×

State Senate candidates square off at forum

Ilsa Minor Daily Press John Braamse (D), left, and State Senator Ed McBroom (R) Take part in a recent forum hosted by the Delta County League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women.

ESCANABA — State Senator Ed McBroom (R) faced off against his challenger, John Braamse (D) recently, during a recent voter forum hosted by the Delta County League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women.

The two men started off the forum by identifying what their top three priorities would be while in office. McBroom, who already holds office, said it was difficult to boil down his priorities to only three issues, however he did state that improving the functioning of the government and the legislative bodies themselves, provide greater access to the government to citizens through things like open records and Freedom of Information Act reforms, and to focus on issues related to natural resources.

Braamse did not express specific goals, but instead offered three areas he intended to focus his attention. He told the audience he wanted to focus on all types infrastructure — which he said, by extension, would build the economy — public education, and universal healthcare and Medicaid.

When asked whether the Freedom of Information Act should apply to all elected state officials, Braamse said he believed it should because it gives voters a better understanding of why elected officials vote the way they do.

McBroom said he had been researching FOIA-related issues for a decade, which had prompted him to write a bill called the “Freedom of Information and Legislative Open Records Act” (Senate Bill No. 233) which he says would protect legislator’s ability to operate without violating the constitution and provide as much transparency as possible to the public.

“It’s not as simple as simply instituting Freedom of Information Act. We have a constitutional protection called ‘speech and debate,’ it’s in both the federal and state constitution. People come and speak to their legislator very frequently with very private concerns, things that are business related or health related, personally related, that shouldn’t just be open to the curiosity of anyone who’s coming around,” said McBroom.

When asked about gun violence, particularly in schools, McBroom said there was a “delicate balance” that had to be maintained in communities on the issue, but that there were many things that could and should be done, such as fostering a better understanding of guns, increasing security where needed and monitoring availability.

Braamse, who works in a public school, referenced the two active shooter trainings he went through in the past year. He said based on his personal experiences, supporting school liaison officers would have a significant impact and that increasing security would protect students.

“We can invest in hardening schools — making sure a would-be attacker never gets in,” he said.

The candidates were then asked about the role of the state legislature and the governor versus that of the local health departments when determining a health emergency. Braamse expressed public health officials should be the ones calling the shots when it comes to a public health crisis, but he did not clearly define whether the power should rest with the state health department or local health departments.

“I think the decision should probably be deferred to the professionals, whether it’s the state level health department — in our last COVID issue, it was kind of an unknown situation, a lot of difficult decisions to make. I think we’ve learned a lot because we’ve all been through kind of the crisis of our lifetime, but going forward, I would defer to the public health departments to make that decision, because I think they are the resident experts in health decisions,” he said.

McBroom took a different stance on the issue, arguing the power should always be with elected officials.

“The idea that we should defer — ever — to anyone other than the people who’ve been elected by the people of the state or of the community is wrong and dangerous. Does that mean the people that are elected are always going to get it right and do the best thing? No. They’re not always going to get it right, but it is never right in this country for us to defer all the power and authority to someone else without those who are elected and without the people themselves who speak through their elections to have the final say in what’s going on,” he said.

When asked about Proposal 1, which would modify term limits to allow an individual to serve a total of 12 years in the legislature, in any combination of years between the House and Senate, and require annual public financial disclosures for all legislators, the feelings from the candidates were mixed.

McBroom described the financial disclosures as “window dressing” that would be unlikely to shed any real light on legislators’ activities. As for term limits, he said the short term limits in the Michigan House have made it “the most dysfunctional and disgraceful legislative body in the country,” but using the current proposal to fix the issues would only do so at the expense of the Senate.

Ultimately, McBroom said he was still undecided on the proposal.

Braamse said he voted absentee this year and voted no on the proposal. He said he was anti-term limits in general and that elections should be used to set how long an individual legislator serves.

As for the financial statements, he was not opposed.

When asked about Proposal 2, the candidates varied greatly. The proposal would make changes to the state constitution that affect voting rights and set forth requirements for nine days of early in-person voting, change the absentee voting application process, require military or overseas ballots to be counted if postmarked by election day and allow donations to be used to fund elections.

Braamse said he voted for the proposal, noting military mail in voting has been used for hundreds of years and that early in-person voting was different than mail-in voting by nature.

McBroom was adamantly opposed to the proposal. He said the use of third-party funding for elections was “unseemly and unwise,” that encasing law into the constitution made it difficult to change, and that it would be a “disaster” to instate early voting, as there were no instructions included in the proposal as to how early voting should be implemented.

The candidates were not directly asked to respond to Proposal 3, which would enshrine the ability to seek an abortion as a constitutional right in Michigan. Instead, the candidates were asked if, in light of the Supreme Court of the United States’ reversal on Roe v. Wade, the other landmark cases of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges be reevaluated. The cases, respectively, established the right of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction; the right of consenting adults to engage in same-sex sexual activity or other non-procreative sexual acts; and the right of same-sex couples to marry.

“I think that any case, such as Obergefell and others, that claim to have discovered rights in the constitution that are not there for the obvious viewing should be considered and evaluated as to whether or not they are fairly pronounced in the first place,” said McBroom.

McBroom went on to say Roe v. Wade was a poor decision that usurped the legislative process. He also referenced the proposal in his closing statement, expressing he was against it.

Braamse said he was unfamiliar with the cases in question, but that he supported Proposal 3.

“The Proposal 3 that is in front of us is something I support because I am a pro-choice candidate. I don’t claim to be able to make a decision between a woman and her doctor, or even a man and his doctor if he had had (reproductive) concerns about something that’s not female-orientated,” he said.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today