iowa

A few weeks ago, Republican Iowa State Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck told five Iowa university student government representatives to "go home" and to not worry about the work the senate is doing in the state house.

Here's the video in case you need a reminder:

He rightfully faced a steady barrage of flak for that, with Campus Progress taking the lead on a petition effort that asked Hamerlinck to apologize for his condescending remarks.

For a week, Hamerlinck was silent. But last Thursday he was moved to write an op-ed piece that posed as an apology. Get a load of this crap:

After offering eight years of instruction at a local community college as well as being a politician, my goal has always been to keep students out of the political fray in order for them to form their own opinions and ideologies. With that objective in mind, perhaps I should have reworded my comments in such a manner as to avoid the political fray which a politician should know would follow from opposing political parties and the media. Let’s face it; this is political fodder at its best and I let my frustrations get the better of me. I was trying to keep students from being used and I fear they have become the very theater I hoped to shield them from. I apologize for not catching the motivation of the event sooner and wording my speech in a manner which allowed students to focus on their studies rather than playing into partisan politics at the Capitol.

In the end, my attempt to keep impressionable students out of the fray has instead ingested them into it, and for that I apologize. The betterment of Iowa is a great goal to have, and as statistics have shown, post-college graduation trends indicate that educated youth are our greatest export. I want students’ ultimate goal to be obtaining and retaining knowledge with the mindset of solving the problems in Iowa that my generation has been unable to do.

You know, I think the "apology" may be worse than Hamerlinck's original comments.

First, Hamerlinck continues to treat these college students as if they are 13. Legally, they are adults who, whether he likes it or not, have the constitutional right to participate in the political process. A little research alarmingly reveals that Hamerlinck, in addition to being an adjunct professor, works with the Iowa State University Scott County extension office as a "Youth Field Specialist." One of his responsibilities in this position also apparently forms a large piece of his childhood development; overseeing 4H must be a dream come true for Hamerlinck, given the 10 years he spent in the organization.

One might wonder what values 4H stands for, given that it is such a large part of Hamerlinck's life. Disengagement? Staying in the toy room while the adults yuk it up and play cards? Remaining content with learning how to tie one's shoes and play Gameboy?

From the 4H website:

Who We Are

4-H prepares young people to step up to the challenges in their community and the world. Using research-based programming around positive youth development, 4-H youth get the hands-on real world experience they need to become leaders.

Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Perhaps we should initiate a petition with 4H. Surely they don't want someone who believes that youth shouldn't get involved with their community to represent them?

Our communities are stunting themselves by not asking young people to learn about politics and civics firsthand. Research overwhelmingly shows that youth and college students learn best through active, collaborative, and engaged learning. Using this pedagogy actually prepares young citizens for the challenges inherent in a democracy. His apparent contempt for young people aside, what kind of good does Hamerlinck think he is doing by telling college students to sit down and shut up? Politics is everywhere, and in a healthy democracy, we need to have the experience to recognize systems of power and privilege and navigate them to pursue personal and social success.

You know that Saved By the Bell episode when Zack switches places with Mr. Belding and runs the school (Season 4, Episode 2 - check it out)? Maybe college students need to do the same with Sen. Hamerlinck. Yeah, students could teach the 4H program Hamerlinck administers, educating Hamerlinck on how to operate in "[a] world in which youth and adults learn, grow and work together as catalysts for positive change," otherwise known as the 4H vision statement.

In the end, officials like Hamerlinck will spurn young people at their peril. Somewhere, among your condescending speeches and phony apologies, you've forgotten that despite your party's efforts to the contrary, college students can and do vote. I trust that Iowa's young people will remember this when they cast their ballots on November 6, 2012.

Update: Of course, as a Facebook commenter suggests, we could also just get an engaged young person to run against him and kick him out. That would be great, too.

• Starting off with some health news... One study recently found that many young people with Type 2 diabetes have impaired cardiovascular function due to stiffened arteries.
• Kurt Metzger's "Talk to Young People about Sex" album will be released on Comedy Central on June 28th
• We need to see more of this: An Iowa City city council candidate is running to give young adults a voice.
• Call it the scone rush? For struggling young people, one cafe in the Chicago area intentionally creates opportunities for recently imprisoned youth to get back on their feet.
• Obama again reaching out to youth through youth roundtables.
• New York's state financial aid agency offers college students advice on how to strengthen their financial fitness following college.
• The San Francisco Chronicle offers its own advice.
• But before you graduate from college, you need to succeed there. Here are some tips for first year students in your first year.
• Entrepreneurship 101: A guide for new college grads looking to fly solo
• Grants that help youth be their own bosses? Interesting.
• The trials and tribulations of the intern and other tales of unpaid labor
• The for-profit price of student loans (and it's not stormtroopers on a collection mission. At least in this story).

Update 2: Campus Progress has been working on this issue over the past day, creating an opportunity for us to directly e-mail Hamerlinck and demand an apology for his demeaning and condescending remarks toward young people.

You can visit the site here. Let him hear it!

Update: The Iowa State Daily has more on this incident:

...After the student representatives were finished, Hammerlinck [sic] gave a response. Hammerlinck told students to "go home" and that they were being used as props in the Democratic propaganda effort to increase state spending.

"We were shocked that he would say that," Knight said. "I was insulted, disappointed and upset that a public leader like himself doesn't like it when students [and] constituents, as well as taxpayers in the state, come and talk to their elected officials about what their votes would do to them. I don't understand why he would feel that way and much why he would say that."

[...]

Sen. Herman Quirmbach (D-Ames) was also present at the hearing.

"They talked very seriously about the quality of the programs, class sizes and [students] not leaving school in so much debt and [with] limitations on their career choices," Quirmbach said. "All the students did a bang-up job in articulating their views."

Quirmbach was shocked when he heard Hammerlink's remarks.

"It was unprofessional," Quirmbach said. "I hope to never see another display like that again."

Quirmbach believes that it was the students' duty to be there and speak as elected officials representing the students.

"It's not just disrespecting the students there, but all the students that they represented," Quirmbach said. "They were elected on behalf of the students to speak for all students."

Despite Hammerlinck's comments, the GSB will not discourage the student body from lobbying.

"Our plans aren't going to change just because one senator tells us to go home," Knight said. "If anything, it's going to strengthen our resolve to continue lobbying in Des Moines and continuing letting our representatives know both here and from our students' constituency districts what a seven percent cut to the regent institutions will do."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You would think someone who held the title of "Youth Field Specialist" in the Iowa State University Scott County Extension office, who developed and oversaw programs such as 4-H, and who currently serves as a college professor, would want students to be engaged in their communities.

You'd be wrong.

On Tuesday, Republican Iowa State Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck told five student government leaders from Iowa universities to "go home" and to not worry about the work the senate is doing in the state house. Think that's exaggerated?

Sadly, it's not:

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee reported on this in their blog, explaining that Hamerlinck's hissy fit wasn't the only condescension students faced that day from Republicans.

North Carolina GOP state Rep. Mike Stone called it “unconscionable” and said “anger completely shot through me” when he learned that elementary school students – including his own daughter – had written letters to state legislators as part of a school writing assignment. And who could forget New Hampshire GOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien’s stunning admission that his party’s discriminatory voter ID bill was intended specifically to disenfranchise students, because “they are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience”?

Yet, we find out from the Iowa Senate Democrats that these students who appeared--all student government officers from across the state--did so as part of an already organized set of open hearings on the budget.

The students were invited to the Capitol as part of “Open Budget Hearings.” The goal of the hearings was to hear feedback from Iowans impacted by the proposed budget cuts, including the effects of what some have described as the Republican’s “two-year starvation diet for Iowa schools.”

The students testifying before the committee included President of Northern Iowa Student Government Spencer Walrath, Iowa State University Student Body Vice President Jared Knight, University of Iowa Student Government President Elliot Higgins, Former President of Council of Graduate and Professional Students Lyndsay Harshamn, and current Vice President of the Executive Council of Graduate and Professional Students Michael Appel.

The students testified that the Republicans’ proposed budget cuts making higher education unaffordable for many students and their families, increase class sizes, and reduce course offerings.

So this is why Republicans are failing so horribly at attracting political support from this generation of young people. And this is also why it's only a matter of time until we turn the tables on sad, fearful politicians like Hamerlinck and tell them to go home.

In the meantime, you should remind Hamerlinck that because of his party, students have more than enough life experiences to understand the real-world implications of budgets.

Call him: (563) 843-3922

E-mail him: shawn.hamerlinck@legis.state.ia.us

There's no shortage of contempt for youth civic engagement these days, apparently.

Yesterday, in Marshalltown, Iowa, troubled presidential candidate Newt Gingrich hosted a town hall meeting. The senior citizen-dominated crowd heard Gingrich argue that, since immigrants need to pass a citizenship test to become U.S. citizens, "young Americans" should be required to take a similar test prior to exercising their right to vote. Gingrich's suggestion was met with applause from the crowd. ThinkProgress captured the transcript and the video.

GINGRICH: [Immigrants] need to pass a test of American history. And candidly, it wouldn’t be bad to have a test like that for young Americans before they start voting.

Ironically, Newt shows that his idiocy extends into the civic realm, and that he himself might experience difficulty passing the test he suggests.

Newt would benefit from picking up any history textbook and reading about the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and the 26th Amendment.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 explicitly prohibits the use of any device or test to deny the right to vote on account of race. It states that "no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State." After President Nixon signed a bill into law in 1970 (based on The Voting Rights Act of 1965) that set the minimum voting age in federal, state, and local election at 18, and the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400. U.S. 112 (1970), Congress and state legislatures overwhelmingly passed the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, invalidating the Supreme Court's previous ruling. The Amendment reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Newt didn't mention any specifics as a part of his proposal (what is "young," and how old does one have to be to be deemed competent enough to vote?), but unless he plans on pushing for a repeal of the 26th Amendment, it's a clear violation of the Constitution. Either Newt's trapped in a pre-1971 time warp, or he's as stupid as he thinks we are. Maybe both.

Legal issues aside, Newt's stupidity also reflects the grave danger Republicans face moving into the future. The GOP knows that the electorate is diversifying before their eyes and gaining thousands of unfriendly Millennials by the day. Politically, they have their work cut out for them.

Unfortunately, for these communities, the GOP frequently refuses to acknowledge its oppressive and harmful stances on policy and the Democratic process and conduct this work in an honest and legal manner. Accordingly, it refuses to engage in authentic outreach efforts with young voters and minority voters, choosing not to listen to these groups' concerns when it comes time to make policy. And so Republicans, to retain the power they do have, are forced to shrink our democracy, to rig the game, out of desperation.

The Republican Party knows that young people suffer because of its stances on myriad issues, whether that's the manufacturing of intelligence that got us into Iraq, the decline of Pell grant funding throughout Bush's two terms, the squandering of the trillions of surplus dollars over the last ten years, the outsourcing of our jobs and futures overseas, or the continued desecration of our environment; consequently, they don't trust us to make the "right" choice in the voting booth, or apparently, any choice at all.

Newt's suggestion that some Americans are not competent enough to exercise our constitutional rights is ironic, illegal, and cowardly. We must fight back by not only standing up to Newt, but also by vigorously contesting all of the disenfranchisement efforts the GOP has proposed to keep us from losing our inalienable right.

Update: Young Democrats of America and Democracy for America have teamed up to fight back against GOP voter suppression efforts all over the country. Newt's remarks are simply an extension of a philosophy that clearly governs the Republican Party's approach to democracy. Their action alert is provided below.

As a legislator in Montana, I’m proud that my state has defeated several bills aimed at suppressing the vote.

Unfortunately Montana is one of only a few success stories when it comes to our efforts to combat a concerted Republican plan to make voting much more difficult in states across the country.

In a New York Times editorial from last week, the Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy group, described this rash of Republican-sponsored legislation as “the largest legislative effort to scale back voting rights in a century.”

That’s why two organizations dedicated to preserving the rights of all Americans have teamed up to take a stand against this outright assault on the fundamental democratic value of voting – you can join us here.

As Vice President of the Young Democrats of America, I’m excited to partner with Democracy for America, the people-powered political action committee working on progressive issues across the country to bring attention to this attack on young peoples’ voting rights.

A democracy depends on the people choosing their elected officials – not the politicians choosing their voters – and for that reason, DFA and YDA are launching a national campaign to defend democracy and defeat the Koch-funded attacks on voting rights.

Join us in defending democracy right now.

In addition to a this national statement in support of voting rights, YDA and DFA will be working together on a state by state basis to defeat the individual bills aimed at suppressing the votes of young people, working families, people with disabilities, the elderly and minorities.

There is little else more precious than our ability to participate in our democracy. Join me today in standing up for voting rights.

Thanks for all you do,

Representative Ellie Boldman Hill
Democrat
Missoula, Montana

Ballot boxes all over the country felt pretty lonely on Tuesday.
Sure, they had election workers tending to them and making sure ballots were fully stocked. And, of course, older voters predictably made their way to the polls. But young people were largely missing on Tuesday.

In Iowa City and in several key elections all across the country, the youth turnout was abysmal.

One year ago, youth — those aged 18-29 — fueled the election of the nation’s first black president.

Beginning with the Iowa caucuses, young people not only voted in greater numbers, they volunteered, took off school to work on the campaign, and donated money.

Before 2008, how many candidates created Facebook pages or sent out important political information via text message? Now every candidate running for political office — whether for governor or dogcatcher — has a Facebook page, a website, and would love to get your cell-phone number. In 2008, youth were an absolutely critical component, a major piece to the puzzle in the election of Barack Obama.
Young people transformed politics.

One year later, we have to ask ourselves, “What happened?” It’s not only Iowa City student precincts that performed poorly. Youth turnout barely registered in New Jersey and student-saturated Virginia. There are some locally and nationally who will look at Tuesday’s results and argue that students are simply apathetic. To them, 2008 was an aberration — no Obama to vote for, no youth turnout.

It’s easy to make such an argument, but it’s too simplistic and not entirely correct. Yes, too many students are apathetic. Many are uninterested and disengaged from politics. Youth turnout since 2004 has been increasing and in 2009 there were several young candidates elected to local office.

The truth is that in many instances young people are engaged. Yet, it’s also true that youth are too often are completely absent when they don’t feel a direct connection to an issue. And it’s true that in elections that don’t spike a high level of interest and excitement, young people sometimes don’t bother to vote.

While Iowa City’s City Council elections are nonpartisan, a lack of youth turnout contributed to Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Democrats are increasingly reliant on young voters and youth turnout. Not only did Obama win the youth vote by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, youth made up a greater share of the overall electorate in 2008. When young people don’t vote, it’s more difficult for Democrats to win.

According to available exit poll data, 18-29 year olds were only 10 percent of all voters in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. In 2008, youth made up 21 percent of the electorate. In 2008, Obama received 60 percent of the youth vote in Virginia and became the first Democrat to carry Virginia since 1964. In 2009, the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, received 44 percent of the youth vote. Deeds actually lost voters under 30 to the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell.

While Deeds was far from perfect, his campaign never made young voters a priority. The result: anemic youth turnout in Virginia and a defeat. You don’t have to act like Obama, talk like him, or even look like him to inspire young voters. You do, however, have to talk to youth, ask youth for their votes, and give them a reason to vote for you.

There’s no excuse for the lack of student turnout in Tuesday’s City Council election. With two students on the ballot, student turnout should have been greater.

But let’s be careful not to give up on young voters in 2010.
For Democratic candidates, youth turnout will be critical to their success. And candidates running in 2010 who want youth to turn out have to go out and make a compelling case for them to do so.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Iowan on November 5th. The Daily Iowan is the student newspaper at the University of Iowa. The author Simeon Talley is a columnist for the paper.

While the FM crew was attending Netroots Nation 2009, an op-ed glorifying the role of young voters in the Obama campaign ran in the Des Moines Register. Obama may not be in a race in 2010, but that doesn't make the youth vote a wild card. Like any other demographic, you have to earn their vote, by asking for it and demonstrating that your ideas are better than your opponents. Robert Weiner is quick to point out the positives, and gets it mostly right.

In Iowa, Obama built his base around 17-29 year olds, meeting with high school student-government leaders, speaking at colleges and choosing a hip-hop event sponsored by Usher over one by AARP. Among people under 25 in the 2008 Democratic caucus, Obama claimed 17,000 votes (he only won by 20,000) and was preferred 4 to 1.

His personality and youthful habits (playing basketball) charmed young Americans. He made politics "cool" again as seen by T-shirts at trendy shops with his face on them and his fist bump with his wife.

Yet what won him the most was concentrating on issues important to young people. A poll conducted by the Center for Information on Civic Learning found that among young Obama voters, the top issues were the Iraq war, economy and health care.

Great - recognizing that he does have an appealing personality, but more importantly, he reached out to young voters on the issues they cared most about during the election.

Now the author turns to the "be like Mike" tagline that worked so well for Gatorade. The problem with this is that while politicians have become brands, they are still elected officials.

Thirty-nine election seats for governor will be open in 2010 in addition to the 435 House seats and 36 Senate seats. Candidates can win the youth vote by concentrating on areas of interest to young people and by modeling their campaigns after Obama.

[...]

Young Americans were criticized for political apathy. The 2008 elections proved that teens and twenties can make a difference; but whether this is a one-time phenomenon is an open question. Pretending "I'm Obama," will only take a politician so far; it is going to have to be more, "I'm like Barack," and mean it.

When he says to be like Barack, I assume he means to encourage citizen participation, to throw aside bitter partisanship for cooperation and to not overlook any voting demographic. Candidates should be themselves, instead of invoking the names and personalities of the past. To a certain degree, candidate Obama drew parallels to President Kennedy, but that seems to me to be an appeal to the generation that was young when Kennedy was around. Candidate Obama campaigned on change and a break from the politics of old; he's taken a step in that direction, but future candidates will have to go even further.

We just got this report from Adam Mason at Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement:

Sounds like a team of Republican Lawyers is challenging student registrations. This is something we are monitoring now. One of our staffers is a recent graduate from Grinnell College, so we got some word of this last night. It is also in one of our targeted areas, so we want to learn more about what is going on on the ground --- but just wanted to give you a heads up.

http://iowaindependent.com/8068/students-face-ballot-challenges-in-battleground-district

In response, the students have re-registered (same day registered) students who were challenged at their dorm room address, and there are quite a few questions in with county officials.

Read more news at http://www.communitychange.org/vote

Regular readers of this site will remember that in December of last year, we went to bat pretty hard against both the Clinton/Biden/Dodd/Richardson campaigns, and David Yepsen, "the Dean of Iowa Political Reporting," for suggesting that university students in Iowa did not have a right to participate in the caucuses. I think we did a pretty good job (in partnership with a number of youth organizations) pushing against that message, earning retractions from all of the Democratic campaigns, garnering front page coverage on Daily Kos, and getting other organizations involved and on-message. By the end of the year, thanks to our work here and that of organizations like the Student PIRGs, Rock the Vote, YDA, and Young Voter PAC, the New York Times even ran an op-ed sympathetic to our point of view.

We all know what happened after that - despite much fretting about a youth-based field strategy on the part of the media and old-school party hacks, students turned out in record numbers and launched Barack Obama's campaign to the front of the pack.

So it's disturbing to see that, once the glare of the media is gone from Iowa, David Yepsen is back to his old tricks. In a column dedicated to the reformation of the Iowa Caucus, Yepsen takes aim at Election Day Registration:

Ban same-day registration

Allowing someone to just show up, claim residence in the precinct and participate is an invitation to fraud. There were allegations that happened in this year's caucuses.

It's one thing - and probably a good thing - to allow same-day registration on an election day. If there is a question about someone's residence, a provisional ballot can be cast and counted or rejected once the residence issue is settled. There isn't time for that on caucus night.

So, Iowa should cut off voter registrations for caucus participation a week or two before the events are held. That way, those officials or activists trying to run the caucuses can have a fresh list from the county election office of just who is eligible to participate.

Yes, there were allegations of fraud by people with a political interest in claiming so, and who fought the idea of student participation for months because it was a constituency disproportionately lined up against their candidacy.

The fact is, Yepsen, and others who share his opinion, are worried about a hypothetical, unproven problem that may occur in some future place and time. I'm worried about the actual problem we have now: that young people participate in our elections in lower numbers than other groups because they face larger barriers to voting than do older voters.

If we want to see more young people participate - a universal good, recognized even by those who lament "youth apathy" - than we need to make the system more accommodating to the life circumstances of young people.

When it comes to the Iowa Caucus, young people face a number of hurdles that older voters do not:

• Their transience - young people typically need to re-register every time they move. Students tend to move every single year.
• The school calendar means that students typically are not in-state during the caucuses.
• Student schedules and workloads tend to be heaviest when the caucuses are just coming onto the national radar.
• Universities do very little (if anything) to promote student participation in local elections.

All of these are contributing factors to lower voting rates among students, and Election Day Registration is a solution to all of these extra hurdles that students face. Absent any proof of fraud at a massive - election changing - level, it's hard to see how Yepsen can justify making it harder for any constituency to participate in the Democratic process.

We wouldn't put a polling place on the 11th floor of a building with no elevator access and no nearby public transportation and then wonder why elderly and handicapped people don't vote. We recognize that polling places should be handicap accessible and centrally located to address the needs of certain demographics who will use it. Absent any solid proof of fraud, how is a law that addresses the special hurdles that students face any different?

At The Washington Post, Chris Cillizza takes a look at the new top ten swing states. This idea of a "swing state" is a little dated, especially since the Democrats adopted the "50 State Strategy" and saw positive results in 2006. But at the end of the day, even if we do compete in all states, a few will be more competitive than others, and it is inevitable that these states will receive an inordinate amount of attention from the media, the campaigns, and 527 organizations looking to influence the outcome.

That said, here are your new swing states. Learn them well.

This looks somewhat familiar. Remember this from November 2004? These are the states where John Kerry would have won the election if only voters under 30 had cast their ballots:

I can't prove any direct connection or major demographic shift in these states at this point, but it definitely bears more looking into. It's also nice to see some states with active youth organizing making the list of "new" swing states (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico).

CIRCLE has released its final data set on the Iowa youth turnout (pdf). Here's a quick snapshot of their findings.

• 13% of all Iowans under the age of 30 participated in the caucus. This was up from 4% in 2004, and 3% in 2000.
• Turnout among those under 30 tripled.
• The younger you went, the higher turnout was. 15% of 17-24 year olds turned out, vs. 9% of those between 25 and 29 years of age.
• 73% of young caucus-goers participated in the Democratic caucus vs. 27% in the republican caucus (46,640 vs. 10,235 out of 64,080 caucus-goers under 30).

The Democratic Caucus

• Young voters made up 22% of Democratic caucus-goers, up from 17% in 2004.
• The majority of young Democratic caucus-goers were female, the reverse was true for the Republican caucus.
• More than 4x as many young independents participated in the Democratic Caucus than the Republican caucus (~9,500 vs 2,000).
• In the Democratic Caucus, Obama drew the support of 57% of both the 17-24 and 25-29 groups.
• Among young caucus-goers in the Democratic caucus, the under 25 group was the most liberal of all demographics. 77% of Democratic caucus-goers under 25 identified as "liberal," compared to 54% of the entire Democratic caucus electorate.

Republican Caucus

• Young voters made up 11% of Republican caucus-goers.
• Among the Republican caucus-goers under 30, 40% of voters under 30 chose Mike Huckabee.
• 65% of caucus-goers under 25 described themselves as "born again" or "evangelical."
• Republican caucus-goers under 25 were the least likely to describe themselves as "very conservative" (30% vs 45% for all caucus goers).

I'll have specific numbers on 2004 turnout and current population for New Hampshire later today. That will be the baseline against which tonight's youth turnout should be measured. But people will inevitably reach for an Iowa comparison as well, and this data from CIRCLE is the best out there.

It's true that Barack Obama brought a lot of new, independent young people into the party (almost 25% of all young democratic caucus-goers), but of particular interest, I thought, were the number of young Democratic caucus-goers who identified as "liberal." That's the face of post-partisanship?