|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Summer
1993 (9:3 & 4) The Legislative Branch Central to the success of our system of government is Congress. The framers of the Constitution viewed this branch as the most important. Representing the will of the people, and the sovereignty of the states, it would be strong enough to regulate the nations' trade and provide the defense without abusing its power. Today, the role of Congress has expanded beyond the founders' wildest imagination. Many critics claim that Congress no longer works. They believe it is controlled by special interest, more concerned with member's perks than with the nation's best interest, and bogged down in partisan politics. In this edition of Bill of Rights in Action, we conclude our series on America's basic governmental and political institutions with a historical and contemporary look at the legislative branch. U.S. History: "Let us Reason Together" Lyndon Johnson, Master Legislator World History: The European Community: Cooperating Nations or Unified Superstates? U.S. Government: A Different Voice: Women in the Congress "Let
us Reason Together" During the 1992 presidential election, many people talked of gridlock—the inability of Congress and the president to pass major legislation. Some argued that our system grinds to a halt whenever one party occupies the White House and another party holds a majority in Congress. Yet during the 1950s, a Republican president and a Democratic Congress worked together to pass important legislation. They were brought together by one man — Lyndon Baines Johnson. He is probably best remembered as the president who ordered the massive buildup of American military forces in Vietnam and for his subsequent failure to win the war. But there was another, more successful role that Johnson played during his many years of public service. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a master legislator. Politics Was His Destiny Born in Texas in 1908, Lyndon Johnson trained to be a teacher, but he made politics his life's work. He first went to Washington in 1931 as the secretary to a Democratic congressman. In 1935, he became the Texas director of the National Youth Administration (NYA), one of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal agencies. The NYA was designed to put Americans back to work during the Great Depression. After two years with the NYA, he ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and won. Congressman Johnson quickly came under the wing of Sam Rayburn, a fellow Texan and one of the most powerful leaders of Congress. Rayburn saw to it that the 28-year-old Johnson got appointed to major legislative committees. Re-elected to the House in 1938 and 1940, Johnson set his sights on higher office. When a U.S. Senate seat fell vacant in 1941, Johnson entered the race. He lost the Texas primary by a little over 1,000 votes. In December of that year, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States went to war. Johnson became the first member of Congress to volunteer for active military duty. He saw combat in the Pacific and won the Silver Star before President Roosevelt recalled to Washington all members of Congress serving in the military. When the war ended, Johnson positioned himself for another run at the Senate. He began to move away from his earlier New Deal liberalism while endorsing President Truman's efforts to contain communism. Rise to Power In his 1948 campaign for the Senate, Johnson was able to deliver 350 speeches in two months by flying around Texas in a helicopter. He carefully tailored each speech for his Texas constituency. He spoke out against socialized medicine, big labor unions, and civil rights laws, while advocating farm price supports and defense spending. In conservative and segregationist Texas, Johnson told the voters what they wanted to hear. He won the Democratic primary amidst charges of ballot box stuffing and voter fraud . In the predominately Democratic South, a victory in the primary virtually guaranteed his election. Lyndon Johnson entered the Senate in 1949. From then on his rise to power was unstoppable. He attached himself to Senate powerhouses like Richard Russell of Georgia who helped him get on the important Armed Services Committee. Johnson became a leading advocate for bolstering the nation's military defenses to confront the spread of communism. In the election of 1952, Republicans won both the presidency and control of the Senate. When the new Congress convened in 1953, Johnson had acquired an enormous amount of power for a first-term senator. He was named minority leader ahead of many Democratic senators with more seniority. His job was to advance Democratic interests in a Republican-dominated government. As minority leader, Johnson cooperated with Eisenhower's Republican Administration while he attempted to unify the liberals and conservatives in his own party. Typically, Johnson would modify Eisenhower's bills with Democratic amendments. Johnson used this technique to pass a new minimum wage law, expand Social Security benefits, encourage public housing construction, and introduce a new interstate highway system. In 1954, Texas voters returned Lyndon Johnson to the Senate for a second term. The Democrats regained majority control of the Senate by one vote. In January of 1955, Senate Democrats made Johnson their majority leader. At age 46, he was the youngest majority leader in Senate history. Journalists called him the most powerful man in Washington except for the president. "The Treatment" As majority leader, Lyndon Johnson became the most effective legislative leader of his time. How did he do it? First, Johnson controlled Democratic appointments to the Senate committees. He guaranteed every senator at least one important committee assignment. This placed many new senators in his debt. Second, Johnson controlled the introduction of bills and would speed them up or slow them down at will. "Timing can make or break a bill," he would say. Any Democratic senator who wanted to pass a bill had to get Johnson's approval. Third, Johnson used his Senate scheduling power to pass bills or bury them as he chose. Majority Leader Johnson was in a position to grant many favors. He kept close count. For every favor granted, Johnson expected one in return —usually a vote. Johnson's favors ranged all the way from approving budgets for Senate committees to assigning office parking spaces. He maintained a personal touch with senators of both parties with birthday and anniversary cards, sickbed visits, and boxes of cigars. Lyndon Johnson once said, "the only real power available to the leader is the power of persuasion." Johnson's persuasive powers were immense. He became master of rehearsed hallway encounters and cloakroom compromises that put together the votes he needed to make laws. The most awesome display of Johnson's persuasive ability came forth in a face-to-face encounter with a senator whose vote he wanted. Journalists called this "The Treatment." Columnists Evans and Novak described it this way: He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless. Johnson believed that finding the middle ground was the essence of legislative leadership. Referring to one of his father's favorite passages from the Bible, he would say to a senator, "Come now, let us reason together. . . ." The Civil Rights Act of 1957 Early in 1957, the Eisenhower Administration introduced a civil rights bill. The bill called for the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate violations of black citizens' civil rights. The bill also proposed that the federal government be given the authority to enforce voting rights, to seek injunctions (court orders) against all civil rights violations, and to prosecute violators of these injunctions. The bill easily passed the House of Representatives, but faced near-unanimous Southern opposition in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson never believed in racial segregation. He pushed for the civil rights bill, but as a Southerner, he had to be politically careful. He could not attack segregation outright without jeopardizing his chances of being re-elected. Still, Johnson was convinced that segregation condemned the South to educational and economic backwardness. Johnson believed that, in order to join the mainstream of America, the South would have to abandon racial segregation. Most important, Lyndon Johnson wanted to be president of the United States — he realized he would never be accepted outside the South if he were perceived as just another Southern segregationist. Majority Leader Johnson told his Southern colleagues that they were bound to lose if they did not compromise. Johnson modified the civil rights bill to restrict the use of federal injunctions to voting cases only. As a further restriction, Southern senators proposed an amendment guaranteeing a jury trial to anyone charged with violating an injunction in a voting rights case. This amendment would make the bill almost useless—all-white southern juries would never convict other whites for violating the rights of black persons. Liberal senators objected to the Southern attempt to water down the civil rights bill. Johnson offered a compromise: jury trials could be guaranteed in criminal, but not civil violations of voting rights. To gain support from Northern liberal senators, Johnson offered an amendment to the legislation that would provide jury trials for union members accused of breaking strike injunctions. The bill, as amended by Johnson, passed the Senate. The House, however, refused to accept the Senate changes. Johnson went back to work and applied "The Treatment" to key members of both houses of Congress. The outcome was a further compromise. Senator Strom Thurmond, a Democrat from South Carolina, was the only Southern holdout in Johnson's Senate. Thurmond conducted a record-setting one-man 24-hour filibuster against the compromise bill. But Thurmond failed to talk the bill to death. The compromise passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Eisenhower on September 9, 1957. Critics of the Civil Rights Bill of 1957 called it a sham. It did little to protect the voting rights of blacks and nothing to protect their other rights. Still, this was the first civil rights law passed by Congress in over 80 years. The bill opened the door for later legislation that would force the South to desegregate. Much of the credit for reconciling the South to the rest of the nation belongs to Lyndon Baines Johnson. After he became president, Johnson continued to use his skills as a master legislator. One of the most important laws he pushed through Congress was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Finally, Southern black citizens would be guaranteed the right to vote. For Discussion and Writing
A C T I V I T Y The Art of the Possible Lyndon Johnson was a master of compromise. His ability to convince Congressional adversaries to "reason together" enabled Johnson to push controversial legislation through Congress. Today, Congress has been criticized for its inability to overcome gridlock and pass vital legislation. Many believe that the process of compromise has been stalled. Imagine that you are a member of Congress. The Democratic president has just introduced a $40 billion dollar domestic aid bill that provides $10 billion for education; $10 billion for extended unemployment benefits, job training, and emergency funding for summer jobs; $10 billion for highway improvements and other public works programs; and $10 billion for drug abuse treatment centers, infant vaccinations, and city parks and recreation areas. This bill is going to pass in some form. (It could end as a $80 billion bill or a $1 million bill.) Your job is to forge a compromise in your constituents' best interests.
Legislator Profiles Congressperson Smith is a Republican from a middle-class, suburban bedroom community. Most of his/her constituents own their own homes, commute 20 to 40 miles daily on unimproved highways. Many send their children to private schools. Because of defense cuts, the district has a high percentage of white-collar unemployment. A fiscal conservative, Smith has promised to reduce the deficit. Congressperson Waverly is a Democrat in an inner-city district. Most constituents are minorities and immigrants who rent apartments in racially fragmented neighborhoods that suffer from high unemployment. Neighborhood joblessness in turn contributes to high crime rates, drug abuse, gang activity, and vandalism. Most constituents send their children to public schools. After school, the kids play in the streets. Congressperson Leong is a Democrat in a mixed district that encompasses a large population of elderly homeowners, many of them retired and living on social security and other government benefits. This district has recently sanctioned the construction of mini-malls, and several large industrial parks. In addition, a new series of housing developments has increased the need for schools. Leong has promised to reduce the deficit, but has voiced support for the president. Congressperson Williams is a Republican in a rural district. Williams' constituents are typically long-term residents of the area who own property but are often only seasonally employed by agribusinesses. Others own small tourist businesses. A third group are retirees and others who have moved to the area to get away from cities. Proudly self-reliant, the constituents seldom depend on any social services other than public schools. Williams has also promised to reduce the deficit. The
European Community: "If we lapse back into nation-first policies, Europe will become a
third-rate power." While some Americans criticize our political system, many Europeans look to the United States as a model. A long history of efforts to unite Europe have resulted in the recent creation of the European Union (EU). Throughout its history, Europe has often been torn apart by war. Twice in this century, warfare has devastated nearly every European country. Even today, Europe has not achieved absolute peace. After the Second World War, Jean Monnet, a French businessman and diplomat, proposed that future wars could be avoided if European nations had closer economic ties. In 1951, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy formed the European Coal and Steel Community. For the first time in peacetime history, a group of European nations agreed to cooperate in producing and marketing vital goods. In the words of Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister at the time, these economic ties would "make war not merely unthinkable but materially impossible." Monnet, Schuman, and others dreamed that some day Europe might become politically unified like the United States. But they knew that the foundation for any political union had to begin with economic cooperation. So in 1957, the six members of the Coal and Steel Community proposed a Common Market where all trade barriers would eventually be abolished. The Common Market treaty created the seeds for a unified European government. It empowered a Court of Justice to settle disputes among Common Market members. Although the treaty established a European Parliament, it was little more than a forum for debate. Actual legislative power remained in the hands of a council made up of each nation's foreign ministers. The Council of Ministers appointed a 17-member European Commission. This commission could propose and enforce laws applicable to all six member nations. After 1957, six more European nations joined the Common Market: the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Together, the 12 Common Market countries formed the European Community (EC). Most European nations, including the former communist countries, either applied for EC membership or indicated an interest in doing so. The Maastricht Treaty In December 1991, the government leaders of all 12 European Community nations met in the Dutch town of Maastricht (MAHS-trick) to negotiate a new treaty of economic and political union. Economically, their goal was to eliminate all trade barriers within the EC. Europeans, for example, would be able to buy an automobile anywhere within the EC and take it home without having to pay added taxes. In addition, the treaty envisioned a central bank and a single currency —the European Currency Unit or ECU. Farm products throughout the EC would continue to be protected by minimum prices and tariffs on cheaper foreign imports (something that the United States has opposed). But it was the political side of the Maastricht Treaty that sparked the most controversy. It called for a "European Union" that came close to the ideal of a unified federal state like the United States. First, the treaty would establish a common European citizenship. Citizens from any EC country could travel, live, work, vote, and even run for political office anywhere within the European Community. Drivers would hold Euro drivers' licenses. College students could easily transfer credits between universities throughout the EC. A common police force would operate freely across old national borders. Taxation, however, would remain under the control of individual nations. The European community would attempt to speak with one voice in international affairs. The treaty provided for a united European military force. Foreign policy decisions, however, would have to win the unanimous support of all 12 EC nations. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the EC lawmaking system would change significantly. The European Commission would continue to propose legislation. And the council of 12 foreign ministers would retain the power to vote on proposed laws. But in response to charges that this system wouldn't represent ordinary people, provisions were added to the treaty to strengthen the European Parliament. Directly elected by the citizens of EC nations, the European Parliament consists of 518 members. They represent political parties, such as Socialists and Christian Democrats, instead of member nations. Under the existing system, Parliament has few powers. The Maastricht Treaty would expand Parliament's legislative role, making EC lawmaking more responsive to ordinary people. The most enthusiastic supporters of the Maastricht Treaty were France's President Francois Mitterrand and Germany's Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Going back centuries, France and Germany had fought many wars against one another. The willingness of these two historic foes to cooperate, persuaded other EC leaders at Maastricht to follow along. The Danish Surprise Early in 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was submitted to the 12 EC nations for ratification. It required unanimous approval. Die Zeit, a German newspaper, reminded its readers of Europe's bloody past. "Only the European union," the newspaper editorialized, "offers everyone protection against a repetition of history." Supporters hoped the treaty would give Europe the power to become a major player in the world order long dominated by the United States and Japan. In June 1992, the masterminds of Maastricht were astonished when Danish voters rejected the treaty in a national referendum. One EC regulation banned the sale of a variety of Danish apple because of its small size. The voters in Denmark rebelled. The Danish vote unleashed a torrent of criticism against the Maastricht Treaty. Some Europeans feared that the treaty would create "Eurocrats" —a new legion of bureaucrats who would regulate everything in sight. Others voiced unhappiness over the lack of democracy in the EC's political system. Citing the conflict in Yugoslavia, still others questioned whether Europe was ready to defend itself militarily, independent of NATO. British voices warned of a loss of national identity. They contended that the European Union would destroy national diversity. EC leaders had to face a sobering realization: Europe might not be ready to unify. Nevertheless, they decided to press on for treaty ratification, hoping that the Danes would reconsider their rejection. On September 20, 1992, French voters barely approved the Maastricht Treaty by a 51 percent majority. President Mitterrand said this was a "wise choice in favor of youth and renewal." But the closeness of the vote reflected growing disillusionment with the treaty's ambitious plans. In November, Prime Minister John Major narrowly won a vote of confidence in the British Parliament over whether to proceed with ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Major announced that he would not ask Parliament for final approval of the treaty unless Danish voters reversed their decision in a second referendum scheduled for the spring of 1993. Denmark endorsed the treaty, and the British followed suit with an endorsement by Parliament. After a long and arduous process, the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in late 1993. The European Union (EU) The Maastricht Treaty created the European Union (EU), which currently claims 15 European nations as members. Founded in November 1993, the EU states its chief goal as the enhancement of political, economic, and social cooperation. In January 1999, the EU announced that 11 member states had agreed to introduce the unit of common European currency — the euro — into circulation. In 1998, the Amsterdam Treaty marked yet another step towards full unification with its promise to allow EU citizens to work together more effectively in such areas as equality between men and women and immigration. The Amsterdam Treaty also granted increased the powers of the European Parliament. Despite its success, the European Union remains essentially a group of independent nations that have agreed to cooperate, especially in the area of trade. The original vision of a United States of Europe, a single state with no internal borders, is yet to be realized. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information European Union: The home page of the European Union. Euroknow: A concise encyclopedia of terms related to the European Union and its history. A C T I V I T Y A North American Congress Nearly every nation in the world today has some sort of legislative system that makes the laws for its own people. The Maastricht Treaty, however, points Europe in the direction of a legislative authority whose laws would apply to 400 million people living in all 12 nations of the European Community. Some political scientists argue that this could become a model for other regional lawmaking arrangements. Assume that sometime in the future the United States, Canada, and Mexico have formed a North American Congress. The purpose of this Congress would be to pass laws beneficial to Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans alike. Form small groups to decide which legislative areas listed below should be assigned to the North American Congress and which should remain with the national legislatures of the three countries. Each group should be prepared to defend its choices before the rest of the class. Legislative Areas
For Further Discussion: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of having a North American Congress? A Different Voice: Women in the Congress "Washington is never going to be the same again." Before the 1992 elections, 21 women held seats in the House of Representatives —up four seats from 1961 —while only two held seats in the Senate —the same number as 1961. In 1992, voters elected more women to Congress than ever before in the nation's history. Twenty-four new congresswomen (21 Democrats and three Republicans) joined 23 other women who won re-election to the House of Representatives. In the Senate, Carol Moseley Braun (D-Illinois), Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Patty Murray (D-Washington) were all elected to a first term. They joined Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Maryland) who was elected to a second term and Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas). For many the victory of these female candidates represented the American peoples' desire to end gridlock and politics as usual. After the election, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Fund for the Feminist Majority, declared that, "This is the first significant breakthrough for women in the history of Congress; we're cracking the political glass ceiling." Others were more cautious, pointing out that women still had a long way to go to be truly represented. Indeed, women continue to be severly underrepresented in Congress. Although women make up over 50 percent of the population, they currently hold only about 13 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives and nine percent of the seats in the Senate. In other words, only 65 of the 535 members of Congress are women. In state legislatures, women hold 22 percent of the seats. Since the first Congress, women have made up only 1 percent of the more than 11,000 representatives and senators who have served. Female senators have been so rare that, until 1992, there was no women's restroom in the Senate chamber. Despite their severe underrepresentation in Congress, women have enthusiastically cast ballots since the 19th Amendment gave them suffrage —the right to vote. Women turn out to vote at a higher rate than their male counterparts. They constitute more than half of all American voters. Why then, after over 70 years of women's suffrage, do women hold so few seats in Congress? Could more female legislators change the way the country is run? A Legacy that Lingers: "The Door Locked Tight" Following the ratification of the 19th Amendment, some people hoped that women might successfully run for public office and bring about significant changes in society. Female legislators might, they believed, end corruption in government, abolish poverty, and see to it that the United States avoided war. However, Carrie Chapman Catt, one of the leaders of the women's suffrage movement, accurately predicted that getting the vote would not guarantee women access to the nation's legislatures. "You will see the . . . door locked tight," she said. "You will have a hard fight before you get inside." From 1920 to the 1970s, women rarely ran for public office and were almost never elected. Most of the women who did venture into politics during this time tended to defer to their male counterparts. Hattie Caraway from Arkansas took over her husband's U.S. Senate seat when he died in 1931. Re-elected two times on her own, "Silent Hattie" once said, "I haven't the heart to take a minute away from the men." Women who tried to run for office also discovered that both the Democratic and Republican parties discouraged the nomination of female candidates. Women interested in politics often ended up working as local party volunteers. Women who attempted to seek office had great difficulty raising campaign funds, especially when running against male incumbents. Before 1950, fewer than a dozen women held seats in Congress at any one time. By 1961, there were still only 17 women in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate. However, as more women graduated from high school, went to college, and entered the labor force, their role in politics increased. During the 1960s, many women joined the civil-rights , anti-war, and student-protest movements. In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was formed with the intention of bringing women "into full participation in the mainstream of American society now." Heartened by their involvement in the social movements of the 1960s, increasing numbers of women sought political office, particularly at the local and state levels. The efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) stimulated other women to enter electoral politics. Nevertheless, the struggle to ratify the ERA continues today. In 1984, the Democratic Party nominated Geraldine Ferraro for vice president of the United States. As the first female vice-presidential nominee for a major party, Ferraro gave women in politics a big boost. (Ferraro and her Democratic Party running-mate, Walter Mondale, were later defeated by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. In the meantime, more women entered local and state electoral races, giving them valuable campaign experience. Then in 1991 came the nationally televised Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Anita Hill, a professor and former employee of Thomas, testified that he had sexually harassed her. Many Americans were offended by the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee's response to Anita Hill's testimony. They called for more women in Congress. By 1992, many seasoned female politicians were ready for the "Year of the Woman." Their success at the polls reflected the willingness of many voters to contribute money to women's campaigns and vote for them on election day. Today, there are 65 women in Congress, a record high. Even so, men continue to dominate the legislature by a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. The Gender Gap For many years, men and women exhibited few differences in their voting or political party preference. In recent years, however, evidence suggests that women lean toward the Democratic Party while men have tended to vote Republican. This difference has been referred to as a so-called "gender gap." The gender gap may also indicate that female voters increasingly see the need to elect more women to public office. Shortly after the 1992 election, a Newsweek poll asked women if they thought men in the United States understand the issues that affect women. A solid 68 percent responded no. Former House member Pat Schroeder(D-Colorado) complained that, "Women's issues aren't considered important [by male legislators]. You're supposed to put them aside, not embarrass your colleagues, get with the program." Another poll, reported in U.S. News & World Report, revealed that 80 percent of women under 30 believe the nation would be better governed if more women held public office. In the 1992 election, almost all women elected to House and Senate seats owed their victories to a disproportionate number of female voters. A "Critical Mass" Feminist leader Eleanor Smeal contends that once women hold a third of all Congressional seats, they will form a "critical mass" that will enable them and their male allies to pass laws that address women's issues. According to this viewpoint, the male-dominated Congress historically has ignored issues of specific interest to women, such as gender-based discrimination in the classroom and in the workplace, rape, domestic violence, and the lack of child-care. But, with a "critical mass" of women in Congress, the issues traditionally considered of specific importance to women, would become predominant. Former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum disagrees, contending that "It diminishes women to say that we have one voice and everything in the Senate would change. . . ." Others argue that women should not define their legislative and leadership roles in terms of specific "women's" issues, and that issues related to the economy and national security are of as much importance to women as they are to men. Will more women in Congress make a difference? Recent research on the impact of female legislators at the state level offers some tantalizing clues. Professor Sue Thomas of Georgetown University has studied a dozen state legislatures and concludes that women lawmakers have "very different policy priorities" from men. While men seem to concentrate on business and economic issues, women focus more on legislation relating to women, children, and family. In addition, women in a legislative body are more likely to work together for women's issues. If women do make a difference in the legislature, will they form Eleanor Smeal's "critical mass" if they hold one-third of all Congressional seats? State legislative studies indicate that a "relatively high percentage of women is necessary for the passage, on a general basis, of legislation dealing with women, children, and the family." This suggests that women will have to win a lot more seats in Congress before they can hope to significantly influence the national agenda. For Further Discussion and Writing
A C T I V I T Y Women in Government: What Is Your Opinion?
Opinion Survey I am xxxxmale xxxxfemale. 1. D0 you believe the country would be better governed if there were more women in Congress? xxxxYES xxxxNO xxxxNOT SURE 2. A woman and a man (the incumbent) are running for a U.S. Senate seat. Both have good ideas on issues that matter to you. xxxxA. I would vote for the male candidate because he has more experience in the Senate. xxxxB. I would vote for the female candidate because women are very underrepresented in the Senate. xxxxC. I am not sure how I would vote. 3. Do you think Congress should be made up of 50 percent men and 50 percent women? xxxxYES xxxxNO xxxxNOT SURE 4. In general, do you believe there is a difference between men and women over what public issues they feel are most important? xxxxYES xxxxNO xxxxNOT SURE Officers: Alan Friedman, President; Harry Usher, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Susan Troy, Daniel H Willick; Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Associate Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Charles Degelman, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Peggy Saferstein, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1993, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|
