This legally-dubious attempt to overturn a judge’s order by writing a new law would radically alter rules that have been in place for decades—and in some cases more than a century—for holding prompt special elections. Yet, Republican legislative leaders plan to call an extraordinary special session April 4 to pass the legislation, and Walker says he will sign it immediately. Then, if the special elections have been called by the governor in order to a contempt of court ruling, Walker allies suggest, the governor will then cancel them....What's the legal argument that the legislature can't change the statutory law after a court has interpreted it and said that it must be followed? It's not enough to just say "legally-dubious." What's the argument? It can't be that it would "radically alter rules that have been in place for decades" — legislation can change existing law even when the law is old. I can see saying you like the old law better and are arguing that it's a good container of the value "democracy," but — speaking of democracy — if the legislature has the votes to change the law, it can change it.
And "dismantle democracy" is awfully melodramatic. We have way too many election days in Wisconsin, and I think they produce low turnout, which means that fewer people get to decide. For example, we need to notice that next Tuesday is an election day. It's annoying to non-politicos to be rousted to the polls so frequently, but for those who do take the trouble, our votes have extra weight. Is that democratic?
UPDATE: "Gov. Scott Walker calls special elections and Senate leader drops bill to sidestep court order" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).
Posts
60 comments:
Then, if the special elections have been called by the governor in order to [...] a contempt of court ruling, Walker allies suggest, the governor will then cancel them....
It looks like the writer and editor avoided the "avoid".
Arnold Schwartzen whatsit made a huge mistake when he became governor in California by scheduling a special election for this four reform proposals. The Teachers union mortgaged their headquarters in Sacramento to raise enough money to defeat them. It was a low turnout and union members were most of the voters.
He then gave up and hired a left wing political director and settled down to smoke cigars with cronies.
The decline of California followed.
"dismantle democracy" = our side didn't win.
The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century relic but apparently that can be changed, and take effect, after a court has ruled on it, should we wish it.
The Nation? Yeah, I occasionally read to see what the Left is thinking.
Mostly, it is crap, whining about all the things white, male, capitalists are doing to prevent the Left from acquiring power.
>>whining about all the things white, male, capitalists are doing to prevent the Left from acquiring power.
You're welcome.
This is at least the 1,278th time in the last 12 months that a republican has dismantled our democracy.
At this rate I am going to need to see some real progress made in building internment camps very soon.
I want my dismantled corruptocracy. Now!
Any change in law that adversely affects the Democratic Party position is not to be sanctioned! Didn't they teach you that in law school?
Has John Nichols ever written approvingly of anything that Scott Walker has done?
No.
Perhaps if Walker died, Nichols would see fit to praise him.
You should go back to basics re democracy.
Bring back the ostraka.
We have regular elections in early November, seven months away. People are already gearing up campaigns for some of those state races. In addition, the legislature is done for this session, not scheduled to meet again until after the November election. These new special election people would literally do nothing if elected before November. So what's the point?
Anytime someone says "we need a new law" they should be fed to the Lions at the Zoo, and we should cheer.
Use the Lion poop to fertilize lawns at the Capital.
The job of the Legislature and Executive has become to do whatever judges tell them to do. Time to count the scotus' divisions?
Forgive me for not making the effort to dig through Wisconsin's legislative history on this, but does anyone have a clue as to how the obvious hole in the special election law that Walker is interpreting as not requiring him to call a special election (because the vacancy occurred in the previous, non-election year) managed to get written into the statutes?
It doesn't make sense, but neither does it make sense for the Judge to rewrite the poorly conceived law herself.
On Wisconsin!
Whenever I hear a melodramatic "bad for Democracy" whinge, I substitute "Democrats" and it makes the real point all that much clearer.
Yes, democracy is dismantled if there is a change in the rules for filling vacancies,or so The Nation tells us. For the third time, Massachusetts Tweaks Its Senatorial Succession Policy To Keep Democratic Senator. ( 2004,2009,2016) As the changes for filling vacancies occurred to keep a Democrat in office, democracy was not dismantled, but strengthened. Right?
Yeah, right.
What do we want? Dismantled democracy!
When do we want it? Now!
What do we want? Truffle glaze!
When do we want it? During the main course!
Are you being deliberately naive? This is 100% about manipulating the elections to delay the likely outcome that the seats will go to Democrats. And let's be super-clear as to how these seats were vacated. They were vacated because Republicans in vulnerable areas were rewarded with highly-paid state civil service positions, regardless of actual qualifications.
The Republicans really set the bar for this with the Merrick Garland bullshit. Given the likely turn towards Democrats in the next 4 years (history tells us how this goes in waves), do you really want to create a status quo where a party can hold seats hostage? And would you be okay with not having representation for this long, especially if you lived in a rural county?
This is just another example of using every tool they can to limit voters and fair elections.
How dare the Legislative Branch craft legislation that contradicts our preferred judicial outcome!!!
(End)Democracy Now!
He appointed people to work in his administration and if he called elections at that time they would be on the same ballot as a Supreme Court 10 year seat.
But instead, its now almost 4 months later and he needs to amend the law (post legislative session that just ended) to get him out of a contempt ruling.
Good luck in November. He will need it.
The Republicans really set the bar for this with the Merrick Garland bullshit.
Sniff. Sniff.
Mommy. Advise and consent doesn't mean what I want it to.
"Blogger MadisonMan said...
Has John Nichols ever written approvingly of anything that Scott Walker has done?
No.
Perhaps if Walker died, Nichols would see fit to praise him."
More likely, if Scott Walker died, Nichole would praise him for the achievement.
This is just another example of using every tool they can to limit voters and fair elections.
OMG! You man like checking on citizenship on a census form?
Gee. Democrats and forner supreme court justices seem awful eager to dismantle longstanding law to get rid of the second amendment.
Anything that lowers the number of politicians, even if just for a short while, is OK with me.
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/06/04/for-the-third-time-massachusetts-tweaks-its-senatorial-succession-policy-to-keep-democratic-senator/
The democrats don't actually believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.
Not a single thing.
The Left just hates it when you fight back.
Can't have the legislative branch making based on political priorities. It's anti-2018-American!
You right Althouse it is such a brother to go and vote when we know Walker is doing his best to take care of us.
It is difficult to understand why any sane person tries to defend crap like this. May as well just be honest and say that you like it when your side cheats.
Law makers making law is "cheating"?
You know what else used to be established law for centuries? That marriage was between a man and a woman. And the courts set aside precedent and the law (DOMA) in an act of pique that was satisfying to the left. Suck it!
Remember when the Wisconsin Dem legislators ran out of state so the GOP majority couldn't form a quorum?
That shows you how much respect Wisconsin Dems have for the Democratic process.
Segregation was in place for decades, wasn't it? Guess we shoulda just let it be.
The recent PA election where the districts are being redrawn and that district won't even exist in 6 months is a good example of an election that didn't need to occur. It costs a lot of money to run an election especially if it is statewide. Setting a time period of say 1- year seems reasonable because that is in all honesty the time period when any serious candidate would have already decided they were going to run in a primary for that seat.
"Spurned by big law firms, Trump relies on handful of lesser-known attorneys..."
This is ass-ly fucked-cunt racist Althouse most-lawyerly a here referrered to.\\
Dpm
ficomg dpibet ,e/
Not TOday
NOT TPDAY
Looks to us, right, c'mon now, we are all in agreement, need us some more lawyers.
Just cause.
They, and that their brain we done a gonna mold us from some of that dang darn, dangdarn asyoulike, mush, into DemoProggies WIth Hearts and Feelings and Brains Way BEtter than YOURS>!!@
WE DONE DID GET US THAT DANG POWER DON"T YOU EVER FORGET, though we be killin 'ya either way.
Womb.
Dumb.
Wrongthink.
Hell, we'll send you over them seas to kill ya, and watch the theater we have determined for you is worth all of it. It all.
Michael, and TYon Dadist De Sade Sasist Ergo Much, tell us how awesome, like those books and teleision pictures show, top dollar lawyers are.
LET'S ALL BE THEM!@!!\
You gotta respect that.
You gotta respect that.
You gotta respect that.
Dude, THEY ARE RICH! Really.
Just who, and what, in the Hell are YOU, by the way, mister?
Are you rich: uh oh.
Dismantle..or delay?
Per Althouse's description, excessive elections could be construed as.."voter suppression"
“... do you really want to create a status quo where a party can hold seats hostage? And would you be okay with not having representation for this long, especially if you lived in a rural county?”
It looks that way.
People are resilient. The will survive the trauma of not being represent in the state house for a year or so. Remember your Nietzsche: "what does not kill me makes me stronger."
Courage!
I think it is silly to fill a seat with a special election for a term that last less than a year. Indeed, the law really should be that the seat either remain vacant until the next scheduled election, or it be filled by appointment for the remainder of the term.
Yes, if the Dems are really concerned about a lack of representation, let Walker appoint an interim replacement. Problem solved!
Democrats always over think things. Like "Totalitarian communism is bad? Whoa! Let me think about that for a few decades, and I'll get back to you."
Wooly thinking on the part of Democrats, but that’s no surprise, when they twist words to mean what they want them to mean to make an argument. Very rarely do you hear any kind of logical, reasoned, argument for pretty much anything.
In this situation, argue the merits, or not, of the change. Even so, the loss of a Republican seat, when left empty, effectively weakens Republicans and strengthens Democrats. I would agree that too many elections tends to favor the ‘activist’ more than the will of the general population (who, while voting is important, have better things to do with their time).
May as well just be honest and say that you like it when your side cheats.
How is enacting legislation "cheating"?
Isn't that why people are elected to the Legislature? To do this exact thing?
Walker backed down realizing this would not go over well with many Wisconsin voters in the fall, unlike some bloggers and Althouse on this site.
I see a legal argument that, while the Wisconsin legislature may change the election law prospectively, to change it for an election for which a writ of election has been issued, or for which a court has compelled issuance, would be a prohibited ex post facto law.
And "dismantle democracy" is awfully melodramatic.
It's almost like they're accusing Walker of being one of those god emperors.
It is funny to watch how far Ann is willing to go to come up with twisted arguments to support the bad actions on the part of Republicans.
“Cruel neutrality” my ass. LOL!
At this point Ann is just another right wing shrill for the Republican Party.
The same people who talk about "the living Constitution", a document "over 100 years old" and how the Founders could never possibly have had our modern world in mind for anything they want to interpret in or out--these same people call any attempt to formally change the law through the formally established procedures to be "of dubious legality" and "an attack on democracy".
"At this point Ann is just another right wing shrill for the Republican Party."
NIK, as clueless as ever. No arguments, just hyperbole. The Leftist personified.
Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
Walker backed down realizing this would not go over well with many Wisconsin voters in the fall, unlike some bloggers and Althouse on this site.
**shrugs** Then the system works. The judge was under no such democratic pressure. Being a judge or a bureaucrat these days is like being a legislator w/o the requirement to win popular approval. Your preferred policies become law without your ever winning an election (some judgeships in some locales aside).
The whole premise of The Nation's argument is a sham. An unelected judge determines the scheduling of an election, and that is "democratic," but an elected legislature & governor determines the scheduling of an election, and that is undemocratic? Somebody ain't thinking right.
Oddly enough, aren't the number of such judges determined by the legislature? Hmm.
It is clear the polling was terrible. Walker scrapped the appeal to the State Supreme Court and the State Senate decided not to have a special session to address this bill.
He then gave up and hired a left wing political director and settled down to smoke cigars with cronies.
And bang the maid.
The democrats don't actually believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.
Fen's law. Which reminds me, where is Fen?
Post a Comment