an editorial penned by Rick Esenberg, head

the Republican “Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty,” he argues…badly…that Republicans are actually expanding

voting hours when they cut them in the raft of “lame-duck” bills recently signed by outgoing Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI).

This editorial requires a response. It’s so badly argued, and so flimsy in legal bases, that it’s almost unfathomable to think that it was written by a Harvard-educated attorney with nearly forty years at the bar. This is the state of Republican thought today.

Currently, Wisconsin law allows local, municipal clerks to set their own early voting availability. While not perfect, it allows local municipalities to do as much early voting as they have resources for. That said, some municipal clerks (who are in charge of elections) are part time in smaller towns, or only have a few voting machines available for early voting, or don’t have other resources to go “whole hog.”.

Conversely, places like Milwaukee and Madison, the state’s two largest cities, make extra efforts and commit their own resources to having early voting open as early as six weeks prior to election day.

In 2016, Republicans tried to nuke this arrangement, by limiting early voting to only weekdays (eliminating weekends) during two full weeks prior to the election. U.S. District Judge James Peterson, presiding for the Western District of Wisconsin (based in Madison), struck down this law.

In this most recent lame-duck law, Republicans want another bite at the same apple, while denying that’s what they’re doing.

The 2018 bill just signed into law still limits early voting to two weeks, they just add weekends back in, and back off the hour restrictions. That’s…the only difference.

They don’t provide extra resources for the rural and otherwise under-funded municipalities to be open the full two weeks, so nothing is going to change there. The only functional change this bill implements is restricting the cities and counties that were going above and beyond to serve their voters.

Esenberg disagrees. In criticizing the legal motion filed by the One Wisconsin Institute and the Wisconsin ACLU, he first accuses them of “judge shopping” by filing a motion for contempt in front of Judge Peterson, who issued the original ruling (which is still sitting in Chicago awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals), instead of filing a whole new case and being randomly assigned a new judge.

Dear Mr. Esenberg, as someone who has decades of legal experience and a Harvard sheepskin should know by now, this isn’t judge shopping (although Republican opposition to such a practice in Wisconsin would seem to be newfound). This is 1st-year Civil Procedure. Had the lawyers representing the ACLU and One Wisconsin Institute not filed such a motion in the court they did, they would be liable for legal malpractice. Esenberg assumes everyone else doesn’t know that, but if he were on the other side of the table, he would do the exact same thing because he would have to.

There is a ruling in a case about this exact same issue that looks 90 percent the same, so the attorney must file the motion with the judge who made that ruling since that particular case is still open.

The fact Mr. Fancy-Pants Harvard Lawyer can’t write an argument to support his position that doesn’t take into account stuff you learn in your first year in law school, but this non-lawyer who just fixed court computers for a few years can, shows you just how weak their position is.

Second, in yet another Republican round of “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Esenberg argues their bill expands early voting. Apparently, one of Esenberg’s paralegals needs to write him a memo on how “two weeks” is “less than six weeks.” Maybe then they can write him another memo explaining how “telling people they can do what they can already do now without providing extra resources to accomplish it” means rural counties are going to have the same result.

Third, he complains how taking the matter to the same judge (which, as I’ve already explained, is exactly what must happen) “unduly complicates the matter.” However, if you read through his whole editorial, and count how many times he complains about the “Madison judge,” it makes you wonder just what other options there are.

Well, the only other option is to file…with a different Madison (federal) judge, since the lawsuit is against the State of Wisconsin, whose capital is in…wait for it…Madison. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin is chiefed by the aforementioned Judge Peterson, an Obama appointee, while also being home to Judge William Conley (another Obama appointee) and Judge Barbara Brandriff Crabb (a Carter appointee). Who would Esenberg rather appear before?

Now, none of this is to opine on the legal merits of the actual motion filed, nor the law it was filed against. But if this is the best argument that Republicans like Esenberg can put forth in support of their law, might I recommend not wagering your life savings on a Republican-favoring ruling.

The post Wisconsin Republicans think they’re doing you a favor by cutting early voting appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

to whose

is the most or least crooked.  Often, fingers get pointed at Illinois and Ohio for being the most corrupt in the region.  Wisconsin and Iowa are often pointed to as paragons

good government.

Well, a report out from the State Integrity Investigation, a combined project of The Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International has some interesting news, not only for state governments in the Midwest, but nationwide.

On a national level, not a single state got an “A” from the group.  The best score was an 87%, or “B+,” for…get this…New Jersey.  The very same New Jersey where government corruption has been so rampant as to become a source of humor.

The worst?  Georgia, with a score of 49%.

So where does the Midwest begin…and end?

The best in the Midwest is the State of Iowa.  Iowa got a 78% score (C+), just behind Mississippi, ranking it 7th among the 60 states.  Iowa, however, did get an “F” for “Public Access to Information.”

In second place, which will surprise most Midwesterners, is Illinois at 74% (C) ranking 10th nationwide.  Illinois’ sole “F” came from “Redistricting,” which is a topic we’ve covered here in the past.

All the way at the bottom…Michigan.  Michigan got a 58% (F) overall, ranking 43rd of 50 states.  The Wolverine State got failing grades in “Executive Accountability,” “Judicial Accountability,” “State Civil Service Management,” “State Pension Fund Management,” “State Insurance Commissions,” “Political Financing,” Legislative Accountability,” “Lobbying Disclosure,” “Ethics Enforcement Agencies,” and “Redistricting.”  That’s ten of the fourteen categories the study scored states on.

Regardless of your state’s score, understand it’s nothing to be particularly proud of.  Check out the full national picture here.  And see the Midwest just below.

The post Midwest Boasts Some of Most/Least Corrupt Governments appeared first on The Midwest Guy.