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.
It’s even worse than that, if this is correct:
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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.
He just thought the word was capitalized.
It may not be a “republican [e.g. representitive] form of government” but it is apparently a “Republican form of government”.
Stranger
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.
Oh, nonsense. Give me a citation for a legal decision that says that this opinion is, in fact, factually accurate. :rolleyes:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Détails, please?
I may not be a lawyer, but even I know you’d need some case law to back that up.
OK, show me where.
Oh, bullshit. A promise to pay at some unspecified time would take you years to collect on.
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?
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.
Is it your assertion that the Constitution doesn’t exist until a court rules on it?
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.