How Toxic is Thomas?

Pat McIlheran has an interesting find in today’s Journal Sentinel, commenting on Judge Randa’s underreported decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid. Judge Randa held that application of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Thomas decision (which applied something called risk contribution theory to hold lead paint pigment manufacturers collectively responsible for all harm from that product) would violate the federal due process rights of a defendant who had not itself manufactured lead paint pigment, but had assumed the liabilities of a manufacturer who had.

I spoke briefly with Pat yesterday on the potential fallout from the case and he quoted part of what I said. (The tyranny of 800 words is best understood by those who must submit to it.)

Here’s a more expanded version.

Continue ReadingHow Toxic is Thomas?

Barrett on Redistricting: What Isn’t There

Tom Barrett’s proposal for “nonpartisan” redistricting may reduce the degree of “incumbent protection” that takes place in the redrawing of legislative districts, but I think it is more interesting for what it does not do.

There is a movement in the country to have redistricting by commission according to what are generally though to be neutral redistricting principles, i.e., the creation of compact and contiguous districts that, to the extent possible, respect municipal and county boundaries and (perhaps) geographical barriers that seperate one community from another. See. e.g., California’s Voter First Act. These principles restrict discretion in redistricting and, or so the theory goes, minimize the opportunity for political maneuvering. This doesn’t eliminate contention but the establishment of physical requirements reduces the opportunity for gerrymandering to protect incumbents or to maximize the opportunities for the party in power.

That’s not what Barrett wants to do and that’s not surprising. As a general matter, Democratic voters are more concentrated that Republican voters. Contiguous and compact districts will tend to create a smaller number of heavily Democratic districts. 

Continue ReadingBarrett on Redistricting: What Isn’t There

Marriage Amendment Was Validly Enacted

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting the recognition of any substantially similar status (Art XIII, sec. 13) was properly enacted. Justice Michael Gableman wrote for a unanimous Court.

The question before the Court was whether the amendment complied with a requirement in the state constitution that voters must be able to vote separately on separate amendments.

Justice Michael Gableman wrote that the legislature may “submit several distinct propositions as one amendment if they relate to the same subject matter and are designed to accomplish one general purpose.” The marriage amendment, in the view of the Court, had one general purpose:

“The first sentence preserves the one man-one woman character of marriage by so limiting marriages entered into or recognized in Wisconsin. The second sentence, by its plain terms, ensures that no legislature, court, or any other government entity can get around the first sentence by creating or recognizing “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.”

By way of full disclosure, I (along with Michael Dean L’85) filed an amicus brief supporting the state’s position.

Having said that, the decision seems fully consistent with the (admittedly few) prior cases that have addressed the issue and with our constitutional practice. Our state consitution is full of amendments that consist of multiple propositions aimed at accomplishing a general purposes. That a voter may agree with some, but not all, of these propositions has not rendered these amendments improper.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that this was a decision about the procedure by which the amendment was passed. It did not address the consistency or inconsistency of the Amendment with the federal constitution (McConkey lacked standing to bring such a claim) and did not address the proper interpretation of the amendment.

Cross posted at Shark and Shepherd.

Continue ReadingMarriage Amendment Was Validly Enacted
Newer Posts
Older Posts