Walker Maintains Lead Over Barrett, New Law School Poll Results Show

Republican Gov. Scott Walker leads Democratic challenger Tom Barrett 52% to 45% among likely voters in next week’s recall election, according to results of the Marquette Law School Poll released Wednesday.

The seven point margin is not statistically different from a six point margin in a Law School Poll conducted two weeks earlier, said Charles Franklin, a visiting professor of law and public policy at the Law School and director of the poll. The difference between Walker and Barrett is within the margin of error for the poll, which is 4.1 percentage points.

The poll was conducted May 23 to 26, with most of the 720 people in the sample interviewed before a televised debate between Walker and Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee, last Friday. Franklin said that it is possible things have changed in the light of the debate or other developments. In releasing the results, he and Mike Gousha, the Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy, showed results of 16 polls this year of the recall race. The Law School Poll results were in line with other results, which have generally shown a small Walker lead in recent weeks. However, a poll also released Wednesday found the two candidates tied at 49%. That poll was conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

In other results of the Law School Poll, Democratic President Barack Obama led Republican challenger Mitt Romney 51% to 43% in Wisconsin. Two weeks earlier, the poll found the presidential race to be tied. Franklin said there is still a lot of time for the presidential race to develop.

Full results from the new poll and previous polls can be found by clicking here.

 

Continue ReadingWalker Maintains Lead Over Barrett, New Law School Poll Results Show

Restorative Justice Conference to Focus on Restoring Faith in Government Through Civil Discourse

Recently Sheldon Lubar, a highly respected and successful Milwaukee businessman, called upon our political leaders to return to civility. Finding that political labels are not particularly helpful, he describes his personal politics as follows:

My politics are for what is right, what makes common sense, what is decent, what will create prosperity and a good life — I am for civility. So what is civility? Webster defines civil, civility, civilization as follows:

A community of citizens. A rational and fair government.

Being polite and courteous is civil. . . . Civility is the positive and sincere consideration of others.

I believe that the founders of our great country sought to create a nation of “civility.” They sought to create a nation that elected leaders who could recognize both sides of all issues and through honest and informed debate could and would resolve differences fairly and then move ahead.

In this heavily financed election season, many are concerned with the lack of civil discourse and respectful debate in our political discussions. People disagree as to the causes of the problem and as to what is needed as solutions. On June 8th, the Marquette Law School Restorative Justice Initiative’s annual conference will present speakers who will focus on our theme for this year, “Restoring Faith in Government: Encouraging Civil Public Discourse.”

Every year we select a relevant issue to examine through a restorative justice lens by asking three critical questions: 1.) Who and what is being harmed by certain conduct? 2.) What is the nature (and the breadth and depth) of the harm? 3.) What needs to be done to work at repairing the harm? This year we chose to focus on civility in political life.

Our conference will examine whether Americans are losing faith in our ability to discuss, much less solve, our political problems. Two state senators and two former lieutenant governors will look at whether people are too discouraged to run for office or even to participate in the political process. Three nationally recognized public policy mediators will present ways to facilitate difficult but respectful discussions with people of diverse views. Speakers will talk about negative advertising and the negative blogging occurring in our print media that often looks like “recreational hostility.” Our keynote speaker, John Avlon, a senior columnist for Newsweek, will share his views on ways to heal polarization in America. We will end the conference with optimism by having a panel of enthusiastic Marquette students who have great hope for our governmental processes in the future. I believe it will be a very good day. I hope you will join us.

 

Continue ReadingRestorative Justice Conference to Focus on Restoring Faith in Government Through Civil Discourse

Is There a Female Bloc on the U.S. Supreme Court?

For several decades commentators have referred to the United States Supreme Court as being divided into liberal and conservative blocs. Now, suddenly, it looks like there may be male and female blocs as well.

(Since a “bloc” normally has to have at least three members, the possibility of a female bloc came into existence only with the 2010 appointment of Justice Elena Kagan.)

In the Court’s recent decision in Blueford v. Arkansas, the court decided by a vote of 6-3 that the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause did not prevent the State of Arkansas from retrying the petitioner Bluefield on capital murder charges.

Blueford was accused of killing his girlfriend’s young child and was indicted for capital murder. During his trial, the Arkansas jury was instructed to consider also the lesser included offenses of first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. Ultimately, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and it reported to the trial judge that it was deadlocked on the manslaughter charge. The jurors also stated that they had voted unanimously against Blueford’s guilt for the capital murder and first-degree murder charges and did not vote on negligent homicide.

In response, the trial judge declared a mistrial. When the state chose to retry Blueford, his lawyers moved to dismiss the capital and first-degree murder charges, based on double jeopardy considerations. The trial judge denied the motion, and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that double jeopardy had not attached.

Having granted cert., the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court. By a vote of 6-3, the court held that double jeopardy does not bar retrying Petitioner for capital and first-degree murder since the jury had not made a final resolution of the charges in the initial trial. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by male Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito. Female Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.

Whether or not gender played a role in the 6-3 split is an interesting question, but has not yet been addressed by commentators. Of course, one case does not establish a pattern, but it will be interesting to see if the pattern in Blueford v. Arkansas repeats itself.

Continue ReadingIs There a Female Bloc on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Newer Posts
Older Posts