Wisconsin GOP tries to forestall special elections

Politics & Elections
121

I believe that DSYoungEsq is stating that even a constitution is subject to interpretation by a court.

A president cannot accept foreign emoluments. It’s right there in the constitution. But does that mean any profits gained from a foreign source, no matter how small, by an ordinary business transaction with a company that a president owns, in whole or in part, count as unconstitutional emoluments? If a president owns 1 share of Walmart stock and a Chinese tourist buys a pack of gum in a WalMart during a visit to the USA does the president’s share of that profit count as an unconstitutional emolument? If not then does any such foreign earned profit count? What if the president is the sole owner of the business receiving such profit? Is there a lower limit? None of the details are in the US Constitution but a court will be tasked with interpreting that constitutional clause in light of the exact circumstances.

Much the same, what counts as a republican form of government? Does delaying an election mean a state does not have a republican government? Are there circumstances when a delay might be acceptable? Was it acceptable for New York State to delay scheduled primary elections on Sept 11, 2001 in light of the terrorist attacks that day? Are the circumstances in the present case in Wisconsin such that a delay is acceptable? If the delay on 9/11 was acceptable but the present case is not, what sort of rule might be applied to distinguish the case of 9/11 from the present? All are questions subject to a court’s interpretation.

122

Walker’s scheduling special elections for June 12.

123

There’s an election for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday.

124

That’s part of the really infuriating part of this. There is a statewide election on April, 3. These elections could have easily been scheduled to be on that day with very little extra expense. Walker’s claims that he wasn’t scheduling the elections to save the taxpayers money is clearly bullshit. He went out of his way to cost the taxpayers money.

125

That’s what he’s best at, isn’t it? You’ve got to play to your strengths.

126

Well, and to assure that turnout is minimal. Because, like Loki, he’s managed to piss off just about everyone. If Scott Walker were a Lovecraftian diety, which one would he be?

Stranger

127

Unfortunately, he can argue (now that the legal wrangling is done) that there isn’t time to get election materials reprinted and disseminated within less than a week. So people go unrepresented for another couple of months.

128

It is too late for that. These elections are now scheduled for June 12. Had he acted when the seats became vacant in December, he could have easily scheduled them for April 3.

129

Didn’t Harper prorogue Parliament for months at a time, twice?

But Steve Harper seemed to think that he was like unto an ancient king. So I don’t know how republican that is.

130

Then “as soon as possible” would have meant no later than April 3.

Walker is certainly in violation of the state constitution already. I’m not sure to what degree are in violation any legislators that have tried to help him. What remedy is there for this? Can we dock his pension or something? Put him in stocks?

131

**bolding **mine

Well, they could try another recall election. But that didn’t exactly work out the last time.

Or the Wisconsin state constitution does have provisions for impeachment, but that would require a significant cooperation from his fellow Republicans.

So… he’s up for reelection this November anyway. That is probably the best recourse, if the voters want him out.

132

What a country this is! Violate the state constitution as governor and deny millions representation for months and suffer no consequences!

But if you’re a black guy reaching for his wallet, you can get shot and killed and hey, waddaya know: again, the state agent will most likely face no consequences!

Things are so much better for everyone now that we let the rich people own the government again! Aren’t they? :dubious:

133

Not that I’m defending him but you are vastly overstating things here. State Senators in Wisconsin represent around 170k and Assembly members represent under 60k.

134

Nothing out of the ordinary.

First off, prorogation is a normal part of the parliamentary process. That’s how one session of Parliament (or a provincial legislature) is ended. When Parliament is recalled after prorogation, there’s a new Speech from the Throne, a new budget, a new agenda of business. There’s nothing sinister about prorogation.

Harper was Prime Minister for three Parliaments, following the general elections of 2006, 2008, and 2011. He had minority governments for the first two Parliaments, and a majority from 2011 to 2015.

The 39th Parliament (2006 to 2008), had two sessions. The first lasted from April 3, 2006 to September 14, 2007. It was then prorogued, and the second session called for October 16, 2007, a gap of just over a month. That session lasted until Parliament was dissolved on September 7, 2008, for a general election. So, one month of prorogation over the course of over two years.

The 40th Parliament (2008 to 2011) had three sessions: from November 18, 2008 to December 4, 2008; from January 26, 2009 to December 30, 2009; and from March 3, 2010 to March 26, 2011, when Parliament was dissolved for the 2011 election. So, two prorogations, of about six weeks and then two months, roughly, over the course of two and a half years.

The 41st Parliament (2011 to 2015) had two sessions: June 2, 2011 to September 13, 2013, and then October 16 to August 2, 2015, when Parliament was dissolved for the 2015 election. One prorogation, of just over a month, over the course of four years.

Now, if you look at the 38th Parliament (2004 to 2005 - Prime Minister Martin) and the current 42nd Parliament (2015 to present - Prime Minister Trudeau), you’ll see that neither was prorogued. But that doesn’t mean the Parliament was sitting all that time. In addition to prorogation, which formally ends the session, Parliament can simply adjourn itself. Technically, it’s in session when in adjournment, but no business is conducted. If you look at the profiles for the 38th and 42nd Parliaments, you’ll see that there were lengthy periods of recess, typically 45 days over the Christmas period, 90 days over the summer, and other recesses at different times of the year.

Why the difference? Different practices of different PMs and parties. Some like the flexibility of always being in session, albeit with lengthy periods of recess; others like the formal ending of one session and starting a new session. And in Martin’s case, he lost a vote of confidence after just one year, triggering the 2006 election, so we don’t know if he would have prorogued at any point. But in either case, prorogation or adjournment, the sittings of the Parliament are in the control of the government.

What you may be thinking of was the prorogation from December 4, 2008 to January 26, 2009. The three opposition parties announced that they might work together to vote non-confidence in the government and try to form a coalition. Prime Minister Harper’s response was to prorogue over Christmas and start a new session in January. Sure, that was a political move, to buy time; but, he appears to have correctly concluded that the proposed coalition would fall apart, which it did, and when the Parliament started its session in January, there was no motion of non-confidence. Political breathing space, yes, but Parliament met, as usual, after the Christmas break.

Curiously, you don’t seem to be mentioning the time Prime Minister Harper took a lot of flak for calling an election, which seems germane to this thread. In 2008, he concluded that the minority Parliament was simply not working, and so he called a general election after only two and a half years. He took heat for it, because his government had passed a fixed election date law, and some saw this as contrary to that law. His response was that while fixed elections are a good thing, in a parliamentary system there are also times when a Parliament is not working well, so you have an election and let the people decide. Apparently that was undemocratic in the eyes of some, and he got sued. The courts agreed with the Prime Minister that the presumption of fixed election dates didn’t prevent a dissolution of a minority Parliament.

I’m not aware of an ancient king who only held office by winning three elections, and promptly resigned on losing a fourth election, but perhaps you could provide examples?

135

Gov. Walker and the GOP have thrown in the towel.

My only comment on the fact that the elections are “needless” (because the Legislature presumably won’t be doing anything between now and next year) is that, had the Gov. called the elections when he SHOULD have, the seats would have been filled in time for their occupants to actually be useful, potentially. I don’t think he should be able to bootstrap his prior refusal to comply with the law into a claim that compliance now is a waste of money and effort.

136

Plus, at the same time that he was claiming that the legislature wouldn’t be doing anything, he was trying to get the legislature to change the laws about special elections. Which would have been doing something.

137

Plus, as other posters have commented, representatives are supposed to work for their constituents year-round, not just when the Legislature is sitting. They have an ombudsman function with the government bureaucracy, they have to hear from people in their districts about what’s important for them, and so on.

138

That’s not a good argument to stand on. Shall is probably the single most litigated word, and its interpretation by the courts has been wildly inconsistent.

A simple shall, without a preceding negative (“no person shall”), is supposed to indicate a duty or requirement. That practice, however, has been so long corrupted in statutes that the word now means nothing. Or it can mean too many things, which is nearly the same as nothing.

So now a simple shall in similar contexts can sometimes obligate, sometimes authorize, and sometimes be left as a decision to be made.

Many federal agencies have stopped using shall, preferring must for indicating obligation.

139

No, I’m talking about the period between when the seats were vacated (December) and when the judge initially ruled that they had to be filled (March).

140

OK, that’s weird. Until you posted that, I would have told you in all seriousness that Harper once prorogued Parliament for something from four to eight months. I can’t trust my memories, I guess.

My memory is of the press (or at least Maclean’s) getting very upset at Harper’s proroguing for political reasons. Apparently my mind inflated that to Parliament not even sitting for several months.

I’m sorry, I was referencing a completely factitious memory.