T

hroughout 
the 
country, 

we have seen efforts to 
make voting more difficult, 

many of which target vulnerable 
populations, 
including 
students. 

From the closures of polling places to 
address and ID requirements, these 
efforts emphasize how appreciative 
we should be of Michigan officials 
like Secretary of State Jocelyn 
Benson who have made it easier 
to vote. However, these efforts 
should be the tip of the iceberg. 
With just more than a week until 
the U.S. presidential election, it is 
nothing short of a travesty that the 
University of Michigan hasn’t done 
anything beyond an ambiguous 
one-line reference in a mass email 
to encourage voting. The University 
administration should take many 
actions in the next few days to 
provide its students with valuable 
information related to casting their 
ballots, as described below. 

It’s important to first look at the 

context of voting on campus. In 
2016, only 44.7% of students voted, 
which isn’t a number to dwell on 
but one to build on. However, it is 
hard to say we’re building on that, as 
only approximately 2,600 students 
have registered so far at early voting 
locations on campus and only 2,900 
have voted (according to estimates 
from officials). We have been 
afforded the incredible opportunity 
to not just have the University of 
Michigan Museum of Modern Art 
as an early voting location, but to 

also have drop boxes throughout 

campus where students can place 
their ballots. However, for students to 
vote, they need to have information 

about how and where to vote: What 
should they bring? What did the 
Oct. 19 deadline mean? Can they still 
register if they’re out of state? 

These questions and more could 

be easily answered by an informative 
email sent to every student from 
the University. I encourage the 
University to send out an email 
publicizing the hours, days and 
locations of early voting in Ann Arbor 
(at Ann Arbor City Hall and the 
UMMA), as well as what documents 

are needed to vote. Also crucial is 
a reminder that students can vote 
during the stay-in-place order. This 
information should also be posted 
on the @UMich Twitter, Instagram 
and Facebook accounts, where 
students can both see it and share it. 
Sending all of this information in one, 
easy-to-follow infographic or email 
to every student would cause more 
students to fulfill their civic duty 
and empower students to share this 
information with others. 

I also encourage each department 

to request professors spend 30 
seconds at the beginning of every 
class from now until the election 

providing a reminder about early 
voting. Constant reminders are 
scientifically proven to drive up 
someone’s chance to vote, and this 
is a simple way to do it. Also, in 
synchronous classes, students can 
ask questions in the Zoom chat that 
can be answered on the spot, which 
is much more feasible (and, hopefully, 
more 
reliable) 
than 
students 

searching for these answers on the 
internet where specific, student-
focused information is much harder 
to find. 

It can be argued that this 

information is already out there 
and blasting out another email to 
“go vote” would be futile. However, 
these resources have been promoted 
almost exclusively through the work 
of student organizations and The 
Michigan Daily. Students who are 
not frequently on social media or on 
campus might miss many of these 
reminders. Furthermore, there’s no 
centralized place where students 
can go for information, with much 
of it coming in the form of Instagram 
graphics that tell half the story, or 
leave students with questions but 
no way to answer those questions. 
On top of this, no on-campus 
organization attempting to share 
information has the network, reach 
and influence that the University 
does, whether in a social media post 
or in an email to every student. 

Opinion

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

BRITTANY BOWMAN AND 

EMILY CONSIDINE

Editorial Page Editors

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Ray Ajemian

Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman

Ajit Chilukuri

Emily Considine

Elizabeth Cook
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim

Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Jack Roshco

Gabrijela Skoko

Joel Weiner
Erin White

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

ANDREW SCHAEFFLER | CONTRIBUTOR
Voting should be easier, and that starts 

here on the U-M campus

There’s no 

centralized place 
where students 

can go for 
information

Andrew Schaeffler is a sophomore 

in the College of Literature, Science 

& the Arts and can be reached at 

aschaeff@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

Vote yes on Proposals 1 and 2

I

n addition to the candidates on the ballot, Michigan voters will decide 
the fate of two statewide proposals in this year’s election cycle. Proposal 
1 would alter the way that the state of Michigan uses royalties and 

revenue from gas and oil extracted on public lands, directing revenues from 
this practice to conservation efforts and the state park systems. Proposal 2 
is a proposed constitutional amendment, aimed at protecting Michiganders’ 
online data and communications from warrantless search and seizure. 

Voting ‘yes’ on Proposal 1 would 

earmark additional oil and gas 
revenue for the purpose of protecting 
and further developing Michigan’s 
parks. As it currently stands, when 
the State Parks Endowment Fund 
reaches its $800 million cap, any 
additional revenue generated from oil 
and gas extracted from public lands 
would be free for the legislature’s 
unrestricted use. Proposal 1 will 
eliminate the $500 million cap on the 
Natural Resources Trust Fund and 
require that all revenues from oil and 
gas be directed to the NRTF after 
the State Parks Endowment Fund 
reaches its $800 million ceiling. In 
addition, Proposal 1 will specify how 
the funds can be spent requiring 
that at least 20% of the Endowment 
Fund annual spending will go 
toward the improvement of state 
parks, at least 25% of the NRTF’s 
annual spending will go towards 
parks and public recreation areas 
and at least 25 percent of the NRTF’s 
annual spending will go towards the 
conservation of land. 

Proposal 1 is endorsed by a 

multitude of Michigan and national 
environmental 
organizations 

including the Michigan Audubon 
Society, the Michigan NAACP 
Environmental and Climate Justice 
Program and the National Wildlife 
Federation. The Sierra Club is notably 
the only environmental organization 
in opposition, saying that “requiring 
revenue from a non-renewable 
source to go to ongoing, increasing 
funding needs creates financial 
problems, it doesn’t solve them. If we 
are to mitigate climate change, we 
need to protect and preserve land, 
and we need to find new revenue 
sources for the MNRTF as we work 
to get ourselves off of fossil fuels.” 

The Michigan Daily Editorial 

Board wishes to stress that the 
state of Michigan must transition 
away from relying on gas and oil 
revenues to finance parks and 
should not have to tax oil and gas 
companies, those polluting “Pure 
Michigan,” to fund conservation 
efforts. 
Green 
energy 
must 

become a priority to protect the 
environment and create long-
term sustainable jobs in the 
state of Michigan. However, due 
to the reality of park funding 
in this moment and due to the 

requirements Proposal 1 will place 
on the legislature’s delineation of 
revenues raised by the extraction 
of oil and gas on state lands to 
engage in conservation, The Daily 
Editorial Board endorses voting 
“yes” on Proposal 1.

Proposal 2 is a constitutional 

amendment that, according to 
the proposal’s language, would 
“require a search warrant in order 
to access a person’s electronic data 
or 
electronic 
communications.” 

As more of people’s identities and 
personal information is stored 
online, states across the nation 
are beginning to consider similar 
constitutional 
amendments

or legislation. While the U.S. 
Constitution’s 4th Amendment is 
designed to prevent unreasonable 
or 
unwarranted 
searches 
and 

seizures, the 4th Amendment does 
not explicitly include electronic 
data or communication. Voting 
‘yes’ on Proposal 2 would amend 
Michigan’s 
constitution 
to 

explicitly include electronic data 
and communications as requiring 
warrants for law enforcement to 
access.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020 — 7

FROM THE DAILY

Bernstein, Ryder Diggs for Regents
W

ith regards to the upcoming University of Michigan’s Board of 
Regents election, The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board unanimously 
endorses incumbents Mark Bernstein (D) and Shauna Ryder Diggs 

(D). This unanimous decision was by and large the result of how their talking 
points directly concern issues affecting students in the University community 
across all three campuses. There are some key areas where Bernstein and 
Ryder Diggs contrast with the other candidates’ viewpoints on the issues.

Bernstein infamously championed 

the Go Blue Guarantee while voting 
in favor of increasing tuition this 
year — one of his key talking points 
in response to a recent survey. While 
Bernstein claims tuition increases 
only affect those who can already 
afford to pay tuition, there is the 
lingering question of what Bernstein 
means when he says he’s championed 
the Go Blue Guarantee. The board 
noted that expanding the Go Blue 
Guarantee could possibly do more 
to increase affordability for the 
University’s high-quality education. 

However, Bernstein maintains 

he and Ryder Diggs are united in 
favor of “aggressively advanc(ing 
their) 
Democratic 
vision 
for 

affordable, accessible and excellent 
public higher education, while 
embracing diversity, honoring labor 
and protecting the environment.” 
When addressing months of public 
concern about the University’s 
environmental 
impacts 
in 

February, he announced the board 
would freeze any new investments 
in fossil fuels and reevaluate any 
ongoing investments in the same. 

In that meeting, Bernstein also 
advocated for the University’s 
consideration of aligning its capital 
projects with one of its stated long-
term goals — to achieve carbon 
neutrality by the year 2030. 

One possible point of contention 

leading up to the Regents’ election 
is Bernstein’s withdrawal of a $3 
million donation to the Trotter 
Multicultural 
Center 
in 
July 

2016 to prevent the building form 
bearhing his name. Bernstein 
has stated that his decision to 
withdraw the donation was in 
response to concerns expressed 
by members of the University 
community 
— 
concerns 
that 

notably included the fact that the 
Center is the only building on 
campus named after an African 
American (it honors activist and 
newspaper editor William Monroe 
Trotter). Bernstein has stated his 
intention was not to “diminish or 
erase” Trotter’s legacy. 

Ryder Diggs has also discussed 

how she championed the Go Blue 
Guarantee before its inception. 
Further, she’s spoken at length 

about why she’s an advocate for 
its 
expansion, 
citing 
concerns 

about and the importance of the 
University’s affordability. Her own 
experiences with taking out loans to 
afford the University — Ryder Diggs 
attended the University for college, 
medical school and residency — 
as well as her being raised by two 
University professors, have played 
a major role in the formation of 
her views on public education. In 
accordance to her stated views, 
Ryder Diggs voted against the 
recent tuition increase. 

With regards to public comment 

at board meetings, in a December 
2019 
meeting 
where 
Climate 

Action 
Movement 
and 
One 

University 
members 
expressed 

their frustrations due to a lack of 
response to their concerns, Ryder 
Diggs was the only regent to 
respond to them directly. She noted 
the board does take into account 
public comment and sympathized 
with their positions. 

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

FROM THE DAILY

Vote Debbie Dingell and Gary Peters
T

he race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for 
Michigan’s 12th congressional district is effortlessly dominated 
by incumbent Dingell. Closely tied to the University of Michigan’s 

campus, Dingell was one of the politicians who vocally endorsed the 
Graduate 
Employees’ 
Organization’s 
strikes 
earlier 
this 
semester.

The pandemic, the loss of her 

husband and presidential attacks 
bringing 
nationwide 
attention 

have not hindered her work to 
improve the state of Michigan 
— she persisted in her steadfast 
advocacy for the Coronavirus 
Aid, 
Relief 
and 
Economic 

Security Act and the Payment 
Protection Program and Health 
Care Enhancement Act. Prior to 
the pandemic, she exemplified 
her support for union workers by 
joining the United Auto Workers 
strikes in 2019, pressuring General 
Motors to raise wages, narrow the 
pay gap between new and veteran 
workers and reopen closed plants. 

Dingell believes that every 

American has the right to health 
care, 
values 
the 
automotive 

industry and its contributions to 
Michigan’s economy and supports 
the 
Great 
Lakes 
Restoration 

Initiative which protects our 
freshwater lakes from pollution, 
invasive 
species 
and 
other 

impacts of climate change. She 
has also supported the Bipartisan 
Background Checks Act of 2019, 
closing important loopholes in 
purchasing firearms and leading 
the Zero Tolerance for Domestic 
Abusers 
Act, 
which 
further 

prevents domestic abusers from 
obtaining firearms. Due to her 
history 
of 
relentless 
support 

for issues critical to Michigan’s 
prosperity, the Michigan Daily 
Editorial Board is proud to 
endorse Dingell. 

Opponent 
Jeff 
Jones 
is 

challenging Dingell for the third 
time, yet still lacks any semblance 
of 
the 
political 
stronghold 

necessary to win the race. His only 
online presence is his Facebook 
page, which fails to describe what 
his platform is for this election. In 
miscellaneous posts answering 
constituent questions, he has 
expressed his disbelief in the 
science 
behind 
mask-wearing 

and most of the public health 
measures implemented to mitigate 

the spread of COVID-19. Jones 
is anti-abortion in a state that is 
already in grave danger if Roe v. 
Wade is overturned. His chances 
of winning the election are 
negligible, making Dingell almost 
guaranteed to be victorious. 

Gary Walkowicz is running for 

the U.S. House of Representatives 
seat for the fourth consecutive 
election cycle, but without any 
preconception that he will actually 
win the election. After running 
as an independent in 2014, he 
successfully petitioned for the 
Working Class Party to be put on 
the ballot and subsequently ran 
under the Working Class Party in 
2016, 2018 and 2020. He is firmly 
against the two-party system 
and believes that no party can 
adequately represent the working 
class besides the working class 
themselves. 

***
There are many reasons why 

The Michigan Daily Editorial 
Board stands firmly in its support 
of the reelection of Sen. Peters, 
D-Mich., but one of the most 
prominent is the unqualified 
candidate against whom he is 
running: Detroit businessman 
John James. James, who was 
defeated 
by 
incumbent 
Sen. 

Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., in 
2018, is running as an outsider, 
despite his presence as a fixture 
in 
Michigan 
politics 
dating 

back to 2014, and despite his 
campaign receiving $9 million 
from a super PAC led by allies 
of 
Senate 
Majority 
Leader 

Mitch 
McConnell, 
R-Ky. 
He 

was considered by President 
Donald Trump as a candidate to 
replace Nikki R. Haley, former 
ambassador 
to 
the 
United 

Nations, in 2018, but the position 
ultimately 
went 
to 
Trump 

megadonor Kelly Craft. 

That James is Peters’s opponent 

is in and of itself enough to warrant 
casting your ballot for the latter. 
While Peters keeps his head down, 

passing legislation and working on 
behalf of his constituents, James 
has boasted that he is “2000%” 
for Trump. The Senate has its 
share of avid right-wing Trump 
supporters; it does not need 
another. Much like Michigan, the 
Senate needs a man like Peters, the 
third most bipartisan Democratic 
senator of the 116th (and current) 
Congress. The last thing Michigan 
needs is to add to the Senate a man 
like James, who equates abortion 
rights to genocide or who is 
endorsed by the NRA, when, as of 
July, non-fatal shootings in Detroit 
have increased by a factor of 52% 
since 2019. 

James is another Republican 

military veteran who distorts 
and exploits his military record 
for political gain. James claims to 
have been an Army Ranger, but he 
never served in the 75th Ranger 
Regiment of the United States 
Army. James served honorably in 
the U.S. Army for eight years; his 
discharge tells us as much. That he 
still feels the need to embellish 
his record begs the question: If he 
feels the need to mislead Michigan 
voters about his own record, 
how can we trust him to tell his 
constituents 
the 
truth 
about 

matters that affect them? 

At a time when Michigan 

needs a decent, hard-working 
senator who understands the 
challenges faced by Michigan 
families, the GOP has nominated 
a man who is self-serving, 
propped up by DeVos, Koch and 
McConnell super PAC money 
and 
supportive 
of 
policies 

that would further divide our 
communities and our country. 
That James opposes the death 
penalty is not enough to excuse 
his other stances — while Peters 
has not taken a firm stance on 
the death penalty since joining 
Congress in 2009, he also doesn’t 
hold a series of other problematic 
views or lie repeatedly about his 
record.

