Press Release
May 24, 2010
CONTACT:
Jay Heck – 608/256-2686 Defending Wisconsin's Impartial Justice Law
On December 1, 2009 Wisconsin Governor
Jim Doyle signed into law the "Impartial Justice Act." The Act provides full public financing to qualified candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who agree to abide by a spending limit of $400,000 (for the primary and general elections). This is the most sweeping and significant campaign finance reform in Wisconsin since public financing was first established in 1977. Wisconsin joins North Carolina and New Mexico as the only states to have enacted into law full public financing for state supreme court elections. This was
a tremendous victory for political reform and will provide much needed improvement in how we elect supreme court justices in Wisconsin after the demoralizing and disgraceful $6 million 2007 and 2008 contests.
But within weeks of the enactment into law of the Impartial Justice measure, anti-reform organizations and individuals in Wisconsin, together with their Indiana and Virginia-based lawyers,
sued in federal court in Madison to have the Impartial Justice law
struck down as unconstitutional.
Attorneys with the Wisconsin Department of Justice are defending the new law but Common Cause in Wisconsin and two other state reform organizations (the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign) immediately stepped forward to do whatever they could to assist in the defense after the two lawsuits challenging the measure were filed. Pro bono legal assistance was immediately offered by a group of concerned attorneys who have been working with the reform groups and with the Wisconsin Department of Justice to develop the case for upholding Impartial Justice.
The legal team consists of Ed Hughes of the law firm Stafford Rosenbaum in Madison, Tacy Flint and David Carpenter of Sidley Austin in Chicago and Angela Migally, Mimi Marziani and Monica Young of the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law, which is coordinating the defense effort.
In February, Common Cause in Wisconsin and the other two reform organizations sought to intervene as defendants in the two federal lawsuits attacking Wisconsin's new law. In March, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb denied the motions to join the cases as intervening defendants but did grant an alternative request to participate as amicus curiae or "friend of the court." Judge Crabb recognized "the experience the proposed intervenors have to offer" and wrote that there is "no doubt that it will be valuable in resolving this case." By granting friend-of-the-court status, the court invited the three groups to submit briefs on issues involved in the cases. The three reform organizations filed their first amicus brief on April 30, arguing against the motion of failed supreme court candidate and now plaintiff Randy Koschnick to declare the legislation unconstitutional as a matter of law.
The court is expected to decide the cases before the end of the year. The fate of the Impartial Justice Act and the integrity of future State Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin hang in the balance. But we feel very good about our chances of prevailing in Court and upholding this important political reform.
One very big and significant reason for optimism is because of a stunning victory for reformers on Friday when the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued this ruling affirming the constitutionality of Arizona's system for publicly financing its state elections -- and the "matching funds" provision there that has been attacked by anti-reform groups in Wisconsin. (Arizona politicians await Supreme Court ruling on matching funds). The case now heads to the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision was issued at just the right time to help bolster our case in defense of Impartial Justice in Wisconsin.
__________________________________________
Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686
Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!
www.CommonCauseWisconsin.org
Stay informed - Follow CC/WI on Twitter!
Read More...
Intro only...
A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
May 23, 2010
By Bill KrausIt turns out that most people think our campaign system is broken, and suspect our system of representative government is no better than seriously flawed.
The reformers have been hammering away for so long that most people also know what is wrong and why.
They are ready to move on to solutions, and they wonder why none are forthcoming.
It is not for lack of proposals and ideas.
The main thrust of reform initiatives has historically been a search for constitutional ways to impose spending limits and regulations on participation.
The Supreme Court, in its questionable wisdom, has pretty much closed down all the good ideas in those areas.
There are still some things that can and could be done, however.
I am not sure they are reforms or nostalgia masquerading as reforms, but I do know that they resonate with a pretty thoroughly disgusted electorate.
Term limits come immediately to mind. They would be an attack on the careerism that has crept into legislatures and is well established in local governments.
Redistricting seems to be too esoteric to get the kind of support that term limits draws. The case that dispassionate, disinterested redistricting has greatly increased the number of competitive races where it has been put in place has been made but not heard. How many Wisconsin voters know that incumbents in only 10 percent of the state’s legislative districts are worth challenging, that legislators are picking them instead of vice versa? Not many, if the low level of enthusiasm for this simple, cost-free idea is any measure.
The idea of part-time legislators and county boards and city councils is another attack on careerism and invincible incumbencies that is not as draconian as term limits, but has considerable support.
There are some interesting if tricky ways to redirect the flow of campaign contributions which would decrease the power of the aforementioned invincible incumbents and their legislative leaders, but let’s stick to the big three for the moment.
All would be popular. None are likely to be enacted.
The incumbents who would have to vote for them regard all three as an attack on a system that got them where they are and is most likely to keep them there.
There are two ways to overcome this resistance to reform. The most radical is something called initiative and referendum. If we had this process in Wisconsin, the unhappy voters would have a way to vote for the three proposals without going through the recalcitrant legislators.
The trouble with this is that Wisconsin would have to adopt a system that is currently destroying the governability of California for sure and other states that have turned legislation into popularity contests which make hired guns and TV stations rich and a make mess of representative government.
Another route to enactment would be a grassroots uprising that goes beyond parades and protests and has enough followers to get legislators elected who will vote for these ideas.
This is more effective. Also harder. A few interests have enough clout to pretty much get their way on narrower issues (gun control comes immediately to mind). So it can be done.
Will it? I don’t hear the drumbeat yet. Neither do any candidates for high and low office in Wisconsin.
Follow Bill Kraus on:
Read More...
Intro only...
Press Release
May 20, 2010
CONTACT:
Jay Heck – 608/256-2686 CHANGE OF VENUE AND PASSAGE OF TIME
DOES NOT CHANGE FACTS OF THE CASE AGAINST
FORMER WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY SPEAKER SCOTT JENSEN
The Wisconsin Supreme Court this morning issued a unanimous
decision stipulating that the retrial of former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker
Scott Jensen (R-Town of Brookfield) for three felony counts of misconduct in public office in 2002,
could proceed in Jensen's county of residence - Waukesha County, rather than in Dane County where the alleged crimes occurred. This decision reversed a Court of Appeals and lower court decision that blocked moving the new trial to Jensen's home county.
The Supreme Court's decision today is not a "victory" for former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, as some have claimed. A victory would have been acquittal of all changes. The facts of the case are no different today than they were in 2006, when a jury of his peers found Scott Jensen guilty of three felony counts and one misdemeanor count of misconduct in public office. There is, or should be no reason to believe that a jury in Waukesha County will view the facts of this case differently than the jury in Dane County did in 2006. The ramifications for violating the law and the public trust does not diminish with the passage of time and a change in venue.
Unless Jensen decides to plead to a lesser charge and settle the case -- as all of the other legislators charged in the 2002 Legislative Caucus Scandal did -- the trial in Waukesha County should proceed without further delay. It is well past time for there to be some closure to this decade-long stain on Wisconsin's tradition of clean honest state government.
For a full discussion of this case and the issues involved you can view and listen to this interview of the CC/WI executive director in a "newsmaker" interview conducted by Wisconsin Eye correspondent Steve Walters earlier today. Walters was Capitol Bureau chief of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for many years, including during the Legislative Caucus Scandal.
__________________________________________
Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686
Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!
www.CommonCauseWisconsin.org
Stay informed - Follow CC/WI on Twitter!
Read More...
Intro only...
A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
May 18, 2010
By Bill KrausThe state lost two political stalwarts this month.
Paul Hassett died.
Dave Obey retired.
Some people may think that they had nothing in common. Paul was a lifelong Republican. Dave a Democrat. That is how they differed. Despite the fact that they were adversaries; they were not enemies. They respected the trade and its participants.
The quintessential Paul Hassett story is about his 1960 encounter with Jack and Jackie Kennedy. The Hassett family's recollections of that day in the winter of that election year differ in some details, but all agree that Paul, who was the Dunn County chair of the Republican Party stepped in to help Jack campaign in this Hubert Humphrey-friendly territory when he made a campaign stop in Menominee. Kennedy was snubbed by the area Democrats, and Paul volunteered to show him around the area and to introduce him to the movers and shakers there. Neither of them cared that there was a Nixon bumper sticker on Paul’s car, which was their main means of transportation.
Would Dave Obey have done the same for a forlorn Republican in his hometown? I don’t discount the possibility.
Obey's memoir of 40 years in Congress includes his choice for the best president he served under during that time: Gerald Ford.
There is, or was, something I call the Arena Effect operating in politics most of the time these two standard bearers were active. The comparison is to athletic competitors. At the end of fiercely contested battles on the field, the combatants, who had in the most physical games been trying to take each other’s heads off, come together in the middle of the field in a show of mutual respect for the game itself and all of the participants.
Competitive camaraderie.
They do not disdain the spectators who support them, but their real admiration is for their peers who have gone through what they have gone through to get into the arena and have paid the price of competing at a high level in a demanding contest.
The fact that Dave Obey was, is, and always will be much more irascible than Paul ever was is irrelevant to my main point. They had different personalities, different styles, we all do. The important things about them both is they were honest with their friends and foes and they both knew that the other was taking a different route, perhaps, but was trying to do what he believed to be the right thing for the country and its inhabitants. They wanted their ideas to prevail but they were not afraid to talk to each other.
They represented the best in politics.
Follow Bill Kraus on:
Read More...
Intro only...
Press Release
May 10, 2010
CONTACT:
Jay Heck – 608/256-2686 Governor Doyle, Speaker Sheridan and Senate Majority Leader Decker
Still Silent on Special/Extraordinary Session to Pass
Campaign Disclosure Legislation
On April 23rd, the Wisconsin Legislature adjourned for the year without passing needed legislation (
Senate Bill 43) to require outside special interest groups who make widely-disseminated communications intended to influence the outcome of an election, reveal who their donors are.
That same day, Common Cause in Wisconsin called on Governor
Jim Doyle to call the Legislature into Special Session or for Wisconsin Assembly Speaker
Mike Sheridan and State Senate Majority Leader
Russ Decker to call the Legislature into Extraordinary Session to pass disclosure legislation so that it will be in place for the upcoming 2010 elections:
Special or Extraordinary State Legislative Session Needed for Campaign Finance Disclosure Reform. The
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted our call the very next day:
Legislative job left undone. Then, on April 29th, the Janesville Gazette - in Speaker Sheridan's hometown - endorsed our call for a Special/Extraordinary Session on disclosure:
Legislators must return and expose phony issue ads. And last week both the
Sheboygan Press and
Oshkosh Northwestern joined in the call, as have other reformers.
Thus far, there has been nary a word from Doyle, Sheridan and Decker on this matter -- which requires their leadership in order for it to be accomplished.
Major disclosure legislation was unveiled in the U.S. House and Senate last week (see: Lawmakers call for restrictions on political ads) and the Congress is expected to move on it quickly. President Barack Obama has expressed support for it. But in order for there to be disclosure in state elections, the Legislature must act.
Today, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board is expected to announce that it is has sent to the Legislature an administrative rule requiring the disclosure of all widely disseminated campaign communications that currently masquerade as issue advocacy. It will take effect unless the Legislature moves to block or modify it in the next 30 days. Disclosure legislation passed by the Assembly and State Senate and signed into law by the Governor would be even better and far less vulnerable to legal challenges that anti-reform organizations will file against disclosure measures no matter what form they take.
Call or E-mail Governor Jim Doyle and demand he call the Wisconsin Legislature into Special Session to consider and pass the phony issue ad disclosure legislation - Senate Bill 43 - which has the votes to pass both chambers.
Call or E-Mail Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker and demand they show leadership on disclosure and call the Legislature into Extraordinary Session to get the job done by passing Senate Bill 43.
__________________________________________
Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686
Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!
www.CommonCauseWisconsin.org
Stay informed - Follow CC/WI on Twitter!
Read More...
Intro only...
A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
May 10, 2010
By Bill KrausThe main message that former
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered to the attendees at the recent annual meeting of the Wisconsin State Bar Association was that judicial independence is under attack.
One of the principal reasons for this, she believes, is judicial elections.
Her recommended antidote to this corruption of the judicial system is to replace judicial elections with judicial appointments.
It should be pointed out that she was not recommending the federal appointment system which is partisan-tilted and patronage-driven, but one that is designed to reward merit.
This, however, as the justice’s fellow panelists all pointed out, is Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not just favor elections as a way of choosing public servants. Wisconsin is addicted to elections as a way of choosing public servants. In Wisconsin we elect coroners. We elect people to two constitutional offices that have no function.
This preference is not likely to change.
But we have, kind of quietly and serendipitously, stumbled into modifications of the elective system that may not guarantee that judicial independence will be protected, but comes pretty close.
We start with the Wisconsin tradition of de-toxifying partisanship. With a couple of notable exceptions, which one hopes were evanescent, candidates in judicial races have chosen to put a well known Republican and a well known Democrat in prominent positions in their campaign organizations.
This has two desirable effects. It shows the electorate that the candidate aspires to the independence and open mindedness that we want from the judiciary, and it tempers the campaigns themselves. The attack/demonization tactics that are so evident in partisan politics are pretty much defanged by the mere presence of bi-partisans in the campaign organization.
This is a tradition not a mandate, of course, but it has come to be expected, and because of recent excesses it may become mandated by popular acclaim once again.
Additionally, the last legislative session produced an Impartial Justice Bill which fully funds the campaigns of Supreme Court justices on the condition that the candidates accept spending limits. The funding is not overly generous, but it need not be because of the third thing we do in Wisconsin.
We hold our judicial elections in the winter and spring and separate them from the partisan, big-spending free-for-alls in the fall. The turnouts are abysmally low. Bad. This makes a word-of-mouth shoe leather campaign winnable. Good. Enough media to lay out the beauty contest credentials and then a heavy city-to-city, lawyer-to-lawyer, conscientious-voter-to-voter campaign becomes workable because the turnout is low.
Justice O’Connor may or may not have been convinced that our way is the best way, but I do think we have made the elected part of our process a how-to example of preserving judicial independence while preserving the citizens’ right to elect.
As we know, most judges get the job initially by appointment not election. Justice O’Connor’s ideas on how to get the best and the brightest via appointment can and should be adopted in Wisconsin as well. I have already weighed in on how we can do this here. We should. The remarkable former justice would be pleased. As would I.
Follow Bill Kraus on:
Read More...
Intro only...
What Ever Happened to Good Government in Wisconsin?
*** And How Can We Fix It? ***
Monday, June 7th, 2010
6:30 – 8:00 PM
Middleton Public Library (Archer Room)
7425 Hubbard Avenue - Middleton, WI
** Free and Open to the Public -- Light Refreshments will be Served **
Please come join in the discussion and learn more about:
- Campaign Finance Reform in Wisconsin after the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Citizens United vs F.E.C.
- Public Financing of Wisconsin Supreme Court and other state elections
- The disclosure and regulation of interest-group “phony issue ads” and other “outside” spending
- Redistricting Reform – why it’s necessary and how should we do it?
- How we can improve our Election Process in Wisconsin
Panelists:
State Senator Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee)
Andrea Kaminski - Executive Director, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Republican Strategist and CC/WI Co-Chair Bill Kraus
Executive Director Jay Heck of Common Cause in Wisconsin
Moderator:
Gail Shea - Former State Elections Board Official and Founder of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Presented by: Common Cause in Wisconsin
(Underwritten by The Joyce Foundation)
Co-Sponsors: League of Women Voters Wisconsin Education Fund, League of Women Voters of Dane County, American Association of University Women WI, American Association of University Women WI - Monona Branch, Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans
For more information: call Sandra Miller at (608) 658-2109
Parking is available on the west side of the Library and behind the building in the Terrace Avenue lot.
Read More...
Intro only...
