[Lekooks] State referendum questions on upcoming ballot

[pryncez at aol.com]

 Yes, I think it's important that we all do some varied research for understanding of what these things could mean for all people, before we get to the poll and wonder what the heck is that all about.
 
Cheers to 'a responsible search for truth and meaning'.
Kelly


    On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:46:36 PM MDT, Kerry Duma via Lekooks <lekooks at lekook.org> wrote:  
 
 
Thank you Kelly for trying to raise awareness about the referenda on the ballot in the upcoming election.  As I see it, a yes vote on these referenda has the potential to be most harmful to people of color and/or those who are poor.  I voted no on all of them.  




Below is a better explanation from WISDOM:


Amid all the excitement about the important Supreme Court election, there has not been a lot of attention paid to the referendum questions that will appear on all Wisconsin ballots this spring. Peter Bakken of the Wisconsin Council of Churches has given permission for us to send you this excerpt from his excellent explanation of the amendments:

 

Two questions are about cash bail and pretrial detention. If passed, they would amend the Wisconsin state constitution to allow courts to (1) impose on someone who has been accused of a crime, but not convicted, conditions that are designed to protect the community from “serious harm,” and (2) require cash bail for someone accused of a violent crime based on “the totality of circumstances,” including previous convictions and the need to protect members of the community from “serious harm.” 

 

So what’s the problem? If the first passes, “serious bodily harm” (as the constitution reads now) would become “serious harm as defined by the legislature by law.” A bill (SB75/AB54) has been introduced that would define “serious harm” to include mental anguish, emotional harm, property damage, and economic loss. But voters couldn’t know this from reading the question. There could be legal challenges to the amendments based on the misleading wording.

 

The second proposed amendment is supposed to protect the community. But accused persons with means could more easily buy their freedom than those who are poor. Both changes would give courts more reasons to detain persons awaiting trial, and would likely lead to more people being held in overcrowded jails without being convicted of a crime.

 

Given the extreme racial disparities in Wisconsin’s legal system, the consequences of these amendments – loss of freedom, loss of income, increased likelihood of re-offending — will fall disproportionately on people of color, as well as on those in poverty.

 

The third referendum question asks, “Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?” Although this question is only “advisory,” it, like the others, undermines the inclusive community that is essential to real democracy. Simply by being on the ballot, it creates misunderstandings and reinforces stereotypes that stand in the way of making our communities places where everyone can thrive with dignity.

 

The question itself is misleading in many ways. The term “welfare” seems to be used here to refer to a public benefit program intended to help people in poverty, such as Wisconsin Works (W-2), FoodShare or Medicaid. However, W-2 and FoodShare already have work requirements, and the federal government currently bars work requirements for Medicaid. The question not only fails to tell the voter which programs are meant, but misleads by lumping them all together and implying that there are currently no work requirements for any.

 

More insidiously, the term “welfare” evokes negative stereotypes of people – especially Black persons — in poverty who supposedly are unwilling to work. “Taxpayer-funded” suggests resentment at having to support government antipoverty programs for those who are believed to fit the stereotype. (And it ignores the many publicly-funded benefits for wealthier taxpayers.) Absent is any understanding of the real lives of people in poverty and the challenges they face. Nor is there any sense that we all belong to an interdependent community, and we can only flourish to the extent each of our neighbors can flourish.

 


David LinersWISDOM(414) 736-2099

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 1:05 PM pryncez--- via Lekooks <lekooks at lekook.org> wrote:

I found the attached State referendum explanatory statement to help me understand the questions that are on the upcoming ballot.
 Thought I'd send it here ....perhaps you'll find it helpful as well
Cheers, Kelly Kohl_______________________________________________
Lekooks mailing list
Lekooks at lekook.org
http://lekook.org/mailman/listinfo/lekooks_lekook.org

_______________________________________________
Lekooks mailing list
Lekooks at lekook.org
http://lekook.org/mailman/listinfo/lekooks_lekook.org
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lekook.org/pipermail/lekooks_lekook.org/attachments/20230330/8a0c1004/attachment.htm>