Candidates for Office Lincoln City Elections, April 4 and May 2, 2017 Note: Democratic candidates in contested races are listed in alphabetical order by last name.

Leirion Gaylor Baird

Lincoln City Council

At Large Position (Vote for up to 3 candidates)

Lou Braatz III

Lincoln City Council

At Large Position (Vote for up to 3 candidates)

Bennie Shobe

Lincoln City Council

At Large Position (Vote for up to 3 candidates)

Maggie Mae Squires

Lincoln City Council

At Large Position (Vote for up to 3 candidates)

Kathy Danek

Lincoln Board of

Education,

District 1

Barbara Baier

Lincoln Board of

Education,

District 3

Don Mayhew

Lincoln Board of

Education,

District 7

Zachary James

Lincoln Airport Authority

The Lancaster County

Democrat March 2017

My name is Maggie Mae Squires. I am running as a Democratic candidate for Lincoln City Council to improve the quality of life for working families and to provide a voice for the vulnerable.

I’m a fourth generation Nebraskan from Valentine. I have a

philosophy degree (physics minor) from Nebraska Wesleyan, and earned a Masters in Management from Doane College. I am a small business owner, I teach yoga and my husband, Tony, is an artist at Iron Brush Tattoo. Lincoln has been my home for fifteen years, and I plan to stay here.

Lincoln has seen a lot of progress the last few years. Unemployment levels remain low; new businesses are popping up throughout the city. New bike lanes line downtown streets, and the Recycle Lincoln ordinance passed.

Despite visible changes, the quality of life for working families has stagnated. Wages have not grown, but taxes continue to rise. The cost of food and medicine has skyrocketed, leaving many, myself included, to choose between paying bills or buying the food or medicine we need. Saddled with student loan debt, our graduates are leaving to find more lucrative work in more progressive cities.

We can no longer look one, two or even five years ahead. Imagine how you want Lincoln to look in 20 or 30 years. We must pursue new and difficult conversations about the direction of our beautiful city.

Solid long-term planning is essential to Lincoln’s future. Solar and wind development promise well-paying jobs, energy savings and sustained growth. Pinnacle Bank Arena should be covered in solar panels, as well as all new developments, city buildings and schools.

Decriminalization of minor marijuana offenses is crucial to lowering law enforcement costs. Proven by other states’ examples, legalizing marijuana is a multi-billion dollar business that

dramatically lowers taxes and crime, increases property values, creates good jobs and increases tourism. Strengthening our public schools and colleges creates educational opportunities that prepare our children to become leaders. Lincoln must continue efforts to attract young people and develop the industries that make them want to stay.

As a progressive candidate, I am not afraid to get my hands dirty or address problems directly. As I knock doors and speak to young Nebraskans I hear again and again, “People who don’t like change stay in Nebraska.” I believe Lincoln has the opportunity to set an example that the rest of our state will want to follow. Together we can Grow Lincoln!

Civic engagement is essential for Lincoln’s growth. Please encourage others as you prepare to vote in our local election. If you have any questions or would like to get involved, e-mail me: maggieforlincoln@gmail.com..

Local elections are more important than presidential ones By Chantel Grant , Excerpts from The Current, February 23, 2016

U.S. citizens are notorious for staying at home rather than heading to the polls, especially in local and state elections. . . . [but] the actions of the president do not affect our everyday lives. . . . The people who are elected in local elections have more impact and influence over citizens’ everyday lives than one may think. . . . They are the buffer between what citizens want and how to get what they want done, so not voting in local elections is not only undemocratic, but it is also counter-productive. . . . There’s no place where one’s voice can be heard more than in his or her own backyard, so bypassing local elections because one thinks his or her voice won’t be heard is probably one of the most illogical claims of the 21st century. . . .

One’s voice can be heard, and . . . can make a difference, but it has to start where it matters most: at the local level. To read the entire article, go to https://nsucurrent.nova.edu/local-elections-are-more-important-than-presidential-ones/

Let’s make the Airport an engine of economic development.

Hello, my name is Zachary James, and I am running for one of the two at-large seats on the

Lincoln Airport Authority board. Born and raised in Lincoln, I am a descendant of Mexican immigrants and Nebraska pioneers. A proud product of the Lincoln school system, I graduated from Lincoln High School, and went on to earn an Associate’s Degree from Southeast Community College. I continued my education at the University of Vermont earning a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and History. After college, I chose to return to Lincoln to be closer to family and start my professional career while also serving my community.

My dedication to service began as a legislative intern for then State Senator Amanda McGill. I now continue as a community organizer, registering young Latino voters, working as a youth coordinator for a non-partisan organization and serving as an advocate for Nebraska immigrants.

I believe in our community and the people who live in it. It is important for a community and its elected representatives to understand the economic significance of its local airport. A strong airport system is a vital aspect in determining a community’s economic power and brings a higher standard of living for its residents.

With this in mind, I support crafting and executing more public/private business partnerships in the Enterprise Park area. I endorse the current efforts underway to acquire more flights and an additional airline provider. I will be an advocate of

reviewing and revising the current airport master plan in order to develop a more comprehensive blue-print for progress and growth of the airport and its industrial holdings.

If you support a proactive approach to creating lasting solutions for the Lincoln Airport and the Enterprise Park, I would appreciate your vote in the Primary Election on April 4th and in the General Election on May 2nd.

If you would like to learn more about my platform or get involved in my campaign, please visit my website at www.zacharyjames2017.com.

Don Mayhew

Lincoln Public Schools

Board of Education

In my 16 years as a school board member, I’ve seen a lot of changes in Lincoln’s public schools. Our graduation rate has set record highs and our property tax levy rate is the lowest it’s been in 40 years. We’ve built new schools, opened the Career Academy, and implemented a

comprehensive, district-wide digital curriculum. We’ve implemented all-day kindergarten and all of our high school juniors now take the ACT. We’ve grown to over 40 thousand students.

And never before has public education been under attack like it is now.

Charter and voucher proponents are building their arguments for “school choice” by creating false narratives about failing public schools. But the reality is that Lincoln has no idea what a failing public school is.

Part of the problem with charters is that they’re an answer to the wrong question. While it’s true that some charters provide choices for some kids, charters don’t provide choices for ALL of our kids. The real question is how do we provide high quality educational opportunities for ALL of our children regardless of their needs? It’s a question that charters fail to answer, and children in charter communities are getting left behind.

Lincoln has always been incredibly supportive of the work going on in LPS classrooms. Our last two bond elections passed by almost two-to-one margins. The city wept with us when our district

office burned down, and offers of help from higher education, the business community, and other elected leaders came flooding in. Every year we recognize parents and supporters for their volunteerism in our classrooms.

In the last few years, events have happened that have crystalized the meaning of the words “All means all” for Lincoln Public Schools. I ask for your support in re-electing the LPS incumbents to the school board in May so that we can continue fighting for ALL of Lincoln’s children. Please vote for Kathy Danek, Barb Baier, Lanny Boswell, and myself, and spread the word to your friends and neighbors.

Thank you for your continued support. Don Mayhew President, Lincoln Public Schools Board of Education

March to the ballot box!

By John Atkeison, Chair, Climate Caucus of the Nebraska Democratic Party (402) 915-3210

Over the past few months these articles have laid the groundwork for specific proposals to deal with the crisis in climate change.

We are headed for a New Dust Bowl that will be harsher than the 1930s unless we cut greenhouse gas pollution sharply and rapidly. Even if we do not manage to prevent that grim event, we can determine how we come out of it, be that better or worse off. We already know what to do—eliminate greenhouse gas pollution—but the oil and coal industries have stalled any attempt to ramp down our consumption of their products, even though they have known what they were doing to us for forty or fifty years.

The operators of our electric grid have learned to integrate a variety of kinds of generation, be it nuclear, coal, wind, gas, or solar. In February of this year, the region of the grid that Nebraska is part of topped 50% of power from wind power for the first time. Even though it stayed at that level for just a short time, the ramp up and down was without incident. “Ten years ago we thought hitting even a 25 percent wind-penetration level would be extremely challenging, and any more than that would pose serious threats to reliability,” Bruce Rew, Southwest Power Pool’s vice president of operations, said in a statement.

“Now we have the ability to reliably manage greater than 50 percent. It’s not even our ceiling.” <http://bit.ly/SppHalfWind>

Making electricity is the #1 source of greenhouse gases, and the transportation sector is right up there with it. Fortunately cars, trucks and trains already are switching to electric power. Not only is utility scale wind power the cheapest electricity on the grid today, but solar power is now competitive with nuclear and natural gas generation; in some parts of the USA, solar is already cheaper than coal-fired power. So when—not if—we generate and deliver clean electricity plus use electric everything in transportation, we have solved a very big chunk—to the tune of at least 50%—of the greenhouse gas problem. The only reason we have not done so already is the influence of the fossil fuel companies.

In a country where we have enjoyed the right to a peaceful transition of power, taking political power by electing representatives who will change the rules is the way to go. Not that this is the only tactic. For instance, the People’s Climate March on April 29 will change the conversation and the atmosphere just as the Women’s March did on January 21, and just in time for the Lincoln City Council elections. (We will have Marches in DC and Lincoln that you will be hearing more about in the coming weeks.) The Climate Caucus has dipped its toe in these waters with our Meet the Candidates forum.

This solution to the climate crisis cannot wait. The 40+ years we have waited already is why we are now in a situation where we need to stop using fossil fuels to the tune of at least 9% per year reductions. So every person claiming to be a leader needs to address this problem. We as people active in politics have not insisted on this before, but now we absolutely must.

Can our political system respond to this emergency appropriately? More to the point, can we as political activists, officeholders, and elected officials respond quickly and toughly enough to save our bacon? It is really up to us. The stakes are extremely high. Please join us in the Climate Caucus to help figure out exactly how to get to a decisive win for decisive change!

HERE WE GO AGAIN! By DiAnna Schimek

The winner-take-all bill is once again before the legislature. It is LB 25 which was introduced by Senator John Murante. It has been referred to the Government, Military and Veteran's Affairs Committee which is chaired by Senator Murante. The bill has been scheduled for a 1:30 hearing on March 9, 2017 in Room 1507 at the state capitol.

This is the 15th winner-take-all bill introduced since the Legislature passed LB 115 in 1991 which allowed Nebraska's electoral vote to split according to the vote in each congressional district. Two of our five electoral votes are allocated to the statewide winner which replicates our selection of two U.S. Senators based on statewide votes. The three remaining votes go to the winner of each of the three congressional districts, as in the selection of members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Article II of the U.S. constitution does say, “Each state shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress.” These electors were chosen in a number of ways over the years, including by district in earlier years.

LB 115 was a bi-partisan bill with two Republicans and two Democrats as co-sponsors. I introduced it because I believed that a more proportional representation of the presidential vote would be fairer. I had no agenda and was not asked by my political party to introduce the bill.

As a past student of government and a teacher of civics and history, I believed strongly in the one person-one vote concept. At the time, there was a lot of talk about dispensing with the Electoral College and changing to a popular vote which would be more in keeping with the one person-one vote concept. Because of the strong opposition to such a sweeping change, I thought the system designed by LB 115 would be a nice compromise between doing away with the Electoral College or continuing with the winner-take-all system that existed in every state except Maine, which enacted its district system in 1969. LB 115 was essentially the Maine system. I also was a little nervous about a popular vote because I thought it might lead to court fights over close contests in each state. Remember, this was before the debacle of 2000 in Florida.

I also believed that a change in the electoral system might prevent the unfortunate results of someone winning the popular vote, but losing the election in the Electoral College (i.e. 1876, Hayes-

Tilden; 1888, Harriman-Cleveland; 2000, Bush-Gore). Or Trump-Clinton in 2016?

There were other reasons for introduction of the bill. Nebraska had lost its advantage in presidential campaigns. We were no longer one of the few states holding primaries and we were late in the process. So candidates were more or less bypassing Nebraska. With the possibility of contests in one or two districts, the hope was that more candidates would come to Nebraska and more candidates would fund campaign organizations in our state, which did happen in 2008.

Also, as then Senator Withem stressed during his floor remarks on LB 115, there was language in the bill that indicated electors would not have free will. They would have to vote the way the majority of people in their congressional districts voted. That was an important change.

But the most important reason for enacting the bill, and the reason we should not undo the previous legislative decision in this area, is that it encourages grassroots activity and it encourages more people to vote. That is very, very important in this era of the depersonali-zation of politics and the advertising wars that occur in every election. It is critical that citizens know that their votes count. This is a state with a small, but very diverse population, and it is important that citizens feel they have a chance to make their voices heard.

It is worth mentioning here that since 1940, there would have been only three elections before passage of LB 115 that would have required a split vote. The first was in 1940 when Wendell Wilkie won statewide in four of the then five congressional districts, but Roosevelt won the 2nd district. The second split vote would have been in 1944 when Thomas Dewey won statewide in districts 1, 3, and 4, but Roosevelt won the 2nd District. And finally, in 1964, Johnson won statewide, but Goldwater won the 3rd District. It wasn't until forty-four years later that there was to be a split and that was five presidential elections after the passage of LB 115 when Barack Obama won one electoral vote in the second district. Incidentally, Maine had never split its electoral vote until 2016 when one of its votes went for Donald Trump.

Since the passage of the bill in 1991, some have said that we don't need this bill because Nebraska is never going to split its vote. And I kept saying the bill is working because no one, other than the statewide winner, was able to carry any of the districts. That is until 2008, when one district did vote differently than the other two districts in the state.

Since 1991, there have been fifteen bills introduced and attempts to undo it every biennium. I think it is time to put this issue to rest and assure the people of Nebraska that their vote does count more than it ever did under the old electoral system and, until such time as the popular vote decides the presidential elections, or until a better idea comes along, Nebraska will continue its populist tradition with the district election system.

It is important that members of the Government, Military, and Veteran's Affairs committee hear from you regarding LB 25. Members of the committee and their phone numbers and e-mail addresses can be found on the Nebraska Legislative website.

Watchful Citizen

In case you haven’t discovered the County Party TV

show on community access TV, check us out! The show

airs on cable channel 13, at 10:30 p.m. on Tuesdays,

6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, and 12:30 p.m. on Saturdays.

The Lincoln City Election season is upon us; watch our

show for candidate interviews and information on how

you can help get our candidates elected.

And check our video archive on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/LancasterCountyDems.

Alternatives to the Death Penalty Update By Stephen Griffith As I have written you before, NADP is following two bills in the Nebraska Legislature. LB 446, introduced by Senator Ernie Chambers (LD 11, Omaha), would eliminate the death penalty in Nebraska. This bill is scheduled for a hearing by the Judiciary Committee Wednesday, March 22, 1:30 pm, Room 1113. Because of the action by Nebraska voters in November, this bill faces significant opposition in the Unicameral. However, the facts have not changed: the death penalty system is still inherently flawed. It still risks executing innocent people. It still does not and cannot bring justice. It still goes against the moral values and religious beliefs of thousands of Nebraskans. And the reality is that capital punishment is being seen more and more as cruel and unusual across the country. In Washington state, a bipartisan group of legislators and the state’s Attorney General have presented a bill to end the death penalty. And recent dissents on US Supreme Court decisions, Justices Breyer and Sotomayor have signaled that they believe capital punishment to be unconstitutional. (Reed v Louisiana, Sireci v Florida, Arthur v Dunn, Johnson v Kelley) LB 661, introduced by Senator John Kuehn (LD 38, Heartwell), would make secret the names of manufacturers and suppliers of drugs acquired for executions. The Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony but, as of this writing, has not advanced the bill for debate. Sen. Kuehn, Corrections Director Scott Frakes and other supporters refer to this bill as a “shield bill” designed to protect drug suppliers from “intimidation and harassment” by “anti-death penalty activists.” In reality it is a secrecy bill intended to hide information from the public. I’m very grateful to the ACLU of Nebraska for organizing and leading opposition to this bill.

Please contact your senator to voice your opposition to the LB 661, the secrecy bill, and support for LB 446 to end the death penalty. The Death Penalty Information Center is an excellent source for information about efforts to end capital punishment in the states and nationwide. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org (Click on About DPIC to subscribe to a weekly email newsletter.) Gratefully yours, Stephen Griffith, Nebraskans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

Had it not been for slavery, the death penalty would have likely been abolished in America. Slavery became a haven for the death penalty.

Angela Davis

The death penalty is discriminatory and does not do anything about crime.

Bobby Scott

Labor’s Perspective

Winning the Hearts and Minds of “We the People” By John Kretzschmar

In our democratic republic, it is “We the

People” who are enshrined as critical decision makers. The problem that we run into is that “We the People” are human—with human brains. The study of the human brain has expanded in the last 35 years, and it can help in getting their messages out to “We the People.”

Our brains are literally wired to “hear only what we want to hear.” That is, our deeply held values act as a filter for all that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Our brain’s filters act instantly and below the level of our awareness. They take in information that is consistent with our values, and reject or downplay information that’s inconsistent with those values.

This is critical information for those of us who think of ourselves as “rational human beings.” We believe that “the TRUTH will set us free.” Trouble is, our brains only accept some facts—those that are consistent with our deeply held values.

Liberals and progressives believe that if a room full of people 1) are presented with a problem, and 2) all receive the same set of identical verifiable facts: everyone will use logic to arrive at the same conclusions. That NEVER happens! When liberals and progressives want to change the minds of people who are not already “on board” with liberal and progressive beliefs, they “feed them facts” in an attempt to change their minds. Then the liberals and progressives are disappointed when the facts fail to win hearts and minds. After the first set of facts fail to do their job, liberals and progressives follow up with more facts. Again, because of the way the human brain is “wired” the

facts again fail to register, and liberals and progressives declare all who can’t see the “TRUTH” as stupid!

There is a better way to win the “hearts and minds” of those not already in the choir. Liberals and progressives need to understand the importance of “values bridges.” Values bridges are statements meant to show that they share deeply held values with those not yet in the choir. That perceived overlap in values will allow facts to make it past the filter.

Here’s a very old quote that is essentially recognizing the way the brain processes information. “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion . . . draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises . . . in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620

Here’s a 1936 quote that underlines the importance of a values bridge. “In talking to people, don’t begin by discussing the things on which you differ. Begin by emphasizing—and keep on emphasizing—the things on which you agree. Keep on emphasizing, if possible, that you are both striving for the same end and that your only difference is one of method and not of purpose.” Dale Carnegie, from his How to Win Friends and Influence People

So when talking public policy to “We the People,” we need to create those values bridges. Here’s one that liberals and progressives fail to see as special and conservatives say, “Well, of course” to.

“All levels of government, in our democratic republic, have a moral obligation to use our commonwealth in ways to protect and empower ALL of us EQUALLY.”

This sentence becomes a values bridge. It also turns the discussion of government from the “too big/too small” frame to one that allows for a critical analysis of what are the legitimate protection and empowerment functions of government. Furthermore, it turns every institutional budget into a moral document that can be examined to see if there is sufficient funding for that agency to efficiently and effectively carry out its protection or empowerment responsibilities.

So, beware of using rhetoric that is appealing to the choir. That rhetoric will trigger the brain’s filter and your message will FAIL to be heard and understood by “We the People.”

Kemper Cartoons Steve Kemper is a regular contributor of editorial cartoons to this newsletter. Inspired by events in Washington, Steve sent several cartoons this month, so we have devoted two full pages to his work in this issue.

Support the Lancaster County Democrats today!

Name: ___________________________________________________ Date: _______________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________

City: ______________________________ State: _________ Zip: ____________________

Home Phone: ______________ Work Phone: ______________ E-mail: _____________________________________

Occupation: __________________________ Employer: _____________________________________________________

I would also like to volunteer: _______ Prepare Mailings _______ Phone Banking _______ GOTV

I prefer to get my newsletter (please check one): _______ via e-mail or _______ via US mail.

Please also consider a donation to the Lancaster County Democratic Party.

Your donation helps support party activities including Get Out The Vote efforts,

candidate support services, political forums and the Lancaster County Democrat.

_______ Sustaining Donor (Monthly Donation – credit card authorization)

I hereby authorize the Lancaster County Democratic Party to charge the credit card below $_______ each month.

Signature _________________________________________________________

_______ One-time Donation (credit card authorization) I hereby authorize the Lancaster County Democratic Party to charge the credit card below for a one-time donation of $_______.

Signature _________________________________________________________

_______ Electronic Donation via ActBlue

I am sending a separate electronic donation via the County Party’s ActBlue account:

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lancaster-county--ne--democrats-1

_______ Check or Money Order Enclosed, payable to Lancaster County Democratic Party Make check or money order payable to Lancaster County Democratic Party or charge to:

_______ VISA _______ MasterCard # ________________________________________ Exp. Date _______

Please return this form to the Lancaster County Democratic Party, PO Box 83213, Lincoln NE 68501-3213.

Lancaster County Democratic Party

P.O. Box 83213

Lincoln NE 68501-3213

402-476-2268

http://www.LancasterCountyDemocrats.org

Printed In-House with Donated Labor

Return Service Requested

PRSRT STD

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit #1067

Lincoln, NE