Part 1 of COMPLETE NOVEMBER 7 BALLOT (Washtenaw County)

Oct 5 00:53 UTC 2000

November 7, 2000 election -- Part 1 of complete ballot

Washtenaw County voters: to get your COMPLETE ballot for this election, with 
all candidates and proposals, use Part 1 (this item), plus the Part 2 that 
applies to your city or township.

All of the races listed below are on the ballot for ALL of Washtenaw County.


President & Vice President

 George W. Bush & Dick Cheney (Republican)
 Al Gore & Joe Lieberman (Democratic)
 Harry Browne & Art Olivier (Libertarian)
 Ralph Nader & Winona LaDuke (Green)
 John Hagelin & Nat Goldhaber (Natural Law)
 Howard Phillips & Curtis J. Frazier (U.S. Taxpayers)

U.S. Senator

 Spence Abraham (Republican)
 Debbie Stabenow (Democratic)
 Mark A. Forton (Reform)
 Michael R. Corliss (Libertarian)
 Matthew R. Abel (Green)
 William Quarton (Natural Law)
 John Mangopoulos (U.S. Taxpayers)

Members State Board of Education (elect 2)

 Terri Lynn Land (Republican)
 Lawrence C. Patrick, Jr. (Republican)
 John Austin (Democratic)
 Kathleen Straus (Democratic)
 Helen E. R. Ditzhazy (Reform)
 Mary Ann Lessner (Reform)
 Diane Barnes (Libertarian)
 Lynnea Ellison (Natural Law)
 Gail Quarton (Natural Law)
 Clara C. Pilchak (U.S. Taxpayers)
 Max Riekse (U.S. Taxpayers)

Board of Regents University of Michigan (elect 2)

 Susy Avery (Republican)
 Wendy Anderson (Republican)
 Rebecca McGowan (Democratic)
 Larry Deitch (Democratic)
 Nick Waun (Reform)
 Marvin Marvin Surowitz (Libertarian)
 Tim Maull (Libertarian)
 Scott S. Trudeau (Green)
 Lisa Anne Puccio (Natural Law)
 David James Knight (U.S. Taxpayers)
 Joe Sanger (U.S. Taxpayers)

Board of Trustees Michigan State University (elect 2)

 Connie Binsfeld (Republican)
 George Scott Romney (Republican)
 Dorothy V Gonzales (Democratic)
 Cal Rapson (Democratic)
 Michael H. Miller (Libertarian)
 Violet Steele (Libertarian)
 Robert Gale (U.S. Taxpayers)

Board of Governors Wayne State University (elect 2)

 Michael Kelly (Republican)
 Mary Kay Shields (Republican)
 Paul Massaron (Democratic)
 Jackie Washington (Democratic)
 Scotty Boman (Libertarian)
 Thomas W. Jones (Libertarian)
 James J. Nicita (Green)
 Frederick Kline (U.S. Taxpayers)
 Lucretia C. Sturdivant (U.S. Taxpayers)

Prosecuting Attorney

 Brian L. Mackie (Democratic)

Sheriff

 Ronald J. Schebil (Republican)
 Dan Minzey (Democratic)
 Gaia Kile (Green)

County Clerk/Register of Deeds

 Peggy M. Haines (Republican)

County Treasurer

 Catherine McClary (Democratic)
 Kimberly Cashman (Libertarian)

Drain Commissioner

 Janis Bobrin (Democratic)

Supreme Court Justice (elect 1)

 Clifford W. Taylor (Republican)
 Marietta Sebree Robinson (Democratic)
 Robert W. Roddis (Libertarian)

Supreme Court Justice (elect 1)

 Stephen J. Markman (Republican)
 Edward McCall Thomas (Democratic)
 David H. Raaflaub (Libertarian)

Supreme Court Justice (elect 1)

 Robert Young (Republican)
 E. Thomas Fitzgerald (Democratic)
 Jerry J. Kaufman (Libertarian)

Court of Appeals Judge 3rd District (elect 3)

 Paul L. Maloney
 Bill Murphy
 Janet T. Neff
 Michael R. Smolenski

Circuit Court Judge 22nd Circuit (elect 2)

 Timothy P. Connors
 Melinda Morris

Circuit Court Judge 22nd Circuit

 Archie Cameron Brown

Probate Judge

 John N. Kirkendall

Washtenaw Community College Trustee (elect 2)

 Diana McKnight Morton
 Calla J. Fette
 Richard J. Landau
 William C. Riney
 Rik Richardson

State Proposal 00-1

  A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT STATE TO PROVIDE
  INDIRECT SUPPORT TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC PRE-ELEMENTARY,
  ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS; ALLOW THE USE OF TUITION VOUCHERS
  IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS; AND REQUIRE ENACTMENT OF TEACHER TESTING
  LAWS.

State Proposal 00-2

  A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY
  VOTE (2/3 VOTE) OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT CERTAIN LAWS
  AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

County Proposal A

  PROPOSITION TO INCREASE THE TAX LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
  CONSTRUCTING, EQUIPPING, FURNISHING, REMODELING AND ACQUIRING: (1) THE
  WASHTENAW COUNTY COURT HOUSE; (2) AN ADDITION TO THE WASHTENAW COUNTY
  COURT HOUSE; (3) NECESSARY PARKING, INCLUDING, AN ADDITION TO THE
  ANN/ASHLEY PARKING DECK AND (4) A NEW SATELLITE COURT HOUSE AT THE COUNTY
  SERVICE CENTER

County Proposal B

  PROPOSITION TO INCREASE THE TAX LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING
  NATURAL AREAS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEM, PAYING THE COSTS OF OPERATING A
  LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM AND PAYING THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE LAND
  PURCHASED

(for the rest of the ballot, see the Part 2 that applies to your area)

response 2 of 57:

Oct 5 14:09 UTC 2000

What is the deal with state proposal 2?

response 4 of 57:

Oct 5 15:29 UTC 2000

Re 2-3.  Proposal 00-2 is the "let local votes count" proposal.  I have
mixed feelings about it, but plan to vote "yes".

Michigan is considered a relatively strong "home rule" state, meaning that
city governments have wide discretion in setting up their structures and
making laws, but that has been eroding lately by the Legislature's
increasing tendency to override local laws and charters. 

I believe that other "home rule" states make it a bit more difficult to
simply override a city charter than just a simple majority vote in the
Legislature.  This proposal would give Michigan's legislature that extra
hurdle; they could still do it, but it takes two-thirds.

Arguments against: (1) supermajority requirements are bad policy because
it allows a minority to veto legislation.  (2) the proposal is badly
worded and there may be litigation over the precise extent of what it
encompasses.  (3) cities have adopted legislation that the legislature
needs to ban, such as gun ordinances, lower marijuana penalties, living
wage ordinances, etc. 

The state chamber of commerce (business community) has taken a strong
stand against this proposal. 

Arguments in favor: (1) charters or ordinances were adopted by the
majority in the local jurisdiction; such majorities should not be casually
overridden.  (2) any kind of legal wording will be interpreted by the
courts, no matter how it's worded.  (3) the Legislature's recent activity
on local issues infringes on home rule, and has outraged many independent
observers.
 
The Michigan Municipal Leage (non-partisan group representing all city
governments in Michigan) sponsored this proposal. 
 
I'm voting "yes" because I'm so appalled by the low quality of leadership
and decisionmaking coming out of the legislature over the past couple of
decades, as brought about by BOTH parties, and I have no optimism that
it's going to improve anytime soon.

response 6 of 57:

Oct 5 17:24 UTC 2000

I guess I'll vote yes on this one. But still, *all* levels of government are
suspect as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather that the proposal were to have
whichever penalties (among state, local, county, fed) were lowest.

response 8 of 57:

Oct 5 23:24 UTC 2000

Makes politically harder to vote against by politicians.  

response 10 of 57:

Oct 8 02:27 UTC 2000

Teacher testing is already part of state law. It's just easier to get voters
to vote yes on a Constitutional amendment that includes it, given all the
publicity on "poor teachers" and current certification requirements (that is,
"none" on the latter).

They put a lot into this amendment, and almost none of it shows up on the
ballot, which is limited to a 100-word summary.

response 12 of 57:

Oct 8 17:08 UTC 2000

Could someone comment on county proposals A and B?  I'm really not sure how
to vote on them.

response 14 of 57:

Oct 8 21:31 UTC 2000

What facilities does the courthouse lack?

response 16 of 57:

Oct 9 19:15 UTC 2000

What sort of 'expansion and new facilities' are they talking about?

response 18 of 57:

Oct 10 19:16 UTC 2000

I run into that between counties and states, why not townships and cities?

response 20 of 57:

Oct 11 13:42 UTC 2000

Here is an example that won't garner sympathy from this media, but I'll
thrust it out there anyway.

In my past profession as a pest control technician, my vehicle was
under state and federal regulation on managing shipping papers and
placarding when appropriate.  Because of the nature of the work,
materials were carried that if released unabated might cause a risk to
an area.  I carried very small amounts of materials in secured
containers which were tools of my work.  The most hazardous was
probably gasoline (from time to time).

Working under conventional guidelines, standard release does require
some precaution for very small areas (like within homes).  The Federal
and State laws regulate standards of training and behavior and
material use.

Within the last five years, the city of Ann Arbor was attempting to
redefine the regulations of transporting and application of those
materials using information inadequate to the formation of that
policy.  They were attempting to define exactly what materials and
what treatment procedures were acceptable within the city limits.  The
preliminary definition was a major restriction in the choice of
professional treatment methods to be used.  Anti-preemption laws at
State level prevented this debacle.  I certainly consider this a good
thing.

Frankly, many local bodies do not have the checks and balances of the
State when defining new public and professional conduct.  Nor should
they.  While I'm not a fan of the regulatory bodies at state level,
for the most part there is input and some minor level of wisdom in the
exchange.  At the local level, especially in Ann Arbor, this wisdom
can be hard to find and harder to influence.  Certainly, many Ann
Arbor policies seem to be more "feel-good" than "well-thought."

Should this proposal come to pass, expect that the City will suddenly 
find ways to implement a backlog of changes thought to be in the 
public good, but inadequately considered and quickly implemented.

response 22 of 57:

Oct 11 15:39 UTC 2000

You were probably always carrying gasoline (unless your vehicle used
diesel). 

I agree that there is value in consistency, since there is already so much
arbitrariness in matters such as safety and environmental protection.  I
was at one time chairman of the safety committee of the College of
Engineering at UM. Our approach was *both* federal/state regulation and
local option - if the latter were stricter than the former. Federal/state
regulation is very broadly based but also largely minimal, simply because
it must have general applicability, and cannot address local situations in
detail. The ability to apply local options after fulfilling the federal
and state requirements is essential in order to address specific
situations.

Federal/state regulations do not preempt local option in Laboratory Safety
Standards so long as the local options are not contradictory. 
Federal/state regulations say you must have certain facilities and
procedures in place, but do not say you cannot have additional facilities
and procedures, if local situations warrant such.

I do not see why this should not apply to cities and townships, as long as
their additional local regulations and procedures are developed
professionally and not politically, and also in accord with those of the
higher jurisdiction. 

The problem with state preemption of regulations and procedures is exactly
the same as for local preemption - the decisions may be more political
than professional. So the question is, who's preemptions need to prevail?
I'm inclined to think, the local choices, since it is the locality that
has to live with them. 

response 24 of 57:

Oct 15 05:34 UTC 2000

Slightly off topic, but I received my Absentee ballot yesterday :)