Correction: The editorial should have said state representative candidate John Knowles is voting yes on Proposal 2.
Governor: Jennifer Granholm
Jennifer Granholm is the obvious choice for Michigan governor. Unlike her opponent, Dick DeVos, Granholm has shown time and again that she has a coherent, valid plan to help Michigan — something DeVos had trouble within the run-up to the election.
Her time in office has not been as productive for jobs in the state as we would have liked, but we believe Granholm will continue to look out for the interests of all Michiganians and bring jobs to the state.
Michigan's problem, economically, has always been an over-dependence on the auto industry and the mass exodus of skilled workers who leave Michigan for greener pastures. Granholm was given a state four years ago that had a huge deficit and was bleeding jobs, but she was able to cut our state's budget without having to sacrifice the social services needed in Michigan.
Socially, Granholm is a moderate, and this is the main reason why we endorse her over DeVos. He has a business background, which is perfectly acceptable, but DeVos' stances on abortion and same-sex marriage are appalling and offensive.
We endorse Granholm for a second term.
U.S. Senate: Democrat
We endorse Sen. Debbie Stabenow with a high level of hesitation, which is why we only label this section's candidate as "Democrat." It's too risky to support another player in this race because we feel the Senate has a very slight chance of tipping to the Democrats, a needed change, so voting for Stabenow is like endorsing a Democratic majority.
The Republican-controlled Congress votes only for what the Bush administration wants and has no voice other than what the White House dictates. It is unfortunate, then, that our Democratic senator has supported such legislation as the recent bill allowing torture and the Patriot Act. And she didn't just vote for the "patriot" act in 2001, but also the renewal this year. She also supports a border fence with Mexico, which any thinking person can see is only a Band-Aid within the larger struggle to curb illegal immigration.
However, Stabenow is a big supporter of health care and voted against the Iraq war, two important issues on which we agree with her. Oh yeah, and she did work to get that trash from Canada out of our state.
Though we do not agree with Stabenow completely, she is a better choice than opponent Republican Mike Bouchard. Bouchard shares the same flawed focus on illegal immigration, but also supports vastly enhancing presidential power — the line item veto — and is too closely linked to the president. Bush attended fundraisers for Bouchard this campaign season. We wish there were a more consistent candidate to throw all our support behind, but for now, we'll have to settle with Stabenow as the best available choice — which is about as good as U.S. politics get these days.
U.S. House: Jim Marcinkowski
In a state like Michigan, where jobs and the economy are paramount, it's important to take firm stands against the problems that are costing people their careers. Jim Marcinkowski is firmly opposed to both outsourcing and free trade agreements, two things the auto industry has used to syphon jobs out of Michigan and leave the state's economy in a perpetual state of disrepair. Not only does Marcinkowski oppose destructive free-trade agreements, but also he has plans to reform them.
Additionally, Marcinkowski's military, CIA and FBI backgrounds mean he is just as well versed in international policy and politics as is opponent and incumbent Rep. Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent.
We agree with Marcinkowski's foreign policy views, such as his plan to establish benchmarks for U.S. troops to withdrawal from Iraq, and even more importantly, handing Iraq back over to the Iraqis. By contrast, Rogers' national security stance offers little more than doubling the number of patrol agents on the borders and stating that "amnesty is not an option."
Furthermore, Rogers has a disturbing voting record that shows he essentially rubber stamps every piece of legislation that passes before him. A few of the things he has voted against were the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and an amendment to another bill that would have decreased interest rates on student loans by about 3 percent. Marcinkowski is the more thoughtful, capable and able candidate.
State Senate: Gretchen Whitmer
Not only does Gretchen Whitmer have six years of experience in politics, being a state senator and representative, but also she's an MSU graduate, East Lansing native and longtime advocate for students. The State News emphatically and happily endorses her for state senator.
Her opponent, Frank Lambert, has little experience, and though he has publicly stated he does not support the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI — which would ban race- and gender-based preferences in Michigan's public institutions — he told The Lansing State Journal in an Oct. 22 article he would vote for a "state ballot proposal that would ban race and gender preferences" in university admissions and state hiring and contracting practices. Whitmer, however, is firmly opposed to the MCRI. (See our views on the MCRI in the latter part of this editorial.) Most importantly, though, Whitmer listens to the college constituency rather than ignoring it, as so many legislators have done in the past.
In a time when incumbents are much of the problem with U.S. politics and often the voter has to settle for which opponent is less of a sellout, Whitmer is the opposite — we have no reservations about supporting her.
State Representative: Mark Meadows
Mark Meadows supports increasing funding for colleges in order to lower tuition costs for students, particularly students from low-income families. For this reason alone, we could support Meadows for the House, but we are also in favor of his stance on affirmative action.
To their credit, both Meadows and opponent John Knowles stand against MCRI, but Knowles feels it should be refocused to a person's socioeconomic status only. Race and gender issues still affect the hiring practices of universities and companies alike, and Meadows acknowledges this.
Meadows also has been mayor of East Lansing and a proponent for MSU students while in office. Additionally, he is in support of a higher minimum wage, which would greatly help students paying their way though college, and he is liberal on social issues, unlike Knowles.
MSU Board of Trustees: Democrat Faylene Owen and Green Party candidate Lauren Elizabeth Spencer
Change is a word that has been thrown around this election season, and prepare to hear it again: What the MSU Board of Trustees needs now, more than ever, is change.
This election cycle, The State News has chosen to endorse Faylene Owen and Lauren Elizabeth Spencer — two candidates with no board background but the right ideas about how the board's decisions should be made.
Owen, for instance, feels that the board needs open, transparent decision-making — such as no more closed-door board meetings at dinnertime. She has varied experience, from working with community groups to being a member of the White House Fellows program, which is a presidential appointment.
She is keenly interested in hearing from students and said she would hold meetings on campus to receive input on what the university needs from our perspective as students. In addition, anyone who believes in dissent is welcome on the board as far as we're concerned. Consensus rarely makes for good decisions — the federal government's current incompetence being a prime example of that.
Spencer shares many of the same qualities as Owen, with one helpful caveat: She is still a student. Spencer will, without a doubt, stand up for students' rights and issues, while bringing a much needed viewpoint to the board.
The board has long needed a direct student voice, and Spencer can be that voice. With her on the board, students' opinions will be heard. Not only does she attend the school and, therefore, has a direct link to the student body, but also she would be in town for more than just board meetings and sporting events. Spencer also will bring to the board an intricate understanding of MSU and the student body — quite a change of pace for a board that mainly caters to, as far as we can tell, alumni and the administration.
Owen and Spencer both deserve spots on the MSU Board of Trustees. This is the year to get rid of most incumbents, including those at our university.
Proposal 1: No
This proposal asks if money paid for state park entrances, camping fees, vehicle registration fees and licenses to hunt, fish and participate in other outdoor activities should be earmarked as funds that can only be used for their intended purposes.
The problem is that if this proposal passes, it will be a constitutional amendment saying that money should only be used in the conservation and wildlife arenas — meaning less flexibility if funds are needed in other areas.
No one can adequately argue that conservation should not be a top priority for our government and state, but this particular proposal is something the Legislature should be handling — and not an amendment to the state constitution.
We should continue to support leaders who believe our environment is of great concern, and these leaders should focus on renewable energy sources and recycling as well as other improvements. This way, we can continue to enjoy the great outdoors Michigan has to offer.
Proposal 2: No
Talk about confusing. Despite the fact that it's called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI, this proposal would actually be a step backward for equality.
The proposal aims to amend the state constitution by prohibiting the government and public universities to consider race, sex, ethnicity or national origin in hiring or admittance.
Until our government provides adequate funds for education in minority areas, starting with K-12 schools, affirmative action is a necessity in our society. Even though socioeconomic status plays a role in the lack of opportunities afforded to people, programs that give preference to minorities and women are still needed because both groups are under-represented in certain areas.
The passing of the MCRI would vastly impact MSU's campus. If passed, it's possible that college recruitment targeted at minorities would be prohibited.
As a university that prides itself on diversity, we have to vote no on this proposal in order to ensure better continued opportunities for women and minorities on our campus.
Proposal 3: No
Proposal 3, or the Dove Hunting Referendum, raises the question as to whether or not a public act passed in 2004 that established a mourning dove hunting season should be changed. Before the act was passed in 2004, hunting mourning doves was illegal.
If voters pass this proposal, hunters with a small game license would have to purchase a $2 mourning dove stamp to legally shoot the birds. While this proposal is less important and detrimental to our society as the others, we say leave the doves alone.
Mourning doves are not overpopulated or dangerous and cannot possibly be a viable food source for human consumption. There seems to be no valid reason for legalizing the hunting of the birds.
Proposal 4: Yes
This constitutional amendment would alter eminent domain laws. The proposal asks voters if a city or state government should have the right to take private property for public or private use, but at a higher cost.
As the law stands, the government can obtain property from the owner for the price at which it reasonably could be sold to another buyer, but with the new proposal, landowners can expect more because compensation would be at least 125 percent of the property's value.
The right a person has to own property is one that should be protected — and it shouldn't be easy for the government to take it.
Proposal 5: No
Proposal 5, if passed, would increase school funding levels by approximately $565 million.
Although education is more than a worthy cause for massive funds, this proposal is unrealistic.
The notion that the money would not come from a tax raise is impractical, and it's unclear where the money would come from otherwise. Already, a third of the state budget goes toward education.
Many claim the cuts this proposal requires would result in fewer police officers, fewer fire fighters and a decrease in available health care. Funding education should be a priority for every state, but for Michigan, we simply don't have the money for this proposal.
That's why it's vital that we vote for leaders who value education and plan to adequately fund our learning institutions with available money.
