Beware the Federalists

Federalist Society Judicial Ideologues

Injustice Rules

Supreme Court Justices were originally envisioned as impartial arbiters of what the United States Constitution required when disputes arose between people or those between people and their governments, large and small. The Justices are supposed to be legal scholars and put themselves above the partisan fray of their times. The nine who sit on the highest court in the land, after all, have the final say in those disputes they choose to resolve. 

From time to time in our nation’s history, the Court has strayed from its lofty mission of impartial decision maker and become a player for one side or another, diminishing its stature and credibility as a result. We are now caught up in one of those times. Partisanship does not become the blindfolded lady Justice.

The latest assault aimed at capturing the Court’s power and prestige was launched decades ago with the formation of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. It has become one of the most powerful and little known organizations in our political system. 

Funded by libertarians and conservative business interests, the Federalists have for years been recruiting and training lawyers to become judges in our state and federal courts. Those recruited are groomed to be conservative legal thinkers bound by the literal texts in constitutions and amendments. They give no room to modern notions of constitutional interpretation that take social and cultural changes into account when making important decisions. 

Take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for example. It was written to allow slave owning white citizens to keep arms against possible slave insurrection at a time when the average muzzle loading rifleman was at the top of his game if he could get off one shot a minute. Federalist literal constitutional interpretation of this Amendment makes ignores the facts that no one can own slaves anymore or that AR-15 rifles with high capacity magazines and bump stocks can deal death at hundreds of shots a minute. To these limited legal thinkers, this translates easily into banning most forms of gun control legislation as a violation of the original text. 

Our whole system of law is designed to maintain the status quo and apply the brakes to legal innovations. Unfortunately, the maintenance of things the way they are is not sufficient for the Federalists who want to return to a time long past when hierarchical gender roles were clear, white supremacy was the law of the land and government was supposed to stay out of your business.

With the election of conservative legislatures and executives, Federalist judges in waiting have finally achieved their nirvana. With Trump acolytes in control of the Senate, we will soon see a solid majority of Federalist trained or sympathetic Justices in control of the United States Supreme Court. 

Conservative controlled legislatures in state and federal governments will soon pass more laws challenging established precedents involving abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights and many governmental regulations setting up disputes for final resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade provides another example. It established a framework to end illegal abortions and save women’s lives. It did not allow unlimited abortions on demand, as many countries do. It has been used to strike down state and federal laws that limited access to early term abortions. We will soon see outright bans passed in many so-called “pro-life” states and the challenges to them will ultimately be heard by the Federalist dominated Court where they will receive a friendly reception. 

The only potential brake on the wholesale revision of constitutional law the Federalists embrace is found in an often-overlooked canon of judicial interpretation known as “Stare Decisis.”  Simply put, it means the Court should not overturn a prior decision of the same body unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A decision must have been so wrongly decided in the first place that no present court would make the same decision. As with most rules governing interpretation of the laws, there are many exceptions that the Federalists will use to rid us of those pesky precedents they do not like.

This brings us to President Trump’s recent nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh brings not only impressive Federalist Society credentials and experience, he also penned an impressive law review article advancing the startling proposition that a sitting president should not be subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution for illegal acts committed in office. For Judge Kavanaugh impeachment is the only remedy. This had to be seen as a “get out of jail free” card for this president. 

Needless to say, the partisans will pull out all the stops to pressure those few GOP Senators who don’t fear Trump’s tweets and those Democrats elected in Trump country.  It should make for an interesting confirmation process in the Senate. Stay tuned.

Fear Not

The Only Thing We Have to Fear

Is Fear Itself

During some of its darkest hours President Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the country that, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those words ring with even more truth today than they did during the depths of the Great Depression in 1932.

Today’s politics of division and supremacy are primarily based on nothing but fear. Our leaders and some of their followers would have us fear each other, fear those whose skin is a different color, fear those who come to our shores escaping violence, fear those who believe in a different supreme being, fear those who love differently, fear those who seek to control their own reproductive systems, fear those who believe in science as a basis for sound policy, and fear those who follow different economic or political systems.

We need to own firearms in even greater numbers because we fear the “bad guy” who might come to take what is ours. Second Amendment purists and those who profit from it, base their beliefs and business model on the myth that there is some “other” out there who is looking to bring us harm. Virtually every email I see from the NRA and its local offspring, Delta Defense, promotes their platform based on fear. 

Recent fervor supporting immigration bans prohibiting people entering our country from neighboring countries to the South is mostly based on fear of the Mexican criminal who will deal drugs, rape our women and steal our children. Many cling to this myth even in the face of clear proof that most immigrants come here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families.

The rise of newly emboldened white supremacy groups is based upon the irrational fear that somehow Anglo European immigrants will soon be forced from power and become an under class as America becomes more multi-ethnically diverse. Genetically, human beings are much more alike than different. Skin color differences do not translate into a better or worse human being. It makes no difference, yet too many of us are taught to fear based just on this element of the human condition. 

Fear of those who love those with similar gender characteristics is another one of those irrational emotions used to divide. Folks attracted to those like themselves are not trying to kidnap children or lure them into a heretical lifestyle. Same sex couples can be just as good or just as bad at parenting as opposite sex couples. Gender fluidity will never upset the social order. 

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding President Trump’s travel ban unfortunately gives it an aura of legitimacy it does not deserve. The travel ban prohibiting Muslims from certain countries from entering our country is based on another irrational fear, that all who share that faith from those countries are bent upon committing terrorist acts on our soil. Most people who practice Islam are just as anti-terror as anyone else who disavows its use. To ban entire populations based upon a few dangerous individuals does nothing to advance world peace and a belief in a common humanity.

Fear of women becoming hyper-sexualized and running amok was one of the original motivations for limiting access to birth control and opposing reproductive choice.  Fear of feminism is based on outmoded notions of women’s’ inequality and inability to think and act for themselves without male guidance. 

Fearing the erosion of Christian belief systems led to challenges to science-based policy decisions in education. If you teach evolution as a fact proven by the scientific method, the underpinnings of beliefs in divine creation will evaporate. If you challenge the way we live because we know humans have created climate change and must wean ourselves from the use of fossil fuels in order to survive, I will lose my livelihood. Therefore, acting on climate change is an evil to be feared.

Fear of communism, socialism, tribalism, cooperatives and the other economic and political systems that compete with capitalism drives current political thought away from our being able to choose aspects of those competing systems that might be beneficial to our continued prosperity. Universal healthcare and food security come to mind as rational ways to maintain the species. We seem to fear them just because they have worked in different political systems than our own and threaten certain capitalistic institutions. 

As we approach the annual celebration of America’s founding on July the Fourth, let us resolve to banish fear as a reason to act or fail to act. Let us boldly embrace the other, the different, the new and the experimental so we truly can make America greater than she was before.

Immigration Atrocities

Immigration Atrocities Must Stop

Separating Children from their Parents is Inhumane

The Trump Republican Party’s assault on basic human dignity and respect for the family continues unabated. Every time I think they cannot sink any lower on the depravity scale, they take it further down by miles.

Ours is a country made great and strong by immigrants who came to our shores seeking freedom from religious or political persecution and a better life for their families. My first immigrant ancestors came from Germany in the 1700s and settled in upper New York State. They farmed and became prosperous. They joined the Revolutionary Army and fought with Washington to repel British rulers and undo unfair taxes. My wife’s Brewster ancestors came to Plymouth, Massachusetts on the Mayflower and stood up for religious freedom that came to be enshrined in our founding documents.

Wave after wave of immigrants came to America and helped build our cities, railroads, canals, and many other mechanisms of economic growth. Many who came spoke no English and had no education. They took the jobs no one else who had already gained a measure of security would take. Those immigrants brought their families to a better home than they left.

One of the dark sides of the immigration epic found its way into our history when those who came before and gained some success looked down on some of those who came later as less worthy or less deserving. The newcomers had to knock down these barriers and show their worth before becoming accepted by those several generations off the boat. Sometimes they had to organize into unions to make sure the doors stayed open to continued upward mobility.

Another dark side of our immigration history is found in the treatment of people of color by the Anglo-European majority. The involuntary immigration of those stolen from Africa aside, immigrants from Asia and South and Central America, with skin tones yellow to brown, faced additional hurdles. They tended to settle in Chinatowns and Little Havanas in major cities, seeking the protection of racial isolation.

All of the injustices visited on these later immigrants, pale in comparison to the newest atrocities being imposed upon immigrant families who seek safety and a better life by the Trump administration. It is made worse by the acquiescence of those Republicans in Congress who have the power to stop them.

Following the historical lead from dictators past, immigration authorities are now forcibly separating young children from their parents when the family units cross the border without proper permission. Those now effectively orphaned are sent far from their parents with no way of staying connected and housed in hastily converted empty big box stores set up with wire cages usually found in animal shelters. Their parents are not told where their children are being held and have no way to communicate with them. The damage inflicted upon these young humans by this treatment will stay with them for the rest of their lives. They and we can take little solace in the heartless solution offered by Attorney General Sessions, “if you don’t want to lose your children, don’t come here illegally.”

Not content with just tearing families apart, Sessions recently slammed the immigration door shut to many from south of our borders by announcing that fleeing from domestic or gang violence will no longer be accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum in the United States. The realities of domestic and gang violence in parts of Central and South America are well documented. Those who resist or fail to assist have legitimate fear of violent reprisals and have every reason to flee. 

These immigrants, along with many who come from Mexico without proper visas, are willing to roll up their sleeves and work in our restaurant kitchens, dairy farms, vegetable growing operations, and other occupations requiring long workdays and back breaking labor. They take jobs that most already here never apply to take. Why we shun people willing to work hard and become productive future citizens baffles me.

We have a representative in Congress who plays a central role in overseeing these and other immigration policies and has the power to bring a much more humane cast to how we treat those who come to our shores. Senator Ron Johnson chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He is in a unique position to stop the family destroying atrocities and establish legislative policy on who may seek asylum. Contact Sen. Johnson at 414-276-7282 and tell him to stand up to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

We are engaged in behavior equal to the horrors of the slave trade we fought a civil war to abolish. It must stop.

Democracy Dollars

Democracy Dollars for Real Democracy

Modern political campaigns have become dominated by large donations from mega-donors like the Koch brothers and George Soros or large corporate interest driven political action committees and labor unions. Going where the money is has skewed the political agendas of both the left and right and eliminated the voices of everyday people politicians are supposedly elected to serve. 

Two Supreme Court decisions have enshrined these large, dark money donations into our constitutional landscape by making money into “protected” political speech. Those rulings probably will not be revisited, much less reversed, anytime soon. The challenge has become how to dilute the impact of the large donors by giving everyday working people something of value that can be solicited and won with a discussion about issue based platforms politicians run on and promise to enact.

Many working people now are disillusioned with politicians and the political process and believe their individual voices are not being heard by those beholden to large money donors. Many live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford even a modest political contribution. Those feeling disenfranchised stay away from the polls, feeling their voices no longer matter. Younger voters tend to not even bother to register.

The city of Seattle may have found a solution. The city came up with “Democracy Dollars.” It is simple, elegant, scalable to national proportions and completely constitutional. 

Seattle collects property taxes, as do all municipalities. City leaders decided to add a small amount to each property tax bill, about $11 on a $500,000 home, to fund a voucher program that started initially with Seattle city council and city attorney races. Each registered voter was then given four $25 vouchers to use on those races. Those running for those seats could opt into the voucher program or choose not to, relying instead upon the regular campaign finance rules. Those candidates who opted in had to agree to spend no more than $300,000 on the election. 

Seattle collected $3 million a year in property taxes to pay for the voucher program starting in 2016. Seattle residents spent $1.4 million in vouchers in the last election. The remaining balance will be carried forward for future election cycles. The program is set to expand to more races in coming years as the fund surplus grows. 

A recent study shows that only 8,200 residents gave money to Seattle city races in 2013. In 2016, more than 25,000 residents gave vouchers and money to candidates who ran in those same races. A younger more diverse electorate became involved politically with the implementation and growth of the voucher program. 

The voluntary nature of candidate participation makes the voucher program constitutional. Candidates cannot be forced into a public funded election system under current Supreme Court rulings, unless they agree to public funding for their campaigns.

The Democracy Dollar system scales up well to a national level. Two Yale Law professors wrote the outline in 2017. Given the numbers of registered voters, a voucher system could generate just about the same amount of aggregated individual donations as special interests pump into the system in large contributions. In 2012, all candidates for federal offices and their nominally “independent” supporter groups spent about $7 billion on their races. That went down to about $6.8 billion in federal races last year. With $100 vouchers, registered voters could pump $6.5 billion into the same races.

This year Rep. Ro Kanna, (D-CA) and former Senator Russ Feingold put together a federal solution called the Democracy Dollars Act. It provides 50 “Democracy Dollars” to every registered voter for use in federal elections, $25 for presidential elections, $15 for Senate races and $10 for House campaigns. 

These amounts seem small but when multiplied by millions of voters, the power of the PACs and dark money donors become diluted. Think about a fundraiser for 100 people where you can raise $2500 for a presidential candidate with the best issue based agenda. The system turns individual voters into someone the candidate has to convince in order to obtain that voter’s voucher support. 

If you want a democracy where each voter really has a voice, support Democracy Dollars voucher systems everywhere.

Social Responsibility

Claiming Social Responsibility

Requires Hard Choices

“Social Responsibility” is generally thought to include working with a higher purpose than mere profitability, a striving to improve our society and strengthen community life.

To some on the right side of the political spectrum, the phrase has taken on a pejorative meaning and they use it to label left leaning folks and groups as “do gooders,” consistent with their world view that we should just care about ourselves and not each other. 

Some organizations use “social responsibility” as part of their mission statement. Claiming this mantle is meant to show a concern for the well being of others and a commitment to making the communities they serve better through their good works. 

Our local Y (formerly the YMCA) and the national Y organization have staked a claim to being socially responsible. The Y touts its social responsibility in its promotional materials and offerings. It stresses “healthy living” by offering exercise and fitness classes, youth programming, nutritional and health screenings, child care and other endeavors meant to promote long, healthy lives for all ages of members.

I have long been associated with the Y. I learned to swim in Y pools as a kid. I attended Y sponsored summer programs and camps well into my adolescence. As I aged, I came back to the Y to regain lost fitness, continue my cardiac rehab, and reconnect with other seniors in my community. I try to get to the Y on Washington St. three times a week to work out and meet with my personal trainer, who has helped me stay alive.  By partnering with Silver Sneakers and other health insurance programs for seniors, the Y has made membership free to those on fixed incomes.

All of these activities certainly entitle the Y to claim that it acts in a “socially responsible” manner. Unfortunately, when attempts were being made to expand the Y’s social responsibility activities to include more current social issues, the current Y management was not interested.

The first issue came in the form of a request to make the Y a “Safe Space” for people who felt attacked or threatened in the new wave of anti-immigrant, anti-LBGTQ sentiments that sprang up after the last presidential election. The Y was asked to participate in “Safe Space” training and to post a small poster in the window indicating that the Y would offer protections to those harassed or threatened. The former “Social Responsibility” director refused the requests, indicating that the Y does not discriminate against people of color, those with non-majority sexual orientation or gender expression or those in minority or immigrant groups. She did allow placement of the “Safe Space” poster on a community bulletin board in an upstairs hall in the building, but refused to replace it after it mysteriously disappeared from the board.

The second attempt to engage the Y in an expanded vision of  “social responsibility” involved its fund raising program that included accepting funds from and advertising for a local business whose mission is to encourage the taking of human life by armed violence. Again the Y dropped the ball and refused to even discuss the matter at a recent Board of Directors meeting. 

The Y started a campaign to solicit funds from local donors. In exchange for a $1,000 donation, the donor got his or her name on a small banner hanging from the rafters in the Y lobby. For a $2500 or larger contribution, the donor received a much larger banner hanging closer to the floor with their name. Most names on the banners are well known members of Washington County’s donor class.

One prominent name on a large banner on the first row is Delta Defense coupled with the logo of the US Concealed Carry Association. I have written here before about Delta Defense’s owners and their attempts to purchase respectability with corporate largess. For those who do not know, the company provides support to the concealed carry/self-defense movement and advocates for an individual’s absolute right to take human life through armed violence.

When I tried to point out that the Y’s claim to “social responsibility” was inconsistent with taking Delta Defense money and advertising its brand, the Executive Director and the Executive Committee of the Y’s Board of Directors decided not to engage in the discussion about gun violence in our community and refused to bring the issue before its full Board for a discussion of its “social responsibility” policy. 

Organizations claiming the mantle of “social responsibility” cannot ignore the social issues of our time just because they are controversial or may anger some of their members. If you are going to be socially responsible, you have to be willing to examine what that means and take positions consistent with your mission even if it means giving back some money and letting marginalized people know they are welcome and safe.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled with a Sheboygan County non-profit agency.

Attorney-Client Confidentiality Has Limits

The Trump-Cohen Predicament

The FBI raid on the office, home, apartment and safety deposit box of Attorney Michael Cohen and the seizure of his files, hard drives and recordings sure has caused a lot of consternation in Washington. 

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I can say with certainty that to obtain judicial approval for a search warrant application targeting a lawyer’s office, any lawyer’s office, the prosecutor has to go above and beyond the usual showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. The application must also show that the lawyer whose files and records are to be seized was both aware that the criminal activity documented in his files took place and that he was either directly involved in the criminal activity or that his services were being used to shield the criminal activity. 

These extra hurdles exist to protect one of the most sacrosanct legal protections, the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. The things clients tell and give to their lawyers are protected from forced disclosure so that the lawyer can expect honesty from his clients and be better prepared to defend their interests. These communications are protected first by the rules of evidence that prevent the information in the lawyer’s files from being used against the client in court and also prevents the lawyer from being compelled to be a witness against his client. The confidentiality of attorney-client communications is also protected by rules governing lawyer conduct and provides an additional barrier to disclosure of information the lawyer obtained from or about the client. 

Using these protective rules, some organized criminal elements began to hire lawyers to help them conduct illegal activity and protect against the lawyer becoming a government informer. Recall the days of the mob families with their lawyer consiglieries made famous in the Godfather and you get the idea.

In order to prevent lawyers from providing cover to or profiting from illegal activities by their clients, courts and legislatures changed the rules of evidence to add a “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege and bar associations changed their ethical rules to prohibit the same kind of activity. 

The approval of the search warrant for Attorney Cohen’s files and documents added an additional level of judicial scrutiny because it had become well known that Mr. Cohen’s main client was the President of the United States for many years prior to his recent election and had continued in that relationship after the election as well. 

There is yet another layer of confidentiality in play. Normally, lawyers are loath to make public statements about representation of their clients. Making confidential information public, removes the privilege that otherwise might have prevented forced disclosure of the information. Additionally, lawyers do not usually make public disclosures about confidential information involving their clients without first discussing the pros and cons of the disclosures with and obtaining the client’s consent to the disclosures in advance. Once the Stormy Daniels door was opened, it could never be closed. 

Federal search warrants issued for lawyers’ offices involve yet another layer of scrutiny to protect confidential information from being disclosed erroneously. Federal prosecutors use “taint teams” of lawyers who are not involved in the case in which the warrant was used. These teams go through all of the information seized and make an initial determination which evidence falls within the scope of the underlying criminal investigation and then exclude from further examination or use by the prosecution team of evidence related to other clients represented by the lawyer and information unrelated to the criminal activity outlined in the warrant application. 

Attorney Cohen and other lawyers for President Trump asked the supervising judge in the case to let them have the first look at what was seized and make the call about what should be shared with the prosecutor. That request was denied, but the judge still has the option to appoint a completely neutral “special master” to either make the initial review or oversee the work of the “taint team” to make sure the privilege is not violated. 

President Trump’s attack on the FBI’s seizures as “un-American” and against the rule of law demonstrate just how worried he is about what Mr. Cohen’s files and recorded conversations might contain. Many suggest that the material seized may very well be more damaging to the President than anything that might come out of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. So far, President Trump has avoided any direct connection to Russian election fraud even while campaign staff and other subordinates have been indicted and convicted of illegal activities. 

The saga got even more interesting when Mr. Cohen was required to identify his other clients so that the supervising judge could evaluate the scope of his privilege claim. He readily gave up the name of a prominent GOP donor who had retained him to make secret hush money payments to the donor’s mistress who had become pregnant. Cohen initially asked not to divulge the name of the third client, but the judge refused and ordered disclosure. The fact of a lawyer’s representation of a client is not confidential. Mr. Cohen then revealed that his third client was Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of President Trump’s biggest supporters, who had been railing against the FBI seizures from the minute they took place.

The evidence sought by the search warrant included information related to the now very public payment made by Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 election and to other “fixes” Cohen had undertaken on Mr. Trump’s behalf to quash damaging information from coming to light before the election. Federal charges of money laundering, illegal election campaign contributions, and others easily come to mind as possible criminal violations that could land Mr. Cohen behind bars and sweep away what remains of the Trump presidency as well. Time will tell.

A Blue Wave Approaches

Scott Walker is Right

A Blue Wave is Coming                     

Tuesday’s election results, both local and statewide, show that a majority of voters are not happy with the current GOP leadership and policy choices and are looking for more moderate, if not progressive, leadership. The shocking local result was the “yes” vote on the City of West Bend street referendum where voters actually agreed to a modest increase in property taxes to fix too long neglected city streets. 

In a post-election tweet Tuesday night, Governor Walker tried to rally his base with a prediction of a Democratic wave swamping his ship in the Fall and a desperate plea for money after Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet beat Judge Michael Screnock by double digit numbers.  Walker campaign team staff ran Screncock’s campaign and traditional GOP backers, like the NRA and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, contributed vast sums for TV ads, all to no avail. Screnock even lost to Dallet in his own home county. Walker’s pick for a circuit court seat in very red Waukesha County also lost. Dallet ran a liberal backed campaign against special interest money in politics and the current GOP results driven majority on the Court. She won handily in the cities and saw the red turn purple and even blue in many former GOP strongholds across the state. Those defeats sent a clear signal that voters, even in traditionally red areas, are no longer lining up for the Walker/NRA agenda.

In the other statewide race, a last minute liberal led charge saved the State Treasurer from extinction at the hands of the GOP legislative majority. Clearly, the legislative leadership wanted to be rid of their only constitutionally mandated financial watchdog so they could continue to loot the treasury and send tax windfalls to their crony supporters with no one else having a handle on the purse strings. Voters saw through the ploy and rejected the constitutional amendment that would have killed the office. Another blue defeat for the Walker led crew.

Walker’s miscalculation about calling special elections in two districts with vacant legislative seats undoubtedly helped swing voters, especially those feeling disenfranchised by GOP voter suppression tactics. When he lost legal challenges to his decision brought by former Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, the legislature started to bring forward quickie legislation to change the special election rules only to abandon the effort when Walker caved and called the required special elections. The blatant power grab and disenfranchisement of local voters in those districts showed just how low the GOP leaders are willing to stoop in order to maintain power. 

One of the mantras of the far right ever since the famous “no new taxes” pledge took hold is that voters are sick of increasing taxes. West Bend’s alt-right Mayor and Council were so afraid to raise property taxes to fix the city’s crumbling streets, that they sought cover in the advisory referenda questions the voters answered clearly. The referenda question answers told the Mayor and Council that it would be acceptable to raise property taxes modestly, but not too much, in order to fix the streets and to try and persuade the county to help by sharing part of the county sales tax revenue with the county’s municipalities. District 7 Alderman Adam Williquette’s defeat at the hands of a candidate who ran on a “let’s fix the streets” platform should seal the deal. Time will tell.

The West Bend School Board race brought another bell weather election result. In the recent past, tea party extremists with anti-public school, anti-science agendas, have dominated the board. Last year’s school board election changed the board to a pro-public school, more teacher friendly majority and Tuesday’s election delivered a final and resounding rejection of the evangelical Christian attempt to subvert and privatize our public schools. Chris Zwagart and Kurt Rebholz ran on a pro-teacher, leave curriculum development to the experts and sound governance platform. They brought in convincing majorities against an incumbent who developed an alliance with an anti-evolution, anti-teacher zealot. It should not have been as close a result as we saw, but voters again rejected the extremist positions. One of the issues in the race is what to do about the aging elementary school in Jackson. The new majority has a mandate to fix the problem and the ability to convince majorities in the district to replace the old building with a new one. 

Our new school board majority can reject “no tax increases for schools” arguments by pointing to the 50 plus public school referenda approved by Wisconsin voters on Tuesday while only 6 failed. There is a clear mandate in those results showing property taxpayers are willing to pay more to support quality public education. They supported both operational and capital referenda, some with fairly large price tags, even after the GOP leadership passed new laws making it significantly more difficult for local school boards to raise property taxes for public schools.

Tuesday’s election results continue the momentum from the recent special elections where progressive Democrats made further inroads into previously red districts. It must not go unnoticed that our own Dennis Degenhardt, the former CEO of Glacier Hills Credit Union and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party of Washington County carried the City of West Bend in the special election for our Assembly seat in the race against former County Board Chair, Rick Gundrum. 

I believe Scott Walker for once. A blue wave is going to swamp his ship in November.