TTT
TruthToTell, Monday Aug 27 - 9AM: WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR SENIORS?: Costs of aging in Minnesota; TruthToTell August 20: COMMUNITY CABLE & ACCESS: Can We Keep a Grip on It? - PODCAST BELOW
UPCOMING SHOW
Tune in this coming Monday from 9:00 am to 10:00 am on KFAI, (90.3 FM in Minneapolis, and 106.7 FM in St. Paul) to catch our upcoming program:
MOST RECENT SHOW
Listen to our most recent show here, or browse our archives >
TruthToTell Monday, August 20-9AM: COMMUNITY CABLE & ACCESS: Can We Keep a Grip on It?; TruthToTell, Aug 13: NONPROFIT CONUNDRUM: To Merge or Not Merge - PODCAST BELOW
UPCOMING SHOW
Tune in this coming Monday from 9:00 am to 10:00 am on KFAI, (90.3 FM in Minneapolis, and 106.7 FM in St. Paul) to catch our upcoming program:
MOST RECENT SHOW
Listen to our most recent show here, or browse our archives >
TruthToTell August 20: COMMUNITY CABLE & ACCESS: Can We Keep a Grip on It? - PODCAST BELOW
This program features a SPECIAL GUEST APPEARANCE by NIRVANA bassist, KRIST NOVOSELIC, talking about his work in support of ranked choice voting and his Thursday appearance at a FairVote/Minnesota fundraiser at Traffic Zone Center for Visual Arts. We even play a few bars of a Nirvana song made popular by the grunge rock trio - a career cut short by Novoselic's Nirvana partner, Kurt Cobain's untimely death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you watch your local access channels or community programming productions? Why not? These have always had tremendous potential for connecting people and neighborhoods in our cities or the cities and regions and they may be forever lost to the powerful cable companies that control their physical and financial resources – mostly Comcast Cable around here – never to be seen again, those connections will be lost.
A prominent StarTribune story a few weeks ago detailed the demise of one cable access group in Eden Prairie after the city council there agreed with the near monopoly cable TV service supplier around here, Comcast, that the entity should be shut down.
We know that long-standing promises Cable companies made to all the cities and clusters of suburbs to maintain both channels and equipment for community programming and access production are under siege and being broken all over the place. Unfortunately, unlike the days when City Councils and Joint Cable Commissions (most suburbs) extracted some serious commitments to a long life of funding and equipment supply for local cable access facilities with two or more channels set aside for local communities and organizations to produce public, educational and religious access programs, city councils and cable commissions are now buying into cable company arguments that not enough people are using those channels and equipment to justify continuing the set-asides.
This may be a chicken-egg issue. Is lack of adequate use spawning the movement to take back the channels? Or are cable access groups brining this on because they fail to produce and promote enough programming to justify continued existence?
Some cable access users and facilities are busier than others creating shows of wide-ranging quality and content. That was bound to be true, no matter the city or group of cities where cable access and community programming outfits operate. Many cities have far different arrangements from their sister cities in the Metro, and some cable franchises cover a multitude of communities, perhaps as many as seven cities in a cluster of cable subscribers and these operate under joint powers agreements struck in order to secure the best deal possible from the cable companies who bid on those franchises with extravagant promises, some promising the moon in terms of channel numbers, programs and varieties, carriage of local television stations originally watched free of charge with rabbit ears or rooftop antennas. And cable access cameras, studios, channels and other equipment and facilities to broadcast programs to every nook and cranny of each city.
Aside from periodic complaints about First Amendment abuses by some access producers, most cable access organizations have supplies community information and programming ranging from scrolling community calendars and event announcements to well-produced in-studio discussions or edited digital documentaries. But, as with all available services, such capability must be heavily promoted and facilitated – both in training users on complex equipment and production values and techniques and in the sort of content that might reach wide or narrow audiences with some ease.
With cable companies now lusting after underutilized and potentially profitable access channels in some franchise locations, any city or joint commission agreeing to turn channels back for company use, or curtailing the existence or use of company-supplied space or equipment is setting precedents for future court challenges of franchise promises long ago made by the original cable company owners. Most every original franchise applicant company has been bought out – by one or a series – of the ever-consolidating media industry, thanks to an eroding regulatory climate, something this program has explored in some, if not complete depth over the last couple of years.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL brings on a few advocates for local access, examine the different local franchises that promise such services and channel space and even ask a Comcast rep to come on and explain why out of the hundreds of channels available, they feel the need to scuttle such franchises just to tack on more commercial programming that is far less useful to us than programs created and cablecast by our own people.
GUESTS:
JEFF STRATE – former Eden Prairie cable access producer and activist; former TPT producer of cultural affairs programming.
MIKE WASSENAAR – Executive Director, Saint Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN); longtime community programmer; former Chair of KFAI’s Board of Directors
MICHAEL FALLON – Executive Director, Minneapolis Telecommunications Network (MTN)
ALAN MILLER - Cable Access Producer ("Access to Democracy"), Eagan; Film/Cinema Studies instructor, MCTC; Frequent guest and guest host, AM950. Author, You CanMake a Difference
53:50 minutes (49.28 MB)
TruthToTell Monday, March 19-9AM: FLOODING THE BALLOT: Legislating by Constitutional Amendment - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org
Remember – call and join the conversation – 612-341-0980 – or Tweet us @TTTAndyDriscoll or post on TruthToTell’s Facebook page.
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photo by Shekleton (Shekshots)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TruthToTell Monday, March 19-9AM: FLOODING THE BALLOT: Legislating by Constitutional Amendment - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org
Are we becoming California by a back door? California law is peppered with voter-passed initiatives and referenda. Is this true democracy? Or a denigration of representative government?
The Minnesota Constitution does not allow what California’s does: passing and repealing state statutes by IR&R – Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Not that Republicans haven’t tried to install that device in the Constitution (current House File 2562, King Banaian [R-St. Cloud] would do just that), claiming that true democracy is when citizens vote directly for state laws, bypassing the Legislature. This would be 7th amendment offered up this year.
But to pass laws by popular vote right now, legislators can place them on the ballot only in the form of Constitutional amendments. (Referenda, or the repeal of existing state law, is not currently allowed at all. Recall of state office holders is allowed by a convoluted process involving the courts.)
So – this year and last – new but frustrated Republican majorities in both houses have found their rightwing agenda neutralized by the veto pen of DFL Governor Mark Dayton. In response they’re attempting to send their entire agenda to the ballot box – some bills already having been vetoed, others not. The issues already heading for the voters or possibly on the ballot thus far:
- The Marriage Amendment – defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Placed on this year’s November ballot last session. (Vice Pres. Walter Mondale and fmr Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz just announced their opposition to this.)
- Shoot First – Vetoed this session. So-called castle doctrine principle expanded to allow gun owners to shoot first much sooner – and ask questions later.
- Voter ID – Vetoed last session, now on the docket for passage to the November ballot. Requires a photo ID before voting – never mind the millions with no access to such identification.
- “Right-to-Work” – This may be floundering – but it would remove the requirement that a worker sign on to union membership in a union shop.
- Tax Bill Supermajorities – This may be on the back burner as well. Would require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to vote in the affirmative for any tax bill to pass.
DFL Rep. Phyllis Kahn (Mpls) has answered with little-discussed bill of her own (HF2175 – companion S.F. No. 2017 [Pappas, et al]) to place on the ballot a question requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to place any Constitutional amendment on the ballot. The theory, perhaps, being that, if the Constitutional amending process placing questions before the electorate continues to bypass any role for the Governor, then it should only be done so by a supermajority of its own. Looks like thus far Kahn’s bill may have languished, like Banaian’s, in the Government Operations and Elections Committee. No action is likely on those two with committee deadlines passing.
Just Friday, MPR's Tim Pugmire reported this on the question of this all perhaps backfiring: "....But Gov. Mark Dayton and other Democrats argue that many of those same voters are offended by the idea of lawmakers governing through the constitution. Dayton said the process not only bypasses him, but bypasses the intent of the state's founders who wanted the executive branch and legislative branch to work together.
DFL legislators insist that when they controlled the House and Senate they held back on using constitutional amendments to get around then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican. They claim GOP leaders are now playing with fire. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said the stage is now set for even more amendments down the road.
'If we start going down this path, it creates a very dangerous precedent," Thissen said. "At the end of the day, I think the fundamental principle is we've got to keep our constitution as limited and as sacred as possible, and it should be about expanding people's rights and not contracting them.'"
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI put it to our guests about individual and collective issues around the flood of Constitutional amendments this session and last – in search for answers about both the wisdom and strategy of piling amendments on the ballot in such a crucial election as this year’s – what with redistricting forcing legislators and Congressmen and women in new territories and a ballot full of offices from President and US Senate on down through judicial races and – yes, Constitutional amendments and, perhaps, even other local ballot questions.
GUESTS:
SUSIE BROWN – Public Policy Director, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits
HEATHER MARTENS – President, Protect Minnesota
SHAR KNUTSON – President, MN AFL-CIO
INVITED: State Legislators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TruthToTell March 12: ALL ABOUT LOCAL: It Ain’t Just the Warm & Fuzzies-AUDIO Podcast HERE
Painting by Tom Slack "Main Street"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those of who have lived around or near commercial areas in the core cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis for any length of time have noticed the incursion of chains into many of the spaces once occupied by businesses owned by your neighbor down the street or your fellow church or synagogue or mosque member, or by your brothers and sisters of the local lodges.
These people were like family. They weren’t in the business of faceless merchandising, they were in the business to serve and service their neighboring customers. No more in too many cases. Some of the in-town, neighborhood shopping strips like Hennepin Avenue, or Grand Ave. or Payne Avenue have evolved into a series of suburban mall-like stores with owners somewhere in California or New York and few of those relationships with owners and their pride and their workmanship and their locally based products and service operations have been able to survive under the weight of discounting or affordable merchandise and neighborly service.
Keeping the local tradition alive and expanding it has been the business of the Metropolitan Independent Business Association or MetroIBA – emphasis on “Independent” – for a number of years now, and it, too, has its ups and downs. After all, I know how trying to herd a bunch of entrepreneurs into a single-minded organization can be tough duty. Most couldn’t be bothered because most were trying to survive as the independent types they usually are. But Metro IBA has clearly thrived – under some committed leadership and now, energetic management.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI spend an hour with a few of the always interesting characters that comprise the MetroIBA and the concept of localism.
GUESTS:
MARY HAMEL – Executive Director, MetroIBA
JEFF WARNER – President, Warners’ Stellian Appliance Stores in Minneapolis, St. Paul, MetroIBA President
JOHN HOESCHEN – Owner/Pharmacist, St. Paul Corner Drug, St. Paul
TruthToTell March 19: FLOODING THE BALLOT: Legislating by Constitutional Amendment - Audio Podcast BELOW
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photo by Shekleton (Shekshots)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are we becoming California by a back door? California law is peppered with voter-passed initiatives and referenda. Is this true democracy? Or a denigration of representative government?
The Minnesota Constitution does not allow what California’s does: passing and repealing state statutes by IR&R – Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Not that Republicans haven’t tried to install that device in the Constitution (current House File 2562, King Banaian [R-St. Cloud] would do just that), claiming that true democracy is when citizens vote directly for state laws, bypassing the Legislature. This would be 7th amendment offered up this year.
But to pass laws by popular vote right now, legislators can place them on the ballot only in the form of Constitutional amendments. (Referenda, or the repeal of existing state law, is not currently allowed at all. Recall of state office holders is allowed by a convoluted process involving the courts.)
So – this year and last – new but frustrated Republican majorities in both houses have found their rightwing agenda neutralized by the veto pen of DFL Governor Mark Dayton. In response they’re attempting to send their entire agenda to the ballot box – some bills already having been vetoed, others not. The issues already heading for the voters or possibly on the ballot thus far:
- The Marriage Amendment – defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Placed on this year’s November ballot last session. (Vice Pres. Walter Mondale and fmr Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz just announced their opposition to this.)
- Shoot First – Vetoed this session. So-called castle doctrine principle expanded to allow gun owners to shoot first much sooner – and ask questions later.
- Voter ID – Vetoed last session, now on the docket for passage to the November ballot. Requires a photo ID before voting – never mind the millions with no access to such identification.
- “Right-to-Work” – This may be floundering – but it would remove the requirement that a worker sign on to union membership in a union shop.
- Tax Bill Supermajorities – This may be on the back burner as well. Would require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to vote in the affirmative for any tax bill to pass.
DFL Rep. Phyllis Kahn (Mpls) has answered with little-discussed bill of her own (HF2175 – companion S.F. No. 2017 [Pappas, et al]) to place on the ballot a question requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to place any Constitutional amendment on the ballot. The theory, perhaps, being that, if the Constitutional amending process placing questions before the electorate continues to bypass any role for the Governor, then it should only be done so by a supermajority of its own. Looks like thus far Kahn’s bill may have languished, like Banaian’s, in the Government Operations and Elections Committee. No action is likely on those two with committee deadlines passing.
Just Friday, MPR's Tim Pugmire reported this on the question of this all perhaps backfiring: "....But Gov. Mark Dayton and other Democrats argue that many of those same voters are offended by the idea of lawmakers governing through the constitution. Dayton said the process not only bypasses him, but bypasses the intent of the state's founders who wanted the executive branch and legislative branch to work together.
DFL legislators insist that when they controlled the House and Senate they held back on using constitutional amendments to get around then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican. They claim GOP leaders are now playing with fire. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said the stage is now set for even more amendments down the road.
'If we start going down this path, it creates a very dangerous precedent," Thissen said. "At the end of the day, I think the fundamental principle is we've got to keep our constitution as limited and as sacred as possible, and it should be about expanding people's rights and not contracting them.'"
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI put it to our guests about individual and collective issues around the flood of Constitutional amendments this session and last – in search for answers about both the wisdom and strategy of piling amendments on the ballot in such a crucial election as this year’s – what with redistricting forcing legislators and Congressmen and women in new territories and a ballot full of offices from President and US Senate on down through judicial races and – yes, Constitutional amendments and, perhaps, even other local ballot questions.
GUESTS:
SUSIE BROWN – Public Policy Director, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits
HEATHER MARTENS – President, Protect Minnesota
SHAR KNUTSON – President, MN AFL-CIO
59:51 minutes (54.79 MB)
TruthToTell, Mon., Feb 20@9AM: SELECTING OUR JUDGES: Retention? Or Election? - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org ; TruthToTell Feb 13: CRIMINAL JUSTICE DISPARITIES: Blacks/Latinos/Natives Targeted for Prison
Remember – call and join the conversation – 612-341-0980 – or Tweet us @TTTAndyDriscoll or post on TruthToTell’s Facebook page.
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TruthToTell, Mon., Feb 20@9AM: SELECTING OUR JUDGES: Retention? Or Election? - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org
Minnesota’s system of electing judges once relied on an important caveat in the little known law known as the Canon of Judicial Ethics or Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. That caveat, known as Canon #5, prevented judicial candidates from taking political stands on issues that might well come before them as judges or justices. It was an important rule for most of the lawyers and judges – of any political persuasion – practicing before the bar (the term for the legal community) to keep the process relatively clear of politics. Politics, they insist(ed), have no place in seeking judgeships because of the neutrality that serves as the ideal for presiding over trials and considering appeals.
Of course, it’s something of a myth that politics – or at least one’s personal and political bent – doesn’t find its way into many of the court’s judgments, but, at least campaigns for judge could speak more to qualifications for the bench and less about the way a judge would likely rule in most cases.
However, a relative minority of the legal community, more often than not from the ideological right, but certainly not limited to that stripe, argued and still argue that the public has an inherent right in elections to hear about where a judicial candidate stands on key issues facing society, or, perhaps, even how they would rule in some cases.
One Minnesota lawyer, Gregory Wersal, himself a repeated candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court, challenged what he considered the inappropriately restrictive Canon 5 and took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won a landmark 5-4 decision (Republican Party of MN v. White) that has since opened the door to highly politicized judicial races across the country (since most states’ Canons contained similar prohibitions).
Actually, most judges, once in office, are almost never challenged unless they committed mayhem of some sort. Those who do go after a sitting judge are considered a bit dumb because the lack of voter engagement almost always reelects the judge and the former opponent is now likely to come before this judge in a courtroom. While theoretically committed to impartiality in such cases, judges may, indeed, hold a grudge for having been dragged through an expensive and, perhaps, embarrassing campaign for reelection. Result: most sitting judges run unopposed.
This is why Wersal was considered outside the mainstream and thus dismissed as a fly in the ointment – until his argument received the blessing of the Supremes.
For many respected present and former justices and judges, this was and abandonment of the fundamental principles of English Common Law, let alone a longstanding ethic that kept the courts and campaigns for them clear of open ideological battles. While Minnesota has not quite yet descended into the degrading contests the legal community feared in opposing Wersal, nasty campaigns in Wisconsin and several other states have shown them that Minnesota, at least, should establish a satisfactory (and more dignified, to be sure) alternative to wide open elections.
Wisconsin’s degeneration into one Supreme Court justice choking his female colleague represents to many the state of the judiciary in our neighboring state.
Since then, such legal luminaries as former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who voted "aye" in the 5-4 decision and would later regret it); former Vice President Walter Mondale; former Governor Al Quie; current State Supreme Court Justice Alan Page; retired Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz (and former Republican House member); current Hennepin County Judge Kevin Burke; former Chief Judge and now president of the American Judges Association; and recently retired Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, now a regular legal representative of Republicans and Republican causes, are among many who have come forward with an entire new system of judicial selection for Minnesota – Merit Selection and Retention Elections.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL will talk with staff and officers of the Coalition for Impartial Justice about the proposed system and why it’s better than what some might call democracy.
GUESTS:
BRIAN RUSCHE – Executive Director, Joint Religious Legislative Coalition
SARAH WALKER – President, Coalition for Impartial Justice; Co-Chair, Second Chance Coalition
RYAN KELLY – Executive Director, Coalition for Impartial Justice
TruthToTell, Mon., Feb 20@9AM: SELECTING OUR JUDGES: Retention? Or Election? - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org
Remember – call and join the conversation – 612-341-0980 – or Tweet us @TTTAndyDriscoll or post on TruthToTell’s Facebook page.
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TruthToTell, Mon., Feb 20@9AM: SELECTING OUR JUDGES: Retention? Or Election? - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/KFAI.org
Minnesota’s system of electing judges once relied on an important caveat in the little known law known as the Canon of Judicial Ethics or Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. That caveat, known as Canon #5, prevented judicial candidates from taking political stands on issues that might well come before them as judges or justices. It was an important rule for most of the lawyers and judges – of any political persuasion – practicing before the bar (the term for the legal community) to keep the process relatively clear of politics. Politics, they insist(ed), have no place in seeking judgeships because of the neutrality that serves as the ideal for presiding over trials and considering appeals.
Of course, it’s something of a myth that politics – or at least one’s personal and political bent – doesn’t find its way into many of the court’s judgments, but, at least campaigns for judge could speak more to qualifications for the bench and less about the way a judge would likely rule in most cases.
However, a relative minority of the legal community, more often than not from the ideological right, but certainly not limited to that stripe, argued and still argue that the public has an inherent right in elections to hear about where a judicial candidate stands on key issues facing society, or, perhaps, even how they would rule in some cases.
One Minnesota lawyer, Gregory Wersal, himself a repeated candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court, challenged what he considered the inappropriately restrictive Canon 5 and took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won a landmark 5-4 decision (Republican Party of MN v. White) that has since opened the door to highly politicized judicial races across the country (since most states’ Canons contained similar prohibitions).
Actually, most judges, once in office, are almost never challenged unless they committed mayhem of some sort. Those who do go after a sitting judge are considered a bit dumb because the lack of voter engagement almost always reelects the judge and the former opponent is now likely to come before this judge in a courtroom. While theoretically committed to impartiality in such cases, judges may, indeed, hold a grudge for having been dragged through an expensive and, perhaps, embarrassing campaign for reelection. Result: most sitting judges run unopposed.
This is why Wersal was considered outside the mainstream and thus dismissed as a fly in the ointment – until his argument received the blessing of the Supremes.
For many respected present and former justices and judges, this was and abandonment of the fundamental principles of English Common Law, let alone a longstanding ethic that kept the courts and campaigns for them clear of open ideological battles. While Minnesota has not quite yet descended into the degrading contests the legal community feared in opposing Wersal, nasty campaigns in Wisconsin and several other states have shown them that Minnesota, at least, should establish a satisfactory (and more dignified, to be sure) alternative to wide open elections.
Wisconsin’s degeneration into one Supreme Court justice choking his female colleague represents to many the state of the judiciary in our neighboring state.
Since then, such legal luminaries as former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who voted "aye" in the 5-4 decision and would later regret it); former Vice President Walter Mondale; former Governor Al Quie; current State Supreme Court Justice Alan Page; retired Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz (and former Republican House member); current Hennepin County Judge Kevin Burke; former Chief Judge and now president of the American Judges Association; and recently retired Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, now a regular legal representative of Republicans and Republican causes, are among many who have come forward with an entire new system of judicial selection for Minnesota – Merit Selection and Retention Elections.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL will talk with staff and officers of the Coalition for Impartial Justice about the proposed system and why it’s better than what some might call democracy.
GUESTS:
BRIAN RUSCHE – Executive Director, Joint Religious Legislative Coalition
SARAH WALKER – President, Coalition for Impartial Justice; Co-Chair, Second Chance Coalition
RYAN KELLY – Executive Director, Coalition for Impartial Justice
TruthToTell Feb 20: SELECTING OUR JUDGES: Retention? Or Election? - Audio BELOW
Remember – call and join the conversation – 612-341-0980 – or Tweet us @TTTAndyDriscoll or post on TruthToTell’s Facebook page.
HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minnesota’s system of electing judges once relied on an important caveat in the little known law known as the Canon of Judicial Ethics or Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. That caveat, known as Canon #5, prevented judicial candidates from taking political stands on issues that might well come before them as judges or justices. It was an important rule for most of the lawyers and judges – of any political persuasion – practicing before the bar (the term for the legal community) to keep the process relatively clear of politics. Politics, they insist(ed), have no place in seeking judgeships because of the neutrality that serves as the ideal for presiding over trials and considering appeals.
Of course, it’s something of a myth that politics – or at least one’s personal and political bent – doesn’t find its way into many of the court’s judgments, but, at least campaigns for judge could speak more to qualifications for the bench and less about the way a judge would likely rule in most cases.
However, a relative minority of the legal community, more often than not from the ideological right, but certainly not limited to that stripe, argued and still argue that the public has an inherent right in elections to hear about where a judicial candidate stands on key issues facing society, or, perhaps, even how they would rule in some cases.
One Minnesota lawyer, Gregory Wersal, himself a repeated candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court, challenged what he considered the inappropriately restrictive Canon 5 and took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won a landmark 5-4 decision (Republican Party of MN v. White) that has since opened the door to highly politicized judicial races across the country (since most states’ Canons contained similar prohibitions).
Actually, most judges, once in office, are almost never challenged unless they committed mayhem of some sort. Those who do go after a sitting judge are considered a bit dumb because the lack of voter engagement almost always reelects the judge and the former opponent is now likely to come before this judge in a courtroom. While theoretically committed to impartiality in such cases, judges may, indeed, hold a grudge for having been dragged through an expensive and, perhaps, embarrassing campaign for reelection. Result: most sitting judges run unopposed.
This is why Wersal was considered outside the mainstream and thus dismissed as a fly in the ointment – until his argument received the blessing of the Supremes.
For many respected present and former justices and judges, this was and abandonment of the fundamental principles of English Common Law, let alone a longstanding ethic that kept the courts and campaigns for them clear of open ideological battles. While Minnesota has not quite yet descended into the degrading contests the legal community feared in opposing Wersal, nasty campaigns in Wisconsin and several other states have shown them that Minnesota, at least, should establish a satisfactory (and more dignified, to be sure) alternative to wide open elections.
Wisconsin’s degeneration into one Supreme Court justice choking his female colleague represents to many the state of the judiciary in our neighboring state.
Since then, such legal luminaries as former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who voted "aye" in the 5-4 decision and would later regret it); former Vice President Walter Mondale; former Governor Al Quie; current State Supreme Court Justice Alan Page; retired Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz (and former Republican House member); current Hennepin County Judge Kevin Burke; former Chief Judge and now president of the American Judges Association; and recently retired Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, now a regular legal representative of Republicans and Republican causes, are among many who have come forward with an entire new system of judicial selection for Minnesota – Merit Selection and Retention Elections.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL will talk with staff and officers of the Coalition for Impartial Justice about the proposed system and why it’s better than what some might call democracy.
GUESTS:
BRIAN RUSCHE – Executive Director, Joint Religious Legislative Coalition
SARAH WALKER – President, Coalition for Impartial Justice; Co-Chair, Second Chance Coalition
RYAN KELLY – Executive Director, Coalition for Impartial Justice
57:11 minutes (52.36 MB)
TruthToTell May 16: LABOR'S UNTOLD STORIES: History Belies Successes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TruthToTell, Monday, May 16-9AM: LABOR'S UNTOLD STORIES: History Belies Successes:First Person Radio: May 11: CROW BELLECOURT: Lead Singer-Midnite Express with Comic Tito Ybarra
Remember – call and join the conversation – 612-341-0980 – or Tweet us @TTTAndyDriscoll or post on Facebook pages – TruthToTell’s or Andy’s
Watch us in Studio 5! TruthToTell is now seen live on Livestream and later on Blip.tv.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many of us know and understand the struggles working people fought when corporations and managers abused their workers, the 100-year effort to improve wages and working conditions, to organize craftsmen and laborers, the police-supported thugs hired to prevent them from it. We know how labor unions that emerged from all that conflict gave us the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, paid vacations, toilets at the work site, lunch breaks, coffee breaks, holidays off – all of it union-made.
But other stories lie underneath all of those successes, stories that provided hope, but have failed to fulfill their promise.
Monday night (May 16), the next in a long line of presentations on Labor’s Untold Stories organized by the Friends of the St. Paul Public Library, a panel of speakers on discrimination in and against union workers and workers of color and the birth and work of theFair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC). The panel will present at Rondo Community Library in St. Paul at 7:00PM. And we have
Labor pioneers in the Twin Cities pushed for similar laws in Minnesota, including the late Katie McWatt of the old North Central Voters League, A. Philip Randolph, the St. Paul Urban League and one of its activists, Monsignor John J. Gilligan of St. Mark’s Parish.
Thus do the issues of race, class and labor merge once again into a classic untold story – because we do not openly discuss those discomfiting matters in this state or this nation. We want to believe it never happens, that race and class don’t matter, especially when we have human rights commissions and civil rights commissions and fair employment practices commissions and employment discrimination rulings and settlements and all the rest. Still, the pathology of racism and classicism plague our society and our labor unions.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI talk with Twin Cities and national labor activists, scholars and writers to discover some of Labor’s Untold Stories.
GUESTS:
MAHMOUD EL-KATI – Professor Emeritus of History, Macalester College, Essayist, Speaker, Honoree of Macalester’s Mahmoud El-Kati Distinguished Lectureship in American Studies and Author, Haiti: The Hidden Truth (2010)
ANDREW E. KERSTEN – Professor of History, University of Wisconsin at Green Bay; Author, Race, Jobs, and the War: The FEPC in the Midwest, 1941-1946 (Illinois, 2000) and Clarence Darrow – an American Iconoclast
TOM BEER – Retired Business Agent and Political Director, AFSCME Council #6 (Minnesota); Labor Union Director, Paul Wellstone 2002 re-election campaign; co-author of biographical article on Very Rev. Msgr. John Gilligan (to be published soon)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First Person Radio: May 11: CROW BELLECOURT: Lead Singer-Midnite Express with Comic Tito Ybarra – Audio HERE
Midnite Express commemorates the release of its 10th recording in honor of one of their elders and teachers, Jerry Dearly, Sr.– Sutapi – which means “Sharpshooter” in Lakota Sioux. Jerry has been a guiding influence to the Midnite Express singers as well as many others. His knowledge of the Lakota language and traditions is evident throughout this album culminating with the title track, composed by his son, Jeremy.
Midnite Express Singers
Joseph Rainy, Buffalo Campbell, Chris Whipple, Crow
Bellecourt, Opie Day-Bedeau, Carlos Day, Marcus Denny,
Jason Kingbird along with John Teller, Jr. from Bear Traks
and Myron Pyawasit from Smokeytown Singers
Crow Bellecourt is one of the lead singers/manager for the Midnite Express drum group from the Twin Cities. They represent the Ojibwe, Lakota, HoChunk and Menomonee and Pueblo. Last year, ‘MNX’, as they are known, were the winners of the Best Powwow album, at the Nammy’s (Native American Music Awards) for their album, “Band of Brothers” CD. Four times in the past 10 years they have won as world class Northern Singing Champions at Gathering of Nations powwow in Albuquerque, New Mexico. They are also the first group ever to win this award three years in a row. They enjoy singing for the people and representing their Twin Cties Indian community. Crow began singing traditional music when he was a student at Heart of the Earth in Minneapolis.
“Midnight Express is a group of Ojibway, Menominee Sioux & Ho-chunk Nations. We travel to powwows & gatherings all year round singing every where we go...we’ve recorded over nine albums & one DVD. Our most recent CD’s are called MIDNITE EXPRESS BAND OF BROTHERS and SHARPSHOOTER."
The sounds of Midnite Express, originating from the Twin Cities in Minnesota, have grown from local Great Lakes area favorites to renown across Indian country. MNX, as they are often referred to on the powwow trail, have traveled from coast to coast competing and hosting as one of the most prominent drums on the circuit today. This drum group has proven to be one of the most powerful drum groups on the powwow trail today. They have captivated powwow arenas from coast to coast with their unique original style of singing. Coming from the twin cities of Minnesota, they have taken numerous singing championships along with various host drum jobs at some of the most prestigious powwow in Indian Country.
FIRST PERSON RADIO's RICHARD LaFORTUNE (with Andy Driscoll) talks with Crow Bellecourt and Comic Tito Ybarra and listen to the Express' latest CD.

GUESTS:
CROW BELLECOURT - lead singer, Midnight Express, Native American singers.
TITO YBARRA – Native Comic and Singe
DINAH SWAIN – Director of Community Forums,
ARMANDO CAMACHO – President,
STEVE CRAMER – President and Executive Director,
BARBARA RAYE – Executive Director, 
