DAILY WISCONSIN

Law

Not his only ‘weird sense’

I find no issue with trying to avoid disenfranchising voters. And certainly the logistics in these cases is always problematic but Wisconsin has done hundreds of these special elections over the years under very similar circumstances. I read somewhere else that there might be about 100 such voters who may be affected. But there was never any concern shown or voiced for the tens of thousands of voters disenfranchised by NOT holding the special elections…all of those Wisconsin residents who live in the affected districts. Those residents who don’t have representation.

Via Scott Fitzgerald’s Weird Sense of Voter Disenfranchisement! | Blogging Blue.

Rudimentary

State appellate judge Paul Reilly, (a Waukesha Republican), humiliated Scott Walker in denying Walker’s desperate motion by pointing out, “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources.'”

If Reilly were trying to edify Scott Walker, he would have better luck shouting at the wind.

Via MAL Contends . . .: Scott Walker Does Not Understand Democracy and Voting Rights even After Three Judges Attempt to Explain.

Clean Water Gets a Win 

In a victory for this case, [Clean Water, Inc. and Lynda A. Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources et al (Wisconsin Case No. 2015CV002633)], we are pleased to share the July 14, 2016 Circuit Court [Judge John W. Markson’s] decision that affirms the petitioners’ and partner organization Clean Wisconsin’s argument before the court that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ rejection of the Division of Hearings and Appeals’ Administrative Law Judge’s order to include animal unit limits and off-site groundwater monitoring of Kewaunee County CAFO was unlawful. This decision also describes how the Department of Justice’s narrow interpretation of Act 21 – that the DNR did not have explicit authority to impose these permit conditions – was incorrect and that state statutes do empower the DNR to require limits and monitoring of pollution in order for permitees to comply with state and federal clean water laws.

Read the full Circuit Court decision (PDF).

Via MAL Contends . . .: Wisc Court Hits State DoJ and Factory Farm Polluters in Win for Clean and Safe Water Advocates.

Recusal

But more importantly, in the recusal area, the Court’s concern is not limited to the potential for a “quid pro quo.” Rather, the constitutional inquiry is directed to any circumstance in which a judge’s ability to be impartial might be questioned. Substantial and impactful campaign support can create a “debt of gratitude” that creates an unconstitutionally high appearance or risk of bias. But that’s not the only source of bias. The Court made clear that the due process clause requires“a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” to determine whether there is “such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment” that recusal is required.

Via Shark and Shepherd: Judge Kloppenburg’s Recusal Distinction Doesn’t Work.