We're on the far side of the state Senate recalls, so it's probably time to create this thread.
Context:
In early February, newly-elected Governor Scott Walker put forward a bill intended to address Wisconsin's looming budgetary issues. It included salary and benefit cuts for public-sector employees, as well as provisions that eliminated the right to collective bargaining for some, and made it significantly harder for others (by declaring the state would no longer withhold union dues, mandating annual re-certification of union representation, declaring that unions could not negotiate for anything other than salary, and capping salary increases at cost-of-living unless expressly approved via referendum). The unions offered concessions of all requested financial components (salary and benefit-wise) in return for preserving the right to collectively bargain. Governor Walker and the Wisconsin GOP refused, and attempted to pass the bill without discussion or debate - even when it was discovered that the bill included odd provisions for no-bid sale of public assets).
Mass public protests erupted, and the passage of the bill was stymied by the departure of every Democratic member of the state Senate, preventing the necessary quorum. Though the Republicans had a comfortable majority in the state Assembly, they resorted to tricks like calling a vote before any Democrats were present to prevent amendments, and ultimately passed the bill on February 25th in an ambush vote (the floor was open to voting for a handful of seconds) while 15 Democrats were still on the docket to speak.
Eventually the Republicans in the state Senate moved the collective bargaining provisions into a separate bill, bypassing the quorum requirement. Less than two hours notice was given for the meeting where passage took place, which means the passage violated Wisconsin Law § 19.84. This violation was the subject of a lawsuit, which ended up at the state Supreme Court (who threw out the relevant statutes and found in favor of the Walker Administration).
In short, things have gotten acrimonious.
Other fun facts
Governor Walker won with 52% of the vote in an extremely low-turnout election. His margin of victory was 125,000 votes. Contrary to some claims made by the administration, Governor Walker also did not run on a platform of eviscerating labor rights (or many of the other things he fought to force through). Wisconsin, historically, has been a labor-friendly state. Public-sector unions first won legal recognition in the US here in Wisconsin (in 1959).
The net change in the state Senate from the recall elections was a Democratic gain of two seats. This puts the Democrats one vote shy of a majority in the Senate, but it's important to bear in mind that of the nine state Senate recalls this summer, Governor Walker carried every single one of those districts in the Fall of 2010. Additionally, the GOP majority now hinges on Senator Dale Schultz. Senator Schultz is a moderate who voted against the collective bargaining bill and may have been tricked into missing his opportunity to amend the bill by Governor Walker.
Wisconsin law mandates that an elected official serve a full year before facing a recall effort, and our entire Assembly was elected this past fall, as was Governor Walker. The earliest that can happen until January, since he was sworn in at the beginning of the year.
There was a previous thread about the actions by Governor Walker and our state GOP here. That one got sent to fat camp. Let's keep this one focused on the possibility of Governor Walker's recall - there are separate ones for the state Supreme Court election, the lawsuit over the status of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, and the recall elections for state Senate which have already occurred.
Also: I'd like to plead for us all to make room for dissenting opinions and reasonable debate.
Governor Walker has been talking up bipartisanship again, since the recalls, but it looks like he may not have support from the state GOP.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and his brother, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, both skipped out on the governor’s big bipartisan meeting on Thursday with Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, D-Monona, and Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.Sen. Fitzgerald said he needed to meet with his caucus before meeting with the governor. Speaker Fitzgerald said the meeting didn't mesh with his schedule.
The lunch at the Governor's Mansion was Walker's bid to get Democrats and Republicans to work together on legislation in the fall session. It ended up highlighting lingering divisions.
So Governor Walker holds a lunch to try to bridge the gaping partisan divide, and his party's most powerful members of the state legislature blow it off. That doesn't bode well.
Sounds to me like the GOP is trying to distance themselves in an effort to save their own asses. If they throw him under the bus it might appease the wolves!
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the introductory write up as you have laid it out. The state supreme court ruled in favor of the Walker administration on whether the law as passed was valid but there seems to be a lot of grandstanding and finger pointing and unproven accusations on both sides. It seems to be as a non-wisconsinite that the republicans were set to vote on the bill and the democrats fled the state in order to take advantage of a parliamentary rule to prevent the vote. The republicans then turned around and massaged the bill in such a way that the quorum wasn't necessary.
It seems these actions and reactions caused a sort of "let's bend as many of the rules we can within a hair's breadth of the law" which eventually culminated in the state supreme court where the verdict was narrowly in favor of the Walker administration. Politics at its worst on both sides imho. It irritates the crap out of me when congress plays similar obstructionism games.
The statistics about walker's election numbers suggest that he is likely vulnerable to a recall, but a slim margin and low turnout don't invalidate the election process at all. Elections do have consequences and it's going to be up to the voters of Wisconsin to make their voices heard in any recall attempts. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how relevant the lost seats in the recall are. We're in a period of recession and low government approval ratings which leads to voters being "anti-incumbent" so I would expect swing districts to change hands again (as they did) and probably in 2012 as well.
No-bid sales are sleazy though. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
An interesting question has been put before the Government Accountability Board - namely, does recalling a governor also necessarily mean recalling the lieutenant governor, as well?
Given the recent collusion between our state GOP and the conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, I expect a lawsuit and decision in favor of whichever interpretation the Republican Party views as most favorable to Walker remaining in office.
You need to be careful when you say there is collusion between Supreme Court justices and a politican. Collusion is illegal and you haven't posted any evidence to show that.
An interesting question has been put before the Government Accountability Board - namely, does recalling a governor also necessarily mean recalling the lieutenant governor, as well?
Given the recent collusion between our state GOP and the conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, I expect a lawsuit and decision in favor of whichever interpretation the Republican Party views as most favorable to Walker remaining in office.
Do you have separate votes for governor and lieutenant or is it all one ticket?
Dimmer, it's really weird when you have two consecutive posts and your avatars are somehow out of sync.
Just as an aside, Dimmer, your analysis of all this is succinct and very well organized. I'm in awe of how you've tracked and presented all this over time. Not to mention your patience.
Walker didn't appoint Van Hollen, he was elected. It should also be noted that he was a DA in the state while Democrat Jim Doyle was governor.
From wikipedia:
In 1993, Governor Tommy Thompson appointed Van Hollen District Attorney in Ashland County, where he served for six years. He was subsequently called to service again when Governor Thompson appointed him to serve as Bayfield County District Attorney.[when?] He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for Wisconsin's Western District where he served in that role from 2002 to 2005.Van Hollen won the Republican nomination for Attorney General in 2006 over then-Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher. In the general election, he narrowly defeated Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who had previously bested Lautenschlager in the Democratic primary. Van Hollen was the only Republican in Wisconsin to win a statewide race in 2006.
In 2010, Van Hollen defeated his Democratic opponent, former state Department of Natural Resources Director Scott Hassett, by a comfortable margin.
If this report is true, Walker is up for recall without a doubt:
Organizers of the effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker from office say they have collected 300,000 signatures, more than half of what is needed to force an election.The United Wisconsin coalition reported the totals on Monday, just 12 days into the recall effort. They need 540,208 by Jan. 17 to force a recall election sometime in 2012.
I have also read reports that Walker is already running ads touting his accomplishments and what a great governor he has been.
* Letting property owners off the hook if a trespasser is injured on their property
I don't understand why this one is bad.
Governor Walker has been making repeated claims that some of the folks circulating recall petitions are paid. Our local CBS affiliate called him out on it, and (surprisingly) he has no evidence to support this accusation.
Wisconsin does allow petition circulators to be paid. It also allows petition circulators to be from out of state.
We have, in fact, had paid petition circulators from out of state involved in the recall elections this year. They've all been Republicans, though.
The only moral petition circulators are his party's petition circulators.
Possibly off topic, but what tool across the lake thought it'd be cute to brand Wisconsin as The Mitten? Get your own ideas, jerks.
* Letting property owners off the hook if a trespasser is injured on their propertyI don't understand why this one is bad.
Are we talking about the Castle Doctrine bill? The one that assumes that property owners that injure trespassers acted reasonably regardless if the trespasser was armed or not?
It's not that it's a bad piece of legislature. However, to me, it's just a solution in search of a problem and seems to be a gimme to the NRA lobby. And, as noted, unrelated to job creation.
Sounds like it could be Jensen himself...
Pages