Wisconsin Republicans in legislature vote to limit power of incoming Democratic governor
This development is interesting on a lot of levels:
Wisconsin’s incoming Democratic governor is condemning moves by Republicans legislators to weaken his power.
Gov.-elect Tony Evers said Wednesday that Republicans have overridden the will of voters who chose Democrats in last month’s election. He says a handful of people desperately want to “cling to power.”
The Republican-controlled Legislature approved sweeping changes early Wednesday that weaken the governor’s ability to make rules that enact laws. The legislation also shields the state jobs agency from his control until September and cuts into the powers of the incoming Democratic attorney general.
What’s interesting about this is that it’s an example of Republicans doing what Republicans so seldom do: playing hardball. It’s also an example of Republicans doing what Democrats would do if they were in the same position—the position being that Republicans control the legislature and a Democrat is about to be sworn in as governor.
But is it right to do it? And is “right” even a consideration anymore, now that politics has become an almost completely non-cooperative and partisan affair?
Here’s what Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has to say about it:
Republicans have controlled both branches for eight years. Their concern about constitutional balance seems at the very least tardy. If that’s the reason, why not take it up before the election — or earlier, when it would have limited Scott Walker’s authority?
There are all sorts of outcome-based reasons for doing this, of course. Republicans will insist that Democrats wouldn’t have played fair with executive authority without those restrictions. As Evers notes, both he and incoming AG Josh Kaul ran on a platform of activism, so the impulse behind this effort may well be understandable. There is a need to protect a lot of good work done over the last eight years, especially from the GOP’s perspective.
That still doesn’t make this the right method, unless we’re now fully embracing a means-justifying-ends philosophy.
My questions would be the following:
What powers does the Wisconsin constitution give the legislature vis a vis the executive branch? Is this action by the legislature within their constitutional powers? Then they can do it. It does set a bad precedent, but it’s been a long time since Wisconsin Democrats have observed any niceties of the sort, particularly in their long and bitter fight against Scott Walker.
I also would like to know whether the powers they are limiting are powers that Scott Walker actively exercised as governor.
By the way, although this is technically a lame duck legislature, it’s not effectively so because after January the Republicans in Wisconsin will continue to be in the majority in the legislature and will continue to control it.
I am reminded of the Democrat-controlled legislature in Massachusetts changing the rules for filling US Senate vacancies ~3 times in 2 decades, according to whether the Governor was Republican or Democrat at the time.
Simply playing hardball the way the Democrats do.
I really hate to say this, but if the Republicans don’t find the gumption step up to the plate and save the Republic, who will? I want to say the People, and they/we tried, but Trump isn’t likely enough. What’s the antidote to “ballot harvesting?” Let’s hope it’s not bloodshed.
Wisconsin has the history of the “John Doe” abuses to warn them, especially after vote harvesting seems to be part of the election results.
I think it’s discourteous to change architectural features, even if its within the discretion of the legislature. Except for the enabling legislation of state agencies and departments, architectural features are properly the subject of constitutional law, not statutory law.
The behavior of the Democratic lawfare establishment among prosecutors and judges in the last eight years in Wisconsin makes a protective gelding of the state attorney-general merely a prudent thing to do. If they wanted courtesy in this realm, they should have showed it.
Ideally, the role of the state attorney-general would be modified by amendment and the office would cease to be elective. We can do without creatures of the Spitzer / Schneiderman type in that office. In such circumstances, state attorney-general would be an appendix of the courts and would (1) prosecute civil suits on behalf of state departments and agencies (representing them as plaintiff, not defendant), (2) undertake criminal prosecution of corporations from time to time, (3) prosecute individual persons for a small menu of offenses, such as tax evasion, (4) function as a special prosecutor in the odd circumstance a local DA has to recuse himself. It would be a passive recipient of referrals from state departments, though it could exercise discretion in regard to pursuit of cases referred to it. The office would be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the legislature and would after a grace period be subject to a retention-in-office referendum; if the officeholder passes muster, they are subject to referendum every four years until they reach a point in time where they’ve occupied the office for 10 of the last 12 years. at which point they vacate office and a new attorney-general is appointed. The one restriction on the governor’s discretion would be that the nominee would have to be a member of the bar in good standing and to have served during his legal career for at least four years in one of the following venues: local prosecutors offices, state attorney-general’s offices, or U.S. Attorneys offices.
“now that politics has become an almost completely non-cooperative and partisan affair”… it is the necessary thing to do.
The choice is no longer between right and wrong. The choice is between liberty within a fractured republic and the ‘soft’ tyranny of a one party State.
Just take a look at CA destroying the Republican Party there. It’s the Dems rules so lets make the Dems live by them everywhere.
Just take a look at CA destroying the Republican Party there.
The CA Democrats seem to be running a preview of Kurt Schlicter’s book, “People’s Republic.” He lives in West LA so he gets details right.
Never mind what I think about the actual issue, because there are pros and cons that I haven’t worked through yet.
But I do remember the Dems’ bussing in protesters, not all of them “peaceful,” from all over to carry on about Gov. Walker’s breaking the NEA’s stranglehold on public-school teaching, and also insisting on the recall of the Governor. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) at least some of these good-fa-nuttinks were paid to protest. And the campaign to challenge the Governor was nationwide.
He was my original first choice for Prexy in 2016 because of his sturdy stances.
More from the original story, to flesh out the context:
“The Wisconsin Legislature is preparing to vote on limiting the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general.
Lawmakers were expected to vote early Wednesday morning on the proposal, after spending most of the night hammering out deals in private. The action comes just weeks before Republican Gov. Scott Walker is replaced by Democrat Tony Evers.
The proposal up for a vote would weaken the governor’s power to put in place administrative rules enacting state laws. It would also allow the Legislature to sidestep the attorney general and hire private attorneys. The Legislature, not the governor, would have the majority of appointments on the state’s economic development agency that Evers has said he wants to dismantle.
The power to withdraw Wisconsin from a lawsuit challenging the federal health care law would rest with a legislative committee, rather than the attorney general.
The proposal would also restrict early voting to no more than two weeks before an election.”
The bolded sections get my vote, and I’m happy with most of the rest of it (not a Wisconsin resident, of course), because I think I see what the Republicans are trying to do.
The blurring of lines between executive and legislative functions and prerogatives (not to mention judicial) is one of the biggest causes of the chaos in America today, but I am not entirely sure who is most on the wrong side of the line here.
It looks like the legislature wants to hold onto some of the pieces that ought to be on the governor’s plate, but doesn’t want to accept what he would probably do with them.
Divided government creates those kinds of problems.
As for the whining about “the election is over and it’s our turn” — cry me a river, Democrats.
Geoffrey Britain on December 6, 2018 at 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm said:
…
The choice is no longer between right and wrong. The choice is between liberty within a fractured republic and the ‘soft’ tyranny of a one party State.
* * *
Well, liberty looks “right” to me, and tyranny looks “wrong,” — but I get what you are saying.
Are we coming to the point where every State election is a “Flight 93 Piper Cub edition” situation?
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
Related:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/vote-early-vote-often-did-the-chicago-way-move-north-to-wisconsin/
The “mail-in ballot” has changed elections and the Republicans had better figure it out by 2020. Ballot harvesting may or may not be legal but it has become the current favorite way to win elections. The risk of fraud is very high. I doubt we can get the country back to vote in person polling but something needs to be done.
I am happy to say the NC legislature, as part of the voter ID bill, has passed a requirement that every absentee ballot request include either the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number or the last four digits of the voter’s driver’s license number. Neither of these is available on public voter lists, so this should prevent bogus requests with bogus ballots returned.
The “mail-in ballot” has changed elections and the Republicans had better figure it out by 2020.
Ideally, distribution of postal ballots would be limited to servicemen and their spouses, U.S. government employees posted abroad and their spouses, college and university students living in campus housing (along with the occasional spouse thereof), and shut-ins. You might add some people in certain occupations to that list, like long-haul truckers as well as people residing in remote areas. The thing is, a grand total of about 1.6% of the work force are actually employed in inter-city transportation (most of them long-haul truckers), fewer than 1% of the population is traveling inter-city on any given day, and less than 3% of the population lives in areas of such low density that you’d have more than a 10 mile drive to the nearest polling place. The use of postal ballots for convenience is just gratuitous, and a danger. End it, don’t mend it.
The use of postal ballots for convenience is just gratuitous, and a danger. End it, don’t mend it.
It has been allowed to metastasize until I doubt it can be ended. The process has to be changed. All mail-in ballots have to be verified before election day and they have to be received before election day. California is, of course, beyond control. Arizona has a GOP governor and legislature. This needs to be addressed where possible.
Arizona has a GOP governor and legislature. This needs to be addressed where possible.
Waal, if we’re being all realistic and stuff, the smart money says the Republicans will be busy passing the latest tax cut which will have to be repealed in a couple of years because they won’t cut spending, so the matter won’t be addressed. And, if it is addressed, the har-de-har public interest bar will keep it tied up in court until the Corruptocrats take back the legislature.
This is a statement that screams out for some data.
Gringo above cites “the Democrat-controlled legislature in Massachusetts changing the rules for filling US Senate vacancies…”
Off the top of my head, North Carolina Republicans did this when Roy Cooper became Governor not too long ago. Michigan Repubs are doing it now. And then we have Wisconsin.
3-1 “for” Repubs, so far.
Manju: 3-1 “for” Repubs, so far.
You left out the last part of gringo’s sentence:
“I am reminded of the Democrat-controlled legislature in Massachusetts changing the rules for filling US Senate vacancies ~3 times in 2 decades, ”
So it’s 3-3.
But that’s a ridiculous measure. Look at what the Democrats have done with their total control in California to allow them to steal elections:
1. implemented motor voter to register illegals and low info voters.
2. passed a law to send ballots to eveyone by mail even if not requested. This allows paid workers to gather signatures from homeless for cigarettes and booze as was recently documented in Los Angeles. Among many other opportunities to cast illegal ballots.
3. Passed a law to allow ballot harvesting with union paid thugs going door-to-door to tell people how to vote and then to take only ballots with Democrat votes to be counted in weeks following election.