# Wisconsin GOP tries to forestall special elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 24, 2018, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118 "2018-03-24T15:37:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/101 "2018-03-28T19:34:23Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yeah, I saw that, **Bob**. But it doesn’t set a timetable for _when_ the election must be held. That seems to be state law, rather than the state constitution. > > And that’s the issue here: not _whether_ the vacancies must be filled, but _when_. The state constitution appears to be silent on the latter point. **Chisquirrel** and **Chronos** appear to be arguing that Walker’s violating the state **constitution** by refusing to hold elections this spring, so any legislative fix is moot. I don’t see it. [https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/d](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/d) > [@](#): > > Any vacancy in the office of state senator or representative to the assembly occurring before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill that seat shall be filled as promptly as possible by special election. “As promptly as possible” isn’t exactly as timetable, but it does contraindicate foot dragging. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > There’s a big difference between “November 6” and “perpetual open-ended ‘later’.” And there’s a big difference between “As promptly as possible”, and November 6 of the next year. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/102 "2018-03-28T19:49:07Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > He’s not filing a writ of election, the seats have been vacant for months, and he’s **made clear that he’s not going to**. There’s no wishy-washy _advise and consent_ bullshit for him to hide behind. The Constitution says “he will”, and Walker says “I won’t”. It’s even worse than that, if this is correct: > [@BobLibDem](#): > > From Article IV: > > > [@](#): > > > > Filling vacancies. SECTION 14. The governor shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either house of the legislature. The word “shall” is stronger than “will”–there’s no choice or option in the matter, it must be done. And the when is explained by “as may occur”; that is, when the vacancy opens. Why is this coming to a head now, and not last year? Does it take that long for the Wisconsin courts to hear an issue? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/103 "2018-03-28T19:59:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > … > Back to Wisconsin, why are they bothering to block the election? Right now they have a 63-35 edge in the state House, they are in no danger of being in the minority until November. Because Walker is a … fuckwit? I understand the rationale for having a rule about when calling a special election is needed. Representative resigns Nov 1 of an election year then it is really pointless to hold a special election since the general is coming in mere days. Representative resigns Nov 1 of the year before the general election then that is plenty early enough to warrant a special election. The Wisconsin legislature already considered the matter and set the date to determine when is too late to bother. And I suppose the legislature could decide to change that, but Wisconsin is a closely enough divided state that the current legislators do so at their own electoral peril. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/104 "2018-03-28T20:11:25Z")
For national reasons. To avoid the embarrassment of a loss, and the strengthening of the Dem-wave narrative. Besides, Walker’s too dug in now to back off. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/105 "2018-03-28T20:13:15Z")
While we’re at it, Walker is also violating the federal Constitution. A state where the governor can refuse to hold elections just because he doesn’t feel like it doesn’t have a “republican form of government”. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/106 "2018-03-28T20:24:02Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The Wisconsin legislature already considered the matter and set the date to determine when is too late to bother. And I suppose the legislature could decide to change that, but Wisconsin is a closely enough divided state that the current legislators do so at their own electoral peril. Republicans won big in 2010 and redrew the district lines in 2011. In the 2012 election in aggregate Democrats won state assembly races 53% to 46% (174,000 votes statewide). Republicans won state assembly seats 60 to 39. Those lines may still be in place this November depending how Gill v. Whitford turns out. If that’s the case there really isn’t any electoral peril to speak of. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/107 "2018-03-28T20:29:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While we’re at it, Walker is also violating the federal Constitution. A state where the governor can refuse to hold elections just because he doesn’t feel like it doesn’t have a “republican form of government”. He just thought the word was capitalized. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/108 "2018-03-28T21:00:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While we’re at it, Walker is also violating the federal Constitution. A state where the governor can refuse to hold elections just because he doesn’t feel like it doesn’t have a “republican form of government”. It may not be a “republican [e.g. representitive] form of government” but it is apparently a “Republican form of government”. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/109 "2018-03-28T23:18:49Z")
So Walker appealed the second judge’s ruling. A third judge told him to do his job. “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources,’ and the calling of special elections are as the Governor acknowledges, his ‘obligation’ to follow by (state statute).” - Judge Reilly Walker then vows to take it to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Then, a little bit later, he says never mind. So it looks like he will call elections by noon tomorrow in accordance with the court order. [Source](http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/scott-walker-will-not-ask-supreme-court-to-overturn-ruling/article_c7693500-32d7-11e8-8487-f77a04642b10.html) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/110 "2018-03-29T00:13:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While we’re at it, Walker is also violating the federal Constitution. A state where the governor can refuse to hold elections just because he doesn’t feel like it doesn’t have a “republican form of government”. Oh, nonsense. Give me a citation for a legal decision that says that this opinion is, in fact, factually accurate. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/111 "2018-03-29T00:17:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > [https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/d](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/d) > “As promptly as possible” isn’t exactly as timetable, but it does contraindicate foot dragging. > > And there’s a big difference between “As promptly as possible”, and November 6 of the next year. Just to clarify, you’re quoting **statutory** language. I’m arguing against the claim that Walker is violating the Wisconsin _constitution_ rather than mere statute. This is meaningful because if that language was in the Wisconsin constitution, it could not be undone by mere legislation. IANAL,and I really can’t judge the arguments that for various reasons, the legislature can’t at this point reverse the requirement for these two special elections. But ‘you can’t change the constitution by legislation’ is inarguable, which is why it would be really nice if Walker were clearly violating the state constitution, and I can understand why people wish it were so. So do I, but AFAICT it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/112 "2018-03-29T00:41:27Z")
The Court of Appeals in Wisconsin turned down Gov. Walker’s request to stay the orders of the judges. [url=http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/380701-court-rejects-wisconsin-gop-appeal-to-halt-special-elections ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/113 "2018-03-29T01:59:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > “As promptly as possible” isn’t exactly as timetable, but it does contraindicate foot dragging. Presumably Wisconsin does have elections more than once every two years. I know in my state we may have polls open three or four different times in a year. “As promptly as possible” may or may not mean “the very next week,” but it shouldn’t mean any longer than the next time Wisconsin has polling. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/114 "2018-03-29T02:03:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While we’re at it, Walker is also violating the federal Constitution. A state where the governor can refuse to hold elections just because he doesn’t feel like it doesn’t have a “republican form of government”. Well, Steve Harper kind of did that a couple of times, didn’t he? If it’s OK for a parliamentary constitutional monarchy like Canada, maybe it’s within the range of acceptable “republican” behavior as well. I mean, it sounds illegal, petty, and _un-American,_ but I’m not sure how tightly we define “republican” here. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/115 "2018-03-29T03:19:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Just to clarify, you’re quoting **statutory** language. I’m arguing against the claim that Walker is violating the Wisconsin _constitution_ rather than mere statute. > > This is meaningful because if that language was in the Wisconsin constitution, it could not be undone by mere legislation. > > IANAL,and I really can’t judge the arguments that for various reasons, the legislature can’t at this point reverse the requirement for these two special elections. But ‘you can’t change the constitution by legislation’ is inarguable, which is why it would be really nice if Walker were clearly violating the state constitution, and I can understand why people wish it were so. So do I, but AFAICT it’s not. Except it does. It says they shall issues a writ for an election to fill the vacancy. Their plan was not to have such an election to fill the vacancy. The next election was going to be one that did not require a writ. The argument that “it doesn’t say when” can be used to avoid it altogether has been shown to be fallacious multiple times in this thread. If I buy a car from you, and I say I will pay you $1000, I can’t just say “I didn’t say when!” every time you ask. Sure, they don’t quite say how long they had, but it’s always been understood in law that there is a reasonable time period. And the courts have ruled that this reasonable time period is up. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/116 "2018-03-29T03:23:37Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Oh, nonsense. Give me a citation for a legal decision that says that this opinion is, in fact, factually accurate. :rolleyes: Such a legal opinion would require that this had been tried before. But it’s so obvious on its face that a republican form of government must have elections that it probably never has. The definition of republican is “a form of government with elected representatives.” Hence a government that does not have elections cannot be a republic. This definition is such that it actually puts the burden of proof on you to show that this is incorrect. Do you have court cases that show that a republican government can not have elections? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/117 "2018-03-29T03:57:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, Steve Harper kind of did that a couple of times, didn’t he? If it’s OK for a parliamentary constitutional monarchy like Canada, maybe it’s within the range of acceptable “republican” behavior as well. I mean, it sounds illegal, petty, and _un-American,_ but I’m not sure how tightly we define “republican” here. Détails, please? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/118 "2018-03-29T10:00:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Except it does. It says they shall issues a writ for an election to fill the vacancy. Their plan was not to have such an election to fill the vacancy. The next election was going to be one that did not require a writ. I may not be a lawyer, but even I know you’d need some case law to back that up. > [@](#): > > The argument that “it doesn’t say when” can be used to avoid it altogether has been shown to be fallacious multiple times in this thread. OK, show me where. > [@](#): > > If I buy a car from you, and I say I will pay you $1000, I can’t just say “I didn’t say when!” every time you ask. Oh, bullshit. A promise to pay at some unspecified time would take you years to collect on. > [@](#): > > Sure, they don’t quite say how long they had, but it’s always been understood in law that there is a reasonable time period. And the courts have ruled that this reasonable time period is up. I am aware of the court’s ruling, but does it stand solely on the state constitution, or does it rely at least in part on the statutory language that requires an election by a date certain? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/119 "2018-03-29T12:17:10Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Such a legal opinion would require that this had been tried before. But it’s so obvious on its face that a republican form of government must have elections that it probably never has. The definition of republican is “a form of government with elected representatives.” Hence a government that does not have elections cannot be a republic. > > This definition is such that it actually puts the burden of proof on you to show that this is incorrect. Do you have court cases that show that a republican government can not have elections? No, sorry, legal issues don’t work that way. You don’t get to say, “Hey, this guy is doing something wrong, fix it!”, and when they say back, “What’s he doing wrong?”, you say, “He’s not giving them a republican form of government!”, and then when the court says, “What do you base this claim on?”, you say, “Well, it’s obvious from the meaning of ‘republican’!” Burden of proof, and all, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118/120 "2018-03-29T13:14:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **DSYoungEsq** : > > Oh, nonsense. Give me a citation for a legal decision that says that this opinion is, in fact, factually accurate. Is it your assertion that the Constitution doesn’t exist until a court rules on it? > [@](#): > > No, sorry, legal issues don’t work that way. You don’t get to say, “Hey, this guy is doing something wrong, fix it!”, and when they say back, “What’s he doing wrong?”, you say, “He’s not giving them a republican form of government!”, and then when the court says, “What do you base this claim on?”, you say, “Well, it’s obvious from the meaning of ‘republican’!” Burden of proof, and all, you know. By this standard, there could _never_ be a court decision on anything. On any given issue, there must be some case that’s the first one on that issue, and that case obviously can’t be based on precedents. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-gop-tries-to-forestall-special-elections/811118.md?page=7)