Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Arkansas newspapers:
Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. March 5, 2019.
Is the sufficiency of a ballot title and description, the kind Arkansans have placed before them almost every election cycle, a matter of legal expertise or just a detail to be hashed out by politicians?
Until Leslie Rutledge became the state’s attorney general, it seemed accepted and reasonable practice that the office of the state’s top attorney was the right place to review initiative and referendum petitions from people or organizations that wanted to get their measures on the ballot. Apparently, it’s proved too much for the current officeholder.
Matthew Pitsch, a Republican lawmaker from Fort Smith, wants to relieve the attorney general of those duties. From his perspective, Arkansans who want to get a measure on the ballot need to hire their own attorneys to help get the wording right.
“We have created a process in the state that was not in our Constitution and for the lack of a better term we started using our attorney general’s office as legal counsel for the development of ballot titles, and nowhere does it say we need to do that,” Pitsch said.
Well, our Constitution is silent about a lot of things the state does. That doesn’t by necessity make them unconstitutional.
We certainly respect the idea that a state officeholder shouldn’t be treated like private counsel to those wishing to go through the initiative or referendum process in state government. Truth be told, most advocates in either process spend considerable time and money on private lawyers to help draft ballot measures that can withstand the scrutiny they will be, and should be, put through.
But Pitsch, in our view, is too aggressive in discounting the work of the attorney general as simply advising petitioners. No, the attorney general isn’t there to serve as attorney for the petitioners. But she is there to serve as the attorney for the people of the state of Arkansas, and it is in service to them that the attorney general is called upon to review and certify ballot measures before they can appear at any election.
In other words, the attorney general serves as legal advocate for the people. In terms of ballot measures, that means making sure proposed ballot measures are written in such a way that the interests of Arkansans will best be served, i.e., with clarity of meaning.
It is not in the public’s best interests to remove those responsibilities from the one office that is supposed to be an attorney for the people of the state.
Pitsch’s idea is to hand over the review of ballot measures to the state Board of Election Commissioners. In case you didn’t know, that’s a panel made up of the secretary of state, two members appointed by the governor, and one member each appointed by the chairman of the state Democratic Party, the chairman of the state Republican Party, the Senate president pro tempore and the speaker of the state House of Representatives.
Does that sound like a panel that’s going to stay keenly focused on legal requirements, as compared to, say, political considerations?
Rutledge drew criticism from her Democratic opponent in her last election for declining to certify more than 70 proposed ballot measures. A group of lawyers also sued her, claiming she was deliberately thwarting efforts to get measures on the ballot. She supports Pitsch’s bill to change the system.
While there may be some changes in the initiative and referendum process that helps with the timing of approvals, the removal of the attorney general from the process appears a convenient way for an elected official to get herself out of the contentious arena of ballot measures. Rutledge is as quick as any political officeholder to tout her office’s role in protecting the consumer. We can’t think of a stronger way to protect Arkansas’ voters than to have the state’s attorney in on the ground floor of making sure ballot measures are fairly and accurately written.
The state Senate has given its backing to the changes and the House will soon consider it after a “do pass” recommendation from the Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs, so this measure may be well on its way to reality.
If you ask us, removing those duties from the attorney general’s office will no doubt make the post a little more comfortable for the officeholder, but that shouldn’t be the goal of our Legislature’s changes to state law.
___
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. March 5, 2019.
Moderates used to be cool. Now they’re so 1986. And if they’re considered old-fashioned now, they might be extinct in a few more years. Could a Bill Clinton circa 1992 win a Democratic primary today? Could a 1988 George H.W. Bush win a Republican one? Not only are poor moderates on the endangered list in America, those hunting them are still filling tags.
For the most recent example, newly elected Democrat darling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put moderates in her crosshairs, figuratively speaking. (It’s hard to get a gun legally in New York.) The New York Post reported that she was part of a recent closed-door crackdown on moderate House Democrats. Here’s more from The Post:
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among House Democrats who laced into moderates Thursday - threatening to run those who side with Republicans out of office in the 2020 primaries.”
The political consultants call that “being primaried,” as they so often use nouns as verbs.
Some in her party tried to reason with AOC by informing her that there are places in America that aren’t New York City. The stories don’t say how she took that news.
We remember, fondly, the Blue Dog Democrats, including a congressman representing the state of Arkansas, a pharmacy owner named Mike Ross, of the Prescott, Arkansas, Rosses. He remained a loyal Democrat his entire political career, but remained conservative on many issues, and took those values to Washington with him. He was good for his party. Just as liberal Republicans were - emphasis on “were” - good for their party.
Remember when liberals in the Republican Party were pushing through civil rights bills? And remember when conservatives in the Democratic Party were insisting on a strong defense? Once upon a time, the two major political parties in this country weren’t so polarized that they couldn’t mix and match. And that was a good thing. Better to have conservatives and liberals in each party, because that way lies compromise—the good kind—and America’s business got done in the nation’s capital.
The other way lies what the country has today: parties on opposite sides of a wide political gulf, and acting as if any show of good will toward the other is treason. With fire-eaters like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez willing to throw members of her own party into the abyss. (Where have you gone, Zell Miller?)
It reminds us of what a former member of Congress had to say when he announced his retirement. His name was Dennis Cardoza, and he was a U.S. representative from California. And a Democrat in good standing. In the press release announcing his retirement, he said this, in part:
“As a leader of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, I am also disappointed by the broadcast media’s general lack of attention to moderate members of Congress, and their failure to recognize those members of all ideologies who work together to build consensus and solve problems. The constant focus on ’screamers’ and the ’horse race’ of elections is smothering useful discourse and meaningful debate of public policy. This, in turn, is fueling the increasingly harsh tone in American politics. My experience tells me that those who shout the loudest, and give the most speeches, have the fewest good solutions for America’s challenges.”
He said that in 2011.
Democrats used to brag about being the “big tent” party. It was no organized political party, it was Will Rogers’ party. Now it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s party. Or will be if she’s able to whittle it down to the true believers. That is, the true believers who meet every item on AOC’s checklist.
Whatever the reason for Blue Dogs becoming an endangered species on the Potomac, it’s sad. As sad as the disappearance of Republicans who could afford to talk sense about immigration or other hot-button issues. That way lies an even deeper divide in this country and more of the games you could read all about in last week’s papers.
If those weren’t enough to drive you to distraction, then you’ve got the politics bug, which has been known to make even healthy people apoplectic and itchy. If you’ve got this particular rash, Dr. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will see you now.
___
Texarkana Gazette. March 5, 2019.
The debate hasn’t reached the Twin Cities just yet, but it’s heating up in the Northeast and overseas.
Should retail stores be required to accept cash transactions?
It seems a small but growing number of restaurants and retailers for everything from groceries to clothing to all sorts of other items are refusing to accept cash. They only take credit and debit cards.
The argument is that digital-only transactions are more efficient and cut down on paperwork and theft.
But not everyone is happy about the trend. Advocates for the so-called “unbanked”_those who do not have a bank account or use credit cards_say the ban on cash is simply discrimination.
U.S. currency is legal tender, yet no federal law requires private businesses to accept cash as payment. But politicians on state and local levels have gotten into the act. Last week Philadelphia’s mayor signed an ordinance prohibiting cash-only stores. New Jersey and Massachusetts have done so statewide and New York City is considering following suit.
We think the critics have it backward.
Cashless stores are going to happen. States and cities might be able to delay them, but they won’t stop them from becoming the norm.
The real scrutiny should be on why so many people don’t have bank accounts or credit cards and what should be done about it.
Those without bank accounts - usually low-income, the elderly or minorities - pay through the nose for all their financial services such as check cashing, money orders, prepaid debit cards and the like. That’s a drain on their often meager resources.
They need access to bank accounts and other financial services at a reasonable cost. The problem is often banks don’t locate in poorer neighborhoods and, with high-balance requirements or fees, don’t make it easy for low-income people to open accounts.
That’s the problem our elected officials need to focus on. It’s much more important to prepare these folks for a certain future rather than trying desperately to hold back that future.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.