Kickass and voting wrong
Kickass, the doorstop dog, often charged with clarifying even simple issues for the keeper, was not on the job when the keeper erroneously marked “yes” on his absentee ballot to the two advisory questions regarding judges’ power in election issues such as constitutional change and cash bail.
Wording of the questions seems to indicate that a “yes” supports giving judges the power to improve protection from those who would abuse election procedures, and that that would be a good thing.
It turns out that approval of the questions supports putting voters in lower economic status at an even greater disadvantage than they already face at the polls.
It is subtle tinkering that would further complicate voting for the citizenry, and the keeper appreciates the recent analysis in that regard by UW law Professor Keith Findley, who called the wording of the questions “deceptive.”
So the keeper destroyed his absentee ballot and will walk across the street April 4 to the polling place where he will vote NO on the advisory questions; and also, of course, cast a vote for “Judge Janet” in the faint hope that a reconstituted State Supreme court might restore some democracy and decency to the State House.
Phyllis will not be going with him since she researched the advisory questions and voted accordingly on her absentee ballot.
The keeper needs to be more of a follower and less of an impulsive “leader.”