I think what you would get is Democrats willing to lie.
It would seem the result would be everyone registering as independents, and then not getting to vote in primary elections.
Honestly, if you're in a state where this could pass, and if state law prevents you from voting in a different party's primary, it might be worth registering as Republican anyway.
That's probably right, except that I bet in places like Iowa City and whatever place has Iowa State, the Democratic primary matters locally.
This is just registered, obviously they can't (yet!) know how you vote. So applicants read up on the current registration of faculty where they want to apply, change their party registration to fall into the necessary window. It becomes another check the box qualification. It's stupid because then people can't vote in their preferred primaries but I think most people will take a job over the opportunity to vote in a primary.
The best thing would be for existing liberal faculty members to en mass change their registration to Republican. Oh noes, better hire some more registered Democrats, we don't have enough!
When I was in grad school, I had a professor who talked about his first job and needing to sign a loyalty oath before he could get his first pay check. This was in the south.
Oh, I agree that it's toothless. Compelling independent people to change their hearts never goes well.
I think the key factor is desperation, not independence.
A substantial number of state congress folks seem to think that their main job is theater/trolling. This guy is clearly one of those. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it isn't legal.
It is hard to imagine any University going along with an ideological purity test for its faculty. They would very quickly find themselves in a position where they have to, for instance, hire a biologist who doesn't know any biology, just so they can have the right number of party members on the faculty. It is all very Stalinist.
OTOH, I understand that the McCarthy purges worked really well in the University of California system, so who knows?
These days, all the Marxists are Republicans.
The best thing would be for existing liberal faculty members to en mass change their registration to Republican. Oh noes, better hire some more registered Democrats, we don't have enough!
This should definitely happen.
Before getting my job at a uni here, I had to affirm in writing that I am not, nor have ever been, a member of the Nazi party or any other far right political group.
When I was a grad student at UCLA, I had to sign a loyalty oath that said I wasn't a communist before I could get paid. The story behind the oath is in here.
I've considered registering republican, because it seems like republican primaries matter more since all democrats are basically fine but there's a huge difference between Romney and Trump. I'd have no problem registering republican if such an insane law required it.
I'm pretty sure it's not legal and also trolling. He gets into introduce a message bill, it dies in committee, he gets to grumble about how he's tough or whatever. But I also thought that Trump was a troll!
I think it would be pretty funny if passed, however, when they realized that not only can people switch party affiliations, but that business schools, medical schools, engineering schools might skew more conservative than popularly believed.
I believe Iowa is the state where someone introduced a bill (trying to one-up Wisconsin, I guess) that would not only get rid of tenure but revoke it for everyone who currently has it. Another bill that's basically theater.
Clearly some local pol has decided that his brand identity will be "that guy who kicks those pointy headed professors". No doubt his asshole supporters are duly entertained.
Our grandkids will be telling the drollest stories of the Trump-era loyalty oaths that they still sign, because of the inertia of beaurocracies.
A colleague suggested it would be fun to introduce the same requirement in the military and on police forces. I'm sure that would be well received.
I read somewhere that part of the Good Friday Agreement was not just police reform but institution of hiring quotas by religious background, with buyouts for excess Protestants. But now I can't track down details of the latter, although it's implied here. Was it merely an implicit agreement, where what was explicit was reduction in overall numbers plus religious recruiting targets?
What makes this illegal? Is party affiliation a protected class? I suppose I could google. I'm pretty sure it's not in Texas. State employees aren't allowed to be political on the job, but that's slightly different.
21: From the Patten Report implementation plan:
The Police Act provides for exceptional measures to transform the composition of the police service to make it more representative of the community in Northern Ireland. These measures will apply to all recruitment competitions for police constables to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (section 46). They will also apply to recruitment competitions for police support staff where 6 or more posts are involved (see recommendation 111). The measures require the selection of qualified applicants for the police service to form a merit pool. From the pool the Chief Constable must appoint an even number of police officers, one half of whom are to be treated as Roman Catholic and one half of whom are to be treated as other than Roman Catholic. The definition of the terms used is to be in accordance with Fair Employment Monitoring Regulations which provide for the monitoring of perceived community background. The Secretary of State can, by order, amend the "50/50" quotas if there are insufficient numbers of one community to meet recruitment requirements. In such cases the Secretary of State may subsequently aggregate the quotas (as recommended in the Patten Report) over succeeding competitions to make up any
shortfall in the recruitment of one community, though not above 75% of either community. The need for these special measures will be reviewed on a triennial basis and in consultation with the Policing Board (section 47). Such reviews will take account of progress towards the objective of achieving a representative police service. The Secretary of State will also consult others with a particular interest such as the Equality Commission. Entry to the recruitment pool will be made on merit and as Patten said "We emphatically do not suggest that people with serious criminal or terrorist backgrounds should be considered for police service" (para 15.13).
What makes this illegal? Is party affiliation a protected class?
Courts apply strict scrutiny to laws that infringe upon a fundamental right, such as the FA freedom of association. Under that level of review, a law is constitutional only if is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. I doubt that achieving partisan balance in colleges is a compelling government interest, or that this goofy bill is the least restrictive way of meeting that end.
26 Check this out: http://www.bmf-law.com/publications/Delaware's%20Other%20Major%20Political%20Party%20(W0417137).PDF
Shocking that conservatives aren't sticking to a principled line of equality of opportunity but not equality of outcomes.
Although the article linked in 28 is about the party balance requirement for Delaware judges, there's quite a bit of relevant discussion.
This was fun: https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new-right-629a77e87986#.iuwr6z4gk
34 She's terrible and a good pal of his. But I repeat myself.
The OP is part of a longstanding faceoff between Iowa's legislature and its public universities, AIUI. I doubt this particular bill has any chance of going anywhere.
Also, seriously, "legislator introduces bill" isn't really news. Legislators introduce all kinds of bills all the time and very few actually end up going anywhere. This is on the same level as "candidate says thing in stump speech."
It's probably better that "legislator introduces bill" has become more newsworthy than it used to be instead of the previous status quo where horrible bills become news after they pass and everyone is shocked at the provisions and it turns out some form of the bill has been introduced for years and versions of it are in a bunch of different legislatures and it's been floated publicly by well-funded think tanks and/or political organizations.
||
NMM to Seijun Suzuki.
Tokyo Drifter, Branded to Kill. Many others. Such great style.
|>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQNtyW15tI8
He should have used a bigger iron on the buffalo bill.
38: Sure, but for that to be useful journalists need to be able to distinguish between bills that have the support of legislative leaders which makes them likely to pass and ones that don't have any support and are pure grandstanding. I'm not optimistic that they can do this well, but we'll see.
34: ...AND THIS, APPARENTLY, IS NOT THAT DAY EITHER.
35- She does seem too close, though she claims not to be a friend of his.
43 Their interactions on twitter have been very chummy. Including making plans to hang out.
44 And reminiscing fondly about the last time they had.
OTOH this is a very thoughtful thread detailing the various problems facing Penny in writing about Milo and his followers. Food for thought at least.
Thanks Barry I didn't know.
OT: This makes no sense even if you discount all the inhumanity issues. Hog hunting could easily be worth more to the local economy than $50 million in damage.
NMM to Seijun Suzuki.
Oh, sad. The only movie of his that I've watched was White Tiger Tattoo, which I enjoyed*, and I've been meaning to watch Tokyo Drifter for a while.
* I'm disappointed to see that the comment is just a summary and doesn't include my other observation about the movie -- that for the part of the younger brother they cleared decided, "get me the prettiest young man you can find; he doesn't really need to be able to act, as long as he can look good being mopey and sensitive onscreen."
49: Absolutely. What kind of wusses have Texans become, that they are turning down the option of hunting animals from helicopters in favour of poisoning them? Is there anyone even here, in this den of liberal vegetarian free range do-good-ism, who, given that they had to bring about the death of a given animal, would not gladly choose to hunt it from a helicopter rather than poison it slowly to death?
If I were a Texan, I might worry a bit about being collateral damage in the helicopter war on pigs. I don't see what the problem is with shooting them the regular way. On the ground after a couple of beers.
I thought there were rules against baiting deer with corn. But you can give beer to pigs?
If you give a pig a pancake and then shoot it, you really save yourself trouble.
Apparently, in PA, you can't bait deer with anything 30 days before hunting. However, you can bait for coyote. Which assumes the deer aren't going to try to move up the food chain.
53: well, that's the only way to keep them on the ground, you see.
So you can bait deer with corn, but you have to leave them out there long enough to bait coyotes too.
Apparently, if you shot a deer near soil that is still saturated with the residue of a salt block you removed weeks ago, you can still get cited.
I thought there were rules against baiting deer with corn. But you can give beer to pigs?
They have to tell you.