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

Wisconsin DoJ: Voting Rights Legal Battle Will Sow Confusion as DoJ Intends to Wage War v. Voting Rights

Wisconsin Republicans are hostile to liberties of citizens
to vote. (One Wisconsin Now Institute v. Thomsen)

Alice in WisconsinLand

Wisconsin Republicans want voter obstruction now because they say they will fight for obstruction again and its efforts may confuse voters

Wisconsin Republicans do not want non-Republicans showing up to vote.

The Wisconsin Dept. of Justice has filed an appeal of a second Wisconsin federal pro-voting rights decision, (Wisconsin Dept. of Justice), (One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen), following the defeat of Republican voter obstruction efforts in two federal cases.

Republican DoJ attorneys argue the Republican transformation of Wisconsin election law against voters will confuse voters unless court-ordered voting guarantees are stopped, (stayed), because the DoJ will file more appeals in federal appellate court should its efforts be rebuffed in its first appeal, (Wisconsin Dept. of Justice), (Motion to Expedite).

Welcome to Republican world, where Republicans claim to be concerned their voter obstruction laws will be confusing to voters if Republicans continue to oppose voting rights, which Republicans promise to do.

Not fighting voting rights is an option that has not occurred to Republicans apparently.

In One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, citizens' voting rights won a major victory last week, (Mal Contends), (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324) (Moritzlaw).

The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Numerous Republican-enacted actions against voting rights are permanently enjoined, (halted) in One Wisconsin Institute, and now Republican attorneys point to the Wisconsin Elections Board (GAB) 2015-2016 calendar showing the September 22 deadline, (p. 15), for municipal clerks to mail absentee ballots to voters.

This case became titled One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, as of August 1, after Republican-enacted changes to Wisconsin state election authority took effect.

Wisconsin DoJ attorneys write the reasoning in the Frank case opinion is incorporated in the One Wisconsin opinion, (Docketing Statement).

This case is related to a case currently pending before this Court, Ruthelle Frank, et al., v. Scott Walker, et al., Nos. 16-3003 and 16-3052. Both cases involve challenges to Wisconsin’s voter ID law—specifically, to the petition process for obtaining free IDs from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles. The district court in this case, [One Wisconsin], incorporated the factual findings of the district court in Frank, which in turn based its decision on evidence presented in this case. (See Dkt. 234:8 (“The court also adopts the facts found by Judge Adelman [in Frank] concerning the history and operation of the [ID petition process], which he based substantially on the evidence presented in this case. Frank v. Walker, No. 11-cv-1128, 2016 WL 3948068 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2016).”).

One doctrine that will likely be used by the federal appellate court in deciding this One Wisconsin case is outlined by Judge Frank Easterbrook in his April 12, 2106 opinion in Frank v. Walker, (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), the other Wisconsin federal voting rights case.

Easterbrook writes in part in his opinion remanding the Frank case to U.S. District Court to implement his opinion in the case: "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. 7, p. 4 in PDF). This spells a likely legal defeat for Republicans.

As some point, it is possible political pressure will become sufficiently strong for voting rights that Republicans will stop their war against voters.

It's won't be reasonableness that will stop them.

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.”

Bizarre Republican Polemics Defending Voter Obstruction

Even in the courtroom Republican defenders of voter obstruction substitute polemics for constitutional reasoning as Republicans refuse to close out project attacking voting rights

Republican defenders of voter obstruction often use virtually identical language to defend state laws that "disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," to borrow a phrase from Judge Richard Posner.

Posner's extraordinary 2104 On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is a veritable judicial white paper explaining Republican state efforts to suppress voters, (Posner, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), (Friedman, The Brad Blog), (Mal Contends).

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, the Republican Party's point man on Republican voter obstruction in his state, announced yesterday his office filed an appeal in the voting rights case, Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Jon Hustad (Case No. 2:15-cv-1802), (Ohio Secretary of State).

Said Hustad, "To ensure we were fulfilling our goal of making it easy to vote and hard to cheat, we expanded weekend and weekday hours for in-person absentee voting as part of a compromise for the reduction in hours that came with the elimination of Golden Week," (Hustad, Ohio Secretary of State) (emphasis added). Hustad terms the Ohio Organizing Collaborative case the Ohio Democratic Party et al v. Husted, using Republican Party polemics contradicting the federal judge hearing the case on the title.

Easy to vote and hard to cheat.

This phrase may sound familiar to Wisconsin politicos. That's because the Republican Gov. Scott Walker often uses the phrase (or a derivation) when trying to defend voter obstruction in Wisconsin.

"In our state we have a photo ID requirement that would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat," Walker told reporters last year at Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride event, (CBS News, June 6, 2015) (emphasis added).

From Ohio to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and across the country, Republican voter obstruction operatives such as Hans von Spakovsky, and John Fund employ the phrase as a justification for voter obstruction laws such as Wisconsin's. Catchy phrase but vacuous as an argument.

Bizarre

In Wisconsin, the Republican case for voter obstruction as made at the bench trial of One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)) has veered into the vacuous and the bizarre.

Novack Doctrine

One witness for the Republicans, Waukesha County Clerk Kathleen Novack, testified at One Wisconsin, saying, "too much access to the voters as far as opportunities" to vote exist in Madison and Milwaukee, (Jake's Economic TA Funhouse), (Opoien, The Capital Times). This would be the Novack Doctrine, a guiding principle of Republican jurisprudence in voting rights law.

Schimel Doctrine

Republicans at the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice also kept up their line of reasoning that photo voter IDs are popular with citizens who possess the Ids, hence Wisconsin's restrictive law conditioning the right to vote on presenting Republican-approved photo voter IDs is both popular and Constitutional, (Mal Contends). This is the Schimel Doctrine, so named after Wisconsin's current Republican attorney general.

The Schimel Doctrine that voting restrictions' constitutionality is conditioned on polling numbers was ridiculed by a Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's three-judge panel in 2014.

"What conceivable relevance is a polling number to this litigation?," said Judge Frank Easterbrook, a voting rights opponent and author of the 2014 opinion upholding Wisconsin's photo voter ID law in Frank v. Walker.

Testimony has concluded in One Wisconsin. Closing arguments are scheduled for June 30.

One Wisconsin Institute

Below is a press release from the One Wisconsin Institute on the conclusion of testimony.

Testimony Concludes in Federal Voting Rights Trial Challenge to Republican-Led Attacks on Electoral Participation in Wisconsin

Intentions of Five Year Campaign to Undermine Voting Rights and Impacts of Voter Suppression Schemes on Legal Voters Exposed

MADISON, Wis. — Testimony concluded today in the federal voting rights trial, One Wisconsin Institute et. al. v. Gerald Nichol et. al., which challenges the state voter ID requirement, changes to voter registration requirements, limits on early voting and other restrictive changes to Wisconsin’s election laws adopted by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature.

Plaintiffs argued that the changes 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.

The following are the statements of One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director Scot Ross:

“The testimony and evidence provided to the court exposed the intentions behind the myriad of election law changes and revealed the impacts on voters of the five year assault on their rights perpetrated by Gov. Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature.

“Gov. Walker and Republican legislators set out to make it harder for minorities, young people and voters who tend to support Democratic candidates to participate in our elections. As a result, legal voters have been denied the franchise, and will continue to be denied their right to vote unless their suppression schemes are struck down.

“The real voting fraud in Wisconsin has been exposed, and it is these politicians manipulating the rules on voting to give themselves an unfair partisan advantage.

“Their actions have subverted our democracy and violate federal law.”
# # #
One Wisconsin Institute is a non-partisan, progressive research and education organization dedicated to a Wisconsin with equal economic opportunity for all.

Wisc SC Judge's Hate-filled Rants Should Disqualify Rebecca Bradley

The hate and wisdom of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley;
Bradley was appointed to the Court to fill a vacancy by Gov. Scott Walker

Gov. Scott Walker has appointed an ideological and unqualified Rebecca Bradley three times to Wisconsin courts since 2012, most recently to the Wisconsin Supreme Court last October.

Under Walker's extremist tenure, Wisconsin has become a model of corruption and failure in too many ways to enumerate as an insidious, hateful ethos marking the Republican Party of Wisconsin has become the hallmark of the gerrymandered legislature, a benighted governor and the Wisconsin Supreme Court that has lost credibility as an impartial top appellate state court.

The Court is worse than even the most rigorous detractors believed.

Yesterday, One Wisconsin Now exposed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley penned a series of hateful and venomous attacks on gay people and others living with HIV.

Bradley published her writings in the Marquette Tribune in 1992, referring to the LGBTQ community as "queers" and "degenerates," and mocking the AIDS epidemic. It gets worse, see One Wisconsin Now's press release below.

"The hate and vitriol for others Rebecca Bradley displayed in her writings was repugnant and unbecoming for a university student then and it is absolutely unacceptable for a justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court today. She is unfit to serve on our high court, and if she has a shred of decency or integrity she will resign immediately," concluded Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's Executive Director.

Bradley is up for election on April 5, [2016 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Vote (Presidential Primary)], and Wisconsin voters should and likely will reject Bradley's bigotry, and her corruption as a judge who views her position on the Court as a means of furthering the special interests now holding sway in the Republican Party.

Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg who is running against Bradley released a statement reading: "There is no statute of limitations on hate. Rebecca Bradley’s comments are as abhorrent and disturbing today as they were in 1992 as people were dying in huge numbers from AIDS. Her career since that time includes being appointed three times to three judgeships in three years by Scott Walker who is against gay rights. Rebecca Bradley’s alliance with conservative causes and Scott Walker speaks louder than any apology she tries to make." 

Walker said he was not aware of Bradley's views when he appointed her as a circuit, appellate and Supreme Court judge, then asserted Bradley's views had changed in the same sentence, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

One Wisconsin Now's press release is reproduced below:

Rebecca Bradley’s Published Writings Reveal Opinions That Cross Line Into Hate Speech
 
One Wisconsin Now Uncovers State Court Justice’s ‘Venomous’ Homophobia, Calls for Her Resignation 

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote a series of hateful and venomous attacks on gay people and people living with HIV, according to articles obtained by One Wisconsin Now. The hate speech in the articles disqualifies Bradley from continuing to hold office and should result in her immediate resignation from the state Supreme Court, according to One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross, who released the records at a news conference this morning with a representative of national civil rights group People For the American Way.

“Rebecca Bradley has revealed such a depth of hatred and contempt for people that she cannot be trusted to uphold the most basic tenet of our judicial system, that all are equal before the law,” said Ross. “She denies people their dignity because they are different than her and condemns people that hold political beliefs other than hers.”

In writings published in the Marquette Tribune, Bradley, in multiple instances, derisively referred to members of the LGBTQ community as “queers” and “degenerates”, claimed “homosexual sex kills,” mocked the AIDS epidemic and declared the nearly 45 million voters who supported President Clinton were, “either totally stupid or entirely evil.”

Scott Foval, the Madison-based Regional Political Coordinator for the national organization People For the American Way, also criticized Bradley’s statements, calling them “demeaning.”

Foval commented, “As a gay man and long-term survivor living with HIV, Rebecca Bradley’s hateful diatribes against people like me while at Marquette are shocking and deeply disturbing. I question how anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone living with HIV/AIDS feels they could get a fair decision from her. The demeaning statements she authored gravely undermines her ability to continue to serve on the state Supreme Court.”

The thinness of Bradley’s legal resume left her referencing things like a college term paper she wrote in applying for one of the unprecedented three appointments in three years by Gov. Scott Walker. And while disclosing other articles she authored, she specifically failed to make any mention her newspaper writings.

Ross noted there are numerous issues regarding Bradley’ trustworthiness, from her position that judges ought to be able to lie in their campaigns to a string of dishonest and misleading statements about her partisan political inclinations and work with the outside groups in her campaigns. But the deep seeded hatred and contempt Bradley revealed in these writings rises to a new level, displaying such bias she cannot be counted on to fairly judge cases that might come before the court that involve discrimination issues.

“The hate and vitriol for others Rebecca Bradley displayed in her writings was repugnant and unbecoming for a university student then and it is absolutely unacceptable for a justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court today. She is unfit to serve on our high court, and if she has a shred of decency or integrity she will resign immediately,” concluded Ross.
#

Wisconsin Photo Voter ID Suit Filing Details DMV Refusals of Voters

There is one federal challenge to the Republican-passed photo voter obstruction law in Wisconsin and the Republican effort to roll back voting rights.

The challenge is One Wisconsin Inst., Inc. v. Nichol, (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107781).

One Wisconsin v. Nichol was advanced in a December 2015 ruling by U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson who rejected a motion to dismiss by members and staff of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board acting in their titular capacity.

Concluded Judge Nichol in his December 2015 opinion, " ... it is also true that when a state regulation subjects voters' rights 'to 'severe' restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.' Id. at 434 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As defendants concede in their reply, the Equal Protection Clause is the mechanism through which to guard against such impermissible restrictions."

Today, One Wisconsin Now announced a new filing detailing severe state restrictions to voting, restrictions that destroy the right to vote of Wisconsin citizens.

The filing concerns Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles stopping or severely impeding Wisconsin voters from obtaining the necessary photo voter ID that is a precondition to vote.

This filing describes the consequences warned about by voting rights activists when the Scott Walker's administration in 2011 instructed the Wisconsin Department of Transportation head to direct DMV employees "to refrain from actively informing the public about the ability to receive a free identification card for the purposes of voting," (Nichols, The Capital Times).

An injunction motion after Wisconsin's April 5 presidential primary appears likely.

The One Wisconsin Now press release is reproduced below:

New Filing in Voter Rights Lawsuit Exposes Serious Flaws at DMV Providing Voters With IDs,
Erroneous Denials and Bureaucratic Bumbling Taking the Franchise Away From Legal Voters

Madison, Wisconsin — A new filing in a lawsuit brought by One Wisconsin Institute and other voter rights advocates exposes serious flaws at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in the process for providing Wisconsinites with the ID that voters must now produce to cast their ballot at the polls. As part of the voter ID law adopted by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican controlled legislature, individuals are ostensibly able to request a free identification card from the DMV under certain circumstances. But bureaucratic delays and improper denials are preventing otherwise legal voters from obtaining the ID now required to vote.

“There has been a comprehensive, systematic effort in Wisconsin to make voting harder and more complicated for targeted populations by Republican politicians attempting to gain an unfair partisan advantage,” said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director. “The documented failures of the DMV to provide legal voters with the ID they now need to exercise their right to vote is yet another sad episode in the assault on democracy underway in Wisconsin.”

The suit, filed in federal court in Madison, outlines more than a dozen policies that have made voting in Wisconsin more challenging for eligible citizens and seeks to strike down various restrictive voting measures put in place by Governor Scott Walker and the Republican State Legislature since 2011.

The latest filing by the plaintiffs notes that in the state voter ID case, the state supreme court held that the DMV had to exercise its discretion under the “extraordinary proof” petition process to permit voters to obtain exemptions for having to pay for birth certificates or other government records needed to obtain voter ID. An analysis of this process and numerous examples shows how this process is resulting in otherwise legal voters being denied the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

An internal DMV analysis found an error rate of 27 percent, meaning more than one in four petitions to obtain a voter ID under the extraordinary proof process were mishandled between March and August of 2015. The agency admits numerous instances of petitions being suspended because a person gave up in anger or frustration.

And the problem is expected to get worse. The DMV is expecting increased demand for voter IDs this year due to the presidential election and already reports a backlog of dozens of “open” petitions, has cut back on staff, and has no extra staff or budget allocated to deal with the expected increased demand.

The filing includes several examples of how the DMV process is broken, resulting in eligible individuals being denied IDs, and therefore their right to vote, including:

•  Refusing to provide an ID to a woman who had lost the use of her hands and couldn’t sign an application. The woman brought her daughter with her to sign the application and even provided her daughter with power of attorney giving her permission to sign, but the DMV did not allow it;
• Denying the petitions of many eligible voters because of minor discrepancies in the spelling of their names or uncertainties about their exact dates of birth—even though DMV acknowledges it has no doubts these disenfranchised voters are U.S. citizens;
•  “Turning away” a senior citizen who had been ‘born in a concentration camp in Germany,’ and his German birth certificate had been lost in a fire. That citizen was ultimately granted an ID, but only after extraordinary effort on his behalf to comply with absurd demands by the DMV.

Ross concluded, “When the DMV erroneously denies someone an ID or their incompetence and bureaucratic delays result in a person giving up in anger or frustration, they are denying a legal voter their right to vote. And that is unacceptable.”
#

Madison, Wisconsin Turnout Soars to 29.4 percent in Spring Primary

Madison, Wisconsin—This weekend the Madison City Clerk's office sent an administrative email to election workers reporting City turnout was 29.4 percent in the Spring Primary election held Feb. 20.

Typically, Wisconsin Spring primaries, which are held in February, see turnouts in the single digits.

Last weeks' election reveals the pre-2017 days of single-digit turnouts in Madison appear to be over.

The new normal is record-breaking turnout in February weather, continuing a trend from 2017 begun after the 2016 Wisconsin voting rights case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, in which voters prevailed over Wisconsin Republicans' voter obstruction measures.

In One Wisconsin a U.S. District judge 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).

Since the sweeping One Wisconsin ruling that, for example, struck down a Republican-enacted law forbidding the placement of multiple early-voting polling places in Madison and Milwaukee, Madison has worked for "voter outreach efforts, ... [with the] goal is that every eligible voter will be able to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted," as noted in a typical Madison Voter Education Ambassador Training session to be held on Feb. 27.

The judge in One Wisconsin ruled "most of the state-imposed limitations on the time and location for in-person absentee voting," failed to further a legitimate state interest, a low bar, (p.5).

Madison now retains some 14 early voting, (in-person, absentee), locations in city limits.

Madison's facilitating the right of voters to vote has provoked hostile Wisconsin Republicans to retaliate against Madison through several non-election initiatives that eliminate local control. The initiatives are being considered in the Wisconsin legislature.

The hostility also comes from some white poll workers.

At the Meadowood polling site on Feb. 20, a white poll worker, (a racist named Terry), had voiced specific disapproval about the inclusion of black poll workers in April 2017. The racist remains working at the polls.

Terry harassed and hazed other poll workers last Tuesday with the apparent intent of creating a hostile polling place at the Meadowood polling place.

White entitlement and racial animus still define Wisconsin politics and the polling place.

Against this reality, training sessions and work by numerous Madison election officials to implement measures recognizing the powerful, affirmative right to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution, Suffrage - Article III, (Ballotpedia), and protected by the First and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, continue.

Wisconsin Republicans Want to Close Early Voting Sites for Weeks in Desperate Move to Clamp Down on Voters in Lameduck Session

Federal litigation would likely doom anti-voting measure

Madison, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Republicans are going to consider several anti-voting measures in an extraordinary session of the lameduck legislature, the Wisconsin State Journal reports today.

The anti-voting measures include a proposed clampdown on voting that would effectively shutter early voting sites for weeks.

A similar early voting clampdown was found unconstitutional and "pretextual" (misrepresentative) in the Summer of 2016 in a sweeping opinion in U.S. District Court, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen.

That federal voting rights court case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, is now before the full United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Wisconsin Republicans risk offending some Republican-leaning appellate judges in the Seventh Circuit because Republican justification of consistency is identical to its past justifications of "uniformity," ruled to not serve a rational state purpose by U.S. Dist Judge James Peterson in One Wisconsin.

Also complicating new Republican-enacted restrictions against voting is the election of Democratic Party Attorney General Josh Kaul. 

Republicans are unlikely to prevail in statewide races here if free and fair elections continue in the voter-friendly manner of post-One Wisconsin.

In One Wisconsin a U.S. District judge 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).

The Seventh Circuit includes four new judges who were nominated by Donald Trump.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scott Walker Withdrew Election Board Appt after Unanimous John Doe Vote

Scott Walker still hides from Wisconsin and
offers no comment on the secret router and
email system used by Walker and his aides

No serious observer sees Scott Walker as having a shot in hell of becoming the next president, as Walker incredibly still refuses to commit to a four-year term, should he be reelected as Wisconsin governor.

D.C. pundits don't count as serious for obvious reasons.

Walker has myriad shortcomings, arguably the most compelling are the corruption and criminality from the law enforcement investigations empowered by Wisconsin's John Doe statute. (The text of the Wisconsin statute is newly and heavily annotated online).

Now, news has broken that Walker "withdrew his own 2011 appointment of then-Government Accountability Board Chair David Deininger following a unanimous vote by the board to proceed with an investigation of the allegations"  concerning possible "illegal coordination between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and a host of conservative organizations," One Wisconsin Now reports.

Here's One Wisconsin Now's press release in its entirety:

MADISON, WI -- Just released filings related to the ongoing John Doe investigation into allegations of illegal coordination between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and a host of conservative organizations show Gov. Walker withdrew his own 2011 appointment of then-Government Accountability Board Chair David Deininger following a unanimous vote by the board to proceed with an investigation of the allegations.

"This is exhibit A that Gov. Walker's ouster of Chair Deininger was about one thing: The board's willingness to investigate alleged illegal activity leading to Gov. Walker's recall election win," said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now. "There are no depths to which the Governor will not sink to derail the investigation of his operation."

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Former judges on the state Government Accountability Board voted unanimously last year to authorize the investigation of fundraising and spending by Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and his allies during the recent recall elections, according to a Tuesday court filing." The paper reports the vote of the non-partisan board comprised of retired judges took place in June 2013.

But in early November 2013, Gov. Walker withdrew Deininger's nomination to the board, giving no reason other than concerns that the Senate would not confirm him. It was unclear why the Republican-controlled Senate would refuse to confirm Deininger, a former Republican legislator who was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson. At the time, Republican Majority Leader Sen. Scott Fitzgerald claimed of the decision "No, there's no connection," to decisions under Deininger's leadership during the recall elections.

"The veil is down and the truth is apparent," said Ross. "The Government Accountability Board unanimously voted to authorize the investigation of Gov. Walker's political activities and Gov. Walker used his power to remove its chair."

Gov. Walker made news when, after pledging he was cooperating in the investigation, he had his campaign file a brief seeking to have a case in the investigation moved to the conservative majority-led Wisconsin State Supreme Court.

One Wisconsin Now filed a formal letter Monday with the seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, urging four of the court's justices to recuse themselves from a legal request by the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker related to the ongoing John Doe investigation surrounding allegations of illegal coordination between Republican-aligned groups during the recall of Walker. Justice Bradley, who is considered to be one of the liberal justices on the court, previously recused herself from John Doe proceedings, as her son practices law with Dean Strang, one of the attorneys involved in the case.

In its letter, available here, One Wisconsin Now writes that two of the groups reported by media to be involved in the investigation, Club for Growth (CfG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), financed over $8 million in spending to elect the four justices, who constitute a conservative majority on the court.

Madison, Wisconsin Fights Republican Voter Obstruction

Wisconsin votes on Tuesday in the April 4 spring elections.
Wisconsin has seen among the nation's worst anti-voting
rights measures enacted by Republicans. One city,
Madison, is successfully fighting Republican
voter obstruction.

Madison, Wisconsin — Madison municipal clerk, Jean Phelps, offered a training session for new poll workers on March 25 at the Meadowridge Library on the city's southwest side.

Ms. Phelps pointed out to the assembly of some 50 people that their job duties do not include a legal mandate to "interrogate" voters on the coming Election Day, April 4.

Delivering a one-hour PowerPoint presentation, Phelps read several emails from aggrieved voters who say they felt harassed and bullied by election officials, an increasingly common practice committed by the Republican Party of Wisconsin-named poll workers and other citizens carried away with the prospect of serving in an official capacity in an office of public trust.

Phelps' training session comes as numerous Madison election officials implement measures recognizing the powerful, affirmative right to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution, Suffrage - Article III, (Ballotpedia).

City election initiatives notable under the tenure (2006-present), of City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl, reveal an apparent effort to treat voters as human beings and citizens vested with the right to vote.

Voting rights directives by the City Clerk's office come as other city-wide initiatives have been implemented following a federal voting rights decision in 2016 that struck down as unconstitutional numerous Republican Party-passed changes to Wisconsin election law, (One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

In One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, ((Mal Contends), (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324) (Moritzlaw)), much of the Republicans and only Republicans' transformation of election law was swept away, though the case has been appealed by Wisconsin's Republican attorney general.

Wrote election law expert, Rick Hasen: "[One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen] 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."

Madison has expanded the number and hours of early voting (in-person absentee voting) locations throughout the city in the nine months following One Wisconsin Now.

In the typically low-turn-out Spring primary held in February, polling places throughout Madison saw record-breaking early voting, (Capital Times).

At the late March training session Madison's Phelps noted that many polling places in February ran out of ballots.

Witzel-Behl's work has gained plaudits from voting rights activists on social media. The Dane County League of Women Voters noted in late March a massive increase in voter turn-out on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, for example, citing figures kept at the city of Madison website.

The non-partisan Wisconsin Election Protection umbrella group similarly has noted Witzel-Behl's work and that of others who are fighting Republican voter obstruction in their official capacities.

Looming is the white, racist and punishing Republican Party which views minority voting as not-quite-legitimate.

New GOP Assualt on Voting in Wisconsin Began Mere Days After 2012 Elections, Records Reveal

The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are
qualified electors, under the Wisconsin Constitution.

Sweeping Effort to Suppress Wisconsin Voters Began Two Days After the 2012 Election. Never before has Wisconsin seen
this sustained attacked on voting.

One Wisconsin Now Uncovers Heavy Influence by Top Assembly Leader; Milwaukee Singled Out for Early Voting Restrictions. Milwaukee blacks have long been a target for obstruction, intimidation as the GOP views African-Americans as not full members of society.

You won't see any Wisconsin Republicans renounce this voter obstruction effort and say, 'My God, what are we doing?'

It would be appropriate for every Wisconsin newspaper to advocate the political disqualification of every Republican candidate to the legislature and governor's office who works to prevent the right to vote belonging to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors.

This Republican efforts to erect barriers to vote are an assault against the foundation of the state of Wisconsin's democracy, and every citizen.

From One Wisconsin Now
Madison -- A review of legislative drafting records by One Wisconsin Now has uncovered that Republicans began work to attack state election laws mere days after the November 2012 election and that an omnibus bill on the legislative fast track, introduced by Rep. Jeff Stone, was developed under the close supervision of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.

One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross commented, “The Republicans were so obsessed that they failed to win Wisconsin’s Electoral College votes for the seventh election in a row that they started drafting this voter suppression scheme before all the votes in the November 2012 election were counted.”

The legislation, Assembly Bill 225 (AB 225), was announced late in the afternoon on the Friday before Memorial Day and is being rushed through the legislative process while much of the public and media attention is focused on the biennial budget. Among the provisions of the bill are:

• Re-imposition of a voter ID requirement found to be Unconstitutional by lower courts and still subject of state and federal lawsuits
• Measures making it easier for ballots cast by legal voters to be discounted due to minor clerical errors;
• Restrictions on early voting hours and essentially eliminate weekend voting in large urban areas;
• Repeal of the state policy that allows voters to use electronic copies of qualifying documents to verify their residency;
• Increased partisanship of election regulators at the state Government Accountability Board and in local polling places; and
• Repeal of campaign transparency requirements and repeal of the 100 year-old-plus ban on corporate contributions.

 “This bill is a massive, across the board assault on voting in Wisconsin. Government ought to be protecting and expanding our right to vote,” said Ross. “But Gov. Walker and top Republican leaders are going in the opposite direction, making it harder and less convenient to vote and easier to toss out votes cast by legal voters.”

Drafting records indicate that work began on one of the more egregious measures included in the package -- limits on early voting hours that effectively ban weekend voting in larger municipalities and eliminate nonpartisan “souls to the polls” drives by churches --- on November 8th 2012, just two days after the November 2012 general election.

A handwritten note associated with the draft of the provisions noted that Milwaukee allowed early voting on weekend and the intent of the bill was to eliminate it.

The work on the omnibus assault on voting was carefully overseen by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’ office. Despite the drafting request being made by Assembly Campaigns and Elections chair Rep. Bernier and being introduced by Rep. Jeff Stone, Vos was given explicit permission to review preliminary drafts and correspondence between requesters and drafters. In addition, there is extensive correspondence between Vos staff and legislative attorneys drafting the language of the bill, giving directions and making modifications to the legislation.

Ross concluded, “The real fraud in Wisconsin elections today is politicians like Gov. Walker, Speaker Vos and their partisan underlings manipulating the rules to try to give themselves an unfair political advantage. And Assembly Bill 225 is exhibit A in the case against them.”