Scott Walker Says He's Progressive

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker told the U.S. Congress today that his policies are "progressive in the best sense of the word." I think the progressive Republican "Fighting Bob" La Follette just jumped out of his grave! Scott Walker needs a history lesson, maybe he should have stayed in school.

Example one: the collective bargaining rights-stripping bill.

Example two: the budget proposal.

Example three: the Voter Distraction Bill (Senate Bill 6).

Why not email Scott Walker and tell him how progressive you think his policies are: govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

Update: (April 20, 3:11pm) I said Walker needs a history lesson regarding Wisconsin's progressive tradition, and John Nichols has written a great one in The CapTimes. Walker's been known to read editorials by Nichols, so he may have gotten his history lesson.

Workers' Rights Supporters Must Demand Answers Now

It's been very troubling that the Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus has refused to provide a clear explanation of her error for more than six days, and now I think it's crucial that supporters of workers' rights demand that she answer our questions now. Nickolaus needs to answer the relevant questions that many people have asked before we consider counts official. The Democratic member of the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers asked some questions here, and I asked some other questions that I believe are critical here.

Everyone should loudly demand Nickolaus answer these questions about her election system and her vote counting process before we spend money to try to find their answers. However, supporters of workers' rights have a particular interest in this election, collective bargaining rights and the collective bargaining bill. We know that the outcome of this election could potentially change the collective bargaining bill into the collective bargaining law.

There's only one county that has yet to finish their canvass, Milwaukee County. Once Milwaukee County completes their canvass, it's possible some people will consider all of the vote counts official. We thought Milwaukee County might complete their canvass Monday or Tuesday, but they're expected to finish Wednesday.

Once all of the vote counts are considered official, a losing candidate has three business days to request a recount. Even then, the results of a recount depend upon review through the courts. So, as in the 2000 presidential election, Kloppenburg may have truly won, but the court may decide differently or prevent further counting. The current Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to decide against collective bargaining rights more than a court with Kloppenburg.

The following is pure speculation, but I think it has some warrant.

Some within the Wisconsin Republicans, made up mostly of people against collective bargaining rights, may know that Kloppenburg won. Since the public knows very little, we don't know if the vote counts from Waukesha County are skewed or not. A recount or investigation could uncover that Kloppenburg won, or they may not. Either way, some of the Republicans could be hoping to wait this controversy out until the counts are considered official and then expect Kloppenburg to request a recount.

However, a recount, which in the end could show that Kloppenburg won, will take a long time, possibly months. I'm not sure what would happen if the recount is ongoing when the collective bargaining bill comes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, if it does, but my sense is that the current court would take up the case. That means, even if Kloppenburg truly won the election, Prosser may end up deciding cases on the collective bargaining bill.

All that these Republicans would need to do is keep quiet and wait until the counts are considered official. Then there is very little chance that a prolonged recount can be prevented. They know that they may still get at least one thing they want with a recount, even if Kloppenburg is the true winner. The only thing they would need to do to delay, or outright prevent, Kloppenburg's inauguration is keep quiet.

Once the recount starts, many of these questions will be forgotten, and the election system in Waukesha County will probably suffer from it. It may turn out that the Brookfield votes were included in the original count from Waukesha County. Votes may be found in some other city that push Kloppenburg ahead. Who knows what happened, because we have very little information and Nickolaus refuses to provide any more. Either way, no one will think it's a big deal, but Prosser will have already shot down collective bargaining rights.

One question that comes to mind is, why would Nickolaus put her career at such risk? Well, the Secretary of State from the most controversial state in the 2000 presidential election, Katherine Harris, received a political boost from the mess in that state. She became one of Florida's members of the U.S House of Representatives in 2002. So, one might think the same could be done again from a political position in control of vote counts and that such a move isn't as much of a risk, and I believe such a mess could be created without committing fraud.

Whether that speculation is correct or not, it's Nickolaus's duty to provide answers to relevant questions regarding the election before votes are considered official and before any recount. It's our duty to demand those answers now!


If you haven't read my questions for Kathy Nickolaus, or the statement from the only non-Republican member of the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, please do. I believe the answers to our questions should matter to every voter and tax payer in Wisconsin because, as I explained in that post, our computer election systems are the final word in our elections.

A world-renowned security expert, Bruce Schneier, described some of the very real issues with election systems after questions over election security during the 2004 elections. The only way we can avoid situations like the one in Waukesha County is to demand open election systems that give our elections real transparency. A non-profit organization that has been successful in these efforts is the Open Voting Consortium (I don't know them or have any affiliation).

If you want to have your voice heard regarding the issues with the security and accuracy of the Waukesha County election system, the delayed explanation we were given for the missing votes, and Nickolaus's refusal to answer further questions, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has a complaint form here: http://gab.wi.gov/node/1282. The election official in this case is Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus.

There are a few other ways you can help push Nickolaus to answer our questions now. Spread the word. Tell your friends and family about the questions you have and why you think Nickolaus should answer those before all of the vote counts are considered official. Contact the press and your state representatives, and demand to have our questions answered before the counts are considered official.

We haven't been loud enough so far. Contacting the press may prove to be most effective, and Facebook and Twitter are effective as well, so don't forget them. Time is of the essence.

Updated: (9:19pm) Some minor edits to the first paragraph and the fifth paragraph from the end to include the statement from the Democratic member of the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, Ramona Kitzinger.

Updated: (9:38pm) Clarified the first paragraph mentioning the 2000 presidential election.

Updated: (10:45pm) Added talking to friends and family as a way to help push Nickolaus to answer our questions now, and added last paragraph - so I changed the first Updated so that my references to paragraphs still make sense.

Collective Bargaining Bill May Be Unconstitutional

Three Wisconsin unions have filed a lawsuit against Governor Scott Walker and the state to declare the collective bargaining bill unconstitutional. Their argument is that the bill "infringes on the constitutionally protected rights to equal protection and freedom of speech and association." This is the argument you sometimes hear people ask, but are workers' rights really rights or are they just privileges?

The lawsuit's argument regarding equal protection is an important and relevant argument, but it's not the meat of the workers' rights arguments. The reason they believe their right to equal protection was infringed is because only certain public workers were singled out in the bill. Had every public worker in the state been included, there would be no infringement of equal protection. The right of freedom of speech and association covers all public workers, and would be relevant no matter how many workers were included in the bill.

I and many others believe that the right to collectively bargain is implied in the freedom of speech and association defined in the U.S. Constitution. These freedoms are broadly written to encompass ideas that the writers knew they wouldn't think of at the time, but yet should be protected. So, currently the right to collectively bargain is somewhat weakly defined.

We all know what the freedom of speech is, it's the freedom to say nearly anything. The freedom of association is the right to join others and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. This right isn't explicitly defined in the First Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom is an essential part of the freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. Also, the United States worked with the United Nations to develop the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly defines the freedom of assembly and the right to collectively bargain.

I'm not a lawyer, but during the controversy over the collective bargaining bill I've been looking into how collective bargaining rights are defined in Wisconsin and in the United States. The ability to collectively bargain has been defined through law and the courts throughout our history, as many of the other rights we hold dear. However, I believe this is the first time that a case has been brought before a court regarding collective bargaining rights as a right included in the freedom of speech and association. If I'm not mistaken, this case could make the right to collectively bargain for all much more concrete. So I think that this case is much more important than the other court cases regarding the bill, and it's all the more reason to make sure we have independent thinkers on the Wisconsin Supreme Court such as JoAnne Kloppenberg.

One Corporate Sponsored Bill and Republican Down

There's been some flurries outside, as well a flurry of good news for workers' rights supporters today. The first piece of good news, is that Wisconsin Republican Senator Dan Kapanke will suffer a recall election for his vote to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights. Citizens collected enough signatures for the recall election in less than half of the allotted time. More recall election announcements are sure to follow.

The second piece of good news is that Walker administration has rested their case in front of Dane County Judge Sumi, and the restraining order against publishing the bill as law will continue indefinitely. If I'm not mistaken, the appeal process has already started and been sent to the State Supreme Court. The case itself isn't over, as Judge Sumi has asked each side to submit briefs by May 23. There's no plan for a second vote on the collective bargaining bill, and with the success of the recall campaigns, I doubt there will be.

Lastly, today three unions from Madison are suing Scott Walker and the state for trying to enact the collective bargaining bill that strips constitutional rights, those of the freedom of speech and association. This could be a much more important court case than the case to block publishing of the bill, and I'm writing another post with more details.

(By the way, WisPolitics seems to have the best coverage of this issue, mostly unbiased and full of information. The Journal Sentinel is overtly biased towards the Republicans in many articles including the above linked, as they purposely omit vital information and stress Republican arguments. We should expect more from our large newspapers who act as the fourth branch of government.)

Walker Administration Follows Court Order

Ya, it's news. The administration of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has suspended implementation of the collective bargaining bill, finally following orders from a Dane County judge. The perception of the situation didn't escape DOA Secretary Mike Huebsch who said, "DOA will continue to abide by the court orders, like the department has done all throughout this process.” If that were true, the judge wouldn't have had to reiterate her order again today. The DOA may not have been outright violating law because they felt things were unclear, but the order today wasn't a revelation, it was a clarification.

Judge Blocks Walker From Implementing Collective Bargaining Bill

Well, the big news tonight is that Dane County Judge Sumi blocked implementation of the unpublished collective bargaining bill. Since the Secretary of State hasn't published the collective bargaining bill in the official state newspaper, the bill is not yet law. The Secretary of State was earlier temporarily blocked from publishing the bill, the state is appealing the process. However, while appealing the process, the Republican administration, under the direction of Governor Scott Walker, have begun implementing policy which is not yet law.

The administration says they are still evaluating the order. Which is interesting, because they've had time to prepare for this hearing, and the judge simply reiterated what she said over a week ago. They should have seen this coming a mile away, and should have been prepared with a response. This tells me that they're still trying to determine the legal wording that allows them to implement the bill as it stands. At every step in the process to strip public workers of collective bargaining rights, the Republicans have pushed the boundaries of the law, and in some cases have acted as if they don't understand parts of it.

If Walker and the rest of the Wisconsin Republicans, besides Dale Schultz, can be so careless with the written law, how can they be trusted to follow it and enact proper legislation?

Scott Walker Begins Implementing Unpublished Collective Bargaining Bill

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch is beginning to implement the changes in the collective bargaining bill despite the bill being unpublished and under judicial examination. These changes include the reduction in wages and increased benefit payments, which have already been entered in the computer system for the current pay period. Huebsch says he believes that it's his "legal responsibility to begin enactment of the law." However, according to the agency which published the bill online, their action did not enact the law.

In fact, the agency states, and all of the relevant legal experts believe that the Secretary of State must publish the bill before it can be considered law, this is why the administration is appealing a judge's court order. The judge put a temporary restraining order on the Secretary of State, barring him from publishing the bill. If the Walker administration felt that they could simply ask the Legislative Fiscal Bureau to enact the collective bargaining bill instead of waiting until the Secretary of State can do so, why bother appealing? The administration needs to stop wasting tax payer money and drop the appeal, or they need to acknowledge that the bill is not law.

Wisconsin LRB Publishes Collective Bargaining Law Against Judge and Sec State Order

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau published the bill stripping collective bargaining rights from most public workers today even though the legality of that action is in question. There's a current standing restraining order from Dane County Judge Sumi preventing the bill's publication, and the Secretary of State Doug La Follette ordered the LRB to not publish the bill after receiving the court order. I'm not sure who exactly controls the LRB, but it looks like the Walker administration will bend any rule or law they feel necessary to strip these rights from good hard-working people. We know that the bill won't save any money, so why must it be published when so much controversy still surrounds it?

The law is being sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So, it's even more important that you vote for JoAnne Kloppenburg on Tuesday, April 5 if you support workers' rights.

Update: (6:58pm) It appears that the bill doesn't become law by the LRB publishing it on their website, though the Republicans would like you to think so. As far as I understand it, this changes nothing. Either way, it's odd that the LRB would publish the bill on their website against order from the Secretary of State.

Wisconsin Democrats Vindicated

The only Wisconsin legislators to be found in violation of a law are the Republicans. Today, Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi blocked the collective bargaining bill, because it was passed in violation of the open meetings law. Though the decision is preliminary, the judge pretty much put the nail in the coffin when she said that she saw no evidence that 24-hour notice couldn't have been given. Unless the Republicans can pull a rabbit out of their hat, they will ultimately be found in violation of the open meetings law.

The judge stated that the law's 24-hour notice is "not a minor detail" and that nothing in government should be done in secret, emphasizing the law's importance when dealing with controversial issues. "The open meetings law exists to ensure open government in controversial matters." The protests around the state the last few weeks have made it clear how controversial and unpopular the bill was, but the Republicans wanted to shove this unpopular and controversial bill down our throats any way they could.

Upon hearing the judge's preliminary decision, Secretary of State Doug La Follette reiterated the judge's ruling and his reasoning for cautious movement on publishing the bill, "All along I've tried to judiciously and carefully follow the law in a prudent way," La Follette said. "As the arguments this morning made clear and the judge I think made clear, this is a momentous activity on the part of the state. This is not some minor piece of legislation. And because of that the open meetings law was very significant and should be taken very seriously."

During the meeting in question, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca stood trying to read the legal opinion from Republican Attorney General Van Hollen which stated that what they were doing was in violation of the open meetings law, but Fitzgerald and the other Republicans blatantly ignored Barca as if he was a fly in the room. They continued with their business, voting and walking out of the room while Barca was still trying to finish. The Republicans didn't want to even acknowledge that a law such as the open meetings law existed, and they were hoping no one was paying enough attention. Fortunately, for democracy and workers' rights, lots of people were paying lots of attention.

There's talk that Walker might appeal, but I'll say this now. The Walker administration won't appeal, because they know they won't win. If they do, they'll show they lack even more common sense than I thought. Instead, if they decide to try to strip the rights of public workers again, they'll do it through the legislative process. So, we must continue communicating with our legislators and filling out recall petitions. Next time around, the Republicans in the majority should think about the people of Wisconsin instead of their corporate donors in D.C..

Barca, who tried his hardest to stop the Republican-led committee from violating the open meetings law, and the other Wisconsin Democrats have been vindicated. The Wisconsin Democrats have shown that they support democracy and workers' rights, while the Republicans tried to rush through a corporate sponsored bill with no regard for the law. The Republicans would like you to think the Wisconsin 14 did something illegal by leaving the state, but it's the Republicans who will ultimately be found in violation of the law.

Update: (2:09pm) Just saw that the administration is requesting an appeal.

Why Were Collective Bargaining Rights Stripped?

I must ask, since stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees doesn't save any money, why were these rights stripped?

Until Wednesday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature insisted that collective bargaining rights needed to be stripped from public employees in order to save money and balance the budget. We've been saying all along that collective bargaining rights for public workers don't affect the budget, because legislators set the budget, not public workers.

The reason that the Wisconsin 14 were able to deny the vote by leaving the state is because bills which have a fiscal impact require three-fifths of the Wisconsin Senate to reach a quorum, the number of senators required to be present to conduct a vote. This number is one senator short of the total number of Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate. So, by leaving the state, the Wisconsin 14 used their last resort through constitutional means to prevent the vote on the budget repair bill. If the bill didn't have a fiscal impact, the Republicans could have voted on the bill themselves.

The Wisconsin 14 left the state, because they felt it was unnecessary and immoral to strip people's rights for nothing more than ideological and political reasons. The unions gave into the deep financial concessions in the bill within the first week of its introduction, adding further weight to the Democrats' argument. The only thing the Republicans needed to do to get the Democrats to come back and move forward was remove the unnecessary provisions that repeal collective bargaining rights for public workers from the bill. Then, the Wisconsin 14 had said they would vote on whatever resulted from the subsequent negotiations. So, it's obvious how the impasse could have been resolved, and in fact the Democrats proposed an alternative budget repair bill that saved more money than the Republicans' and retained everyone's rights. However, the Republicans refused to remove the repeal of their citizens' rights, citing the need to save money.

It was clear that the Republicans were dead-set on stripping rights from public workers. It was also clear that their argument for stripping these rights was based on the necessity to save money. If stripping public workers' rights to collectively bargain saves money, then it has a fiscal impact and requires a quorum of three-fifths of the Senate to vote on. The Republicans said it themselves. The Republicans were asked many times why they didn't separate out the truly non-fiscal collective bargaining provisions and vote on them without the Democrats, as they did Wednesday. Their response was always that they couldn't do it because it saves money and therefore has a fiscal impact.

Then, abruptly and after three weeks of stalemate, when it looked like the Republicans are about to acknowledge the majority of Wisconsinites, the Republicans held a meeting and declared that the collective bargaining provisions have no fiscal impact, removed the fiscal provisions from the budget repair bill, and then voted on the bill, all within a few minutes. This is the only way they could vote on the provisions without at least one of the Wisconsin 14 present. Well, they didn't need to do it so abruptly, but instead just by separating the non-fiscal collective bargaining policy provisions from the fiscal provisions. So the Republicans confirmed that stripping collective bargaining rights from public workers won't save money and admitted they were lying in just a few minutes. Now we know for certain, by legal means, that it's unnecessary to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers.

This question needs to be asked over and over until we get a straight answer. Unfortunately, I fear Wisconsin Republicans stripped away rights of most of its public workers for the benefit of the few very rich. Since collective bargaining rights for public employees don't affect the budget, why were their rights stripped?

Update: (April 21, 8:30am) Walker testified in front of the U.S. Congress on April 14th, and he was asked if stripping collective bargaining rights saved money. As reported by many including The CapTimes, Walker admitted, "It doesn't save any."

We already knew this, but it was nice for Walker to stop lying and admit it. However, we still don't know exactly why the Republicans voted for this bill. Since stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees "doesn't save any" money, why did the Republicans vote to strip those rights?

Update: (May 24, 2012) We now know that this was part of Walker's "Divide and Conquer" plan to eliminate all unions in Wisconsin, which he privately told to a Beloit billionaire heiress a month before releasing his so-called "budget repair bill."