GaryHooser's Blog

Voters on Niʻihau were unanimous in their support for electing President Donald Trump to a second term. All 43 votes cast in Kauaʻi District 16 – Precinct 06 went to the Trump/Pence ticket with zero votes cast for Biden/Harris.

Interestingly, Niʻihau voters also selected former Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr as their top choice for the Kauaʻi County Council.

President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris won every other precinct on Kauaʻi, with the final county-wide outcome 62.3% or 21,217 votes for Biden/Harris versus, 34.0% or 11,579 votes for Trump/Pence.

The #1 choice among all Kauaʻi voters for County Council, was Mason Chock.

The final ranking for the Kauaʻi County Council:

Mason K. Chock 18,592
Luke A. Evslin 17,368
Arryl Kaneshiro 16,550
Bernard Carvalho Jr. 16,345
Billy DeCosta 14,516
Felicia Cowden 14,388
KipuKai Kualii 13,960

Out of the running at #8 was Addison Bulosan with 11,735 votes, which while definitely a respectable showing, was over 2,000 votes shy of the coveted #7 slot. As is quite often the case, those candidates who finished in the top 7 during the primary election, also went on to win in the general.

It looks like the selection of the Council Chair may already be a done deal. While the selection of the next Council Chair officially occurs during the first formal meeting of the new Council on December 1, a recent news report indicates the decision has at least tentatively, already been made.

Interesting but not unusual that it appears the votes have all been lined by before the Council meeting, and before the public has had an opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

According to the report, the present Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro and Councilmember Mason Chock are both seeking the Chairmanship, and apparently, Kaneshiro has secured commitments for the four votes needed, his own vote plus three additional votes.

The Council has scheduled a meeting to discuss the election of the Chair and other matters for TODAY at 9am Wednesday, November 18th. Testimony may be submitted to counciltestimony@kauai.gov A complete agenda is here: https://www.kauai.gov/Portals/0/Council/Agenda/council/2020-11-18_Council-ElectAgenda.pdf?ver=2020-11-12-160849-967

Councilmember Chock has for many years been without question “the people’s choice” consistently gaining more votes island-wide than any other Councilmember. He is a trained facilitator, a small business owner, and a certified leadership trainer.

The present Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro is an executive with Grove Farm Land Company, who is arguably the most influential land-owner in Kauai County. Kaneshiro has pledged to refrain from voting on any matter before the Council that directly impacts his employer.

One example of their different perspectives would be Bill 2775. Councilmember Chock was a sponsor of Bill 2775 banning the use and sale of polystyrene food and drink containers. Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro opposed the measure and along with Councilmember Kagawa voted “no.” The measure ultimately passed into law with a 4 to 2 vote, making Kauaʻi the very last County in the state to pass such a ban.

The bottom line as to who ultimately becomes the Council Chair is whoever can get four votes. Word on the street has it that the initial vote count was equally divided with Kaneshiro and Chock both having 3 votes (including their own). Incoming Councilmember Billy DeCosta is now apparently positioned as the “swing vote” that effectively decides which of the two will be the next Chair of the Council.

If the news report is accurate, DeCosta has apparently decided to throw his support to Kaneshiro and block Chock’s quest to lead the Council.

The ink on the 2020 campaign brochure is barely dry, and yet upon this crucial first vote of the Council, the 2022 campaign begins. Welcome to politics, elections, and long memories.

Years ago, at the conclusion of one of my own long and hard-fought campaigns, I said to my young daughter who was about 12 years old at the time, “Kelli-Rose, aren’t you glad that the campaign is over?” Without missing a beat she responded, “Are you kidding Dad? It’s never over.”

In response to last weeks column “Confessions of a Centrist and a call for Civility” I received this reply:

“I also support these core values, however I left the Democratic Party and became an Independent because I could not see Democrats fervently supporting the items on your list. If Democrats ever get back to being Democrats, I’ll consider rejoining their party.”

My response is that I also am extremely disappointed that at both the state and federal levels, too many candidates will run under the Democratic Party brand, then when elected will do little to nothing to move forward policy in support of those core values listed on the Party platform.

I can only think that a majority are either liars or wimps. Either they do not really believe and support the values, or they are too timid to take action. Yes, there are strong and bold legislators who truly believe and support these values, but unfortunately, they are not in the majority.

The term “majority” is used intentionally here because that is who drives all policy-making at all levels. At the state level, the majority of legislators have chosen Kauai Senator Ronald Kouchi as Senate President and Representative Scott Saiki as Speaker of the House.

If these two men and the respective majority of legislators who back them believed that workers in Hawaii deserved to earn a living wage or at least $15 per hour, it would happen. Ditto to a long list of policy initiatives that include food self-sufficiency, and much more. By virtue of running under the Democratic Party banner, both have pledged their support of these issues, AND they control a majority of the votes.

The American Conservative Union Foundation (ACUF) conducts an annual, in-depth analysis to rate all 8,000 lawmakers in America, revealing their positions on a wide variety of issues:

Oahu Representative Sam Kong and Kauai Representative James Tokioka both Democrats are rated at the top of the ACUF scale matching that of the House Minority Leader Republican Gene Ward.

* In the State Senate, North Shore Senator and Democrat Gil Riviere actually has a more conservative voting record than the lone Senate Republican Kurt Fevella. Tied for second place with Fevella is Democrat Senator Mike Gabbard.

We have a State Legislature dominated by members of the Democratic Party who refuse to assertively move forward a policy agenda in support of their own Party values.

So what can and should we do? How do we motivate Democrats to be Democrats?

While nearly every political organization requires a questionnaire and an interview as part of their endorsement process – the Democratic Party of Hawaii requires only membership in the Party. Anyone can join the Party, regardless of ideology or values, or a lack thereof. And it’s free.

When proposing to tighten up membership criteria or hold policy-makers accountable, the argument pushing back is always based on the concept of having a “big tent” and wanting to be a Party that everyone can be part of.

It’s all a bit surreal. The big tent concept is appealing but at the same time both counter-intuitive and self-sabotaging. If the goal is to have a values-driven organization supported by values-driven candidates and office-holders, then it would seem that membership would also be values-driven.

Otherwise, what is the point? Why even have a Party when no candidate or officeholder is required to support its core values? The current State Senate President voted “No” on marriage equality. The current State House Speaker has consistently failed to support increasing the minimum wage. Both of these issues represent core Party values.

While some will argue to leave the Democratic Party and join a third party effort…I am not there yet…I think about it sometimes…but am not there yet.

My hope and goal would be to see the Hawaii Democratic Party recognize and confront the challenges presented by incumbent officeholders who are essentially conservatives and corporatists masquerading as Democrats.

My further hope at the moment is that those in leadership positions in the Hawaii Legislature, even if they are not true believers, would see the pragmatic value of reaching out to frontline advocates working on social, economic, and environmental justice issues. Engaging in a meaningful conversation and establishing a meaningful 2021 policy agenda is the first step.

The results of the 2021 legislative session will set the stage for the 2022 elections. Every seat in the State House and Senate will be up for election in 2022. New candidates and their campaign teams will no doubt begin mobilizing in May of next year, as every candidate prepares for the following 15-month sprint to the August 2022 all-important primary election.

Unfortunately, Hawaii is a one-party state. While I am a Democrat and believe wholeheartedly in the core values upon which the Party is based, I believe the lack of a viable second or third Party in Hawaii is inherently unhealthy – from a basic civics perspective.

So until the Republican Party or the Green Party or the Aloha Aina Party is able to grow their own base of credibility we must count on the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to provide the necessary competition at the ballot box.

Since the conclusion of the 2020 General Election is upon us, I thought it a good time to confess the truth.

The first truth which should be a shock to no one at all, is that I belong to and strongly support the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. This phrase first voiced by the iconic progressive U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone pretty much sums up where I sit on the left to right values spectrum.

While some may prefer other labels such as progressive, lefty liberal, or democratic socialist (gasp), my core values and issue positions are not that radical at all. The second truth is that essentially, I am a centrist (second gasp).

As proof of my centrist nature, below is a list of values and issue positions that I support. These are not radical nor revolutionary notions. They represent the basic principles of fairness, justice, and equality. Coincidentally (or not), these values are also embedded in the Democratic Party national platform.

* Health care should not just be a privilege for some but is a right for every single American.
* Black lives matter. Structural and systemic racism must be rooted out.
* The mass incarceration model upon which our criminal justice system is based must be reformed from top to bottom.
* Protest is among the highest forms of patriotism.
* The U.S. must lead the world in taking on the climate crisis, rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and build a thriving, equitable, and globally competitive clean energy economy that puts workers and communities first.
* The federal minimum wage must be increased to at least $15 an hour by 2026. Worker benefits must include paid sick days and paid family/medical leave.
* Overseas tax havens and tax loopholes exploited by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations must be eliminated. The wealthy, those earning over $400,000 per year must pay their fair share in taxes.
* Environmental justice, economic justice, and climate justice must be embedded and at the heart of our policy and governing agenda.
* Every American has the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live without fear of exposure to toxic waste.
* All children across the United States deserve access to high-quality early childhood education programs.
* The pay and benefits for all educators must be increased in order to help recruit, retain, and reward high-quality teachers.
* Public colleges and universities must be tuition-free for students whose families earn less than $125,000. * Undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt for this same group must also be forgiven.
* International security should not be predicated by how much we spend on defense, but upon diplomacy and how we spend those defense dollars.
* Every woman deserves equal pay for equal work.
* Freedom of religion and the right to believe—or not to believe—is a fundamental human right. Church and State must remain separate.
* The LGBTQ+ community and all persons deserve to be treated equally and to be able to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love.
* We must protect sexual and reproductive health and rights. Comprehensive health services, including access to reproductive care and abortion services, are vital to the empowerment of women and girls.
* Diversity is our greatest strength. Our fates and fortunes are bound to rise and fall together.

As you can see from this list, the values of the Democratic Party are not radical at all. Seriously, are we really that far apart in our beliefs and goals? Everyone wants a better tomorrow. Can we not work together towards that?

To those who disagree with anything on the above list, I ask that you do so with civility and reason.

While the passion and emotions of the moment are higher than perhaps ever before, I am hopeful that ultimately there will be a transition and transfer of power, and that it will be peaceful and orderly.

I believe that good people, people of high character and intelligence, can look at the same exact facts and circumstances and come to different conclusions.

Civility and reason are what is needed now at this particular moment in time. We can and we must agree to disagree, and regardless of our disappointment or our zeal when the final outcome is determined, we must maintain our civility.

So that there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever, agreeing to disagree does not mean turning the other cheek when the personal safety or fundamental rights of my children or grandchildren or friends of color or LGBTQ+ are threatened.

Maintaining civility does not mean that we stay quiet in the face of illegality, injustice, or corruption. It is in fact our duty and obligation as citizens to speak out and to resist such threats to our democracy, should they occur.

And yes, we must march, protest, and rise up against hate and bigotry, but we must do so always with nonviolence emulating the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and here in Hawaii with Kapu Aloha.

We all want a better tomorrow. Let’s focus on that for a moment. Let’s try to make that extra effort to truly listen to each other and understand perhaps that our goals and values are really not that far apart.

This time next week it will all be over. At least I hope and pray that is the case, and that the Biden/Harris ticket win’s by a landslide. Anything less than a decisive victory in both the popular vote and the electoral college will result in a contentious and potentially very dangerous, hot mess.

Anger, angst, and apprehension are the words that come to mind, describing the emotions that surround this moment in time. For me, the dominant feeling deep inside my na’au is apprehension, not knowing what is coming next and feeling powerless to change whatever that might be. Many, on both sides of the aisle, are consumed by angst, and deeply anxious about the future of the nation and the world.

The angst and apprehension I understand. But the anger coming out of the mouths and off the keyboards of far too many people is scary and dangerous.

I encourage all to take it down a notch or two. Writing a weekly column on politics, maintaining a political blog, and in general, being active in policy and politics statewide – puts me into contact with individuals representing all political persuasions. The vast majority of people who respond to my missives are positive, thoughtful, and caring residents seeking to share their thoughts and ideas.

In the past few weeks however, the incoming hate, anger, and vitriol have reached levels that are beyond disturbing.

A column I penned recently, An open letter to Kamala Harris – pre-debate notes from the heart, triggered many on the right to unload their anger. The mordant, corrosive, and virulent language displayed a bitterness that words cannot do justice.

There is a consistent theme to the messages, as the profanity usually precedes words such as Democrat, Socialist, or Communist. The writer would speak of “people like you who are ruining our country.” Some would accuse Vice President Biden of intending to “take our country way too far to the left” while at the same time saying he was “a puppet of the big corporations.” Go figure.

In the short time since that column was published, I have attempted to reflect a bit on what might be the root cause of such deep-seated hate and anger. More importantly: What can be done to heal such a deep and jagged tear in the fabric of our national community?

Those writing appear to be regular people, working folks just like you and me. But clearly, they are unhappy, angry with their lot in life, and feel a need to lash out.

I will not blame President Donald Trump for this, as he is but a symptom of the disease. Yes, he fans the flames and yes he seeks to glorify and legitimize the divisiveness for his own ends, but he didn’t start this fire. It has been smoldering for generations.

Income inequality, the scapegoating that accompanies it, and a dearth of hope and opportunity are at the root of it, of this I have no doubt. A majority of people in the world wake up early every morning scrambling simply to survive, while a handful at the top accumulate greater and greater riches literally by the hour.

According to Oxfam, the world has 2,000 billionaires who collectively have more wealth than the 4 billion people, roughly 60 percent of the planet’s population. Forbes and Business Insider report that Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is currently the wealthiest person on the planet with a net worth of $113 billion and on track to become a trillionaire by 2026.

Meanwhile almost half of workers in the United States earn less than $15 an hour. Here at home, most of our residents are working two or three jobs, and still can’t afford proper housing or healthcare. Too many people get up too early, and work far too long and hard every day, only to feel like they are getting nowhere.

It’s no wonder people are angry.

And while I fervently hope that former Vice President Joe Biden is elected on November 3, we can’t count on him alone to put the fire out. To truly douse the coals of angst, apprehension, and anger means addressing the root cause of income and wealth disparity in our country. To do this successfully requires working men and women in blue states and in red states to realize that we are not each other’s enemy.

Instead of fighting each other, we must remember that we are all in this together. Only when we unite against the common enemy of economic injustice, will we make the progress needed and put the smiles and laughter back where it belongs.

El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido, A people united, will never be defeated.

All General Election ballots have been mailed to all registered voters throughout the State of Hawaii.

Contact your County Elections Division (https://elections.hawaii.gov/resources/county-election-divisions/) if you have not received your ballot!

* For info on the various Charter Amendments statewide please go to https://garyhooser.blog/2020/10/17/charter-amendment-suggestions-kauai-maui-hawaii-and-honolulu-oahu/

Pono Hawaii Initiative – Endorsed Candidates

United States – President and Vice President
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

United States House of Representatives
Kaiali’i (Kai) Kahele, Congressional District 2

Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Keoni Souza, At-Large Trustee

Lanakila Mangauil, Hawaii Island Trustee

Colette Machado, Molokai and Lanai Trustee

City and County of Honolulu

State House of Representatives
Adrian Tam, House District 22 (Waikiki, Ala Moana, Kakaako)

Trish La Chica, House District 36 (Mililani Mauka, Mililani)

Michael Chapman, House District 45 (Schofield, Mokuleia, Waialua, Kunia, Waipio Acres, Mililani)

Lisa Marten, House District 51 (Kailua, Waimanalo)

Matt LoPresti, House District 41 (Ewa – Beach, Gentry, Villages, Hoakalei, Ocean Pointe)

City and County of Honolulu Council
Esther Kiaʻāina, County Council (District III)

Will Espero, County Council (District IX)

Hawaii County

State House of Representatives
Jeanne Kapela, House District 5 (Naalehu, Ocean View, Captain Cook, Kealakekua Kailua-Kona)

Hawaii County Council
Matt Kaneali’i-Kleinfelder, Hawaii County Council (Puna)

Heather Kimball, Hawaii County Council (Hilo)

Maui County

State House of Representatives
Tina Wildberger, House District 11 (Kihei, Wailea, Makena)

Maui County Council
Keani Rawlins-Fernandez, Maui Council (Moloka’i)

Gabe Johnson, Maui Council (Lana’i)

Kelly King, Maui County (South Maui)

Shane Sinenci, Maui Council (East Maui)

Tamara Paltin, Maui Council (Lahaina)

*All Maui residents are entitled to vote for all council candidates and are strongly encouraged to do so.

*Maui residents are encouraged to “vote yes” on all Charter amendments. Information on the Charter Amendment pertaining to the County Managing Director provision can be found here: https://mauisgreenfutureproject.org

*Note: Maui voters should be aware of a well-funded campaign to defeat the Charter Amendments and the above candidates being run by pro-development forces operating in the shadows and managed out of Reno Nevada. For more info and background from a previous email I sent out to you read: SuperPac Targets Maui County Council (https://mailchi.mp/garyhooser/superpac-targets-maui-council-for-takeover-2625792)

Kauai County

Kauai County Council
Mason Chock, Kauai Council

Felicia Cowden, Kauai Council

Luke Evslin, Kauai Council

Billy DeCosta, Kauai Council

Mike Dandurand, Kauai Council

*All Kauai residents are entitled to vote for “up to 7 candidates” and are encouraged to vote for “all 5 candidates.”

“Each of the above Hawaii candidates has demonstrated clearly, by their past actions and present involvement in civic and community affairs, that they understand and embrace the principle of “people-driven” political leadership. In addition, each candidate has shown a high level of competence and experience in working with government and political systems. Most importantly, all are committed to pursuing a bold agenda in support of economic, social, and environmental justice.” Pono Hawaii Initiative (PHI)

All endorsed candidates together with links to their websites – can be found here: https://ponohawaiiinitiative.org/endorsements-2020

QUESTIONS? Why some candidates are being endorsed and not others. https://garyhooser.blog/2020/10/02/why-is-one-candidate-endorsed-and-not-another/

Please share this list widely with friends and family, and vote!

Best,

Gary Hooser (http://www.garyhooser.com)
Executive Director
Pono Hawaii Initiative

Thank you Kauai Councilmember Felicia Cowden for standing strong in opposition to passing out of committee Bill 2774. While the measure contains some improvements to the existing affordable housing ordinance, it also removes critically important affordable housing requirements in the town core of Lihue, Koloa, and Kalaheo and in multifamily housing developed outside of a Visitor Destination Area (VDA). Bill 2774 is clearly not ready for passage into law and should remain in committee for further discussion and refinements.

The logic is beyond counter-intuitive. Proponents are arguing that by removing the existing 30% affordability requirement, the result will be an increased supply of affordable housing. To be clear, affordable housing is by definition priced below market and no developer will voluntarily build, sell or rent any product below the prevailing market price. Contrary to its intent, Bill 2774 ensures that no housing built in these areas in the future will be affordable.

It is positively crazy to think otherwise. Nobody leaves money on the table. Without a government mandate to build below-market affordable units, no affordable units will be built.

So thank you Councilmember Cowden for being willing to speak out on behalf of local residents who struggle daily to pay their rents, and who have mostly given up all hope of ever purchasing a home for their family.

It looks from the outside as if the conversation at the Council is being driven through the eyes of urban planners and real estate developers. Missing from the conversation seems to be the strong voices of informed advocates who know and understand the core issues surrounding our lack of affordable housing. Urban planners want a vibrant town core, a walkable community, and maximum utilization of the infrastructure. I get it. Realtors and developers want to make money and limit government regulation. I get this too.

But what about local residents who work in those “town cores”? What about the secretaries, clerks, restaurant workers, maintenance staff, dental assistants, and super-market checkout folks? Where are they going to live? If Bill 2774 passes in its present form, they certainly won’t be living in a town core devoid of affordable units.

Gutting the affordable housing requirements from the town core areas is not the answer. The town core is where we need more affordable housing not less.

The property owners along Rice Street have already received a huge windfall to their balance sheets from prior Council actions which doubled and possibly quadrupled (utilizing the ARU provision) their properties’ potential development density. Increased density translates to increased property values. Now, these same property owners are poised to receive a second financial windfall through the passage of Bill 2774 and the removal of the affordable housing requirements.

The adage, “follow the money” seems appropriate at the moment. The public deserves to know who is benefiting from the Council’s actions. Any Councilmember can request a list of property owners who have benefited from the increased density approved in the past and who stand poised to benefit again from Bill 2774. Councilmember Kualii and Council Chair Kaneshiro, the co-sponsors of Bill 2774, would be doing a great community service by making this information public, and putting the rumors to rest.

To be clear, I do not believe any member of the Council is acting inappropriately, but I do believe the public deserves to know whose real estate values are going up due to the action by the Council.

My hope is that the Council will rethink the proposal now on the table. Passing Bill 2774 in its present form will no doubt make the urban planners happy. And yes, the owners of real estate in these areas will be smiling all the way to the bank, while the local residents struggling daily to make ends meet will be shortchanged.

Bill 2774 is on the Council agenda for tomorrow, Wednesday, October 21. Kauai residents are encouraged to share their thoughts on the issue via counciltestimony@kauai.gov

2020 General Election Charter Amendments

In response to the many requests I have received for thoughts on the various Charter Amendments being proposed by the four Counties:

My apology for the delay in pulling this together, AND regret that the below is a more or less “quick and dirty” response with not a lot of discussion or explanation. But it’s the best I can do for now! I encourage all to read the proposed amendments carefully, discuss them with friends and family if you can – and then VOTE!

But since you have asked, here are my thoughts…

Here is a link where you can read the actual Charter Amendment questions for each County https://elections.hawaii.gov/2020-ballot-questions/

Kauai County – Vote YES on all…but with some hesitation on two of them.

This link will put the proposed Charter Amendments into a better context by showing the exact language changes. https://kauai.gov/Portals/0/Boards_Commissions/Charter/2020%20Kauai%20County%20Ballot%20Questions.pdf?ver=2020-09-25-114750-023

Two of the proposed Kauai Charter Amendments call for reducing the qualifications needed to be the County Water Manager and the County Engineer.

From Civil Beat “• Questions 5 and 6 affect qualifications for manager and chief engineer of the water department and for the county engineer. The county has had trouble attracting and retaining qualified people in those two positions because the current charter requires that they be licensed engineers and county executive salary schedules have proven insufficient in attracting candidates…But Jan TenBruggencate, a Charter Review Commission member, said the commission had concluded that what both positions require more than an engineering background is experience in personnel management and overall public administration.”

Kauai Voters Will Decide On 6 Changes To The County Charter

The Garden Island “Charter Amendments Explained” for info:
https://www.thegardenisland.com/?s=Charter

Hawaii County – “YES” on all EXCEPT “NO” on #5

I spoke with many friends and associates in Hawaii County and the answers were consistent. Senator Russell Ruderman summed it up by saying, “I am recommending “YES” on all EXCEPT “NO” on #5 which would change the Council terms from 2 to 4 years.”

League of Women Voters – Voter information on Hawaii County Charter Amendments
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18HhPmr_fD-Rz09E4LJIt_M9p5DeqePPE/view

Charter amendment price tags: Most of the 16 proposed amendments will have minimal financial impact, county says

Hawaii Island Voters Will Decide 16 County Charter Amendments

Maui County – Vote YES on all 7

Note: There is a heavily funded effort being spearheaded by an off-shore SuprePac pushing a vote no. I strongly encourage voters to read the amendments and make up their own minds. The groups opposing the amendments are operating entirely in the shadows and have refused to divulge exactly who is behind that effort and who is putting up the money. In addition the vote no campaign is based on total misinformation, fear, rumor and innuendo.

https://www.mauicounty.gov/2395/Proposed-Charter-Amendments-2020

https://mauipononetwork.org/charter-amendments/

Home

City & County of Honolulu – There are 4. My suggestion would be to vote YES on all.

Campaign Corner: Read Up On Honolulu Charter Questions

Ballot Questions Could Bolster Ethics Watchdog’s Staffing And Spending

Proposed Charter Amendments

Click to access REV-2020_Proposed_Charter_Questions.pdf

In March 1857, the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott.

Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia around 1799. He sued for his freedom after his owners moved from Missouri a “slave state” where slavery was legal, to the “free state” of Illinois, claiming that since slavery was not legal in Illinois, he should thus be made a free man.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled: “A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” Justia U.S. Law

The Court ruled that since he was not a citizen, he could not benefit from the laws of citizenship and thus could not be a free man.

If anyone is wondering about the power of the United States Supreme Court and what impact it can have, please think about the “Dred Scott Decision” for a while. Discuss Dred Scott with your children, and your co-workers – if you can do so without crying.

While our country has much to be proud of, there is also much that we should be ashamed of. The “Dred Scott Decision” stands as a stark example of how an interpretation of the law by a majority of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, can have far-reaching impacts.

Four years after this decision the Civil War broke out. After the Union’s victory in 1865, the Court’s rulings in Dred Scott were voided by the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship for “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wikipedia

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to healthcare is not discussed in the Constitution either. A woman’s right to make decisions over her own health and reproductive rights are also not expressly protected in the Constitution. The list of “rights” that most of us take for granted is long, and all are subject to interpretation by the nine justices who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Only five votes are needed to either expand, maintain, or possibly take away our health care, take away our personal privacy, and take away a woman’s right to choose.

This is why the appointment of a new Justice is so important. This is a lifetime appointment. The current Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is 48 years old could potentially shape future court decisions and our lives, for the next 50 years.

We need to get this right. To be clear, this is not about how great a student she was in college, nor about how brilliant she is as a legal scholar. What matters the most are her core values and the lens through which she looks at the world. The interpretation of law is not science or math where the total of a column will always be the same, regardless of who is doing the counting.

Laws are subject to interpretation which is why Justices write OPINIONS. The meaning of the words upon which the law is based are always subject to interpretation. Each of us has a slightly different world view depending on our life experiences. None of us are free of some sort of inherent bias that impacts every decision and every choice we make.

While people loath raising the question of religion when evaluating the suitability of Judge Barrett to an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, her personal world view is without question shaped in large part, by her faith. Regardless of which particular religion it may be, a devout follower is hard-pressed to simply shunt aside the teachings of their God. This is not a judgment of the character of Amy Barrett, but merely a statement of fact.

Yes, some in leadership positions who consider themselves devout in their faith, are able to set aside the teachings and values of their faith and make decisions based on the law. But this is certainly a legitimate area of discussion when evaluating her suitability for a lifetime appointment the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Is Amy Coney Barrett able to do this?

For Judge Barrett or her supporters to say that her decisions will be based only upon the law as it’s written, is disingenuous. Each Justice views the same law, looks at the same facts, and hears the same arguments. But yet there are almost always differences of opinion among the Justices who come to different conclusions, ultimately settled via majority rule.

The American people are in the midst of choosing their President. Millions of votes have already been cast. This appointment is being rushed through the process because the President and his enablers in the U.S. Senate do not trust the vote of the American people.

For if they did trust us, they would wait another 18 days to at least hear what we have to say.

*First published in The Garden Island Newspaper, Hooser Policy and Politics – 10/15/20

What criteria are used by most organizations to determine endorsements?

Sometimes an endorsement decision is driven by a single individual but most often there is a committee or a board that will make endorsement recommendations.

The endorsement process and rationale vary slightly from organization to organization but essentially it boils down to three main factors.

1) Is the candidate viable? Can they win? Are they running a winning campaign?

*The incumbent normally has an advantage with this criteria, but not always.
*A candidate will often be asked to describe “their path to victory.” How much money have they raised? How many votes do they need to win and what is there plan to get those votes?
*The likelihood of a candidate not succeeding in one particular race may be weighed against the possibility of long-term electoral success and other factors.

2) Does the candidate share the organization’s core values?

*This is determined via “past actions” and/or a questionnaire/interview.
*Has the candidate supported/opposed issues important to the organization?

3) Can the candidate be trusted to “do the right thing” and “vote the right way?

*No candidate will bat 100%, and vote on every issue correctly, every time.
*Every organization will have a bias as to what “voting the right way” means.
*Most candidates will not promise 100% compliance and most endorsing organizations don’t expect the candidate to be a rubber stamp. However, on the “big issues” and when it is “crunch time” on important issues, the organization will expect the candidate to “vote their values” upon which the endorsement is based. “Their values” means the values the candidate professed when seeking the endorsement, and that are aligned with the values of the organization making the endorsement.
*While some will refer to an expectation of “voting the right way” as a “quid pro quo” in actuality the endorsing organization is simply expecting the candidate to be the person they said they were, upon which the endorsement was based.

Why is one candidate endorsed and not another?

*Sometimes, a candidate does not want to be endorsed.
*Some organizations do not endorse in uncontested races (only one candidate running).
*A candidate may not be on the organization’s “radar” and perhaps did not “reach out or seek the endorsement” and thus may not be considered.
*Prior experience with a candidate may make it clear no endorsement is warranted.
*The organization may want to limit endorsements so as to “target” limited resources.
*The candidate may have an obvious bias against the organization’s goals and values.

For both the organization and the candidate, the endorsement process is often a challenge to navigate, especially in a small community. Often the general public observes their candidate/friend as a “good person” but they don’t see or understand the importance of the criteria listed above. But for most organizations, it’s not enough to be just a good guy. The lack of an endorsement does not question what is in a candidate’s heart but does question their viability as a candidate, and whether or not their core values and historical actions align with that of the organization.