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.