Political Processes & Rhetoric – Page 70 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

A “Paper-Shuffling Bureaucrat” at Center Stage in Wisconsin Politics

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:January 20, 2012
Post category:Election Law Marquette Law School Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Speakers at Marquette

Kevin Kennedy refers to himself as “just a paper-shuffling bureaucrat. – I haven’t moved to rock star status.”

But sometimes, timing is everything. So that’s why there were a gaggle of television cameras, a cluster of reporters, and about 200 others in the room when Kennedy joined Mike Gousha for an “On the Issues” session at Eckstein Hall on Thursday.

Kennedy is director and general counsel of the Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board. Now in possession of petitions with about 1.9 million signatures calling for recall elections for governor, lieutenant governor, and for four state Senate seats currently held by Republicans, the board is at center stage for one of America’s hottest political scenes. What the GAB decides in handling the petitions and setting the course for the elections that are almost sure to result will have a major bearing on Wisconsin’s future and become a vivid part of Wisconsin’s history.

“It’s an honor to be part this process,” Kennedy told Gousha, the Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy. ”And it’s definitely energizing. You can’t help but get juiced when you’re working on something this challenging.”

Providing Straight Information on Public Opinion in a Historic Political Time

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:January 19, 2012
Post category:Election Law Marquette Law School Political Processes & Rhetoric Public

Amid the amazing tumult on the Wisconsin political scene, with partisanship and passion running so high, how can you get straight information about what voters are thinking?

One good answer: You can run a large-scale polling project, adhering to the highest standards of professionalism and non-partisanship. You can poll repeatedly throughout the year, so that you can follow trends. You can make all the results available promptly to anybody. You can go to lengths to give others a chance to see what you’ve found out.

That is what the Marquette Law School Poll is going to do. It will be the most extensive polling project in Wisconsin history, and we are fully committed to making it an independent effort that will have no agenda except to find out as much as we can about public opinion in Wisconsin and share it with all.

In fact, consider this your invitation to tune into the poll’s results. We are launching the first round of polling on Thursday, Jan. 19, and will release the results next Wednesday, Jan. 25.

Friends of Scott Walker v. GAB Changes the Recall Rules Mid-Stream

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:January 5, 2012
Post category:Election Law Judges & Judicial Process Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Wisconsin Law & Legal System

Today, Judge J. Mac Davis ruled that the Government Accountability Board must take “affirmative steps to identify and strike duplicate, fictitious or unrecognizable signatures as it reviews the recall petitions expected to be filed against Gov. Scott Walker.” The ruling comes in the case of Friends of Scott Walker v. GAB, filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court on December 15, 2011. The complaint in the case sought a declaratory judgment from the court that the procedures of the Government Accountability Board, whereby the GAB accepted (but did not necessarily count) duplicative signatures on recall petitions, violated the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin law. The complaint in the case is available here.

The GAB responded to the lawsuit by arguing that the Wisconsin statutes provide a clearly defined procedure that allows elected officials subject to recall to instigate challenges to any signatures that appear to be duplicative, fictitious or unrecognizable. After the GAB accepts the recall petitions, there is a period of 10 days in which the signatures may be challenged by the official. It is at the challenge stage that suspect signatures should be identified and removed, according to the GAB, and not earlier when the recall petitions are accepted by the agency. The GAB also contended that there was no provision in the Wisconsin Statutes that granted the agency the authority to do what the Friends of Scott Walker asked it to do.

Judge Davis disagreed with the GAB, and earlier today he ruled that the GAB is required to take affirmative action that will have the effect of reducing the burden that the Friends of Scott Walker would otherwise face. This is because the GAB must now identify and remove suspect signatures on its own initiative.

Why is the GAB obligated to do this, when there is no statutory language that explicitly places such an obligation on the agency?