Marquette Law School Poll

Marquette University Law School will undertake a substantial statewide polling initiative during 2012. This will be the most comprehensive polling enterprise in Wisconsin’s history, following public opinion through a number of polls over the year. The goal of the Marquette Law School Poll is to provide a balanced and detailed understanding of how voters on all sides view and respond to the issues of the 2012 campaigns. The initiative will build upon the work at Marquette Law School of Mike Gousha, distinguished fellow in law and public policy since 2008, and Alan Borsuk, senior fellow in law and public policy since 2009. Leading the effort will be Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin–Madison professor of political science, who will be with us throughout 2012 as a visiting professor of law and public policy. Franklin is a national expert on statistical methods, political polling, elections, and public opinion. With the national attention that Wisconsin will receive in 2012 and Marquette Law School’s growing reputation as a premier neutral site for debate and civil discourse on matters affecting the region and points beyond—and with Franklin, Gousha, and Borsuk, together with interested faculty at the Law School and the larger university—there can be little doubt that the time, place, and people are right for the Marquette Law School Poll. The announcement and the underlying reasoning are expanded upon in this press release and in this detailed project description.

Continue ReadingMarquette Law School Poll

Not a Pretty Picture: Potential Challenges to Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law

In August 2011, The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin publicly announced its intention to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new Wisconsin Voter ID law. While no complaint has been filed as of date, and it is undoubtedly foolish predict the likelihood of success of any lawsuit without first reading the complaint, one would expect the promised lawsuit to face a hostile reception in the courts. This statement does not mean that the Wisconsin Voter ID law reflects good public policy. Many people believe that it does not. Nor does the above statement mean that the existing judicial precedent focusing on state voter ID laws does a particularly credible job at analyzing the constitutional issues raised by this type of legislation. Many will argue that the existing precedent is flawed. However, the current legal landscape is what it is, and the fact remains that any future legal challenge by the League of Women Voters seems unlikely to succeed.

A. The Right to Vote Under the U.S. Constitution

The text of the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee the right to vote. Nonetheless, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections the United States Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote in state elections is a fundamental right protected by the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. A large body of precedent has reaffirmed the primacy of the right to vote under our constitutional structure, holding that the ability to vote cannot be arbitrarily abridged or denied to groups of otherwise legitimate voters.

Notwithstanding the recognition that the right to vote is fundamental, the United States Supreme Court has declined to apply strict scrutiny to all election regulations which place some minor, even-handed burden on the ability to cast a ballot.

Continue ReadingNot a Pretty Picture: Potential Challenges to Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law

Bipartisanship? Cooperation? Will These Ideas Fly?

Republican State Sen. Dale Schultz of Richland Center and Democratic State Sen. Timothy Cullen of Janesville did two things a few months ago that were quite remarkable in the light of the super-charged, partisan atmosphere in Madison (and elsewhere) this year.

For one, they had lunch together. And for another, they decided to spend a day in each other’s districts, trying to get a better grasp of the perspective of people who lived different lifestyles and had different views from the people in their own districts. Schultz represents a strongly rural state Senate district, while Cullen’s district, which includes Beloit, is more oriented toward cities and factories.

Schultz and Cullen agreed on quite a few things: The legislative process in Madison had become too divisive. Good policy requires the support of at least half the people of the state and not just people on one side. Both parties were guilty of pushing through momentous decisions without significant support from the other party – in the case of the Republicans in Wisconsin, it was the collective bargaining bill that triggered an uproar in Madison earlier this year, in the case of the Democrats in Washington, it was the health care bill passed in 2010.

The two decided they should work together on an idea that could change things. They settled on trying to reform the way state Supreme Court justices are selected so that process is less partisan and less subject to influence from special interests.

And they decided to go on the road around Wisconsin with what they labeled their common ground tour.

Continue ReadingBipartisanship? Cooperation? Will These Ideas Fly?