MSA Debate, Stealth Mode
One could be forgiven for missing the MSA-sponsored mayoral debate between Mayor John Hieftje and opponent Jane Lumm last night - we had no idea it was going on, and the Daily didn’t even have a story about it today, except for two sentences at the bottom of a story about an MSA vote against Proposal 2. All we have to go on is an e-mail summary that was sent out to an urban planning list. (All quotes are from the summary, not from the candidates’ words.)
Hieftje acknowledged that he “does not have a very good relationship with” the News when asked about the paper’s endorsement of Lumm. Lumm, on the other hand, said she hadn’t expected to receive the endorsement.
When asked about MIP citations of students, Hieftje said that he “wants the police to back off of students.” Lumm said something about the police having to enforce laws.
Then there was a question about some incident with Lumm asking for voters’ IDs at Mary Markley two years ago. We thought we followed this kind of stuff pretty closely, and we’ve never heard anything like this before. Lumm’s response, as described in the e-mail, was that “asking for ID’s is not allowed, she was just checking to make sure people were at the correct voting site.” This sounds like a denial of sorts, but we can’t really figure it out from this description. Hieftje said that her actions were “intimidating” for voters.
Neither of them supports a couch ban or a Washtenaw/Hill historic district.
We apologize for the sketchy level of detail here, but since the Daily didn’t cover the debate, we felt we should post something, since it’s rare that Ann Arbor politicos discuss student issues in front of a student audience. If any of you were there, more detail would be appreciated. And if you’re not sick of Hieftje and Lumm yet, there’s the Old Fourth Ward candidates’ night tomorrow, and the urban planning forum Friday at 6.
The full text of this summary is posted here, FYI:
posted by Brandon on October 27th, 2004 at 5:21 pmhttp://arborupdate.com/library/395/msa-sponsored-mayoral-debate-102604-summary
In November 2002, apparently out of concern that students would vote for Democrat Joan Lowenstein for 2nd Ward City Council, various Republican leaders worked as poll challengers in student precincts in the 2nd Ward.
I was an attorney-on-call for the Democratic Party that day, and I went to 2nd Ward polling places and saw them, including Washtenaw County Republican chair Marlene Chockley, and at least one Republican former member of Ann Arbor city council.
However, whatever it was that they were doing (presumably, challenging the residency of student voters), they didn’t do much of it while Democrats were there watching them. I think they eventually gave up and went home.
I didn’t see Jane Lumm, but then, I didn’t get around to every single precinct. I’m a bit surprised to hear (apparently by her own admission) that she was involved.
In 2002, of course, it was the Republicans who were surprised, because Joan carried every precinct in the “Republican bastion” 2nd Ward — not just the student areas.
There’s more backstory to this, but I don’t have time to write it all out at the moment.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 27th, 2004 at 6:05 pmWas she a poll worker asking for IDs or was she something else? I can understand a poll worker asking for an ID but if it’s someone off the street, I might tell him what he can do to a rolling donut (bonus points to the person that get’s the Vonnegut reference
). This is sounding more and more like a common tactic and it could end up backfiring on them.
posted by Kozzie on October 27th, 2004 at 8:29 pmBut was Lumm wearing a short skirt at the time?
posted by Anna on October 27th, 2004 at 9:55 pmI’m going to vote at Deja Vu. I hear they have the prettiest poll workers there.
posted by Steve on October 28th, 2004 at 9:54 amI’m not sure what you mean by “poll worker”.
The city hires and pays people to be “election inspectors”, who sit behind the tables, look up your name on the voter list, etc. (If you’re willing to work 15 hours on Election Day, the Ann Arbor City Clerk wants you!)
Political parties can appoint volunteers to be “poll challengers”. The legal role of challengers is to question the right of specific individuals to vote, provided the challenger has some individualized basis for raising the issue. It is illegal for a challenger to challenge a voter without some factual basis. It would also be illegal for poll challengers to ask voters for identification.
My understanding is that the Republicans in 2002 sent poll challengers to the student precincts in the 2nd Ward with the idea of challenging the rights of students to vote.
The Democratic Party got some very alarmed phone calls from 2nd Ward student voters that day. However, when we sent people (myself included) out to the precincts to see what the Republicans were doing, we found them just standing around, looking concerned but doing nothing.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 28th, 2004 at 10:54 amWhen I say poll workers, I mean the folks that are looking up your name on the voter list, handing you the ballots, explaining the ballot, etc.
I didn’t realize there was a such a thing as poll challenger and as I said, someone would get told where they can shove my ID if they weren’t one of the above folks.
posted by Kozzie on October 28th, 2004 at 11:13 amI don’t quite understand what these poll challengers would do that election inspectors wouldn’t. What’s the point? If they’re on the voter roll, they’re in, right? What other criteria is there?
posted by Brandon on October 28th, 2004 at 12:20 pmBrandon,
I assume it was an effort to enforce this state law, which is intentionally biased against college students and supported by Republicans. I assume that someone could be on the registered voters list and not have a valid drivers license, which in my best guess would be what the poll challengers would have been up to.
The following is pasted from:
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/dem_vr_student_voting.html
Many states also have in-person voting or address matching requirements that disproportionately burden students. For example, Michigan state law requires that citizens’ voter registration address match the address on their drivers’ license. Students who do not wish to change their drivers’ license to reflect their school address, which is common, will be unable to vote in Michigan unless they travel to their parents’ home because state law also requires first-time voters to vote in person, rather than by absentee ballot.
posted by Matt on October 28th, 2004 at 12:56 pmI don’t buy the woe is students arguments anymore after seeing how easy it is to register to vote. It’s so easy, I now see how fraud could have been historically perpetrated in widespread proportion.
I didn’t have to show ID, a drivers license sticker was sent to me, and I could have done it by mail (w/o proof of ID, according to the city clerk) if I’d have wanted.
The first-time-vote-not-by-absentee-ballot rule seems fairly legit, too, as a vestigial anti-fraud measure. As far as I’m concerned, it should be MORE difficult to change one’s registration location — in terms of proof of residence and ID — than it is now.
As far as absentee ballots go, college students should be extended the same courtesies as, say, soldiers overseas. Are soldiers simply offered absentee ballots, or do they have to send away?
posted by Dale on October 28th, 2004 at 3:02 pmWell, I went to the OFW candidates meeting tonight…it was rather lackluster in comparison to candidate nights of the past, though there were a few amusing moments of discussion regarding the hilarious couch ban. Thank god neither Hieftje or Lumm will play on that one.
I have had some dealings in the past with both candidates, mostly involving the Broadway Bridges project, and at the time I remember feeling Jane Lumm was rather dismissive and partisan (pre super-majority days, for sure). I’ve always thought of Hieftje as a nice guy, pretty straightforward, though truthfully I have been somewhat out of the loop recently on local politics and am not completely on top of the recent criticisms of him in the A2News.
My main observation at this time is that Jane Lumm is an INCREDIBLY dull speaker who can’t answer a question to save her life. She drones, truly drones, on and on without really saying anything of substance, punctuating her nonresponses with a series of “ers” and “ums.” It had a soporific effect. I don’t think I could take a term of her as mayor…and she’s a republican (couldn’t resist).
Hieftje, by contrast, was clear and succinct in answering questions. Hieftje may have some problems, but he has my vote.
posted by OFW insurgent on October 28th, 2004 at 9:57 pm