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.
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.
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.
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.
….a fellow named Bill Cunningham, who had dinner with Scalia–who told him that ‘in the end, it all comes down to two words.’
Those two words?
Michael J. Hicks.
“One of the questions on the jury sheet was, ‘Do you believe that lesbianism is morally wrong?’ And I would say a good 75 % of the people we interviewed said yes. But then the district attorneys, [prosecuting attorneys], would ask if they thought they could set aside their opinion of lesbians and judge the case just on the evidence, and they would say yes,” said Penny Brummer. “(Ingrid Ricks, The Advocate (1995)].
Of course, a monkey wouldn’t know he had legal rights even if he did. Some human beings would need to purport to represent the monkey, and that’s what was going on here. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought to capture the income stream from Naruto the monkey’s beloved photography and offered to spend the money for the benefit of him and the various other crested macaques on the island of Sulawesi.
The State Public Defender decertified Kachinsky from taking homicide cases after it learned of the O’Kelly interview and filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation. He said he agreed to take additional training and meet other conditions for a year as part of an alternative to discipline.
So a local paper complains that a local school superintendent won’t comply with a public records request, won’t put the paper on a media contact list, and simply ‘must’ improve communications.
A few points –
1. Compliance with a public records request isn’t a ‘communications’ issue; it’s a legal issue, of rights of residents under Wisconsin law….
The ACLU had wanted technical college IDs, out-of-state driver licenses and veterans photo IDs to be ruled as acceptable forms of ID for voting purposes. Judge Adelman refused this request on various grounds – stating that the out of state plaintiffs all had passports, there’s been no firm ruling on whether tech school ID’s are acceptable, and that the plaintiffs with military ID’s had all obtained other forms of identification. In essence, he ruled that the particular plaintiffs in the suit did not have standing because they had other means of voting – this does not help the people who either have not figured out how to obtain ID or who cannot manage it for one reason or another.