Question 1): What, if anything, will be the political ramifications of the Oxford, Michigan, School District shootings?
Answer 1): Legislatively, we can only hope there will be some bipartisan, common sense, incremental steps taken to address some of the obvious mistakes that were made, including what seems to amount to almost criminal negligence by Oxford school officials who might have stopped this atrocity before it had a chance to happen. Already, we’ve seen lawsuits filed against the school district itself, and they would seem to have a good chance of eventual success. Unfortunately, all that’s gotten publicity in the news media so far are bills introduced by anti-gun reformers that will go nowhere. This proposed legislation is why it’s unlikely that Oxford will have broad political consequences in Michigan, at least in the short term, because the incident triggers irreconcilable debate on all the major gun rights issues we have struggled with for so long.
*******************************************************************
Question 2): It’s suggested that if the Democrats put a proposal pertaining to gun laws and one pertaining to abortion rights on the 2022 ballot it would significantly boost their turnout. But would that actually be the case?
Answer 2): It’s hard to imagine questions on either of these issues qualifying for the ballot in 2022. On abortion, there is too much uncertainty on how the U.S. Supreme court is going to rule on the Mississippi case, and that probably won’t happen until next summer — too late to qualify petitions for a statewide vote. Besides, how would such an initiative square with how the high court will rule, or might rule in the future? As for gun rights, if there could be a sensible initiative that had broad support from both major political parties, the news media, and major interest groups, yes, it could make the ballot. But how likely is that to happen? And if it did, it would ipso facto not be an advantage to Democrats.
********************************************************************
Question 3): The Michigan Legislature’s remaining 2021 agenda is sparse compared to previous late-year agendas, in terms of bills and major issues under serious consideration. To what do you attribute this ‘light agenda’?
Answer 3): Is it really a ‘light agenda’ if there are record billions of dollars in federal largesse yet to be appropriated? NO WAY, and that’s what the Legislature and governor ought to be spending virtually all their time on. But if we’re talking only about the usual variety and sheer volume of “cat and dog” legislation, it may be down a little from previous year-end sessions for two reasons — 1) Looming reapportionment of state House and Senate district lines, which happens only once every 10 years with all the uncertainty that brings about re-election; and 2) Simple fatigue from the constant warring between the Legislature and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over the past three years. Everybody may just want a break from that, thinking “Why do we keep passing bills that we know are going to be vetoed?” Maybe a better approach is: “On to the campaign! —wherever I’m running!”
*********************************************************************
Question 4): Attorneys for Michigan’s Redistricting Commission are claiming ‘attorney-client privilege’ as an argument for not allowing briefing memos viewed by the commission to be made public. Is this good for the commission’s image?
Answer 4): Obviously not. The Commission and its lawyers have been castigated by just about everyone — finally there’s broad consensus in the body politic on SOMETHING! Transparency in the redistricting process was supposed to be one of the main selling points of Proposal 2 when it was on the ballot in 2018. But the MICRC’s legal team has made a shambles of that, arguing that “attorney-client privilege” trumps all. To make matters worse, they’ve done it on the sensitive issue of the Voting Rights Act, on which the commission’s attorneys have taken a position that flies in the face of legislative and judicial precedent going back more than four decades. The MICRC should be worried not just about its image, but how their eventual maps will stand up to court challenges on the issue of what a ‘majority-minority’ district is. And they’re basing those maps on the ‘secret’ (at least in part) legal advice they are getting from taxpayer-subsidized attorneys accountable only to the commission.
***********************************************
A large percentage of Americans (and presumably, a similar percentage of Michiganders) support certain gun restrictions. According to Pew majorities in both parties favor policies that would restrict gun access by those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns and subjecting private gun sales and gun show sales to background checks. Majorities in both parties also oppose allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit. However, A proposal more aggressive would likely create enthusiasm on the part of those looking for gun control while peeling off Republicans who oppose it. Thus, from a political point of view, such a petition drive might get enough support to get on the ballot and motivate Democrats far more than Republicans at election time.
Good stuff, Bill. Regarding the Oxford shooting, schools should at the very least install metal detectors. Why has this not been done? If it is due to not wanting to spend the money — which no politician or official will admit, of course — then we really have to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are playing the money/ human life scale.
While metal detectors would not guarantee an elimination of future shootings, it would be a useful deterrent. Until this is universally applied, however, we cannot really say that we are doing everything necessary to prevent such atrocities.
Arm teaches to have an instant and visible response when parenting has failed the kids.