Gov Walker's Brazen Defiance of Federal Court Risks Wrath of Judiciary in Wisconsin Voting Rights Case

U.S. Dist Judge James Peterson ruled for voting rights,
and against Republican-enacted voting restrictions
in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen. Peterson's
judgment of Aug 1, 2016, and his judicial authority are
now focal points of open defiance by Wisconsin
legislative Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker (R).

Madison, Wisconsin — Defeated Gov Scott Walker (R) signed sweeping lame-duck legislation aimed at limiting the powers of non-Republican elected officeholders and Wisconsin voters (Wisconsin State Journal, the Capital Times, Associated Press), Wisconsin State Senate, 2018 Dec. Extraordinary Session).

Wisconsin Republicans' hubris, echoing Walker's 2018 dismissal of his affirmative duty to call special elections (Robert Dallas Newton Jr. v. Scott Walker), reveals a pathology that now targets the legitimacy of the federal judiciary in Senate Bill 884, signed by Walker as Wisconsin Act 369.

Beyond its routine foolish reading of the rule of law and the law of the case (One Wisconsin Institute, et al v. Thomsen consolidated with Frank v. Walker), in signing Senate Bill 884, Walker has engaged in legitimatizing legislative effrontery that challenges the authority of United States District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Wisconsin Republican position: Yes, yes, U.S. Dist Judge James Peterson, you and your appellate-circuit friends get very excited in offering your two cents on election law and One Wisconsin Institute, but we Wisconsin Republicans are very busy here, so run along, now.

As the One Wisconsin Institute (and the National Redistricting Foundation) engage in major federal and state litigation against Wisconsin Act 369 that restricts all Wisconsin early-voting to two weeks before Election Day, Republicans have been silent on the fact that the federal judiciary has already ruled this scheme to be unconstitutional, racially discriminatory and pretextual (misrepresentative in legislative purpose)—high bars to achieve for voting rights advocates.

In One Wisconsin, U.S. District James Peterson ruled much of the Republican transformation of Wisconsin election law and many Republican "arguments for its restrictive voting rules [are] pretexual [misrepresentative], and really aimed at giving Republicans advantage in elections," as noted by Rick Hasen, an election law expert living in California (see Becker, The Capital Times, Mal Contends, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, Mal Contends, Moritzlaw, Rick Hasen, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

Argue the plaintiffs, One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, as noted at Election Law at Moritz:

Count I: Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Count II: Undue Burdens on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count III: Disparate Treatment of Voters without a Rational Basis in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count V: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Race in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment

The One Wisconsin Institute and the National Redistricting Foundation (Eric Holder's group), will soon be making the case for the Constitutional rights of Wisconsin voters in federal litigation to uphold Judge Peterson's prior ruling. Wisconsin Republicans cannot just pretend this case hasn't already been adjudicated.

Wisconsin Republicans

To understand Wisconsin Republicans' psychology, one needs to consider the Party has become so self-entitled and brazenly dishonest, Republican believe, for example, a mere federal judge who issued a pro-voting rights decision in U.S. District Court in 2016 is no impediment to stopping voters who dislodged the Republican anti-voting rights governor and attorney general.

In Republican land the more audacious the lie, the dismissal of established law, and the will of the people, the more Republican self-congratulations.

Republicans can be understood as an underground corporate, Evangelical and white-power movement that seized governmental power with a secret agenda on which it did not campaign, and now schemes to impose its authoritarianism in every corner of government insulated from democratic will and the rule of law.

George Packer calls Republicans a "insurgency" steeped in "institutional depravity" (The Atlantic).

Abe Lincoln called such insurgencies a "conspiracy to seize power" (Nichols, The Nation).

By the way, even as the Republican Party has become an outlaw player in American government, the press still refers to the Party as "conservative," and to voting rights advocates, for example, as "liberal." Absurd. Political writers still cannot drop 'conservative' as a continuing term of description.

In any event, the Republican Party's justification of its voting crackdown, uniformity and fairness, has already been found to not have any rational basis.

We Republicans disagree . . . , is not likely a compelling position to assume in challenging the federal judiciary ruling still being adjudicated in appellate court, during a period when the federal judiciary has grown skittish about the primacy of the rule of law prevailing against executive branch and Party claims of monarchical power.

Scott Walker disagrees of course:

pic.twitter.com/sXcNICpX20

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) December 11, 2018

Scott Walker leaves as he governed: with no regard for the wishes of the people of his great state. Totally obedient to the special interests and his party. To lead you have to be bigger than that. https://t.co/3seTUyHsV5

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) December 14, 2018

When he signed the #WIGOPpowergrab bills, Scott Walker sealed his fate.

The outgoing governor will be remembered only for the harm he has done. And that is the most tragic legacy imaginable for a failed politician. https://t.co/I70xZmLoey

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) December 15, 2018

Wisc Republicans Confuse Voter ID Path the Week Before Voting

As soon as ya free em, they'll start wanting free stuff

Voting rights activists should alert U.S. District Judge James Peterson fast about a new development in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen.

If you're black or brown and don't have an ID, leave. That's the message the Scott Walker adminstration is delivering to minorities with help from local and state bureaucrats.

After being forced to provide a path, (under challenge in federal court), for citizens to obtain free IDs for voting, the Walker adminstration is trying to stop any side benefits of using the ID for identification purposes, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

The new move, proposed by the Republican-led DMV, is intended to demean, frustrate and delegitimize minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and college-age adults.

'I just won't vote, too much hassle,' is the sentiment Republicans wish to induce in enough people to swing close elections. It's a tactical voter suppression scheme of a larger social engineering project.

The newly proposed Republican games come as U.S. District Judge James Peterson is hearing a major voting rights case and deciding whether this Republican-led state is sufficiently publicizing the path to obtaining new IDs and for those citizens rejected by the DMV, the ID Petition Process, (IDPP).

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

Wrote Judge Peterson: "IT IS ORDERED that, by September 22, 2016, defendants shall provide a thorough report to the court of the State’s efforts to inform the general public that receipts valid for voting are available to those who enter the IDPP, [ID Petition Process]."

Confusing Wisconsin citizens by publicizing a newly proposed scheme that would confuse the means to obtain IDs and limit the uses of IDs the week before voting begins surly is not what Peterson had in mind in his order mandating the state of Wisconsin inform the general public about the IDPP so no citizen is disenfranchised.

Voting rights activists should alert U.S. District Judge James Peterson fast about this new development in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen.

Federal Judge Stops Republican Voter Obstruction Laws That 'Transformed Wisconsin’s Elections'

Sweeping voting rights win in Wisconsin in
One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen - Jenny Dye and Scott
Ross of One Wisconsin, a named co-plaintiff,
celebrate on Friday - Image: One Wisconsin

Judge rules Wisconsin Republicans sought partisan advantage by denying rights of Wisconsin voters, going so far as to discriminate on the basis of race in Milwaukee

Wisconsin Republicans' voter obstruction laws took a massive blast from United States District Judge James D. Peterson in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324) (Moritzlaw).

Peterson issued a sweeping order finding Republican-enacted, (and only Republican), election laws unconstitutional in a major win for voting rights in Wisconsin.

"Wisconsin’s voter ID law is part of 2011 Wis. Act 23, enacted the year after Wisconsin Republicans won the governorship and majorities in both houses of the legislature. Act 23 was the first of eight laws enacted over the next four years that transformed Wisconsin’s election system," writes Peterson. (p. 2).

Writes a noted election scholar, Rick Hasan, in his early and the first-published analysis of Peterson's 119-page opinion at Hasen's Election Law site:

Among other things, the court has ordered that expired but otherwise valid student id cards will be valid for voting. This is yet another win for voting rights activists in the past few weeks. The trial court enjoined the following WI laws:

• most of the state-imposed limitations on the time and location for in-person absentee voting (although the state may set a uniform rule disallowing in-person absentee voting on the Monday before elections);
• the requirement that ''dorm lists' to be used as proof of residence include citizenship information;
• the 28-day durational residency requirement;
• the prohibition on distributing absentee ballots by fax or email; and
• the bar on using expired but otherwise qualifying student IDs.

This is a pretty sweeping opinion, which rejects many of the state’s arguments for its restrictive voting rules as pretexual, (misrepresentative), and really aimed at giving Republicans advantage in elections. The judge was particularly skeptical of measures which made it harder to vote in Milwaukee, with its large population of minority voters, and to a lesser extent, Madison, a liberal stronghold in the state.

The One Wisconsin decision was preceded by hours by another major voting rights win against Republicans in North Carolina, (Mother Jones). Another federal voting rights case in Wisconsin, Frank v. Walker, preceded One Wisconsin by days, (Mal Contends).

Both cases and One Wisconsin are major wins for voting rights and defeats for Republicans voter obstruction.

Concludes Peterson in One Wisconsin: "The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence. The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of  voter  ID  law  is  a  cure  worse  than  the  disease," (p. 4).

Republican attacks on Milwaukee early voting are discriminatory

The Court held the Republican-enacted law limiting Milwaukee's in-person absentee, (early voting), voting "intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," (p. 42). Writes Peterson:

Based on the evidence that plaintiffs have presented, the court finds that Wisconsin’s restrictions on the hours for in-person absentee voting have had a disparate effect on African Americans and Latinos. The court also finds that the legislature’s justification for these restrictions was meager, and that the intent was to secure partisan advantage. Finally, the court finds that the legislature specifically targeted large municipalities — Milwaukee in particular —intending to curtail minority voting. ...

[Republican] Defendants  contend that [Senators] Grothman and Fitzgerald were simply trying to achieve a measure of statewide uniformity because smaller  towns were unable to afford the extended hours that Milwaukee was offering. That explanation is hard to credit. ...

The acknowledged impetus for this law was the sight of long lines of Milwaukee citizens voting after hours. Yet instead of finding a way to provide  more  access to voters in small towns, the legislature responded by reining in voters in Milwaukee, the state’s most populous city, where two-thirds of its African American citizens live. ...

Combined, these findings lead the court to further find that the legislature passed the provisions restricting the hours for in-person absentee voting motivated in part by the intent to discriminate against voters on the basis of race. The legislature’s ultimate objective was political: Republicans sought to maintain control of the state government. But the methods that the legislature chose to achieve that result involved suppressing the votes of Milwaukee’s residents, who are disproportionately African American and Latino. The legislature did not act out of pure racial animus; rather, suppressing the votes of reliably Democratic minority voters in Milwaukee was a means to achieve its political objective. But that, too, constitutes race discrimination. Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1408 (7th Cir. 1984) (“We think there is little point for present purposes in distinguishing discrimination based on an ultimate objective of keeping certain incumbent whites in office from discrimination borne of pure racial animus.”), (pp. 42-45)

From One Wisconsin Institute:

MADISON, Wis. — Today, federal Judge James Peterson issued a ruling in the federal voting rights lawsuit One Wisconsin Institute Inc., et al v. Gerald Nichol, et al. One Wisconsin Institute and their co-plaintiffs have argued that a series of election law changes made by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led state legislature were meant to and have the effect of making it more difficult to vote in Wisconsin, especially for minorities, young people, and voters who tend to support Democratic candidates.

Republicans defending the challenged provisions have claimed they are necessary to protect against voter fraud, despite the fact that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate a voter. But behind closed doors, Wisconsin legislators discussed how the law would help Republicans by disenfranchising voters in Democratic areas.

Today’s ruling strikes down a number of the challenged provisions restricting voting rights of Wisconsinites, including restrictions on early voting hours and elimination of weekend voting; restrictions on use of student IDs for voting, and the 28-day residency requirement, among other provisions.

In regard to restrictions on hours for in-person absentee voting, the court specifically found that the law “intentionally discriminates on the basis of race…The legislature’s immediate goal was to achieve a partisan objective, but the means of achieving that objective was to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans.”

Scot Ross, executive director for One Wisconsin Institute, offered the following statements in response to today’s ruling:

“We argued Gov. Walker made it harder for Democrats to vote and easier for Republicans to cheat, and the judge agreed.

“The people behind the laws Judge Peterson has struck down sought to put their own partisan interests ahead of the rights of every American — regardless of race, party, or age – to cast their ballot as they so choose.

“Make no mistake about it, this is the strategy that has gone on for decades with Republicans. They want to do everything to create longer lines in urban areas and on college campuses, so that instead of accessing the franchise, voters simply go home because they can’t wait for hours and hours. This is their strategy, and there is not one piece of this attack on voters that can be seen as other than serving that end.”

“As the eyes of the nation are focused on the accomplishments and legacy of our nation’s first African American President and First Lady, Gov. Walker and his legislative allies refuse to accept the expanding diversity of our nation. Rather than make their public policy more inclusive, Republicans instead chose to rig the laws to rig the ballot box.

“Today’s decision is a huge win not only for the plaintiffs but also for democracy itself. We could not be more proud of this victory.”

Republican Party Aims Threaten Liberty and the Rule of Law

Illustration by Victor Juhasz in Rolling Stone Magazine

Madison, Wisconsin — Researching how metro voting districts, freed from Republican-imposed voting restrictions by a 2016 federal civil rights case, expanded early voting, it's clear non-partisan Wisconsin election officials were concerned Republicans would retaliate against cities and towns for the municipal sin of too many residents voting against Republican candidates for office.

The officials' concern is warranted.

The Republican Party addresses individual political and electoral activity as illegitimate if the outcome is adverse to Republican Party interests — a fundamentally unconstitutional policy scheme in American election law.

Though Republicans were too frightened to impose new voting restrictions before the 2018 general election, Republican legislative leaders planned to and did impose restrictions after the election, in brazen defiance of a United States district judge's injunctions in One Wisconsin.

In a December lame-duck session, Republicans passed new laws as though One Wisconsin were never litigated, and no federal injunctions existed.

Yesterday, the same judge, U.S. District Judge James Peterson, who just 18 months earlier found Republican restrictions on voting rights unconstitutional, made quick work of the Republican Party's legislation in his order and opinion.

The Republican defiance of the federal injunctions was near certain to draw a rebuke from Judge Peterson. It did.

Notes Ed Treleven in the Wisconsin State Journal:

In his order, Peterson wrote that arguments by the state about the dissimilarity between the newly passed law and the limits on in-person absentee voting that Peterson barred were not persuasive.

'If the court accepted defendants’ argument, it would mean that a legislative body could evade an injunction simply by reenacting an identical law and giving it a new number,' he wrote.

Wrote Peterson in his five-page judicial analysis:

This is not a close question: the three challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with the injunctions that the court has issued in this case (p. 1).

Republican Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, Robin Vos, dismissed the order without reference to Peterson's reasoning.

Reports WISC-TV:

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos answered a question from News 3 about the ruling while walking down the hallway. He said 'surprise, surprise' that a 'liberal' judge from Dane County would strike down the ruling. He did not elaborate further.

I asked @SpeakerVos about the ruling from a federal judge striking down the limits on early voting as he walked down the hallway at the Capitol.

He said “surprise, surprise” that a “liberal judge from Dane County” would strike down the ruling. #news3

— Rose Schmidt (@RoseSchmidtTV) January 17, 2019

Such dismissive posture that a federal judge is a "liberal" echoes the worst of 1950s desegregation fights in the deep south when southern politicians declared federal judges were illegitimate.

Wisconsin Republicans are betting that four new Trump-appointed judges to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—vetted by the Federalist Society to whom Trump outsources vetting of judicial appointments—will ultimately sustain the Republican Party position against voting rights.

The four judges are expected to be hostile to voting rights, and were nominated because of their rightwing jurisprudence and fidelity to the Republican Party.

The Trump-nominated judges are: Amy C. Barrett, Michael B. Brennan, Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., and Amy J. St. Eve.

It's a hell of a gambit.

Wisconsin has a new pro-voting rights attorney general who likely will alter the state's position on federal voting rights litigation.

In the meantime, the Republican Party effectively thumbing their noses at the federal judiciary hearing election law and Constitutional cases does not help the Party's weak case on voting rights.

The stakes are high, and continued Republican defiance of judicial authority should draw some measure of judicial censure and increased public concern.

Ohio Voter Suppression Law Held Unlawful, Opinion Points Way for Wisconsin Voting Rights

Black folks just love the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution. But will they ever get that
Republican Party-enacted state laws against voting are really
for the greater good of the country?

Thursday, May 26, 2106 is the last day of trial in One Wisconsin v. Nichol, a major voting rights case challenging Republican voter suppression laws in Wisconsin.

Yesterday, a voting rights case in Ohio, signaled what could be a major development for voting rights federal litigation, in favor of the voters against Republican efforts to obstruct voters held in disfavor by Republicans state legislators and governors.

The Ohio case is Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Jon Hustad (Case No. 2:15-cv-1802) heard by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson who issued his 120-page opinion finding a voter suppression law blocking an in-person early voting ritual in Ohio, Golden Week, to be in violation of the United States Constitution and Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Right Act is a law first passed in 1965 to enforce the 15th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Ohio case is heard in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Writes Judge Watson:

EIP [early in-person] voting in homogenous black blocks was 4.316 times higher than homogenous white blocks in 2008… 4.4476 times higher in 2012… usage rates of Golden Week specifically were far higher among African Americans than among whites in both 2008 and 2012… In other words, in 2008, for example, ‘the rate of voting early in person during golden week is three and a half times greater in homogenous black blocks than homogenous white blocks.’

One Wisconsin v. Nichol 

In the Wisconsin voting rights case, a series of voter suppression laws enacted into law by Wisconsin Republicans since 2011 are challenged as violative of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution.

Argue the plaintiffs, One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, as noted at Election Law at Moritz:

Count I: Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Count II: Undue Burdens on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count III: Disparate Treatment of Voters without a Rational Basis in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count IV: Partisan Fencing in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count V: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Race in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment
Count VI: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Age in Violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Wisconsin Republicans

Wisconsin Republicans in the politicized Wisconsin Department of Justice argue, (among other points), that because Wisconsin's photo voter ID law for example is popular in their view, it is also constitutional, a bizarre argument used in two federal voting rights cases by Wisconsin DoJ Republicans, (Mal Contends).

Wisconsin Republicans also present protestations at trial by municipal clerks—representing white, Republican suburbs in Milwaukee's hyper-segregated greater urban area—who said  Republican-enacted election laws help the adminstration of elections. The clerks did not explain how or why.

Wisconsin Republicans also argue that the high voter turn-out in the April 5 Presidential Primary disconfirms the voting rights advocates' challenge of GOP-enacted election laws. DoJ Republicans suggest laws designed to suppress the vote of the non-Republican-voting electorate should be judged on their effect on total voter turn-out and not individual classes of voters such as Latinos, blacks, and college students, a talking point rather than a solid legal argument, (MediaMatters). Consider the hypothetical. If most voters were able to pay a $10 fee to vote, would the successful overcoming of the $10 burden mean that such a hypothetical law is not a violation of the 24th Amendment outlawing polling taxes?

The vast minorities of blacks in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee and southeastern Wisconsin, (Wisconsin Dept. of Heath Services), or as Paul Ryan and fellow Republicans like to point out: The "urban" areas.

In Wisconsin, urban means Milwaukee, Kenosha and Racine counties. Along with Dane County, these four counties comprise some one-third of Wisconsin's 2012 presidential election voting total.

The GOP stops enough 'urban' people voting, and they win.

Republican-enacted laws cut early voting from 30 days before Election Day to 12 days, cut the hours during which voters may cast early voting, (in-person, absentee voting), and restrict early voting to one location per municipality, in the name of uniformity. The city of Milwaukee with a population of 599,164 can only have one early voting location, just like the village of Lannon with a population of 1,092. Most blacks in Wisconsin are concentrated in Milwaukee and southeastern Wisconsin, and it's clear what Republicans aim to achieve: Voter suppression.

If U.S. District Judge James Peterson adopts the logic of Judge Watson, it is likely Peterson will find the Republican laws attacking early voting disproportionately affect minority voters, (2013 Wisconsin Act 146), for example.

The bench trial is scheduled to conclude on Thursday, May 26 and is being heard by U.S. District Judge James Peterson.

Wisconsin Republicans' Lame-duck Act Against Voting Struck Down by Federal Judge

Federal judge strikes down Republican-enacted voter
restrictions in Wisconsin

Judge: "This is not a close question"

Madison, Wisconsin — A Republican attempt to obstruct voters in Wisconsin metro districts was struck down today in a terse five-page opinion and order.

The case is ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC., CITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN EDUCATION FUND, INC., RENEE M. GAGNER, ANITA JOHNSON, CODY R. NELSON, JENNIFER S. TASSE, SCOTT T. TRINDL, MICHAEL R. WILDER, JOHNNY M. RANDLE, DAVID WALKER, DAVID APONTE, and CASSANDRA M. SILAS,Plaintiffs,v.MARK L. THOMSEN, ANN S. JACOBS, BEVERLY R. GILL, JULIE M. GLANCEY, STEVE KING, DON M. MILLS, MICHAEL HAAS, MARK GOTTLIEB, and KRISTINA BOARDMAN, all in their official capacities.

Reports Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

U.S. District Judge James Peterson concluded the new limits on early voting are invalid because they so closely mirror ones he struck down as unconstitutional in 2016. His decision also threw out parts of the lame-duck laws affecting IDs and other credentials that can be used for voting. 

"Today’s court ruling is a victory for the citizens of Wisconsin and a rebuke to their defeated former governor and his cronies in the state legislature. Every voter in the state should be asking one question: why are Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature so afraid of the people they claim they want to represent? Though we are heartened by this decision we will continue to fight any further efforts designed to undermine democracy in Wisconsin or any other part of our nation," said former United States Attorney General Eric Holder, with the National Redistricting Foundation, a major voting rights group, (Huffington Post).

Wisconsin Republicans have attacked voting rights the last eight years in a sweeping legislative initiative aimed at voters who tend to vote non-Republican.

In 2018, Republicans lost ground in metro voting districts across the state following a sweeping federal court order against its legislative effort, reported Craig Gilbert in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Without stopping voters in major population jurisdictions, Republican Party political power in Wisconsin is imperiled.

Concludes U.S. District Judge James Peterson:

Plaintiffs contend that 2017 Wisconsin Act 369, enacted by the Wisconsin legislature in December 2018, violates injunctions issued in this case in 2016. So plaintiffs seek an order enforcing the injunction against three provisions of Act 369:
(1) limits on the time for in-person absentee voting;
(2) restrictions on the use of student identification cards for voting; and
(3) a time  limit  on  the  validity  of temporary  identification  cards issued  under  the  ID  Petition
Process . Dkt. 330. The court will grant plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the injunctions.
This is not  a  close  question:  the  three  challenged  provisions  are  clearly  inconsistent  with
the injunctions that the court  has issued in this case, (p. 1).

Notes Ari Berman in Mother Jones: "This is the second time a federal court has blocked Wisconsin Republicans from cutting early voting in the state."

The 2016 federal litigation is One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, now before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

With the election of a new pro-voting rights attorney general and governor, Wisconsin is now in a position to take a rare pro-voting rights stance in federal litigation, a change from the last eight years.

The voting rights win was celebrated by litigators and voting rights workers minutes after the decision was released.

BREAKING: Wisconsin federal court stops GOP effort to restrict voting rights. Big win for the @PerkinsCoieLLP political law team on behalf of @onewisconsinnow and @RedistrictFdn. pic.twitter.com/e81IEJGkw9

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) January 17, 2019

Federal judge tosses latest GOP attacks on voting in WI! "The Republican attacks on voting rights were unconstitutional when they were passed, they were unconstitutional when the judge struck them down and they are unconstitutional now.” -- One Wis Now Exec Director Scot Ross

— One Wisconsin Now (@onewisconsinnow) January 17, 2019

Wisconsin Dems Urge DoJ to Assist in Overseeing Wisconsin’s Elections

Wild guess. I'm betting no Wisconsin Republican will join the Democratic Party's Wisconsin congressional delegation in calling for protecting the liberty of voters.
---
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Mark Pocan (D-WI), along with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), sent a letter to the Department of Justice requesting assistance in overseeing Wisconsin’s monitoring of the election, including providing poll-monitoring services in the state. The request was spurred by Wisconsin’s contentious and discriminatory Voter ID Law and a political environment that has become increasingly intimidating for voters.

“We have continued to see how Wisconsin’s voter ID law puts the franchise of many Wisconsinites, particularly people of color, in real jeopardy,” the Members of Congress write.

“Given the flawed efforts thus far by state officials to properly implement this law, with proof of demonstrably false information having been disseminated to voters just days before the election, we fear that irreparable harm may result—particularly to voters of color, who disproportionately bear the brunt of these policies and any Election Day intimidation efforts. We ask the Department to provide any resources or assistance it can in order to help our state navigate these unsettling circumstances.”

The full text of the letter is below and a signed copy can be found here.

Dear Attorney General Lynch,

As you are aware, Wisconsin, which we represent, is among 14 states that have adopted new voter restrictions in advance of the November 8th election. The state’s 2011 voter identification law, one of the strictest in the country, has been repeatedly challenged in federal court due to its discriminatory effects on vulnerable populations’ voting rights. Due to the law’s contentious nature and poor implementation, coupled with a political environment that is becoming increasingly intimidating, we are requesting the Department of Justice’s assistance in overseeing the state’s monitoring of the election, including by providing poll-monitoring services in Wisconsin.

In 2014, a U.S. district court noted that more than 300,000 Wisconsinites lacked the newly requisite form of identification, and that this population disproportionately included persons of color. Judge Lynn Adelman further observed that state officials “could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past,” casting serious doubt on the official rationale for the policy.

A second federal court determined earlier this summer that even the “safety net” built into the law to help voters who have trouble obtaining ID was a “wretched failure” that “disenfranchised citizens” who are “overwhelmingly African American and Latino.”

Deeming the provision unconstitutional, Judge James Peterson mandated changes in practice and public education to ensure that that process better serves all Wisconsinites with documentation challenges in obtaining identification so they can vote. Concurring with Judge Adelman, Judge Peterson also expressed “misgivings about whether the law actually promotes confidence and integrity,” and observed that prior to 2011, “Wisconsin had an exemplary election system that produced high levels of voter participation without significant irregularities.”

Unfortunately, since that court order in late July, we have continued to see how Wisconsin’s voter ID law puts the franchise of many Wisconsinites, particularly people of color, in real jeopardy. Over the last month, press reports have revealed that on numerous occasions, Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicle employees provided erroneous and incomplete information to potential voters who are unable to obtain IDs due to a lack of required documentation (like a birth certificate), despite their eligibility for alternative credentials.

These revelations led Judge Peterson to remark on October 12, “I'm very disappointed to see that the state really did nothing in response to my order,” noting that voters are “at the mercy of the DMV, and its staff wasn't trained well enough to guide people through it.” We are deeply troubled by the prospect of such misinformation contributing to voter disenfranchisement in this election. While further scrutiny by the federal court has prompted state officials to institute additional training and public education efforts at the DMV, there is entirely too much at stake in the limited time left before the election to let this continue without additional oversight.

In addition to misinformation, we are also concerned about potential voter intimidation at the polling places, particularly in light of recent, high-profile rhetoric that alleges “election rigging.” National figures have suggested that there is widespread voter fraud in our country and have encouraged private citizens to monitor the voting behaviors of certain communities for potential misconduct.

Given the flawed efforts thus far by state officials to properly implement this law, with proof of demonstrably false information having been disseminated to voters just days before the election, we fear that irreparable harm may result—particularly to voters of color, who disproportionately bear the brunt of these policies and any Election Day intimidation efforts.

We ask the Department to provide any resources or assistance it can in order to help our state navigate these unsettling circumstances. For example, the Department has historically provided poll monitors on Election Day to help ensure that all eligible voters will be permitted to register and exercise their fundamental right to participate in our democracy. We therefore urge the Department of Justice to utilize any available election monitoring resources to ensure voters in Wisconsin are able to safely access the polls.

The right to elect our public representatives is unrivaled in its importance to a fully functioning democracy. 

With few days remaining until the election, it is imperative that we do everything in our power to limit the amount of harm caused to our state’s voters.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and for the Department of Justice’s ongoing efforts to ensure the fairness of all elections in our country.
#

Green Bay City Clerk Axed Early Voting Site to Help Republicans

One Wisconsin reveals Green Bay City Clerk's voter obstruction

Open Records Request by One Wisconsin Institute Reveals More Republican Voter Obstruction

From Green Bay comes more evidence of a tactical voter suppression scheme by Wisconsin Republicans engineered through municipal clerks and assorted bureaucrats.

Ari Berman reports in The Nation:

City Clerk Kris Teske, an appointee of Republican Mayor Jim Schmitt, a close ally of Governor Scott Walker, killed the idea of an early voting site at UW-Green Bay offering the excuse that the "city didn’t have the money, time, or security to open an early-voting location on campus or anywhere else."

Notes Berman:

... privately Teske gave a different reason for opposing an early-voting site at UW–Green Bay, writing that student voting would benefit the Democratic Party. 'UWGB is a polling location for students and residents on Election Day but I feel by asking for this to be the site for early voting is encouraging the students to vote more than benefiting the city as a whole,' she wrote on August 26 in an e-mail to David Buerger, counsel at the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. 'I have heard it said that students lean more toward the democrats…. I have spoken with our Chief of Staff and others at City Hall and they agree that budget wise this isn’t going to happen. Do I have an argument about it being more of a benefit to the democrats?'

Yes.

The source revealing the Republican Teske's duplicity are e-mails provided to The Nation following an open-records request by the One Wisconsin Institute, a plaintiff in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324), a major voting rights case in federal court in Wisconsin.

In One Wisconsin, the Republican-enacted law to limit early voting was found to be "pretextual" by U.S. District Judge James Peterson. This means Republicans, and only Republicans, lied, (Mal Contends), (One Wisconisn), (One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

In federal court, the Republican gig is up. The cooperate media has not quite caught on.

Writes Mark Joseph Stern in Slate in August after an appellate panel let stand Judge Peterson's ruling against the GOP's anti-early voting legislation: "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."

Wisconsin Republicans continue to fight efforts to allow voters to vote.

Wisconsin Voter ID Status Unclear as Frank Easterbrook Takes Refuge in Fact-free Cocoon

Judge Lynn Adelman's injunction against the Republican-enacted photo-voter ID law has been stayed, or halted by three Republican-appointed appellate judges in the voting rights case, Frank v. Walker.

Judge Frank Easterbrook's order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reads in part, "Because the district court has not attempted to distinguish genuine difficulties of  the kind our opinion mentioned, 819  F.3d  at  385–86, or any other variety of substantial  obstacle to voting, from any given voter’s  unwillingness to make the effort that the Supreme Court has held that a state can require, there is  a substantial likelihood that the injunction will be reversed on appeal," (Wisconsin DoJ document).

With Judge James Peterson's injunction in One Wisconsin Institute, inc v. Thomsen, against a wide range of Republican obstruction laws, including voter ID, still in place, the question is, will voter ID be in place for the presidential election in November?

Writes Peterson, "I conclude that the IDPP, [ID Petition Process], is unconstitutional and needs to be reformed or replaced. Because time is short with the fall elections approaching, I will issue an injunction targeted to the constitutional deficiencies that I identify."

Even election law experts can only offer speculation on what happens next.

Leading Wisconsin writers on the voting rights battle, Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, can only find sources to offer this in their coverage: "Voters should keep following the news — the rules could change again between now and the Nov. 8 presidential election."

What is clear is that the Republican Party of Wisconsin and voting rights activists are at cross purposes.

The most likely next legal moves include the State of Wisconsin enacting last-minute administrative rules changing the ID Petition Process, (IDPP), to make the rules acceptable to Judge Peterson to save the voter ID legal regime in One Wisconsin, and an emergency appeal to the full court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by voting rights attorneys in Frank v. Walker.

From the Washington Post, (Zapotosky):

Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that as many as 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin lack the right photo ID, although he acknowledged that not all of those people would vote and some probably could obtain documentation without much trouble. The ACLU had sued over the law.

As to whether requiring ID could tip the election in favor of the Republicans who support the law, Ho said: 'Obviously, the people behind these laws think it can help them. Whether or not it can, from our perspective, it really doesn’t matter. We’re just trying to make sure everyone can vote.'

As noted here, on September 22, 47 days from Election Day on November 8, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), will begin mailing absentee ballots to local election clerks who in turn mail ballots to several classes of voters, per Wisconsin Statute, including permanent absentee voters, (Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)).

Wisconsin voters should receive absentee ballots around September 29.

It is a judicial doctrine, the Purcell Principle, that federal courts will not change election laws after the voting process has begun. So, the clock is ticking.

Still, the Republican voter obstruction project is continuing in other ways:

During Election Day yesterday, Republican election inspectors, began a tactical voter suppression action that resulted in this voter being denied my right to vote for 35 minutes. This voter suppression action apparently includes use of outright hostility, mocking, and prevention of voting by Republican election inspectors who are now individually named by the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

Similar reports, including one incident involving the mother of a Fitchburg, Wisconsin alder, were fielded by elected office holders who say the tactical suppression program may spell trouble for voters on November 8, Election Day.

The obstruction incident at Fitchburg Fire Station, Number 2 yesterday, will be investigated by the Dane County District Attorney's office and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, upon receipt of complaints and relevant reports, top officials of the two agencies said yesterday after being reached by phone.

Scale of Voting Obstruction Project Is Not Acknowledged

Consider Wisconsin election law and the failure and refusal of elected representatives, bureaucrats, corporate press and most of the judiciary to note the intent behind unconstitutional voter obstruction, beyond passing comment. The voting rights community is small and its prospects are not heartening.

On the racist, voter obstructionist side, we have Wisconsin Republicans.

Wisconsin Republicans, and only Republicans, crafted the transformation of Wisconsin election law since they assumed elected office in 2011. This is a fact of Wisconsin public policy, and is noted in the July 2016 opinion in the voting rights case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)). (Worth noting, as well, is Judge James T. Peterson's silly and polemical characterization of Republican-enacted election law changes as "election reforms." [See page 8. "Since [2011], Wisconsin has implemented a series of election reforms. These laws covered almost every aspect of voting: registration, absentee voting, photo identification, and election-day mechanics." What's Peterson going to do later when the Republican-enacted photo voter ID is further litigated, adopt the Republican Hans von Spakovsky, and John Fund's talking point, 'Easy to vote, hard to cheat,' as his own? (Mal Contends) (Mal Contends).])

Peterson's bending over to find no fault with Wisconsin Republican motives in his One Wisconsin opinion, [Peterson found some fault], ignores both the intent and the effect of Republicans' work to block voters. Republicans stopped 10,000s of voters living in the black sectors of Milwaukee from voting so mission accomplished in election 2016, but with not enough help from Peterson protecting voters.

Effect of Republican Voter Obstruction Laws

Election law scholars, Lawrence Tribe, Ned Foley, Rich Hasan and Chris Carson, weigh in on the question of obstruction effect on voters this week.

A citizen's right and ability to vote is worth considering under the assumption that the political appointees, federal judges like Peterson, are political animals, and upon assumption to the bench do not suddenly become dispassionate Constitutional geniuses. Federal judges most often can be best understand as politicians in robes, and as such write opinions that are politic. Broadly so legal-political commentary and analysis written by politicians have he same defect.

Very rarely will readers find in the judiciary or the academy a finding of fact that Wisconsin Republicans for example, and only Republicans, craft law after law to obstruct the vote, and use new election laws to administer elections in an unconstitutional fashion.

I've yet to find widespread note that Wisconsin Republicans' legislative objective is to frustrate, aggravate, and obstruct as many minority, young and disabled voters as possible in an effort to suppress the total vote in favor of the Republican Party, (Mal Contends).

It should not be surprising that Lawrence Tribe's comment on voter obstruction has been met with widespread hostile commentary. Tribe writes, "Call it what you like, but the # of voters turned away for not having required forms of ID exceeded margin of T’s victory in MI, Pa and Wis."

It takes a major social-scientific investigation to quantify the phenomenon of voter obstruction, because protecting voting just is not in the cards of American political culture. But Tribe is certainly correct from data in the Milwaukee black and brown areas alone.

Wisconsin Republicans have since 2011 worked to transform every corner of government into Republican operations, (Mal Contends) (Mal Contends).

One of the first Republican-enacted changes to with respect to the adminstration of Wisconsin election law was the Republicans' concerted effort in 2011 to staff 3,500 polling places with Republican partisans, to further the objective of obstructing the vote of undesirables.

The lack of acknowledgement and challenge to this Republican attack on the foundation of American democracy should send chills through the political world. I don't believe this is the case, and we should all thank Lawrence Tribe and Chris Carson for noting the scale of the Republican voting obstruction project.

Who are the Republicans staffing your local polling place? Ask your local municipal clerk to find out. Tape record the conversation, the recording may come in handy.

In the meantime, check out the conversation in Ned Foley and Rich Hasan's sites. A great conversation, but one which omits the prospects for voting for 10,000s of black and brown Americans.

Wisconsin Republicans—Dirty Tricks, Racists and Voter Obstruction

Updated - "Our campaign has had to deal with millions of dollars in misleading, negative ads from the Koch network, but this is a new low. Republicans are getting desperate, and they've resorted to the dirtiest tactic in their playbook: sending a spy into our campaign headquarters. This person came into our campaign headquarters using a fake name, a fake story, and even a fake Facebook page to try and cover their tracks," says Sarah Lindstrom, Volunteer Coordinator for the Russ Feingold U.S. Senate campaign in an email this morning.

Republican dirty tricks combined with one of the most ambitious voter obstruction projects in the nation reveal two things: The nature of the white Republican party in Wisconsin, and the desperation of the white party.

Signing off for the weekend.

Wisconsin, be advised, even the most basic right, voting, is under assault.

Scott Walker is quoted in the Capital Times today, saying Republican-enacted restrictions on early voting are needed after these restrictions were struck down in late July as unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge James Peterson in One Wisconsin Now, Inc. v. Thomsen.

Peterson held a trial and after hearing evidence, testimony, and argument found these early-voting restrictions to be discriminatory. This is an extraordinary opinion, but in white Wisconsin the significance is lost on the politcal culture.

"Those were reasonable changes at the time ... ," Walker said, not specifying why these restrictions were reasonable in 2011, or explaining if these restrictions are not needed now in 2016, then what has changed.

Getting a straight answer out of Scott Walker, or a racist bureaucrat in Fitchburg, Wisconsin, is never a good bet.

Wisconsin Republicans' Voter Obstruction Looms in 2018 Mid-terms

Republicans talk a good game about the flag,
but when it comes to protecting voting and
the substantive liberties of Americans,
Republicans are a grave threat to democracy.

Urban types have 'too much access to voting,' say Wisconsin Republicans

Madison, Wisconsin—Since 2011 Wisconsin Republicans and only Republicans have transformed election law to benefit Republicans and diminish voters' right to vote.

In U.S. District Court in July 2016, a federal judge, James Peterson, in a sweeping opinion found several Republican-enacted statutory changes to election law pretextual, which is legalese for deceitful and misrepresentative, (One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

But stopping non-Republican voters from voting is a strategic initiative for Wisconsin Republicans. The urgent and grave threat to democracy is existential. See See Twenty of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared. "If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast."

As the mid-term campaigns for 2018 begin, Republicans know their only chance for victory is to suppress the total vote of non-Republicans, a commitment about which they hold no shame and indeed are proud as it serves to install Republicans against popular opinion.

On The Rachel Maddow Show last night, a segment points to a new analysis on Republicans rigging the Wisconsin 2016 election, a feat to they hope to repeat in 2018, (Berman, Mother Jones).

This is critical reading for citizens concerned about the health of our Republic under attack by the Republican Party.

Notes Berman:

The voter ID law was one of 33 election changes passed in Wisconsin after Walker took office, and it dovetailed with his signature push to dismantle unions, taking away his opponents’ most effective organizing tool. Wisconsin’s Legislature cut early voting from 30 days to 12, reduced early voting hours on nights and weekends, and restricted early voting to one location per county, hampering voters in large urban areas and sprawling rural ones. It also added new residency requirements for voter registration, eliminated staffers who led statewide registration drives, and made it harder to count absentee ballots.

Republicans were explicit about the purposes of these changes as well. On the floor of the state Senate, Grothman said of extended early voting hours in heavily Democratic cities like Madison and Milwaukee, 'I want to nip this in the bud before too many other cities get on board.' (Roughly 514,000 Wisconsinites voted early in 2012; they favored Obama over Mitt Romney by 58 to 41 percent, according to exit polls.) The county clerk of conservative Waukesha County said early voting gave 'too much access' to voters in Milwaukee and Madison. Judge Peterson later ruled the early voting cuts had been passed 'to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans.' 

Republicans will continue their attack against voting in 2018.

A looming target is the city of Madison's effort to offer voting for voters and a continuing effort to educate citizens about their legally strong voting rights, a political and civil crime in Republican-land.

See Madison, Wisconsin Fights Republican Voter Obstruction, and 2017 Spring primary election draws record-breaking early voting in Madison.

From The Rachel Maddow Show:

Record Early Voting in Wisconsin Spring 2019 Election, Reports One Wisconsin Now

Madison, Wisconsin — Bad news for Wisconsin Republicans. Good news for everyone else.

The Republican Party is losing its war on voters. In particular, the Republican effort to shutter early-voting sites is faltering.

From One Wisconsin Now:

Early and absentee voting in the April 2019 election has reached record levels for a non-presidential primary Spring election, according to statistics compiled by the Wisconsin Election Commission. As of April 1, over 132,000 Wisconsin voters had cast a ballot early or absentee for the Spring election, exceeding the 2018 Spring election’s roughly 107,000 early votes cast.

"It’s simple, voters vote when given the opportunity to vote," said One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director Analiese Eicher. "Expanded hours and satellite locations for early voting are making participating in our elections easier and more convenient, and voters all across Wisconsin are taking advantage of the opportunity in record numbers."

A July 2016 ruling in the federal voting rights lawsuit One Wisconsin Institute, et. al. v. Thomsen, et. al. struck down a number of voter suppression laws adopted by then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature. Judge James Peterson specifically found the GOP imposed limits on early voting were racially discriminatory.

After the ruling, both urban and rural municipalities throughout the state were able to offer the convenience of early voting in the evening, on weekends and at multiple locations at their discretion to meet the needs of voters in their community.

State Republicans subsequently attempted to reimpose early vote restrictions in a lame duck session they convened after losing every statewide office on the ballot in the November 2018 election. In enforcing his earlier decision and enjoining the re-imposition of early voting limits Judge Peterson wrote, "This is not a close question: the three challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with the injunctions that the court has issued in this case."

Eicher concluded, "Early voting is popular, effective and legal. Now it’s time for the Wisconsin Republicans to drop their efforts to stand in the way of people participating in our democracy and admit it’s also here to stay."
#

US Dist. Judge: Wisconsin Voter Obstruction Laws Remain Halted, Injunction Against Voter ID Is Delayed

Update: Ernest A. Canning has the story and analysis of an emergency appeal before the full court of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Writes Canning, "The plaintiffs in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, one of several long-running court challenges to Wisconsin Republicans' strict Photo ID voting restriction, have filed an emergency petition with the full en banc U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that it overturn its previous photo ID decision in Frank v. Walker.
The still pending Frank case as well as the One Wisconsin challenge have, to say the least, undergone a circuitous recent history in a number of federal courts that oversee Badger State election law," (Brad Blog).
---
In a victory for voting rights, numerous Republican-enacted voter obstruction laws remain halted from enforcement, and one aspect of a July 29 order against the Republican-enacted voter ID law will take effect after the November 8 presidential election, ordered U.S. District Judge James Peterson yesterday in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen.

The status of two Wisconsin federal voting rights cases, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen and Frank v. Walker, is fluid and the September 22 date at which the Wisconsin Elections Commission will begin mailing absentee ballots is approaching.

On or after Sept. 22, it is unlikely the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will change the status quo of the amassed injunctions, stays and motions to vacate as voting rights advocates continue the fight against Republican laws to obstruct Wisconsin voters.

It is a judicial doctrine, the Purcell Principle, that federal courts will not change election laws after the voting process has begun.

"District Court in Other WI Case Mostly Denies WI Request for Stay of Ruling," reads an Election Law piece by Rick Hasen, referring to two federal voting rights Wisconsin cases now likely facing scrutiny soon in federal appellate court.

Notes Hasen:

The State of Wisconsin tries to spin this as a win.

I assume the next step will be a request for a stay at the 7th Circuit, and one question is whether this goes to the same panel that just stayed the affidavit softening in the first WI voter id case. 

The plain language of the Peterson order puts the lie to the Republican spin-doctors at the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice. Writes Hasen, noting:

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay the court’s permanent injunction pending appeal, Dkt. 241, is DENIED in substantial part. As explained above, only the provisions of the injunction requiring the state to reform its IDPP within 30 days of the date of the court’s opinion on the merits are STAYED pending the outcome of the parties’ appeals. The rest of the injunction remains in effect, [p. 12, August 11, 2016 order].

Wisconsin corporate media without exception has brought the Republican spin.

Why is the DoJ spinning instead of informing and reporting? Because the Wisconsin DoJ is a Republican operation.

The Republican effort took a new turn at the polling place last Tuesday, as Republicans are using control of the polling place to obstruct voters, in violation of Wisconsin statutes and administrative rules, to obstruct voters.

This points to potential trouble at the polling place, and one hopes placement of U.S. DoJ officials in Dane, Racine and Milwaukee counties, as Republicans look to obstruct on a larger scope in November.

Another Reason Voters and Shirley Abrahamson Will Win

"[A]ll of this is unfair and unacceptable. It is not fair to change the election laws ... after the election has been held. ... It is simply not fair, ladies and gentlemen, to change the rules, either in the middle of the game, or after the game has been played."

So said James Baker on November 21, 2000 (Kudlow, National Review), referring to the alleged dilution and destruction of votes in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Baker was arguing the Florida Supreme Court had engaged in an unconstitutional "judicial fiat" in ordering a recount of the Florida 2000 election, ultimately prevailing at the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore: [..."Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."]

Who knew the Republicans had an affinity for an expansive interpretation of Equal Protection Clause? (Supreme Injustice, Dershowitz; (Oxford 2001)) (Bronner, NYT).

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Wisconsin voters are arguing (Wisconsin State Journal document) the ambiguous formulation of the April 7, 2015, Referendum on Election of Chief Justice left open the question of whether the referendum is to begin prospectively or retrospectively and similarly making an appeal to the Equal Protection Clause in defending voters whose votes would be diluted by the new language in the Wisconsin Constitution.

A co-plaintiff (among others), Joseph P. Heim, a university professor and resident of LaCrosse, argues in their action the "challenged amendment if construed as applicable to Chief Justice Abrahamson and given retroactive effect dilutes the value of his vote and upsets his settled expectations by limiting the term of the candidate he successfully supported in the 2009 election" (p. 5).

U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson (appointed by Pres. Obama in 2013, confirmed in 2014, Ballotpedia) set a hearing (status conference) on the case for April 21, next Tuesday (2:00 PM, Courtroom 250) at the Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse. The hearing is open to the public.

Judge Peterson shortly after the April 7 election noted the vote to approve the amendment won't be certified by state election officials until April 29 (per the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board), after which judicial proceedings will adjudicate claims of irreparable injury to Abrahamson and voters (Bauer, AP).

Reads the complaint: "34. The new amendment to article VII, section 4(2) contains no language indicating that it is to have any retroactive effect; thereby, under standard rules of construction, it should be given only prospective effect and thus be subject to implementation only when the position of chief justice becomes vacant."

The merits of the Abrahamson and voters' action was brought to wide public notice by Dominique Paul Noth in his April 9 analysis and follow-up yesterday, noting most of the mainstream media's uninformed and slanted coverage does not bother with interviews of subject matter experts and constitutional law jurists.

Noth finds it incredible and improbable this legal action by Abrahamson and voters by distinguished constitutional law jurists would omit a legal strategy that either brings a favorable result to voters or costs Republicans politically and ultimately makes them look more toxic than even Scott Walker has become in Wisconsin.

Surely, the legal precedents and reasoning to be presented to the Court, unknown to the general public, will offer an answer to the 'why' this amendment should become operative prospectively, and one expects explain the relevancy of "standard rules of construction," regarding amendments to state constitutions that are applied in an unconstitutional manner under the U.S. Constitution, its unpopularity to the Republican and Tea parties, the Koch brothers, and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce notwithstanding.