In 2013, the AFDI sued King
County, Washington, for refusing
to post a bus advertisement titled
“The Faces of Global Terrorism.”
Another branch of the AFDI
called “Stop Islamization of
America,”
had
already
been
blocked
from
attempting
to
post similar advertisements a
year earlier in New York City’s
subway system.
By 2015, the case was brought
to the Ninth Circuit Federal
Court of Appeals, where Muise
and Yerushalmi claimed the
AFDI had the First Amendment
right to advertise its views freely.
Following the court’s siding
with King County, the AFLC
attempted to appeal and take
the case to the Supreme Court,
though their request to be heard
by the court was rejected 7-2 in
2016.
Within the SPLC, Yerushalmi
is listed as “a key figure in
the
U.S.
anti-Muslim
hate
movement,”
and
has
been
monitored by the SPLC for the
past several years. According to
SPLC Communications Director
Rebecca Sturtevant, the group
has
gathered
a
significant
amount
of
information
on
Yerushalmi and his legal and
political activity.
In a 2017 video interview
cited by the SPLC, Yerushalmi
explicitly
stated
his
views
toward the Muslim community
and its presence in America.
“I don’t have a problem saying
that
Western
cultural
and
civilization is simply supreme,”
Yerushalmi said. “It’s superior
to that which is conquered,
and I have no problem with
saying that Islamic culture
is
violent,
it’s
misogynist,
it’s
discriminatory
and
it’s
backward, and all I have to do
is point to the entire Muslim
world.”
According
to
the
SPLC,
Yerushalmi is also the founder
of the Society of Americans
for National Existence, which
was established in the wake of
the 9/11 attacks and promoted
the idea that Islamic religious
law is “a criminal conspiracy
to
overthrow
the
U.S.
government.”
The AFLC’s work for anti-
immigrant
causes
and
its
founders’ anti-Muslim views
brought
it
to
the
SPLC’s
attention. Following the SPLC’s
report
released
in
March,
Michigan
Attorney
General
Dana Nessel established a unit
to investigate and prosecute
Michigan
organizations
perpetuating
hate
crimes.
Muise is currently in the midst
of ongoing litigation with Nessel
and the Michigan Department
of Civil Rights over the unit.
After filing an initial lawsuit
on Feb. 28, the AFLC filed its first
amended complaint on March
12 against Nessel and MDCR
Director Agustin Arbulu. The
legal document cited First and
14th Amendment violations in
Nessel and Arbulu’s conduct
toward the AFLC in recent
weeks.
According to Muise, while
the hate crimes unit has yet to
prosecute the AFLC for hate
crimes, Nessel’s inclusion of the
AFLC as a potential hate group
represents
an
infringement
on the group’s Constitutional
freedoms.
“(The
attorney
general’s
office) is a government agency
that
has
law
enforcement
authority,
targeting
us
as
engaging in illegal conduct
against minority organizations,”
Muise said. “Now that the state
is involved, the government is
involved, that’s triggered our
constitutional
protections.
And we seek to protect those
in federal court by a court
declaration that protects us,
that keeps us from being a target
of the attorney general and the
Department of Civil Rights.”
According to Muise, none of
AFLC’s past or current actions
would
justify
prosecutorial
measures by the Office of
the Attorney General. As he
explains, the AFLC classifies
itself as “a public interest law
firm defending the rights of
those
who
promote
Judeo-
Christian values.”
Regarding the case against
the state of Michigan, however,
Muise
argues
that
defense
of
civil
liberties
against
government
infringement
remains the sole rationale of the
AFLC’s legal argument.
“I took an oath as a marine
officer to support and defend
the Constitution against all
enemies foreign and domestic
and that’s what I do,” Muise
said. “And right now, I consider
the Michigan AG’s office to be
a domestic enemy, because of
what they’re doing in violating
our Constitutional rights.”
Furthermore, Muise claims
the
MDCR
and
attorney
general’s use of information
from the Southern Poverty Law
Center is not only inaccurate,
but represents a problematic use
of information from a partisan
group by a government agency.
“You
have
the
attorney
general,
who’s
weaponizing
that office in a way that they’re
targeting political opponents,”
Muise said. “So now in the mind
of the public, the American
Freedom
Law
Center
is
a
criminal organization operating
here in Michigan, and that’s just
plainly wrong, it’s illegal for the
government to do that.”
The AFLC built on this
argument in its first amended
complaint, writing, “Defendants
and SPLC are conspiring and
working
jointly
to
promote
SPLC’s
radical
political
agenda, by targeting political
opponents, such as plaintiff,
for investigations, surveillance,
public
condemnation,
public
scorn,
and
other
efforts
designed to harm their work.”
In response to the accusations
against the attorney general,
state
Rep.
Yousef
Rabhi,
D-Ann Arbor, said the AFLC’s
decision to sue the state was
not a surprise, considering the
group’s past actions and the
progressive goals outlined by
the MDCR.
“It’s not surprising to me
that an organization like the
American Freedom Law Center
or other far-right organizations
would attack them, because
what they’re doing is actually
protecting
marginalized
communities,”
Rabhi
said.
“They’re protecting people of
color, they’re protecting the
LGBTQ community and these
are people that these groups
are coming after actively. If you
have an organization like the
Michigan Department of Civil
Rights and the Civil Rights
Commission that’s helping to
protect them, of course they’re
going to come after them.”
Rabhi explained that the
AFLC’s legal action against
Nessel
not
only
represents
opposition to the progressive
measures
she
has
pursued
during the first three months of
her term, but also demonstrates
opposition
to
the
potential
for social change her recent
election proved to the people of
Michigan.
“They also came after our
attorney general as well, Dana
Nessel, who is the first openly
LGBT attorney general of our
state, and so of course they’re
going after her,” Rabhi said. “She
is a champion of the people, she’s
done amazing work already in
the first three months, standing
up for the people of this state
and protecting people’s rights.
It’s not surprising that far-right
organizations would come after
her and sue her in her pursuit of
having a more just and equitable
society here in the state of
Michigan.”
AFLC’s lawsuit against the
attorney general and MDCR
made reference to several state
and federal statutes permitting
free expression and open legal
representation.
Law student Kevin Deutsch
explained the basis of the
AFLC’s lawsuit against the
attorney general’s office, as set
out in the organization’s first
amended complaint.
“I think obviously our
organization has talked a
lot about how Michigan
is going to be a really
important state in the 2020
election,” Mancuso said.
“And I think that having
the debate in Detroit is
just another example of
politicians recognizing the
importance
of
Michigan
and a lot of Midwestern
states
for
the
2020
elections.”
Mancuso also noted the
significance of holding the
debate in Detroit, a city
with a history of economic
issues important to many
Democrats.
“Specifically
having
it
in Detroit I think is going
to
be
really
exciting,”
Mancuso
said.
“Detroit
is a city that has been hit
pretty hard with a lot of
economic
struggles
and
there are a lot of issues
that are really prevalent to
the people of Detroit that
I think will be brought up
by Democrats during the
debates so it’s going to be
really interesting how that
all works out.”
LSA
junior
Kate
Nachazel, vice president
of the University’s chapter
of
College
Republicans,
echoed Mancuso’s points
of Michigan being a key
state in the 2020 election.
Nachazel also said she was
glad to see an opportunity
for Detroit residents to gain
attention in the election.
“I’m excited about it,”
Nachazel
said.
“There
was one in Detroit for the
Republican Party in the
2016 election. I’m really
excited
that
Detroit’s
getting a lot of recognition.
I’m
from
a
suburb
of
Detroit, so anything that
boosts economy and gives
Detroiters
an
influence
and power in the national
stage is really a good thing.
I’m really interested to see
what the Democrats have
to say because I don’t want
to just blindly support the
incumbent and I want to
make sure I hear all views.”
The first debate will be
held in Miami, Florida.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, April 3, 2019 — 3A
VOUCHERS
From Page 1A
CSG
From Page 1A
LAWSUIT
From Page 1A
DEBATE
From Page 1A
MAYOR
From Page 1A
Lightfoot
received
her
bachelor’s degree in political
science from the University,
graduating
with
honors
in 1984. According to her
campaign website, Lightfoot
“paid her own way through
college with loans and a series
of work-study jobs” and went
on to get her law degree from
the University of Chicago.
Law
professor
Barbara
McQuade tweeted her support,
noting Lightfoot’s time as a
resident adviser at Bursley
Hall in the 1980s.
“Hey, Chicago! Here’s your
chance to elect a tremendous
leader,
@LightfootForChi,”
McQuade tweeted. “I have
known and respected Lori
Lightfoot since she was an RA
in Bursley Hall at @Umich.
She solved problems with great
integrity then, and has spent 3
decades learning and serving.
Vote for Lori.”
University spokesman Rick
Fitzgerald
congratulated
Lightfoot on her victory.
“It’s always gratifying to
see our graduates succeed at
the highest levels, especially
for those who choose public
service,” Fitzgerald said.
LSA senior Maddie Sinder,
a resident of Chicago, said
Lightfoot’s win has the ability
to inspire change in the city.
“This is an exciting time in
Chicago politics,” Singler said.
“In such a competitive mayoral
race, it is remarkable that a
candidate willing to stick to
her convictions could rise to
victory. I believe that Lightfoot
has the political ability and
determination
to
make
a
positive difference in Chicago…
Her focus on inclusion and
helping the underserved will
promote substantive progress
for our city.”
The election saw low voter
turnout, with only 35 percent
of registered voters showing
up to the polls. According
to the Chicago Sun-Times,
Lightfoot won over a majority
of
demographics,
including
white, Black and Hispanic
voters, a group reminiscent
of the “rainbow coalition”
that helped elect the city’s
first
Black
mayor,
Harold
Washington, in 1983.
Business sophomore Hollya
Israil, a resident of Chicago,
said she was excited to see
Lightfoot win.
“I
think
electing
Lori
Lightfoot is significant for
Chicago, especially for a city
that is stereotypically known
to be segregated, and feel as
if her strong background as
a diverse lawyer resonates
with residents concerned with
City Hall corruption and low-
income/working class minority
groups being left behind in
political
decision-making
because she is a supporter
of
neighborhood
school
improvements,
expanding
housing
affordability,
job
expansions
and
other
social issues that divide the
population,” Israil said.
Lightfoot will succeed two-
term mayor Rahm Emanuel,
a former chief of staff to
President
Barack
Obama.
Emanuel decided not to seek
re-election as his approval
ratings
dropped
in
recent
years, due in large part to
anger over the city’s response
to the 2014 police shooting of
17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
During Emanuel’s tenure,
Lightfoot led a task force that
pushed for broad changes to
the Chicago Police Department
to
combat
discrimination.
On the campaign trail, she
pledged to reform policing in
the city and root out abuses of
power by law enforcement. She
also touted her understanding
of the inner workings of city
government.
“I think I’ve had a lot of
experience in helping run most
challenging
city
agencies,”
Lightfoot said. “I have a very
deep knowledge of how the
city works, both from that
experience, and also I helped
a lot of different individuals
in business navigate a lot of
byzantine processes in the
city.”
Jennifer Hall, the executive
director for the Ann Arbor Housing
Commission, said in an email
interview that affordable housing
projects are actually beneficial for
both residents and the city. Hall
noted programs like the voucher
waitlist reduce the number of
people who have to find alternate
living situations.
“When people cannot pay their
rent, they end up losing their
housing and end up moving in
with family and friends or living
in their vehicles or living on the
street,” Hall said. “It is much less
expensive to build housing than it
is to provide emergency services
to homeless households in shelters,
schools, hospitals and jails.”
Housing choice vouchers are
subsidies given by the federal
government to assist low-income
families with demonstrated need.
Public housing agencies, which are
specific to each county, manage
the vouchers. According to a fact
sheet from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
the individual public housing
agencies determine a family’s
eligibility for a housing voucher
and ask that each family allocate 30
percent of their income to rent and
utilities.
According to Hall, more than
90 percent of Washtenaw County
households that make less than
$20,000 spend more than half
of their income on rent. Hall
said the high cost of living in
Ann Arbor is due in part to the
University, which is the largest
employer in the community and
often forces low-income residents
to seek housing elsewhere.
“The
University
does
not
pay property taxes to support
the city’s infrastructure and
continues to purchase private
properties, which removes them
from the tax rolls,” Hall said. “The
University continues to increase
student
enrollment
and
hire
more faculty and staff without
providing
additional
housing
opportunities in the community.
It’s simple supply and demand
and the demand is far outpacing
supply, which drives up housing
costs for everyone.”
Lauren
Schandevel,
Public
Policy senior and chair of Central
Student
Government’s
Food
Insecurity and Affordability Task
Force, echoed Hall’s statement
and said the affordable housing
crisis can even affect areas
outside of Ann Arbor.
“There aren’t enough dorms
for the students we are admitting,
and that’s a huge problem,”
Schandevel said. “But also Ann
Arbor is becoming increasingly
expensive, so students have to
move far away from campus or to
Ypsilanti, which is subsequently
gentrifying Ypsilanti, which is a
city-university dynamic going on
that makes it really unaffordable
to live near campus.”
A few weeks ago, Schandevel
and the other members of the task
force contacted a pastor at a local
church to turn that church into
an affordable housing complex
for students in need of more
low-cost
housing.
Schandevel
also noted how most of the
solutions to affordable housing
are organized and implemented
by students rather than the
University administration itself.
“None of this stuff is initiated
by the University, which is a huge
problem,” Schandevel said. “If
it’s students doing all the work,
there’s only so much we can do.”
In the past year, a variety of
student housing developments
have been proposed in Ann
Arbor with mixed success. These
proposals include a plan for 19
units designated as affordable
housing for low-income students.
Hall said the city has taken
steps to fix the issue of affordable
housing but has not yet been
able to address the needs of all
residents. She said the city’s
current measures, which include
donating over $1 million per
year to local nonprofits, do not
confront the root causes of
housing unaffordability.
“The root cause is that the
housing stock in the community
does not match the income of the
community,” Hall said. “We either
need to increase the amount of
housing stock that is affordable
to low-income households and/
or people need to make a living
wage so that they can afford the
housing that is available.”
Susan Beckett, publisher at
Groundcover News, a news outlet
focusing on the needs of low-
income Ann Arbor residents,
said the plans currently in place
for
affordable
housing
were
made 15 years ago and are no
longer sufficient. She also noted
how people from across the
country apply for housing choice
vouchers in Washtenaw County
because there are no restrictions
on where applicants’ geographic
location is.
“It was done with these low-
income housing tax credits,
which
only
required
those
places to stay affordable for
15 to 30 years,” Beckett said.
“So that’s one thing. And there
aren’t enough housing choice
vouchers available and then the
way those things work is that
anyone can apply for a housing
choice voucher anywhere in
the country, they have to live in
whatever place they first came
from for a year, but after that
they can transfer it anywhere.
So people who live in places
where housing choice vouchers
have never come up because
they’re in such high demand,
they apply for them no matter
where they come from.”
Beckett, who said the high
number of applicants indicate
that
the
system
is
“highly
distressed,” also highlighted how
the U.S. government as a whole is
often unwilling to spend money
on housing subsidies. She said
this lack of funding contributes to
affordable housing crises across
the country.
“We’ve got a Congress that has
been unwilling to spend money on
anything except tax cuts for quite
a long time,” Beckett said. “I don’t
think it’s that they don’t want to
spend it on affordable housing
— if it’s not a tax cut, they don’t
want to spend it at all. But the
other side of it is that a lot of them
associate
subsidized
housing
with housing projects and that
being a failure, and nobody wants
to be part of a failure. So I think
part of it is a matter of education,
letting them build places that
have done integrated housing — it
works.”
Read more online at
michigandaily.com
The School of Education
has been my window of
opportunity to pursue my
passions of making a difference
in the education system.”
Following Elshafei’s election,
Law student Victoria Allen
gave a final report on the CSG
election. In her presentation,
Allen
addressed
concerns
regarding
Engineering
sophomore
Dylan
Haugh-
Ewald’s presidential candidacy,
of which he previously told The
Daily he was uninformed.
According to Allen, Haugh-
Ewald turned in an election
packet with multiple items
filled out incorrectly, which
were not initially caught by the
Election Commission. She said
she did not hear of any changes
that needed to be made to the
candidate list when she sent it
out March 13.
Allen
said
Haugh-Ewald
reached out to her March 21
regarding his name on the
ballot. She changed his election
status, but failed to respond
to him to inform him of the
change. Haugh-Ewald filled
out a filler platform on the
sample ballot, and Allen said
he asked her if he could change
it once he saw his name on the
presidential ticket.
“(Haugh-Ewald)
reached
out to me about (the filler
platform) on March 27, which
was when the election ballot
was live, and it would’ve been
inappropriate to change it,”
Allen said. “I note that in my
report that it was an error on
my end and I did not follow up
with him, but at the same time
he had four days to change
his platform and review the
sample ballot, so that’s human
error on both sides.”
The
Assembly
then
nominated Whit Froehlich,
third-year medical student, for
speaker of the Ninth Assembly.
Assembly
members
also
nominated LSA sophomore
Ben Glass to serve as vice
speaker.
For the next portion of
the meeting, the Assembly
nominated members to serve
as chairs and vice chairs of each
of the six CSG committees.
The
Assembly
nominated
Rackham student Austin Glass
for chair and Engineering
freshman Carla Voigt for vice
chair of the Rules Committee.
LSA freshman Joey Schrayer
was elected as chair and
Engineering
sophomore
Sandra Dubaisi as vice chair
of
the
Communications
Committee.
In addition, the Assembly
voted
Engineering
junior
Mario Galindez as chair and
LSA freshman Marwan Bazzi
as vice chair of the Finance
Committee.
LSA
freshman
Sujin Kim became chair and
LSA sophomore Selena Bazzi
became vice chair of the
Resolutions Committee, and
Rackham
student
Hayden
Jackson was elected chair
and LSA sophomore Audrey
Lynch was elected vice chair
of the Executive Nominations
Committee.
Lastly,
Law
student
Martese
Johnson
became chair and Engineering
junior
Zeke
Majeske
became vice chair of the
Ethics Committee, and LSA
sophomore Mia Kalt became
the
Bystander
Intervention
Training liaison.
At the conclusion of the
meeting,
Gerstein
and
Blanchard gave their first
executive
communications
of
the
semester.
Gerstein
discussed the privilege of his
position as CSG president and
said he and Blanchard hope to
serve as a valuable resource to
the Assembly and University
students.
“During the election, we
all ran with the individual
promises and action to make
a change on campus, being a
voice for the student body and
an advocate to the University
administration,” Gerstein said.
“This responsibility shouldn’t
be taken lightly, and our
collective mission to encourage
students in civic engagement,
to voice student concerns and
actively welfare the Michigan
experience for everyone is a
task we will all hold ourselves
accountable for.”
In her statement, Blanchard
encouraged
Assembly
members to find topics they
believe
are
important
to
address
through
CSG
on
campus during their last weeks
of the semester on campus.
“Your time spent in this
organization ... it does not
go unnoticed and it’s greatly
appreciated,” Blanchard said.
“… I hope you find what you’re
passionate about as well as
the resources you need to
accomplish those goals.”