PDA

View Full Version : Elections On, Wisconsin!


orange
04-01-2011, 09:51 AM
Democrats: We have the signatures to trigger Kapanke recall election

CHRIS HUBBUCH | La Crosse Tribune
Posted: Friday, April 1, 2011 9:45 am

La Crosse area Democrats say they will file petitions today with enough signatures to trigger a recall election of Sen. Dan Kapanke, one of eight Senate Republicans targeted over votes to curtail collective bargaining rights for public workers. If approved, it would be just the fifth recall election of a Wisconsin legislator.

Recall organizer Pat Scheller said volunteers have gathered more than the 15,588 signatures needed and that they plan to take them to Madison after a noon rally today at La Crosse City Hall.

It is expected to be the first completed of 19 active recall efforts registered between Feb. 24 and March 2 against 16 senators.

Kapanke did not return messages Thursday, but has said the recall is "part of the process."

"I love campaigns. I just didn't think I'd do one every year," Kapanke said Saturday at the opening of a La Crosse County GOP headquarters.

He has defended his vote for the bill, which stripped most collective bargaining rights from state, municipal and school workers, as a necessary step in balancing the state's budget while minimizing layoffs.

The filing comes just before the halfway point in the 60-day window the recall committee had to gather signatures in the district.

The state Democratic Party provided infrastructure support but "not a single paid canvasser was needed to trigger the recall versus Dan Kapanke," said party spokesman Graeme Zielinski, who credited volunteers for collecting more than 20,000 signatures in less than 30 days.

"It took on a life of its own," said Scheller, who filed the original paperwork to launch the recall effort.

Scheller, a banker who describes himself as a "middle of the road" guy who isn't a member of the party, said Kapanke "is a decent person, but I think he showed a lack of fortitude in supporting the bill without questioning any of it."

Eight Democrats who fled to Illinois for several weeks in an effort to prevent Senate Republicans from passing the bill are also targeted for recall - some by more than one committee. The other six senate Democrats, including Kathleen Vinehout of Alma, are not eligible for recall until 2012.

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse political scientist Joe Heim said he was surprised by the speed with which the signatures were collected but cautions that it doesn't mean Kapanke will lose his seat.

"I don't think it automatically determines the outcome of the election," he said. "There's a certain intensity of the people favoring the recall. ... Whether or not that intensity stays through is another question."

There have been just four recall elections of Wisconsin legislators, according to the Government Accountability Board; only two were successful.

more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d60cbd02-5c6f-11e0-9fab-001cc4c03286.html


133% of the signatures, 50% of the time. :hmmm:

vailpass
04-01-2011, 09:55 AM
Waste of time, money and effort in an attempt to obfuscate the problem. Why are WI dems putting effort into shooting the messenger instead of addressing the state budget issue?

patteeu
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
It's not just a Wisconsin phenomenon. There are democrats across the country shirking their responsibility to reign in out of control spending. Of course, this is nothing new. I still can't believe all the fools who believed that democrats might be more fiscally responsible than even the most out of control Republicans.

Jaric
04-01-2011, 10:57 AM
This pretty clearly demonstrates why we will never willingly balence our budget at any level.

SNR
04-01-2011, 11:01 AM
Y'know, most responsible citizens wait until elections if they want to punish a politician for the way they voted.

KC Dan
04-01-2011, 11:02 AM
Y'know, most responsible citizens wait until elections if they want to punish a politician for the way they voted.Most responsible politicians go to work and vote too...:banghead:

orange
04-01-2011, 11:08 AM
Most legislatures do not enact on a strict party-line vote radical agendas that get them recalled en mass.

orange
04-01-2011, 11:09 AM
... and most Governors and Attys. General do not ignore and circumvent clear court orders.

KC Dan
04-01-2011, 11:13 AM
Most legislatures do not enact on a strict party-line vote radical agendas that get them recalled en mass.Minus the recalled en mass and you just described Obamacare's passage, but that's different.....

HonestChieffan
04-01-2011, 11:13 AM
Most legislatures do not enact on a strict party-line vote radical agendas that get them recalled en mass.

Good if its ObamaCare. Bad if its something you oppose.

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 11:14 AM
... and most Governors and Attys. General do not ignore and circumvent clear court orders.

It's not a clear court order if the judge has to revise it twice and also include an agency that wasn't even a party in the case originally.

Nice try though.

orange
04-01-2011, 11:20 AM
Minus the recalled en mass
That certainly is a big difference.

The last I heard, the Democrats may even be able to hold on to the Senate?! WTF's up with that?

HonestChieffan
04-01-2011, 11:20 AM
That certainly is a big difference.

The last I heard, the Democrats may even be able to hold on to the Senate?! WTF's up with that?

Clearly people are thrilled with the job they are doing.

orange
04-01-2011, 11:24 AM
It's not a clear court order if the judge has to revise it twice and also include an agency that wasn't even a party in the case originally.

Nice try though.

It was extremely clear from the outset, and despite some twisting and pettifoggerery, in the end your guys aren't willing to go to jail.

Nice try though.

LOCOChief
04-01-2011, 11:25 AM
Most legislatures do not enact on a strict party-line vote radical agendas that get them recalled en mass.

Really it's only radical to union officials and the politicians whose campaigns are funded by those unions (guess who?)

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 11:27 AM
It was extremely clear from the outset, and despite some twisting and pettifoggerery, in the end your guys aren't willing to go to jail.

Nice try though.

Really? When you only enjoin 1 agency and 2 are required by statute to publish the law, it's not clear.

SNR
04-01-2011, 11:29 AM
Most legislatures do not enact on a strict party-line vote radical agendas that get them recalled en mass.So there was illegal activity going on?

I don't care about any of that anti-Democratic nonsense. I'm talking about actual law-breaking. Handed down from an official court.

If there's a ruling with actual evidence, then it's totally fair to recall these guys. Otherwise, two wrongs don't make a right.

orange
04-01-2011, 11:33 AM
Really? When you only enjoin 1 agency and 2 are required by statute to publish the law, it's not clear.

You can continue to parrot arguments that have been rejected by the Court - without even mentioning the opposing arguments as if they don't exist - until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the reality. The Bill is enjoined as we speak.

And...

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco

PRESS RELEASE

DATE: 3/30/11
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
CONTACT: Joe DeCecco/(920) 459-3040
RE: Administration Law Violation

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco today blasted the Walker administration for ignoring the order issued by a Dane County District Circuit Court judge, enjoining the enforcement of the Budget Repair Bill. DeCecco emphasized his outrage was not on the merits of the issue presented (which would ultimately affect his prosecutorial staff) but on the apparent arrogance of those who would willingly defy a court order.

“I have been a Wisconsin state prosecutor for some 22 years. I and every other prosecutor in the state have been upset and frustrated with court decisions during the prosecution of thousands of cases, but we all recognize that we cannot ignore a court order because we disagree with it, regardless of the basis of our disagreement. Our recourse, as it is with every party aggrieved by a court order, is to appeal that order to a higher court. We are obligated to obey that order until a higher court reverses or modifies it. Our obligation stems from the rule of law under which we practice as well as upon on our sworn oaths to preserve, protect and defend the constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin. That oath is taken by every public official, including the governor and members of the Wisconsin Legislature,” DeCecco stated.

“I cannot understand the legal rationale of attorneys who are apparently advising this Administration to ignore this order for whatever reason,” DeCecco continued. “The very fabric of a just society is based on the rule of law. We don’t have the option of which law we will obey and we don’t have the option of which court order we’ll ignore."

orange
04-01-2011, 11:37 AM
So there was illegal activity going on?

I don't care about any of that anti-Democratic nonsense. I'm talking about actual law-breaking. Handed down from an official court.

If there's a ruling with actual evidence, then it's totally fair to recall these guys. Otherwise, two wrongs don't make a right.

That's not how it's done in Wisconsin. You don't need "actual law-breaking." You can be recalled for purely political reasons. THAT'S their law.

I guess Wisconsinites - the ones who matter - wanted it that way.

Oh, and by the way, it was the Democrat Senators who were first petitioned to be recalled in this affair. I haven't heard how any of those drives have been going.

orange
04-01-2011, 11:41 AM
A word on recall. You have to be recalled for breaking the law. You can't be re-called for passing legislation the minority doesn't like.

Where do get that? That's NOT what the Wisconsin Govt. has to say about it:


RECALL OF CONGRESSIONAL, COUNTY AND STATE OFFICIALS
June 2009

Introduction
Recall gives voters the right to reconsider their choice of an elected official; however, it does not automatically result in removal of an official from office. It provides an opportunity for voters to require an elected official to run for office again before the expiration of his or her term. The requirements for initiating recall efforts are very specific and must be carefully followed.

The statutory provisions for recalling state, county, congressional, legislative, and judicial elected officials are provided in §9.10, Wis. Stats. These include registering with the appropriate filing officer, and preparing, circulating, and filing a petition.

A "Glossary of Terms" used in the discussion of recall procedures is found on pages 10-11.

Recall of Congressional, County and State Officials: §§9.1 0(1) and (3), Wis. Stats.

The qualified electors of any state, county, congressional, legislative, judicial, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elected official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed, demanding the recall of the officeholder. This is an extension of the right to recall congressional, judicial, legislative, or county officials found in the Wisconsin Constitution since November, 1926. See Wisconsin Constitution, Article XIII, Section 12.

Recall of Local Elected Officials
The qualified electors of any city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district may also petition for the recall of any incumbent elected official. Please see the Government Accountability Board Manual "Recall of Local Elected Officials" with information on this process.

Who Can be Recalled?
Any elected officeholder who has served one year of the term for which he or she was most recently elected, as of the date the recall petition is offered for filing, can be recalled.

§9.10(2)(s), Wis. Stats.
After one recall petition and recall election, no further recall petition may be filed against the same official during the term for which he or she was elected. §9.1 0(6), Wis. Stats.

If the regular term of an elected officeholder's position is scheduled for re-election at the fall election to be held within six weeks of the date the recall petition is filed, a recall election may not be held.



...


Reasons for Recall - Recall petitions for elected officials representing city, village, town, and school district offices must state reasons for the recall which relate to the official duties of the official to be recalled. No statement of reason is required to initiate the recall of state, congressional, legislative, judicial, or county elected offlcials. The lines can be left blank. {emphasis theirs}

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/65/recall_manual_for_congressiona_county_and_state__82919.pdf
http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Wisconsin

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7488934&postcount=21

SNR
04-01-2011, 11:41 AM
That's not how it's done in Wisconsin. You don't need "actual law-breaking." You can be recalled for purely political reasons. THAT'S their law.

I guess Wisconsinites - the ones who matter - wanted it that way.

Oh, and by the way, it was the Democrat Senators who were first petitioned to be recalled in this affair. I haven't heard how any of those drives have been going.
That's just silly

orange
04-01-2011, 11:45 AM
Oh, and by the way, it was the Democrat Senators who were first petitioned to be recalled in this affair. I haven't heard how any of those drives have been going.

Taking a quick look here:

http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall

I conclude that it's a confusing site. They're listed by District, not date.

scott free
04-01-2011, 11:57 AM
Its time to send in Jesse Ventura with a 60 & a few claymores, that'll take care of this mess...

Chief Henry
04-01-2011, 12:04 PM
The tax payers of Ws. are being hosed.

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 12:56 PM
You can continue to parrot arguments that have been rejected by the Court - without even mentioning the opposing arguments as if they don't exist - until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the reality. The Bill is enjoined as we speak.

And...

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco

PRESS RELEASE

DATE: 3/30/11
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
CONTACT: Joe DeCecco/(920) 459-3040
RE: Administration Law Violation

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco today blasted the Walker administration for ignoring the order issued by a Dane County District Circuit Court judge, enjoining the enforcement of the Budget Repair Bill. DeCecco emphasized his outrage was not on the merits of the issue presented (which would ultimately affect his prosecutorial staff) but on the apparent arrogance of those who would willingly defy a court order.

“I have been a Wisconsin state prosecutor for some 22 years. I and every other prosecutor in the state have been upset and frustrated with court decisions during the prosecution of thousands of cases, but we all recognize that we cannot ignore a court order because we disagree with it, regardless of the basis of our disagreement. Our recourse, as it is with every party aggrieved by a court order, is to appeal that order to a higher court. We are obligated to obey that order until a higher court reverses or modifies it. Our obligation stems from the rule of law under which we practice as well as upon on our sworn oaths to preserve, protect and defend the constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin. That oath is taken by every public official, including the governor and members of the Wisconsin Legislature,” DeCecco stated.

“I cannot understand the legal rationale of attorneys who are apparently advising this Administration to ignore this order for whatever reason,” DeCecco continued. “The very fabric of a just society is based on the rule of law. We don’t have the option of which law we will obey and we don’t have the option of which court order we’ll ignore."

Wow, a press release from a Dem DA. Way to go orange, someone saying they can't believe they're ignoring the law.

Yes, the bill is enjoined now that's not the point since that's not what I was commenting on when I posted. You claimed it was a clear court order. Court orders that are clear don't require the judge to go back on 2 seperate occasions to revise them. If it was so clear, the judge wouldn't have needed to do that.

One more time, try again. Tell me, in your own words, how is a court order clear when a judge has to revise her own ruling twice? It's not like Walker is saying it's not clear and the judge isn't doing anything, by the judge's own actions she's showing it was an unclear order.

blaise
04-01-2011, 01:04 PM
Wow, a press release from a Dem DA. Way to go orange, someone saying they can't believe they're ignoring the law.

Yes, the bill is enjoined now that's not the point since that's not what I was commenting on when I posted. You claimed it was a clear court order. Court orders that are clear don't require the judge to go back on 2 seperate occasions to revise them. If it was so clear, the judge wouldn't have needed to do that.

One more time, try again. Tell me, in your own words, how is a court order clear when a judge has to revise her own ruling twice? It's not like Walker is saying it's not clear and the judge isn't doing anything, by the judge's own actions she's showing it was an unclear order.

In case you don't know orange, what he'll do is start flooding you with anything he can copy and paste from another website. Then he'll usually start ADDING A BUNCH OF CAPS and ROFL.

orange
04-01-2011, 01:04 PM
One more time, try again. Tell me, in your own words, how is a court order clear when a judge has to revise her own ruling twice? It's not like Walker is saying it's not clear and the judge isn't doing anything, by the judge's own actions she's showing it was an unclear order.

No, I won't use my own words. I'll use THEIR own words. THESE guys understood perfectly well when the TRO was first issued that the Bill was stopped:


(March 8, 2011)

But Republicans vowed to protect the law.

“The reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors, and they have in this case,” said Assistant Attorney General Steven Means, who was part of the state’s legal team, the Journal Sentinel reported.

Means told the paper that the state will ask an appellate court to overturn the temporary order either later Friday or next week.

Republican leaders took Means’s criticism against the ruling even further.

“Dane County always seems to play by its own rules, but this morning we saw a Dane County judge try to re-write the constitutional separation of powers,” state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and state Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, brothers who are the respective leaders of the legislative bodies to which they belong, said in a joint statement. “We fully expect an appeals court will find that the Legislature followed the law perfectly and likely find that today’s ruling was a significant overreach. We highly doubt a Dane County judge has the authority to tell the Legislature how to carry out its constitutional duty.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51556.html#ixzz1IIdkhZnz

In THEIR OWN WORDS. Take it up with them.

blaise
04-01-2011, 01:05 PM
Right on cue.

Jaric
04-01-2011, 01:06 PM
In case you don't know orange, what he'll do is start flooding you with anything he can copy and paste from another website. Then he'll usually start ADDING A BUNCH OF CAPS and ROFL.

No, I won't use my own words. I'll use THEIR own words. THESE guys understood perfectly well when the TRO was first issued that the Bill was stopped:


(March 8, 2011)

But Republicans vowed to protect the law.

“The reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors, and they have in this case,” said Assistant Attorney General Steven Means, who was part of the state’s legal team, the Journal Sentinel reported.

Means told the paper that the state will ask an appellate court to overturn the temporary order either later Friday or next week.

Republican leaders took Means’s criticism against the ruling even further.

“Dane County always seems to play by its own rules, but this morning we saw a Dane County judge try to re-write the constitutional separation of powers,” state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and state Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, brothers who are the respective leaders of the legislative bodies to which they belong, said in a joint statement. “We fully expect an appeals court will find that the Legislature followed the law perfectly and likely find that today’s ruling was a significant overreach. We highly doubt a Dane County judge has the authority to tell the Legislature how to carry out its constitutional duty.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51556.html#ixzz1IIdkhZnz

In THEIR OWN WORDS. Take it up with them.
All that's missing is the ROFL

orange
04-01-2011, 01:12 PM
In case you don't know blaise, he'll trail along behind me sniffing my shorts and eating the scraps I drop without ever offering anything of substance, only "orange is da debil." He will also deign to tell you what you already know because you're too stupid to see it for yourself - that I use formatting and quote actual sources, for example.

vailpass
04-01-2011, 01:13 PM
Orange must have had the shit kicked out of him every day when he was a kid. How else could someone get that way?

blaise
04-01-2011, 01:15 PM
In case you don't know blaise, he'll trail along behind me sniffing my shorts and eating the scraps I drop without ever offering anything of substance, only "orange is da debil." He will also deign to tell you what you already know because you're too stupid to see it for yourself - that I use formatting and quote actual sources, for example.

Oh, you're not the debil. Just a sort of snivelling dickbag.
But thanks, sport!

blaise
04-01-2011, 01:16 PM
Orange must have had the shit kicked out of him every day when he was a kid. How else could someone get that way?

You know he's the kid that told on other kids to the teachers.
No doubt.

vailpass
04-01-2011, 01:21 PM
You know he's the kid that told on other kids to the teachers.
No doubt.

Bingo. He's the kind that makes all liberals look bad. Really bad.

orange
04-01-2011, 01:27 PM
vailpass - more amateur-hour psychology? Did you ever get treatment for that wife-beating problem you admitted to?

patteeu
04-01-2011, 01:34 PM
vailpass - more amateur-hour psychology? Did you ever get treatment for that wife-beating problem you admitted to?

Hmmm. I might need to introduce vailpass to my wife. She's been getting uppity lately. ;)

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 01:46 PM
No, I won't use my own words. I'll use THEIR own words. THESE guys understood perfectly well when the TRO was first issued that the Bill was stopped:


(March 8, 2011)

But Republicans vowed to protect the law.

“The reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors, and they have in this case,” said Assistant Attorney General Steven Means, who was part of the state’s legal team, the Journal Sentinel reported.

Means told the paper that the state will ask an appellate court to overturn the temporary order either later Friday or next week.

Republican leaders took Means’s criticism against the ruling even further.

“Dane County always seems to play by its own rules, but this morning we saw a Dane County judge try to re-write the constitutional separation of powers,” state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and state Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, brothers who are the respective leaders of the legislative bodies to which they belong, said in a joint statement. “We fully expect an appeals court will find that the Legislature followed the law perfectly and likely find that today’s ruling was a significant overreach. We highly doubt a Dane County judge has the authority to tell the Legislature how to carry out its constitutional duty.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51556.html#ixzz1IIdkhZnz

In THEIR OWN WORDS. Take it up with them.

Why did she amend her own TRO twice?

It's ****ing hilarious at this point that you cannot answer that simple question- why did she amend it twice if it was so clear?

Hell, your own link doesn't even address it because it's from 3 and a half weeks ago.

Again, why did she amend a "clear" court order twice if it was so clear in the first place?

You can post all the links you want, but it was your assertion that it was a clear court order. Tell us all why it was so clear when she went back twice to amend it?

orange
04-01-2011, 01:47 PM
April 1, 2011 2:33 p.m. |(8) Comments

Madison -- Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said Friday she will keep in place her order declaring that the collective bargaining law has not yet taken effect.

Secretary of State Doug La Follette will remain barred from taking steps to implement the law.

"It remains in effect until further order of the court," Sumi said of the temporary restraining order she issued Thursday.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119079359.html

orange
04-01-2011, 01:49 PM
Why did she amend her own TRO twice?

It's ****ing hilarious at this point that you cannot answer that simple question- why did she amend it twice if it was so clear?

Hell, your own link doesn't even address it because it's from 3 and a half weeks ago.

Again, why did she amend a "clear" court order twice if it was so clear in the first place?

You can post all the links you want, but it was your assertion that it was a clear court order. Tell us all why it was so clear when she went back twice to amend it?

Because the Republicans tried an end run - that failed. They did manage to muddy things up, though, hence the clearer explanations were required.

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 01:50 PM
April 1, 2011 2:33 p.m. |(8) Comments

Madison -- Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said Friday she will keep in place her order declaring that the collective bargaining law has not yet taken effect.

Secretary of State Doug La Follette will remain barred from taking steps to implement the law.

"It remains in effect until further order of the court," Sumi said of the temporary restraining order she issued Thursday.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119079359.html

Weird. You post links from earlier this month, and now we're talking about a restraining order that was just issued again yesterday?

Apparently it wasn't clear if she had to issue a new one on Thursday. If it was actually clear in the first place, she would have stood on her prior order and ordered sanctions against those who violated it.

Do you have links to those sanctions that she imposed on the people who violated this "clear" first order?

HerculesRockefell
04-01-2011, 01:51 PM
Because the Republicans tried an end run - that failed. They did manage to muddy things up, though, hence the clearer explanations were required.

So publishing a law that your agency is statutorily required to publish when you're not a party to a TRO is an end run?

orange
04-01-2011, 01:55 PM
So publishing a law that your agency is statutorily required to publish when you're not a party to a TRO is an end run?

You can continue to parrot arguments that have been rejected by the Court - without even mentioning the opposing arguments as if they don't exist - until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the reality. The Bill is enjoined as we speak...

... and for the foreseeable future.

vailpass
04-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Hmmm. I might need to introduce vailpass to my wife. She's been getting uppity lately. ;)

LMAO I shall offer a very stern talking to and, if that fails, I will taunt her a second time!

vailpass
04-01-2011, 02:23 PM
Hmmm. I might need to introduce vailpass to my wife. She's been getting uppity lately. ;)

Let me know if your wife needs the treatment, I'm sure she is aching for the attentions of a man who doesn't watch the Lifetime Network more than she does.

patteeu
04-01-2011, 02:28 PM
Let me know if your wife needs the treatment, I'm sure she is aching for the attentions of a man who doesn't watch the Lifetime Network more than she does.

I don't know what that means. What's the Lifetime Network?

vailpass
04-01-2011, 02:29 PM
I don't know what that means. What's the Lifetime Network?

I'm a intraweb retard. I was talking to Orange, must have inadvertently quoted you.
Oh, and Orange can tell you what the Lifetime Network is.

patteeu
04-01-2011, 02:31 PM
I'm a intraweb retard. I was talking to Orange, must have inadvertently quoted you.
Oh, and Orange can tell you what the Lifetime Network is.

LMAO