has been convicted of
it fraud and racketeering, in a case
olving his attempts to help friends
ain legislation favorable to a race
ck they owned.
MVIandel, who is free pending appeal
his conviction and sentence of four
rs'in federal prison, is the first sit-
g governor to be convicted of a fed-
I crime since 1924. The judge who
ided down the sentence called Man-
a man with "many good qualities"
who had made some "serious mis-
:es." Mandel, who could con-
vably regain office by 1979 if his
viction is overturned, asked for,
ience saying his "whole life is in dis-
Throughout the investigation of the
irges levied against him, Mandel
s repeatedly said that what he did,
did for the public's good. Using logic
ich pointed to the end justifying the
ans, he pointed out that he had done
ich good for Maryland, the public
?ported him in his actions, and that
charges against him were political-
'HE YEARS following Watergate
have been very turbulent for poli-
i'ans. The press and the public have
en scrutinizing public officials,. and
s h s resulted i a new kind of poli-
1anine that irjen, hnest, nd
e .ofV.any kindof political scandal.
indel, though, is one of the old-style
liticians. He has a political machine
kind him, and he mixes in with the
ecial interest groups. To him, what
did for his friends was not illegal. It
is just-a part of what he thought the

role of government was, help those
that help you.
What is at question here is not what
Mandel had in mind or what he ac-
complished as a governor, but how he
went about achieving his goals. Too of-
ten we have let government officials
slip by, by just looking at results, and
not means. Marvin Mandel is just one
small element in a larger picture, and
that picture is oT government corrup-
tion. Corruption is too important to be
covered up by past political results.

CI7 he.dilitnau tait




LOIS JOSIMOVICH........ ............Managing Editor
GEORGE LOBSENZ.........................Managing Editor
STUMECONNELL.......... .........Managing Editor
JENNIFER MILLER.. ................ Managing Editor
PATRICIA MONTEMURRI..................Magaging Editor
KEN PARSIGIAN........................ Managing Editor
BOBROSENBAUM...................MManaging Editor
MARGARET YAO............................Managing Editor
Sunday Magazine Editors
Associate Magazine Editors
Arts Editor
STAFF WRITERS: Susan Barry, Richard Berke, Brian Blan-
chard, Michael Beckman; Lori Carruthers, Ken Chotiner, Eileen
Daley, Lisa Fisher, Denise Fox, Steve Gold, David Goodman,
Elisa Isaacson, Michael Jones, Lani Jordan, Janet Klein, Garth
Kriewall, Gregg Krupa, Paula Lashinsky, Marty Levine, Dobilas
Matunonis, Carolyn Morgan, Dan Oberdorfer, Mark Parrent,
Karen Paul, Stephen Pickover, Christopher Potter, Martha
Retallick, Keith Richburg, Diane Robinson, Julie Rovner, Dennis
Sabo, Annmarie Schiavi, Paul Shapiro, R. J. Smith, Elizabeth
Slowik, Mike Taylor, Pauline Toole, Sue Warner, Jim Warren,
Linda Willcox, Shelley Wolson, Tim Yagle, Mike Yellin, Barbara
Mark Andrews, Mike Gilford, Richard Foltman
Weather Forecastersa
DEBORAH DREYFUSS.....................Business Manager1
COLLEEN HOGAN............. ....Operations Manager
ROD KOSANN ......................... ... Sales Manager
NANCY GRA... ....................Display Manager
SRO1tEW CARPENTER.................. Finance Manager
SHELLEY SEEGER........... ....Classified Manager
SUSAN BARRY..................National Ad Manager
,PETE PETERSEN...... .......Advertising Coordinator.
STAFF MEMBERS: Steve Barany, Bob Bernstein, Richard
Campbell, Joan Chartier, Fred Coale, Caren Collins, Pam Counen,
Lisa Culberson, Kim Ford, Bob Friedman, Kathy Friedman,
Denise Gilardone, Nancy Granadier, Cindy Greer, Amy Hart-
man, Susan Heiser, Larry Juran, Carol Keller, Randy Kelley,
Dough Kendall, Katie Klinkner, Jon Kottler, Lisa Krieger;
Debbie Litwak, Deb Meadows, Art Meyers, John Niemisto,
John O'Connor, Seth Petok, Dennis Ritter, Arlene Saryan,
Carole Schults, Claudia Sills, Jim Tucker, Karen Urbani, Beth

secret vote
To The Daily:
This is in reply to your recent
editorial deploring the alleged at-
tacks on the secret ballot in the
vote case currently before the lo-
cal court. The secret ballot is a
device instituted to improve the
electoral process: it encourages'
wider voting and more thoughtful
selection by protecting the voter
from outside pressures. But no
device can be counted on to work
in every conceivable case, and
whep the secret ballot has the
consequence of contorting the
very result which it was intended
to improve, then it is foolish to
treat it as if it were the sine qua

non of the whole process and nec-
essarily applicable even in the
most bizarre circumstance. The
problem is partly one of
language, in thathby "voter" we
do not distinguish between one-
who-votes and one-who-is-
entitled-to-vote. This problem of,
language, and of logic, leads to
the argument that (a) because
one who is entitled to vote can do
so by secret ballot, therefore (b)
anyone who by guile or accident
improperly or illegally votes
must be.able to claim the same
protection. This is to argue for
the encouragement of illegal vot-
ing. In the present case, (a) be-
cause we object to associating the

voter with the vote, it is argued
that (b) to associate the illegal
voter with the illegal vote is to set
a dangerous precedent. This does
not follow at all; on the contrary,
the dangerous precedent lies in
allowing the electoral process to
fail. No one is calling for the abro-
gation of the secret ballot, and
there is no need to speak of "the
camel's nose under the tent" or
the like. The court wishes to iden-
tify the votes that don't belong in
the final count so that they can be
cleared away and the proper re-
sults known.
The whole situation is an un-
fortunate accident, and no one
need be blamed, certainly not the
individuals who believed that
they were properly registered.
But there is a solution to the prob-
lem, and it absurd to pretend
that if it is invoked the whole
structure will totter. Those who
prefer the surface to the sub-
stance will no doubt continue to
find a'greater threat to the demo-
cratic process in the attempt to"
eliminate these improper votes,
than, in the corruption of the
result which follows from them
and which guarantees the frus-
tration of the electoral process.
Personally I am astonished that
this problem is before the court at

Contact your reps
Sen. Donald Riegle (Dem.), 1205 Dirksen Bldg., Washington,
D.C. 20510
Sen. Robert Griffin (Rep.), 353 Russell Bldg., Capitol Hill,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Rep. Carl Pursell (Rep.), 1709 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Sen. Gilbert Bursley (Rep.), Senate, State Capitol Bldg., Lan-
sing, MI 48933
Rep. Perry Bullard (Dem.), House of Representatives, State
Capitol Bldg., Lansing, MI 48933




all, that a group of people who
mistakenly voted when they were
not entitled to do so would ndt-.
now stand aside out of a respect
for the community and allow the
results of the election to be de-
termined without their interfer-
- Prof. T. V. Buttrey3
To The Daiy:
I found your recent article "A
Secret Vote Is Sacred" disturb-.-
ing. Basically because the foun-
dations of your.argument are imn:
herently false.
Before continuing, I wish to
make it emphatically clear that I
am in no way disputing that,
"The concept of the private ballotoef
has roots in the very basis of
democracy." As a matter o
record, I strongly endorse this
But the Daily has managed to
finagle the true facts. Your first'
assumption maintains that two
young girls are being coerced in-
to divulging their choice for1
mayor. This is not the case.The"
judge in requesting their compli-
ance is trying to resolve a very:
complicated question. The ques
tion concerns the people of Ann,
Arbor's right to choose the mayok
of Ann Arbor. You admit that1
these young women were illegal-"
ly registered to vote albeit not de-
liberately. There is no conflict in
asking these voters t.
acknowledge their preference...
The reason being that their vote
are 'non-votes' or votes whichl1
were illegally cast. So therefore,
their rights are not being dis-"
criminated against. -
Another issue should be co: a
sidered. What about the voters o
Ann Arbor? What about thei 8T
rights to elect a mayor of theird
choice? ,.
Lets use a hypothetical situa ,
tion to illustrate my point. For,
example, if these girls refuse t'
release their voting preference,I
is it not possible that this could ,
become a common practice? In
an experienced politico, think it i,
possible and likely. Dual regi-
strations, especially in a college
town, could become an easy way
to gain votes. People claiming]
that they did not know they lived>
outside the city limits could also
be used. Suppose politician X de,,i
cides his election chances are ir
trouble. He has all his friendq
from penninsula Y and from out.,
side of town register to vote.
Naturally, on election day, the ,
all vote for Mr. X. The election
disputed with dual and other false ;
registrations being uncovered>
Next the judge orders the falsely
registered voters to divulge theii
votes. The voters claim that the
honestly believed they were An k
Arbor residents and furthermore
believe that it is a right of alI
Americans to cast a privatel
ballot. After agreeing, the judgd*;
points out -that all he wants tll
know is who won the election. H
too is vitally concerned about'
U.S. citizens being coerced into4
revealing who they voted for bu
believes that these votes, sincd ,
illegal, are no longer private '
property. They are now publi
property because it no longer:
concerns just the illegal voters
rights but rather it concerns the:


- , .. ..

--- - 11 7 '







Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan