Election Law – Page 24 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Bipartisanship? Cooperation? Will These Ideas Fly?

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:September 19, 2011
Post category:Election Law Marquette Law School Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Speakers at Marquette Wisconsin Court System Wisconsin Law & Legal System Wisconsin Supreme Court

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.

The Morning After: Lessons From the Wisconsin Budget Battle

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:March 11, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Election Law First Amendment Labor & Employment Law Media & Journalism Political Processes & Rhetoric U.S. Supreme Court

At last the end game has arrived for the budget bill, after more than three weeks of deadlock in Madison. Indeed, it was obvious to everyone that the impasse could not persist, and that the only two options available were either a compromise (unlikely) or the eventual adoption of Governor Walker’s bill intact.

Wisconsin’s largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has largely failed to take a coherent editorial position on the budget debate. In fact, the entire local media, both print and television, seem to have bent over backwards in order to appear sympathetic to the arguments of both sides. In this regard, the local media seems to see its role as something akin to the role of an arms dealer during a civil war: issue statements generally supportive of both sides and hope to sell your product to the widest possible audience.

However, I believe that there are larger lessons to be learned from the budget battle, and that the issues raised over the last three weeks transcend partisanship.

Most Important Election Law Decision: It’s Not Citizens United

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:December 6, 2010
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Election Law First Amendment

In late October, I had the privilege of speaking at Chapman University’s Nexus Symposium on Citizens United – article to follow. For the four of you that haven’t heard, Citizens United held that corporations may use general treasury funds to finance independent communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate – even during times proximate to the election.

The response to Citizens United has been, in my view, overstated.