Irene Captain on Scott Walker

Irene Captain - Fighting against Scott Walker

Irene Captain is a typical World War II mother.

Her late husband, Wesley John Captain, came home from Normandy, liberating a concentration camp, and serving in Patton's Third Army. He said, as family lore has it: "I have seen enough death, now I want to surround myself with life."

The Captains did just that, with nine children in Wisconsin Rapids.

Now, Irene Captain who proudly notes her service as a seniors’ activist, working on the legislative committee of AARP and lobbying hard for the initial establishment of SeniorCare which began in 2002, has had enough of Scott Walker.

"We need SeniorCare, it works, so why destroy it?"

Irene fights for her 11 great grandchildren, like Lily

Irene Captain signed the petition to recall Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch.

Reached this weekend in Rapids, Irene said, "You all keep up the fight. He's [Scott Walker] against everyone except the Koch brothers. He never was any good, and I don't trust a word he says. I'm going to keep voting against him."

Irene, who has lived some 64 years in Wisconsin Rapids and has friends and family members which span the political spectrum, says she has never seen anything like the dishonesty of Scott Walker.

"I can't even watch him on TV any more. If he believes something, then why doesn't he come out and say it?" said Irene. "He's a sneak thief, and a liar. Bless your heart for fighting against him"

Thank you, Irene; will keep up the fight.

Rick Santorum: Give President Obama second term if Santorum isn’t the nominee

Update: Santorum on the Defensive Over Remark About Romney

AP - Heading into the Wisconsin primary in early April, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”

Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”

“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”

During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.

Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”

“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”

Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”

The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”

Paul Ryan Budget Ignores Veterans, Not Even a Mention

Paul Ryan is all smiles, veterans get no love or mention

The federal budget is a statement of priorities. In the Rep. Paul Ryan's version of the 2013 budget subsequently embraced by Gov. Mitt Romney, the word veteran never appears.

The budget proposal runs to 98 pages. Zero mention of veterans. Two protracted conflicts, high veteran unemployment and a multitude of coming home issues and not one mention of veterans in this budget proposal.

It clearly states that veterans are NOT a priority.

This budget proposal is worse than an empty thanks for your service, an empty thanks would require being mentioned. Veterans did not even make the list of prioirites. Veterans were ignored entirely. Veterans are essentially being told thanks for nothing, you are on your own. This is absolutely unacceptable. Especially coming from an aspiring commander-in-chief.

By Patrick Bellon and Christopher Miller

Now contrast that with the 2013 budget the President recently unveiled that clearly makes veterans a top priority. The contrast is very stark.

With a new generation of veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the few significant increases in the executive’s 2013 budget is to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs,which would be increased by 10%. This increase addresses issues facing veterans ranging from mental health to homelessness. It even addresses the needs of the growing female veterans population. Most importantly it budgets for needed increases in health care and disablity compensation.

But the budget mostly cuts. For every $1 in revenue raised from those making $250,000 annually and closing corporate tax loopholes, it cuts $2.50 from the budget. In ten years it will cut virtually the same amount of all discretionary spending for 2013. This was a target agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans.

The media has reported that President Obama’s 2013 budget is controversial, though it reflects bipartisan agreement in Congress that discretionary spending should be reduced by $1 trillion over ten years. It allows the Bush tax cuts that have mostly benefitted the wealthiest Americans to expire. It institutes the ‘Buffet Rule’ that no household making over $1 million a year will pay less than 30% in taxes. It also includes the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on America’s biggest financial institutions who contributed to the financial crisis to ensure every cent of taxpayer funds from the TARP are paid back to the federal government.

So where is the controversy? The budget still projects a $901 billion shortfall. In the $3.6 trillion proposal, $2.5 trillion, about 70%, is ‘mandatory’ spending, which means that the money must be spent according to laws passed by Congress. The other $1.1 trillion is ‘discretionary’ spending, meaning this is money the President would like to spend. To ‘balance the budget’, as many in Congress are calling for, would mean cutting out all discretionary spending except for around $200 billion.

This sounds easier than it is, especially when the cost of defense maintenance and operations is $272 billion alone. Virtually all defense spending is discretionary and the President’s budget already includes billions of dollars in defense cuts in procurement, operations, bases, and personnel. Discretionary spending increases in the budget include Veterans healthcare, student aid, the State Department, and housing. To balance the budget in 2013 would mean mothballing the Pentagon and State Department, as well as veterans’ healthcare, student aid, and the federal prison system. And that would just be for one year. It wouldn’t even begin to pay down the national debt which we have accumulated over decades.

Americans have gotten used to demanding government provide services we all want and benefit from, but refuse to pay higher revenue, or taxes, to fund them. This seems to include paying for the true costs of war,if the Ryan-Romney 2013 budget is any indication. This is unacceptable.

The budget discourse takes place on intellectually dishonest terms. Who would provide the services everyone is accustomed to if this budget was passed? Some of the most vital services the government provides no private sector firm can or would provide. What private firm could provide a military? Even private defense contractors employ former soldiers trained by the U.S. military. Private intelligence contractors do the same. Who would build and maintain roads and airports and secure them? Firms may build roads and airports where and when they need them, but they wouldn’t build them beyond their own need for capacity or use. Even if the government got out of the healthcare and Social Security game altogether, individual Americans would still have to pay for these services out of pocket.

President Obama’s 2013 budget should not controversial. Most of the President’s budget (like all budgets) is controlled by laws passed by Congress. If Sen. McCain were sitting in the White House today instead of President Obama, he would be facing the same problems. Americans support preserving and continuing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They want a strong national security apparatus, good infrastructure, and education. Americans also overwhelmingly support our military and veterans,one of the few issues most agree on regardless of party. As a nation we must take a hard look at our values and realize that all of these things cost money and must be paid for. It isn’t a choice of which or how much; it is a choice of either/or. Either we decide we don’t want these things and don’t have to pay for them or we decide we do and we pay the what is required. Great countries require investment and hardwork, not dishonest conversations that allow us to shirk our responsibilities. As americans we must set priorities that live up to our highest ideals and values.

President Obama’s budget proposal makes sense and displays a very different set of priorities than the Ryan budget. Veterans occupy a preeminent place within that set of priorities, especially compared to being completely ignored. It is a balance of cuts and revenue increases. It provides for the programs Americans overwhelmingly support. It continues to fund programs we need to help our economy grow out of this economic downturn.

GOP Could Use Van Hollen's Plan to Make Redistricting Fair and Legal

"Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen - - as signaled Thursday by Senate Co-Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald - - communicated a plan Friday afternoon on behalf of the redistricting defendants (the state) in response to a petition filed earlier in the day by the winning defendants," reads the Political Environment.

A new plan is a good idea; how about the panel with the consent of the Republicans and Democrats take this opportunity to accept compliance with its judicial order by instituting a non-partisan approach to redistricting, ala Iowa's.

This can happen now, but the judicial panel's Memorandum, Opinion and Order make clear it must happen fast.

Democrats will go along. What say you, Republicans?

Republicans Went Soviet—Redistricting Decision‏ Harshly Condemns GOP

Thinks he can do to Wisconsin what he did to Milwaukee

Wisconsinites know Scott Walker and the Republicans believe public policy exists to rig the game to keep Walker and the GOP in power against the Wisconsin people.

Now, a panel of the federal judges has joined Wisconsinites behind the Recall movement by blasting Walker and the GOP in their decision to quash the secret GOP redistricting maps and their order the legislature to draw another map.

In Baldus et al, Baldwin et al v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Sensenbrenner et al; and Voces De La Frontera et al v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, et al [Case No, 11-CV-1011 (JPS-DPW-RMD)], Judges Stadtmueller, Wood and Dow sound a lot like the people of Wisconsin in criticizing Walker and the Republicans' conduct.

From an e-mail going around on the state on the judicial panel's Memorandum, Opinion and Order, called the "greatest hits" from the redistricting decision.

Regrettably, like many other states, Wisconsin chose a sharply partisan methodology that has cost the state in dollars, time, and civility. (Page 4, Par 1)

The new governor and legislators were sworn in on January 3, 2011, and the very next day the Republican legislative leadership announced to members of the Democratic minority that the Republicans would be provided unlimited funds to hire counsel and consultants for the purposes of legislative redistricting. They informed then Democrats that they would not receive any funding for this process. (Page 5, Par 1)

Every effort was made to keep this work out of the public eye and, most particularly, out of the eye of the Democrats. (Page 5, Par 2)

The drafters did not limit their outreach to public officials; they also held meetings behind closed doors with selected outsiders. In January 2011, they met with certain private business interests, including representatives from realtor and banking associations, and a hybrid state chamber of commerce called Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. (Page 6, Par 2)

Instead, upending more than a century of practice in Wisconsin, Act 39 required the municipalities to adjust their ward lines to the new state legislative districts. (Page 8, Par 2)

Our analysis of each of the plaintiffs’ claims leads us to the conclusion that Act 43 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a), by improperly diluting the citizen voting age population of Latinos across Assembly Districts 8 and 9. (Page 10, Par 2)

Only 323,026 people needed to be moved from one assembly district to another in order to equalize the populations numerically, but instead Act 43 moves more than seven times that number–2,357,592 people–for a net change that results in districts that are roughly equal in size. Similarly, only 231,341 people needed to move in order to create equal senate districts, but Act 43 moves 1,205,216–more than five times as many. (Page 14, line 10-15)

We come to that conclusion not because we credit the testimony of Foltz, Ottman, and the other drafters to the effect that they were not influenced by partisan factors; indeed, we find those statements to be almost laughable. (Page 17 Line 26-27, page 18 line 1-2)

we do not understand defendants to be arguing that a voter can constitutionally be deprived of the right to vote in a particular race–maybe for the House of Representatives–as long as he/she may vote for dog-catcher or the library board. The right to vote is a fundamental right for every elective office in a democracy. (Page 19 11-15)

“The evidence shows that the new lines for Districts 8 and 9 will be disruptive to the Latino community of interest.” P. 28

“Section 2 rights are too valuable to be evaluated on an expert’s unsubstantiated opinion.” P. 30

“It is no matter, however, because Dr. Grofman’s supposition utterly ignores the radical reconfiguration that the New Assembly District 8 imposes.” P. 30

“We take the GAB at its word that it will use the 2002 districts. That is sensible, especially in light of the command in the Wisconsin Constitution not to re-district more than once each 10 years.” P. 32 (this pertains to the recall elections)

“We find that…the drafting of Act 43 was needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens, and although the final product needlessly move more than a million Wisconsinites and disrupted their long-standing political relationships…” P. 34

“Tempers can flare when people are excluded from the political process, whether they are shut out because of their party affiliation, because of their race, because of their economic status, or because of any other trait. Such a contentious atmosphere is neither necessary nor desirable. We know that it is not necessary, because courts hold themselves to a higher standard and have succeeded in drawing successful maps time and time again. We should have learned that it is not desirable because of the rancor that it fosters.” Pp’s 34-35

“IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s and intervenor-plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim for relief be and the same is hereby GRANTED, the Court having found that New Assembly Districts 8 and 9 violate the Voting Rights Act, and, accordingly, the Government Accountability Board is hereby ENJOINED from implementing Act 43 in its current form;” P. 37

The Lynching of Trayvon Martin

When the wolves of hate are loosed on one people, then no one is safe

Update: Over 1,327,162 more signatures for justice.

Over nine hundred thousand people have signed a petition calling for the arrest of George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin for being black.

But as imbecilic as Zimmerman is, let's call this murder what it is: A lynching.

Zimmerman felt entitled to hunt down, assault and then shoot to death Trayvon Martin while speaking to a 911 operator for one reason: Zimmerman is empowered to do so by the Florida statute and the political culture in which we live, one where a major political party constantly strokes racist sentiments among the population to get elected.

Culture does matter. So does political rhetoric.

We understand why President Obama cannot comment now, as press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday, "I note that the Justice Department has said that it’s looking into the matter, and I would refer you to the Justice Department. Obviously, our thoughts and prayers, as I said yesterday, are with Trayvon Martin’s family. But beyond that, not least because there is an investigation going on, I don't have anything else I can add."

But condemnation from Presidents Clinton and Carter, and the Bush family is called for. And that especially includes former Flordia Gov. Jeb Bush. Even Florida legislators who sponsored the Stand Your Ground law are speaking out. So where are the Republican candidates running for president? Not word one.

The family and folks such as Color for Change and the Congressional Black Caucus are driving this investigation for now.

If we cannot communicate a moral imperative for political leaders to speak up, consider the public safety imperative. A deadly riot broke out in 1991 after racist Los Angeles cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted.

Young Trayvon Martin was hunted down and lynched with the implicit approval of the Sanford, Florida police department, and a racist political culture.

So the next time the Republican Party plays their race card, like it is right now, consider the words of Ralph McGill in the Atlanta Constitution, Oct. 13, 1958, after the dynamiting of a Jewish Temple in Atlanta.

Let us face the facts. This is a harvest. It is the crop of things sown. It is the harvest of those so-called Christian ministers who have chosen to preach hate instead of compassion. Let them now find pious words and raise their hands in deploring the bombing of a synagogue. You do not preach and encourage hatred for the Negro and hope to restrict it to that field. It is an old, old story. It is one repeated over and over again in history. When the wolves of hate are loosed on one people, then no one is safe.

Larry J. Sabato Rates Wisconsin's U.S. Senate Race a Toss-up

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley:

Wisconsin — The dynamic in the Badger State has remained static for months. If ex-Gov Tommy Thompson is the Republican nominee, he probably starts off favored against Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) in the general election. If not, Baldwin could move ahead. The Republican field, already featuring Thompson, ex-Rep. Mark Neumann and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, recently grew when businessman Eric Hovde jumped into the race. He’ll try to recreate the success of Sen. Ron Johnson (R), a one-time political novice who defeated ex-Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in 2010. Even though the Badger State’s presidential primary is coming up on April 3, the Senate primary won’t be until Aug. 14. TOSS UP

A toss-up points to the critical impact of:

• Candidate field operations (advantage, Baldwin)
• Voter suppression program (unknown - GOP obstruction law may not be in effect)

GOP Justice Gableman's Piece in Rightwing Journal Is Political Shot

Update: Gableman's GOP ally, David 'Chokehold' Prosser, waives confidentiality in case of physical confrontation with fellow justice

Michael Gableman, who cast the deciding vote in two cases in favor of parties represented by the law firm that provided him free legal services, is well-versed in the rhetoric of the political right which funded his election.

The GOP journal, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. (WPRI), is running a piece by Gableman adapted from a talk Gableman gave at the annual WPRI dinner in November 2011.

Gableman asserts his duty to "faithfully apply the law," And he points to several cases written by the GOP majority as examples, the most recent of which is Ozanne v. Fitzgerald (more commonly referred to as the Budget Repair Bill case).

The so-called Budget Repair Bill was opposed by every legislative Democrat, supported by every legislative Republican, not legally signed into law by Scott Walker; and then given the judicial thumbs-up by every GOP justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a decision that eviscerated Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent in Ozanne blasted the partisan ruling: The majority " ... reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."

As Abrahamson wrote:

[T]he Attorney General asserts that the legislature need not abide by the Open Meetings Law; that the legislature can choose when and if it will follow the Open Meetings Law; and that courts cannot enforce the Open Meetings Law against the legislature and any of its committees. ...

¶96 The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. This case law recognizes a court's power to review legislative actions in enacting laws when constitutional directives are at issue.

¶127 .... Unreasoned judgments breed contempt for the law. The majority, by sacrificing honest reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our authority derives.

This did not sit well with GOP justices, and Gableman's publishing his remarks to the GOP organization in the GOP journal is a political response against the Rule of Law by today's Republican Party that is so anti-intellectual and corrupt Joe McCarthy might blush.

Van Hollen Wants Expedited Review for Corrupt Purposes

Stop me before I obstruct again; wait, don't stop me

Attorney General Van Hollen (Republican) says the voter obstruction act will obstruct voters, if an appellate court stays the injunction against it taking effect.

Therefore, appellate courts should stay the injunction, Van Hollen argues, out of his concern the act will obstruct voters.

Why would Van Hollen put forth crazy arguments in favor of the voter obstruction act?

The answer can be found today.

[Attorney Lester] Pines noted he filed his case in October [against voter IDs] and that the Justice Department did not seek an expedited resolution of it until after [Judge] Niess ruled against it.' (Marley. MJS)

'These appeals are not about the April election. They're about the recall elections,' Pines, said referring to expected elections in May or June to recall Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans.

GOP: Accountability and Rule of Law Are Wrong

Justice David Prosser (Republican)

Even as the GOP files to recall Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar), as is their right, Charlie Sykes and the Republicans scream and try to vilify anything that threantens their political power: Voters, Recalls, unions, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, judges protecting voting rights, and on and on.

What's surreal, is the point Sykes and the GOP are making by using the oddest vehicle, a physically abusive conservative activist supreme court justice: David Prosser.

By John Peterson

The [segment below] perfectly reflects the conservative campaign to vilify everything Democratic, everything liberal, everything not ideologically compatible. I hope you have time to listen to it. The underlying message is clear; liberals are trying to take away the conservative vote.

This is the marginalization of American citizens who are not conservative. We are the other. We are the takers of their votes through our recall system. We are the takers of everything they think they own, like the moral high ground, the courts, their odd interpretation of freedom and liberty spelled out in the constitution.



Talk radio propagandists Charlie Sykes tries like hell to discredit liberals everyday. And he's working from a growing enemies list, like the newly targeted Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

The message you'll hear from Sykes is not just how bad liberals are, but how conservatives are the only ones that can be trusted to administer the law. Over and over Sykes basically hits on one theme; liberals will do anything to take away the power of their VOTE, a threat that is now right up there with taking away God and guns.

Former Walker Aide Pleads Not Guilty to Felony Charges

Kelly Rindfleisch - apprehended

Update: Schultze. MJS: "None of the county executive office jobs is intended to be political, but [Kelly] Rindfleisch treated her job that way, according to prosecutors. She is accused of doing extensive campaign work, including fundraising on behalf of Republican lieutenant governor candidate Brett Davis, while at her county post. Her criminal complaint says she also had frequent phone contact with Walker's campaign staff while on the county job."


WISN reports, "A former aide [Kelly M. Rindfleisch] to Scott Walker before Walker became governor has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges related to campaigning (for Walker) while at work for Milwaukee County," a mere 25 feet from Scott Walker.

Sure not guilty, Kelly, we believe you.

Few questions, though:

What is it with those Scott Walker e-mails on the secret e-mail network?

Did you live in West Allis, Wisconsin, the residence of James Villa, former chief of staff for the Milwaukee County Executive Office; and did you reside in Milwaukee County at the time you were employed in the Milwaukee County Executive Office?

Why are you now claiming your residency during that time is in Columbia County?

Well, a hearing on the change-of-venue motion is set for March 30.

Maybe you can explain to the people of Milwaukee County, and all of Wisconsin for that matter. Or would that just be to the people of Columbia County, as you say?

Attorney General Van Hollen Fronts for GOP

When WisPolitics ran a 2008 blockbuster uncovering an audio recording of Attorney General J.B.Van Hollen promising legal action on alleged "voter fraud" during an address at the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul, Minnesota, Van Hollen was exposed as a corrupt partisan.

The recording contradicted Van Hollen's earlier claims that "there was no discussion with anybody involved in leadership with the Republican Party (or the McCain campaign for which Van Hollen served as Wisconsin co-chair) about this (2008 voting rule) lawsuit before it was brought."

In some many words, the corrupt Van Hollen is a liar, traits antithetical to the top state law enforcement official.

To no one's surprise Van Hollen's promised effort at voter obstruction was tossed out of court in an opinion that implicitly borders on ridicule.

Van Hollen - 2012

Van Hollen is again carrying water for the Republican Party in its current voter obstruction efforts. And Van Hollen has shopped his latest effort to halt the injunction against the unconstitutional 2011-12 voter obstruction law by now filing suit in the Waukesha-based District II Court of Appeals.

The Alice-in-Wonderland quality of Van Hollen's desperate arguments to obstruct voters is being repeated across the state, if not covered in local broadcast media.

Van Hollen claims he's worried about disenfranchising voters as he defends the GOP law, though the law's disenfranchising voters is the very reason the GOP law has been halted (stopped from taking effect by judicial injunctions) by two judges.

"Continued uncertainty surrounding the conduct of elections represents the potential for irreparable harm to electors and the franchise," said Van Hollen in a line used in one appellate district's case.

Earlier, in another district, Van Hollen said, "If, as we hope, the injunction is overturned before the election, those relying on the injunction may be left without an opportunity to obtain their IDs by the date of the election.”

So, Van Hollen admits the law is going to stop some legal, constitutionally qualified, and registered Wisconsin voters from voting if the injunction is halted (stayed).

And Van Hollen says the law needs to be made operative (injunction stayed) for voters' sake because Van Hollen is concerned the law will stop legal, constitutionally qualified, and registered Wisconsin voters from voting.

If this argument makes no sense to you, it's likely you live in the realm of reason—far from the world of Van Hollen, Scott Walker and the party of voter obstruction.

By the same logic, a political party can pass an unconstitutional law that takes away your rights
- Courts then rule the law an unconstitutional violation of your rights and stop it from taking effect
- The Party's attorney general then says he is going to appeal in favor of the law to appellate judges, creating uncertainty
- This uncertainty, he argues, mandates the appellate Courts to reinstate the law (staying injunctions) out of concern for the rights violated by the law

Crazy arguments aside, the apparent strategy of the Republican Party as Van Hollen makes one motion after another (and one appeal after another) is to amass as many adverse-to-the-GOP rulings as possible and hope the Supreme Court hears their case in time to stop Democratic-leaning voters from casting their votes in the 2012 November election, and as many elections as possible.

As Van Hollen's office continues its efforts, an April district court trial on the law looms.

Several attorneys have told me they cannot believe the voter obstruction law can survive the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the Court has recognized throughout Wisconsin history the voter protections of the Wisconsin Constitution against politicians' trying to stop voters from voting.

But as the four GOP partisans on the Supreme Court have committed one outrageous action after another, I am not as sure.

Motion by Former Deputy Appears to Implicate Scott Walker in Conspiracy to Violate Milwaukee Employee Residence Law

Scott Walker: Didn't know?

Ernest A. Canning at the BradBlog has put together strands of evidence suggesting that Scott Walker is likely either a target or soon-to-be target of the criminal John Doe investigation.

Defense attorney Frank Gimbel, representing Kelly M. Rindfleisch, made a change of venue motion in February; and a "comparison of Gimbel's motion to the allegations contained in the 51-page criminal complaint [PDF] (the 'Rindfleisch complaint') against her suggests, Gimbel may have implicated Rindfleisch and Walker in a criminal conspiracy to violate the residency requirement for Milwaukee County employment."

I doubt the John Doe attorneys missed this.

An excerpt:

The change of venue motion, placed in the context of the allegations contained in the [Kelly M.] Rindfleish complaint, suggests that extraordinary efforts were made to evade the residency requirement in order to bring a political operative (Rindfleish --- who was also previously tied to the Assembly Republican Caucus Scandal that put several high-ranking state officials in jail several years earlier), into the Milwaukee County Executive Office in order to misuse that position for the political advantage of Walker in his 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

The fact that Walker signed off on both her initial hire and her later promotion strongly suggests that Walker was in on the scheme from day-one. That inference is reinforced by the 'smoking gun' 5/14/10 emails between Walker and Russell and between Rindfleisch and Russell. That series of emails reveals that Rindfleisch pulled the plug on the secret email system just ten minutes after Walker told Russell, in the wake of public exposure of former Milwaukee County employee Darlene Wink's illegal political missives sent during office hours: 'We cannot afford another story like this one…That means no laptops, no websites, no time away during the day, etc.'

All-in-all, these points seem to back up our contention from last week, in the wake of the establishment of his new Legal Defense Fund, that Scott Walker may be now be a target of prosecutors in the long-running 'John Doe' investigation which has already led to the indictments of four of his former top deputies.

Wisconsin High Court's Ruling on Voter ID Cases Will Be Historic

Update: Supreme Court refuses to take up voter ID cases (April 16, 2012)

Soon, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear one or more voter ID cases that have halted implementation of the GOP voter obstruction project.

The resulting high court decision this Spring or Summer will be a historic moment in Wisconsin.

This one decision will determine if Wisconsin is a lawless, unconstitutional state; or a democracy where the rule of law and the rights of citizens guaranteed in the Wisconsin Constitution hold sway over nihilistic politics.

For the State of Wisconsin well protects the right of citizens to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution (Article III) against any legislative or executive fiat that would "cancel or substantially burden a constitutionally guaranteed sacred right," as Judge Richard Niess writes in his March 12, 2012 decision.

No political party or movement can declare the sacred rights of classes of Wisconsin citizens to cease to exist while this party remains in power and acts in its perceived self interest. Judicial case law dating back over a century recognizes the primacy of voting rights in Wisconsin. These points are not controversial.

Voting in the young republic -
George Caleb Bingham

Looked at from the perspective on the ground: No constitutionally qualified, duly registered voter can walk over to the voting rolls table to obtain a ballot for casting his or her vote and then be told he or she is no longer qualified to vote.

The law is as clear as the stakes are high.

A government that undermines the right to vote imperils its own legitimacy as a government 'by the people, for the people and especially of the people,' (Judge) Niess wrote. 'It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution' (Treleven, WSJ).

Undermining the right to vote would, one might believe, provoke outrage at the responsible political party—the Republican Party.

But as the Republican Party commissars are well aware, their efforts are aimed at a minority of Wisconsin citizens; and the GOP will side-step discussion of killing constitutional rights with comparisons of voting to renting a video and then call this coordinated, nationwide GOP voter suppression effort 'common sense.'

Most citizens will blithely go about their business, thinking, 'I have my license, why don't they have their's,' an undemocratic notion devoid of appreciation for the constitutional rights of all citizens.

This is Republican politics at its worst, preying on apathy and the ignorance of rights that—if we are honest—we note define the American populace in our depoliticized, anti-democratic political culture.

Most journalists will also neglect the legal Wisconsin tradition of the right to vote, though a simple phone call to any credible political scientist or law professor will reveal facts not to this moment widely reported. Wisconsin scholars are quite willing to talk; it's a Wisconsin Idea thing. [Truthfully, I'm surprised a petition blasting the Voter ID law has not made the rounds.]

One attorney this morning, said, "I don't think they [the four Republican justices] will vote to uphold the [voter ID] law. It would be too blatant a partisan display," speaking on background.

I work as an sworn election inspector for the City of Fitchburg and I have seen up close and personal the popular hostility to voting rights that exists even in my liberal, highly educated community. Stick a given person behind a voter registration table, give this person a little authority, and the resulting behavior might shock even social psychologists studying the capacity of citizens to deny the rights of their fellow citizens living in the same community. It's difficult for me, again in a personal digression, to see this behavior with anything less than disgust.

This is the political culture we live in.

The only mechanism protecting our rights is the rule of law and those citizens willing to uphold it.

If the four Republican Supreme Court justices decide to act as an underground political movement and vote to deny the rights of Wisconsin citizens, we will have reached a point of crisis in Wisconsin.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson will have no choice but to alert the citizenry that the rule of law no longer exists in Wisconsin, destroyed by the Republican Party, the institution of the Supreme Court already damned. Anything less than naming the perpetrators is acquiescence. One certainly could argue we have already reached this point.

Intellectual honesty and democratic values can still save the right to vote in Wisconsin; but this will require good-faith actors in journalism, the academy, the Republican Party, business and the Wisconsin citizenry to refuse to be silent anymore.

"The only cure for [political neurosis and fear] is a steady and unfrightened public opinion strong enough and expressive enough to show that respect for civil rights is also good politics in America," said Robert H. Jackson in 1939.

Appellate Court Refuses to Stay Injunction on GOP's Polling Place Photo ID Obstruction

"The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors, not just the fortunate majority from whom Act 23 poses little obstacle at the polls."
- Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess in League of Women Voters v. Walker

By Ernest A. Canning at the BradBlog

On Friday, an intermediate Wisconsin appellate court denied a request made by WI Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R), on behalf of Gov. Scott Walker's administration, to stay an order issued earlier this month by a Dane County Circuit Court that temporarily suspended the state GOP's polling place Photo ID law.

In Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker --- the first of two cases within the past two weeks to result in an injunction on the voting restrictions, known as "Act 23", enacted by a Republican-majority last year --- Judge David Flanagan temporarily enjoined enforcement of the law on the grounds that it was in violation of the WI Constitution's guaranteed right to vote.

As of now, that injunction will still stand. In the bargain, local election officials are now seeking to comply with Judge Flanagan's order, so that Photo ID will not be required at the polls in the statewide April primary elections, upcoming recall elections scheduled for May and June, or for the 2012 general election this November.

Unless the denial of a stay is promptly reversed by the partisan Republican majority on the WI Supreme Court, the ruling could have an immediate adverse impact on the ability of the state's controversial Governor, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and the Republican state Senators facing upcoming recall elections to retain office ... .

In the second case to result in an injunction, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess found, in League of Women Voters v. Walker on Monday, that "The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors, not just the fortunate majority from whom Act 23 poses little obstacle at the polls."

Judge Neiss, in granting his permanent injunction less than a week after the Flanagan decision, similarly ruled that the polling place Photo ID restrictions were in violation of the state Constitution. The difference in the two decisions was that Judge Neiss ruled that Act 23 was unconstitutional "on its face" --- that Wisconsin's Republican Governor and GOP-controlled Legislature impermissibly sought to "eliminate the right of suffrage altogether for certain constitutionally qualified voters."

Judge Flanagan, on the other hand, applied classic Equal Protection analysis based on "uncontested" evidence and testimony submitted to the court, demonstrating that the Photo ID law has a disparate impact on minorities, the poor, handicapped and the elderly and that obtaining photo IDs, for many, is unduly burdensome.

His decision also determined that the Photo ID restriction was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest (let alone narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest --- the higher scrutiny mandated when dealing with a fundamental right), given the absence of evidence of in-person voter fraud. In-person voter impersonation is the the only type of voter fraud which can be prevented by polling place photo ID laws. ...

Consider the words of Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of ALEC, the billionaire-funded organization that has drafted the models for voter suppressing photo ID laws.

"I don't want everybody to vote," Weyrich admitted while addressing a right-wing Christian audience in 1980 (see haunting video at right). "Our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down," he added after denigrating those who seek "good government" through maximum, informed voter participation, as people who suffer from what he described as "goo goo syndrome."