Showing posts with label Whitford v. Nichol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whitford v. Nichol. Show all posts

Jun 20, 2017

Wisconsin Voter Obstruction Is as Republican as Racism and Corruption

Fitchburg Wisconsin — Wisconsin is regarded by civil rights workers as the worst state to be black and brown in America.

But not only because most white Republicans work to ship minorities into prisons and segregated sectors in Wisconsin's few urban regions of significant populations.

Blacks are targeted at the polls.

Republicans and only Republicans engineered the transformation of Wisconsin election law in an ambitious project to "disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," in the words of Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a major voting rights case still being litigated, (Mal Contends, Mal Contends, The Progressive).

Among those likely to vote against the Republican Party are the easily identifiable folks of black and brown skin color.

Though nationally the Republicans' obstructive photo voter ID law garnered wide attention, dozens of party-line statutes have been passed by Republicans since 2011, (Ferral, The Capital Times).

The Republican gerrymandering effort intended to stop non-Republicans from using the polling place to safeguard their interests is one major objective of the Republican anti-voting project, (ScotusBlog,  Election Law).

Obstruct Voters Locally

Other Republican initiatives include white poll workers interrogating voters at the polls, and in an escalation of conspicuous hostility the use of expensive civil citations against voting rights activists: Me.

This Summer Mal Contends will litigate two bogus disorderly conduct civil citations issued by the city of Fitchburg, Wisconsin against me.

One citation was written on August 9, 2016, Fall Primary Election Day. This citation will be argued in front of a jury this Summer in Dane County Circuit Court.

A second citation was written on May 10, 2017 alleging even more misconduct on Aug. 9, 2016 and served seconds after the litigation of the first citation in Municipal Court resulted in a judicial ruling of no fine. The presiding Municipal Judge, Hamdy Ezalarab, recused himself from hearing the second citation which will heard at trial on Aug. 3 at 6:00 p.m by a substitute judge

The Fitchburg City Attorney's office, Mark R Sewell and Valerie A. Zisman, is engaged in misconduct and malicious prosecutions, among other violations of ethics which I will pursue in the future.

Stay posted. This may appear light stuff from a small, corrupt Wisconsin city. It's not light stuff. From an email sent by me to the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Aug. 5, 2016, four days before I was obstructed from voting on Aug 9, received the first two of four visits to our home by armed Fitchburg Police, and received the first of now two civil disorderly conduct citations:

From: Mike Leon [ ...]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Lowe, Diane - ELECTIONS
Subject: Polling Place
Importance: High

Diane,

Could you email me a URL or GAB (WEC) memo that would indicate how many election inspectors are supposed to hand out ballots at a table in a polling place? I believe it to be two.

A ... chief election inspector in our polling place, where I worked on April 5, positioned one election inspector at the ballots table, and predictably quite a voter bottleneck ensued.

Other elections to my memory featured two inspectors on ballots.

I need a memo or other publicly available authority on this two-people-on-ballots question.

I emailed our election and city clerk, around late April on this but no one got back to me. They are not too crazy about questions RE what they regard as their apparent turf, though I believe myself as a resident and long-time election inspector to be a stakeholder.

Administering elections should be about rules and regulations, to my view.

Mike
#

May 24, 2017

Wisconsin Republicans Want Reversal of Anti-Gerrymandering Ruling

Wisconsin Republicans want to continue gerrymandering state and federal districts to elect the most Republican legislature and Congressional delegation possible.

Gerrymandering is one of myriad tools by Republicans bent on engineering a Republican government irrespective of the will of voters and the rule of law.

A three-judge panel in November 2016 found the Republican-drawn, secret redistricting map unconstitutional.

In January 2017, the federal panel ordered a remedy to the unconstitutional, partisan gerrymander requiring "that the Legislature enact, and the Governor approve, a new redistricting map by November 1, 2017."

No, this is our state, is the effective answer of the Republicans who have appealed the panel’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.

On May 22, the Republicans filed an application to stay the order of the federal panel, failing to list the Constitutional rights of citizens in their argument. Rather, Republicans base their argument on the sovereignty of Wisconsin in which Constitutional rights of citizens hold little power against the state, (Wisconsin Department of Justice), (Supreme Court of the United States), (Supreme Court of the United States).

States rights over liberty interests of people.

From Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog:

In March, the state of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by a three-judge court striking down the redistricting map that the Republican-controlled legislature created after the 2010 census. The three-judge court concluded that the map was the result of partisan gerrymandering – that is, purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage. The justices will consider the case at their June 8 conference, but yesterday Wisconsin added a new request to the case, asking the Supreme Court to block a court order requiring the state legislature to create a new plan by the fall.

Republicans want power. The United States Supreme Court may well decide this pursuit of power is Constitutionally permissible. No one knows what Justice Kennedy will do, (Stern, Slate). See also Ratfucked, (The New Yorker). So, Wisconsin Republicans are going for a big win.

The problem for Republicans is if the Supreme Court lets the status quo stand, Republicans lose and the Wisconsin people win.

(Whitford v. Nichol, (District Court (Case 3:15-cv-00421)) (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155022 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 17, 2015)), is a federal case challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative-redistricting scheme.

Apr 13, 2017

Wisconsin Edges Towards Medieval Times in Wastewater Management

Political corruption and public lethargy embolden corporate agriculture's plundering of public waters


Madison, Wisconsin — Gov. Scott Walker cares too much about people to see them become dependent on government for safe water and sewage systems.

So Republican thinking goes.

If people believe government is some kind of wishing well, then the next thing you know is you get Jewish socialists advocating everything from municipal sewers to safe drinking water to healthcare to vibrant public universities where then there's a whole bunch of Jews, socialists, identifying lesbians, sociologists, and Art History types infecting young minds with the democratic virus—constantly mutating, changing form and killing Jesus, (Slate Magazine), (Dreier, Huffington Post), [(Seymour Martin Lipset Ph.D., Gary Wolfe Marks Ph.D; It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, (W.W. Norton and Company)].

For the world casting eyes upon the Badger state's political culture and asking, 'what's the matter with Wisconsin?' know it's nothing that a competent Democratic Party of Wisconsin, (we don't have one of those), and the tiniest bit of increase in civic involvement among a slice of the population cannot cure.

It's that easy, though a favorable decision in the potentially landmark gerrymandering case challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Republican-drawn state legislative and congressional maps that are intended to elect as many Republicans as possible would help too, [Whitford v. Gill, (Nichol), (District Court (Case 3:15-cv-00421)) (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155022 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 17, 2015)), (Redistricting legal reporting, Election Law blog), (Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-1161, Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al.)] See Parsons for analysis on the landmark nature of this November 2016 decision, now before the Supreme Court of the United States, (No. 16-1161, Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al.).

Here's a problem with the One-Party-Republican rule for those Wisconsinites enamored of drinking safe water. Wisconsin Republicans do not care if your kids die or are hospitalized by drinking or bathing in water poisoned by huge agricultural interests that vectors manure into aquifers. Until white, rural Wisconsin voters realize this fact, rural voters will keep reelecting Republicans, (Mal Contends). [See also Ikerd, Dr. John. "The Inevitable Economic, Ecological, and Social Consequences of CAFOs." University of Missouri-Columbia.]

We should really consider the wisdom of Milwaukee's sewer socialists and how their politics matter today. That is, disposing of untreated manure and waste safely matters to human beings. In Medieval times, this focus on sanitation was not a public concern.

The latest from Wisconsin safe water warriors sees journalism and citizen action soaring:

We note again the reporting of Steven Verburg of the Wisconsin State Journal.

By David Gorski

You won't believe this one.

Verburg reports on the introduction of a new legislative bill, (Assembly Bill 226, (AB 226).

After Republicans have facilitated the contamination and depletion of your drinking water with CAFOs and other Big Ag corporate operations, AB 226 would increase the monies available to you so you can actually drink your water, and safely bathe infants, (which in Door and Kewaunee counties, for example, has resulted in the hospitalization of infants, children and adults who thought bathing in and drinking water were safe pursuits).

Here's an idea. How about we ensure that any corporate operation that pollutes and contaminates our water is not allowed to operate without the consent of the community whose families' health and lives are endangered? Guess who is sponsoring AB 226? State Rep. Scott Krug, (R-Nekoosa, Wisconsin) and State Rep. Joel Kitchens, (R-Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin), the polluters' top go-to lackeys.

On another matter, In February, Verburg reported on the only privatized of Wisconsin's 80 drinking-water public systems.

The system serves the city of Superior and charges more than twice the average of what folks pay for water now in the rest of the state.

Folks, corporate control, corporate pollution, corporate befouling and depletion are coming our way. The first step is stopping the proposed Wysocki CAFO. Then we get rid of the people in the capitol who do the work of polluters. For now, Republicans like Krug and Kitchens are working against us to encourage the polluting and depleting of our water, followed by corporate out-of-state control of our water.

Well, who ever said you have a right to water?

By Don Ystad of Adams County Wisconsin

Concerned friends and neighbors,

Why is this article about an Iowa editor winning a Pulitzer important to us?  It's about perseverance in pointing out the pollution of a watershed in Iowa by upstream agricultural , and uncovering the dark money fueled by big agricultural interests to hide the truth and undermine efforts to stop the pollution.  Think about it in terms of the dark money flowing in to the last local campaign here to unseat our environment friendly Senator, this past fall's attempt by the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers, (WPVGA), to sell a junk science groundwater 'fact book', and the quarter million dollars big ag interests contributed to our representatives to further ag friendly groundwater bills. Then, remember the misleading ads by the WPVGA trying to convince us that drawing down the aquifer won't affect lakes levels, and misleading photos presented by growers at a public meeting suggesting that lakes have recovered from the effects of high cap well pumping. These people are not our friends, [The Guardian, The Independent].

This article is an important reminder about the self serving nature of the big ag lobbies as they try to hide behind the family-farmer label while destroying that very ethic.  And, it's a reminder of how our legislators pander to that lobby. But, it's also a confirmation that we may not have the support of our lawmakers or the DNR, and certainly not the big ag community, but we have two things going for us; our vote and our collective voice. We have the ultimate power if we choose to use it.

As a property owner concerned with the future of your well, your lake or your stream, you need to be an active citizen. There are local grass roots groups, and the new statewide citizens lobby available to you, among others. Get involved and protect what's important to you.

It's the only way.

Wisconsin citizens are leading the way.

Journalists are leading the way.

Know that Big Ag and its defenders care about one thing, and it isn't life. Ask Iowa's Alex Kuhn, driven to suicide by factory farm trolls and agribusiness lackeys for Kuhn's standing up for his community, families and safe water.

Consider as well the words of Gordon Stevenson, runoff chief for the Wisconsin DNR (2001-2011):

"Manure management is essentially the same as it has been since the Middle Ages; untreated manure is disposed on untreated on the landscape. We have already seen severe public health consequences from these practices and I am certain that we will see more. Much of Wisconsin’s environmental protection efforts with agriculture center on nutrient management planning. Many of my former colleagues have labored long and hard to persuade farmers to adopt the NRCS 590 Nutrient Management Standard. The problem is that 590 is not a water quality standards, it as an agronomic standard that seeks to optimize crop production. Plus evaluation of a farmer’s compliance with that standard is somewhere between difficult and impossible."

Consider the Parable of Smithfield Foods. In 1936, a family built a small hog slaughtering and packing plant in Smithfield, Virginia. Their products were very good, the plant grew and town of Smithfield came to be known as the Ham Capital of the World. During the 1980s, the company vertically integrated. In plain English, that means they not only owned the processing facilities, but they figured out that if they controlled the production of hogs as well as processing they could be more profitable. By the end of 1998, Smithfield owned not only multiple packaging plants but 460 large hog farms and had contracts with 2,100 other pork producers 12 states. Smithfield Foods had become the number one pork producer in the United States and was growing internationally. They continued to grow, aggregating the assets of American pork production into larger and fewer blocks. Next time you go shopping, checkout the pork products. You will see labels like Morrell, Farmland, Armour and others. Smithfield owns all of those companies and multiple others. On September 26, 2013, Smithfield Foods and all of its holdings were sold to another company for $7.1 billion. [Bittman, NYT] The name of the company is Shuanghui International Holdings Limited.[Shuanghui changed its name to the: WH Group (BusinessWeek)]

"Yes, a company from the People’s Republic of China now owns 26 percent of all of the assets of the American pork industry. This is the largest single Chinese purchase to date of American assets. China has successfully established an offshore economic colony on American soil. Let’s leave Virginia and Beijing and return to Wisconsin. We have dairy CAFOs in Wisconsin that are in the process of aggregating the assets of Wisconsin’s dairy industry into larger and fewer blocks. Any of those blocks can be bought and sold. I don’t believe I need to spell out why I told you the Parable of Smithfield Foods."

Nov 21, 2016

Fed Panel Finds Wisc Republican Gerrymandering Unconstitutional

Whitford. v. Nichol opinion and order, p.11

Wisconsin case heads directly to United States Supreme Court


Updated: Wisconsin gerrymandering case follows by some three months a gerrymandering case in North Carolina in which Republicans in a similar manner to Wisconsin Republicans drew a redistricting map as a means to choose voters and help Republicans stay in political power, (Convington v. North Carolina, (Case No. 1:15-cv-399)).
 ---
The Wisconsin Republican Party's gerrymandered map of state legislative districts has been unconstitutional by a three judge panel.

The federal panel is composed of Kenneth Francis Ripple, (Senior Judge status, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), Barbara Crabb, (Senior Judge status U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin), and William C. Griesbach (Chief Judge, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

The case is Whitford v. Nichol, (District Court (Case 3:15-cv-00421)) (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155022 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 17, 2015)).

Case filings can be found at Whitford v. Nichol, (Moritz). The opinion and order are posted. Judge Griesbach dissented.

A trial was held last May, challenging the constitutionality of the Republican legislative-redistricting scheme.

Election law expert, Rick Hasen, writes in reaction to today's opinion, Whitford is a "major victory for those who believe that courts should be in the business of policing redistricting plans that give partisan advantage to one party or another. [The three-judge court] has ruled 2-1 that the Wisconsin assembly districts drawn by the WI Republican legislature are an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. There’s still more to do in the case—namely figure out the correct remedy—but this is a case that will be headed directly to the Supreme Court, where its fate might depend upon who President-elect Trump nominates to the Supreme Court."

In 2011 Wisconsin legislative Republicans were told in secret to sign confidentiality agreements, ignore the public and repeat Republican-crafted talking points in deliberating 2011 Act 43, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported in February 2012:

As legislative leaders secretly developed new election maps last year to strengthen their majority, Republican lawmakers were told to ignore public comments and instead focus on what was said in private strategy sessions, according to a GOP memo that became public Monday.

Other newly, [in 2012], released documents also show almost all Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the new maps while they were being developed.

GOP lawmakers fought releasing these new documents and testifying about the maps in a pending court case, [since decided], but relented after a panel of three federal judges based in Milwaukee last month found they had filed frivolous motions in trying to shield the information from the public.
Included in the documents released Monday was a set of talking points that stressed that those who discussed the maps could eventually be called as a witness in a court case.

'Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments,' the talking points also say, (Patrick Marley, Daniel Bice and Jason Stein)

The plaintiffs are William Whitford, Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynne Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, James Seaton, Allison Seaton, Jerome Wallace and Donald Winter.

Linked ahead is Exhibit 4 - Secrecy Agreements, (PDF, beginning at p. 173 in July 2015 complaint), listing all of the legislative Republicans who signed secrecy agreements with Michael Best and Friedrich, LLP.

May 26, 2016

Wisconsin Gerrymandering Trial Under Way Before Federal Panel

Wisconsin Republicans crafted the worst partisan gerrymander in modern American history in their secret effort to turn Wisconsin into a red state


Whitford v. Nichol, (District Court (Case 3:15-cv-00421)) (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155022 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 17, 2015)), is a federal case at trial from May 23-27, challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative-redistricting scheme.

A three-judge panel is hearing the case.

The federal panel is composed of Kenneth Francis Ripple, (Senior Judge status, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), Barbara Crabb, (Senior Judge status U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin), and William C. Griesbach (Chief Judge, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

Wisconsin Republicans were told in secret to sign confidentiality agreements, ignore the public and repeat Republican-crafted talking points in deliberating 2011 Act 43, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported in February 2012:
As legislative leaders secretly developed new election maps last year to strengthen their majority, Republican lawmakers were told to ignore public comments and instead focus on what was said in private strategy sessions, according to a GOP memo that became public Monday.

Other newly released documents also show almost all Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the new maps while they were being developed.

GOP lawmakers fought releasing these new documents and testifying about the maps in a pending court case, [since decided], but relented after a panel of three federal judges based in Milwaukee last month found they had filed frivolous motions in trying to shield the information from the public.
Included in the documents released Monday was a set of talking points that stressed that those who discussed the maps could eventually be called as a witness in a court case.

'Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments,' the talking points also say. (Patrick Marley, Daniel Bice and Jason Stein)

The plaintiffs are William Whitford, Roger Anclam, Emily Bunting, Mary Lynne Donohue, Helen Harris, Wayne Jensen, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, James Seaton, Allison Seaton, Jerome Wallace and Donald Winter.

The July 2105 complaint reads in part

Plaintiffs seek both a declaratory judgment that the Wisconsin State Assembly district plan adopted in 2012 by Wisconsin Act 43 (the “Current Plan”) violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and an order permanently enjoining the implementation of the Current Plan in the 2016 election.  As explained in greater detail below, the Current Plan is, by any measure, one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in modern American history.  In the first election in which it was in force in 2012, the Current Plan enabled Republican candidates to win sixty of the Assembly’s ninety-nine seats even though Democratic candidates won a majority of the statewide Assembly vote. The evidence is overwhelming that the Current Plan was adopted to achieve precisely that result:  indeed, before submitting the map for approval, the Republican leadership retained an expert (at State expense) who predicted the partisan performance of each proposed district—as it turned out, with remarkable accuracy.

The Republican-drawn gerrymander is Wisconsin Republicans at their worst: Secretive, corrupt and anti-public.

"Republicans disregarded traditional county and city boundaries that are normally used to draw districts. Act 43 splits 58 counties even though county boundaries are supposed to be respected. For the first time, gerrymandered maps were used to draw wards, when previously wards had been used to draw maps. Memos and draft maps were prepared for review by individual Republican legislators, but Democratic legislators were entirely excluded," notes Mary Botari at PRWatch.

The state of Wisconsin on its official Redistricting website claims "the purpose of redistricting and the end result remain unchanged ... the establishment of election districts which provide representational equality for all potential voters."

This would be a lie. Republican gerrymandering in Wisconsin is intended to help elect Republicans period.

Linked ahead is Exhibit 4 -Secrecy Agreements, (PDF, beginning at p. 173), in the complaint listing all of the legislative Republicans who signed secrecy agreements with Michael Best and Friedrich LLP.