Wisc AG Considers Probe of John Doe Leak Exposing Republican Venality

Stung by a blockbuster report exposing lies, deceptions, criminal schemes and corruption throughout Wisconsin Republican state government, Republicans in the Dept of Justice are considering investigating the sources(s) of the embarrassing revelations, reports Molly Beck in the Wisconsin State Journal.

I bet Republicans are very curious.

Email after email shows Walker and his campaign aides coordinated with the independent group, Wisconsin Club for Growth.

Walker is "flying around the country collecting money from billionaires and corporate interests to protect himself," notes Democracy Now this morning.

Wisc DoJ Won't Seek SCOTUS Review, Another Win for Voting Rights v. GOP

Via One Wisconsin Now, "The Wisconsin Dept. of Justice announced late yesterday they will not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent our victories in court from being in place for this November's election. 'As we said before, we hope municipalities across the state will quickly move forward in offering expanded in-person absentee voting hours to ensure all Wisconsinites are able to exercise their right to vote,'" said Scot Ross of the One Wisconsin Institute.

Good week for voting rights prognosticating and analysis by our friends at Election Law blog:

Patrick Marley: 'AG Brad Schimel will not seek SCOTUS review of 7th Circuit’s early voting decision. Madison/Milwaukee plans for early voting in Sept stay in place.'

I had pegged the chances of emergency relief from the Supreme Court in this case as quite low.

A regular appeal of these rulings will go to the 7th Circuit.

Smart move by WI not to create additional uncertainty about early voting at this point.

UPDATE: Marley has more.

Voting begins Sept. 23.

Judges Reject Republican Move to Keep Wisconsin Obstruction Laws

A federal appellate panel has rejected a Republican, (Wisconsin DoJ), challenge to the judicial order stopping the enforcement of seven Republican-enacted voter obstruction laws in Wisconsin.

This means numerous Republican voter obstruction schemes will not be in effect for the period leading up to and including Election Day. The ruling is a defeat for anti-voting rights Republicans. Voter ID remains in effect.

The case is One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324) (Moritzlaw).

Election law expert, Rick Hasen reports:

The 7th Circuit has just denied a request for a stay in the second voting case involving WI rollback of early voting etc.

This ruling is from the same panel that granted the stay in the affidavit voter id case (Judges Frank Easterbrook, Diane Sykes, Michael Kanne). If Wisconsin could not convince these judges to order a stay in this case, there is no hope of going to the 7th Circuit en banc. The only hope would be an emergency stay request at the Supreme Court. Given the closeness to the election, the state would have to move very soon for the Court to even consider such a stay. Even then, getting over the 4-4 ideological split seems iffy.  If you can’t get Easterbrook, you likely can’t get Kennedy.

The fact that the court denied the stay without issuing an opinion could be a sign that the court recognizes the urgency of the time.  An opinion can come later when there is an appeal on the merits. It could be a sign that the issues raised by Wisconsin [Republicans and only Republicans] are frivolous.

Hasen notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports Wisconsin "'[A]ttorney general [Brad Schimel] is reviewing Monday’s decision, said Johnny Koremenos, a spokesman for Schimel.' That shouldn’t take too long as it is one sentence long, (Election Law)."

Writes Mark Joseph Stern in Slate: "As election law expert Rick Hasen notes, the same panel’s willingness to let Peterson’s ruling stand is rather revealing. Even for these conservative-leaning judges, it seems, Wisconsin’s race-based early voting cuts go beyond the pale. And thanks to their willingness to peer beyond the Legislature’s laughably pretextual justifications for disenfranchisement, thousands more Wisconsin voters will be able to cast their ballots this November."

Pretextual implies deceit. Lot of that going around from Wisconsin Republicans.

Wisconsin Partisan DoJ Appellate Unit Protects GOP Laws Against Individual Rights Claims

The people of Wisconsin will not give up their claims of liberty to vote, to marry, to use public bathrooms, to breathe safe air, drink safe water, to organize and on and on.

Constitutionally protected liberties must therefore be fought by Republicans running Wisconsin government for the benefits of Republicans and far-right forces like the Koch brothers for whom Republicans use state government.

To accomplish their task, Wisconsin Republicans passed the 2015-17 budget with funds for the creation of the Republican litigation unit, the Office of the Solicitor General, in the Republican-led Department of Justice.

Writes Steven Verburg is the Wisconsin State Journal:

[C]ritics view the five-lawyer office as money wasted on far-right legal battles most voters don’t support.

'It’s a mini right-wing law firm in the attorney general’s office,' said state Rep. Chris Taylor, a Madison Democrat and member of the Legislature’s finance committee who opposed adding the office’s five attorneys to Schimel’s Department of Justice budget.

Of the 35 cases the new office was involved in, about one-third list the state as defendant. Those include a challenge that overturned a state law restricting abortion rights last month, and pending Constitutional tests of a voter identification requirement and limits on labor unions.

The office is also handling several appeals of criminal convictions. Most of its caseload, however, is made up of Schimel’s challenges to federal policy in such areas as immigration, health care, transgender access to bathrooms, and pollution controls. ...

Madison attorney Carl Sinderbrand said his concern was with how Schimel was using the office. Sinderbrand, who was a state assistant attorney general from 1979 to 1990, recalled when one of his assignments was to keep an eye on federal officials who were looking for sites to store nuclear waste.

Sinderbrand said Schimel’s use of the solicitor general’s office was misguided because it went beyond the usual level of partisanship he has seen in other attorneys general of both parties.

'This is hyper partisanship,' said Sinderbrand, who has since represented state agencies, fought against them in court, and been hired as an arbitrator for department lawsuits. 'And that’s damaging, because the attorney general should be out there as the people’s lawyer, not his party’s lawyer.'

Conservationists have said Schimel’s aggressive opposition to federal pollution regulations raised concerns especially in light of his reduction of a department unit responsible for enforcing environmental laws.

Taylor, the Democratic state legislator, pointed to materials distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, calling on states to file lawsuits to block the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the air pollution rule while court challenges from 26 states are being heard.

Rep. Chris Taylor's office put a press release out this month noting the private creation of the "Center for Competitive Federalism (CFC), whose main objective will be engaging in ideological litigation aimed at advancing conservative policies and ideas," (Wheeler Report).

The Office of Solicitor General works in political concert with rightwing interest groups like CFC to defend anti-public interest and anti-liberty laws passed by Republicans.

Below is the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) Summary of the 2015-2017 budget and the budgetary description of the Office of the Solicitor General.

12. SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE [LFB Paper 419]
Governor Jt. Finance/Leg.
(Chg. to Base) (Chg. to Gov) Net Change
Funding Positions Funding Positions Funding Positions
PR $1,027,700 4.00 $0 0.00 $1,027,700 4.00
FED 0 0.00 0 - 4.00 0 - 4.00
Total $1,027,700 4.00 $0 - 4.00 $1,027,700 0.00

Governor: Provide $443,200 in 2015-16 and $584,500 in 2016-17, and 4.0 unclassified positions, to create a solicitor general and three deputy solicitors general. Funding would be provided as follows: (a) $302,500 in 2015-16 and $403,300 in 2016-17 for permanent position salaries; (b) $121,500 in 2015-16 and $162,000 in 2016-17 for fringe benefits; and (c) $19,200 annually for supplies and services. Program revenue for the Solicitor General's Office would be generated from funds received from other DOJ appropriations for expenses related to the Office. The administration indicates that the creation of a Solicitor General's office would, "allow the Department to provide a more in-depth level of representation for the state at both the state and federal appellate levels for increasingly complicated legal issues."

Provide the Attorney General authority to appoint, in the unclassified service, a solicitor general and no more than three deputy solicitors general, each of whom must be an attorney at law licensed in Wisconsin. Further, provide the Attorney General authority to assign assistant attorneys general to assist the solicitor general.

Finally, create a continuing, program revenue solicitor general appropriation to support the Solicitor General's Office. Program revenue for the appropriation would be generated from funds transferred from other DOJ appropriations for expenses related to the Solicitor General's Office.

Joint Finance/Legislature: Delete the solicitor general appropriation. Further, delete funding and position authority totaling $443,200 PR in 2015-16, $584,500 PR in 2016-17, and 4.0 unclassified PR positions annually.

Instead, authorize the legal services investigation and prosecution continuing PR appropriation to support the Solicitor General's office. Further, increase the position and expenditure authority of the investigation and prosecution appropriation by $443,200 PR in 2015-16, $584,500 PR in 2016-17, and 4.0 unclassified PR positions. Under current law, the appropriation is authorized to support DOJ's expenses related to the investigation and prosecution of violations, including attorney fees. Program revenue for the appropriation is generated when DOJ recovers expenses from its investigation and prosecution of violations relating to: (a) the Medical Assistance program; (b) marketing and trade practices; (c) trusts and monopolies; and (d) various environmental violations enforced by the Department of Natural Resources. There is no base funding or position authority associated with this appropriation.

Direct the Attorney General to eliminate 4.0 position vacancies. For purposes of this summary, it is assumed that the Attorney General would eliminate 4.0 FED positions. However, the Department could eliminate 4.0 positions from a combination of other funding sources.

[Act 55 Sections: 744v, 3501, and 3671]

Wisconsin AG Fights Pro-Voting Rights Decision; GOP Unlikely to Prevail in Appellate Court

High-priority communication from Wisconsin Elections Commission
to local Election Clerks alerts officials to make available affidavit
for November 8 general election. Memo follows federal judge's
preliminary injunction of Wisconsin's voter obstruction law

Republicans Face Uphill Climb to Stop Voters in Appellate Court

A major Wisconsin voting rights victory in federal court this week has been appealed by the Republican-led Wisconsin Dept. of Justice.

The case is Frank v. Walker, (MoritzLaw). The case will be heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit where the law of the case reads in part, the "right to vote is personal and is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily," (p. 4, Frank v. Walker; April 12, 2016), (Canning, The Brad Blog).

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman's decision this week halts Wisconsin's Republican-enacted voter obstruction law designed to stop non-Republican-voting citizens from casting votes, (Mal Contends).

Adelman has issued a temporary injunction, (halting), of the law until Wisconsin allows citizens without approved photo voter ID to vote after signing an affidavit attesting to the difficulty in attaining voter IDs.

The next election in which Adelman's opinion will be in force is the November 8 general election.

The difficulty for 1,000s of registered voters in obtaining IDs has been found as fact in the 2013 federal trial, Frank v, Walker, decided by Judge Adelman in April 2014.

Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel released a statement on July 19, reading: "We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will decide the next course of action after Wisconsin Department of Justice attorneys have had time to fully review and analyze the court's decision," (WPR).

It did not take Republicans long to review, analyze and decide to appeal the voting rights victory.

The Wisconsin Republicans are moving for an expedited hearing on their motion to stay, (stop), Adelman's injunction mandating the option of an affidavit to protect the right to vote.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which will hear the appeal will likely deny the Republican motions.

In April 2106, the Seventh Circuit's Judge Frank Easterbrook remanded Frank v. Walker to Adelman's district court writing in part, "Plaintiffs’ approach is potentially sound if even a single person eligible to vote is unable to get acceptable photo ID with reasonable effort. The right to vote is personal and  is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily," (p. 4, Frank v. Walker; April 2016).

Republicans Hostile to Wisconsin Population

Part of Republican political strategy in Wisconsin is to harass the minority and college-age populations so frequently disfavored segments of the citizenry move out of Wisconsin.

Repulbican efforts to defend each voter obstruction law in state and federal court amount to 100s of hours of legal work for a partisan end to destroy the liberties of disfavored Wisconsin citizens.

Republican Press Release in Frank v. Walker

The Republican press release dated July 22 is reproduced below:

MADISON, WI – Today, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, appealed the preliminary injunction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on July 19, 2016, requiring the State to adopt an affidavit exception to Wisconsin’s voter identification law for the November 2016 election. Along with the appeal, DOJ also filed a motion in district court seeking a stay and moved the court to expedite its decision on its motion seeking the stay.

Under Wisconsin law, any eligible voter who applies for a free photo ID at the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will receive such an ID for voting purposes within six days, which will be automatically renewed through the November election. Even after November, each eligible voter will continue to have a free photo ID unless the DMV makes a finding of fraud, ineligibility, or refusal to respond to repeated DMV inquires for six months, or the voter specifically requests cancellation of the DMV process. Under this robust process, any eligible Wisconsin voter can obtain a free photo ID for voting purposes using reasonable efforts, making the district court’s affidavit procedure entirely unnecessary.

In its motion seeking a stay, DOJ explained that the district court’s decision is contrary to binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The district court’s affidavit procedure creates a loophole in Wisconsin’s voter ID law, incorrectly informing voters that they can vote without a photo ID, even if they have not made any reasonable efforts to obtain such an ID. For instance, under the court’s ruling, if voters explain on their affidavit that they simply did not want to go to the DMV, those voters could still vote, despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has rejected that specific argument. As the Supreme Court has held: “making a trip to the [D]MV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph” is not a substantial burden on the right to vote. Rather, this is an entirely reasonable, modest requirement, which is properly designed to ensure the integrity of elections and public confidence in the fairness of the result.