Drake Political Review Volume II I Issue II by Drake Political Review

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2016 I VOLUME 2 I ISSUE 2

CAMPAIGN FINANCE : RETURN ON INVESTMENT INTERNS IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL

DEJÁ VU 1968/2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BUILDING THE VOTE THE PUSH FOR INCREASED VOTER PARTICIPATION. PAGE 09

GLOBAL

ELECTION DEJÁ VU

PAY IT FORWARD

Ryan McKeever

TPP EXPLAINED

DOMESTIC 14

Annelise Escher

John Wingert

KEEPING UP WITH 15 THE KREMLIN Samuel Meyer

BUILDING THE VOTE

MISSING IN ACTION

SO YOU ARE GOING TO WASHINGTON

AN UPHILL BATTLE

GERRYMANDERING

Skylar Borchardt Caroline Closson

Joseline Contreras Muralles

Joseph Fahey

Sarah LeBlanc

Andrea Beck

INCUMBENT FINANCE 12

STRIVING FOR INCLUSION 24 Jacqui Branch

Madison Creger

IA COMMON CORE Julia Wolf

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR This school year has been one to remember for everyone at Drake, and especially for those of us here at Drake Political Review. Our campus has been exceptionally busy the last nine months. We have had candidates visit, debates, town halls and caucus locations. We all share great memories of Hillary Clinton invoking 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street during a debate in Sheslow Auditorium. We all heard Martin O’Malley wax poetically about “upsetting the apple cart,” whatever that means. We even had Donald Trump skip a Fox News debate because he would rather have spent his Thursday night at Drake—even without The Dublin. Whether you attended the debate or town hall, or caucused on February 1, you were a part of it. These memories are things students nowhere else in the country have, but we have them. The question now becomes, what do we do with these memories and these experiences? Well, here we are in May, six months from Election Day. Both parties are in seemingly tight and exciting races to the nomination, which will be determined by July. So between now and November, how will your “Iowa Experience” shape your role in this election? Will you put a ‘Feel the Bern’ sticker on your car or wear a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat? Perhaps you will knock on a few doors or just simply show up to vote on November 8. Whatever you do, do it with your memories from this great year of politics at Drake in mind.

TURN THE PAGE AND LET’S TALK POLITICS.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF JACK HELLIE ART DIRECTOR ASSISTANT ART DIRECTOR ADAM GRAY KAREN KALTENHEUSER COPY EDITOR SARAH LEBLANC

MANAGING EDITOR TAYLOR EISENHAUER

SECTION EDITORS ANDREA BECK MADISON HOLMES JOSEPH FAHEY CONTRIBUTORS ANDREA BECK JACQUI BRANCH JOSEPH FAHEY SKYLAR BORCHARDT SARAH LEBLANC CAROLINE CLOSSON RYAN MCKEEVER MADISON CREGER SAMUEL MEYER JOSELINE CONTRERAS MURALLES JOHN WINGERT ANNELISE ESCHER JULIA WOLF DESIGNERS JOSEPHINE CARRABINE MOLLIE CLARK HANNAH ERICKSON

ADAM GRAY SUSANNA HAYWARD MARGOT STEVENS

EVENTS + PROMOTIONS REBECCA CHRISTOPOULOS ADVISER JENNIFER GLOVER KONFRST SPECIAL THANKS TO The Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, Sarah McCoy, Neil Ward, Alexis Ruskell © SPRING 2016 DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF STUDENT COMMUNICATIONS IDEAS EXPRESSED IN THE MAGAZINE DO NOT REFLECT THOSE OF DRAKE UNIVERSITY

Jack Hellie Editor-in-Chief

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE ENCOURAGED, BUT WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS TO DRAKEPOLITICALREVIEW@GMAIL.COM

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

ELECTION

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING?

DEJÁ VU 1968 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 1968 PRESIDENTIAL RACE MAY HELP HIGHLIGHT THE FLAWS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY PROCESS. WRITTEN BY: RYAN MCKEEVER DESIGNED BY: KAREN KALTENHEUSER It is easy to argue that the 2016 race is bizarre and unprecedented amidst the threats of brokered conventions and the rise of outsider candidates. However, political scientist and Drake Professor Rachel PaineCaufield would beg to differ, arguing that political history is cyclical. When we look closely we can see parallels between our current situations and past events. “We like to think that everything we go through in politics is the first time we go through it, but it’s not,” Caufield said. That’s not to say that the 2016 primary campaigns haven’t seen heightened political tensions. The

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

anti-establishment Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has mocked and confronted both of the parties’ past two nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, maintaining an open disdain for Republican Party elites and their “crooked system.” Yet, despite the controversy around his candidacy, he is leading in the Republican primary. Bernie Sanders remains a political insider with over 20 years of experience in the United States Senate. However, he’s cast himself as a political outsider and has brought to question the primary process that the Democratic Party has created for voters to endure every four years. “The government has no control over how parties nominate their candidate,” Caufield said, “The primaries are entirely a party system.”

With little government oversight, the political primary process creates an opportunity for party infrastructure to greatly impact the candidate-nominating process as the parties make the rules up themselves. Caufield discusses the likelihood of party establishment on either side of the aisle taking the nomination away through a brokered convention. A brokered convention would take place when candidates enter the convention process without the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. In the first round of voting, delegates are tied to the candidate their precinct sent them to vote for. However, if no candidate secures the necessary number of delegates on the first ballot, delegates are free to change their mind and vote as they please. It is on these later ballots that the party establishment could convince delegates to switch

away from a Trump vote to stand behind a more mainstream establishment candidate. Republican candidate John Kasich has even openly admitted that his own path to nomination would be through such a convention. Surely, it seems there has never been anything quite like this race. But, as a political scientist, Caufield is hesitant to believe this is the first time election events have unfolded in just this way. Take the election of 1968. Complete with outside candidates and a brokered democratic convention, it is apparent that the parties might be reliving history as they realign at the close of President Obama’s term. In the 1968 election, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was president and the United States was in the middle of an escalating war in Vietnam. Leading into the primaries, Johnson’s approval ratings had plummeted because of opposition to the Vietnam War, racial unrest, and several other nation-wide issues. After narrowly winning the first primary, it was apparent that the majority of Democrats were overwhelmingly antiwar and disheartened by Johnson’s platform. Recognizing his weaknesses, Johnson dropped out of the election not long after. In response to Johnson’s withdrawal, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered the race as the establishment favorite. However, young and anti-war voters found hope in two opposition candidates, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. McCarthy was an idealistic leader. A “wacky, out-of-the-box senator who was big anti-war and anti-businesses,” Caufield said, “He was the firebrand out there on the campaign trail except he wasn’t a firebrand. He was actually very soft-spoken but a pretty radical guy. He was the anti-candidate in a lot ways and young, anti-war protesters flocked to his campaign.”

McCarthy’s candidacy would be monumental for the Democratic Party, but initially, the party establishment didn’t take him seriously. McCarthy and his young generation of supporters built their campaign without establishment support, creating a grassroots movement that would shock the country. Sound familiar? The story of McCarthy’s rise and success is strikingly similar to that of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. The story doesn’t stop there. Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of former President John F. Kennedy, entered the race around the same time that Johnson withdrew. He was the unifying candidate who could bring together the anti-war liberals and rank and file Democrats. Kennedy had great success garnering support of the Democratic Party establishment and was building a new, broad-based coalition. However, he was tragically shot and killed after winning the California primary in June of 1968, leaving the Democratic nomination to either Eugene McCarthy or Hubert Humphrey. When it came time to name the nominee at the 1968 National Democratic Convention in Chicago, the party was split between several candidates. At this point in history, only a fraction of states had held primaries where citizens voted to decide which candidate their state’s delegates would support. In most states, state party leaders made the choice and a candidate won delegates through backroom negotiations, which left voters feeling disenfranchised and frustrated with the primary process. By convention time, Eugene McCarthy had won six primaries and no other eligible candidate had won more than one. In states with primaries where Democrats were able to voice their opinions, they overwhelmingly chose the anti-war, anti-establishment candidate in

Eugene McCarthy. “These are not people who were sitting around waiting to get involved in electoral politics. They were the un-empowered minority prior to this campaign,” Caufield said of McCarthy’s supporters. Despite McCarthy winning the popular vote, at the brokered convention the party chose Democratic Vice President and Vietnam War supporter Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey had not won any primaries but had focused his efforts on states where he could use his status and influence to win. He had been able to negotiate backroom deals with enough of these state’s leaders to win the nomination. McCarthy supporters, feeling excluded and upset with the convention process, protested in the streets of Chicago. The protests turned violent and the following days turned into a public relations nightmare for the Democratic Party who had demoralized and disenfranchised a large segment of their coalition by slighting McCarthy and nominating Humphrey. Humphrey’s nomination had divorced the party from the people, leaving the democrats unable to recover in the general election. McCarthy never endorsed Humphrey and in November, Humphrey lost to Nixon by more than 100 electoral votes, a landslide victory for Republicans and a major embarrassment for the Democrats. In the aftermath of the 1968 convention, Democratic leaders made some changes. They appointed the McGovern-Fraser Commission, an independent commission that would make recommendations about changes to the party nominating process. Results of the commission lead to aspects of the primary process that today’s voters likely take for

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

granted, such as Iowa’s place as the first in the nation caucus. New rules, such as defining how delegates would be chosen, were a way for the Democratic Party to reach out to previously disenfranchised voters and invite them back into the fold. Republicans also adopted many changes from the McGovern-Fraser Commission. There have been gradual modifications since 1968, creating the patchwork system of rules of the party’s primary process. For example, following the McGovernFraser Commission, there were no “superdelegates,” which are unpledged delegates who are free to support whoever they choose. With time, the Democratic Party has reintroduced superdelegates, a major cry of foul play from the Sander’s campaign. Another example is the disparity in how state parties award delegates. The Democratic Party mandates that all states award delegates on a proportional basis, while the Republican Party forces states with primaries between March 1 and March 14 to be proportionally distributed, but allows all other states to choose between proportional or winner-take-all. These gradual modifications have given way to increased tensions around the primary process, yet again, creating to a chance that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders could play the part of Eugene McCarthy at this year’s Republican or Democratic convention, respectively. “I think you have disempowered minorities out there, and not necessarily racial minorities — people who feel like they have been left out of the system on the Republican or the Democratic side and they’ve found their outsider candidate in either party,” Caufield said. Trump, like McCarthy, is strongly anti-establishment and has secured

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

a broad coalition of disenfranchised voters. He has won a large portion of delegates, but not enough to secure the nomination. If Trump does not win the nomination outright on the first ballot, it could be taken away from him in backroom negotiations. The American public has an expectation that the primary process will be democratic. If either party were to maneuver a deal and choose someone other than who wins the popular vote, it could alienate voters, fracture the party coalition and have disastrous effects in the general election, similar to the outcome of the 1968 election. Although the focus is often on the Republican Party’s looming nomination decision, the Democratic

here is a strong T likelihood that Donald Trump could play the part of Eugene McCarthy at this year’s Republican National Convention. nomination is just as uncertain. There are parallels to be drawn between the 2016 Democratic primary and the 1968 Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders has garnered significant support and his delegate totals from state contests will likely be close to Clinton’s. This means that the 718 superdelegates, whom many Bernie supporters distrust, could be the deciding factor. Furthermore, Clinton has locked up most superdelegates, and the more important they are to her victory, the more Sanders supporters will question the fairness of the primary system. Like any political scientist, Caufield teaches the lessons of these historical

parallels, explaining that we may be able to predict what changes might result from 2016. With the increasing partisanship and vitriol that we have seen in this election cycle, there are legitimate concerns about the effects of a brokered convention. Just as it did in 1968, a brokered convention could marginalize voters in the electoral process and increase distrust in our political parties and government institutions. However, it could also highlight the expectations the American public has about the primary process and provide an opportunity for the system to correct itself and reflect these expectations. Some significant rule changes could come from this primary cycle. Republicans could attempt to lessen the power of anti-establishment candidates like Trump by adding superdelegates. Alternatively, Republicans might change how states award delegates and make it more democratic by looking to a system of proportional representation. On the other side, Bernie supporters could convince the Democratic Party to get rid of superdelegates once and for all. Parties are responsible for representing the views of their members. If there is a disconnect between the party leaders and how its members expect primaries to work, 2016 offers a chance for that disconnect to be closed. “1968 fundamentally transformed the way primaries work, which should reassure people,” Caufield sad. “The system has evolved and will continue to evolve. Everything is going to be okay.” RYAN MCKEEVER IS A JUNIOR POLITICS AND ECONOMICS MAJOR. RYAN IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

ELECTION

PAY IT FORWARD WHAT’S THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR CAMPAIGN DONORS? WRITTEN BY: JOHN WINGERT DESIGNED BY: JOSEPHINE CARRABINE

money? Is it worth their while? In 2012, Pope donated extensively to Pat McCrory, the first Republican to win the North Carolina gubernatorial race in more than two decades. Upon Governor McCrory’s victory, Pope became North Carolina’s chief budget director.

In North Carolina, there is one man who has carried inordinate sway in regional politics — a balding, middleaged man named Art Pope. In 2010, Pope, head of Variety Wholesalers, a conglomerate of discount stores, gave One Republican lobbyist in Raleigh $2.2 million in 22 North Carolina told The Washington Post that Pope state legislative campaigns. His family “drives the budgetary policy goals of and corporate holdings accounted the administration . . . The governor for three quarters of all spending for yields to Art.” legislative races in the state. On top of that, 18 of the 22 candidates he In bankrolling a campaign, it is supported won their races to become critical to assess how much this North Carolina state legislators. endeavor will cost. For the 2012 cycle, Whether it is energy, credit products, the average candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives had to raise military industries or pharmaceuticals, just under $650,000. Over $200,000 many major industries spend a great on average came from political action deal of funds on both campaign committees (PACs). In the U.S. Senate, contributions and lobbying specific the average campaign needed almost pieces of legislation. The real question $2.8 million. is: What do they get for all of this

These races came after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010, which eliminated limits on certain forms of political expenditures from PACs. Races in 2014 showed that expenditures from outside groups more than doubled. Even though it was a less-attended midterm election, $486 million was spent nationwide in 2014. Campaign funds are usually spent on techniques, employees and advertisements that are necessary to win elections. Evidence has shown that the more money that is spent, the more votes a candidate can expect to garner. Direct mailings to potential voters have been shown to be effective at increasing votes cast in favor of the candidate sending them. Several studies have worked with campaigns to randomly distribute mailings to a candidate’s constituents. Some have

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

found that incumbents can get an extra vote for every $15 spent on direct mailings. Challengers to an incumbent politician typically have to spend less for the same result, as little as $12 on direct mailings to gain a vote. On average, votes in these elections would cost $13.50. At $13.50 per vote by only using direct mailings, the average U.S. House of Representatives campaign could “buy” over 48,000 votes with the average price tag of $650,000. The average amount of people per House district is 710,767. At that rate, about seven percent of the population could be won over by direct mailings, enough to have swayed 36 House elections in 2014. Republicans have their current majority by only 30 seats, making fundraising crucial to both the candidate’s success and the success of the party. Since money can affect whether a politician is employed, it makes potential donors a hot commodity. What sort of incentive can donors expect for the money they have given to a candidate’s campaign? It is entirely possible that wealthy donors give money to particular campaigns based on principle or personal political beliefs and expect nothing in return. They may back a particular party or a candidate whom they would prefer over other options. What, then, motivates donors to give to both sides of an election? Robert Addison Day is the founder and chairman of the TCW Group, an investment management consortium that manages over $150 billion in assets. In the 2016 field, Robert Day has donated millions to candidates like Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie on the Republican side. However, Day has also donated to Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. This happened with the UA Political Education Committee, a Super PAC for plumbers’ unions, which has

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

given two million dollars in campaign contributions this election cycle. It has given the majority of its cash to Hillary Clinton, but it has also aided the campaigns of Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz. There has to be a reason that there were donations to multiple campaigns with opposing, often antipathetic views. What do big donors get out of contributing to campaigns that may or may not agree with their political inclinations? To use Rick Perry as an example, of the nearly 4,000 political appointments that he filled while governor of Texas, about one fourth of them were filled by campaign contributors. These same appointees donated $17 million to Perry between 2001 and 2010. In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal has faced similar criticism. Three hundred seventeen of the political appointees in the state were donors to his campaign. These donors had given 13 percent of the $13.3 million that Jindal raised between 2008 and 2012. In some cases from Jindal’s campaign, these appointments reached dangerously close to quid pro quo cause and effect. In one case, Robert Heitmeier, a riverboat pilot, donated $1,400 on March 3, 2011. Less than three weeks later, Governor Jindal appointed Robert Heitmeier to chair a board that regulates and oversees riverboat pilots. That is not to say that Heitmeier was unqualified or undeserving, but the timing of his appointment shortly after a campaign donation raises questions, whereas someone who had not donated would not face or deserve such scrutiny. In Florida, former Governor Charlie Crist accepted funds from convicted Ponzi scheme perpetrator Scott Rothstein. Rothstein had mob connections, cheated hapless investors and spent money on luxury cars, prostitutes and even a gold

toilet. Rothstein’s total campaign contributions to Crist totaled almost $3 million. After winning his election, Crist appointed Rothstein to a Judicial Nominating Commission, a body that recommends people of high ethical standing and legal knowledge for Florida courts of appeal. As Rothstein described it after being arrested and interrogated in 2010, “I had significant influence with the governor on judicial appointments to the circuit bench in Broward County. It was quid pro quo between the governor and [me].” While these are only a few anecdotes, they are emblematic of the larger issues facing the country. According to the American Foreign Service Association, 40 percent of Obama’s ambassador nominees were not career diplomats. Appointees like Colleen Bradley Bell and Noah Bryson Mamet never visited the countries to which they were to be ambassadors, but they had, conveniently, donated half a million dollars to Obama’s campaign. In a particularly telling case, George Tsunis, a New York businessman and Obama donor, was nominated to be ambassador to Norway. Tsunis had never been to Norway. In his Senate hearing, he commented about their president, a title that does not exist in Norway due to its constitutional monarchy, which rests upon a king and prime minister. After some unanticipated backlash to these deficiencies, Tsunis was eventually rejected for the ambassadorship. Ambassadorships to long-term allies are traditionally awarded to big donors, and although there was outcry over Tsunis, most would say that Norway does not require an extraordinary amount of attention in U.S. diplomacy. However, the trend of donor ambassadorships has extended to increasingly contentious areas like Hungary.

Colleen Bradley Bell, mentioned above, was appointed ambassador to Hungary after a successful career producing soap operas. When questioned about the strategic issues facing the United States in Hungary, Bell vaguely mentioned “improve upon as I mentioned the security relationship, and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade.” At no point did Bell mention Russian policy nearby, nor did she make note of the increasingly authoritarian regime of Viktor Orban in Hungary. Orban’s Hungary, despite being a member of the European Union and NATO, has cracked down on journalists, NGOs and free speech. Bell did not mention any of these important developments in her hearings. Let’s say you are investing in a campaign, and so far things are looking pretty good. You could get a hold on an entire state’s budget. You could hold a key ambassadorship. Let us suppose, however, that you are more interested in the occasional influence, rather than permanent positions. You do not need or want to be in D.C., Austin or Baton Rouge all of the time. Instead, you would simply rather have the candidates listen to you when you call. You are in luck. One study found that donors have an easier path into communications with an office holder. Researchers at Yale called members of the United States Congress. They randomly decided whether this member of Congress would be informed that the constituent calling was a donor to see if that affected the outcome of the meeting. Although constituents who called simply as concerned citizens were often able to schedule meetings of some sort, they were often with low-level constituent services staffers. When the office learned that the caller was a benefactor, the caller was able to meet with the chief of staff or the Member of Congress 12.5 percent of the time. The unconnected constituent

only met with them 2.4 percent of the time. And what sorts of policies do you advocate for when you get your representative’s ear? Maybe there is a juicy federal contract on the table. After holding a firm’s size, capability and reputation constant, firms that donate more to congressional campaigns tend to receive more government contracts. A study done by the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory found that for every $201,220 in campaign contributions, a company

Campaign funds are spent on techniques that are necessary to win elections. Evidence has shown that the more money that is spent, the more votes a candidate can expect to garner.

should expect an average of 107 additional government contracts. That same study found data from the Federal Procurement Data System in 2006 that showed the average government contract was worth $49,800; this means that 107 contracts would total $5.3 million in new revenue or more than 26 times what the company invested in campaign contributions—not a bad return. Another study from the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago looked at campaign contributions at the state level. This study found that for every dollar of campaign contributions from the business sector, corporate taxes lowered in that state by $6.65 while holding other variables constant. This seems like a very good

business decision and for a man like Art Pope, who donated $2.2 million in 2010 and was then placed in control of the state budget. It could mean serious dividends: $2.2 million in campaign contributions would equate to $14.63 million in saved corporate taxes by the math of this study. This trend holds true in lobbying expenses, too. Companies that spend money on lobbying in addition to their campaign contributions can expect further returns on their investment. According to the American Journal of Political Science, lobbying is directly related to tax rates. The average total lobbying expenditure of the sample firms was $779,945 and the average tax rate was 22.9 percent. Among these firms, the researchers demonstrated that every 1 percent of additional lobbying expenditures, or every $7,799, reaps tax benefits ranging from $4.8 million to $16 million in saved tax dollars. Every additional dollar spent on lobbying was equivalent to $6 to $20 in tax benefits for the firm that spent on it. This poses yet another situation in which political spending results in returns worth tens of times more than the initial investment. Whether seeking a budgetary office, power over judicial appointments, subsidized European trips or simply the ability to obtain a congressperson’s ear, your investment in campaign bankrolling may very well be worth the money. JOHN WINGERT IS A JUNIOR POLITICS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND HISTORY MAJOR. JOHN IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

ELECTION

BUILDING THE VOTE

THE PUSH FOR INCREASED VOTER PARTICIPATION. WRITTEN BY: JOSEPH FAHEY PHOTO BY: JACK HELLIE The last four presidential elections have only produced an average of 55 percent turnout of eligible voters. Some see low turnout as a threat to a democracy, while others worry about making voting too easy and allowing election fraud. Major steps have been taken to increase registration, but some states have placed restrictions on voter registration in an effort to curtail voter fraud. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration enacted the Voting Rights Act to guarantee the right to vote as stated in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Passing the Act enfranchised racial minorities and prohibited states from enacting restrictions deemed discriminatory to minorities. The 26th Amendment to the

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

Constitution was passed in 1971 and allowed citizens 18 years of age and older to vote for the first time. The change took place because of the anti-war movement during that era and a desire to give those who may fight in wars a say in government. While this increased the eligible voting population, it did not increase turnout for 18-to-24-year-olds. In 1993, the Clinton administration also sought to further the advancement of voter registration in the U.S. by passing the Motor Voter Act, which required states to provide voter registration at local DMVs. It makes registration easier for those participating in government programs, such as food stamps and disability, and those serving in the armed forces. California recently became the second state to register voters automatically any time they renew or receive their driver’s licenses or state

identification cards. Oregon was the first state to enact what some are calling the “New Motor Voter Act.” Its proponents believe that this policy will ease the process of voting and encourage more participation. On the other hand, there have been concerns about fraud as voting and registering to vote gets easier for all. States like Wisconsin have tried to curtail voter fraud by requiring more official documents in order to register. Who should vote and how easy it should be are a central questions in any democracy. As polarization in politics increases, the fight over who can vote will only get tougher. JOSEPH FAHEY IS A JUNIOR STRATEGIC POLITICAL COMMUNICATION MAJOR. JOSEPH IS A STAFF EDITOR FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

ELECTION

MISSING IN ACTION THE ABSENCE OF YOUTH VOTERS AT THE POLLS. WRITTEN BY: ANDREA BECK DESIGNED BY: ADAM GRAY Youth voters are notoriously difficult to pin down during elections. Though they can be some of the most vocal, passionate supporters during campaigns, they are often absent at the polls. And when they do vote in relatively large numbers, such as in the 2008 presidential election, the Pew Research Center reports that their voting block is often not strong enough to shift the outcome significantly. Despite this, candidates in the 2016 presidential election — particularly Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders — have been courting youth voters in order to secure their support. Historically, voters between the ages of 18 and 24 — what the United States Census Bureau classifies as the youth voting block — have consistently had the lowest turnout

rates when compared to other age groups. The earliest statistics available show that 50.9 percent of citizens aged 18 to 24 voted in the 1964 presidential election. But their numbers have been steadily declining since then with a few exceptions. After declining for decades, turnout among youth voters briefly spiked in 1992, right before plummeting to an all-time low at 32.4 percent in 1996. But since this sharp drop-off, voter turnout in the youth voting block was briefly on the rise before dropping down again to 45 percent in 2012. Though this may sound like a reasonable turnout, it appears dismal when compared to the turnout from the 65-and-above age block in 2012: 72 percent. Brianna Steirer, president of Drake University’s Drake Democrats, attributed this low turnout to young voters being split between a variety of social issues and failing to unite for a single cause.

“I don’t know if we’ve really found the ability to organize at this point,” Steirer said. “I don’t think it’s that young people don’t care, I just don’t think they understand the outlet they can use to be politically engaged.” When young voters do show up at the polls, they tend to support Democratic candidates overwhelmingly. In the 2008 presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain, voters aged 18 to 29 accounted for only 18 percent of the total votes cast — but among those who voted, 66 percent supported Obama, while only 32 percent voted for McCain. This trend continued in the 2012 presidential election, where only 19 percent of voters were part of the youth voting block. In this case, 60 percent voted for Obama compared to only 37 percent for Mitt Romney. Logan Kentner, president of Drake’s

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

College Republicans, attributes this while Carson created a rap radio ad, a split to young people’s tendency to clear attempt to engage millennials. focus on the present. Despite these attempts, Sanders “It’s cool to fight for social justice has been most successful thus far at and fight for the social issues because engaging young voters. The senator at this point in our lives, we’re not from Vermont has gained a huge paying substantial amounts of taxes,” majority among young voters in Kentner said. “You don’t necessarily nearly every state to host a primary see taxing as such a big issue. We’re or caucus thus far. In Iowa, the first not looking for full-time jobs yet. state to weigh in on the candidates for We’re not the ones getting laid off. the presidential race, Sanders carried So we’re not looking at those issues an astounding 84 percent of voters as much.” aged 18 to 29 compared to Hillary Clinton’s meager 14 percent. According to Pew Research Center, despite the fact that there was an Jay Manley, a volunteer for the Bernie increase in turnout for young voters Sanders campaign, mentioned that in the 2008 presidential election, this young voters are still considered higher turnout did not significantly important by candidates because of shift the outcome of the election. their potential to become lifelong Without such strong support from party members and voters. the youth voting block, Obama likely would have lost in Indiana “What Bernie and Hillary are saying and North Carolina. However, even is that they are reaching out to the with lower youth turnout or support, youth because they know that the he still likely would have won in the youth are the future,” Manley said. swing states of Ohio and Florida and “To get that youth vote is as important, secured the overall national if not more important, than the popular vote. older generation votes. I think the youth have as much of a say as any While it is unlikely that Obama generation does.” would have lost the election even with lower rates of youth support, “I bet the polls are going to show young people were still crucial to his that there’s going to be a higher campaign. Many were volunteers, and number of youth this year,” Manley others may have used their enthusiasm said, basing this view on a high to convince older family members turnout of young voters at the and friends to vote for him. As Iowa caucuses. Pew Research Center reports, though they are often less likely Part of Sanders’ appeal seems to to vote, in 2008 many more young come from his campaign platform and people reported attending a campaign promises, most of which event when compared to those in target millennials, such as advocating older voting blocks. for public college education as a right for everyone, not just those who can Though young voters rarely show afford it. His plan to make higher up in large numbers, and don’t have education at public universities more much impact on the outcome affordable undoubtedly appeals to of elections when they do, many millennials struggling with loans and candidates still court the youth voting financial aid. block. Several candidates, such as Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson, have Commenting specifically on Sanders’ sought to appeal directly to young economic policies, Steirer said, “I voters through pop culture references think [Sanders] is resonating with a and interacting with them on Twitter. shared experience of young people. Huckabee released a campaign ad Our generation was born into an parodying Adele’s hit song “Hello,” economy that was not working for us.” 11

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

Part of the appeal of the youth voting block may come from its diversity. According to Pew Research Center, in the 2008 election, 62 percent of young voters aged 18 to 29 identified as white with 18 percent identifying as black and 14 percent as Hispanic. By comparison, in the 30-to-44 age block, 71 percent of voters identified as white and 79 percent were white in the 45-to-64 age group. The over-65 age block had the lowest diversity among voters with 84 percent identifying as white. This makes the youth voter block the most diverse by far and suggests continued diversity, which is supported by demographics from previous voting years. In 2004, the young voter age block was 68 percent white, and in 2000, 74 percent of young voters identified as white. For candidates looking to show broad appeal, attracting the support of the diverse youth voter block may be a way to promote diversity within their own campaigns. As Manley and Steirer mentioned, Sanders is looking to start a political revolution and bring about big changes in the United States – ones that will specifically impact millennials. But millennials, and everyone else who support these changes and want to see them implemented, have to get out and vote, says Manley. “I think not voting is the worst thing that anybody can do,” Manley said. “Voting can fix the problem.” ANDREA BECK IS A SOPHOMORE MAGAZINES AND ENGLISH MAJOR. ANDREA IS A STAFF EDITOR FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

ELECTION

INCUMBENT CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN AN ERA OF CHANGING CAMPAIGN FINANCE, INCUMBENTS MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES AS THEY DID IN THE PAST. WRITTEN BY: MADISON CREGER DESIGNED BY: ADAM GRAY In his 2014 campaign for re-election, Republican Rep. and incumbent candidate Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin faced Democratic businessman Chris Rockwood in a seemingly straight- forward campaign. Rep. Sensenbrenner raised more than $435,000 compared to his opponent’s $13,918 and handily won the election with over two-thirds of the vote, which could be contributed to Rep. Sensenbrenner’s lengthy tenure in office and history with Wisconsin voters — a classic case of what political scientists have long termed the “incumbent advantage.” Alexander Fouirnaies of the London School of Economics and Andrew B. Hall of Harvard University sum up the incumbent advantage in the Journal of Politics when they demonstrate the

more than $250,000 lead in campaign contributions incumbents see when compared with first time candidates. Whether it is due to name recognition or their proven record, incumbent candidates see huge advantages when seeking re-election, otherwise known as the incumbent advantage. Nicole Schlinger, an Iowa political operative with over 20 years of experience in campaign finance, discusses how this advantage tends to serve incumbent candidates well. “It’s pretty rare for an underfunded challenger to knock off the height of American politics,” Schlinger said. “Most incumbents win most of the time, and they usually have more money than those they are running against.”

While this major advantage appears to set incumbent candidates up for easy re-election campaigns, developments in campaign finance law over the last 30 years initially threatened incumbents’ overwhelming advantage. The 1970s ushered in an era of congressional action to restrict campaign finance - and incumbents were the ones to feel the pressure. Laws such as the Federal Election Commission Act of 1974 (FECA) began a chain of legislation that would entirely change the game of campaign finance, restricting spending from some groups and opening loopholes to others. One such loophole was gifted to unions and corporations who donate to party infrastructure, such as a Congressional Campaign Committee (CCC). A CCC is an independent

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

committee that supports elected re-election, has led incumbents officials on one side of the political such as Rep. Sensenbrenner to aisle or the other politically overcompensate by cultivating and financially. “war-chests” with more money than a campaign might need in Years later, the Bipartisan Campaign order to avoid potential threats. Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) would attempt to fix the loopholes created in The common tendency to overthe 1970s. BCRA was passed to limit correct has been termed the “Strategic the donation of soft money, or indirect Actor Perspective.” When Citizen’s contributions free of legal limitations, United and subsequent rulings from unions and corporations. The began to chip away at campaign sudden change in the political contribution restrictions, this environment from this new legislation tendency to overcorrect exploded and led to an abrupt need for new sources incumbents began to get creative i of donations to ensure that these n the ways they raised money. CCCs could continue their electoral support of party leaders. Committees “Citizens United allows unlimited started to look inward, increasing spending from outside organizations, pressure on incumbent candidates to such as Super PACs, that make fill the gaps of the missing money. members of Congress more risk averse to spending money,” Heberlig The game of a CCC is often just said. “If an outside interest group can as political as it is financial. When a swoop into your district and spend legislator gives more, they get more. money, you have an incentive to keep As these committees became more that money just in case, so that you powerful and helpful, incumbent can defend yourself.” candidates take advantage of the political and financial benefits Fortunately for incumbents, of buying into them, and thus reduced restrictions on campaign Congressional Campaign Committees contributions, such as those that became even more influential. Prior come from Super PACs, have helped to the 1970s, CCCs rarely sought them as well. Heberlig explained money from incumbent party leaders. that the 2010 cycle was a little messy for congressional incumbents “Traditionally they [parties] as the country was just beginning to haven’t done that,” said Eric Heberlig, understand the full consequences of professor of political science at the Citizen’s United decision. the University of North Carolina Charlotte. “This changed for two “Traditionally, we’ve thought of the reasons. One is that either party can incumbent advantage as part of their win majority control in the house, ability to raise money and scare away whereas between the 1940s and 1994, candidates who don’t have that kind the Democrats were overwhelmingly of money in the bank,” Heberlig said. in control. The second element was “I think Citizens United opens up that the parties understood that an alternative venue for challengers the dynamic had changed. They because all they need is one or two specifically linked positions small donors.” of power in congress with a member’s willingness to With the help of political action give money.” committees (PACs), incumbent candidates are able to separate funds Incumbents, expected to donate to serve their own election ambitions more money to their party committees, and those of the party’s CCCs. felt the pressure and started seeking By developing a leadership PAC, more money themselves. This a candidate can solicit funds from burden, along with the fear of losing

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

major donors for other candidate’s elections across the country and keep the funds in a separate account. In essence, Citizens United has allowed candidates to serve the their own interests and those of their Congressional Campaign Committees. The incumbent advantage might not be going anywhere, but the effects of campaign finance reform can be felt across the country. “The thing that I’ve seen over the years is just the number of people that are getting involved has exploded,” Schlinger said. “We’ve had years and years of the number of people involved going down. But, the hundreds of thousands of people giving $50 is unbelievable. The nice thing is that real people can still make a difference.” MADISON CREGER IS A JUNIOR STRATEGIC POLITICAL COMMUNICATION MAJOR. SHE IS A STAFF EDITOR FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

GLOBAL

[ BREAKING DOWN THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP[ 12 SIGNATORY COUNTRIES AUSTRALIA BRUNEI CANADA CHILE

LOWERS BARRIERS TO TRADE

JAPAN MALAYSIA MEXICO NEW ZEALAND

PERU SINGAPORE UNITED STATES VIETNAM

AMONG ALL 1 2 COUNTRIES

40%

YEARS OF NEGOTIATIONS

OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

RATIFICATION COULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS

CONDITIONS WOULD NOT BE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED

WOULD GENERATE 14 BILLION DOLLARS IN 2 0 2 5 ALONE

NOT UNIVERSALLY SUPPORTED

WORDS BY: ANNELISE ESCHER DESIGN BY: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

ANNELISE ESCHER IS A SOPHOMORE QUANTITATIVE ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MAJOR. SHE IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

GLOBAL

KEEPING UP WITH THE KREMLIN GRIPPING DOMESTIC POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY MAKE RUSSIA ALMOST REALITY SHOW-WORTHY. WRITTEN BY: SAMUEL MEYER DESIGNED BY: MOLLIE CLARK Two years after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, tensions between the U.S. and Russia, America’s most notorious “frenemy,” seem to be as high as ever. Through its military intervention in the Syrian conflict, a European Union still off-balance from a refugee crisis, continued involvement in Eastern Europe and continued economic sanctions in place via NATO, it’s hard to talk about collective security — or contemporary international relations — without talking about what’s going on in Russia. The Russian Federation sees their airstrikes in Syria as a military triumph as the advance of U.S.backed rebels was impeded and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

remains in place, at least temporarily. Russia’s involvement in Syria can seem like a convenient distraction from its domestic problems. Russian President Vladimir Putin struggles with an economy that yields little structural integrity — the ruble, Russia’s currency, saw its value cut in half since the annexation of Crimea, and the drop of oil prices has hurt the Russian economy. Russia’s financial situation certainly isn’t helped by the continued economic sanctions resulting from continued involvement in Ukraine. Putin’s administration largely attempts to counter these trends with military spending and propaganda. Even if his constituents see a lowered standard of living, what’s important is that they feel safe and protected. Thanks partially to his efforts to keep his administration on the good side of the public, Russia is painted as a powerful force leading the fight

against its enemy of choice — the corrupt, bureaucratic oppression of Brussels and Washington. With looming sanctions and high tensions presumed to continue, where does America’s relationship with Russia stand, and what will Russia’s next move be? Many of Russia’s current struggles have roots in Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. The current military intervention began taking shape in early 2010 with the election of proRussian President Viktor Yanukovych, who took no time in forming closer ties with Moscow. Though his actions saw some pushback from the Ukrainian people, Yanukovych allowed for continued Russian presence in the Black Sea as well as continued military presence, and in 2013 backed out of an Association Agreement with the EU. These moves contributed to the 2014 uprising,

which ended up overthrowing the government and causing Yanukovych to flee the capital of Kiev. While Moscow had been looking to widen their control on Ukraine long before the uprising, Putin chose March 2014 as the time to strike. Unmarked Russian troops began securing military checkpoints in the Crimean peninsula as well as other areas of Ukraine. Control over Crimea quickly fell under unilateral Russian control by mid-March. Responses from the U.S. and NATO countries occurred almost immediately. The U.S. pledged $1 billion in aid to Ukraine on March 4, 2014 as well as ceased military cooperation with Russia (along with France, Canada, Norway and the UK). Prior to the annexation of Crimea, there was an existing cooperative relationship between the Russian Federation and NATO. Russia signed onto the Partnership for Peace program in 1994, and although it was never a part of the organization itself, there was an established military alliance and a Russia-NATO Council in place beginning in the early 2000s. These tense but functioning relationships were almost entirely cut off on April 1, 2014, when NATO condemned Russia for violating Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. Since then, tensions reminiscent of the Cold War have increased. Roughly a month later, Russia conducted a wide-range drill simulating U.S./NATO nuclear attacks, and began moving nuclear-capable bombers into Crimea. In response, NATO launched the “Spearhead Force” in December of 2014 that increased NATO presence and troops in Eastern Europe. Moreover, in June 2015, the U.S. announced a plan to move heavy artillery into several Eastern European countries, which was described by the Russian Defense Ministry as “the most aggressive act by Washington since the Cold War.” It’s worth noting that there

have been breakdowns in NATO’s relationship with Russia in the past, namely in the late 1990s with Yugoslavia and Kosovo, as well as in 2008 with Georgia. The current situation is rather unprecedented, however, even going back to Cold War relations. Drake University politics professor Kieran Williams notes that while the Cold War had rules, these rules are out the window now — the current situation yields much more unpredictability. Enter the Syrian conflict, in which Russia began airstrikes in the region in September 2015 after a formal request for support by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. By March of 2016, however, Russia ceased airstrikes and Putin made comments reminiscent of President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003, declaring the Russian intervention as generally successful and complete. Talking about where the U.S. stands with Russia now cannot be done without talking about the bigger picture of Russian attitudes, which are the result of years of economic turbulence, media propaganda, meticulously calculated policy decisions and the way Russia has framed itself in the eyes of the Russian people, especially in relation to the West. Putin and his administration have taken careful and arguably necessary steps to secure their power; as a result, they’ve shaped the culture and the attitudes of their constituents. Despite claims from the Kremlin in Moscow that tough economic times are over, the Russian economy has been struggling for a number of years. This is partially due to NATO sanctions, but has more to do with the declining oil prices. The Russian Government, according to Vox, relies on oil taxes for half of its budget, and is currently considering controversial new oil taxes to boost revenues. Oil export revenues have decreased sharply since 2014, and this has had catastrophic effects across the board:

2015 saw a 4 percent contraction of the economy. With this struggling economy, how could Putin frame his administration in a favorable light? His answer: focus on a strong military and aggressive foreign policy, painting his presidency as a wartime one. This has partially to do with fear, partially with image and, as Williams puts it, the “internal consumption of the Putin brand.” With parliamentary elections being held this coming September, branding Russia and securing its sphere of influence has perhaps less to do with the international community. It’s about image for the sake of image: whatever must be done to promote that brand will be done. This image is first and foremost an image of power, or at least perceived power. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its participation in the Syrian conflict have much in common: namely, that they were framed to make Russia look like a major force of military strength. America represents not only an enemy but a fierce competitor. Anti-Americanism has become a necessary component of contemporary Russian dialogue. Participation in Syria and even Ukraine can thus be seen less as political but more tactical: Russia creates and perpetuates situations that, according to Williams, cannot be solved further without Russian participation. Media outlets and propaganda have been bolstering Russia’s image as a powerful and important force to be reckoned with — the West’s equal. Russia’s undermining of NATO and the U.S. is not just the byproduct of foreign policy — it means something in itself, and it must be publicized relentlessly. SAMUEL MEYER IS A JUNIOR BIOLOGY MAJOR. SAMUEL IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

DOMESTIC

Photo couresy of U.S. Senate, Skylar Borchardt pictured with Senator Al Franken (D-MN)

D.C. INTERNS - ON THE HILL TIPS AND TRICKS WRITTEN BY: SKYLAR BORCHARDT · Don’t be upset with the mundane tasks. As an intern, you will sort mail, answer phones and give tours—it comes with the territory. Do these jobs to the best of your ability, and if you do these tasks well, your intern coordinator and other staffers will notice and be appreciative. Believe it or not, they do help out the entire office. · When discussing your internship with other interns or around the district, never use the name of the Senator or Congressman you are interning for. Use the term “the boss” or “my boss.” · Be on time, which is 10 to 15 minutes early. If you’re taking the Metro, be sure to leave your self some extra time in case of delays. · Get coffee with staffers. “Getting coffee” is the term many staffers use for networking. Send an email asking

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

a staffer to go grab a coffee during a work day to learn more about their job and their journey. You’ll want to be in their position one day and this is an easy way to make important connections.

or evening. Also, check out the Congressional Baseball Game if you can. It usually occurs in June and showcases the Democrats against the Republicans – last year President Obama even made an appearance.

· Meet up with other Drake Alumni. The Regional Advisory Board of D.C. Drake Alumni usually hosts a reception for interns, so try your best to attend it. I made some valuable connections, and it is nice to have a common connection. You never know who you might meet.

· Ask questions. If you’re unsure of

· Take day trips outside of the District. Amtrak makes other cities, including Baltimore and even New York City, easy to get to and on an intern budget. D.C has so much to offer, but it is an amazing experience to get out of the District for a weekend. · Attend Nationals Games. Even if you aren’t a huge baseball fan the games are cheap ($5 day-of tickets) and they are an easy way to spend an afternoon

anything, whether it is your boss’ position on a bill, where a hearing room is or even how to properly address an envelope (there is specific protocol in Congress), it is better to ask and do it right than not ask and do it wrong. You are a reflection of your entire office, which is an extension of the state or district as a whole.

SKYLAR BORCHARDT IS A JUNIOR POLITICS AND LAW, POLITICS AND SOCIETY MAJOR. SKYLAR IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW. LAST SUMMER, SKYLAR INTERNED IN SENATOR AL FRANKEN’S (D-MN) OFFICE.

DOMESTIC

Photo courtesy of Sam Nitz, Emily’s List Staffer, featuring interns with Lori Taylor (center), state and local campaigns director

D.C. INTERNS - OFF THE HILL WORDS OF WISDOM WRITTEN BY: CAROLINE CLOSSON · It is better to be overdressed than underdressed. Everyone has a different home state definition of business casual. I would venture to say that Iowa (and the Midwest) leans toward the casual, relaxed side of business casual. D.C. does not. D.C. residents often stay in work clothes to go to happy hour or cocktail parties, which is a hint to show up in the same attire rather than a more casual look. Do not show up to a professional cocktail party (or work, for that matter) in an outfit you would wear to go out. · Research living arrangements: Many interns will apply for Washington Intern Student Housing (WISH) or live in the dorms of the many universities in the city, all with varying price ranges. I lived in a George Washington University dorm in Foggy Bottom with basic amenities and an excellent location. However, I

had a few intern cohorts who figured out the wonders of subleasing in D.C. I would recommend looking on Craigslist or ApartmentFinder. · Buy a prefilled Metro card. · Have coffee with the people you want to be someday. If you are an unpaid intern, you will learn the greatness of free coffee and office food soon. But really, you are interning at an organization for which you might love to work for one day, and you could be meeting well-known executives. Shoot them an email asking to have coffee and talk about career advice. This is an excellent way to make connections and start to shape what you want your career to look like and the path you might take to get there.

· Say yes. D.C. is a town that never sleeps. Take advantage of that. You are in a city with a bunch of young, smart, like-minded people for a short

amount of time, so go befriend them. · Enjoy your surroundings. You have access to the monuments, memorials and museums that are amazing and free. There is so much to see, and you have all summer to enjoy all of these things. One of my favorite parts of living and working in D.C. was the walk home from work each night. · Make brunch reservations: D.C. prides itself on being one of the best places to brunch. I would highly recommend making reservations a day in advance, particularly on holiday weekends.

CAROLINE CLOSSON IS A JUNIOR POLITICS AND STRATEGIC POLITICAL COMMUNICATION MAJOR. CAROLINE IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW. LAST SUMMER, CAROLINE INTERNED AT EMILY’S LIST (PAC) IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

DOMESTIC

AN UPHILL BATTLE REBELLIOUS AND TRAILBLAZING WOMEN ARE FIGHTING TO PARTICIPATE IN AMERICAN POLITICS—DESPITE THE OBSTACLES. WRITTEN BY: JOSELINE CONTRERAS MURALLES DESIGNED BY: KAREN KALTENHEUSER For much of American political history, politics has been an exclusive, all-boys club with an impenetrable barrier to women. Women have scarcely been as involved as men, especially when it comes to holding leadership positions. Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, says women in politics, unlike in medicine and business, face a steeper uphill climb than their male counterparts. This often leads to a lack of representation for women in politics, skewing the political agenda to masculine issues and creating an overall demoralizing effect for future generations.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

Arthur Sanders, associate provost for curriculum and assessment at Drake University, has taught a course about women in politics. In the course, Sanders discusses the gender disparity in politics and the impact this visual misrepresentation has on young women. Criticism toward women seeking positions of power often causes younger girls to think that, as Sanders says, women are often labeled as “bossy” while men are “authoritative.” The truth is, no matter which side of the aisle they stand on, women in both parties face harsher criticisms for their desire to lead and hold positions of public office. In other fields, there are training programs that allow for an even chance in opportunities. However,

in politics women are frequently subjected to scrutiny because men and women are viewed differently as leaders. Sanders says that this is not arbitrary but rather an established social construct about gender. “There was a study done some years ago about the societal images we have regarding leaders and gender,” Sanders said. “Not surprisingly, there was a stronger correlation between men and leader than women and leader. Women almost have to fight for the role of leader and men are expected to lead.” Women must delicately balance between their femininity and their assertiveness, such as embracing their emotions without also restraining their ability to make tough decisions. “Male politicians and female politicians are judged differently,” Sanders said. “The way the media

covers them, we know, is different. When Bernie Sanders looks disheveled it’s a sign of his authenticity and passion. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would be attacked for her appearance because we expect women to always be at their best and if they are not they are not considered fit for office.” If their appearance does not come into play, the way their personality is perceived will. Female candidates like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Joni Ernst and Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton have to portray their passion and ambition in a way that is not threatening. “Vocal women, myself included, are perceived as strident or angry or worse,” said Republican Iowa State Sen. Amy Sinclair. “Vocal men are passionate.” This way of viewing strong women is only exacerbated if they are running for higher office, according to Sanders. The words “power hungry” and “emasculating” are often used to describe women who seek the executive offices and leadership roles that their male counterparts hold. Leading from Behind In a field led by a male majority, women have found ways to make a positive impact in their community. Although women have not been holding public office for as long as men, they have been involved with politics behind the scenes, often rising up from local boards and commissions. Juanita Zavala is a member of the Ottumwa School Board. As a single mother, Zavala decided to become more involved with her daughters’ school. Already working 40 hours a week, Zavala became an active member of the parent-teacher association (PTA). What began as an idea to help and become more involved in her daughters’ education

soon turned into a decision to run for the school board. “I started getting involved because of my children,” Zavala said. “You see something that affects you and you have a desire to change it, but how? People would come to me with questions and ideas before I ran and then it became obvious I had to try.” The same stance holds true for Sen. Sinclair, as she explains that her desire to join the state legislature came from her involvement in local politics. “A member of my county central committee asked me if I’d be willing to seek a seat on the Board of Supervisors,” Sen. Sinclair said. “He advised I’d likely lose since I’d be facing a three-term incumbent, but no one should be on the ballot unopposed. I agreed and won the seat.” Despite their success, Zavala and Sen. Sinclair did face opposition regarding their roles as a professional women and mothers to young children. “People think that because I work 40 hours a week and I am a single mom, I cannot handle the pressure (of serving on the school board),” Zavala said. “I do this because I am invested and because I want to strive for student achievement and push for the right programs for our kids in the community. We do that by having a strong board from all walks of life.” Women are forced to constantly prove their worth for a position even though, as Sanders says, they do an equal or better job of earning the position than their male counterparts. However, numbers show that women are often hesitant to take the lead and run for elected office in the first place. “Female candidates are often fed the idea that reassurance is a significant component of their capability in running,” Sanders said. “It is almost seen as a sign to be endorsed or

supported by a male figure. Because, perhaps in society’s subconscious level, a female candidate is still criticized.” According to the Center for American Women and Politics, in 2016 only 104 women currently serve in the U.S. Congress, 20 serve in the Senate and 84 serve in the House. The numbers grow smaller if you factor in race, with only 33 women of color in Congress out of 104 total female representatives. “[Representation] is a power visual for younger generations; it promotes the idea to young women that their goal is attainable and that in and of itself creates change,” Sanders said. Women, however, tend to have a heavier set of responsibilities, both at home and at work, that prevent them from focusing solely on their campaigns. The idea of running for office, facing unyielding scrutiny and sacrificing time with family are some of the deterring factors for female candidates across the country. “I don’t believe women are discouraged from participating,” Sen. Sinclair said. “I’d say quite the opposite. I have actively tried to recruit other women to run, and they generally just don’t want the hassle they perceive to be associated with elected office. I believe women don’t want the negativity associated with politics. They also value their privacy at a higher level and don’t want to be under constant review.” Cracking the Ceiling Women, unlike men, simply cannot avoid questions regarding their families. One such question was asked to vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin back in 2008 when the mother of five was met with interrogation regarding her family life and the impact her political career would have on her role as a mother. Although family enhances the

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

appeal of male politicians, it has almost the opposite effect for women. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is praised for his grounding values and deep commitment to his family. The same can rarely be said for a female politician without her family life also serving as a factor stacked against them. “Nobody would ever ask a 32-yearold man running for Congress who had a spouse and two young children ‘what is going to happen to your children when you are doing this fulltime legislative job,’” Sanders said. “Even if the husband is a stay at home dad, the expectation is that female candidates will put family first whereas men are expected to be breadwinners and assertive figures.” A 2008 study done by the Center for American Women and Politics entitled “Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislatures,” recommended that women of all ages be recruited into the political field. The study also noted that in recent decades older women have lessened their family responsibilities, which could make them more likely to run. “I had … very young children when I was first elected,” Sen. Sinclair said. “Finding a way to balance the required time away from home with the needs of my family has been most difficult.” The same study found that women are less likely to seek elected office if they are balancing family life and have younger children. An important factor in the decision making process for women often is whether their kids are “old enough” to handle the mother’s dedication to her political ambitions. As societal views on gender constructions change and evolve, so will perception. Women are now seeking more positions of leadership, and the rhetoric around women as powerful candidates continues to change in each election for future generations.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

“It is slowly changing,” Sanders said. “If you look at Drake, it is women who represent a slight majority on campus who are seeking roles in leadership. In fact, we are having trouble finding men who will volunteer for positions of leadership. ” The 2013 PBS documentary series “Makers: Women Who Make America” depicts the fight for female political representation over the last century. The documentary portrays the role of women in shaping America over the last 150 years as being focused on striving for a fair share at political power and economic opportunity. The second part of the six-part documentary series finds that a woman’s role in politics has grown

Vocal women, myself included, are perceived as strident or worse,” said Republican Iowa Senator Amy Sinclair. “Vocal men are passionate.” tremendously and continues to evolve. Once dominated by men, American politics has begun to represent a shift in demographics to include women in the conversation. Young women, such as Abby Finkenauer, have long held an interest in politics and legislature. Finkenauer was inspired by a mentor to run for a state representative position at the age of 24. She won a close race with a 16-point difference and currently serves as a member of the Iowa House of Representatives with roles on of the Economic Growth, Labor and Transportation Committees. Erin Schrode, 24, began her political career as the co-founder of Turning Green, a nonprofit dedicated to

environmental advocacy. Schrode is now running for Congress in California’s Second District. If she wins, Schrode will become the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. These women are also inspiring youth of racial and religious minority groups to become involved in politics. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Michigan, is the second Muslim woman in history to be elected to a state legislature in the United States. Tlaib has been able to empower young, Muslim women who are underrepresented and inspire them to make a change through her willingness to stand for what she believes is right. Rep. Norma Torres is a Guatemalan-born Democratic state representative from California who was elected in January 2016. Torres inspires young Latina women who are often discouraged from running for elected office to try to make a change despite the immigration status of their parents. From electing the first woman to Congress in 1916 to the recent election of the youngest woman in Congress in 2013, the face of American politics is just beginning to reflect our society. “My experience has been largely a positive one,” Sen. Sinclair said. “I was fairly young when I was first elected to the Board, but I feel I’ve always been taken seriously. Elected office carries the weight of its importance and that changes how people treat you whether you are a man or woman.” JOSELINE CONTRERAS MURALLES IS A JUNIOR STRATGEIC POLITICAL COMMUNICATION MAJOR. JOSELINE IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DOMESTIC

HOW A SALAMANDER CHANGED REDISTRICTING SINCE 1788, POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST HAS INFLUENCED REDISTRICTING—WITH NO SIGN OF A CURE. WRITTEN BY: SARAH LEBLANC DESIGNED BY: MARGOT STEVENS The hallmark of America’s political system rests in its democratic framework – a framework that is gradually crumbling and has been since 1788. Long after former Virginia Governor Patrick Henry attempted to rig the presidential race against James Madison, the future fourth President of the United States, by redrawing district lines, a former Massachusetts governor earned the term gerrymandering in 1812. Elbridge Gerry’s salamander-like district, formed to serve his political selfinterest, was enshrined in a political cartoon in the Boston Gazette and embedded both the term and practice of gerrymandering in American politics for the next 200 years.

Gerrymandering occurs when states undergo a redistricting process that favors one party or racial group over another. This process typically occurs every decade after the census, ideally based on changes in population and separate from politically motivated interests. Despite several Supreme Court cases, gerrymandering remains an active element of state-level politics. Partially due to its difficulty in being proven as illegal, unless districts are clearly drawn to separate racial groups, gerrymandering persists in the majority of states and undermines the will of the American voter by disregarding voter preferences in elections. Though gerrymandering is commonly practiced across the nation, it has not been practiced in Iowa since a reapportionment law

was enacted in 1982. This plan established Iowa’s current method of redrawing district lines every 10 years through an unbiased process. Iowa attorney Stephen Roberts, the Republican State Chairman during the process, was involved in creating Iowa’s current system of redistricting that emphasizes political and representational equality through a nonpartisan process. “The reason [the plan] passed was because the Republicans were in control and they thought that they were going to lose the next legislative elections 1982,” Roberts said. “The Democrats were in the minority but they thought that they were going to lose in 1982, and then the Governor decided when they all agreed on the plan.” Succinctly, Iowa’s plan was the result of an uncommon case of neither

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

political party getting what they wanted and being willing to rewrite the redistricting process in order to avoid giving one party significant power in the legislature.

escape the clutches of under or overrepresentation, Gunther suggests mobilizing good government groups and putting constant pressure on political officials.

Iowa’s current redistricting process is completed by an independent group called the Legislative Services Agency that uses computers to draft a plan based on nonpartisan factors, with population acting as a primary variable.

In Ohio, Gunther is hopeful that voters will begin to achieve more direct and unhindered representation when the plan becomes active in 2021. The plan would involve members of both the Republican and Democratic parties working together to reach a bipartisan agreement in order to avoid a punishment. The punishment would lessen the plan’s lifespan from 10 to four years and would result in the potential to shift the power over the redistricting process to a different party. A failed plan would also require the imposition of tighter constraints and the enforcement of representational fairness.

In other states like Ohio, infamously gerrymandered districts like the ninth Congressional District that slithers along the shore of Lake Erie have resulted in calls for reform. The latest successful ballot initiative, resulting in a constitutional amendment reforming Ohio’s redistricting process with regards to the state legislature, was passed in large part due to the work of Ohio State Professor Richard Gunther and two representatives from each party. Gunther has been working to get an initiative passed on the topic of gerrymandering for 11 years. “In terms of congressional votes (for the initiative) over the past decade it is about 52 percent Republican and 48 percent Democratic,” Gunther said. “Yet the current map is 12-4 Republican so it is very, very unrepresentative of the preferences of the voters of Ohio.” The 12-4 representation Gunther references is the unequal party composition of Ohio’s Senate members in Washington. “In 2012, Democrats received 50,000 more votes for the House of Representatives than Republicans received, and yet Republicans elected a supermajority of 60-39 in the House of Representatives,” Gunther said. “So you actually lose the election and yet you win big time.” It is unlikely that all states will relinquish the political power gerrymandering affords its state leaders, but for those hoping to

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

For both the Ohio and Iowa reapportionment plans, positive media attention has been a substantial factor in the success and support of the movements for representational fairness. “We’ve managed to get all the editorial boards of all the major newspapers in Ohio on our side and we’re hoping that that will help us considerably with regard to current efforts to also bring about reform in the congressional redistricting process,” Gunther said in a statement that was echoed by Roberts regarding Iowa’s reapportionment process. Though currently stacked in favor of the Republicans, gerrymandering is not exclusive to one party and is often used on both sides of the political aisle for less than democratic purposes. Proposed solutions to gerrymandering often fall flat due to legal constraints and the inability to rid the system of potential bias toward or against racial or ethnic groups. While the hiring of independent groups or forced bipartisanship may act as steps forward in reforming gerrymandering,

an automated computer program that acts on an algorithm of geographical compactness was introduced by Massachusetts software engineer Brian Olson in 2014 to take self-interest out of the redistricting equation. The idea of compact districts differs monumentally from the oddly-shaped and crudely-designed districts that have been drawn in states over centuries. By following an algorithm that prioritizes the geographic proximity of voters over the demographic, culture or race of the population, reasons for gerrymandering based on voter characteristics are potentially extinguished. According to the Voting Rights Act, however, race must be a factor in redistricting in order to secure minority representation in Congress, despite the potential that, as forewarned by The Washington Post, districts could be drawn to form a cluster of minority voters in one area and diminish their power in the rest of the state. In Iowa’s case, a redistricting process aided by computers that prioritize population over individual characteristics is acceptable due to the state’s low minority population. Gerrymandering has been engrained in state political processes for over 200 years and shows few signs of being completely wiped out, mostly due to the overwhelming influence of political self-interest shown by many of America’s politicians. If the will of the American voter is undermined due to a method of redistricting that results in the disproportionate representation of a certain population, then a sense of civic duty is lost, and the idea that every vote counts is exchanged for a reluctance to participate in the political process. SARAH LEBLANC IS A JUNIOR NEWS/INTERNET AND POLITICS MAJOR. SARAH IS A COPY EDITOR FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DOMESTIC

STRIVING FOR INCLUSION CREATING AND MAINTAINING SAFE SPACES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. WRITTEN BY: JACQUI BRANCH PHOTO BY: JACK HELLIE In the past four years, with the help of faculty and staff, students at Drake University were able to create and compile a “Safe Space” manual. While this manual will soon be updated, it focuses on creating safe spaces for members of the LGBTQ community, and is still useful to understand the very basics of what a safe space is. According to the manual, the rainbow sign outside many faculty and staff offices sends a message to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer communities that their identities are welcome, and able to be open in this space. This is an inclusive space that respects and honors everyone regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. A safe space is not only a place where one would go when in physical danger, but is also an area

where identities are not constantly being dissected and questioned. This suggestion also alludes to an important distinction: spaces designated safe by individuals and spaces designated safe with the help of institutions. Spaces designated safe by individuals and institutions have different requirements on what make them safe. Safe spaces that are individually designated, such as offices or living spaces, require a basic understanding of general concepts, such as how to be an ally and what resources are available in a time of trauma. This highlights the need for a basic understanding of how to run and facilitate one of these spaces correctly and in a way that will not be more damaging than helpful. These are parts of what is required when initially designating an individual space as safe—but keeping a safe space requires work on the self to

create a welcoming and open atmosphere. “Keeping a Space Safe” emphasizes listening, help, and respect. Listening is imperative to a safe space, because in many areas of their lives people from marginalized groups are often silenced and ignored. Those looking to be helpful must listen to understand how varying differences can create experiences affecting everyone differently. When looking to help students, the person running the safe space must understand how to deal with someone considered the “provoker” in the situation. The “provoker” of the violence (physical, emotional, mental) must be reminded that this is a safe space and that tolerance is required. Helping also means educating on what is wrong in the situation and providing resources. In these situations, comfort, a listening ear, and resources are to be provided. Lastly, respect is achieved by simply

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

making people feel comfortable in ‘they just don’t know’ and I don’t a space through non-judgment. It’s know why, I guess I was just fed up important to recognize that what they with all the micro-aggressions and the are experiencing is valid, even though fact that she automatically assumed the person claiming the space may not that we were not students here share the same experience. because we were black was not only blatantly obvious but just completely Offices of administration, faculty, disrespectful,” said Isom-Brummer. and staff on campus are often viewed In a conversation about the response as optimal safe spaces, but there are from the rest of campus after the also spaces on campus that have incident, “the atmosphere was really been provided for students when they tense,” said Davis, because of many were feeling attacked or significantly students’ disbelief that things like undervalued by the institution. On this happened. Drake’s campus, these spaces include the Black Cultural Center, La Casa In the fall of 2012, two girls in Cultural, and the Come as You Are, Carpenter Hall, a first-year residence or CAYA House. The identities of hall on Drake’s campus, had a picture the individuals who utilize these of President Obama posted on their houses have all experienced trauma door. Their photo was taken and and targeting of their identities on replaced with a caricature of President Drake’s campus. While there are more Obama. After and before this incident, identities that have been targeted those two individuals (as well as Davis on Drake’s campus, the people and Isom-Brummer) were involved possessing these identities experience with the Coalition of Black Students, their retention rates significantly where they held their own discussions dropping because of targeting in the about these situations and others that classroom, residence hall, and general regularly happen on campus. campus atmosphere. During Pride Week 2002, Rainbow Within the past few years, Union put painted closet doors all marginalized communities have over campus to signify the coming out experienced hardship that the process. The doors were vandalized. majority groups will not ever have In fall 2014, when One Voice put the to experience at Drake. In the spring doors up, they were not vandalized, of 2012, Briana Isom-Brummer and but “people took to social media to Alexis Davis, among other black be upset about their existence,” said students, were walking down the Jordan Mix, a senior at Drake. painted street when they experienced targeting specifically based on identity. These instances are centered on outright aggression toward “One of the students we were marginalized groups, but in many walking with dropped a playbill and ways difficulty on campus is she told us ‘you dropped something’ also experienced through microso we turned around and picked it up aggressions that may not necessarily and yelled at the window ‘Thank you!’ be seen. This includes, but is not We start walking again and a few limited to, asking questions that seem more steps later she yells ‘NOW GET to have no malicious intent but work OFF OUR CAMPUS!’” said to serve other purposes. Like Latino Isom-Brummer. students repeatedly being asked if they are undocumented, being the “’Get off our campus, you don’t only minority in the class, being asked belong here.’ It sounded like the to speak for entire communities and n-word was following but her friend races of people. “I’d say a total of 5 slammed the window,” recounted times in the last year. They’ve asked, Davis. “I was usually the one that just ‘when did you come here, and were told my friends to let it go because you born in Mexico?’ said Thalia

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

Anguiano, a junior at Drake. While this is limited, there are many other instances of outright aggression and micro-aggressions, which are smaller, quicker things that often go unnoticed and unattended to. Houses at Drake like the Black Cultural Center, CAYA House and La Casa Cultural, become many students’ homes away from home, places where they can be free to be themselves and speak whatever dialect or vernacular they choose without being deemed dumb or stupid. These spaces allow these groups to share cultural practices and foods, all while working on issues that directly affect their communities. Although this physical space is dependent on atmosphere and what each individual brings to it, to be designated as safe it also requires some investment as far as time and money to create a space for these groups that is lacking everywhere else. In many institutions the divide between spaces for minority and majority communities continues to grow. While the spaces for the majority are continually updated and invested in, the spaces for minority students are falling apart while trying to exist and be recognized as whole and important parts of campus. Once a space has been designated as safe, there is often backlash regarding freedom of speech and basic rights. LGBTQ individuals and those from other marginalized communities are often made victims of unfairness and discrimination. Designating a space as safe works to reduce and eventually diminish this discrimination. It provides a space for individuals to be themselves without being perceived as a threat by people sharing that space. Giving people spaces to be open about their identities does not exclude others identifying differently; rather, it works to create a more inclusive and functioning campus atmosphere. While it can also seem that the development of safe spaces comes at a time of an increasingly politically correct world, it is important to remember that

these spaces have always existed. “Alcoholics Anonymous is a safe space, it just wasn’t ever called that but it is a space where it is understood that what is said in this room will stay in this room and that individuals will not be talked about outside of it,“ said Tony Tyler, Director of Student Engagement and Equity and Inclusion at Drake University. But the term “safe spaces” isn’t always used how it’s intended. In April 2016, students at Ohio State University released a list of demands calling for transparency on where the funds for the university are being distributed and allocated. “Ohio State’s refusal to be completely transparent with our money is testament to their prioritization of profit over people,” reads the demand release. The students occupied Bricker Hall, an administrative building on campus, and would not leave the space until the following demands were met: complete access and updates to the Ohio State budget and investments immediately, Ohio State University becomes responsive to community calls for justice, and transparency by meeting other established campaign demands. #ReclaimOSU, which acts as an umbrella group for many students and organizations involved in the protest, organized a peaceful sit-in that lasted for about 8 hours. Many have reported that during this nonviolent demonstration the student protesters were denied food that was to be delivered to them. Hundreds of Faculty, staff and administration have all signed on to letters of support of these moves for more transparency on the part of the administration. The protesters were informed that the Ohio State president, Michael Drake, “will never receive demands and will never negotiate” as detailed by the administrations messenger. In a conversation with a student from Ohio State about the campus climate, Coco Smyth, a sophomore history major who identifies as white

and male said, “I don’t think OSU has done nearly enough to create safe spaces. While it does find cultural organizations of various sorts and promoted the rhetoric of diversity, it ultimately doesn’t create a genuine safe space. As students, we find it important to ensure safe spaces for all marginalized communities at OSU, and many of organizations have created those spaces.” “But as activists we actually want to alleviate the oppressive conditions which make other spaces unsafe for students of all identities. OSU has problems with sexual harassment and

A safe space is not necessarily a place where one would go only when in physical danger, but an area where identities are not constantly being dissected and questioned. racism, and the administration only makes superficial gestures to address them,” said Smyth. When discussing how to go about building safe spaces through the transparency #ReclaimOSU is calling for Smyth said, “#ReclaimOSU wants to bring about genuine student and worker power. We want to reclaim the very structures of the university. #ReclaimOSU is composed of a variety of student organizations focusing on issues such as feminism, black liberation, Palestinian liberation, radical politics, and a variety of other concerns. Bringing together students and workers of all identities to reclaim the university, and society at large, is the means by which we can bring about collective liberation. And that

collective liberation is the means by which we can create legitimate safe spaces.” Not only is this flip of safe spaces by the administration possibly disingenuous, but it also provides examples of actual threats versus perceived threats. Students protesting and yelling loudly does not pose a threat. It may make some people uncomfortable but it is not a physical threat. This distinction of being uncomfortable and being unsafe or being targeted because of specific parts of one’s identity is critical. In this instance, these students were targeting the administration--the system that is Ohio State--whereas the examples provided before about happenings on Drake University’s campus are targets of specific identities. Creating safe spaces requires work and investment on the part of individuals, and also institutions. Those claiming safe spaces as a place that they are welcoming people into must be invested in doing the work to learn how to do work and research that doesn’t require them asking questions that may cause individuals to relive unfair and discriminatory situations. In order to create an inclusive and equitable institution, it is imperative that everyone be invested in it. An adequate understanding of a threat versus perceived threat and targets on identities versus systems is also required in the process of building safe space. JACQUI BRANCH IS A SENIOR SOCIOLOGY MAJOR. JACQUI IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

DOMESTIC

AT THE CORE OF IOWA EDUCATION DISPELLING THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE COMMON CORE. WRITTEN BY: JULIA WOLF DESIGNED BY: HANNAH ERICKSON The Iowa Core, the version of the Common Core Curriculum used in the state of Iowa, has been a point of confusion among parents across the state. The Common Core is a set of standards in the areas of math and language arts that are meant to better prepare students for college or the workforce after high school, where the Iowa Core also sets learning standards for physical and social science, but many involved with the Core tend to focus on the math and language arts standards. The Iowa Core Standards are very similar, though not identical, to the national Common Core standards, Rep. Ron Jorgensen, the chair of the education committee in the Iowa House, said. The Common Core is designed to help students develop skills in reasoning and logic.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

There has been mixed feedback on the Iowa Core, Jorgensen said. “I have had parents with concerns about it,” Jorgensen continued, attributing the concerns to parents’ lack of familiarity with the curriculum. The shift to a curriculum that focuses on reasoning means that things are taught differently than they were when the children’s parents were in school. Jorgensen said that the less frequent use of multiple-choice questions is one of the ways the Iowa Core curriculum encourages more reasoning in students. “Others have said great things” about the Iowa Core, Jorgensen said, noting that educators have told him that an increase in critical thinking is “the right way to go.” “The world is changing rapidly and if we don’t keep pace with it we’re in trouble,” said, Ruthie Paper, a retired eighth grade earth and physical science teacher from Sidney, Iowa.

“There could easily be more education [about the Iowa Core] from a PR standpoint,” Jorgensen said, attributing the differences in opinion to a poor job informing the public of the benefits of the new curriculum. Jorgensen noted that most people only hear bad things about the Iowa Core in the media. “[The] only [things I know about the Iowa Core is what] I’ve read in media,” said Rebecca Burdick, whose son is a kindergartener at Perkins Elementary School in Des Moines, noting that she did not know much about the curriculum at all. The stories Burdick read about the Iowa Core and the Common Core were about parents who were having a hard time understanding the curriculum enough to explain to their kids how to do the problems. “One of the things I get frustrated with is the misinformation

surrounding the Common Core,” said Noelle Tichy, the Executive Director of Teaching and Learning for Des Moines Public Schools. “Very few parents understand what the Core is.” Paper also noticed that parents and other people outside of the education system often seem to struggle with the idea of the Iowa Core. Burdick thought it would be nice if the school district would explain the goals of the Core and give clear definitions of the terms used to describe the curriculum to the parents when their kids start school. “I don’t know anything [about the Iowa Core],” Danette Lebon, whose six-year-old son goes to first grade Perkins Elementary, said. Lebon also said she would like to learn more about the Iowa Core. “Parents need to do their part,” Lebon said, adding that parents have to be involved in the school and vice-versa. “I think it is important for students to learn logic and critical thinking,” Burdick said. She said she thinks kids will learn more from logic and critical thinking than they will in a curriculum where they memorize the answers to problems. The Iowa Core was implemented in 2008 when Iowa became the 42nd state to approve a version of the Common Core. Currently, 42 states, four territories and the District of Columbia are using the Common Core State Standards. Iowa was one of the last states to approve the Core curriculum. Iowa has “lagged in setting state standards” in the past, Jorgensen said. However, he hopes that the Iowa Core works to improve kids’ test scores as the guidelines become more integrated into the Iowa K-12 curriculum. Test scores in Iowa have not changed much since the Iowa Core has been implemented, because, as Jorgensen explained, “They haven’t

been in place long enough.” “It is important to note the amount of time it takes to implement new standards,” Tichy said. Teachers spent the first few years after the Iowa Core was passed trying to tie what they were currently teaching back to the Core, Tichy noted. Now the curriculum taught is focused on meeting the goals of the Core. “All of our literacy and math is centered around the Iowa Core,” Tichy said. Though educators are still working to interpret the standards, the Iowa Core is in its sixth year as a part of the Iowa education system. “[The standards] are very clear to us in K-8,” Tichy said, explaining that the expectations students faced looks like stairs, with the goals for each grade building on the last. The Core curriculum for high schools is not as clear. The students’ ability to choose the classes they want makes the curriculum, and the goals they are expected to reach, less clear, Tichy said. Teachers are given more autonomy to build their own standards, but it makes switching from one high school to another more difficult for students since the expectations are not uniform. Tichy said she would like to see more uniformity in expectations in high schools across the state to ease the transitions between schools and to make sure each student is fully prepared for life after high school. A uniform interpretation of the standards from school to school is important. Having uniform standards will make transitions from one school to another anywhere within the state easier for kids to make, since they will face the same expectations no matter which school they are attending, Tichy said. The Iowa Core is meant to make those interpretations clearer.

Paper noticed the differences between what schools teach in her own classroom when students would transfer to her class in the middle of the school year. Teachers will do what they think teaches the material best, Paper said. Her husband was the high school science teacher in Sidney, so they would work together to make sure they were covering everything that they thought was important the kids learn. “I used the Common Core,” Paper said, though she didn’t know if she followed all of the guidelines. “There might have been something in the Common Core I never covered.” Paper didn’t cover some of the things in the Common Core because she didn’t want to repeat things covered in other classes. The standards put the expectations for physical sciences and earth sciences together, but Sidney split the subjects up. The goal of the Iowa Core, and the Common Core, is not just to raise the test scores of students in the state educators are concerned with trying to teach everybody something, said Catherine Gillespie, the assistant dean of the school of education at Drake University. In K-12, teachers access the students so they can group them based on their strengths and weakness in each area of study. The Core standards are meant act as guidelines for teachers, allowing them the freedom to shape the curriculum in the way they think is best for their students’ learning styles, according to the Common Core State Standards Initiative’s website. Tichy said one of the biggest misconceptions about the Iowa Core she sees is the belief held by parents that the Core is a teaching methodology. “The Common Core is just a set of standards and expectations,” she said, noting that

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

the schools, school districts, and the state all need to get better at communicating with parents. She also said that there is still work to do to align the understanding teachers, students, and parents regarding the curriculum. The Iowa Core does not tell teachers how to teach, Paper said. She recalls asking herself “What should I do first and where should I go first?” when she was creating the class schedule for the year. A good school curriculum should focus on teaching the way kids learn, Lebon said. While the assessments at the beginning of the year serve to group students with others at a similar stage in learning, there is currently no assessment to determine whether the Iowa Core standards are being met in each classroom. Jorgensen said that he would like to see an assessment at the end of every school year to show whether students are meeting the standard recommendations for their grade level. There is currently a bill in the Iowa House of Representatives that would begin to implement these assessments during the 2016-17 school year. The assessments would allow the curriculum to be tweaked so the Iowa Core’s recommended standards are met. Iowa currently has a week-long assessment period, called the Iowa Assessments, which takes place at the end of March. “I believe that we need accountability,” Tichy said, agreeing that assessments are needed. However, the Iowa Assessments are not measuring what the Common Core teaches. Tichy blames the disconnect between what is being taught and what the students are being assessed

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW VOL. 2 ISSUE 2

for as part of the reason the test scores of Iowa students have not changed much over the last ten years. She supports the creation of an assessment program that measures what the students are being taught in the Iowa Core curriculum. The new assessment should “reflect 21st century learning,” Tichy said. “Standards affect what we teach an enormous amount,” Gillespie said, referring to the education school’s curriculum. However, state standards are not the only goals teachers are striving to meet in the classroom. The standards act as a baseline accomplishment level with teachers

The Core standards are meant to act as guidelines for teachers, allowing them the freedom to shape the curriculum in the way they think is best for their students’ learning styles. going beyond the standards in the content areas of math and language arts, as well as covering things not included in the Iowa Core curriculum. “I think I had higher standards than the Common Core,” Paper said. “You don’t have to just skim the surface.” She also said that kids’ natural desire to learn made going deeper into a subject area easy. The focus of teachers beyond the basic standards set by the Common Core is also evident in the way future teachers are taught at the University level. Drake University, and other colleges in the state, is required to cover the Common Core and the

Iowa Core. The students in the education school are taught the Common Core in three levels of specificity and depth. First-year students receive some of the basics their first two semesters, reaching the “proficient” stage by the time they begin student teaching, Gillespie explained. Current teachers were also required to learn about the goals of the Iowa Core. “We have never offered training on ‘what is the Common Core,’” Gillespie said. The training is focused on “teaching teachers how to interpret the standards” and helping them understand how to track student progress, Tichy said. Paper would often hear about changes in standards at gatherings where other educators from across the state of Iowa were present. Her husband also took classes over summer where the subject of standards was brought up in conversation. “We were well aware of changes in standards,” she said. “Especially in science.” Paper’s husband also kept in touch with college professors from Iowa and the surrounding states to make sure they were teaching students everything they needed for college. Student progress is the main goal of the Iowa Core, but changes in the curriculum will not happen overnight. Tichy concluded that continuing “business as usual” will not help kids to improve their ability to learn. “[The standards] are really high expectations for kids,” Tichy said. JULIA WOLF IS A SOPHOMORE POLITICS AND JOURNALISM MAJOR. JULIA IS A STAFF WRITER FOR DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW.

Study Strategic Political Communication in the Center of It All Be part of Drake’s new Strategic Political Communication major at the center of it all! Drake offers students the chance to learn strategic communication strategy from experienced faculty and apply your learning to the exciting world of politics and advocacy. Nestled in the heart of Des Moines, Iowa, your classroom extends across the state that hosts the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses. You’ll be prepared to take advantage of unmatched opportunities for internships, experience, networking, and on-the-ground application. Learn more about Drake’s Strategic Political Communication major by visiting sjmc.drake.edu, or by contacting Jennifer Glover Konfrst at 515-271-3167 or jennifer.gloverkonfrst@drake.edu. Courtesy of Drake University Communications

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW IS SPONSORED BY:

2429 University Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50311