My Head is Spinning! What About You My Dunn County Neighbors?!?

A Referendum worth digging deeper into in regards to Eligibility to Vote - The Revised Title IX Passed in the SDMA School Board Meeting Last Night

Photo by Connor Betts on Unsplash

The first time I read the upcoming referendum that will be on the November 5th, 2024 General Election ballot, I thought this is a no brainer! It clearly states that “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election. Sounds like it would eliminate non-citizens, illegals from voting in our United States elections. Well, long and behold, as soon as I looked at the original Wisconsin Constitution in Article III, Section 1 they seemed to have omitted some keywords as well as changing a couple words along with additions. As I stated in previous blogs, it is EXTREMELY important to go into the original amendment to compare and dissect it from the proposed amended document which is being presented to the public in a the form of a referendum. So I will first show you the original amendment in our Wisconsin Constitution and how they sliced and diced it!

“Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”

So the words in bold are the words that were changed. The word Every was changed to Only. The word Resident was changed to Resides. AND they omitted, “in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” I looked up the definition of “Resident” which states, “Living in a place for some length of time.” And the definition of “Resides” which states, “Occupy a place as one’s legal domicile.” The definition of “Qualified” states, “Having compiled with the specific requirements or precedent conditions; ELIGIBLE” along with the definition of Elector which is, “One qualified to vote in an election; one entitled to participate in an election; A member of the electoral college in the U.S.” As far as the change from resident to resides was probably not a major showstopper unless an illegal immigrant instantly becomes a legal immigrant. Then the omission of “in this state is a qualified elector of that district” is a huge factor of changing the dynamics of the structure of the original amendment. How do we qualify as an elector in this state? By providing proof of residency and citizenship, right? When you take that line out of the equation, you no longer have to provide proof of residency nor citizenship to vote. Also by omitting “in this state” you are basically saying you can be in ANY election district including out of state to vote. That reminds me of the loophole in myvote.wi.gov where no proof of identity is needed to request an absentee ballot. You can easily obtain an absentee ballot for anybody from any location.

Ok, now this may seem far fetched, but hear me out. First of all, the far left have been changing definitions and normalizing the unthinkable over the years. For instance, abortion as reproductive health care. What?!? That makes no logical sense to me. Abortion is actually the opposite of reproductive health. It is depopulation, basically murder of a human being. It is destroying agency of the unborn of having the right to life here on earth. Remember, all of us started our journey in this life in our mother’s womb! Plus abortion is a moral issue NOT a political issue! Next, we have the term “sex” which identifies us on our birth certificate as either male or female. All of the sudden, the term “gender’ is being used replacing the term “sex” which identifies us biologically. By using “gender” it is identifying our identity by feelings not biologically. Talk about insanity! And with the invasion in the double digit millions of illegal immigrants in our interior with the far left’s hope of receiving their record number of votes through illegal immigrants will most likely push to normalize illegals as legal immigrants meaning legal citizens. London, England has recently been finding out what the meaning “The Great Replacement” is along with other European nations that are dealing with massive illegal immigration that is destroying their culture and identity as a country. Common sense tells me, when you have no borders, you have no country!

So here is the actual referendum to be on the ballot for the General Election on November 5th, 2024:

“Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?”

Now this addition to the amendment seems quite odd to tell “We The People” that we may vote in the national, state, or local office and oh, your bonus is to vote on statewide or local referendums. If you are a qualified elector in this state it is a given to vote in all elections. But remember, they took out qualified elector in the amended referendum. As United States citizens we always had the right to vote in ALL elections, so why do they need to spell it out now. Unless they are spelling it out for illegals instantly becoming legal citizens. Lastly, if you look at the words not in bold, there is not much intact from the original amendment in Article III Section I. Anything in bold is the new verbiage.

I know the Republicans are pushing for a “Yes” vote and the Democrats are pushing for a “No” vote. In reality, it is voting your conscience using your critical thinking skills. Anytime they want to amend an amendment in our state constitution it raises red flags that makes it necessary to dig a little deeper than the vast majority. I personally do not trust the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau who are lawyers playing a major role in creating the language in our laws, statues and amended referendums. Some lawyers can be very cunning and deceptive when it comes to the power of words. All it takes is an omission, change of words or additions that can change the entire dynamic and structure of an amendment. We need to keep in mind, will it protect us as citizens of this state and as Americans? Or will it harm us as actual citizens of this state and of the United States?

Well, another reason why my head is spinning is last night SDMA (School District of Menomonie Area) just passed the controversial revised Title IX that was on the agenda as an Action Agenda. What really bothers me is the fact that no discussion from any board member occurred in regards to revisions to Policy 113, Nondiscrimination in District Programs, Activities, and Operations along with Policy 113 of Title IX Notice. Even after three residents from the SDMA district spoke in regards to the dangers of having a revised Title IX policy in place. Let’s face it, all the school board members had their minds made up, meaning having a closed mind instead of an open mind when the three speakers came up to the front of the room to speak boldly about the consequences of this insane revised Title IX policy to the school board. And it was interesting how they went from silence to discussion mode when it came to 2025 Health Insurance Renewal, Final budget revisions for 2023-2024 and the most lengthy discussions came from the Strategic Planning in SDMA for 2025 - 2030. I know that it is the school boards job to discuss on the issues that are on the Agenda. But to not even consider both sides of the issue in regards to the revised Title IX policy from the SDMA School Board as a whole is disturbing. The District Administrator of SDMA, Joseph E. Zydowsky, PHD did state he appreciated the comments addressing the concerns of the Revised Title IX from the three residents that reside in the SDMA district. He also mentioned there is a process involved to get to the level mentioned in the revised Title IX. He also thinks there may be legal hurdles. And he is correct on that front.

According to edsource.org, “The Biden administration’s revised Title IX rules are set to take effect in August, but at least eight lawsuits are challenging the changes, Education Week reported.

The revised Title IX regulations by the Education Department add federal law protections for LGBTQ+ students.

Based on an Education Week analysis, 26 states are a part of the eight lawsuits with 14 states blocking the rules during litigation. A school district, two students and five conservative advocacy groups are also a part of the lawsuits.

The legal challenges mean that the new rules won’t take effect in all states and, in some cases, not at all schools and colleges in states where judges haven’t made a decision or stopped the rule’s implementation, according to Education Week.

Title IX, the 1972 landmark civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on sex in education that applies to colleges and schools receiving federal money, doesn’t directly address LGBTQ+ rights. The revised Title IX clarifies that the law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the lawsuits argue that the national education department’s decision to expand the scope of sex discrimination to include “gender identity” is too vague to be included in the regulation.

There are no legal challenges in California. , “

I also found interesting that the controversial issue of transgender students being permitted to use sex-segregated facilities such as locker rooms, bathrooms and overnight accommodations stemmed from a 2016 Dear Colleague Letter during the Obama Administration. Here is the story behind how Title IX began the shift to protect students based on their gender identity.

“On May 13, 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DOE issued joint guidance to educational institutions on the scope of Title IX, in the form of a Dear Colleague letter and an accompanying compendium of actual policies and practices, which had previously been enacted by state agencies and school districts throughout the U.S.[14][15][16] The guidance formalized the administration's previously stated view that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and clarified that transgender students should therefore be treated consistent with their gender identity at school.[17]

In practical terms, the administration instructed schools that Title IX's prohibition on discrimination means that schools generally must:

• Provide an environment free of sex-based harassment

• Honor transgender students' names and pronouns

• Permit all students to participate in sex-segregated activities and use sex-segregated facilities (including bathrooms, locker rooms, and overnight accommodations) in accordance with their gender identity

• Protect transgender students' privacy by avoiding non-consensual disclosure of their gender status.

The guidance permitted a limited exception for athletics, where accommodating transgender students would impair "the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport. “ (wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX)

So what pushes many school districts to conform to the controversial Title IX policy? The opening text of Title IX says it all, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. It is all about the federal assistance to help fund the school districts”. (wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX) So if your school district does not comply to the revised Title IX policy your school district will NOT receive any federal funding to help fund your school district. I am not a fan of those strings attached clauses. Another form of the carrot stick.

Here is an interesting comparison between the Trump Administration and Biden Administration on their interpretation of Title IX as follows once again from Wikipedia.org:

Views of the Trump Administration

“In February 2017, the Department of Justice and Department of Education under the Trump administration withdrew the guidance on gender identity issued by the Obama administration.[2] A letter issued by the departments cited a need to "more completely consider the legal issues involved", and stated that "there must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing education policy".

Views of the Biden Administration

Upon his inauguration on January 20, 2021, Biden issued an "Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation." He referenced Title VII and Title IX.

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule about how to enforce Title IX, and the state of Tennessee swiftly sued the Department of Education. While the U.S. district court was considering the case, it said that, "to prevent immediate harm to the plaintiffs," the Biden administration's new rule could not take effect yet

So now you understand why my head has been in a whirlwind these days. It is so important more then ever to be on top of what is taking place in our Country, State and County. It is truly Freedom or Bust!!!

From One Dunn County Neighbor to Another - Dig Deeper!

Laurie J. Christianson