THE NEWS RECORD
132 YEARS IN PRINT VOL. CXXXIII ISSUE LVVVIV
THURSDAY | OCTOBER 18 | 2012
GLASS BOWL BATTLE sports | 6
ROUND TWO JABS APLENTY nation & world | 4
Contentious ballot issue debated at town hall BENJAMIN GOLDSCHMIDT | CHIEF REPORTER
TYLER BELL | STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
FIGHTING FOR ISSUE Councilmember Laure Quinlivan debated the Rev. Damon Lynch about Issue Four, which extends Cincinnati City Council members’ terms from two to four years at the Women’s City Club Monday. Quinlivan said Issue Four will save taxpayer dollars.
Supporters and opponents of Issue Four gathered at the Women’s City Club to make cases for and against the proposal Monday. Councilmember Laure Quinlivan and the Rev. Damon Lynch debated in favor of Issue Four, which extends Cincinnati City Council members’ terms from two years to four years. Issue Four is a common sense issue, Quinlivan said. She has been a major proponent for Issue Four, and began working on the proposal in 2011. Chair of the Charter Party Kevin Flynn and Jeff Berding, spokesperson for the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, made the case against Issue Four, and claimed the proposal helps politicians while hurting voters. “You might think a proposal is common sense, but you have to focus on the details,” Berding said. “At every opportunity when deciding what was in the best interest of the voters verses councilmembers, Issue Four proponents tilted the scale for councilmembers at the expense of the voters.” Issue Four helps voters because it saves taxpayer dollars by cutting election costs and increases the efficiency of city council by cutting the time spent campaigning, Quinlivan said. “It will triple our council productivity, it will help long-term decision making, reduce partisanship and save taxpayer money — that is $250,000 every four years
when we skip an election,” Quinlivan said. Increasing the length of council members’ terms would lead to less time being spent campaigning, which would allow the council to accomplish more work, Lynch said. “About two-year terms, they fuss and fight, never get anything done, then the next year they’re trying to raise money to run again,” Lynch said. “And I’m saying if they want to fuss and fight in two years, four years might give them enough time to get the fuss and fight out and then go ahead and do some legitimate work.” Berding said Issue Four gives too much power to politicians by not including a recall provision, which protects council members from being removed from office even after a scandal. The recall provision was talked about, but not included because it is possible “people who have a big organization and lots of manpower [could] target people that they didn’t like,” Quinlivan said. The election cycle under this proposal will be at-large as opposed to staggered — all council members will be elected at the same time every four years as opposed to either four or five every two years. Kevin Flynn said he wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to implementing four-year terms, but would prefer a staggered election cycle because it still grants voters an opportunity to change government every two years if they are not satisfied. Issue Four is one of 49 ballot issues in Hamilton County slated for the Nov. 6 election.
Early voting upheld for elections BENJAMIN GOLDSCHMIDT | CHIEF REPORTER The Supreme Court ruled Ohioans must be allowed to vote three days before Election Day. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted brought the case to the Supreme Court in hopes that it would allow the state to decide its own election schedule. “Despite the Court’s decision today to deny our request for a stay, I firmly believe Ohio and its elected legislature should set the rules with respect to elections in Ohio, and not the federal court system,” Husted said in a statement. Husted claimed the Ohio Board of Elections asked for those three days off to update its rosters so that no Ohioan could vote with an absentee ballot and then again in person, said Matt McClellan, Husted’s press secretary. Senate Minority Leader Eric Kearney views the ruling as a victory. “The votes of Ohioans should decide the outcome of this election, not the machinations of those who would suppress the vote,” Kearney said in a statement. State Democratic leaders have opposed limiting early voting hours this election and in prior elections as well. Their concern is limiting voting hours keeps those who are more likely to vote Democrat out of the polls. “By rejecting Secretary Husted’s appeal for a final time, the Supreme Court has sided with working Ohioans across our state by expanding their opportunities to vote in the upcoming election,” said Sen. Edna Brown (D-Ohio). “I hope this decision sends a signal to policy makers that access to the poles should never be arbitrarily limited for partisan gain.”
2 3 4 5 6
Local News Life & Arts Nation & World Classifieds Sports
THURSDAY
61° 45°
FRI
SAT
SUN
LAUREN PURKEY | PHOTO EDITOR
PANEL DISCUSSES DEBATE Richard Harknett, right, and Stephen Mockabee, center, look on as Victoria Toensing, left, gives the audience of more than 550 clues about what to look for in the second presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012, at Tangeman University Center.
DEBATE WATCH SUCCESS RYAN HOFFMAN | NEWS EDITOR
Tangeman University Center was at the epicenter of political rhetoric Tuesday night as leaders of the University of Cincinnati political science department joined political pundits to analyze the second presidential debate. Before the debate started, UC President Santa Ono asked the more than 550 people in attendendance to cheer for President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney — the partisanship of the crowd showed itself early and often. The format was straightforward: the crowd comprised mostly of students would ask questions before and after the townhall-style debate, and a panel consisting of Joe DiGenova, UC Alumnus and political analyst, Victoria Toensing, expert on white-collar crime and terrorism as well as DiGenova’s wife, Richard Harknett, head of UC political science, and Stephen Mockabee, graduate program director for UC political science, would provide expertise and insight. Cheers rose from the crowd during the first question of the debate when Romney said he would be president in 2014. “When you come out in 2014 — I presume I’m going to be president — I’m going to make sure you get a job,” Romney said in response to a question from Jeremy Epstein, a 20-year-old college student. The largest reactions from the crowd were during the numerous quick short responses to claims made by the other candidate. When Obama attempted to interrupt Romney as he criticized the Obama administration’s energy policy, Romney fired right back telling the president to wait. “You’ll get your chance in a moment,” Romney said. “I’m still speaking.” The crowd responded with a combination of laughter and cheering. One attendee in the back of the room screamed “yeah,” before the cheering died out. The quote that drew the largest reaction from the crowd was a remark Obama made is response to Romney’s question of whether or not he had looked at his pension recently.
ONLINE @
newsrecord.org Follow TNR on Twitter: @NewsRecord_UC
54° 75° 44°
55°
75° 44°
Like us on Facebook:
facebook.com/TheNewsRecord
}
“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours,” Obama said. While the majority of the reactions were cheers and laughter, not everybody in attendance responded positively to the President’s response. “Personally as a conservative it made me sick to hear,” said Austin Kaiser, president of the college Republicans. “To be honest with you personally I’m in college aspiring to be the one percent I’m not here to demonize the one percent, I want to better my life for the future.” Final reactions to the debate varied between those in attendance. “Barack Obama won the debate,” said Dan Traicoff, president of the college Democrats. “I think in the first debate [Obama] said it, but he wasn’t excited about saying it. Today he said it eloquently simple and made sure that it was in deep contrast to the Romney campaign.” Others found it more difficult to declare a winner. “The media bias is going to try to portray that Barack Obama won, I think this was a very even debate,” Kaiser said. “Unlike what we saw in the first debate where Romney absolutely killed it, I don’t think either candidate really killed it necessarily.” While Kaiser said it was harder to pick a winner in this debate than the first, he did give a slight edge to Romney based on demeanor and substance, he said. “[Obama] sounded more like the challenger than Mitt Romney,” Kaiser said. “Mitt Romney sounded like the incumbent talking about his past achievements. With the rhetoric that I heard Obama talk with today it was bleak. I heard a lot of what I heard in 2008 come out again. He refused to talk about his last four years in office.” “I would say it was a tie,”said Ian Gulley, president of the UC chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, a group that aligns with Libertarian views. “I don’t think I’m going to pick a winner or loser, but I think it was a good showing by each candidate.” Gulley said the aggression from both candidates surprised him the most. “I thought both candidates … were very aggressive,” Gulley said. “I thought that was very interesting especially for Romney to do it two debates in a row.” SEE DEBATE | 2
NEWSRECORDNEWS@GMAIL.COM | 513.556.5908
Check out the Debate Watch photo and video gallery at newsrecord.org