Essay by Martha Quillen
2002 election – November 2002 – Colorado Central Magazine
Decisions, decisions.
The 2002 election is still nearly a month away, but I’ve made quite a few decisions already. First, I’m going to vote against all of the Amendments: 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31.
Consider Amendment 27. Although campaign finance reform may sound like a good idea, it would take a wealthy candidate to pay for the lawyers to interpret just what this particular amendment calls for. And complex legal restrictions just make it more difficult for the little guy to compete — even though the intent is to level the playing field.
Then there’s Amendment 28. Personally, I don’t approve of mail-in ballots, primarily because I’m convinced that many people inevitably vote too early — often mailing their ballots in before their candidate is caught lying, embezzling, cheating, stealing, or seducing an employee.
And then there’s Amendment 31, here’s another legislative travesty designed to display bigotry, racism and intolerance. This measure doesn’t only make bilingual instruction illegal; it puts teachers who know more than one language in jeopardy. With Amendment 31 in place, the only safe teachers will be those who can’t understand the inquiries of their young, confused, non-English speaking charges — because anyone with an iota of compassion would presumably answer a student’s questions in a language that the student could understand.
Of course, the theory is that Spanish-speaking students will learn English more completely and rapidly if Spanish is totally disallowed in the classroom. But hey, if that really works, and the State of Colorado doesn’t deem it excessively cruel to refuse to calm a frightened child crying in his native tongue, then let’s expand the concept for the good of everyone.
Kindergarten and first grade will be in English only. Second and third: Japanese. Fourth and fifth: Student’s choice of French, Spanish or German. Sixth and seventh: Chinese. Eighth: Latin. Ninth: Greek. Tenth: Student’s choice of Turkish, Persian (Dari or Farsi), Arabic, Kurdish or Hebrew. Eleventh: A Scandinavian language of the pupil’s choice. Twelfth: Artificial languages only; this category includes Esperanto, Hobbit, and Klingon.
Then — assuming that immersion programs really do work — the average U.S. high school graduate just might speak as many languages as a typical seven-year-old migrant.
So why is it that every time Californians institute a mean-spirited idea, Coloradans import it?
Yes, let’s make sure all students know English. Hey, maybe we could even make community classes readily available for parents who’d like to improve their English. Our most important step, though, is to make the resources available to everyone who’d like to improve their language skills.
Literacy is too important to be relegated only to school children. The United State’s official literacy rate is about 97%, and that number is probably unduly optimistic. Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Albania, Andorra, Austria, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland and Switzerland all boast a 100% literacy rate. France, Hungary and Armenia stand at 99%. On a worldwide basis, we do all right, but we could do better.
I’m also voting against Referenda A, B, C and E. But I like D.
Ordinarily my theory is: When in doubt, toss new proposals out. But since the Colorado Constitution is already far too lengthy and we’ve currently got more laws and regulations than most of us can keep track of, I favor Referendum D, the measure that eliminates obsolete constitutional provisions. Referendum D makes it possible to vote against Amendments that probably weren’t a good idea long ago. Plus a YES on D is actually a multiple NO. Here’s a rare opportunity; it’s not often that you can get rid of a dozen provisions with a single vote.
But an editorial in the October 12th Rocky Mountain News, encouraged Coloradans to vote NO on Referendum D because the measure eliminates a 1996 term limits amendment which has been deemed unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court — which the News wants to retain because it was “approved by voters.”
Obviously, if we ever manage to pass a constitutional term limits amendment, it will be included in our constitution. But if there’s something we definitely don’t need, it’s the presence of illegal legalities in our judicial documents.
No wonder Colorado’s constitution is so long-winded our legislators seem not to have read it. No wonder citizens have trouble understanding the law. The problem with Referendum D is that it doesn’t cut nearly enough out of our cumbersome, virtually undecipherable body of law.
Before you vote yes on any amendment or referendum this year please read the entire text — not just the citizens’ digest version — and determine whether you think the measure is so essential that it’s worth the added bureaucratic verbiage.
This year, I’m pretty much against everything.
But don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against a Cesar Chavez day. With President Bush in charge, however, unemployment will no doubt be high enough that we won’t need any additional days off in the next two years. Soon everyday will be a holiday for a lot of us. Except, of course, American soldiers. Our President definitely believes in full employment for all military personnel.
Recently, President Bush went on television to extol the wisdom of waging war against Iraq if Saddam Hussein doesn’t coöperate with our President’s demands.
And just when has Saddam Hussein coöperated?
So it sounds like we may be going to war soon.
Except Ed surprised me by announcing that he expected all of this war talk to end in November. And here I figured we’d be declaring war in November; sending troops in by December, and presiding over World War III before the 2004 election.
Thus, this was one of those rare instances when I fervently hoped that Ed would prove to be the brighter, righter, more perceptive political analyst. And there are some indications that Ed may be right. All of this war talk could merely be a campaign strategy — since the Republicans gained in the polls after Bush started threatening Iraq. Moreover, immediately after the President’s address announcing his intentions toward Iraq, numerous newscasters seemed to think that Bush’s presentation was highly effective.
Although historian and MSNBC commentator Doris Kearns Goodwin was skeptical about the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, she still regarded the President’s speech as inspiring, especially the part where he said that Americans would not live in fear. As Goodwin pointed out, that assurance brought Bush’s audience in Ohio to their feet.
Personally, I didn’t get it. To me, living in fear sounds like a better alternative than dying from fearlessness. And as for Bush’s hand-picked audience? They probably would have offered a standing ovation if he’d sung Barbra Streisand tunes off-key.
Besides, it’s impossible to envision Bush supporters living in fear. On the contrary, they seem totally confident that our country can win any war the President gets us into. According to Bush, our armed forces can quell fanaticism and terrorism, eradicate anti-American sentiments, and instill democracy world-wide. Our troops can ferret out our enemies, eliminate hostility, and impose “civilized” behavior — everywhere. And the President’s supporters apparently buy all of that.
So why is there a serial killer terrorizing Washington?
If imposing “civilized” behavior were really so darned easy, you’d think that Washington would be crime-free by now, rather than hiding from a sniper.
Historically, war can curtail the advancement of belligerent, property grabbing antagonists, but there’s not a lot of evidence that it can impose ideals.
Thus far, I’ve talked to a mere half dozen people who support going to war against Iraq, versus a hundred or so who worry that such a war might prove to be the final solution — for everyone.
Very few people I’ve met seem to believe that war can stop terrorism — or resolve conflicts in the Middle East, or initiate democracy in regions where hierarchical succession rules, or keep weapons out of the hands of extremists.
Yet even so, Bush’s rhetoric seems to be helping the Republican Party in the polls.
I have no idea why. As I see it, the most frightening prospect right now is that our President’s war on terrorism will aggravate current disagreements, provoke more hostilities, inspire retaliation, and become uncontrollable — with a life and will of its own.
The more shameful possibility, however, is that all of this war rhetoric and saber-rattling may merely be a campaign strategy. Personally, I doubt that’s all there is to Bush’s proposals, but I suppose it’s not impossible.
Either way, however, I’m not supporting any Republicans for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Of course, I’m a registered Democrat, so that isn’t particularly startling. But I’ve never voted a straight party ticket, and there have been numerous occasions in the past when my vote didn’t favor any particular party.
This time around, however, I’m sending Democrats to Washington. And no matter what your political leanings, if you fear the consequences of going to war with Iraq, I think you should support Democrats running for U.S. offices, too.
Thus far Bush has ignored cautionary arguments from U.S. citizens, allies, and the U.N., alike. But maybe a political loss can still reach him.
Of course, I don’t really expect such a turn-of-events. But I do believe that having a Democratic congress in the coming years will make America a safer place.
A Democratic congress and senate won’t insure peace — since Democrats have proven themselves to be just as eager as Republicans to prove their patriotism by supporting militant policies. But combining a Democratic congress with a Republican administration should inspire more comprehensive debate. And maybe it will restrain our representatives from abdicating their responsibilities and granting dangerous, unprecedented powers to the current administration.
None of this has any bearing on which candidate will serve best in a local office, however.
This year, I’m feeling like a fairly good Democrat, since the candidates I’ve decided to vote for, thus far, are all Democrats (Imrie, Strickland, Glenn, Tracy). But there are still numerous races that I haven’t decided on, and in some cases a Republican may well be the best candidate.
Recently, I’ve been seeking out people who know or have worked with both candidates for Chaffee County sheriff. Mike Sanchez, the Democratic candidate, is currently the Assistant Chief of Police for the Salida Police Department with 25 years on the force. And Tim Walker, the Republican candidate, is a former army sergeant and business owner, who has been with the Salida Police Department for fourteen years. Both candidates have ample law enforcement experience, and both hope to improve community relations.
I’m afraid that my natural inclination is to connect Sanchez with Salida’s more annoying propositions — like curfews, loitering laws, and putting police officers in the schools — because he has often been the spokesman for the Salida Police Department. But that’s unfair, since Salida’s city council and school administrators initiated those proposals, and it’s generally not the police department’s place to refuse to serve.
So I’ve been trying to find out more, and thus far I’ve heard from six people who have had dealings with both men. Of those six, one adamantly, fiercely opposes Walker, and four support him.
Curiously, the four Walker supporters are all Democrats and the most enthusiastic Sanchez supporter is a Republican — which may give you an idea about why Chaffee County politics are less predictable than one might expect.
The other Sanchez supporter thinks “Mike’s” heart is in the right place, but he thinks that Walker is also a good man, so the choice isn’t an easy one.
Of the four Walker supporters, two believe that Walker will be a very good sheriff; whereas two see him as the less disagreeable candidate.
Among people I know who have worked with both men, that put Walker ahead in popularity. But on the other hand, Ron Bergmann, Chaffee County’s current sheriff, has endorsed Sanchez.
Bringing that endorsement into the discussion, however, merely launched a debate about Bergmann’s tenure. Thus, after several weeks of reading about candidates and asking around, I still wasn’t sure what to think about the sheriff’s race.
So I factored in the opinions of several of my acquaintances who only knew one of the candidates. But unfortunately, a disturbing number of them have decided to vote for the candidate that they don’t know — which hasn’t exactly inspired my confidence. Therefore, I haven’t decided which candidate I’ll vote for yet. But I take heart in the fact that on several occasions, candidates that I wasn’t particularly enthused about in the beginning have turned into really good representatives.
And in that light, I’m still hoping that Bush turns into a better President than I anticipate — which in all honesty, shouldn’t really be very difficult for him.
But on the national scene, things are just not looking up these days, whether it be the economy, our Middle Eastern relationships, or Bush’s foreign and domestic policies.
Ed’s Addendum
Martha and I hardly ever agree about an entire ballot, but I can’t argue with her choices this time. There are a couple of other races I’d like to address, though.
Carl Miller of Leadville, a fairly conservative Democrat, has been our state representative for the past six years. But on account of the census, they had to redraw the district boundaries, and so we’re no longer in Carl’s district.
His new district comprises Lake and Summit counties, along with most of Eagle. If you live there, vote for him. I haven’t always agreed with Carl, but he’s conscientious and he works hard for his constituents.
In our new house district, we have a choice between Democrat Emily Tracy and Republican “incumbent” Lola Spradley. Emily has been campaigning hard, she knows what she’s talking about, and my friends in Cañon City speak well of her about her tenure on the city council there. She’s got my vote, and yours, too, I hope.
We’re in a new state senate district, too, with the seat held by Republican Lew Entz of Hooper, and he’s seeking another term. By all accounts, he’s a decent man. There are Republicans I don’t mind voting for, and he’s one of them.
And on a state-wide race, I want to put in a good word for Allison “Sunny” Maynard, the Green Party candidate for attorney general. She has the subversive notion that the state ought to follow its own constitution and laws, and she’s a tough litigator.