W

hen it comes to voting 

and elections the most 

common question any-

one gets is: Who are you voting for? 

Yet, reading the breaking news head-

lines every morning, watching the 

Climate Clock in New York City tick, 

hearing of Justice Ruth Bader Gins-

burg’s death or living through the on-

going COVID-19 pandemic, I am re-

minded of the importance of using my 

vote as a means of advocacy and voice 

in this election. 

While filling out my absentee bal-

lot I found myself not thinking about 

who I am voting for, but rather what 

I am voting for. I am voting for poli-

cies that don’t place a monetary value 

on human life. I am voting for the be-

lief in science — to save our planet and 

the lives of so many Americans amid a 

pandemic. I am voting for a woman’s 

right to choose. 

I cannot talk about women’s rights 

without briefly mentioning RBG’s leg-

acy and the confirmation of the new 

SCOTUS, the former United States 

federal judge Amy Coney Barett. RBG 

was a champion of women’s equality, 

along with many other progressive 

ideals. RBG particularly advocated 

for women’s rights, seen specifical-

ly when she continuously protected 

the precedent established in Roe v. 

Wade — the right to an abortion — dur-

ing future cases that may have poten-

tially threatened the ruling. In Roe v. 

Wade, the court framed the right to an 

abortion as a matter of privacy. Even 

though RBG was not on the court at 

the time of this decision, she cleverly 

and accurately framed her opinion on 

the case as a matter of gender equality, 

rather than privacy. 

Even though overturning a Su-

preme Court case is both highly un-

likely and challenging, more recently, the 

possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade has 

become reality. With RBG’s death leaving 

a vacant seat in the Supreme Court of the 

United States, the intersection between 

the election and the battle over the va-

cant Supreme Court seat surfaced. While 

Republicans pushed to fill the seat be-

fore the election, Democrats argued that 

we are in the midst of an election, and 

the seat should not have been filled un-

til after the Presidential election. Demo-

crats plead that with the new SCOTUS 

nominee nearly half a century of legal 

precedent has the potential to be over-

turned — the right to choose, the right 

to vote, dreamers who are risked of be-

ing expelled from the only country they 

have ever known, union workers who are 

at risk of losing their right to collectively 

bargain. Democrats plead that because 

millions of Americans have already cast 

their ballots, they deserve to have their 

voices heard. 

Did President Trump think appointing 

an attractive young woman will indemnify 

the loss of RBG? President Trump’s deci-

sion to nominate Amy Coney Barrett was 

strategic: Put a woman on the Supreme 

Court to fill RBG’s seat to appear progres-

sive and equate her role. Maybe it would 

be if Barrett could follow, or even more 

importantly enhance, RBG’s legacy. How-

ever, Amy Coney Barrett will do just the 

opposite. Amy Coney Barrett’s confirma-

tion means two things: The court will shift 

to a 6-3 conservative majority, and the po-

tential of Roe v. Wade to be overturned is 

real — as a law professor Judge Barrett 

was a member of an anti-abortion group, 

Faculty for Life, where she expressed her 

skepitcism for the decision and her will-

ingness to revisit the case. 

I found myself asking what this means 

with an election around the corner, and 

the answer came all too quickly: As a 

woman, my rights are on the ballot.

I was curious about what students of 

different identities than mine would say 

in response to the same question. How-

ever, I was surprised to find a common 

denominator in the responses from every-

one I spoke to: While all these students 

are voting for something, they are fore-

mostly voting against something. 

For LSA junior Katharine Boasberg, 

this election means voting against hate 

and ignorance. In a phone interview with 

The Daily, Boasberg explained that the 

fact that “Black Lives Matter” is political 

speaks to the value we put on human life, 

or lack thereof. 

“We don’t value the lives of women, 

minorities or poor people. All we value 

are the lives of the people already in pow-

er,” Boasberg said. “Because morality has 

been politicized, we are fighting a battle 

against humanity and hate.”

Due to this, Boasberg said that “[she] is 

voting against using race, gender and so-

cio-economic status as a means of putting 

a level of value on human life.” 

Similarly, Ross junior Oliver Ginns 

stated that this election means “voting 
against divisiveness, against a lack of em-

pathy and, most importantly, for human 

decency,” in a phone interview with The 

Daily. 

To LSA senior Alexa Bates, this elec-

tion means voting against the rhetoric of 

hate. In a phone interview with The Dai-

ly, Bates explained that she is aware hate 

will not necessarily go away just because 

of a change in office. Nonetheless, she is 

voting to “take away the power and au-

thority that gives people the notion that 

hate is OK.” 

For some, voting represents a depar-

ture from their past education or fam-

ily life; it allows for largely autonomous 

decision-making in the face of difficult 

policy points.

In a phone interview, LSA junior Alli-

son Gonzalez said that this election means 

voting against what she was indoctrinated 

to believe in her previous education of at-

tending an all girls Catholic school. For 

Gonzalez’s whole education, she has been 

taught that Roe v. Wade should be over-

turned. Now, however, she can make her 

own decision.

“I began to be critical about my educa-

tion,” Gonzalez said. “I was able to form 

my own opinions on issues I realized are 

important for me: women’s rights.” 
I

n the final presidential debate on 

Thursday Oct. 22, Joe Biden said, 

“character is on the ballot.” The 

president’s character has the ability to ei-

ther encourage or hinder hate. 

Ginns was cautiously optimistic when 

explaining that if Biden is to win the elec-

tion, saying “things won’t be fixed with 

a snap of the fingers.” However, Ginns 

noted that we, as a country, will be on the 
trajectory to fixing things. 

Like Ginns, I am well aware that this 

election is not going to automatically fix 

the many injustices in our society, the 

economy or the fact that we are in the 

midst of a pandemic. Nor do I expect it to. 

However, this election is a testament for 

what the future holds. This election is not 

a matter of being a Democrat or Republi-

can — it is not a partisan issue. It is a hu-

man rights issue. 

It is difficult for me to prioritize one 

issue in this election because there is so 

much at stake, and there is a connected-

ness amongst every issue. There is an 

intersection between the economy and 

racial justice; there is an intersection be-

tween climate change and the economy. 

It is not merely a coincidence that when 

the economy shut down because of CO-

VID-19, we began to see clearer skies and 

higher air quality. It is not merely a co-

incidence that low-wage workers and 

single parent households, many of whom 

need unemployment insurance (because 

they lost their work due to COVID), can-

not get it. It is not merely a coincidence 

that COVID-19 hits low-income, minority 

communities the hardest. All of these is-

sues will not magically be remedied with 

a favorable election outcome. What this 

election will do is ensure they are seen as 

issues and treated like issues that must be 

addressed and resolved. 

It is undeniable that this is a symbolic 

election. There is much more on the bal-

lot than just a candidate, just as there is 

much more power behind simply shad-

ing in the name of a candidate. Our vote 

is a form of speech. It allows us to express 

what we condemn and what we condone. 
As John Lewis, former civil rights leader 

and former U.S. Representative compel-

lingly said at the prescient commence-

ment speech he gave in 2016, “The vote 

is precious. It is almost sacred. It’s the 

most powerful non-violent tool we have 

in a democratic society and we’ve got to 

use it.”

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
12 — Wednesday, October 28, 2020 
statement

BY MARISSA SABLE, STATEMENT COLUMNIST

ILLUSTRATION BY EILEEN KELLY

What are you voting for?

