An Aggressive Message From Wisconsin

I got an invitation from a producer at CNN to write a comment for their Web site on the state Senate recall elections Tuesday. So I took them up on it. Here’s the start of what I said:

Milwaukee, Wisconsin (CNN) — Wisconsin — so polarized, so evenly split, so politically inflamed — sent a message to the nation Tuesday night.

Republicans will say it is a message that vindicates the strong action taken by Gov. Scott Walker and Republican majorities in both houses of the Wisconsin legislature to hold down spending and strip formerly powerful public employee unions of all but a bit of their power. The Republican actions became a national sensation in February when Democratic senators fled the state for three weeks and tens of thousands of people protested daily at the state Capitol.

Democrats will point to their victories in ousting two Republicans from the state Senate and to how much better they did on Republican turf than in the November 2010 statewide elections. They showed that momentum has swung their way, they will say.

As a pretty impartial person, my reading of the dominant message is: We live in polarizing, sharply split, inflamed times when it comes to politics. And that’s only getting more intense. . . .

For the rest of the comment, click here.

Continue ReadingAn Aggressive Message From Wisconsin

Judge Sumi Does Her Job

Judge Maryann Sumi issued the long anticipated opinion in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald yesterday, holding: 1) that the circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear cases alleging that a particular piece of legislation was not constitutionally enacted; 2) that the court’s jurisdiction includes challenges alleging noncompliance with Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law; and that 3) the failure of the March 9, 2011 Joint Committee of Conference Meeting to comply with the Open Meetings Law rendered the legislative action taken at that meeting — 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 — void.

Judge Sumi’s opinion is straight forward.  The logic of her reasoning is spelled out in the topic headings contained in the opinion’s table of contents.  I paraphrase:

It is within the scope of judicial responsibility to review legislative action for compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.  The Open Meetings Law presumes that all governmental meetings will be open and subject to notice requirements.  Legislative proceedings are not exempted from the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.  Therefore the legislature must comply with the same Open Meeting rules that apply to other governmental entities.  The evidence at trial demonstrated that the March 9, 2011 meeting did not comply with the Open Meetings Law.  The Open Meetings Law authorizes the court to void actions undertaken in violation of the law’s terms, where the court finds that the public interest does not counsel in favor of sustaining the action.  There is no public interest in favor of sustaining the act taken here, especially since the provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 can easily be re-enacted by the legislature if it so wishes (provided that any legislative re-enactment complies with the requirements of the Open Meetings Law).

Reading through this summary, one might wonder what all the fuss is about.

Continue ReadingJudge Sumi Does Her Job

Supreme Court Candidates Debate: Testy Talk About Collegiality

Four thoughts in the aftermath of the debate Monday evening at Eckstein Hall between incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and his challenger in the April 5 election, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg:

First: As a news reporter, I’ve never covered a race for a Supreme Court seat. I was struck by how awkward the debate is, compared to the plain old partisan races I’ve covered fairly often. It’s similar to confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court justices: Basically, if you have something substantial to say, you can’t and shouldn’t say it. You can’t say what you would do with any potential upcoming issues. Frequently, you can’t (or won’t) comment on past actions, although Prosser did talk about some past cases and said he was glad to run on his record. So you end up standing there, saying repeatedly that you are independent and nonpartisan and will judge each case fairly and with an open mind. Which both Kloppenburg and Prosser did. But it is very clear that Prosser is being backed by conservatives and Republican-oriented groups and Kloppenburg is being backed by liberals and Democratic-leaning groups. Do all these people and groups know something the candidates don’t know? Are they wrong? Or is this a curious exercise in avoiding talking about the issues, even though everyone seems to know what you’d say if you did?

Two: I’ve been at some testy and tense debates and joint appearances by candidates in various races, but this one was way up the list, if it wasn’t the champion on my personal list.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Candidates Debate: Testy Talk About Collegiality
Newer Posts
Older Posts