A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, April 10, on the expected political battle with the next U.S. Supreme Court nominee: The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who has served commendably for 35 years and is the leader of the court’s liberal wing, probably won’t change the ideological balance of the court.
But his departure sets in motion a political battle that will last for months. The timing, with the run-up to midterm elections, ensures the process of nominating his successor will be politically charged.
Senators need to keep in mind that their job is to determine whether President Obama’s choice is qualified to serve. While the candidate deserves the utmost scrutiny, the process does not give senators the authority to impose their own ideological litmus tests on nominees.
Easier said than done, and assuredly politicians and interest groups of all stripes will attempt to tilt the process to get a justice favorable to their point of view.
Stevens’ departure poses interesting challenges for the Obama administration both in terms of politics and court composition.
Stevens, a bow-tied, congenial justice appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford but approved by a Democratically controlled Senate, over the years gradually moved to the left in his positions. He has been described as a consummate gentleman and a master strategist who was able to, on certain issues, find common ground with justices who might be seen as a lock to vote with the conservative majority on the court. That skill set, along with sensibilities shaped by having grown up during the Great Depression and having served in the Navy during World War II, are all but irreplaceable.
However, his reliable liberal vote on cases is something President Obama will attempt to ensure.
Conservatives very well may try to use the process to fire up their political base in advance of November elections that could change the balance of power in Congress. Liberals may view the vacancy as their opportunity, perhaps their last for the foreseeable future, to get a truly hard- left-leaning justice on the court.
Whatever calculus the president employs to choose a nominee, it is imperative that he select someone who is thoroughly qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. That, of course, will be a topic for the Senate to explore, and we expect its members will fully scrutinize the president’s nominee.
We hope the president gives great consideration to the many qualified female jurists out there, given there are only two women on the nine- person bench.
What we hope not to see is a descent into baseless attacks and hyper-partisanship. Ever since Democrats torpedoed Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork, the Supreme Court nomination process has gotten too political and too far removed from the role the Constitution ascribes to the Senate.
The president’s nominee, whoever that might be, deserves a fair and open-minded review based on the nominee’s qualifications to serve on the court. The American people should demand no less, and no more.
Editorial:
———
The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, April 12, on why black tea partiers should’t feel obligated to support President Obama because of race:
This country used to condone plantation slavery. Whites owned blacks and forced them to work. Today, some condone less visible slavery. Call it slavery of the mind.
An Associated Press story told of black conservatives “taking heat” for supporting mostly white tea parties. Blacks should be lockstep liberals and support President Barack Obama. Why? Because Obama is black. It’s shocking how some people think that way and don’t consider it racist.
Famous black conservatives abound, including civil rights leader Niger Innis; former United Nations ambassador Alan Keyes; economist Thomas Sowell; homeless activist Ted Hayes; Alveda King, abortion opponent and niece of the late Martin Luther King, Jr.; Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele; former NFL player and political activist Lynn Swann; etc., etc.
It’s easy to find local black people who oppose the policies of Obama and support the politics of tea parties.
Springs tea partier Dennis Moore grew up black in Mississippi, where he was shoved from a drinking fountain and forced to eat outside the back doors of restaurants.
“I want less government, so I support the tea parties,” said Moore, a highly educated Air Force retiree. “These events have nothing to do with race. We should analyze facts, not follow a sweet-talking candidate like sheep.”
“I support the tea party movement because I love freedom, liberty and limited government,” said Colorado Springs City Councilman Darryl Glenn, a lawyer who is black.
Don’t tell Glenn he should be an Obama-supporting liberal just because he and Obama are black.
“That would absolutely offend me,” Glenn said. “We have a president who happens to be of a certain skin color and I don’t like his policies at all. I shouldn’t have to support him because of his skin color.”
Willie Breazell, a black conservative, has avoided tea parties until now because he heard they were about white separatism. Recently, a trusted friend set him straight.
“I don’t like where Obama is taking this country,” said Breazell, of the Springs. “He is going to hurt it. I am against socialized medicine, and I’m told that’s one of the issues the tea partiers have with Obama. I support them in that.”
Former state Sen. Ed Jones has been to three tea parties and plans to attend more. He knows some liberals say he isn’t really black, because of his politics.
“They think all blacks have to think the same way,” Jones said. “Whites don’t all have to think alike, but black people do. They don’t want us to be free thinkers.”
Forcing black Americans to pick cotton was one evil form of slavery. Prescribing how they should think is slavery of the mind, which could be considered worse.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Tribune, April 7, on assessment issues surrounding standardized school tests:
Soon schools won’t have to worry about CSAPs. They’ll have CAP4K to contend with.
Acronyms aside, standardized assessments are in for a change. But what kind of change is still up in the air.
The state Legislature mandated updates in the content standards for K-12 schools, which was completed in December 2009. Now, assessments must be updated to reflect changes in the standards.
This new test, which will be called the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, is still in the development stage. State education officials hosted a meeting in Greeley recently to receive input about the new test.
During the meeting, many good suggestions were made, from having the test results available for teachers sooner to limiting the length of the tests.
Maybe Missy Parker, professor of sport and exercise science at the University of Northern Colorado, said it best: “Whatever it is, (the new assessment) needs to be meaningful, realistic and authentic for the students.”
We see this as an opportunity for the state and educators to really evaluate what the goal of content assessments should be.
There is valid criticism of the Colorado Student Assessment Program and now is the time to address some of these concerns.
The system as it stands is more punitive than it should be. Schools that don’t achieve well regardless of demographics, language barriers and socio-economic status of its students are punished and threatened, even with closure.
While we don’t believe the status of students should be used as an excuse for poor achievement, we also don’t believe that bad test results should result in schools being shut down or placed on “watch lists.” That does nothing to help.
What we would like to see is poor performing schools get some extra help from the state to address their achievement problems, which could come in the form of coaching, training, grants or extra manpower.
There has also been criticism that the advent of the standardized test era has squelched some teachers’ ability to teach creatively. There is much grumbling about “teaching to the test.” And while that has to occur on some level, we do believe that teachers should somehow be given the power to teach their subject in the manner that is most effective for their students.
That’s what’s difficult about standardized tests they are standardized. Nearly every student, regardless of how they learn, how they perform on tests or even what language they speak at home, takes the same test the same way.
Teachers are ultimately held responsible for how students perform. However, there is really no incentive for students to do well on the test, other than personal pride. CSAP results are not part of their permanent record. The tests don’t affect their grade-point average or keep them out of the best colleges.
Ultimately, we agree with Parker. The tests should begin and end with what will do the most to help students.
That means devising a test that evaluates how and what kids are learning, and gives meaningful results to teachers soon enough that they can use the information to help their students achieve.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, April 11, on maintaining easier voting participation while preventing voter fraud:
There are two primary goals when it comes to a system of voting: 1) that each citizen with the constitutional right to vote has the opportunity to cast a private ballot; and 2) that each ballot be counted accurately and only once. The result is a democracy that allows for a peaceful transition of power.
Encouraging voter participation and keeping the voting process reasonably simple and accessible support that first goal. Limiting the steps between voter and ballot-counter support the second, as does setting guidelines that minimize voter fraud.
The challenge is to strike a balance between practices that make it easier to vote with those practices that ensure an accurate vote.
Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll would like to make voting easier in Colorado and so has suggested a bill that would make drastic changes to current law. His draft bill includes a number of provisions that eliminate barriers between voters and the ballot box.
Fair enough. We agree that people have the right to vote and should not be unreasonably hindered from doing so.
The problem, however, is that several of these ideas appear to chip away maybe even hammer at reasonable precautions in voting law.
Chief among those is a provision that would allow for third-party delivery of mail-in ballots, and it’s not speaking of the Postal Service. That is, individuals or organizations that properly register with the Secretary of State’s Office could collect groups of ballots from voters for delivery to election officials.
So who would sign up to do this work? Probably independent and civic-minded organizations that desire to help people cast ballots. But also politically motivated groups, for whom ballot gathering could be subordinate to electioneering.
Unfortunately, politics breeds gamesmanship, and every opportunity that is allowed will be taken. Consider the draft bill’s language that protects mail-in voters from the influence of third parties specifically prohibits the influence of other electors that is, those who are eligible to vote. Why leave a loophole? Make all such coercion illegal.
And, of course, there’s the provision that would obliterate the current deadline for voter registration, that method by which election officials can ensure that the person who shows up to vote is an eligible voter.
Voting is the one act that maintains this nation’s peaceful domestic course. It is a right to be protected and a privilege to be encouraged.
And when massive changes to voting law are considered, they should be considered judiciously.
Editorial:
