Wisconsinites Like Truth-in-Sentencing . . . Sort Of

The latest edition of the Marquette University Law School Poll includes some interesting data on sentencing policy. I’m grateful to Professor Charles Franklin for collaborating with me in putting the questions together. The results are here (note that the sentencing questions start at Q25a).

The primary purpose of the questions was to determine the attitudes of Wisconsinites toward truth-in-sentencing, which was adopted by the state legislature in 1998. The questions are timely in light of recent political debates over new early release opportunities for prison inmates, which were embraced by the legislature in 2009, but then repealed two years later. Early release undercuts truth-in-sentencing by introducing uncertainty into the actual date that inmates will be released. Indeed, critics of the 2009 reforms complained — in what was probably a bit of an overstatement — that the new early release mechanisms “gutted” truth-in-sentencing.

At first blush, the new poll seems to provide strong support for the 2011 repeal and the return to a purer form of truth-in-sentencing: a decisive 63% majority agreed that “truth in sentencing should continue to be the law in Wisconsin.” (25c) Moreover, only 27% agreed that “many of the people who are locked up in prison do not deserve to be there,” and only 37% agreed that “many of the people who are locked up in prison could be safely released without endangering the community.” (27d, e)

But the story is a little more complicated than might first appear. 

Continue ReadingWisconsinites Like Truth-in-Sentencing . . . Sort Of

New Poll: Republican Senate Race Changes as Presidential Race Stays Steady

With just over a month to go to the Aug. 14 primary election that will pick a Republican candidate for US Senate, the four-way race is changing shape, according to results released Wednesday by the Marquette Law School Poll. Support for Madison businessman Eric Hovde is rising while support for former Congressman Mark Neumann and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald is declining, the poll results show. Former Governor Tommy Thompson’s support has changed little and he remains in the lead. But with 25% of likely voters in the primary saying they are undecided, the outcome of the race is hard to foresee.

The poll found Thompson supported by 35% of likely primary voters, compared to 34% a month ago, and Hovde supported by 23%, up from 14% a month ago. Neumann was at 10% (down from 16%) and Fitzgerald at 6% (down from 10%).

In match-ups of each of the four Republican candidates against the Democratic candidate in the November final election, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the current outcomes were within the margin of error, with Thompson ahead of Baldwin and Baldwin leading Hovde, Neumann, and Fitzgerald.

The poll also found little change in the presidential race in Wisconsin, with Democratic President Barack Obama ahead of Republican challenger Mitt Romney, 51% to 43%.

In the aftermath of the US Supreme Court decision on the federal health insurance law, there was little overall change in Wisconsinites’ opinions of the law and in the overall numbers for how people rated the Supreme Court. But there was a notable decrease in favorable views of the Court among Republicans and a notable increase among Democrats.

For more information and full results of the poll, click here.

 

Continue ReadingNew Poll: Republican Senate Race Changes as Presidential Race Stays Steady

Best of the Blogs: Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act has generated a great deal of “instant analysis” on the web.  This post will survey some of the noteworthy commentary.

I have not read anything that has caused me to re-evaluate my initial reaction to the decision.  I thought that neither Justice Robert’s Commerce Clause analysis nor his Taxing Power analysis was particularly compelling, yet I was struck by the manner in which the Chief Justice managed to construct a 5-4 majority that paralleled Marbury v. Madison insofar as the ruling chastized a sitting President with its rhetoric while simultaneously handing the President a major policy victory.  Upon further reflection, I still believe that future Supreme Court justices will find it quite easy to evade the boundaries that the language of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision purports to place on federal government power.  All it will take is a change in one vote for a future Court to designate the opinion’s Commerce Clause analysis as “dicta,” or else to find the requisite level of coercion lacking the next time that Congress’ deploys its Spending Power in a similar fashion.  While the rhetoric of the opinion promises doctrinal limits on federal power, the actual holdings of the decision fail to deliver on that promise.

John Yoo has come to the same conclusion.  In an op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal he considers the spin that some political conservatives have placed on the Court’s ruling — that it was a victory for the advocates of limited governent — and finds these assertions to be no more than a “hollow hope.”  He rejects the comparison to Marbury v. Madison, and instead compares the opinion of Justice Roberts to the “switch in time” that led the Supreme Court to uphold New Deal Era legislation during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.  By frustrating the Supreme Court’s best chance since the 1930s to reverse what Yoo views as an anti-originalist acceptance of broad legislative power, Justice Roberts has let Professor Yoo down.

Continue ReadingBest of the Blogs: Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act
Newer Posts
Older Posts