BIG SISTER TO VOTERS: YOU'RE BIGOTS!

Big Sister, a.k.a. G.R. Mayor George Heartwell, was in a snit at this morning's city commission meeting.  He is very unhappy with you slack-jawed, ignorant, rednecked voters who by a strong margin two weeks ago passed Proposal 2.  That successful ballot measure is also known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which ends government racial and gender preferences in public hiring, college admissions, and contracting.  In fact, Big Sister is so unhappy that he has said, To Hell with democracy!, and wants to sue you in federal court to overturn the result of the election.  (To be precise, he wants you to sue yourself, because Big Sister wants the City of Grand Rapids, on your dime, to file the lawsuit against the State of Michigan who will then have to answer it, on your dime.)

Well, what did you expect from Heartwell?  Like many so-called progressives, he is all for the people until the people have the temerity to exercise their sovereignty to make a decision he doesn't like.  So, democracy goes out the window, as Heartwell and his ilk use any lever of power they can pull to thwart the will of the people.  Typically that means finding a friendly judge on a federal bench who will put more stock into what he or she thinks the law should be rather than what it actually is.  But it can also mean raising bureaucratic obstacles to implementation of the people's decision or even plain ol' foot-dragging.  Sometimes it is more vicious, like the intimidation the leftist group "By Any Means Necessary" used to monkey-wrench the initiative process to try to stop Michigan voters from even getting a chance to vote on Proposal 2.

The reality of living in a democracy is dealing with election results you don't like.  Big Sister doesn't get that, because, as progressives tend to do, he thinks his judgment is superior to that of the benighted and unwashed masses -- i.e., you and me.  So he figures why should a mere election displace his judgment with your judgment?  And that attitude might also explain why Big Sister doesn't think he needs to spend much time on doing the job you elected him to do, like balancing the city budget, staffing the city's fire stations, keeping the city pools open, and fixing the city streets.

Comments

[Ames]

Do we have any contact info for this idiot?

I would love to give him a piece of my mind as a woman who voted FOR Proposal 2, and against discrimination.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Ami.

Here's Heartwell's contact info to give him an earful:

Mayor George Heartwell
Grand Rapids City Hall
300 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

E-mail: mayor@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us
City Hall: 456-3168
Office: 742-0693

Regards, Bill

[beentheredonethat]

No matter which way the people of this State voted, they should be appalled at the audacity of the various organizations and individuals who want to usurp the democratic process. Whether you agree or not with the outcome of the vote, the majority wins. Questions as to whether or not certain policies will be affected by the vote does not constitute a reason for a lawsuit. By the way Mr. Heartwell, your elected title is "Mayor" not "Monarch".

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Nancy.

Nice to hear from you again. I like that, "mayor" not "monarch". You hit the nail on the head.

Regards, Bill

[GABA]

Nice to see Mr. Heartwell stepping up to the window as a champion of democracy, one who truly listens to the will of the people and who respects the citizens and voters of the State of Michigan - NOT! Mr. Heartwell pretty much "flipped the bird" to the common people - men, women and teens - of this State.

But as long as the Mayor wants to play Don Quixote, why can't he privatize this quest too? Why doesn't the Mayor get "By any means Necessary" and the rest of the entitlement folks to ante up and underwrite the legal fees for the lawsuit, the same way he did with the stip club litigation?

Of course, most of that crowd is also funded with goverment grants and taxpayer money, but at least it will be somebody else's tax money. Not the money that we pay with the expectation that we will receive important city services, like fire, police, swere and water, street clean up and repairs, you know, the usual stuff.

[beentheredonethat]

Can we overturn the results of the last mayoral election by suing? Maybe you're not happy with those results. Afterall, that's the message Mr. Heartwell is sending. So much for Democrary.

[GABA]

THIS is why judicial appointments are so important. It really does matter.

The founding fathers thought they were setting up judges to offset power-hungry autocratic legislators and/or executives. They never expected the power-hungry, autocratic dictators in waiting - like big sister Heartwell - to be stacking the judiciary with their cronies.

So....let's move forward. Recall elections are fruitless (see Nevins survival in Byron Township). So don't bother going there. Let's put our efforts in a more productive direction: Who is the most viable candidate to run against Heartwell?

[The Editor - Bridget]

Dear L.A.W. Readers...

Below I will copy in two e-mails I sent to Mayor Heartwell and Rep. Rick Tormala -- City of Grand Rapids officials - this week regarding Prop. 2, it's passing and it's potential reversal due to legal actions by the City of Grand Rapids, The State of Michigan and others.

If you have views on this issue, feel free to e-mail the city as well. Everyone's voice counts - for and against this issue. Above all...show that your vote counts. Again.

LETTER TO REP. TORMALA....

Hello Mr. Tormala...

I sent the following e-mail to Mayor Heartwell yesterday - see below. I sent it in response to the meeting this week with the city about Proposal 2. I shared my feedback against such a litigation option as a concerned citizen of Grand Rapids. I know you spoke up briefly at the meeting and no final decision has been made by city officials yet.

I am aware that Governor Granholm has not jumped on board with litigation on behalf of the state. But, it appears an ill wind already starts to blow, even there. The state is tentatively looking at this issue and being careful on proceeding with legal action to overthrow the public vote. A wrong step could be a P.R. issue with the masses. I imagine both the city and the state are getting pressure by certain groups to get this vote canceled and the law declared invalid. It is very disconcerting that the issue is already being prompted for removal before the law even takes affect. Amazing really....

I am guessing the city officials of Grand Rapids feel obligated to keep many groups of the city happy but, that's not how our Constitution, Bill of Rights or voting act works. The people speak, the people vote, the law is then implemented. The practice noted under Proposal 2 was requested to be stopped. It appears the citizens may not count now....or will they?

I hope that you will speak with your constituents on this issue and take the pulse of the public BEFORE seeking legal action AGAINST the people. Seeing that the majority has already spoken on this issue and in large numbers...I can only see negative results happening should the city officials and legal staff of Grand Rapids feel the people had no rights on this issue and strike down their vote.

I shall stay posted on this issue via the local city meeting telecasts and t.v. stations. We will give updates at our web sites for our readers to view on a regular basis.

Bill and I appreciate your voice at the city meetings - even if we don't always agree with you - you are at least a voice that speaks up and doesn't get lost in the sea of "Yes, Mr. Mayor" that we hear all too often. Thank you for your continued service to the citizens and this city.

Regards,

Bridget Dupont-Tingley
Editor
The Local Area Watch

LETTER TO MAYOR HEARTWELL...

Dear Mayor Heartwell...

I heard of your desire yesterday to file a Federal Lawsuit against the recent passing of Proposal 2 in the State of Michigan.

As a citizen of Grand Rapids, I would like to go on the record AGAINST such an action. I for one, do NOT want you doing such a thing.

This ballot proposal was brought BEFORE the people, FOR the people. Citizens around this state educated themselves regarding the ramifications for and against such a ballot proposal and in large numbers, passed it. The citizens in the majority made it clear they no longer wanted this practice to continue.

You and other citizens in the minority may not like the end result, but it still stands.

If you attempt to take this undesired result to Federal Court you are doing the following:

1) Thumbing your nose at the decisions your citizens freely made;
2) Using taxpayers money to push such a lawsuit through the system;
3) You are basically suing the taxpayers themselves for having a position
different than you and a small number of others;
4) You are overreaching your authority as Mayor of this city;
5) The checks and balances of power extend beyond the three main branches of
government (legislative/congressional, judiciary and presidential)...it
extends also to the people. They have a vote as well. Your potential actions
negate such a right as we were given by The Founders.

Our founding fathers deliberately created a system of government that would make it hard for certain groups to take power from the people and concentrate it in their own hands. You are stepping dangerously close to violating that complex yet successful framework they provided to us as citizens of The United States of America by denying a vote that was made BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

As Editor of a local web site, we are posting your attempted actions for citizens to view and comment upon. They deserve to know when their local governmental officials are attempting to overstep their bounds.

Regards,

Bridget Dupont-Tingley
Editor
The Local Area Watch

[Steve Smith]

I've hesitated in posting on this subject because it is so divisive, but we have not yet addressed on this forum the issue of whether proposal 2 was fair and just. All of the arguments against it dealt with secondary factors: e.g. it was bad because bigots were for it, it was bad because of the need to even the playing field and make up for centuries of oppression and white man's privilege, it was bad because of widespread testimony alleging deceptive petition circulation practices.

The basic premise of Proposal 2's backers was that discrimination is always wrong, and that the U of M general admission formula, as allowed by the court decision, was discrimination. This was never addressed in any of the counter-arguments I heard.

For many years it was a moral certainty that discrimination was always evil. Now I was told that affirmative action isn't really discrimination, or that its noble aims trumped the fainess issue. I agreed with the Law School decision which stated that as long as we give a couple of points for being from Michigan, for being the offspring of an alumni, or the child of a person in a certain industry etc. etc. then why not for being a minority? With the general admission policy I would have appreciated an honest "well, we want to discriminate against white people just a little bit, to give black people a break".

As for the bigots, if the KKK says the sun rises in the east...

Much of the deception allegations were from the name of the proposal and the aim of opposing discrimination. Many signers believed this to be giving black folks a break. Sneaky? I'll say yes because they knew it would be interpreted that way. But dishonest? No. With the vast numbers who testified in hearings about how the petition was promoted, I have to believe that some zealous circulators lied. But not when they said, as they did when I signed, that this was a petition to ban discrimination based on race in college admissions and public hiring in Michigan. I think some people remembered what they wanted to remember.

As far as the need to even the playing field is concerned, I agree 100% with the need to do domething about the poorer job opportunities, strains on family life, poor schools and everything else that black people suffer from because of conditions of the past and their results now. I just don't agree that this was the way to do it. To me it's like putting a band-aid on cancer. We need to find out why these young people aren't coming to college in numbers that match their share of the population.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

Thanks for your comments on this divisive issue.

I do think that the practice of paying per head for the collection of signatures is problemmatic. Granted voters should be careful about what they sign. If you don't understand it (meaning something other than taking the collector's word for it), don't sign it. However, abuse is endemic to the practice. We've seen it both with petition and voter registration drives.

Let's face it. If a petition doesn't muster the enthusiasm of a sufficient number of volunteers to collect signature (who are less likely to mislead than a paid hack), then that petition should face a serious challenge in clearing that first hurdle of getting a sufficient number of signatures.

Regards, Bill