Public i Contact

It’s sad to say and even worse to see
Black on black crimes even within families
We’ve fallen so far that funerals are the only place
you’ll catch us
giving hugs coming from real love
Sure, our ambition is to survive
through the good and bad times
But I wonder, when will this pain die?

A circle of such significance
Sixty marks of mental anguish
The short arm vaguely stating where the sun sits in
the sky
While the long arm moves with unbelievable regularity
Followed by my anxious eyes
The red arm flies over both nonstop
The burning sun of this inside world
Beige, white, black, red, and full of numbers

Ashley, hey can you hear me?
I am running late, sorry, I am on my way
Got something I need to ask you
Remember the first time we me?
Your eyes pulled my heart from my chest
That day I learned what love really meant
I owe you an apology, for I acted a fool
My intentions were to stay on top of that barstool
Nevertheless you helped me up and
Whispered “Nate, keep your mouth shut!”
Or how the little things made me so pissed
You cured them with an amazing kiss
Sorry it took so long to notice
Thank you for helping me get focused
I owe you a lot no doubt
Remember that thing from my chest you pulled out?
Keep it, it’s yours.
For today and many more

I love you!

On November 6, 2004 I was taken into custody by the Urbana Police Department for an
incident that occurred at the Canopy Club. I was not right with my actions that night at
the club, but that does not make what happened later any less wrong. Attached is a copy
of the complaint I filed with the Sheriff’s Department in May of 2005 detailing what
happened when I was transferred into the custody of the sheriff’s officers under the
supervision of Sgt. Myers. It describes how I had my wrists and ankles handcuffed to a
chair, a bag thrown over my head, and the unnecessary use of a taser and the merciless
beating I suffered by Sgt. Myers. What my complaint doesn’t describe is the nearly two
years of my life that I lost fighting unjust charges of aggravated battery of a police officer.
charges that Sgt. Myers himself admitted were not brought against me until after he had
handcuffed me to a chair and put a bag over my head, charges that, due to the corruption
and incompetence of both the Sheriff’s Department and the State’s Attorney’s Office,
were not dropped until July 5, 2006.
In early August of 2005, I received a response to my complaint from Capt. James
Young. The response did not give any indication that an investigation had been done
into my complaint. If an investigation had been done, Capt. Young would have noticed
that Sgt. Myers had said that when I came into the jail I was already bleeding as a result
of the fight I was in prior to being brought to the jail. But the arresting officers made it
very clear in their report that I was never in a fight before coming to the jail, that I used
no physical force against any person, that none was used on me, and that I had no visible
wounds. I had listed the names of several witnesses who could testify as to my physical
state at the time of my arrest, they were never called. Detail after detail that raised
questions as to the truthfulness of Sgt. Myers’s statement were ignored by Capt. Young.
On August 28, 2005, I met with Sheriff Dan Walsh personally and brought my complaint
to his direct attention. I left that day with his assurance that my complaint would
be further investigated. Had Sheriff Walsh kept his word, what happened in the weeks to
follow could have been avoided. On September, 19, 2005, Myers tased a pregnant
woman for requesting to go to church services. The week of November 12, 2005, two
more men were tased by Myers. Finally, Sgt. Myers’ abuse of power became so blatant
that even the inept Sheriff could see it (or, he just saw no other way of ignoring Sgt.
Myers’s behavior), and the Sheriff’s Department decided to act and charged Sgt. Myers
with several felony counts. This would begin the Sheriff Department’s cover up.
On December 1, 2005, I met with Lt. Ogle and again recounted my complaint to a
member of the Champaign Sheriff’s Department. I was left the with impression that the
charges against me would be dropped, but told that because of jury trials, the prosecutor
might not get to it for a couple weeks. In early January 2006, I threatened to go to the
FBI if the charges against me were not dropped. Hours later, I received a call from Susan
McGrath of the State’s Attorney’s Civil Division attempting to buy me off. I told her I was
not interested in money, only seeing the charges against me dropped and Sgt. Myers fully
prosecuted. Many more months passed, and I took my case to the FBI. I was told that,
after the agency talked with the State’s Attorney, the FBI would not investigate my case
because the State’s Attorney was not interested in making a plea bargain with Myers. But
the State’s Attorney also told the FBI that I would be allowed to testify against Myers at
his trial. Imagine my amazement when I learned that the State’s Attorney had not yet
dropped charges against me for the same crime that they now were going to let me testify
against Sgt. Myers for. Finally, on July 5, 2006, nearly 8 months after Sgt. Myers had
been charged with the same crime I had accused him of 20 months earlier, I was free
from the charges brought against me by Sgt. Myers. But I was never contacted by the
State’s Attorney’s office to testify against Myers, until November 6, 2006.
It came as no surprise to me that the prosecutor, Steve Ziegler, waited until that day
to contact me, I had always through this was about the county trying to avoid an expensive
civil suit, and November 6 was the first day after the statute of limitations had
expired to file a civil suit. But, as before, I heard nothing after that day about testifying
against Myers. Now Julia Rietz wants to offer Sgt. Myers a “sweetheart” plea bargain for
the despicable crimes he committed against me and at least three other individuals. It
has now become clear that this was never about money; it was about keeping people
quiet until they could give Sgt. Myers the deal THEY thought he deserved. It was about
delaying justice until I could no longer file a civil suit, and then disregarding justice
completely. Perhaps justice is better off; it doesn’t seem welcome in Champaign County.

On the dawn of Friday, October 27,
2006, news about the assassination of the
New York Independent Media reporter
Brad Will by paramilitary forces in the
southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico reverberated
throughout the world. This day
marked the beginning of the direct state-sponsored offensive
towards the Oaxacan people who had tired of the
repression and corruption of the governor Ulises Ruíz. For
nearly 8 months they have peacefully organized to remove
him from office. Ruíz has been the subject of an escalating
conflict. He was elected in August 2004 through fraudulent
means and since then has persistently used brute
force against social and political organizations.
On that dark Friday, six barricades across the city of Oaxaca
were under attack at the same time by paramilitary forces
including the barricade where Brad Will lost his life reporting.
The results of these premeditated attacks were three dead
and 23 members of the popular movement injured. But even
worse, the death of Brad Will would serve as the perfect
excuse for the federal government to enter Oaxaca with all its
repressive might despite almost six months of neglect amidst
the plea of civil organizations and the people of Oaxaca for
the federal government to intervene.
The brutal sacking of Oaxaca by the federal police forces
and their allies has lead to even more violence and a virtual
state of martial law. Today the social cost of dissent stands at
23 deaths, more than 250 imprisoned, 100 disappeared,
and women and minors raped. President-elect Felipe
Calderon has stated his unwillingness to negotiate with the
movement. Likewise, his right wing cabinet has declared
the regimes intention to squash social movements.
TEACHERS STRUGGLE FOR DIGNIFIED
EDUCATION
The conflict between the state and the Oaxacan people
began May 22 as 70,000 teachers belonging to section 22
of the teachers union initiated a strike pleading for a raise
of their wretched salaries, as well as a monthly bonus for
teachers living in the tourist areas where the cost of living
is disproportionately high. There are 15 more demands
related to funding for school materials, children’s uniforms
and free school breakfasts.
Every year, the teachers strike for such demands and
until 2006 negotiations would occur. This time around,
Ulises Ruiz’s government first threatened the teachers and
later brutally evicted them from the town plaza where the
governor’s headquarters is located. Haunted by the nightmares
of recent state violence in Atenco, Mexico, where
peasants sympathetic to the Zapatistas stopped the development
of an airport, 300,000 outraged inhabitants of Oaxaca
poured into the streets. They protested the state violence
and marched through Oaxaca demanding the governor’s
immediate resignation in what was perhaps one of the
biggest civil protests in Oaxacan history. During the march
the previously evicted teachers would once again reclaim
the central plaza. This event would unite dispersed and
divergent organizations and groups into one organization,
the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca. Their goal:
the immediate resignation of the state governor Ulises Ruiz.
YA BASTA! (ENOUGH!): THE FORMATION
OF APPO
On June 17, the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca
(APPO by its Spanish acronym) was born. It would challenge
the state government through pacifist means, with words,
ideas, and most importantly, dignity. Local unions, peasants,
students, women’s and environmental organizations, indigenous
communities, teachers and whole families from across
the state united to form this radical organization. Their collective
process of decision-making and political action has a long
tradition among Oaxacan indigenous towns. After the Zapatista
armed uprising it has been further revitalized.
On July 5, as the Mexican people contested the election
where rightist Felipe Calderon was declared victorious, the
APPO occupied the government headquarters situated in
the central plaza of the city and declared itself a parallel
government of the state of Oaxaca. Oaxacans were infuriated
watching the governor cynically respond to the interests
of foreign investors and tourists. During July and
August, the APPO also reclaimed the Guelaguetza—a yearly
celebration where the 7 regions of Oaxaca are represented
through performances their culture—that had was one
of the main tourist attractions. It had become a corporate
enterprise guided by the leading businessmen of Mexico.
APPO would also reclaim the local media, 12 radio stations
and for small periods of time the local TV station.
The radio stations would become the heartbeat of the
APPO, through which they would organize across Oaxaca,
calling people to regional and general meetings, and
informing the people of local agreements, mobilizations,
road blockades, food and first aid needs. In August, that
is how they organized the takeover of the city of Oaxaca.
The radio would also serve to inform human rights organizations
if violations were committed. Many of us following
the movement from afar could access the Oaxacan
radio broadcast through the web, and international supporters
could mobilize almost instantly.
Although the struggle of the APPO is rooted in the local
politics of Oaxaca, they have clearly bridged it with anti-globalization
and social justice movements across the nation and
the world. The past experience of fraudulent electoral politics
in Oaxaca fueled a rather sentiment against the presidential
elections. The people would chant vociferously: “He fell, he
fell, Ulises fell and if there is no solution so will Calderon”.
The effects of the conflict on the lives of the Oaxacan people
are very complex: the salaries of the approximately thirty
thousand teachers in the struggle have been cut off, many
small businesses in the region have no customers, vendors of
local produce have not sold of corn or squash, many members
are jobless due to the conflict. Yet, they are able to resist
because the people draw upon years of experience of
autonomous collective organizing visible in the forms of
everyday resistance. The indigenous communities, the peasant
communities, the popular neighborhoods and other supporters
of the APPO deliver daily to the barricades and
encampments tortillas, stews, water, hot coffee and chocolate.
At the same time, representatives of organizations come and
go in groups from all over the state of Oaxaca. Some people
travel up to 12 or so hours to get to the city. They come with
their hand-made banners in support of the struggle and with
musical instruments from their towns. They take turns guarding
the barricades, the radio stations, the government headquarters,
and the main roads to the city.
Members of the APPO speak many different languages,
that come from the 16 indigenous groups that make up the
state of Oaxaca. They all come from different experiences of
struggle, from different social positions, and therefore, from
different experiences of oppression. As a woman said on people’s
assembly Radio Universidad, “we are not teachers, we
are the people, look at us, we are the people that are struggling
for our rights… until Ulises steps down we are not
going to stop”.
OAXACANS CRY FOR A NATIONAL PEACEFUL
INSURRECTION
On October 30, the federal government ordered the federal
police to enter the city of Oaxaca. With full armor, thousands
of federal police forces entered the city accompanied by tanks
and bulldozers to crush the barricades. Simultaneously, police helicopters flew throughout the city. Oaxacans were expecting them. Days before, rumors of the
police takeover had spread throughout the highlands, cities and coast of Oaxaca. Groups of people
from every corner of Oaxaca had come to the city to defend it from the government forces.
The barricades were reinforced. School buses were placed in the middle of streets. Tires, chairs,
pieces of wood, doors, anything and everything were used to stop the federal government’s
repressive forces to enter. At the same time, however, the radio announcers coordinated the resistance
and desperately called for a national peaceful insurrection to stop the government offensive.
The Oaxacan people had agreed to resist peacefully, so as the tanks entered they would gather
at each entrance by the hundreds trying to intimidate the police activity. Some would burn
tires in order to prevent the visibility of the helicopters. Some would fearlessly jump on the tanks
and spray paint on the windows to disable them. Many times they were successful, many times
they were not. At the end of the day, dozens were imprisoned and taken to the army headquarters,
dozens disappeared, many were injured and at least four were found dead. The police forces
secured the center plaza displacing all the resistance to the Autonomous University of Oaxaca
where legally the state could not enter.
A few days later, on November 2, in an attempt to demolish the university radio station, the
organ of resistance organization, the police forces once again confronted the Oaxacan people. On
the radio, nationally and internationally we followed the resistance. We heard the Oaxacans battling,
calling for reinforcement, for vinegar and coke to wipe the tear gas from their faces, for solidarity
across the globe. This time however, after hours of confrontation, the police forces withdrew.
Elated, thousands of Oaxacans celebrated what seemed impossible: the unarmed resistance
for a government of the people and for the people. We heard through the radio a shrill scream of
a woman saying, “Comrades today we are filled with glory. There are present a million people.
We defeated them. We defeated them. We want Ulises Ruiz to leave Oaxaca right now and never
to return because we will kick him out like we did today with the police forces.”
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT’S STATE OF EMERGENCY
The Day of the Dead battle, however, would be the last massive organized act of resistance.
Thereafter, the Mexican government secured the Oaxacan capital by promoting a politics of
terror organized by the federal police who would ensure “social order” by silencing and
repressing any act of organized defiance by the Oaxacans popular assembly. Furthermore,
the virtual police state is reinforced through paramilitary forces, referred to as “death
squads”, who police the streets of the city intimidating and threatening any participant in
the popular assembly or any sympathetic civilians.
On November 25, as the popular assembly marched towards the downtown Zocalo
to once again demand the resignation of Ulises, the federal police confronted them with
full force, gunfire and the naked violence of the state. Hundreds were jailed and hundreds
wounded. This day marked the inauguration of the federal government witchhunt
throughout the state. In several regions of Oaxaca, illegal searches and detentions
were reported. The federal police went as far as to enter forcefully into elementary
schools to detain teachers that had participated in the strike. At this moment the government
has forced the popular assembly into clandestinity, closing avenues for peaceful
public protest.
Today, the APPO’s demands are not only
for the governor to resign, but also for dignity.
They will not stop until the illegitimate
government of Ulises Ruiz steps down from
office. Additionally, APPO’s initiative of
nationalizing the movement has already been
taken up by many organizations through out
the country, including the Zapatista Rebel
Arm (EZLN). Likewise, in a solidarity move
throughout Mexico and the United States,
popular assemblies are emerging and
protesting against the repressive politics of
the Mexican government. This past October in Los Angeles, California, various indigenous
groups, members of the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations (FIOB), together
with the Mexican and Mexican-American organizations like Unión del Barrio and UCLA’s
Raza Graduate Students formed a transnational APPO.
Today this movement is the largest grassroots movement in Mexico since the 1968 student
movement and promises to grow. We look once again to the South, where dignity
infuses the global struggle for justice.

CHAMPAIGN-URBANA VOTES TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ
AND IMPEACH BUSH-CHENEY
The election defeats of Republicans on Tuesday, with Democrats taking
control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1994, have been
widely described as a referendum on the unpopular war in Iraq. Certainly,
most Americans told pollsters before the election that they
expected a Democratic victory to result in withdrawal from Iraq (see, for
example, “With Iraq Driving Election, Voters Want New Approach,” Adam Nagourney &
Megan Thee, New York Times, November 2, 2006) and most Americans told pollsters
before the election that the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, 61% in
a Newsweek poll (see “Most Americans Want Timetable for Iraq War,” Angus Reid Global
Monitor : Polls & Research, November 2, 2006.)
However, now that the election is over and the Democrats have won, while everyone
concedes that the unpopularity of the war was a main driver of the Democrats’ victory, the
battle lines are being drawn over whether the election victory means that the U.S. should
withdraw from Iraq. George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential
candidate, is presenting a plan for removing U.S. troops from Iraq by June. Meanwhile,
Iraq’s president says that he has been reassured by Democratic leaders that they have “no
plans for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces,” AP reports.
So the battle is over whether the elections mean “withdrawal” or a yet to be determined
“change of course.”
This was predicted, and that’s what makes the actual referenda that passed on Tuesday
calling for withdrawal so important. There were referenda in Wisconsin, Massachusetts,
and Illinois, including Champaign-Urbana and Springfield. All of the 58 local ballot initiatives
on withdrawal were successful.
CHAMPAIGN-URBANA: ORDERLY AND RAPID WITHDRAWAL
Champaign:
In order to halt the continuing loss of human life and resources necessary to meet human
needs at home, shall the U.S.commence a humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal
from Iraq?
Yes 9888 (58%) No 7104 (42%)
Urbana:
Shall the voters of Cunningham Township call upon the U.S. government to commence an
orderly and rapid withdrawal of all U.S. Military from Iraq while providing financial support
for Iraq security?
Yes 5729 (65%) No 3029 (35%)
Champaign and Urbana:
Yes 15618 (61%) No 10134 (39%)
CHAMPAIGN-URBANA: IMPEACHMENT
Champaign:
Shall our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives be asked to support the impeachment
of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for misleading our nation to war with Iraq?
Yes 7877 (46%) No 9140 (54%)
Urbana:
Shall the voters of Cunningham Township ask our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives
to support articles of impeachment to remove George W. Bush and Richard
Cheney from office?
Yes 5171 (59%) No 3614 (41%)
Champaign and Urbana:
Yes 13049(50.6%) No 12755 (49.4%)
URBANA: NATIONAL GUARD MOBILIZATION
Shall the Governor of Illinois, to the extent of his authority, resist any further federal mobilization
of Illinois National Guard Units for service in Iraq?
Yes 4812 (60%) No 3154 (40%)
In many Republican precincts in Champaign—as judged by the vote in the Secretary of
State’s race—the majority voted in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. In 32 of Champaign’s
38 precincts and in 22 of Urbana’s 23 precincts a majority voted in favor of withdrawal.
As we were tallying the votes at the County building, Republican Rep. Tim Johnson
gave a press conference on his victory in the Congressional election. He acknowledged
that the US position in Iraq was a “quagmire” and that Americans would not tolerate the
status quo for another two years.
In the spring the Urbana City Council passed a resolution in favor of withdrawal. At
the time, peace activists claimed that the council was reflecting majority sentiment in
Urbana. This completes the argument.

Following on the heels of a similar proposition in Urbana,
the Champaign police department is currently considering
a citizen police review board. Just the mention of such an
oversight has provoked reprisals from the Mayor, the
News-Gazette, and their local law-and-order constituents.
The News-Gazette has already begun editorializing
against a police review board. An editorial ran on October
11, 2006 titled, “Police review board plan raises problems.”
As if concerned for the minority community, the editorial
says a review board will be a “tough sell to people who have
long viewed police either with suspicion or fear.” Of
course, many leaders in the African American community
have supported the formation of a police review board. The
suggestion is that nothing can (or should) be done to
improve police relations in the black community. Filing a
complaint is a relatively simple act, according to the News-
Gazette. A citizen police review board would “do nothing
except duplicate an existing discipline process.”
This sentiment was echoed by another editorial in the
News-Gazette from local citizen Michael Cook who said
that Champaign police already has an “effective complaint
process.”
Champaign police chief R.T. Finney has expressed his
interest in a police review board if it would bring more
credibility to investigations. But he also said, “We don’t see
substantial problems with our complaint process.”
Co-founder of V.E.Y.A. (Visionaries Educating Youth
and Adults) Martel Miller has had a different experience. It
is the story of, as Miller says, “What you got to go through
to file a police complaint in Champaign.”
On September 22, 2006, following a hip hop show by
Ludicris, there were several after-parties. One was at the
Iota house, a black fraternity on 1st Street. A young black
man who will remain unidentified says he tried to get into
the party but it was too crowded so he decided to leave. As
he was walking out, police outside told him he could not
go. He tried to explain that his car was across the street.
They told him if he crossed the street he would be arrested.
As soon as he stepped into the street, police arrested
him for jaywalking. Usually jaywalking is a ticketable
offense, but they arrested the young man, handcuffed him,
and put him in back of the squad car.
Next the police pulled the young man from out of the
car. While he was handcuffed, a police officer picked him
up off the ground and slammed him against the trunk of
the squad car. This was done as a show of force in front of
a large crowd of African Americans who were by this time
watching the whole incident. The young man was then
taken to jail and bailed out the next day.
The day after the incident, Martel Miller got a call from
the young man who explained how he was abused by
Champaign police. Miller told him to go file a complaint at
the Champaign police department. On September 24, the
young man went down to the police station to file a complaint.
He was met by Sergeant Matt Crane who got into
an argument with him. The Sergeant would not let him file
a complaint and threw him out of the police station.
Miller received a second call that day from the young
man who said he had been refused the right to file a complaint.
Miller decided to go down to the station with the
young man and try to file a complaint for a second time.
They gave the young man’s typed-written complaint to
someone at the dispatch window and asked for a superior
officer. Sergeant Crane came out with another Sergeant and
3 additional officers. As soon as Sergeant Crane saw the
young man, he started yelling at him and tried to kick him
out again. Miller interrupted and said, “This man is a citizen.
He has a right to file a complaint.” The Sergeant began
arguing with Miller. “The next thing I know,” Miller says,
“the Sergeant is trying to put me out of the police station.”
Miller then pulled out his cell phone and called Mayor
Schweighart who had in the past told Miller to call if there
was ever a problem with his police. The Mayor’s answering
machine was on and Miller left a message. The second
Sergeant then stepped in to talk to Miller and diffuse the
situation. Miller decided to leave but said he would be
back to file his own complaint against Sergeant Cane.
On September 26, Miller went back down to the Champaign
police department and delivered a typed-written
complaint to Lieutenant Yohnka (See side bar). The Lieutenant
told Miller that his complaint “wasn’t detailed
enough.” He wanted Miller to dictate a complaint and Lieutenant
Yohnka would write it out. Miller asked him if he
could have a copy of the Lieutenant’s typed up complaint.
Yohnka said, “No.”
Miller was given a form to sign agreeing to the truthfulness
of a complaint that he still had not seen. The form
said if the complaint was unfounded, Miller could be held
liable. Miller currently has a $15 million law suit against
Champaign for an incident in 2004 when police seized his
video equipment and charged him with felony eavesdropping
for videotaping police work. He is already suspicious
of Champaign police and knows how they will manipulate
the law to serve their own ends.
Miller asked Lieutenant Yohnka to fax the complaint to
a lawyer the and he agreed. But Miller said Yohnka only
faxed two blank sheets of paper. Miller called Yohnka on
the phone and Yohnka flatly told him he could not have a
copy of the complaint.
On October 19, Miller received a summary of his complaint,
but not the entire document. He issued a Freedom
of Information Act, but it was denied. According to Miller,
the Champaign police are now rewriting the policy on filing
a complaint. Miller says the message is:
“When you file a complaint, the Champaign police
decide if they are going to take a compliant or not. They will
write one down for you, but you can not see a copy of that
complaint. So you don’t ever know what your complaint is.
They say this complaint process is fair to the citizen.”
September 26, 2006

Community Court Watch
has been following the
case against former Sheriff’s
Deputy Ryan Garrett
for several months. Garrett
was facing four felony
counts for, among other
things, approaching Ty Kellums, boyfriend
of his estranged wife, while in uniform and
threatening him with the words, “I’m a
cop. Watch your back.”
Recently, on Friday, October 27, Garrett
was given a plea bargain by State’s Attorney
Julia Rietz’s office. Garrett entered a guilty
plea to Judge Tom Difanis for a misdemeanor
offense. He was sentenced to a $500
fine and 100 hours of public service, relatively
little punishment for the significant
erosion of public trust in the police and the
trauma he caused for his wife and Kellums.
The four felony counts against Garrett
were for official misconduct, disorderly
conduct, and intimidation. He pleaded
guilty to the charge of illegally using police
records to search the background of Kellums
on May 16, 2005. But this was the
least of the accusations.
Other allegations included an incident
on May 22, 2005, when Garrett staked out
Kellums at his apartment. While on duty in
his squad car and in uniform, Garrett
approached Kellums and warned him, “I’m
a cop. Watch your back.”
Garrett then followed through with his
threats in a clear abuse of his police power.
On November 25, 2005, Garrett called a fellow
deputy and sent him to perform a sobriety
test on the couple in a parked car who
had been out drinking that night. Garrett
had apparently been stalking Mary Garrett
and Kellums that night and figured he could
play a little trick. The other deputy suspected
he was being used for Garrett’s ploy and
contacted a Champaign police officer who
tested Mary Garrett and found she was well
below the legal intoxication limit.
Sheriff Dan Walsh was notified and Garrett
was suspended (with pay) on December
17, 2005. Charges were brought against
him a month later and State’s Attorney Julia
Rietz told the News-Gazette, “Both the sheriff
and I are very troubled by Deputy Garrett’s
action. He abused his authority as a
police officer and that will not be tolerated.”
The recent plea bargain given to Garrett
by Rietz’ office suggests that such police
abuse will indeed be tolerated in Champaign
County, just like Urbana Officer Hjort
who has never been charged for allegations
that he raped a 25-year-old woman.
Turning a blind eye to such an abuse of
power is not just something common to
police departments, but also other law and
order professions. Indeed, many police officers
get their training in the U.S. military.
Garrett had served in the Army National
Guard and was formerly a state trooper in
Louisiana. He currently lives in rural Tolono.
This was not the end of Garrett’s spousal
abuse. A restraining order had been placed
on him on July 26, 2006, and his wife filed
divorce papers on August 11, 2006. In the
Order of Protection, Mary Garrett describes
several incidents of physical and psychological
abuse. Her husband had told her
she could do nothing because he was a
cop. She writes:
“I never reported any of this because he
was a deputy for Champaign Co. and he
told me numerous times it wouldn’t do me
any good. And from my recent experiences
with the police involving him it hasn’t.”
Indeed, this plea bargain proves Mary Garrett’s
observation to be true—police will not
be fully prosecuted in Champaign County.
Ryan Garrett remains unapologetic and
defiant. He told the News-Gazette that he
had been looking forward to a trial to clear
his name, but took the plea bargain for the
sake of his children.
Garrett’s attorney Tony Novak said, “In
my opinion, Ryan Garrett pleaded guilty to
the only offense he arguably committed—
misuse of the police
records-checking system. There
was no intimidation. There was
no false report. There was no official
misconduct. You basically
have a husband and father who
was trying to find out if his wife
was leaving him for another man.”
Novak is also representing Sgt.
Myers, another one of Sheriff
Walsh’s deputies, who is being
prosecuted for illegally using a
Taser on inmates and then lying to
his superiors about it. We will see
if Myers also gets off lightly for
these very serious charges. Myers’
next court date is Monday, November
20 at 3 p.m. in Courtroom A.
Mary Schenk, writer for the News-
Gazette, found little fault in Garrett’s
offenses and failed to mention the threatening
comments allegedly made by Garrett
or his record of domestic abuse. She raised
no serious questions about repercussions
of Garrett’s plea.
Do Mary Garrett and Kellums feel safe
at night knowing that Garrett has a personal
vendetta against them? What message
does this send to other cops who
might also abuse their power? Are police
above the law in Champaign County?

In the recent conflicts in the Middle East, the Israeli point of
view is rarely covered, especially by independent media. I
think there are a lot of misconceptions and information gaps.
Let’s start with a few brief facts. Israel is about 1/5th to
1/6th the size of Illinois. Lebanon is even smaller. Israel was
created in the late 1940’s. Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq
became independent from Britain and France at about the
same time. They were previously controlled by the Ottoman
Empire for about 500 years. The borders drawn by Britain and
France are behind much of the current conflict in the region.
Israel has been involved in 3 major wars in which at least
8 neighboring countries directly supplied troops at one point
or another (the three other Israel-Lebanon wars are not considered
major wars). Two of the major wars occurred before
the West Bank and Gaza strip were an issue. At no time during
its existence have all of Israel’s borders have been quiet
from missiles or bombings. Missiles are regularly fired into
Israel from the Gaza Strip (Quassams), and Lebanon (Katutias).
During the 1991 Gulf War, Baghdad fired 39 Scud missiles
at Israel. Iran threatens Israel with missiles and nuclear
warheads. A major reason for these ongoing conflicts is the
existence of permanent refugee camps.
Before 1967, the West Bank and Gaza strip were part of
Jordan and Egypt respectively. Between the creation of
those countries and 1967 there was no Palestinian uprising.
Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps without
the right to work, or to resolve their future, for about 60
years after the birth of these nations.
Israel has about 6 million people of which more than 1
million are Palestinians. Since the 1940’s, more Jews fled
Arab countries than Palestinians fled Israel. Far more
Palestinians live in Israel now than Jews live in the whole
Arab and Muslim worlds combined.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, modern Greece
and Turkey were formed. A mass population exchange
occurred where Christians fled from Turkey to Greece and
Muslims fled from Greece to Turkey. No permanent
refugee camps were formed.
When Pakistan separated from India, a mass migration
occurred where Hindus in Pakistan fled to India and Muslims
fled to Pakistan. The same occurred with India and
Bangladesh. No permanent refugee camps were formed.
No conflict has ever been resolved by permanent
refugee camps. Palestinians should not be held in camps
without jobs or recourse. Keeping them in camps is furthering
colonialism by reinforcing the lines that the British
decided in the 1940’s when designations such as Palestinian,
Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian were determined.
At a panel in the Urbana City Council chambers on Oct
26, it was suggested that as a part of a settlement the US
needed to open its borders to some of these Palestinians. As
an ideal this certainly sounds good. However, I am not
sure that it will work. The reason is that having a third
party accept responsibility continues the cycle of avoiding
the responsibility of Arab countries. In the end, Arab countries
such as Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria are held to a
lower standard than say India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Greece and Turkey. Why are these four countries (and other
Arab countries) not responsible for refugees?
I think the solution (beyond a cynical proposal of banning
religion) actually starts here, with the people that read
this newspaper, the people that judge the situation and criticize
the actors. The first priority is the application of
human rights equally throughout the world. People should
not be kidnaped, killed, jailed or threatened based on their
opinions or even pictures they took (the Canadian-Iranian
journalist Zahra Kazemi was tortured and killed by the
Iranian police for simply taking a picture of a prison).
Nobody should be subjected to this: not Palestinians,
Israelis, Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans etc. People who
deny these basic rights, who incorporate vigilante groups in
their midst, or who do not speak up against these practices
should be denied legitimacy. They should not be necessarily
labeled terrorist, but violators of human rights.
Ironically, Israel itself has decent human rights within its
borders, especially compared with the other countries in the
region (please see freedomhouse.org). Human rights should
be encouraged and parties that abide by human rights
should receive a positive judgment and be rewarded with
more legitimacy, especially in UN (this philosophy should
not just apply to this conflict). Note: being a theocracy,
monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy or whatever is
irrelevant in this scheme. The essence of cultures should
not be changed, but people everywhere in the world
deserve to feel safe and to be allowed to express themselves.
Since its creation in the 1940’s Israel has been constantly
vilified, more than Greece, Turkey, India, Pakistan,
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Iraq. American Jews and Jews
in general have also often been vilified. My simple question
is why, and what makes Israel so different? Is it that
Israel’s refugees are Jewish? Is it that some of Israel’s
refugees also came from Europe?
Unless all parties are held to the same standards of
human rights and unless the Western view of Muslim and
Arab countries changes from blameless victims to part of
the problem, nothing will change.

On a beautiful Saturday afternoon, October
7, 2006, a crowd of nearly 200 participants
joined in the Third Annual Unity
March. This year, we took the Unity March
to the community. We went into the Garden
Hills neighborhood, ground zero for
the effects of racism and poverty in our
community.
The march started at Bradley and
Prospect. From there we walked west to
McKinley and north passing through the
Dorsey apartments, where there are many
individuals who receive Section 8 vouchers.
These are the people that certain members
the Champaign City Council would
like to keep segregated. Champaign City
Council member Ken Pirok recently
attempted to repeal a city ordinance passed
in March to prohibit landlords from discriminating
against Section 8 recipients.
This pro-discrimination policy was also
supported by Vic McIntosh, the City Council
representative from this neighborhood.
The march also went past the sites of several
tragedies that have struck this embattled
community in the last year. The first was the
block of Honeysuckle where police called
out the S.W.A.T. team and an armored truck
to deal with Carl “Dennis” Stewart, a suicidal
black man with a gun. Pushed into a corner
by police, Stewart allegedly put the gun to
his head and killed himself.
Next we walked down Hedge Road past
the home of Quentin Larry who died over
Memorial Day weekend in the Champaign
County jail. Larry was one of five deaths
that have occurred in the jail in the last two
years. His mother came out to greet the
crowd and there was a moment of silence
for her son.
Moving down Hedge Road, marchers
chanted “This is what community looks
like.” We walked past a burned and boarded
up house at 1313 Hedge Road. On September
25, a 3 year-old boy named
Demetrius Lenard, Jr. died in the fire. In a
News-Gazette article, writer Mary Schenk
was more concerned about the property
damage and blamed the mother for her
son’s loss, emphasizing there should have
been an escape plan. Unity marchers again
bowed their heads in a moment of silence
and Carol Ammons placed a wreath of
flowers in front of the home.
The march ended in Thompson Park
with a rally. Several politicians were in
attendance and a voter registration table
was set up. Members of the community
who had joined in the march sat on the
grass with their children or stood under
trees for shade.
Once again, the Unity March was a sign
that people prefer community and togetherness
over war and destruction.
(Photographs by Wendy Edwards)

October 7, 2006
Letter to the News Gazette
I would like to request a correction to the Editorial N-G
Publisher John Foreman wrote Sunday September 17,
2006. In his lengthy editorial Mr. Foreman was critical of
the “usual suspects.”
Mr. Foreman states he got a “kick” out of the writer
(me: Robert Wahlfeldt) who identified himself as a WWII
military veteran. Foreman states that I said that I only
respected members of the military who served in the
“good wars.” He has made a number of errors in his writing,
which I hope the N-G will have the respect and also
take the responsibility to correct.
My September 13 letter to the editor
stated I felt uniformed military
in elementary schools to be discouraging
and that Col. Rudzinski’s
response to those who question his
appearance was disrespectful. Calling
us ignorant fools is his right as
well as Mr. Foreman’s, but it is
hardly respectful. I never stated in my letter, that I only
respect those who fought in the “good wars.” I am a veteran
and I am also currently working in opposition to war
and am especially concerned regarding those who say they
support the troops yet do nothing to bring them safely
home or work for their ongoing needs upon return. The
US is in Iraq due to lies and no amount of so-called “patriotic”
spin will make this easier to defend.
For Mr. Foreman’s information I was not a draftee. I left
high school at a young and impressionable age and joined
the navy. I was in the US navy from 1943-1946 and was
aboard the USS Waldron in the Pacific Theater of Operation.
I was a rescue swimmer who pulled my fellow soldiers
from the Pacific Ocean among other tasks. I have
grown in age and wisdom over the years since then and
now devote my time and life to working to end war since it
has not ever really resolved much; there are no good wars.
The current war is perhaps no worse than others but
due to the misleading reasons for the invasion, the lack of
planning, misuse of soldiers and
loss of innocent civilian life we
need to oppose it whenever we can.
I currently work for “full-disclosure
recruitment” so that our young
folks know what they are getting
into when they join the military.
Those wearing a military uniform
are obligated not to dissent from
US Policy and therefore unquestionably will present a certain
bias when speaking. I find it disappointing that the NG’s
publisher says he is often paraphrased incorrectly and
yet he proceeds to do the same thing himself in regards to
me. I joined the navy at 17, I was not a “draftee,” and I was
not “peeling potatoes in Virginia to help lick Hitler,”
though an interesting assumption
on Mr. Foreman’s part.
Can you imagine a WWII veteran
who has realized the racket of war
and now wants to work to support
our troops by making sure they
learn that what is going on in Iraq is
a misuse of their sacrifice? Col.
Rudzinski’s disrespectful response to
those who questioned his presentation
given in military uniform and
Mr. Foreman’s lack of a truthful portrayal
of my service completes the
picture of why the military should
not be talking to youngsters about
war. The war in Iraq is devastating to
those who serve and to the civilians
who are suffering. I see no humorous
side to this misadventure and it
is wrong to suggest otherwise. Col. Rudzinski’s presentation
was incomplete at best. In addition, the N-G misquoting of
me to support Rudzinski’s and oppose those who question
his appearance in uniform is further evidence of an incompetent
and dishonest editorial by Mr. Foreman.
I hope Foreman will be both respectful and responsible
and retract the incorrect assumptions he made about my
military service and me. Do I feel an exception coming on to
his typical editorials? How about one that informs the readers
of those who actually do support the troops but want
the current debacle shown for what it is: a tragic mistake?
Mr. Foreman’s suggestion that those who questioned
the school presentation are “bashing America” is a real
affront to those like myself who love our country always
and our government, fellow military and the News-
Gazette publisher only when it is deserved.
Robert Wahlfeldt
Champaign, Illinois 61820

I was returning a U-haul truck as my wife and daughter
followed behind. I pulled into a gas station and began to
fill the truck. My wife pulled in behind me, stopped, and
waited for me to finish. My wife wears the full Islamic covering
including the face veil and I have an Islamic beard.
My 2-year-old daughter crawled out of her car seat and sat
in my wife’s lap, waiting for me to finish. My wife then
noticed a police vehicle circling around her. He then
pulled up beside her, so she rolled down her window and
told him that our daughter has a car seat but was just sitting
up front until I finished. She assumed he was just
going to tell her to make sure to put our daughter in the
car seat before she pulled away. Instead he asked her if I
was her husband. She said yes. At that point I saw him
speaking with her so I went over and asked the officer if I
could help him. He asked my name. He then told me he
needed to speak with me. He pulled me to the side and
began asking me if I was ever questioned by the FBI or was
on a terrorist watch list. I said no, I had never spoken with
the FBI. I told him that I had issues in the airports with
having to get cleared with DHS (Department of Homeland
Security) before boarding. He then told me that when he
ran the plates on my vehicle, his computer screen
returned a message that he should detain me as I may be a
member of a terrorist organization and that he had to call
me in. I laughed when he told me this. He asked me why I
thought this message came up and I told him I have no
idea.
He then said, “You are Muslim, right?” I told him yes.
My wife then got out of the car and asked the officer why I
was being questioned. He repeated the message on his
computer screen and offered to let us see it if we wished.
Then she said that she is tired of being harassed all
because we are Muslim and because of the clothing she
chooses to wear.
The police officer got defensive and said it had nothing
to do with her, that it was only me. So I asked him why he
ran our plates to begin with and he said because he just
randomly runs plates. He said he called the situation in
and he had to hold me until he received a response on his
radio. He walked away and spoke into his radio and then
2 more police cars came and 2 other officers got out. They
pulled the first officer to the side and spoke with him privately.
Then all three officers came over and the first officer
told me I could go. I asked for all of their cards and they
did not have any but rather the first officer gave me his
information. One of the other officers said that if I had a
complaint he was the Sergeant and I could complain to
him. I explained that I did not have a complaint with
them, only needed information to try to understand why
this was happening and that I found it unacceptable to be
harassed in such a manner without cause.
The first officer then asked me if I was moving and I
said yes. He then asked me where. At this point I told him
I would not answer any more questions and he confirmed
that I did not have to answer his questions. I then asked
them if this would happen again and they said probably. I
then asked what I could do to stop this and he said I might
want to start with calling a federal agency. I asked him
which one and he said he did not know.
My wife and I then got back into our vehicles and
drove off.

Citizens of the State of Illinois are leading the way in the movement to impeach the President
of the United States. The confluence of state and local movements will occur in
Urbana-Champaign in mid-October when State Representative Karen Yarbrough (DMaywood)
comes to town. On April 20, 2006, Yarbrough introduced into the Illinois
General Assembly House Joint Resolution 125 which called for the impeachment of President
Bush. Illinois thus became the first state in the Union to have such a resolution put
forward. Although the impeachment process is usually thought of as a bill introduced by
a member of the U. S. House of Representatives, Yarbrough was utilizing a different
method for setting an impeachment in motion.
She followed a process laid out in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson in the Manual of Parliamentary
Practice, a book of parliamentary procedure and additional guidelines for the
United States House of Representatives. Jefferson opposed centralized federal power and
frequently sought balances giving states greater liberties and rights. The House uses “Jefferson’s
Manual” as a supplement to its standing rules. Section 603 states:
Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House: there are various methods of setting
an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or
Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for
examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee;
by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory
or from a grand jury.
Twenty co-sponsors in the Illinois House signed on to support HJR 125. It was
referred to the Rules Committee and not reported out for a vote before the session was
adjourned. Yarbrough has announced plans to resubmit the resolution in the upcoming
session. Joint Resolution 125 reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States
House of Representatives allow federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by
joint resolution of a state legislature; and
WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering the National Security
Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
a felony, specifically authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
warrant; and
WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized violation of the
Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty regarded a supreme law by
the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American citizens and citizens of
other nations as prisoners of war without charge or trial; and
WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration has manipulated
intelligence for the purpose of initiating a war against the sovereign nation of Iraq,
resulting in the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the United
States to incur loss of life, diminished security and billions of dollars in unnecessary
expenses; and
WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified national secrets to further
a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence
agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate
the matter; and
WHEREAS, the Republican-controlled Congress has declined to fully investigate
these charges to date; therefore be it
RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETYFOURTH
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE SENATE
CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the State of Illinois has good
cause to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives under Section 603
that the President of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found
guilty of the charges contained herein, should be
removed from office and disqualified to hold any
other office in the United States.
A little over a week ahead of Representative
Yarbrough, residents of Cunningham Township
(Urbana) and City of Champaign Township (Champaign),
attending their respective town meetings on
April 11, 2006, amended the meeting agendas to
consider advisory referenda for the November 7 ballots
and then voted to place those referenda on the
ballots. By these actions, Urbana and Champaign
became the first communities in the nation to offer
their residents the opportunity to express their opinion
on impeachment in the voting booth. Voters will
also be able to express their opinions regarding the
withdrawal of U.S troops from Iraq.
Yarbrough is scheduled to speak on her efforts to
initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush at 7pm on October
17 at the Urbana City Council Chambers, 400 S. Vine St, Urbana. This presentation, free
and open to the public, will also be recorded by Urbana Public Television, Channel 6;
please check the UPTV schedule for times this will be shown. At noon on Wednesday,
October 18, she again will address impeachment at a rally on the Quad on the University
of Illinois campus. The rally will be followed from 1-2pm by a discussion and meetand-
greet in Room 314B at the Illini Union, 1401 W. Green St., Urbana..The above events
are sponsored by AWARE, local anti-war anti-racism effort. Please consult
www.AWAREPresents.com for more information and a complete schedule of presentations.
Years prior to Representative Yarbrough and the groups of citizens from Urbana and
Champaign taking the above actions, Francis A Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois
School of Law, began his own campaign to impeach the president. Professor Boyle published
his first draft Impeachment Resolution against President George W. Bush in January 2003.
Prof Boyle will host a brown bag discussion with Yarbrough of her state bill at noon on October
17 at UIUC Law Bldg, 504 E Pennsylvania Ave,C. He will be joining her at the campus
rally and speaking about his efforts at the national level for impeachment.

INTRODUCTION AND A DEFINITIONAL POINT
Direct democracy has a natural appeal that transcends ideological
schisms: both the left and the right frequently complain
that institutional features of democracy thwart the will
of the people, badly distorting public opinion in its translation
to public policy. Why not, then, skip the legerdemain of
lobbyists and legislators, and let the public decide? Plebiscites
obviously have populist appeal, but serious analyses of how
referenda work, where they have been most frequent, have
raised a range of somewhat surprising. conclusions about the
merits and demerits of letting the people decide. in some contexts,
“Referendum” is a specialized term referring to a subset
of all policy issues put to public vote as ballot items. In this
article, I will eschew technical usage, so that all references to
plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and the like will mean some
variety of public policy question—including potential constitutional
amendments—being put to a public vote.
TOO DEMANDING OR TOO PARTISAN?
An immediate concern about referenda is whether they
aren’t too demanding of the ordinary voter, whose
interest and expertise in public policy is bound to be
limited. On the plus side, there is some evidence that
even fairly inattentive voters can navigate tricky policy
matters without necessarily submerging themselves in
the details. By relying on shortcuts (e.g. knowing
whether the insurance industry is backing the “Yes” or
the “No” side of a ballot question), people knowing few
details about complicated ballot propositions are able
to vote in pretty much the same manner as the (far less
numerous) wonks, who’ve delved into the intricacies of
the issue. That’s not to say that they are voting the
“right” way in the sense of some objective measure of
public interest or by the standards of some commentator
(me, for instance). But if commitment to democracy
means taking your chances on your fellow citizens
making mistakes, at least it is good to know that the
low level of engagement in public policy does not necessarily
signal that direct democracy is bound to fail.
It is also true that there is ample evidence that much decision
making by ordinary voters is strongly colored by partisan
leanings, so that a great deal of what strong Democrats
and Republicans do when picking favorites is to rationalize
their pre-determined partisan picks by concocting post-hoc
explanations based on, say, issue contrasts. Accordingly, policy
decisions stripped of overt partisan labels are perhaps
helpful in the sense that they jar substantial numbers of voters
out of routine adherence to party lines.
A HAPPINESS OR SPIRITUAL VALUE?
There is even some indirect (still debated) evidence that
voting does a body good: in Switzerland, the cantons that
have the most plebiscites also have higher average levels of
self-reported happiness (in surveys), even after other predictors
of happiness such as average wealth are taken into
account. Some years back, as a paper discussant on an academic
panel where a Swiss economist was presenting one
such study, I couldn’t resist quoting the speech delivered by
Orson Welles in the character of scoundrel Harry Lime,
from the film The Third Man:
In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare,
terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo,
Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy
and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Despite my antics, happiness is clearly a valid goal of
public policy, so if being allowed to exercise choice on more
policy matters really does increase overall public contentment,
that’s a noteworthy argument in favor of the practice.
THE CALIFORNIA PARADOX: REFERENDA
VERSUS ELECTORAL CHOICES
In the United States, direct democracy is a state-level phenomenon,
with wide variance in how common are any
referenda. Many states, most of them in the west of the
country, have long histories of holding regular and frequent
votes on ballot measures. But, as in so many other
realms, California overshadows all others when it comes
to evaluating direct democracy. What have academics
learned from hundreds and hundreds of ballot initiatives
stretched overly nearly a century in the Golden State? The
conclusions, and debates, are many, but a few interesting
patterns stand out.
First, not surprisingly, special interests are not absent
just because policies are being made in the ballot box, not
in Sacramento. Many complain that the whole process of
has become a mockery of grass-roots politics, as successful
initiatives normally engage professional signature-collection
firms to get on the ballot, advertising agencies to build
support, and sometimes even get-out-the-vote operations.
Frequently, a great deal of money is spent by both sides.
There is also much loud complaint that campaigns feature
as much disinformation as information, and that the public
too often fails to understand the matters at hand, even
though the state provides a neutral voter’s guide offering
arguments from both sides. One school of commentators
urging that what is most needed in democracy is more and
better deliberation has delivered mixed verdicts on whether
the public at large seems to engage more fully in debates
when they are choosing outcomes rather than choosing
outcome makers. Turnout patterns reveal higher abstention
on ballot initiatives—sometimes much higher—than on
top-of-the-ticket races like Governor, Senator, or President.
Somewhat more interesting and much less obviously,
there seems to be a curious asymmetry in what works in
persuading voters. Both campaign spending and elite
endorsements seem to work better at driving up the No
vote to block initiatives than at persuading people to pass a
measure. So for all the complaints that big money has taken
over the ballot initiative, there are very few examples of
measures passing because of skewed spending.
It is difficult quickly to summarize the policy directions
endorsed by Californians over this long history. In some
cases, measures opposed by both major parties have passed
comfortably. Occasionally, shrewd interest groups have
used direct democracy to break deadlock in the legislature.
Perhaps the most famous proposition of all, 1978’s Proposition
13, effected a major change in property tax law that has
had the effect of greatly privileging those who purchased
homes years back and have stayed put as against frequent
movers and newcomers to the state. It isn’t clear that this is
an optimal way to limit taxation or for the state to discriminate
amongst tax payers, and detractors often lament that
the many of the state’s budgetary woes originate in this “tax
revolt.” On the other hand, surveys continue to show
strong public support for tax limits and it does not seem to
be the case that Californians were fooled into passing a
measure that was not properly understood.
A pattern that has gained more attention over time is
that a surprisingly large number of all successful initiatives
are never implemented, or are strongly modified by subsequent
court decisions. To some commentators, this outcome
is still more evidence that populism is folly: the public
will fall for any nostrum, without regard for its constitutionality,
practicality, or long-term consequences. Others
take an antithetical view, regarding the trend as further evidence
of excessive judicial activism being a severe constraint
on American democracy, with judges forever trumping
the people.
California offers some intriguing evidence that frequent
referenda may permit voters to straddle ideological divides
by leaning alternate ways when selecting candidates and
when choosing policies directly. Consider that 24 out of 32
statewide races (including presidential elections) from
1994 to 2004 were won by Democrats (and 5 of the Republican
wins came in 1994, a year with a massive nation-wide
swing in their direction). California’s two Senators, Boxer
and Feinstein, have each won election thrice, Feinstein
seems certain to win easy re-election yet again this November,
and the toughest race either has had to fight was a 5-
point win by Boxer over right-wing commentator Bruce
Herschensohn in 1992. Their liberal credentials are solid:
over their 13 years in the Senate, Boxer has averaged an
Americans for Democratic Action rating of 94/100 and
Feinstein 90/100. Yet, over this same period Californians,
while putting liberals into office most of the time, have
repeatedly endorsed initiatives considered loathsome by
the left, including Propositions 187 to deny public services
to illegal immigrants (59% support in 1994), 209 to prevent
the state from implementing affirmative action programs
(55% in 1996), 227 to forbid bilingual education in
public schools (61% in 1998), and 22 to restrict marriage
to only heterosexual couples (61% in 2000). There are
other explanations on offer, but it does seem possible that
the existence of so many ballot questions allows voters step
to the left in picking representatives, then shuffle back to
the right when choosing policies themselves.
CONCLUSION: A MESSY BUT USEFUL POLITICAL
COMBINATION
In the end, direct democracy is no panacea. In the US,
there are probably more experts who think experience
shows that plebiscites produce bad outcomes than there are
keen supporters of the process. Elsewhere, Switzerland is
Europe’s California, the polity that has used referenda far
more than any other. Although there are friends and foes of
the process there, my sense is that the balance is slightly on
the favorable side. The costs and benefits of allowing direct
public policy making are complicated, but insofar as one
believes in majoritarian principles, most of the complaints
strike me as secondary to the fundamental promise. Representative
and direct democracy needn’t be competitors, and
a mixture of the two is feasible and probably useful, even if
the mixture is often times messy.

What we ultimately must confront is our exclusive
reliance on winner-take-all elections. Winner-take-all elections,
whether in single-member districts or for at-large
positions, require winning candidates to attract a majority
or substantial plurality of the vote. By definition, candidates
representing political minorities have great difficulty
amassing such a large a share of votes and therefore stand
little chance of being elected. The same holds true for
minority candidates running in racially polarized districts,
as evidenced by the fact that the 49 states where white voters
are the largest group have 97 white U.S. Senators and
the one state (Hawaii) where white voters are not the
largest group has two Asian American Senators.
Under our current system, racial minorities and the
poor have the right to vote but are often denied the equally
fundamental right to representation. Most enduring
democracies have rejected the winner-take-all model in
favor of systems that ensure that any grouping of likeminded
people—minorities and majorities—gets a fair
share of power and representation in legislative bodies,
whereas our current winner-take-all principle can award
100 percent of the representation to a 50.1 percent majority.
If African American voters comprise 20 percent of the
vote in a racially polarized county, fair voting systems
would allow them to elect a representative to at least one
of the five seats—rather than be shut out, as they would be
in a traditional at-large election or in a single-member district
plan that dispersed their vote across several districts.
A win-win for women, racial minorities and supporters
of more partisan fairness and more competitive elections,
full representation could be adopted for nearly all legislative
bodies in the United States—
including most state delegations
in the House of Representatives—
without having
to amend the Constitution.
One example consistent with
American traditions comes from Illinois. For more than a
century Illinois voters elected their state legislature with a
full representation voting method called cumulative voting,
with candidates running in bigger districts that each had
three representatives. Lowering the victory threshold for
candidates from 50 percent to 25 percent did not overturn
the two-party system, but it broadened representation within
the parties, promoted more bipartisan policy and elected
more women and people of color. The Chicago Tribune in
1995 editorialized that “Many partisans and political independents
acknowledge that [cumulative voting] produced
some of the best and brightest in Illinois politics.”
More recently, in May 2000, the citizens of Amarillo,
Texas, filled four seats on its school board for the first time
by cumulative voting. No black or Latino candidate had
been elected to the board in more than two decades,
despite Latinos and African-Americans making up more
than 20 percent of the city’s population and an even larger
share of the student population. Instituted to settle a voting
rights lawsuit in 1999, cumulative voting had an
immediate impact: a black candidate and Latino candidate
won seats with strong support in their communities; voter
turnout tripled over the most recent school board election;
and all parties in the voting rights settlement expressed
satisfaction with the new system. A person of color – one
African American and one Latina — was elected in the two
subsequent cumulative voting elections in 2002 and 2004.
In the past 20 years, nearly 100 American jurisdictions
have adopted a full representation method to settle voting
rights challenges, and federal judges several times have
sought to impose them directly as remedies in voting
rights cases. Perhaps the fairest of these systems, the
choice voting method recommended as an option in the
National Civic League’s Model City Charter, has been used
for decades to elect the city council and school committee
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cambridge is famous for
feisty local elections, good government and higher voter
turnout than its neighbors and for decades has provided
fair representation for African Americans. Fair racial representation
was also typically true when choice voting was
used to elect city councils in New York City, Cincinnati
and other major cities before their repeal in the Cold War
climate of the post-World War II era.
Significant organizations have grown to support full
representation voting methods. In 1998, a National Black
Caucus of State Legislators task force found strong interest
among black legislators. The League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC), National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF) joined with local
plaintiffs to win the adoption
of cumulative voting in
Amarillo, the largest city
now using such a system.
The National Conference of
Black Political Scientists endorsed full representation in
1999. National and state affiliates of US PIRG, Common
Cause, Sierra Club, National Organization for Women and
the League of Women Voters adopted positions in favor of
full representation.
This rise of interest in full representation in the 1990s
obviously did not occur in a vacuum. Voting Rights Act
provisions on redistricting divided and preoccupied the
Supreme Court more than any other issue in the 1990s.
The Court heard arguments in cases involving voting
rights and redistricting nearly ever year in the decade,
often in bitterly contested 5-4 decisions that had the general
impact of limiting states’ use of race in drawing legislative
district lines. Full representation methods solve
many of the legal problems that arise in both political and
racial gerrymandering cases, as has been pointed out by
both Voting Rights Act backers like Lani Guinier and
opponents like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
By boosting representation of people of color without the
need for race-conscious districting, full representation
avoids the legal tightrope created by the combination of
the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting
strength, and Shaw, which weakens the ability to draw districts
that would enable that protection.
Apart from legal battles over Shaw and philosophical
concerns, civil rights attorneys have discovered, in states
like Texas, Alabama, and North Carolina, that full representation
can simply be a good fit with local conditions.
Perhaps a minority community is more geographically dispersed
than necessary for a single-member district plan.
Perhaps a jurisdiction may want to avoid redistricting
every decade. Perhaps there is frustration that most voters
in a minority community are still left out of a chance to
elect a candidate of choice even with a district plan that
provides for enhanced minority representation. Perhaps in
a multi-racial community, a citywide full representation
plan is the easiest way for different racial minorities to
elect representation.