Redistricting Woes

Aetius wrote:

Hang up the government to prevent a war in Iran? Absolutely

I don't remember Obama submitting that Bill to Congress. Try "Hang up the government to destroy confidence that we will pay our bills on time and lower the credit rating?"

Aetius wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Hey! Excellent. Another strike against libertarianism: prefers non-functioning government (that still takes money and effort to run) to a government that can actually use its resources to get things done. Hint: If your belief is that [em]making an effort to break government so it can't do anything is a good way to demonstrate why government is bad[/em], you might want to reconsider. That kind of effort does more to illustrate the good things government can do that it's not being allowed to do. In general, breaking something so that it doesn't work isn't going to convince anybody that the thing itself is bad, it just makes those who broke it look like assholes.

You're making the assumption that government a) can get things done, and b) the things that it does are good. Hang up the government to prevent a war in Iran? Absolutely. It's not a demonstration of how government doesn't work, it is defending the society from government depredation and violence.

Note that I don't think the Republicans are doing it for that reason. They also don't really have a problem with keeping it running, they just want concessions.

Concessions like "do it our way or you get nothing done" right?

Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Hang up the government to prevent a war in Iran? Absolutely

I don't remember Obama submitting that Bill to Congress. Try "Hang up the government to destroy confidence that we will pay our bills on time and lower the credit rating?"

He didn't - he just decided to go to war. Getting Congressional approval for that is just so ... old-fashioned.

Dezlen wrote:

Concessions like "do it our way or you get nothing done" right?

No - concessions like "I want this military base and this money to go to my district". It's obvious they aren't serious about actually shutting the government down, they just want their cut.

Aetius wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Hang up the government to prevent a war in Iran? Absolutely

I don't remember Obama submitting that Bill to Congress. Try "Hang up the government to destroy confidence that we will pay our bills on time and lower the credit rating?"

He didn't - he just decided to go to war. Getting Congressional approval for that is just so ... old-fashioned.

You've just jumped from the fictional war in Iran to the actual war in Libya, as well as made the false implication that Republicans nearly shut down the government in order force the President to pull our forces out of Libya.

Yonder wrote:

I don't remember Obama submitting that Bill to Congress. Try "Hang up the government to destroy confidence that we will pay our bills on time and lower the credit rating?"

He didn't - he just decided to go to war. Getting Congressional approval for that is just so ... old-fashioned.[/quote]

You've just jumped from the fictional war in Iran to the actual war in Libya, as well as made the false implication that Republicans nearly shut down the government in order force the President to pull our forces out of Libya.[/quote]

I made no such implication. I said that I would hang up the government to stop a war, and that it would be morally correct - indeed, imperative - to do so. The Republicans, of course, would not. Their objection isn't moral, but simply that they aren't getting their fair share of the spoils.

And I also believe that, given our actions, the war in Iran is anything but fictional.

I don't know if I've said this in this thread yet, but the notion that there's a completely fair districting scheme is a myth. Someone will always get screwed.

Kind of a toss-up about which thread to post this in, but figured this was the best fit.

The controversial redistricting plan put together by the Wisconsin GOP (first mentioned here) has been the subject of a lawsuit for a while now. Last month, a three-judge panel ruled that information pertaining to the redistricting process had to be released, stating (in part) "Quite frankly, the Legislature and the actions of its counsel give every appearance of flailing wildly in a desperate attempt to hide from both the court and the public the true nature of exactly what transpired in the redistricting process".

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]The panel of judges - two of whom are Republican appointees - gave a rhetorical smack to the GOP lawmakers and their attorneys.

The court "will not suffer the sort of disinformation, foot-dragging, and obfuscation now being engaged in by Wisconsin's elected officials and/or their attorneys," the ruling reads.

Three attorneys of the Michael Best & Friedrich firm are being sanctioned as a result - Eric McLeod, Joseph Olson and Aaron Kastens. McLeod has drawn attention in recent days for providing legal services to state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman under an arrangement in which Gableman ultimately did not have to pay.

Now that some of the documentation on the WI redistricting process has been released, it's becoming clear why the GOP fought so hard to keep things secret. The first troubling detail to be revealed? GOP lawmakers participating in the redistricting process were forced to sign a vow of secrecy.

Legislative leaders sometimes ask rank-and-file legislators to keep quiet about sensitive legislation, but they do not ask them to sign pledges of secrecy.

The agreement tells each lawmaker "you agree not to disclose the fact and/or contents of such discussions or any draft documents within your possession."

All the agreements were also signed by Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich, one of several attorneys who advised lawmakers on the maps. Legislative leaders have committed $400,000 in taxpayer money to pay Michael Best and the Troupis Law Office for their work on the maps.

McLeod has drawn attention in recent months for providing legal services to state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman under an arrangement in which Gableman did not have to pay.

The issue of Justice Gableman's free legal services is covered starting here, for anyone who's interested. The short version is Gableman received representation on ethics charges from the firm of Michael Best & Freidrich, hasn't had to pay for that representation, has refused to recuse himself from cases (including those argued by the attorney who represented him), and has ruled in MB&F's favor more frequently than any other Justice.

State Senator John Erpenbach just sent an open letter to Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich. Worth quoting in (almost) its entirety.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) has insisted from the start of the redistricting process that the process has not been political in nature. He even went so far as to deny Senate Democrats legal representation in this process, saying that the Senate already had a law firm: yours. That fact was restated by his staff, when ask by myself, as a member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities and Government Operations during a recent hearing. During that hearing, I asked Sen. Fitzgerald’s staff on more than one occasion, and more than one way, if politics were involved with redistricting. His answer was always the same, “no.”

Therefore, it is my understanding, as the elected State Senator of the 27th Senate District, I am your client. As your client I would like to review the file regarding your firm’s work on redistricting.

Attorney client privilege should not be an issue here because I am one of the 33 clients you represent.

If it’s not your understanding that your firm represents all 33 Wisconsin State Senators, then perhaps we need further clarification from Sen. Fitzgerald. Otherwise, please provide me with a copy of the entire redistricting file.

That's terrific.

You've got to keep us posted on how that turns out, that's brilliant.

Cross-posting from the Wisconsin State Senate Recalls thread, because it's also relevant here:

The legal quagmire surrounding the WI GOP redistricting efforts (first mentioned here, most-recent updates here) have uncovered another potential wrinkle. Two highly-paid legislative aides have been working out of the Madison law offices of Michael Best & Friedrich, rather than state-owned property. This is significant because the WI GOP have attempted to shield themselves from legal discovery requirements by having everyone involve sign secrecy oaths, and claiming the redistricting work was covered by attorney-client privilege.

Ottman and Foltz drew the maps in Michael Best's offices, and lawmakers would visit them there to discuss them.

Ottman said Thursday he was working part of the time in Michael Best's offices because legislators continue to have questions about the new maps and that is the only place where they can be printed. He declined to say how often he worked from that office.

"I don't keep track of how much of the time I'm in the (law) office," Ottman said.

Ottman's boss, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), gave a different reason for Ottman working from Michael Best's offices, saying it was necessary because of the litigation. Fitzgerald said Ottman also has duties unrelated to the maps that he performs.

Some time after the maps were approved in August, Foltz returned to the Capitol for about a month, said John Jagler, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). Foltz now works at the law office most of the time, Jagler said.

Like the legislators, Foltz and Ottman signed confidentiality agreements, which became public on Thursday. The two signed the agreements in July 2010, six months before Republicans took over the Legislature.

It said any documents they produced had to be marked as confidential and could not be shared with others. Since then, however, the panel of federal judges has ordered what they produced to be turned over to the Democrats suing them.

Their agreements say they were working at the direction of Michael Best attorneys. But Scott Fitzgerald contended Ottman answered to him.

"He does what I tell him to do and when to do it," he said.

What kind of world do we live in when they're pretty much flaunting the corruption now? How do they think this is a good idea?

It looks like the issue of our redistricting boundaries just became a huge focal point.

LilCodger wrote:

What kind of world do we live in when they're pretty much flaunting the corruption now? How do they think this is a good idea?

The Fitzgerald brothers (Scott in the Senate, Jeff in the Assembly) have pursued a scorched-earth political policy with great zeal throughout the past year-plus. Given that they already got the State Supreme Court to ignore clearly-worded and clearly-applicable statutes to give them a favorable ruling (on a timeline the Fitzgeralds demanded, no less) they may like their odds for a lawsuit better than for challenges.

[Edit to fix sentence fragment.]

Today is the two-hundredth anniversary of then-Governor Elbridge Gerry redrawing the district boundaries for the Massachusetts State Senate in such an egregious manner that we got the term gerrymandering.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png/573px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png)

Hell, that district is downright reasonable compared to a lot of today's.

Yeah, those actually look fairly sane. I'm not sure if it was here or somewhere else where I saw it, but I remember reading about district lines that went into a river, traveled like a mile upstream, one foot wide, and then expanded out to grab a bunch of homes in a completely different geographical area.

Compared to crap like that, or deliberately redistricting current representatives out of their districts, Mr. Gerry was an amateur.

Explosive allegation in Wisconsin Public Television update on our redistricting scandal.

WPT[/url]]Last spring Republicans in control of the Assembly and Senate hired a private law firm, at taxpayer expense, to help draw the new maps. After the maps were drawn, individual Republicans were brought in one by one to look at a map of their district. They were required to sign a secrecy pledge, in which they promised not to reveal what they had just seen. According to one lawmaker who asked not to be named, the logic they were given was the maps and the documents would be protected by attorney-client privilege, and the secrecy pledges were needed to protect that. But this lawmaker told me he felt part of the pledge was intimidation, to keep the rank and file from complaining. He was even shown two versions of the map, one more favorable and one less favorable, and was told if he didn’t go along, the less favorable version would become law.

I understand that Gov. Walker has decided to use funds from the recent $26B mortgage bank settlement, which were supposed to go to homeowners in trouble, to instead reduce the state's deficit. Is that correct?

Robear wrote:

I understand that Gov. Walker has decided to use funds from the recent $26B mortgage bank settlement, which were supposed to go to homeowners in trouble, to instead reduce the state's deficit. Is that correct?

I'm taking the liberty of answering this in greater depth in our gubernatorial recall thread, but the short answer is "yes".

Wow. Just wow.

I won't spell it out here because the JPG's of the emails about "wildly gerrymandering" and lawyers writing the testimony of a witness is just to sweet to paraphrase.

But, in a nutshell, the federal court ordered emails from the Wisconsin GOP and what they found is jaw dropping.

Just take a gander.

Thanks for posting that, PhoenixRev.

To give folks slightly more in-thread context, after that three-judge panel last week ordered the release of all documents pertaining to the redistricting efforts, the Wisconsin GOP petitioned to withhold 84 emails, which they argued should be covered by attorney-client privilege. The judges reviewed the documents privately, and unanimously found that argument to have no merit:

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]In its order Thursday, the court said legal advice could remain confidential, but not political or strategic advice. The Republicans had blended political and legal advice in the documents so extensively that the lines between them "practically disappeared" and all of them had to be released, the court said.

"Merely hiding political decisions behind the closed doors (and email servers) of a law firm does not make the advice offered any less political, strategic, or policy related," the order said.

"Without a doubt, the Legislature made a conscious choice to involve private lawyers in what gives every appearance of an attempt - albeit poorly disguised - to cloak the private machinations of Wisconsin's Republican legislators in the shroud of attorney-client privilege. What could have - indeed should have - been accomplished publicly instead took place in private, in an all but shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said he disagreed with the court that lawmakers had been overly secretive. He said legislators usually keep all legislation confidential until they formally introduce it.

Given that juicy allegation from WPT's "Here and Now" mentioned upthread, I did some digging. Showing a legislator two redistricting maps and telling them the unfavorable one will be passed if they don't support you? Turns out that's a Class I felony.

Wisconsin Law, §13.05[/url] ]Logrolling prohibited. Any member of the legislature who gives, offers or promises to give his or her vote or influence in favor of or against any measure or proposition pending or proposed to be introduced in the legislature in consideration or upon condition that any other person elected to the same legislature will give or will promise or agree to give his or her vote or influence in favor of or against any other measure or proposition pending or proposed to be introduced in such legislature, or who gives, offers or promises to give his or her vote or influence for or against any measure on condition that any other member will give his or her vote or influence in favor of any change in any other bill pending or proposed to be introduced in the legislature, is guilty of a Class I felony.

So when are these politicians getting arrested? Should I hold my breath?

LeapingGnome wrote:

So when are these politicians getting arrested? Should I hold my breath?

Given that the State Supreme Court was already willing to overlook the clearly-written (and clearly-applicable) §19.84 of the Wisconsin legal code in order to further the partisan goal of declaring 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 as valid, I think holding your breath is a poor plan.

I'm happy to be proven wrong.

More developments in the Wisconsin redistricting case this week. The trial was originally scheduled to begin yesterday, but the three-judge panel asked all the involved parties to spend the day determining whether a compromise could be reached. In short, they requested that the legislature pass amended district boundaries to address the plaintiff's concerns. The GOP's response was that they cannot, and that the 1954 state Supreme Court decision in State ex rel. Smith v. Zimmerman states that new district boundaries can only be drawn every 10 years. The state Constitution actually only specifies that the redistricting be completed during the first legislative session after the census data is available.

Wisconsin Constitution, Article 4, Section 3[/url]]At its first session after each enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall apportion and district anew the members of the senate and assembly, according to the number of inhabitants.

That legislative session hasn't finished, and the case should be starting before that completes, which seems like it'd give the judges recourse to alter the boundaries, if they decide for the plaintiffs.

Associated Press[/url]]The question of whether the court has the authority to rule on the issue became a secondary issue as plaintiffs requested permission to depose Jim Troupis, an attorney for lawmakers whose name surfaced in emails linked to the voter-map issue.

Republicans had fought to keep the emails and other documents private, but the judges issued a scathing order Thursday forcing them to make the content public. Stadtmueller issued another stern reprimand Tuesday, blasting Republicans for what he called a pattern of secrecy and concealment.

"The facts are the facts. And what has occurred here is beyond the pale in terms of lack of transparency (and) secrecy," he said. "... But appearances are everything. And Wisconsin has prided itself from one generation after another on openness and fairness and doing the right thing. And to be candid we have seen everything but that in the way this case has progressed."

The next steps in the case are somewhat unclear. Attorneys have until Wednesday morning to submit arguments about whether Troupis should be deposed or whether his testimony should be limited on the basis of attorney-client privilege.

Jim Troupis is a partner at Michael Best & Friedrich.

If the consensus is that the thread is in danger of hijacking I can create a standalone.

I think this is good stuff. It really makes you question the whole justice system that all that these people have done in Wisconsin and no one has been punished.

The new district map for Minnesota was released yesterday. For a brief time, I thought I had been moved to Michele Bachmann's district. I was terrified. Then I realized that we hadn't been moved (we're the one city in the county that isn't in her district so it's kind of hard to see on a statewide map).

We had to have the courts decide on the map. The Republicans wanted to completely change the map but the Governor wasn't having it. The courts ended up basically siding with the Governor.

Well, this is interesting. The three-judge panel today threw out the GOP's argument that State ex rel. Smith v. Zimmerman precluded their being able to alter the maps.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]A panel of judges ruled Wednesday that state lawmakers have the power to redraw election maps and gave them three and a half hours to decide whether they would try to do that or instead have a fast-track trial on the maps starting Thursday.

The panel of three federal judges told attorneys in the case to report to the court by 2 p.m. Wednesday on whether the Legislature would try to establish new maps taking into account legal challenges made by Democrats and Latinos.

If lawmakers won’t agree to do that, the trial will start at 8:30 a.m. Thursday on an accelerated schedule. The trial was expected to last three or four days, but the presiding judge said he wanted to complete testimony by Friday, even if it meant going into the evening.

We're a ways past 2pm now, but I haven't heard a peep about how the GOP decided to respond.

My bet: they try to claim the federal panel doesn't have jurisdiction, so they can make a case to move this before the state Supreme Court, where they can rely on a friendly partisan hearing, regardless of the law.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If the consensus is that the thread is in danger of hijacking I can create a standalone.

Don't bother, Maine's redistricting woes have been resolved, and the thread title is generic enough that so long as it's related to redistricting, it's fine.

Looks like we're heading to trial.

Associated Press[/url]]The judges twice tried to have lawyers in the case appeal to lawmakers to voluntarily revisit the issue. A court clerk said Wednesday the latest attempt failed, and now both sides will prepare for a trial expected to last from Thursday morning to late Friday evening.

Fun tidbit I'd manage to miss earlier: the GOP's position to the panel's original request to look at redrawing boundaries was that leadership wanted to, but State ex rel. Smith v. Zimmerman meant they couldn't, darn it. The judges today were basically calling that bluff.

Associated Press[/url]]However, a panel of three federal judges instead asked both sides to spend the day determining whether lawmakers would consider drawing new maps that would address the plaintiff's concerns.

Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explained the request by citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that said redistricting is best left up to the lawmakers, not judges.

Defense attorneys came back in the late afternoon and said Republican lawmakers would have been happy to revisit the issue except for one impediment: the state Constitution. Attorney Daniel Kelly said a 1954 ruling by the state Supreme Court established that new voter maps can be drawn only once every 10 years, to avert a never-ending stream of calls for fresh changes.

Emphasis added. Given how the judges have been responding to the misbehavior and malfeasance by our state GOP in this redistricting process, I'm looking forward to reading their verdict here.