In a scathing editorial yesterday, Samantha Katsounas called out members of the Austin City Council who voted to keep the city's 2012 election in May- a time when few students participate in local elections due to finals and summer vacation. The entire piece is worth a read, but I've selected relevant highlights below. It's one of the most succinct, smartly written pieces on the subject, emphasis mine.
While many UT students geared up for a trip to Dallas on Friday, Austin's City Council made a controversial and highly questionable decision regarding a seemingly innocuous topic: election dates. Instead of moving the 2012 municipal elections to November, the council voted 4-3 to keep them in May. The highly symbolic move significantly limits the principle of democracy in Austin while simultaneously creating a de facto limitation on the student vote.
...
Their refusal to move the election to November can be seen as a political move calculated to undermine Leffingwell. It's a travesty of democracy when dissatisfaction with a mayor, whether justified or not, supplants the desire to enhance the level of public involvement in elections.
For students, the issue is of particular concern. Currently, the May elections fall during finals week. College students, usually sleep-deprived and singularly-focused during their exams, do not have the opportunity to participate in elections as they might if the election were at another time. Likewise, any possible run-off elections take place during June, a time when most students go back home or are away on vacation. Moving the election to November would substantially increase the number of students able to vote.
...
The hard facts in favor of the November election heavily outweigh the arguments made by proponents of the status quo. Keeping municipal elections in May during 2012 will preserve low levels of voter turnout and cost the city money. Councilwoman Laura Morrison wrote in a Statesman column last week, "There is no compelling or pragmatic reason" to shift the election date. If saving money and involving more people in voting are not compelling enough reasons, what are? As long as our city council members are willing to perpetuate low voter turnout, students have every reason to be worried.
Students will vote when given the opportunity to organize around an issue or election. Turnout in campus precincts can range from the less than 0.5% turnout in this year's June city runoff to the over 99% turnout in the 2004 November presidential election. It's possible that this issue may spur student organizing once again- to step up to make students' voices heard next spring, in spite of the council's decision.
Oddly, though, Audrey Campbell was named and certified the winner Wednesday night after receiving a plurality of 40.5 percent of the vote with 1,785 votes. She finished only 69 votes ahead of the second place finisher, Jillian Sheridan. Student Government officials who attended the certification meeting did not know of the Texas Student Media Board's rules that the winner must receive a majority. No representative of the Board was present at that meeting, either.
Even more peculiar, though, is the date of the runoff. After thinking Ms. Campbell would serve as the next Editor-in-Chief, the student body learned today that instead a runoff would begin...tomorrow. And it will finish Wednesday evening. This provides virtually no time for student organizations to discuss the vote or for former supporters of Josh Haney to spend much time thinking about the now-restricted options.
Both Audrey and Jillian have run very different campaigns. Jillian's supporters have displayed a rabid tendency that heavily reflects her stated belief that hired columnists should not be "afraid to get out there and offend people." Audrey's campaign has been much quieter, perhaps demonstrating her emphasis on "good writers with fresh ideas" who would, by implication, speak for themselves.
Both candidates have served this academic year as Associate Editor of the Daily Texan, so one can find their past editorials by searching DailyTexanOnline.com. Both also only started work with the Texan last year; Jillian as a columnist and Audrey as a reporter.
By the way, Daily Texan Online has been a significant subject during the election discussions. The Daily Texan recently lost control over its printing press, and the website currently lags well behind major newspapers as the media shifts more towards the internet. Without control over the press anymore, both candidates would consider doing away with the College Media Network and taking more ownership over the site itself.
Finally, I will comment on their political beliefs. Ms. Sheridan claims to be a "free thinker" who is too young to have any solidified political beliefs. Sheridan has several strong supporters within the College Republicans, however, along with a few enemies in the University Democrats. Sheridan also interned under the Press Secretary of Kay Bailey Hutchison's previous reelection campaign. The political views of Campbell are unknown.
In 17 generalelectionendorsements so far, the Daily Texan has endorsed 13 Democrats. Of half the endorsements going to non-Democrats, no Democrat is running (CD 21, CCA 9).
Here are the endorsed Democrats:
Rick Noriega, US Senate
Larry Joe Doherty, US Congressional District 10
Lloyd Doggett, US Congressional District 25
Brian Ruiz, US Congressional Districct 31
Valinda Bolton, TX House District 47
Donna Howard, TX House District 48
Mark Strama, TX House District 50
Diana Maldonado, TX House District 52
Eddie Rodriguez, TX House District 51
Jim Jordan, TX Supreme Court Chief Justice
Linda Yanez, TX Supreme Court Place 8
Susan Strawn, TX Criminal Court of Appeals Place 3
Jim Coronado, 427th District Judge
Perhaps the oddest endorsement is Criminal Court of Appeals, Place 4. With a Republican incumbent and a Democratic challenger, the Texan decided to endorse the Libertarian, Dave Howard. Apparently he "has strong criticisms of the court with which we could not agree more."
Were they actually offended that Obama wasn't referring to the Texan when he said "endorsed by every major newspaper in Texas"? Did they seriously base their decision on which campaign replied to their emails?
We've taken into account our communication with each campaign as an indication of how each candidate's government would function. Upon finding out the debate would not be open to students, Obama's campaign told us there was nothing they could do to get more students into the debate, whereas the Clinton camp was sympathetic in offering assistance. This makes us wonder how far Obama would go for us as president.
I suppose now would be a bad time to point out the Texan's editor did not reply to my email asking if I could quote directly from her email to myself and other media outlets in which she asked us to put pressure on the presidential campaigns (on her behalf) to address student ticketing and student generated debate questions.
This makes me wonder how far Claire Harlin would go for UT students as Daily Texan Editor. Burnt Orange Report retroactively un-endorses Claire Harlin in her uncontested election for Texan Editor in 2007.
"We close at five." It took these four words for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller to deny a convicted killer's last appeal. On September 25, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to a Kansas inmate questioning the constitutionality of lethal injection, Michael Richard was scheduled to be executed. The attorneys for the Texas Defenders Service requested that the court clerk's office remain open 20 minutes after the 5 p.m. closing time because their computers had crashed. Keller shocked the world by closing the court's office at 5 p.m. on an execution day without even consulting any of the other judges of the court. As a result, a man was executed without being able to have the merits of his last appeal considered by the criminal justice system.
I can't attend but BOR has always had a great relationship with the Daily Texan (even if we scoop them from time to time). There was no competitive election for Editor this year but I'd like to introduce everyone to Claire Harlin and attend a forum Wednesday that's being put on to open up the Texan to readers.
My name is Claire Harlin, and I would like to invite you to a forum I am holding tomorrow. As the recently named Daily Texan editor for the 07-08 year, I am taking some steps to get an idea of possible improvements to the Texan and opinion page for the upcoming year. So, this event will be an open opportunity for student leaders, organization members, and readers to voice their concerns and suggestions about what they want in their school paper. Since I was uncontested, this will also give me a chance to meet readers, as well as the many active students who we often feature in our stories.
Event: It's Your Daily Texan
Where: TX Union Governor's Room 3.116
When: Wednesday, March 7 from 4:30 to 6 p.m.
A bit late on this one, but my last column as a summer guest writer for the Daily Texan ran yesterday. It's been a great experience in which I've had a chance to write some longer thoughts on a lot of topics that don't usually get as much coverage and support a paper I love.
The majority of today's post is below the fold, but I think you'll like it if you've been following what's been going on south of the border at all.
The night of the (Mexico) election…
By Karl-Thomas Musselman | Daily Texan Columnist
'Twas the night of the election, and all through the states,
The results were dead even, and high were the stakes;
The campaigns were constructed by experts with care,
In hopes that the presidency would soon be theirs;
Obrador and Calderon were nestled, all snug in their beds,
While visions of Los Pinos danced through their heads;
With PRI in the doghouse, and Vicente Fox in his last lap,
My family and I, settled in for a nap -
I didn't realize at the time how appropriate this week's Daily Texan column would be as it matched up with both Phillip's 40/40 this week and a front-page story in the Texan about the Trans-Texas Corridor. As such, my column below. (Major props to the Editor JJ Hermes for pitching the idea of the giant TTC cutting across the column in the print edition!)
There is an issue in Texas quietly building steam in what could be a major campaign theme in this fall's elections for governor and the state agricultural commissioner.
It's an issue that has folks in rural Texas feeling the pain of Native Americans centuries prior. It's an issue that has farmers and ranchers readying their pitchforks. And it's an issue that has some of the most conservative counties in the state upset with Republicans they used to consider defenders of free men on the range.
The issue is the Trans-Texas Corridor, a 4,000-mile, $183-billion plan proposed by Republicans and promoted by Gov. Rick Perry as the 50-year solution to Texas' traffic needs. The routes span the state, snaking across central and eastern Texas, connecting Laredo to Oklahoma and Arkansas. Future routes could bring in an East-West line from El Paso or others up through the Panhandle.
Each corridor could contain up to four trucker lanes, six vehicle lanes, six rail lines and a 200-foot utility path. At its maximum size, each TTC could be 1,200 feet wide, consuming up to 9,000 square miles of land, more than exists in all of New Jersey.
These massive property and investment requirements give rise to much of the objection from rural landowners. Cutting through countless farms and ranches and looping around suburbia will be a path wider than the distance between Austin's Congress and First Street bridges. One could set the entire state Capitol inside of the right of way.
It's another Texan Tuesday. My guest column this week is about college which is quite timely considering bonddad's post below and twoother op-ed pieces in today's paper.
Daily Texan: During these summer months filled with condensed classes and the weekly procession of nervous new registrants to our great University, we may at times wax philosophic about the big "whys" of college. Beyond the questions of which professors to take, how many minors to add and whether or not we will ever get an A from seeing the albino squirrel, there is the big question we would all like answered:
What do you do with a B.A. in English,
What is my life going to be?
Four years of college and plenty of knowledge,
Have earned me this useless degree.
Similar to the cast of Broadway's Avenue Q (without the tendency to break out into a coordinated dance number while walking down the West Mall), we'd all like to know what we are going to do with our college degree (nothing personal English majors).
Yes, there are plenty of students who've had it planned all along. But excepting that national science fair winner who got that killer research grant working in Sweden, where a well-known chemist hired him to manage her lab for a quarter million a year, the rest of us want to know, "Why college?" in the face of what seems to be a world ready for the taking.
Why do we keep paying for the increasing costs of education each year? After a few classes, how many have realized how smart they already are and that they could be filling some newly listed job opening? How many working students have thought about just banking that job money or making more by dropping those classes?
While there are some simple answers, it is indeed a complex web of reasoning that keeps us following the academic tradition.
If it's Tuesday, it must be an op-ed in the Texan as part of my summer guest series. Today's is online here so check it out along with the other summer guest writers.
This week's topic is an issue that I actually care a lot about and will probably make me show up for my first Austin City Council meeting in all my time in Austin come August. For the record, let me state that I am firmly opposed the the proposed plan to expand the Austin Helmet Ordinance as proposed by former Mayor Bruce Todd. There are reasons beyond those included here which I will touch on later on, but to the couple of council members that read BOR, I hope to convince you that this is a bad idea for Austin and there are better solutions to the 'problems' the city has with cycling and transportation.
Minor edits for BOR readability...
Coming soon to a city council near you: The Return of the Austin Helmet Ordinance, starring former Mayor Bruce Todd in a battle against area bikers over the right to ride with the city's hands off of citizens' heads. Catch a sneak preview of this epic clash Aug. 24 when the gates open for public commentary at a city council meeting. This film's rating is NA for Not Again.
For those who prefer to move themselves around the city on four wheels, two feet or any other assortment of motorized transport, it's not likely that the proposed mandatory helmet law for all Austin bicyclists, regardless of age, has captured much attention. Nor is it likely that many realize that this coming attraction is a remake of an ill-fated production that graced the public stage exactly 10 years ago, so a quick review may be in order.
In 1996, then-Mayor Bruce Todd pushed for council approval of Austin's first mandatory helmet ordinance for city cyclists of all ages (ignoring motorcyclists entirely). The following year, just after Todd left office, the council scaled down the measure to a more agreeable version applying only to those 17 years old and under. It has remained in place ever since, with little fuss or enforcement.
But a decade later, with a council that has no institutional memory of that decision, Todd is back thanks to a recent biking accident of his own, pressing for full-fledged regulation once more.
And again, Austin cyclists, those who believe in vibrant downtown development and anyone who cares about alleviating this city's transportation problems should recognize that it is in our best interest to defeat this effort.
Most cyclists agree that there is nothing wrong with helmets and encourage their use. The Austin Cycling Association, which has collected close to $2,000 to purchase helmets for riders in honor of the former mayor's accident last fall, opposes the proposed expansion of the existing ordinance.
Similar to last year's battle over a public smoking ban, there are many locals that place preserving dwindling personal freedoms and liberties over mandatory regulatory safety measures. While adult cyclists should wear helmets, we shouldn't need to make it city law, especially one that already has a history of limited enforcement, considering only a few dozen youngsters have been cited over the existing ordinance's lifetime.
An unfortunate side effect of a mandatory, all-ages helmet law (which exists only in Dallas among Texas' major cities) is that such legislation has been proven to lead to decreased bicycle usage. The city of Austin, already behind its stated goals for percentage of daily trips taken by bicyclists and other non-traditional vehicular transportation, would not be well served by taking steps that exasperate the problem.
Current Mayor Will Wynn's vision of a denser, pedestrian- and biker-friendly downtown with tens of thousands more residents living and working close to each other is a forward-thinking idea that incorporates traffic solutions. If the council believes in Wynn's vision, it should shy away from enacting "feel-good" political proposals like the expanded biking ordinance, whose real-world effects contradict the current mayor's progressive vision.
If the council is interested in improving transportation safety for those on the streets, there are solutions that work. Education programs for cyclists and auto drivers which inform both groups of their roadway responsibilities and the rights of the others would go a long way to reducing the few auto-cyclist impacts, injuries or deaths that occur in Austin each year. Enacting transportation policies, road designs and programs that increase the number of cyclists on the road increases the "safety in numbers" effect for all parties and helps alleviate traffic congestion.
And though not talked about or proposed, a mandatory motorcycle helmet law would have a much greater impact on public safety by reducing high-speed impact injuries or deaths that occur at a rate 40 times greater nationally than those associated with cyclists.
Todd is not wrongheaded in his desire for more people on the road to take safety seriously - we all should. It's just that this rerun of the 1996, all-ages flop ignores history and real solutions for Austin in favor of emotional, anecdotal politics.
