Category Archives: Politics

Happy Franksgiving!

Today is the 75th anniversary of the first Franksgiving, November 23, 1939.  The following week, November 30, was Thanksgiving. Since Lincoln, Presidents had declared the last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving. Believing that the short span between Thanksgiving and Christmas would harm retail sales, President Franklin Roosevelt on October 31, 1939, declared that November 23 would be Thanksgiving. The battle lines were drawn. Democrats favored the switch, 52% to 48%. Republicans opposed it 79% to 21%. It was up to state governments to set the actual day during which state employees would be off work, and the actual holiday varied throughout the country. Franklin Roosevelt’s new holiday was quickly dubbed Franksgiving.

Fortunately for the nation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that the nation’s turkey crop was “the largest crop in turkey history.” For those families, such as the one shown here, who wished to be non-partisan and celebrate both days, the bounty of the harvest would be able to provide. The caption of this photo notes that “to the children in the household, two Thanksgivings spell double delight, perhaps two turkeys, and tables loaded with cranberries, pies and fruits.”

 


Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon



Is Reporter Jay Kolls a Racist?

Minneapolis mayor either "flashing a known gang sign" or "pointing." KSTP photo.

Minneapolis mayor either “flashing a known gang sign” or “pointing.” KSTP photo.

By now, we have all seen KSTP reporter Jay Kolls story about “a photo of Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges posing with a convicted felon while flashing a known gang sign.

The conventional wisdom is that the mayor was  merely pointing at the person, and I tend to agree with that interpretation of the picture. And since the convicted felon in question is African-American, the conventional wisdom, is also that Kolls and KSTP are racist.

Before we decide whether Jay Kolls is racist, we need to first figure out whether you and I are racist.  I’m a white Republican, so presumably, I’m the last person who can provide good information about racism. On top of that, I have the distinction of having gone through 13 years of the Minneapolis Public Schools during a time in which I encountered exactly one (1) fellow student who was African-American. And it turns out she was adopted. In short, I’m the kind of person one can probably count upon to be racist.

It turns out I am a racist. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to me, because you’re probably a racist too.

When I say that I’m a racist, I guess it’s important to give a little bit of definition. It can mean two things. It can mean that I am hateful toward certain people because of their race. That definition doesn’t fit me, and it probably doesn’t fit you. There are a handful of people who fit that definition, and anything I say or anything you say won’t make much difference. Fortunately, in my experience, there are very few people who fit into that category. They’re probably a lost cause, and there’s not much you and I can do to change them.

I’m not that kind of racist, and neither are you. But I do make judgments about people based on their race, and so do you. I’ve come to realize this over the last few years in my business as a Continuing Legal Education provider. Lawyers in most states need a certain number of hours of continuing legal education per year, and I provide those classes. In Minnesota, attorneys need two credits of “elimination of bias,” a subject I assumed that I was completely unqualified to teach. But I kept getting requests, since those were the credits that Minnesota attorneys needed. Finally, I put together a course, and I was hard pressed to fill up one hour with meaningful content. I found some reports prepared by the Minnesota Supreme Court, and we talked about them. Over the years of presenting this course, it has grown, and I can now easily discuss the subject for well over two hours. Everyone gets their full credit and they go away happy. And it turns out that they actually learn something in the process. But I probably learned more than they did.  learned that I’m a racist, and so are you.

This is a natural effect of my background, and it’s also a natural effect of your background. As noted above, I went through 13 years of school without encountering very many black students. I don’t remember the incident, but the first black person I met was apparently an emergency room physician when I was about four years old. I got my head cracked open (which some say explains many things), and I was rushed to the emergency room to have it stitched back together. The doctor faced with the task of sewing me back together was black. My parents were horrified. They weren’t horrified because the doctor was black; they were horrified that I would blurt out something embarrassing, because I had never seen a black person before.  We didn’t have black people where we lived.

It turns out that I didn’t blurt out anything embarassing, and I apparently didn’t even notice. I was apparently too concerned with my injuries to notice the skin color of they guy sewing me back together. (I have reflected over the years that it was somewhat remarkable that a black man was a doctor in 1965. This took place in Indiana, and it was later explained to me that the doctor was probably from the South and went to school in the South, but had to move to Indiana in order to work as a doctor.)

My first real interaction with a black person was with my seventh grade math teacher. He was a pretty good teacher, and as I recall, he was one of my favorite teachers. And he was black. This was not a big deal to me at all, since I had been instructed, quite correctly, over the previous six years that I should not judge people by the color of their skin. But up until that point, a “black person” was a theoretical concept. I had seen black people on TV, but they were usually on TV only because they were black. They typically weren’t on TV for other reasons.  I remember a school assembly, which was probably in 1968, where our white teachers talked about a black man named Martin Luther King. They explained that he was a great man who got shot because he was black. I understood this at a theoretical level, and I knew that there was nothing wrong with black people, even though some people apparently thought that there was.

But until seventh grade, I never had any interaction with a black adult, and I had met only one other black student. I did learn that there were a handful of people who were hateful toward people of other races. One day, when another student was  annoyed with something the teacher had done, I heard her mutter under her breath, “dumb n—-.” I was shocked, because I had been told for six years that this was wrong.  I knew that there was one nutcase in Memphis who hated people because of the color of their skin, but it was rather shocking to know that one existed in person.  But that was the exception.  I’ve never met too many people like that.  Unfortunately, they’re probably a lost cause.

Even though I went to an all-white school in an all-white neighborhood, other than this single example, I never encountered a single person who was hateful toward other people because of the color of their skin. I’m sure there were other examples. And I’ve later heard of other examples right in my old neighborhood. But these were the exception. Most people didn’t hate other people. I certainly didn’t.  And I doubt if you do.

But I just told you that I was a racist and that you’re a racist. How to I reconcile this contradiction?

One of the lawyers who took my CLE program related a story about what happened to him in court, and I think it illustrates perfectly why I am a racist. He was in court before a judge, and I think he would attest to the fact that the judge in the case was not racist, in the sense of having any hateful attitudes toward anyone. But she did something that I’m quite certain was motivated by the same racism that I have and that you probably have.

Not surprisingly, in court proceedings, tempers can occasionally flare. When they do, the judge typically gets things back on track by sternly admonishing the people involved. If things get really out of hand, then the judge might impose some sanctions. But generally, a scolding does the trick. This lawyer described an incident that’s not particularly extraordinary. The opposing lawyer was questioning a witness, didn’t like the answers he was getting, and was getting angry. At one point, he reached across the table and grabbed the papers that the witness was consulting. Needless to say, this isn’t the correct procedure. The attorney I know reacted by standing up and shouting something, and probably grabbing for the papers to give back to his client.

The judge’s life experience probably included many situations where two angry lawyers were arguing with each other. Normally, she probably would have done something like say, “gentlemen, stop that!” If it was particularly bad, perhaps she would have held one of them in contempt and leveled a fine. She would have known what to do, because she’s seen angry lawyers before, and knows what to do in order to cool them off.  That’s just part of her life experience.

But this wasn’t an ordinary case of two men being angry. It was a case of two angry black men. And to make matters worse, it was two big angry black men. And everyone else in the room was black.

She had probably never encountered this situation before: Two angry black men shouting at each other in a room where she was the only white person. Or even worse, she did have experience (perhaps just from watching TV) with angry black people shouting at each other. From her experience, she knew that this sort of thing usually turned violent. That’s a perfectly logical conclusion: Every time she has seen angry black people before, it turned violent. She had previously seen angry white people calm down.  She had never seen an angry black person calm down.

So she did exactly what I probably would have done. She did the racist thing. She pushed the “panic button” and quickly exited the room. Armed bailiffs quickly took her place and restored order.  She wouldn’t have pushed the panic button on two white lawyers.  So she must be racist, just like me.

She made a judgment based on her experience, and her judgment was probably the same one I would have made. After all, she is racist, and so am I. I don’t have much experience with angry black people, other than what I see on TV. After all, I spent the first 18 years of my life not having any black peers. I had two black teachers, but teachers don’t shout at one another. So I have absolutely no experience with how black people calm down after being angry. I simply don’t have a large enough data set to make any meaningful conclusions. I have to resort to the very limited experience I have. So if I were the judge and two angry big black lawyers were shouting at one another, I would press the panic button. But since I have a lot of experience with angry white people, I wouldn’t push the button. In my experience, angry white people rarely resort to violence.

So we can safely conclude that the judge in that case was racist, and we can safely conclude that I am a racist. I’m not a hateful person, and I doubt if the judge was either. We simply make judgments based on what we observe, and based upon our personal experiences.

We now turn to the photo of the mayor of Minneapolis and an African-American man. After giving the matter a little thought, I have come to the conclusion that the two are engaged in a behavior known as “pointing at one another.” I have noticed that politicians like to point at people. For example, when I saw Sen. Dave Thompson at the State Fair, I waved at him. Since he’s a politician, he did what politicians often do:  He pointed at me. Other politicians have pointed at me, and I’ve seen politicians point at other people. If a photographer had captured a picture of Sen. Thompson and me, there would be little doubt about what was going on. Everyone would agree that he was pointing at me. It wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy, because we’re all used to seeing white people point at other white people.

But when I first saw the picture of the mayor pointing at an anonymous black person, that wasn’t my first reaction. My first reaction was, indeed, that she was foolishly “flashing a gang sign.” I had this reaction because I was a racist, in the sense that I have no experience (certainly no experience in the first 18 years of my life) of black people pointing at one another. My only experience with black people using hand gestures is what I’ve seen on TV. So I used my experience to judge the situation, and I quickly came to the conclusion that she was “flashing a gang sign,” probably after having been goaded into doing so.

It turns out I was wrong, but that was my initial reaction. I thought it was a gang sign, because I’m racist. I would have pushed the panic button in the courtroom, because I’m racist. So it is indeed a correct conclusion if you say that the judge was racist, or that KSTP was racist, or that Jay Kolls was racist, or that I am racist.

But it’s a big mistake to stop there. Because it’s safe to say that you are also racist. You have your own life experiences, and you also use those life experiences to make judgments. Usually, those judgments are correct, but sometimes they are wrong. And because your experiences are skewed toward those of your one race, this means that some of your judgments are racist. You’re not evil and you’re not hateful. But you are racist. Therefore, very little is accomplished by simply branding me, or KSTP, or Jay Kolls as being racist. Very little is accomplished by lumping us in with the guy who shot Martin Luther King or even the kid who muttered “dumb n—–” about the teacher.

If you want to hear more, feel free to download the podcasts of my “elimination of bias” CLE program. If you’re a lawyer, you can get 2 CLE credits for $20. But there’s no cost to listen to the podcast.


Can You Vote Before Your 18th Birthday? Maybe

Wisconsin teen Zachary Ziolkowski won’t be allowed to allowed to vote Tuesday, since his 18th birthday is Wednesday. Most comments that I’ve seen online have been critical of the teen for even trying, and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board ruled against him. But he has a credible argument.

The 27th Amendment states that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” And Wisconsin Statute 6.02 provides that “every U.S. citizen age 18 or older who has resided in an election district or ward for 28 consecutive days before any election where the citizen offers to vote is an eligible elector.” Section 6.05 goes on to say that this means “any person who will be 18 years old on or before election.

But, you say, Mr. Ziolkowski doesn’t “turn 18” until the day after the election. After all, he won’t get a birthday cake until Wednesday, November 5, and his birth certificate apparently says that he came into the world on November 5, 1996.

Of course, the matter is further complicated by the fact that most people are not born at the stroke of midnight. If someone was born at 12:01 AM on November 4, 1996, then there is no question that they are 18 years old on election day. If the polls open at 8:00, then they are 18 years and 7 hours old, clearly old enough to vote. But what about the prospective voter who was born at 11:59 PM? That person, even if they show up at closing time, has not been around for eighteen years. They are only 17 years, 364 days, and 20 hours old.

Most people would recognize that the kid born at 11:59 PM has the right to vote. Mathematically, that person is not 18 years old. But we need to draw the line somewhere, and most people assume that we draw the line with the birthday: When you wake up on your 18th birthday, you are 18 years old. That’s where the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board decided to draw the line.

But Mr. Ziolkowski has a pretty credible argument that the line should be drawn elsewhere. And the Social Security Administration, among others, agreed with him when it was called upon to decide whether a girl was entitled to social security benefits for the month of November 1962. The girl was born on December 1, 1944, and “turned 18,” under the common parlance, on December 1, 1962. She was collecting death benefits until 18. She was 17 years old the entire month of November, so one would think that she should collect benefits for that month. But the Social Security Administration ruled against her. It held that “a person attains a given age on the day before his corresponding birthday, i.e., the anniversary of his birth corresponding to that age.” In this case, the girl attained the age of 18 on November 30, the day before her birthday. Therefore, she was not entitled to benefits for November.  (Lest you think the government was being heartless to the poor girl, they recognized that the same rule should apply for the more common situation of calculating when benefits start, which they noted would be the day before the retiree’s 62nd birthday.)

The Social Security Administration noted that this rule “has been applied consistently by the courts.” It also noted that the rule was cited by both Blackstone and Kent. Interestingly, Blackstone’s phraseology is somewhat ambiguous:

So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person’s birth, who till that time is an infant, and so styled in law.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, page 92 (1915 edition)

Kent puts it this way: “The age of twenty-one is the period of majority … and that age is completed on the beginning of the day preceeding the anniversary of the person’s birth.”
Kent’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, page 265 (1860 edition).  Kent cites four cases for this proposition, two British cases and two American cases:

Anon. 1 Salk. 44. 1 Ld. Raym. 480, Sir Robert Howard’s case, 2 Salk. Rep.. 625, Hamlin v. Stevenson, 4 Dana’s Kentucky Rep. 597, and State v. Clarke, 3 Harr. Del. R. 557.

I didn’t find the full text of any of these cases online, but there is a nice summary of the Hamlin v. Stevenson case available here:

Stevenson owed Hamlin a sum of money which he refused to pay. Hamlin who was still an infant started this action against Stevenson to recover the debt. Stevenson had no real defense on the suit and so filed a dilatory defense to the effect that Hamlin was an infant and therefore ought to bring suit by a “next friend” according to the requirements of the court. It happened that Stevenson made this plea on the day preceding Hamlin’s twenty-first birthday and this was also the day of the trial. The question at issue was whether Hamlin had reached his majority on that day. Chief Justice Robertson gave the opinion of the Court: “It is the common law that a person is twentyone years old on the day preceding the twenty-first anniversary of his birth. Therefore, Hamlin was of age on the day when the plea was filed, and when the issue upon it was tried. Consequently he had the right to prosecute the suit in his own name without the intervention of a friend.

The Social Security Administration’s decision also cited two American cases, both of which are available online, United States v. Wright, 197 Fed. 297 (8th Cir. 1912), and Frost v. State, 45 So. 203 (Ala. 1907).  The Wright case states the rule very clearly, “an infant becomes of full age the first moment of the day before his twenty-first anniversary.”

It’s not surprising that Mr. Ziolkowski’s father happens to be an attorney. But according to the news item, he learned about the old common-law rule ” in his high school business law class.” At it certainly looks like he’s absolutely right.

The Wisconsin Legislature could have used the word “birthday” in the election statutes but did not do so. Elsewhere in the Wisconsin Statutes, the Legislature does use the word “birthday.” For example, under Wisconsin Statutes 938.18, a juvenile can be tried as an adult in certain cases when the offense took place “on or after the juvenile’s 15th birthday.” There’s a strong argument to be made that the phrase “age 18 or older” in the statute should be interpreted under the common law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has stated:

A statute does not change the common law unless the legislative purpose to do so is clearly expressed in the language of the statute. Id. To accomplish a change in the common law, the language of the statute must be clear, unambiguous, and peremptory.

Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc., 244 Wis.2d 758, 2001 WI 81, 628 N.W.2d 833 (2001).

Also, this isn’t really an issue of Wisconsin state law. As noted above, 18 year olds have the right to vote under the federal constitution. So the federal interpretation, such as that made by the Social Security Administration, seems compelling.

I’ll be an election judge in Minnesota on Tuesday. If you were born on November 5, 1996, and you walk into my precinct, this is above my pay grade. I’m going to call the county before I hand you a ballot. But I hope they say yes.

For further complications involving people who cross the International Date Line, there is a fictional case discussing the subject.  I believe it was in the book More Uncommon Law, but it might have been in the first volume, Uncommon Law: Being 66 Misleading Cases.



Debt Collection Firm Messerli & Kramer Gives $1000 to Rep. Alice Hausman

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil's Bank.  Times have changed.  Wikipedia Illustration.

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil’s Bank. Times have changed. Wikipedia Illustration.

Even though I’ve always been a Republican, I always believed that most Democrats want to “stand up for the little guy.”  Their policies actually hurt the little guy, but at least their heart is in the right place, and their motives are pure. Or so I used to believe.

Maybe that’s still true of some Democrats, but it’s becoming less and less common. I first realized this when I started to see how many ties there were between big business and the Democrats. At first, I dismissed this as “country club liberalism.” So the argument goes, the wealthy feel guilty about their ill-gotten lucre, and to atone for their sins, they support liberal causes. But then, I started to notice that it’s generally the biggest of the big that benefit from Democratic policies. If you’re a large bank or a large insurance company, or even a large polluter, you’re well capitalized, and you can bear the regulatory burdens as a cost of doing business, and then simply pass those costs on to your customers.

But if you’re a small bank, or a small insurance company, or even a small polluter, you don’t have sufficient capital to bear those regulatory burdens. As a result, you go out of business. Or, if you’re lucky, one of your well capitalized competitors buys you out. To your former competitors, the regulatory burdens are a non-issue. They simply pass those costs along to their customers. And now, as an added bonus, they don’t have to worry about competition.

This point was driven home to me when I recently happened to look at the Campaign Finance reports filed this year by my legislator, Rep. Alice Hausman. I happened to be looking at those reports because of an address mix-up, as I previously reported on this blog.

According to Rep. Hausman’s campaign website, the legislator believes in “investing in hard-working families and middle-class Minnesotans.” She believes in a livable wage, affordable housing, and, ironically enough, relieving the burden of debt on college students.  Her legislative website contains a press release about fighting financial scams.

In short, she has concern for the little person, she recognizes the burden of debt, and she’s worried about financial scams.  But one incongruous name kept showing up on her campaign finance reports, that of law firm Messerli & Kramer. In 2014, she received a contribution of $250 from Messerli & Kramer lobbyist John Apitz. During 2013, Apitz had also contributed another $250, and Messerli & Kramer lobbyist Ross E. Kramer contributed $250. In addition, the Messerli & Kramer Political Action Committee had donated  $250 to her campaign coffers. So in just over 18 months, the law firm was responsible for a thousand dollars in the legislator’s war chest.

A lot of little people probably recognize the name Messerli & Kramer.  They’re very likely to recognize that name if they are worried about financial scams or the burden of debt, because Messerli & Kramer is one of the state’s largest debt collectors.  And they’ve been called on the carpet many times for their practices in collecting those debts.

Like any other business, Messerli & Kramer  has a right to give money to politicians. The Citizens United case makes clear that they have that right.  But the name stands out like a sore thumb in support of someone who supposedly supports the little guy.

Messerli & Kramer is a prestigious law firm with offices in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Milwaukee.  Most little people don’t know the names of prestigious law firms, but anyone in Minnesota who has gotten behind on a car payment or a credit card bill probably knows the name Messerli & Kramer, since the firm’s Plymouth office operates a high-volume debt collection practice. In fact, because the firm does such a high volume of business, it has resorted to outsourcing to a company in Birmingham, Alabama, simply to mail out the huge volume of correspondence.  They send out so many collection letters that their own office can’t handle the volume.

My personal involvement with Messerli & Kramer dates back to 2002 when I was hired by a woman who needed to sort out a mess involving her Discover Credit Card. She was being sued in Anoka County, and Discover was represented by that friend of the little guy, Messerli & Kramer. I was appalled by the tactics employed by Messerli & Kramer. Messerli and Kramer attorneys made false statements in an affidavit in order to obtain a default judgment. I had to go to court and get the default judgment set aside. Then, Messerli & Kramer failed to properly respond to discovery.  The judge in the case, District Judge Sharon Hall, found that the plaintiff offered an affidavit containing false statements, failed to comply with court rules, and failed to cooperate in the discovery process.

Judge Hall set aside the default judgment, and held that the firm’s misconduct was so egregious as to warrant simply tossing out the plaintiff’s case. She also awarded my attorney fees.

Dissatisfied with this turn of events, Messerli & Kramer took the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and awarded my attorney fees on appeal.

In 2007, the Minnesota Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Messerli and Kramer. The state’s 38-page complaint referred to my earlier case, as well as numerous other cases of misconduct by the law firm in its collection activities. That complaint noted that Messerli & Kramer is involved in the collection of student loan debt, the very burden that Rep. Hausman’s website professes concern.

Banks, credit card companies, and student loan lenders are entitled to legal representation. But Messerli & Kramer has a documented history of abuses in carrying out those representations.

Many middle-class Minnesotans instantly recognize the name of Messerli & Kramer. And if they live in Roseville, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and St. Paul, they’re probably represented in the legislature by Rep. Alice Hausman. Can they turn to their legislator for support when abuses occur? Can they turn to the legislator who accepted a thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the very firm that is hounding them?

Unfortunately, voters in other districts encounter the same problem, and it doesn’t matter whether your representative is a Republican or a Democrat.  The Messerli and Kramer cash flows freely, and they’re happy to give money to Republicans as well as Democrats.  Messerli and Kramer’s political contributions can be found at FollowTheMoney.org,  That site reveals that over the last 18 years, they gave over a quarter of a million dollars to politicians, with little regard for the politician’s views.  Democrats seem to have received a slim majority of their cash, but Republicans are well represented as well.  In 2002, they gave to Republican Tim Pawlenty.  In 2014, they once again had the checkbook out, this time giving to Democrat incumbent Mark Dayton.

Not too surprisingly, back in 2002 (about the same time they were filing false affidavits in Anoka County), they also donated to Democrat Roger Moe, who was running against Pawlenty.  That same year, they donated to Rep. Rich Stanek, a Republican, who currently serves as the Hennepin County Sheriff, the guy who needs to execute the writs against the people that Messerli and Kramer is suing.

In 2006, they gave to ultra-conservative Republican Jim Abeler.  But political ideology didn’t stop them from giving.  The same year, they also donated to ultra-liberal Democrat Ellen Anderson.

Nobody has done anything illegal.  The Citizens United case gives them the right to give money to Representative Hausman, or to another politician with opposing views.  It even gives them the right to donate to both sides, which appears to be exactly what they are doing.  But the voters ought to know about it and decide in the polling place whether this is just plain wrong.

This post expresses the opinions of the author, Richard P. Clem, who prepared and paid for it.  This post is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.



A Hundred Years of Progress

A hundred years ago, there were rail vehicles running down the middle of the street, and they discovered that people were getting run over. (It turns out they didn’t have a steering wheel.) The solution was the “Safety First Campaign” with inspiring slogans such as “Pedestrians: Get The Safety Habit,” “Don’t Take Chances,” and “Employees Trying To Do Their Part.”

Now that we’re once again running billion dollar rail vehicles without steering wheels down the middle of the street, it’s probably time to dust off that old safety campaign.



Bomb at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, 1914

World101314

A hundred years ago this evening, a bomb exploded in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. One person was injured, and the New York Evening World had an extra edition with this banner headline on the street the same evening.

Despite the size of the headline, I had never heard of this incident, and it’s barely mentioned in the historical record.

The rector of the Cathedral, Msgr. Michael Lavelle, (1856-1939) is quoted as describing it as “a small bomb. It did little actual damage outside of splintering some of the pews and tearing a hold in the floor about two feet square. It filled the interior of the church with smoke and caused a lot of excitement among the worshipers. I have no idea who did it. I have received no threatening letters of any kind in a long time and am at peace with the world.”

The October 15 issue of the New York Tribune reported that the Reds were rejoicing over this and other church bombings, and that the police were seeking an I.W.W. plot that “menaced many.”

There was very little actual damage and the indicent has been forgotten. But there were banner headlines, people to blame, and general excitement. Very little has changed in a hundred years.



J. Frank Wheaton, Minnesota Republican Legislator

In many ways, the story of J. Frank Wheaton doesn’t fit in with a lot of people’s preconceptions of history. Therefore, he is simply ignored. Nobody has ever heard of J. Frank Wheaton. His story simply didn’t fit in with what people wanted to believe.

J. Frank Wheaton was the first African-American member of the Minnesota Legislature, and he was a Republican. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1898 and served one term, after which he took a job out of state. He represented a district in southwest Minneapolis that was called “the most aristocratic portion of Minneapolis.” It included the Kenwood neighborhood of Minneapolis, and extended to modern day Eden Prairie and Excelsior. Of over 40,000 residents in the district, only about 100 were African-American.

In addition to being the first African-American to serve in the legislature, he was also the last until 1973, when Roy Pleasant of Minneapolis took office.

And Wheaton was by no means any kind of “token” Black. He was widely recognized as a brilliant attorney. He was the first African-American graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School in 1894, and was elected class orator. He worked in both state and city government in addition to his private practice.

Wheaton was also a Republican. Later in his life, after moving to New York, he became a Democrat. But in Minnesota, in addition to serving in the legislature as a Republican, he was twice elected to represent the state at the Republican National Convention.

He was featured in an article in the St. Paul Globe on February 12, 1899. Wheaton introduced into the legislature, and successfully saw passed, a measure to ban discrimination based upon race in public accommodations. The language of this 1899 statute is virtually identical to the language subsequently used in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Once again, Wheaton’s story doesn’t fit in with the conventional narrative, which holds that Civil Rights flowed from federal action in the 1960’s. In truth, more than six decades earlier, Wheaton had seen this measure passed in the state legislature, with little notice taken of the common-sense provisions.

I find it appalling that nobody has ever heard of J. Frank Wheaton. He doesn’t fit the conventional narrative, so he is simply ignored.

References

J. Frank Wheaton at Minnesota Legislature

J. Frank Wheaton at Wikipedia

African American Registry

BlackPast.org

 



Legislator Missing in Action

20140920_150255

 

UPDATE (Oct. 13):  After my letter to the editor detailing this incident appeared in the Roseville-Little Canada Review newspaper,  I did get a phone call from Rep. Hausman. I wasn’t home, but she left a message on my answering machine, and I followed up by e-mail. She told me that she hadn’t received my three letters. At first, she was under the impression that I had sent them by e-mail or left a voicemail. I explained that I had sent them by “snail mail” to her campaign address as listed on the Campaign Finance Board website.  I had sent them to the Commonwealth Avenue address listed on that site.

In a follow-up e-mail, she thanked me for the information, and told me that the Commonwealth address was that of her former campaign treasurer. She said that the former treasurer had become too busy and “we had to change treasurers.” She also stated that the information had been corrected with the campaign finance office. This explanation seems plausible, since the Campaign Finance Board site lists the new treasurer’s name, with a different address. But for the campaign’s main address, it continues to list the old treasurer’s home address, presumably in error.

A check of the campaign finance reports shows that the treasurer changed sometime in 2014. A report filed on January 29, 2014,  shows the old treasurer’s name and the old address. A report filed on July 28, 2014, shows the new treasurer’s name and the new address.

So this is quite possibly a case of an innocent mistake at the Campaign Finance Board. And I can tell you from experience that the job of campaign treasurer is both thankless and involves a lot of work.

But it still seems troubling to me that the outgoing treasurer apparently didn’t see the importance of forwarding to his candidate three pieces of first-class U.S. Mail. The address on the Campaign Finance Board website, even if it’s wrong, is still the one they have in their records, and important mail presumably gets sent to that address. And even if they did so incorrectly, the state published that address as being that of the candidate’s committee. At the very least, this episode represents a serious lapse in responsibility on the part of the campaign, one that kept Rep. Hausman insulated from her constituents.

I do appreciate the fact that Rep. Hausman took the time to call me and follow up. And I’m sure she’ll be on the phone tomorrow morning to the Campaign Finance Board to correct the error on their website. But I still think this reflects poorly on how she relates to her constituents.


I believe that local politicians should be accountable to their communities and be willing to listen to their constituents’ concerns.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Rep. Alice Hausman shares that value.

This afternoon, my wife and I hosted an ice cream social to give our friends and neighbors the opportunity to meet both candidates for this November’s legislative race, Rep. Hausman and her challenger, retired educator Jon Heyer.  I previously posted an invitation on this blog and on my law office website, and I thank those of you who were able to attend.

Both candidates were given flexibility with regard to scheduling the event.  We mailed a letter to each of the candidates in which we proposed four possible dates.  We included a postage-paid reply postcard and asked the candidates to return the card if one of the dates did not work for them.  We also included our phone number and e-mail address.  Jon Heyer returned the postcard indicating that he was unavailable one of those dates.  We received no response from Rep. Hausman.

We then scheduled the event, and mailed an invitation to each of the candidates.  We even sent a third letter reminding them of the date, and offering each of them the opportunity to bring a campaign sign, and to distribute any campaign literature.  All of the letters we sent to both candidates were addressed to their campaign committee addresses as listed on the website of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

Jon Heyer meeting with voters.

Jon Heyer (right) meeting with voters.

We were pleased to have Jon Heyer attend and speak to our friends and neighbors.  Even though many of those people were Alice Hausman supporters, they now know that if Jon Heyer is elected, they will have a representative who is willing to listen to their concerns.

Unfortunately, if Representative Hausman is re-elected, her constituents will not have the same opportunity.  She did not attend the event, nor did she tell us that she was unable to do so.  She didn’t even supply any campaign literature.  I took it upon myself to print out her website, and this was the only contact she had with her constituents.

This is not the first time that Representative Hausman has failed to respond to constituent concerns.  In March, I sent her an e-mail with my thoughts concerning the proposed constitutional amendment regarding judicial elections.  As an attorney, I believed that I could provide some insight into the measure.  I previously wrote about that subject on this blog, and I think I raised an important point that had been overlooked by both sides in that debate. It is quite possible that Rep. Hausman disagreed with my views, but I will never know for sure.  I never received any response whatsoever to my e-mail.

Representative Hausman has served in the Legislature for a quarter century.  It could be argued that she has already done her share of meeting with grassroots voters over long legislative career.  Unfortunately, however, most of her service in the Legislature has been in a district that is very different from the one she now represents.  For her first 23 years in the Legislature, she represented a district covering St. Paul.  But after 2012 redistricting, she now represents Roseville, Falcon Heights, and Lauderdale, along with the tiny sliver of St. Paul in which she and I happen to reside.  Her district is now very different from what it was for the first 23 years of her service.  If she wishes to represent her new very different district, then she needs to make a conscious effort to listen to the concerns of her new constituents.  She has shown me twice that she is not willing to do that.

Jon Heyer also lives in St. Paul, but he grew up in Roseville.  And more importantly, he has shown that he is willing to take the time to meet with constituents, whether they live in Roseville, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, or St. Paul.  He has earned my vote, and that of many of my neighbors.

 


The Cost of Leaving: Nazis, $60. USA, $2350.

According to the Milwaukee Journal, June 29, 1939, all 19-year-old “Reich citizens” living in the United States were ordered to register at the German consulate to register for compulsory military and labor service under the Reich. According to the report, no such orders had yet been received by Germans in Milwaukee, but those in Detroit had been directed to report to the German consulate in Cleveland. According to the proclamation setting forth the order, those failing to do so would be subject to a fine of 150 reichsmarks (about $60) or with arrest.

Seventy-five years later, the U.S. Government announced that the fee for renouncing U.S. citizenship had gone up to $2350, in addition to the steep “exit tax” which applies in many cases.

References:

Forbes, U.S. Hikes Fee to Renounce Citizenship by 422%


Why Judicial Retention Elections are a Bad Idea: Part 2

Another Overlooked Effect of Judicial Retention Elections

In an earlier post, I stated my main objections to amending the Minnesota Constitution to provide for retention elections in  judicial races. In summary, I believe this change will make the process more politicized. Since the stated reason for the amendment seems to be making judicial selection less political, this means that the amendment will make the problem worse rather than better.

An Iowa attorney who took one of my CLE programs identified another issue, that I probably wouldn’t have noticed. Lawyers in Minnesota are governed by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. These are essentially identical to the rules adopted in most other states, including Iowa. Rule 8.2 quite reasonably states that a lawyer must not knowingly or recklessly make a false statement concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or candidate for judicial office.

Again, this rule is quite reasonable.  We don’t want the lawyers of the state running around falsely stating that Judge _____ is a crook.  If he or she is really a crook, then I think that most would agree that we ought to make that fact known. And both this rule and the First Amendment make clear that we are allowed to say so. We are only prohibited from making false statements that the judge is a crook. Since we have very few crooks serving as judges, I have never been called upon to say that one of them was a crook. But if one of them actually were a crook, then it is both my right and my duty to point this out.

But I also need to be careful as to what I say, because if I provide false information, I will suffer the consequences under this rule.

This is how it should be. But there is indeed a restriction on my free speech, and under the First Amendment, we need to be careful about imposing restrictions on speech. As we lawyers like to say, these kinds of restrictions can have a “chilling effect” on free speech: Even though I might have proof that Judge _____ is a crook, I might decide to keep my mouth shut, because it’s just not worth the risk of getting in trouble.

In Minnesota, this chilling effect isn’t really a problem, though, because  we have a level playing field. Yes, there might be a chilling effect on my speech. But the other side (the people who think the hypothetical crooked judge should be re-elected) have an identical chilling effect upon their speech. They also have to be careful about what they say, because they run the risk of getting into the same trouble as me: If they say something false about the opposing candidate, they can also face discipline.

So in Minnesota, there probably is some chilling effect on speech. But at least everyone is operating under the same rules, and everyone’s speech is chilled by the same amount. In other words, it’s a level playing field.



This is not the case in Iowa, as an Iowa attorney pointed out to me. In Iowa, or any state with retention elections, the opponents of an incumbent judge have the same chilling effect on their speech that I have. If they make a statement that some judge should be removed from office, there’s the possibility that they will get in trouble, if their comments are construed as false claims about the judge’s qualifications or integrity.

But in Iowa, those in favor of retaining the judge face absolutely no risk: They are not telling you to vote against the challenger. Their only opponent is the word “no” on the ballot.  It’s impossible to make a false statement about the integrity or qualifications of the word “no.”  So in Iowa, if there are two sides of the debate, one side has one set of rules, but the other side has a different set of rules. The chilling effect applies only to one side. We lawyers would say that the rule is not “content neutral.” To put it in simpler terms, this is another way of saying “it ain’t fair.”

But What About Texas?

Inevitably, the proponents of retention elections will say something along the lines that if we keep our current system of contested elections, we’ll eventually “turn into Texas.” Texas judicial races are, indeed, much more politicized than they are in Minnesota. And I would probably agree that it would be a good thing if we don’t “turn into Texas” in this regard.

The problem, once again, is that the proposed amendment will make matters worse, not better. In short, we’ll turn into Texas faster if we adopt the amendment. For the reasons stated in my original post, we have a better chance of keeping the system non-politicized if we stay with the current system. The 2010 Iowa judicial elections were, in my opinion, much more political than just about any Texas race. The defeated judges called it “an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.” They were probably right.  There was an angry mob of Iowa voters running around with signs that said “NO,” presumably financed by those evil out-of-state special interest groups.

But how is an angry mob of Iowa voters carrying “NO” signs any different from an angry mob of Texas voters carrying signs with the name of an opponent?

But Minnesota won’t go the way of Texas for a completely different reason. As the former Texas Chief Justice points out, the main problem with Texas judicial elections is that the party designation is listed on the ballot. This means that voters can vote a straight ticket.  Texas judicial candidates tend to ride the coattails of the presidential or gubernatorial race. In practice, this means that Republican judges are swept out of office when a Democrat carries the state, and vice versa. In Minnesota, even though judicial candidates may now seek party endorsement, the party designation, unlike in Texas, is not shown on the ballot. In other words, the voter cannot vote a straight party ticket without at least a little bit of education prior to the race.

I would oppose putting party designation on the ballot in judicial races. But as far as I know, nobody has proposed that. Keeping party designation off the ballot is what keeps us from “becoming like Texas.” The 2010 Iowa experience shows that retention elections are exactly the thing that will give us Texas-style judicial races.

Finally, I should point out one common misconception about Texas. It is true that judicial races in that state are sometimes hotly contested. You will occasionally see lawn signs supporting particular candidates, and I agree that these are a bit unseemly. But many (but not all) of these signs are actually supporting candidates for “County Judge.” Despite the name of the office, the County Judge is actually the chief executive of the Texas
county government. A more descriptive name of the position would be “chair of the county commissioners.” Other than some minor judicial functions in some rural counties, the County Judge is not a judicial officer. He or she holds a political office. Again, many (but not all) of the unseemly lawn signs are actually supporting candidates for this political office.

The retention amendment is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn’t exist. And unfortunately, it will be the very thing that brings the problem about.