Common Cause Wisconsin: April 2011

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Most Restrictive Voter Photo ID Measure in the Nation Gets a Hearing on Wednesday/Big Crowd in Kenosha to Discuss Reform

Common Cause in Wisconsin Reform Update - April 26, 2011

Most Restrictive Voter Photo ID Measure in the Nation Gets a Public Hearing this Wednesday in the State Capitol
Packed House for Reform Forum In Kenosha on Campaign Finance, Redistricting and Election Reform Issues
Join Us in The Next Big Thing: Redistricting Reform

1. On Wednesday, April 27th the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Election and Campaign Reform will hold a public hearing on ASSEMBLY BILL 7 - which, if passed and enacted into law, would be the most restrictive voter identification law in the nation. This measure would likely mean that tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters in Wisconsin would find it too difficult and onerous to cast their ballots on election day, and take Wisconsin from being one of the top two states in the nation in voter turnout to one of the lowest. It would be easier to vote in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and even Georgia (currently the second most restrictive state in the nation, after Indiana, in which to vote) than in Wisconsin if this measure becomes law. And why? For no other reason than for partisan advantage. It is one of the most undemocratic and misguided pieces of legislation ever proposed in Wisconsin's history.

The State Senate counterpart to this measure, Senate Bill 6, all but passed in the State Senate in February with only Republicans voting. Here is what we had to say about it in February before the SB 6 was modified in committee, and then as it was brought to the State Senate floor and brought to the verge of passage on February 24th.

The committee will "allow" citizens to testify on Assembly Bill 7, but for no longer than two minutes and testimony will be limited for the period between 10 AM and 4 PM on Wednesday. We will be there to speak up against this monstrosity and you should as well, if you can. For more details about the hearing, go here. If you cannot be there to testify, please let the members of the committee and your own State Representative and State Senator know what you think.

2. Last week at Carthage College in Kenosha, Common Cause in Wisconsin presented another in a long series of reform forums around the state to educate the public about political reform issues like voter photo ID, redistricting reform, campaign finance reform and the recent state Supreme Court election in Wisconsin. On Monday evening, April 18th between 125 and 150 citizens and students filled every chair and stood to participate in a very lively panel discussion that featured Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), State Senator Bob Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie), Carthage College Political Science Professor Jerald Mast, Republican Assistant District Attorney of Kenosha County Dick Ginkowski and CC/WI Director Jay Heck. Carthage College Political Science Professor Jonathan Marshall moderated the forum and helped organize this very successful event with CC/WI Director of Information Services and Outreach Sandra Miller.

You can view a video of the Kenosha Forum on Wisconsin Eye, which covered the event. To see photos of the forum go here.

CC/WI has organized similar forums over the past several years in Green Bay, Milwaukee (twice), La Crosse, Oshkosh, Madison (twice), Sturgeon Bay, Eau Claire, Janesville, Pewaukee, Stevens Point, Middleton, Appleton -- and is planning upcoming forums in Green Bay and Wausau.

2. In the event you may have missed it, please read CC/WI Co-Chair Bill Kraus' excellent column on why redistricting reform is so a vitally important and why you need to lend your name to the effort!

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!
Holding Power Accountable Since 1972

Monday, April 25, 2011

To gerrymander or not to gerrymander

A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
May 2, 2011

By Bill Kraus

What the responses to my last blog post about de-partisanizing redistricting reminded me of is how far below the radar this whole subject is.

This is not what you would call a high-profile item. A good half of the people who contacted me or who didn’t respond to my contact urging them to join a movement to turn the every decade legislative district map-making over to people who don’t have a dog in the fight seemed wary of my motives.

Imagine that.

What had been made clear is that the present system puts competitiveness into the criteria mix. Negatively. As long as the map-making is in the hands of the legislators who occupy these districts, they will favor making fewer districts and the elections for those districts less competitive. So far so good.

The next assumption among the doubters was that the Iowa system, which I admire, tries to make more districts and elections more competitive. This may or may not be the result of disinterested redistricting, but it is not the objective of it. The genius of the Iowa system is that it simply takes competitiveness out of the list of criteria.

The criteria that remain and which I like are:

1. Where counties or major municipalities have the population to be about one Assembly seat or two or three or more, districts should be drawn within those bounds to yield that number.

2. No counties or municipalities should be divided among districts unless that is necessary to assure approximately one person one vote. And then the districts should be defensible, have natural boundaries like rivers or city thoroughfares or media markets, other political boundaries like school districts, or ethnic conclaves.

3. No wards should be cut.

4. Districts should be as compact as possible. No long fingers or squiggles. Square is a good shape.

5. Population equality is a goal not an absolute. Over the course of the 10 years these districts are in effect a lot of population shifts are going to happen. So getting close to population is good, getting too perfect is probably impossible and not necessary.

6. If within these rules, incumbents can be placed in one district and putting two incumbents into one district can be avoided, that’s okay. Contorting districts to make sure there are no incumbent vs. incumbent contests isn’t justifiable.

No red and blue criteria are recommended.

The idea is to make defensible, almost-population-equal districts and let the voting chips fall where they may.

It seems to me that maps drawn by a dispassionate public agency which has a few geography majors on staff can do this without setting off an epidemic of paranoia: the incumbents’ occupational disease.

And, if what they come up with is at or near what has happened in Iowa, for example, the incumbents will vote for it overwhelmingly, there will be fewer gerrymanders, and more voters votes will count right through the November elections.

How scary is that?

The opportunity to put this idea on everybody’s short agenda at this moment in time and space arrives because there are going to be eight or nine elections in a wholly unanticipated summer season this year. It is my hope that everyone who runs in these elections will be asked to support this un-radical, unthreatening, voter-power enhancing idea.

I would think that none of them would say no thanks, that they prefer gerrymandering.

This is the last chance to make this good thing happen until 2021.

Let’s do it.

Follow Bill Kraus on:

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Recount of Votes in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Will Help to Restore Public Confidence in Democracy

Press Release

April 21, 2011

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

Recount of Votes in Wisconsin Supreme Court Election Will Help to Restore Public Confidence in Democracy

Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg yesterday requested a statewide recount of the votes cast in the April 5th election for state Supreme Court in one of the closest elections in Wisconsin's history. Incumbent Justice David Prosser, Kloppenburg's opponent, holds a 7,316 vote lead out of more than 1.5 million cast.

Kloppenburg's decision to seek a recount - which is fully consistent with her right under state law when the margin separating two candidates is less than 0.05 after the canvass has been completed - should be respected and supported because it will help restore much needed public confidence in Wisconsin's election process and vote counting system, which was badly shaken in the aftermath of this election -- particularly in Waukesha County.

Failure to undertake a statewide recount would leave hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters with serious doubts about whether or not the votes in Waukesha County and elsewhere throughout Wisconsin were counted accurately and honestly.

The fact that a statewide recount may not, and likely will not, change the outcome of the election is most definitely not the point. The point is that citizens need to have full confidence that the vote totals in the election are accurate and properly reflect the will and choice of the citizens of Wisconsin.

Indeed, Justice Prosser and his campaign ought to embrace the recount rather than attempt to discourage one from occurring with belittling statements and even threats of legal action according to recent press accounts. What, exactly, do they fear from an open and transparent review of the vote totals? Prosser's victory could be tainted by persistent suspicion and doubt in the absence of such a review.

And is there anyone in the State of Wisconsin that can seriously assert that if it were Justice Prosser who trailed Ms. Kloppenburg by a margin of less than 0.05 percent of the vote total, that he and his campaign would not be entitled to and would not seek the recount that is provided for under Wisconsin law? There is absolutely no doubt that he would seek, and would be entitled to a recount.

With a substantial number of State Senate recall elections just ahead, and a Presidential election and elections for the U.S. Congress and the State Legislature looming next year, the citizens of Wisconsin need to have full confidence that all of their votes are properly and accurately counted and that in a very close outcome, such as this one, that the recount process provided for in the law is respected and supported rather than belittled and denigrated.

__________________________________________

Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

If not us, who? If not now, when?

A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
April 18, 2011

I hope that the answers to the questions asked in the following blog are US and NOW. If you think they should be, would you be willing to put your name on the virtual letterhead of a virtual organization that is going to ask the legislature and governor to bring something other than partisan warfare to this year’s redistricting?

If you are willing to lend your name, please send a message to jheck@commoncause.org or call 608-256-2686.

- Bill
April 23, 2011

*******************************************

By Bill Kraus

Anyone who has seen the process up close wants nothing more to do with drawing the lines for legislative districts. All turf battles bring out the worst in our political system, and redistricting is a virtual golf course.

And that’s only half of it.

When the opportunity to get a 10 year advantage rears its ugly head, really bad things happen.

This could be that kind of a year. And it’s not like the results achieved in prior decades by legislative fiat often adjusted by judicial revisions have been God’s gift to democracy.

The most recent rearrangement of Wisconsin’s legislative districts have created a map where only one of our eight congressional districts is demographically competitive, and
informed sources tell me as few as nine of the one hundred and sixteen seats in the state legislature that were on the ballot last year were considered “in play.” All the rest were considered “safe” for the candidates of one party or another. This was not an accident. The maps are made by and for the incumbents. The leaders of these incumbents recruit, slate, fund, and manage most of these campaigns. They do not have the unlimited funds needed to compete in all 116 races. Their objective is not admitted or even well known but comes down to “the fewer toss up races the better.”

The maps they have drawn if left alone or have submitted to the courts if not are not egregiously gerrymandered, but the result of these designs have created a democracy where some 82% of the voters who show up for the final vote in November did not have a real choice. The results of the elections they participated in were pretty much predetermined by the people who decided on the basis of how the people in the districts in their maps could be expected to vote.

In short most of us do not choose our representatives. Our representatives choose us.

We are not at the table when the maps are drawn. We do not necessarily share the priorities of the people who are at the table. Most of us might, for example, like to have more rather than fewer contests that were more competitive.

This could be done. This is being done in other places. Right next door, for example, in Iowa a disinterested state agency that doesn’t want to limit the number of competitive elections makes the map the legislature ultimately approves.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s farewell gift to the voters of California was a mapping system similar to Iowa’s. A couple other states follow that path as well. And, astonishingly, in North Carolina the Republicans in the legislature are also trying to turn over this fractious responsibility to non-partisans.

We could do that. It isn’t rocket science. We could turn the mapmaking over to some agency as dispassionate and fair minded as, say, the Government Accountability Board where the responsibility for overseeing our elections already resides.

Why would the legislature and the governor do this for us?

It would get a very distracting issue off the table in a contentious, issue filled year.

It would save money. The legislative leaders wouldn’t have to hire expensive, otherwise worthy law firms to help them do the mapping.

And it would be the right thing to do in a year when finding a proposal that a very large bi-partisan majority of citizens might regard as praiseworthy is as rare as a robin in a Wisconsin spring.

I can guarantee that the the 82% of us who are geographically disenfranchised would cheer.

Anyone willing to wait tell 2021 to do this?

I didn’t think so.

Follow Bill Kraus on:

Friday, April 15, 2011

In the News - April 2011

VIDEO: Re-districting in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Public Television - Here and Now

Editorial: Redistricting done the right way in Sheboygan County

Sheboygan Press

Bill Kraus: A political fix that Wisconsin needs

Madison.com

Joy Cardin asks her guests today’s Big Question: Should we require photo I.D. at the polling station?

WPR's Ideas Network

State agency finds Waukesha County supreme court vote count accurate

The Badger Herald

Supreme Court race uses $4.5M in outside advertising funds

The Badger Herald

VIDEO: Common Cause in Wisconsin: Election Reform Issues - Public Forum at Carthage College in Kenosha

Wisconsin Eye

Dems find discrepancies in past Waukesha County votes

The Badger Herald

Company CEO charged with two felonies of campaign finance fraud

The Badger Herald

Fallout between Gardner and former female 'friend' led to campaign finance investigation

The Capital Times

Wisconsin Common Cause: Count Every Vote in Contested Supreme Court Race

The Huffington Post

VIDEO: Calls for state-initiated recount

WKOW - Channel 27

WI Common Cause advocates a team effort for Waukesha election investigation

Wisconsin Public Radio

Chris Rickert: Basking in the warm glow of political turmoil

Wisconsin State Journal

Third party ads shape Supreme Court election

The Badger Herald

Politics As Usual: Why Can't We Get Along?

Madison Magazine

Attack Ads Attempt to Influence in the Final Stretch

WUWM - Milwaukee Public Radio

Outagamie County executive race shaping up to be costliest in history

Appleton Post Crescent

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

CC/WI to Hold Election Reform Public Forum April 18th in Kenosha

Press Release

April 13, 2011

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

PUBLIC FORUM AT CARTHAGE COLLEGE IN KENOSHA

TO TACKLE VITAL ELECTION REFORM ISSUES

Monday Evening, April 18th

6:30 - 8:00 PM

Jockey Room B
Carthage College - Todd Wehr Center
2001 Alford Park Drive, Kenosha, WI

Given the almost unbelieveable events following last Tuesday's election, a public forum on the future of Wisconsin elections could not be more timely.

Were all of the votes counted correctly in extremely close election between incumbent Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg? Should there be a statewide recount and/or an investigation of what happened in Waukesha County by the Government Accountability Board, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Waukesha County District Attorney? What does this huge blunder mean for citizen confidence in future Wisconsin elections?

And who should be able to vote in Wisconsin? The Wisconsin Legislature is right now on a fast track toward passing a measure that would completely transform Wisconsin from one of the easiest states in the country in which to cast a ballot to one of the most difficult. Senate Bill 6 stipulates that the only certain forms of identification can be used to vote - a drivers license (with a photo), a military ID or Native American tribal ID, naturalization papers, a valid passport, or a photo ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (which is free – but only if you request that it be free!).

No student I.D. would be accepted. If passed and enacted into law in its current form, Senate Bill 6 would make Wisconsin the most restrictive state in the nation in which to vote -- more restrictive than Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. And, it would cost millions of dollars of scarce taxpayer money to implement.

Is it worth it? Is it necessary?

Also this year, State Legislative and Congressional leaders will draw new voting districts -- a process that happens just once every 10 years. Here in Wisconsin, this process is done behind closed doors, without public participation or input. Legislators spend millions of taxpayer dollars to pay expensive lawyers to help them “choose” their voters by creating partisan, uncompetitive districts.

Is reforming Wisconsin’s current redistricting process necessary if we ever hope to have more competitive elections?

These and other campaign and election reform issues are more vital than ever as we deal with the continuing fallout of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission— a decision that, among other things, allows corporations, labor unions and other interest groups to use unlimited money from their general treasury coffers to run outside communications, providing these entities with far greater influence on the outcome of elections at both the federal and state levels. And Wisconsin has yet to enact into law legislation to require many of these outside groups to disclose who they are. The April 5th State Supreme Court election was overwhelmed by undisclosed, outside (and out-of-Wisconsin) special interest money for ads on TV, radio, robo-calls, flyers and mailings.

Is this "free speech" or is it a perversion of democracy?

How will the Citizens United decision affect Wisconsin? How can we find out who is really behind those vicious attack ads? If Photo Voter ID is enacted into law, will it prevent voter fraud? Or will it disenfranchise students, urban dwellers, minority groups, the elderly and disabled -- and ultimately depress voter turnout in Wisconsin? And should redistricting be taken out of the hands of partisan legislators?

These important political reform issues will be the focus of discussion in Kenosha this coming Monday during a "Reform Forum" organized by CC/WI entitled:

"The Future of Wisconsin Elections:
the Pros and Cons of Reform"

Panelists will include:

State Senator Robert Wirch (D-Kenosha)
State Representative Peter Barca
Political Science Professor Jerald Mast of Carthage College
Republican Blogger & Former District Attorney of Rusk County Richard Ginkowski
Executive Director Jay Heck of Common Cause in Wisconsin

State Representatives Samantha Kerkman (R-Randall) and Robin Vos (R-Rochester) were both invited to participate but were unable to do so.

Carthage Political Science Professor Jonathan Marshall will serve as Moderator.

Please join us at this free public forum for what we anticipate will be a lively discussion.

Full details can be found here.

__________________________________________

Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686

Friday, April 8, 2011

Full Investigation of Waukesha County "Found" Votes in Wisconsin Supreme Court Election and Statewide Vote Recount Must Occur

Press Release

April 8, 2011

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

FULL INVESTIGATION OF "FOUND" VOTES IN WAUKESHA COUNTY &
FULL STATE RECOUNT MUST OCCUR

The incredible and almost unbelieveable events of the last two days with regard to the reporting of votes in the City of Brookfield in Waukesha County in Tuesday's election for the State Supreme Court warrant a full investigation by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Justice and the District Attorney of Waukesha County. Furthermore, the Government Accountability should authorize and supervise a statewide recount of all ballots cast in Tuesday's elections and such a recount should be funded by the State of Wisconsin.

Only after thorough investigations are completed and a statewide recount of all of the votes in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been completed, verified and certified should the citizens of Wisconsin be satisfied and confident that the election process was conducted and completed with integrity and that the result was honest and accurate.

Common Cause in Wisconsin calls on the campaigns of incumbent Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg to support a full and thorough investigation by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Justice and the District Attorney of Waukesha County. Both Justice Prosser and Ms. Kloppenburg should furthermore demand a statewide recount that is not funded by either campaign.

__________________________________________

Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Impartial Justice's future (if it has one)

A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
April 11, 2011

By Bill Kraus

The Impartial Justice bill, which saw the light of day in a reform-averse Legislature only because all the sitting members of the state Supreme Court urged it on them, was supposed to be the poster child for full public funding. It was designed to get the candidates out of the demeaning money raising business and removing the taint of being beholden to their significant donors. It’s companion piece was intended to diminish the role of interest money in these campaigns as well.

The bill that passed was funded at a modest level which made it kind of good news/bad news for the incumbents. Potential challengers would no longer be daunted by the need to raise a large campaign fund to mount a respectable campaign which could open the floodgates. Advantage challengers. The low level of spending allowed by the candidates would make it very difficult for a challenger to produce and run the TV commercials which are widely considered necessary to get the name recognition they would need to be competitive. Advantage incumbents.

The companion piece which would have used the infusion of additional public money for candidates to offset and disincentivise outside spenders did not become law. It did get past the soon-to-be-dead body of the then-majority leader of the state Senate, but the brain dead or duplicitous also soon to be a dead body speaker of the Assembly put it in the trash can instead of to a vote. The Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote rejected an attempt to bring it in through a side door.

The poster child was still there, but less attractive.

The two survivors of the 2011 Supreme Court primary contest which would test public funding and run campaigns that made these campaigns shorter and maybe even sweeter. This, in turn, would prompt the great majority of voters who say they hate the tenor and cost and endlessness of the campaigns to demand an extension of full public funding to all elections. Full public funding ascendant.

Events intervened.

A placid primary which looked like it would lead to an easy victory for the incumbent morphed into something unseen and unanticipated in judicial elections. The outsiders came in with all guns blazing. Some supported the candidates. Most did not. Trashing and demonization dominated the airwaves.

The candidates were outspent and overwhelmed but did their level best to dodge or refute the firestorm of false and exaggerated charges by the outside bomb throwers and stay--er--judicial.

Expectations for the future of Impartial Justice are cloudy at best. The good thing is that those of us who think the election system needs to be repaired are accustomed to celebrating small victories. Despite all the clatter both candidates were spared the indignity of raising the amount of money it would have taken to be financially competitive and the recusal requests that come with taking money from supplicant/donors who appear before the court.

Nonetheless the poster child is pretty banged up. The first clean up is a full disclosure treatment so that the voters know who the outsiders are. If they want to play they should be asked to put prominent upfront labels on the TV commercials that are their main--more like only--weapon, so voters know that these scurrilous outbursts are not coming from the candidates themselves. Those whose money sources or supporter biases are not easily evident (as unions, manufacturers, lawyers, realtors, etc. are) should also be asked to tell the voters where they get their money. They can put in as many chips as they want, but full disclosure should be the price of getting a seat at the table.

Even the freedom-of-speech-crazed-collateral-damage-blind-U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that those who want to play the game can’t do it anonymously. No more blindsiding.

The Legislature has to do its small bit as well and put the modest sum for full public funding that was available to this year’s candidates back in the budget from whence it disappeared. Another letter supporting Impartial Justice from a unanimous Supreme Court would probably make this easier.

Follow Bill Kraus on:

Friday, April 1, 2011

Images from CC/WI Public Forum at Carthage College in Kenosha

April 18, 2011


L to R: Asst. District Attorney Dick Ginkowski of Kenosha County, Prof. Gerald Mast of Carthage College, Sen. Bob Wirch, Rep. Peter Barca, Jay Heck of CC/WI and Prof. Jonathan Marshall of Carthage College