Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The First Amendment: May Issue
The First Amendment: May Issue
CONTENTS
MAY 2016
FAILURE OF U.S. DEMOCRACY
Analyzing the shortcomings of our countrys political
system and shedding light on state subordination.
04-05
06-07
LGBTQ+ IN N.C.
Discriminatory laws in
North Carolina miss their
mark. Bathroom legislation causes controversy.
08
PARTISAN COURT
09
CONTENTS
ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT POLITICS
The rise of Donald Trump and the success of
Bernie Sanders campaign mark a new trend in
American politics of rejecting traditional rhetoric.
12
BROKERED DEMOCRACY
Exploring the inherent hypocricy of a brokered
convention and how it undermines democracy.
13
21-22
28-29
03
Editor-in-Chief
Yiannis Vandris 17
FEATURED ARTICLES //
Executive Editors
Raj Bagaria 17 & Alejandro
Turriago 17
Ombudsman
Emma Pinto 17
10-11
// POLITICAL PLAYLIST
14-15
Domestic Editor
Banks Blackwell 17
International Editor
Anna Vinitsky 17
Features Editor
Matthew Stein 17
// PRO-DONATION RESTRICTIONS
16
// ANTI-DONATION RESTRICTIONS 17
24-25
HILLSBOROUGH SAGA
23-24
26-27
Associate Editor
Luke DeCresce 18 & Alex
Small 18
Copy Editor
Hadley Copeland 18 & Stefan Reutter 18
Faculty Advisor
Lawrence Filippone
Special thanks to Sean
Ramsden, Phyllis Lerner &
Clare Burchi
facebook.com/rstamendmentlville
Email us at:
30-31
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
04
THE FAILURE
OF AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY
Christa Sowah 17
DOMESTIC
05
WHILE TYRANNY
HAS HISTORICALLY
FAILED, THE
UBER-INCLUSIVE
AMERICAN
DEMOCRATIC
MODEL HAS
PROVEN TO BE
AN INSUFFICIENT
ALTERNATIVE.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
06
Auditing
The Fed
The worlds most inuential bank controls near all of US currency, and we have no idea how it works.
By Andrew
Brewer 16
The Federal Reserve (Fed) is the
central bank of
the United States.
Through scal and
monetary policy,
the FED directly
controls interest
rates, which determines how much
citizens spend.
DOMESTIC
07
Auditing the Federal Reserve could
elucidate the reasoning behind their
consistent failure to keep the economy
under control. The Fed failed during
the Great Depression and was a huge
cause of this economic disaster. In a PBS
interview in 2001, Former Chairman
Ben Bernanke stated: What happened
is that [the Federal Reserve] followed
policies which led to a decline in the
quantity of money by a third. For every
Personally, I believe
that the Federal
Reserve should
get investigated
and remain in
check rather frequently, especially when its created money rarely
trickles down.
Failure to Act
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
08
By Zandra Campbell 17
DOMESTIC
09
an election year. there is a long tradition that you dont do this in an election
year. However, this claim has little basis
in fact, as the last successful nomination
and conrmation occurred in 1987. The
GOP cites tradition as a reason to disregard Obamas power to nominate a Justice. However, this in turn undermines
the national tradition that Republicans
have historically held dear, the reverence
for the literal reading of the Constitution,
an interpretation of the constitution that
in no way undermine the Presidents
power during his seventh year.
As frustrating as this recent display of
obstructionism is, the GOPs reaction to
the nomination of Garland is emblematic
of a larger issue, the inability for our bipartisan Congress to put pride aside and
work together. Garland is considered by
some to be a moderate Democrat, and in
his pro-prosecution stance on criminal
law, even more conservative than Judge
Antonin Scalia. However, the GOP let
such an opportunity for leadership slip
through their ngers. Now, with cases
emerging concerning transgender rights,
gun control, and states rights, it is more
important than ever for our Supreme
Court to be able to be the powerhouse
of social justice and objective thinking it
has been in the past.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
10
Former United States Senator Hillary Clinton is currently a frontrunner in the 2016 election, with millions of voters support. Recently, however, she has encountered a lot of criticism due to a video that came out in January of 2016 entitled,Hillary Clinton lying
for 13 minutes. Her immense dishonesty and constant pandering
to various audiences must be taken into account during voting.
In 2015, she spoke in the very liberal state of New Hampshire
and said, I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record
in standing up and ghting for progressive values. However, in
the same year, she stated at an event in the more conservative
state of Ohio, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center.
I plead guilty. This major discrepancy in her political views was
questioned intensely by Anderson Cooper at a Democratic Party
debate in October. In the face of his criticism, Clinton responded,
Actually, I have been very consistent over the course of my entire life. I have always fought for the same values and principles.
This is a at-out lie, and every American should be aware of this.
Lets start with her views on same-sex marriage. She delivered various speeches against same-sex marriage between
2002 and 2010, stating that she believes that marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman. She is entitled
to that viewpoint, but, as gay-marriage became more accepted
by the mainstream, she ip-opped her opinion entirely and
released a video declaring her support for same-sex marriage
in 2013. Now, many Hillary supporters bring up the argument
that any persons opinions change all the time, and we shouldnt
hold it against Clinton that she decided to switch to the pro-
DOMESTIC
11
the trip, denied any immediate danger. When asked about this, she called
him a comedian. However, the video
evidence of the landing in Bosnia depicts Hillary and her daughter greeting soldiers, children, and reporters
all in the open space of the tarmac
and not threatened by any snipers.
Hillary is not nearly as solid of a
candidate as she makes herself out
to be. She has ip-opped on important issues (same-sex marriage,
universal healthcare, NAFTA) and
denies it. She has tried to hide her
emails through blatant, barely-hidden lies and deceit. She has also
tried to inate her own experiences
as an executive politician through
her blatant lies in retelling her visit
to Bosnia in the 1990s. The truth is
that we cannot know what to expect
from her if she enters the Oval Ofce,
and despite what she tries to tell us,
she has a terrible track record in regard to honesty and transparency.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
12
STRAYING FROM
FROMTHE
THEESTABLISHMENT
ESTABLISHMENT
AN EXAMINATION OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN POLITICS IN THE 2016 ELECTION
// KEVIN XIAO 19
As both the Republican and Democratic primary processes
near an end, we can nally assess the aftermath of the bloodbath that is commonly known as politics. In light of the recent
news that both Senator Cruz and Ohio Governor Kasich have
both dropped out, leaving businessman Donald Trump as the
presumptive GOP nominee and the Hillary Clintons inability
to conclusively block the Democratic Socialist Sanders from
the Democratic nomination, the rising power of the anti-establishment candidates becomes stunningly clear. However,
the peoples shift to the outsider vote should send a very
strong message to todays career politicians: after 8 years of
your insincere promises and the disenfranchisement of the
middle class, its time for real change in America. This mindset is clearly reected by Mr. Trumps signature brutal honesty and Senator Sanders slogan Enough is Enough and A
Future to Believe In. The most contentious issues between
this elections establishment-backed and outsider candidates have been the issues of taxes, political contributions,
and foreign policy, which all of the candidates have spoken
extensively about. The voters shift to political outsiders like
Messrs. Trump and Sanders symbolizes a new era in American
politics, one both the Republican and Democratic establishments must embrace and adapt to be successful in the future.
Although the rise of these anti-establishment candidates
has been based largely in rhetoric and publicity stunts (i.e.
Feel the Bern or Trumps remarks on the Mexican border or
Muslim immigration), there are many sound platform proposals that conict with the interests of party candidates.
Most notable have been the issue of political contributions. Many high-ranking political ofcials have been accused of serving the interests of their donors rather than
those of their constituents, thus the creation of a system
makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Senator Sand-
DOMESTIC
13
BROKERING DEMOCRACY
THE FUNDAMENTAL HYPOCRISY BEHIND THE PUSH FOR A CONTESTED CONVENTION
// EMMA PINTO 17
Throughout
this
tumultuous
election process, rumors have been
swirling about the possibility of a
brokered convention in order to
decide on a Republican candidate
for presidency. A brokered convention occurs when none of the candidates running in the primaries
receive the necessary amount of
delegates to win the nomination
outright, so a candidate has to be
decided through the re-pledging of
delegates during the party convention. Although all other candidates
for the Republican nomination
have withdrawn,
the
possibility
of
preventing
Trumps ascension to the presidential election
are as lively as
ever. Many Republican
ofcials hope to
stop Trump from
receiving
the
party
nomination by preventing him from
receiving the necessary amount
of votes, albeit by a small margin,
then choosing any politician they
believe represents the Republican party better, such as Cruz or
Kasich. Regardless of how an individual feels about Trumps policies
personally, we need to see this as
what it is: an infringement on the
entire basis of our primary system,
a system rooted in Democracy and
the power of the people to choose
whom they wish to see representing them.
As of now, Donald Trump holds
1161 delegates, compared to Cruzs
567 and Kasichs 160. Rubio contin-
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
in
18
ry
rS
uk
ac
de
dA
lex
an
in
ste
rn
By
Ma
ia
Be
Fi
tt
o
Br
in
17
an
Ou
t
th
Po
lit
i
eR
ev
ol
ut
io
na
ca
l
Yo
u
Pla
yli
st
14
Yo
uc
an
ge
tk
ille
dj
- B ust f
ru or
ce liv
Sp ing
rin
gs in y
tee ou
n rA
me
FEATURES
ric
an
sk
in
15
er
w
ass
o y
s b
P
y
the nem lic Enems about hop
t
h
E
b
Fig ublic d by Puroove, itThis hipl in us
- P mmarize Hardg power.the rebe
of
ian
su
igh
se
N
As er Br buse rou
t
y
o
a
pla ting ans t
en l
l
i
e
h
S
e
/
g le m
g
ws rfunk istmas ds
e
sin
r
.
k N d Ga
Ch inten
all
c
d
e
o
ts
v
l
n
C
elo gmen
a
b
fa
se
7 O imon
g o ews
n
i
r
n
-S
nt
pai
ue viole
q
i
n
ith
ay
eu
d
Th ody w e.
n
l
l
Su
me nsett
y
u
d
o
t
it
loo
k h oody
B
.
c
o
Bl
is r
day
, th he 72 land. s
n
s
e
ha
ur
re
ft
Su 2
nat ors o ern I who
g
i
h
r
- U U2s s e hor Nort ell me
f
t in ut t
s th
eo
Be
On strate ciden ost, b
t
l
n
o
i
u
ny
ill day
l N eron
l
ma
n
i
Su eres
n W tt-H
o
Th .
i
t
n
u l Sco
l
wo
o
ev - Gi live
R
e
The vised n will b
e
Tel revolutio
n
n
e
Th
Ski stee
th
ea
n
c d mes
i
g
a
g
tra 41 ti hom
ric Sprin
e
e
h
t
w
t
ut s sho ll of g
o
Am ruce
b
a
a
a
,
on
gs ho w 999 he s look
n
i
1
-B
T
s
, w in
en
es. eep the
llo
e
g
rs
a
gst u Di fce char ke a d ion in
n
i
l
r
o
o
l
p
d
ta
ss
a
S
ma NYPD d of rs to ppre
A
f
e
o
e
t
o our
ial
uit
f
ten
by e acq es lis of rac
r
we ourag tems
s
enc he sy ates.
t
t
at ted S
i
n
U
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
POINT
RIS
HI
BA
GA
RIA
19
16
FEATURES
10 billion dollars. In an exclusive interview with C-SPAN, Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Directory, stated that the money spent to nance the 2016 presidential election will sum up to 10 billion dollars. To be able
to run a campaign at a national scale, money is essential. Candidates receive money from areas such as public funding programs to private large contributions.
But during the current 2016 presidential race, candidates are promising campaign
nance reforms to persuade voters that their campaigns have been nanced constitutionally. Candidates are arguing that the current campaign nance policies are obsolete and reform is necessary in order to ensure less corruption in the government.
But I rmly disagree with campaign nance reform because it fails to solve issues properly and poses even greater problems. Funding a candidate is another way to express ones right to free speech. Regardless of occupation, socio-economic status, or inuence, everyone is entitled to support a particular candidate
by funding his or her campaign. If reforms are put in place, then the First Amendment would be violated, and ironically these bills would be unconstitutional.
Not only are proposed campaign nance reforms unconstitutional, they are also quixotic. The current Congress would not approve any bill, and the issue would add to tensions in the present political gridlock. Republicans in both houses of Congress are against
these reforms. With only Democrats supporting campaign nance change, the Democratic and Republican efforts to make bipartisan rectications will be futile. A specific example of this congressional impasse to make reforms was the DISCLOSE Act. The
bill was introduced in 2010 after the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling allowed
unlimited spending on express advocacy by social welfare nonprots and trade associations. But the bill was defeated by Senate Republicans three times over the course
of two years. According to Paul Blumenthal, a reporter who specically covers campaign nance, The bill did not even receive a hearing in the House after Republicans,
aided by the undisclosed dark money the bill is meant to bring to the light of day.
Even if one ignores that campaign nance reforms would be unconstitutional and
impractical, any reform would only add to illegal donations. Wealthier donors will continue to evade the current rules and donate higher amounts to the candidates. Both
soft money and independent expenditures are aspects of campaign nance which are
inadequately monitored and thus reform would do nothing to prevent an afuent donor to utilize these existing alternatives. Campaign nance reform will only increase
the inuence wealthy citizens have on campaigns. If the reforms allowed spending limits to be uncapped, it would lead to increased corruption and allow wealthier constituents to have an unhealthy amount of control over the election process.
Evidently, campaign nance reforms will only result in negative impacts. The reality is that reforms will never take place because of the political stalemate in Congress. Not only are amends for campaign nance unrealistic, but they would also go
against the very principle that lends its name to this magazine. On top of reforms being impassable and unconstitutional, it would directly increase illegal donations. In
order for campaign nance to experience true reform, we must rst acknowledge that
the system is broken. Merely raising the spending limits does very little to democratize the election process and will only serve to widen the gap between the middle
and upper class. Legal limits have always been easy to evade and will continue to be.
17
RA
COUNTERPOINT
17
IA THE CASE AGAINST
AR
AG
DONATION RESTRICTIONS
JB
Elections today need stricter laws to mediate the influence of big business.
Otherwise, the United States will continue to remain in a limitless cycle of
economic and social suppression. The Democratic National Committee (DNC)
recently reversed a ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists, disrupting
the national balance between the potency of the wealthy industrial titans
and the electoral power of the general public. In response, Democratic U.S.
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders launched a petition Sunday pushing
back on this recent decision to try and give back the voting power to the people instead of these companies. This quarrel has, once again, caused Americans to reflect on the rules and regulations that monitor money in politics.
Electoral financing has always been an issue for the United States. Since the
election of William McKinley (R) over William Jennings Bryan (D) in 1896, election financing remains a growing virus that directly harms the core of the American political and ideological philosophy: democracy. The system is fundamentally corrupt; if a politicians election depends on the amount money he or she
receives, then this candidate will obviously cater to the requests of large institutions to get the jump over other candidates. Therefore, the needs of the people
will get buried underneath this struggle to appeal to the rich. Bernie Sanders
constantly alludes to this problem in the 2016 presidential election because of
its ability to skew the elections toward those who can be bought by the wealthy.
The numbers say it all. Just within the Democratic Party, the gap between
the two candidates says volumes about the mindsets of the candidates.
Hillary Clinton, while claiming to represent a large portion of undervalued
workers and social activists, cannot match her words with her contradictory actions. According to the Federal Election Commission, contributions to
the Clinton campaign amass to a grand total of $112 million, surpassing
those of all other candidates. Of this figure, $28 million come from donations under $200, while over $65 million come from donations exceeding
$2,000. On the contrary, Bernie Sanderss campaign has more modest supporters. Of his total $72 million campaign, over $62 million come from donations under $200, while less than $2 million come from those over $2,000.
Despite Sanders receiving large donations from lobbying firms on Wall
Street, his official records show that he promptly refunded these donations.
In order for the American people to have trustworthy and transparent elections, the reforms that Obama set in motion regarding the strict oversight of
all election income nearly 8 years ago must follow through to completion. Only
when these reforms are actuated can the presidential elections become grounds
for meritocracy and a reflection of the voices of the people. Despite his harsh
criticism of Obama for his excessive flexibility when it comes to the rights of the
common people, Sanders applauded Obamas leadership in this law by calling
it a noble step to prevent the flow of big money. Bernie Sanders often uses
the line, Our average contribution is $27, in many of his debates to show that
his support comes from the common people, not the illustrious banks on Wall
Street. Money can buy many things; however, it should never be able to buy elections, laws, or the dignity of our nations most valuable possession: democracy.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
18
FEATURES
suit that made its way to the blank podium reserved for
Joe Biden. Jim Webb, while intently staring into nothing
during the debate, caught a view of the whiskers, and
mistook the rat for the Rhode Island politician. After
Jim Webb was told multiple times, the Secretary of the
Navy self reported his realization, taking full credit. I
am glad to have independently concluded that Mr. Chafee is no longer running; I am therefore restarting my
campaign, said Webb from his Submarine in Norfolk.
After being informed that Jim Webb lacked both the
funding and ideas to be a serious contender, Mr. Webb
stated, but cant my forehead compensate? After a few
weeks of deep thought, Mr. Webb opted to publically
announce his favorite Democratic Nominee. After hearing of the options, Webb deduced, although the only
options are a socialist and a woman, I will continue to
stay faithful to my party, and have therefore elected
to endorse Bernie Sanders. President Webb signing off.
19
After being asked about Sanders platform, Webb
noted seems sturdy enough. I know the mans old,
but as long as he keeps his balance he should be
ne. Then after being explained what a platform
is, Webb took an hour to look at the papers. After
careful consideration, Webb announced, Im not sure
what domestic policy means, but I think Mrs. Clinton
will most likely do a better job with that. Otherwise,
Sanders seems to have some A1 ideas. I am comforted by this knowledge.
Webb then was questioned on his role in either candidates cabinet. Responding with a furrowed brow,
he let some drool slip before commenting. Yet, CNN
was able to pull the following out: I mean, if I get to
look at ships Im cool. Sounding certain enough in his
oral genius, Webb dropped the mic and walked out of
the press room.
Wolf Blitzer caught sight of the movie writer while
walking past a Dennys on L Street, and was able to
snatch a few statements. Between mouthfuls of the
All-American Grand Slam breakfast deal, Jim Webb
pleasantly responded to Blitzers questions. Pressing
the importance of credentials, Blitzer directly asked
Webb, what is your stance on social issues? Laughing, Webb retorted, you can ask anyone, but my social skills are ne. Thank you for your time though, Mr.
Cooper.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
20
INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment
21
imal cost. ISIS has created a gash in the safety of the
West, and US Special Forces are the Band-Aid to stop
the bleeding.
The worry about American engagement is that
the dispatching of ground troops will lead to a pro-
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
22
INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendement
23
COUNTRIES INVOLVED
IN THE
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
24
INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment
25
rooted in the Chinese government and suggest ways to x
it (which many has done), my motive in writing this piece
is to narrate my own struggles against an authoritarian
system and, through illustrating the discrepancy between
my life at Lawrenceville and back home, contextualize the
problem and provide a rst person perspective on the issue.
Perhaps the biggest issue I have is keeping up with the
world during the summer. By going back to China, I exit the
Lawrenceville bubble, but end up in another one that isolates me from life as I know it. The reality of the banned
websites means that the only possible way to keep in touch
with everyone from Lawrenceville is through Skype, which
is a joke all by itself. Not only are the famous social media
websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube
blocked by the Great Firewall of China, the list of banned
websites has since expanded to include indispensable ones
that I rely on to function. Lawrencevilles email system uses
the Gmail medium, which means that I wont be able to receive any updates from the school about the college process, my schedule next year, and any other information. I
was recently informed that even the Common Application,
a website that pertains to high school students around the
world, had been partially blocked in China, along with the
majority of ofcial websites of Universities. For the government to partially block a website is to make its connection to
mainland routers so weak and slow that they are essentially
inaccessible. Like a lot of other Chinese-American boarding
students, I own a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which in
theory should allow me to access websites from a location
outside of mainland China, thereby circumventing the Great
Firewall. In practicality, however, Chinas Internet speed is
signicantly slower than what is presented in America, and
it is reduced for a reason. A VPN system requires a reliable
and strong connection to establish the network; as a result,
VPN only seldom works in China. Despite the most advanced
ber optics network installed in my home, the connection is
still not even close to being comparable to that of Americas. With no viable solutions around the Wi-Fi problem, it
means that I would have to do all of my college research
before and after the break, and copy and paste every application into word documents to transport back into China.
The Firewall also means I would remain oblivious to the
current events outside China for three months. The government has done everything they can to sever international
bonds and keep out foreign inuence. Major news websites
including CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times have all
been blacklisted to prevent domestic residents from gaining
an international perspective. As a substitute, the Chinese government-controlled press publishes pro-State propaganda in
what I cannot call Newspapers, and for half an hour everyday
starting at 7pm, every channel on the Chinese cable listing
broadcasts a series of national news. These pieces of news all
report on the general prosperity and progress that China as a
country is making. Through these optimistic and, on most days,
extremely selective and biased reports, it is supposed to galvanize national opinion and eliminate any doubt the general
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I
26
INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment
27
...Hillsborough Saga
28
RELIEVING
PUERTO RICO
Gianluca Minardi 17
INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment
29
ish-American war, the United States unintentionally became Puerto Ricos only strong trading partner.
With NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, Puerto Rico now only
suffers from this scenario. It is also America that
forbids Puerto Rico from declaring bankruptcy - and
for no apparent reason. I am not advocating for independence- as most Puerto Ricans share these sentiments- however, congress must come up with some
type of relief or at least allow Puerto Rico to apply for
Chapter 9 bankruptcy to help it get back on its feet.
30
P O P P E R S P E CT I V E
I believe that abortion is an individual choice that only the carrier of the baby can make. I do
not view a fetus as human, thus I do not view abortion as anti-life. Furthermore, I believe private
enterprises can replace Planned Parenthood once it loses government funding.
- Libertarian for defunding Planned Parenthood
I am anti-abortion and pro-dilemma. I myself could never get an abortion- however, holding that
stance does not give me any authority in deciding whether or not other women should be able to
control their bodies. Having an abortion is not a choice, it is a dilemma; you dont choose to be a
low-income woman incapable of caring for an unwanted pregnancy. You dont choose to be faced
with the decision of choosing your life or your unborn childs. You dont choose to be raped.
- Democrat for the continued funding of Planned Parenthood
I believe a woman should be able to get an abortion if she so chooses. However, I do not believe
that the government should have any role in this decision, and by funding Planned Parenthood,
the administration are [sic] increasing access to abortion and practically encouraging abortions. In
essence, I believe that the government should not play any role in abortions.
- Republican for defunding Planned Parenthood
FEATURES
31
Pro-choice
Pro-life
Yes
No
Other
Undecided
Other
Its tough, because it is a womans body, which she has a right to do with what she pleases. At the same
time, that fetus will go on to become a member of human society if not stopped. Motherhood will always
be difcult, but does that justify murder? Its a question on rights, personhood, and touches the base of
certain religious beliefs. Obviously, rightfully, divisive.
- Independent and Pro-Choice
Women do not have the right to another persons body. I am al for a womans
right to her body, but the rules of the
game change when there are two lives.
at stake.
It amuses me that the same people who hold dear to their personal liberties such as gun rights so
strongly believe in the restriction of a females personal right to end her childbirth. In my opinion, women
should be granted the right to rst and second trimester abortions because at that point, the baby cannot
survive outside the womb. It is completely dependent on the mother, therefore the mother should be
able to control her own fate without considering the right to life that the baby doesnt have. Aside for a
moral perspective, abortion is benecial to society because it frees women who cannot support a baby
from that burden and, according to the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis popularized in Freakonomics, reduces
crime.
- Democrat and Pro-Choice
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Other
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I