Leave our Constitution Alone

Leave our Constitution Alone
It works just fine

When our founding fathers sat down to write our new nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, they recognized that we needed protections against governmental abuses that deprived citizens of their freedom. With abuses by the English crown in mind, they crafted bedrock principles to protect us against future governments run amok. 

When the government accuses a citizen of a crime, the citizen starts the process with the presumption of innocence. This requires the government to carry the burden of proving that a crime was committed and that the citizen accused committed it. The accused never has to prove her innocence. 

The second principle requires the government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest evidentiary standard used in the law and is meant to ensure a high degree of certainty in the verdict.

The third principle requires the accused be afforded due process of law. This means the government has to tell the accused what crime has been charged, what evidence it intends to use to prove it and provide a neutral forum to hear that evidence.

Finally, the accused is guaranteed that her case will be tried before a jury of her peers who have to unanimously agree as to her guilt or innocence. 

These protections are buttressed by additional requirements preventing governmental invasions of privacy. Before the government can invade your home looking for evidence, it must first obtain a warrant from a judge based upon a credible showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. 

These protections against government over-reach have worked well since our nation was founded. They apply to all and can be invoked by anyone who stands accused. 

Because those who commit criminal offenses are not well regarded, some in our legislatures seek to curry favor with those who would dispense with these protections for the “obviously guilty” by “getting tough on crime.” One such effort led to the passage of a victim’s rights amendment to our Wisconsin Constitution.  It provided “victims” with a set of rights to make sure that they are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. It set up an obvious conflict with the rights afforded to the criminally accused that is still being litigated in criminal cases. 

Not to be out done in stripping rights from the accused, our legislature has recently passed a new set of “victims’ rights,” known as “Marsy’s Law.” Because the proposed provisions change the state constitution, they must be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum this fall. 

The Wisconsin Justice Institute (WJI) recently published an analysis of “Marsy’s Law” authored by noted criminal defense lawyer, Dean Strang.

Strang looked at all 16 provisions of the new law and noted that voters must consider all in an up or down vote, not 16 separate votes. He concludes that while some of the provisions are laudable and workable, some unconstitutionally invade the rights given to the accused and place undue burdens upon law enforcement officers and district attorneys seeking to comply.

While people can be and are harmed by the acts of others, they do not become “victims” in the criminal law sense until the person who caused the harm is convicted by a jury of his peers who unanimously agreed that the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Marsy’s Law” continues the effort to put a finding that one is a “victim” before the accused is tried and convicted.

Here are some of the problem areas identified in the WJI analysis titled “Marsy’s Flaws.”

One provides a “victim” with a right to privacy. This directly invades the accused’s right to notice of the charges against him, the identity of his accusers and the evidence that will be presented by the government in its effort to convict. This new “right” will create a false sense of hope and expectations for those harmed. 

Another right is to have the proceedings be “free from unreasonable delay.” The proposed law does not tell us who gets to decide if a delay is unreasonable, nor does it fashion a remedy. Would a delayed trial mean that charges are dismissed or that the accused must be found guilty without a trial? The first would not please the “victim” and the second would not pass constitutional muster. 

A third provision allows the “victim” to attend all court proceedings upon request. This will not work as written. It would require the state to provide notice and transportation to all “victims” wanting to attend but unable to afford to and that judges schedule proceedings so that their attendance can happen. For a working, out of state “victim,” this would mean court hearings at night or on weekends to accommodate schedules. 

A fourth requires “victim” access to the attorney for the government upon request. Most district attorney offices have victim-witness coordinators who serve as points of contact with prosecutors. Most DAs do not have the time to meet with “victims” whenever they ask. Again, this provision creates false hopes and is unworkable given current staffing levels. 

A fifth requires that a “victim” be allowed to address the court in any proceeding where one of her rights is implicated. This will create chaos in the courtroom as “victims” often disagree with decisions made by prosecutors and sometimes even ask that charges be dismissed or reduced. 

Finally, Marsy’s law provides that “victims” are entitled to “full” restitution from the person ordered to pay it. What happens when the offender cannot pay due to incarceration or death? This provision would then require state taxpayers to foot the bill. 

“Marsy’s Law” is not needed to address a real problem. Its passage is meant to appease the “tough on crime” crowd that has led us to be one of the countries with the largest prison population on the planet. Our constitution was written to protect us all from government over-reach. Let’s keep it that way.

Death is Inevitable

Death is Inevitable
Tell me how to help

We all have one thing in common. Sooner or later we are all going to die. Most do not have the luxury of knowing when or what will end our lives. Way too many think death is just for the old and infirm and is personally way too far off to contemplate. Far too few plan for end of life issues, leaving family with hard choices.

Death that comes quickly is somehow easier. Those with long, slow death dealing infirmities put caregivers, loved ones and medical providers in tough ethical and moral conundrums. Do we treat aggressively, moderately, passively or not at all? Who gets to make the decisions for the incapacitated who can no longer make decisions on their own? What happens when medical judgments and religious beliefs clash? What happens when family members disagree about the course of treatment?

As a guardian for those with dementia or other incapacitating infirmities, I have experienced first-hand what happens when death comes before affairs are put in order and end of life wishes are made known. 

People who fail to plan for their eventual death or terminal illness exist in what is known as “full code” status. That means that first responders and medical providers must use all means necessary to keep the person alive unless certain guidelines are followed. This can result in invasive medical procedures that may compromise quality of life or cause pain to the patient. 

People who are competent can direct how they want to be treated when they are not able to direct how and what medical treatments are undertaken for them. This is usually accomplished by creating a written living will that outlines what steps can and cannot be taken. People can also designate through a written Health Care Power of Attorney who can make medical and end of life decisions for them if they become incapacitated. Hospitals have forms you can fill out and elder care and estate planning lawyers can also help. Taking the time to create these plans and then discussing them with your family and loved ones will save them and you from the chaos that can follow sudden life-threatening injury and illness. 

For those who courts have determined to be incompetent and fall under the care of a guardian, end of life decision making gets complicated. If the person has made their wishes known before becoming incompetent, guardians can honor those wishes as life winds down. 

One of the major issues is whether to administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a person suffers cardiac or respiratory arrest. If a person does not want to have this intervention, she can sign a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order and provide copies to their medical providers and hospitals, keeping copies at home and in vehicles for first-responders. We know from studies that CPR when performed on elderly patients in nursing or other residential care can cause pain and broken ribs. We also know that long term recovery in these patients is not significantly improved if CPR is administered. 

If no DNR order is in place, guardians can obtain one under certain conditions. First, the person must be 18 or older (known to be not pregnant) and have a terminal condition or a medical condition that could make such actions unsuccessful or repeated cardiac or respiratory failure would occur before death, or have a condition where resuscitation would cause significant physical pain or harm that outweighs the possibility of restored function for an indefinite period of time. Next, an attending physician has to provide written information on procedures that might be used and how the patient can revoke the DNR consent. A DNR form is then signed by the doctor and guardian.

DNR orders do not address the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from someone who is unable to make those decisions. Again, living wills and Healthcare Powers of Attorney can spell out your wishes before these decisions have to be made. Those without this advance planning, put guardians and loved ones called upon to consider them at a considerable disadvantage.

In order for a guardian to withhold or terminate life-sustaining treatment like hydration and artificial nutrition, three physicians have to determine the person to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” If the person expressed their wishes on the subject, the guardian must follow those wishes. If not, the guardian must determine if the proposed course is in the person’s “best interest.” Courts have held that continued life is in a person’s “best interest.”

In considering if treatment withdrawal is in the person’s “best interest,” guardians must consider what treatments will do to the person, life expectancy and prognosis for recovery with or without treatments, the various treatment options, the risks, benefits and side effects of each treatment and the opinions of those who have known the person for significant periods of time. If these considerations weigh in favor of withholding or ending treatment, then the guardian must notify all “interested parties” and give them time to respond. If no one objects, the guardian can withhold or end treatment. If there is an objection, the matter is brought before the probate court for decision.

These are complicated and difficult issues fraught with emotional overlays making it more than worth the effort to address them long before they get presented. Please have the conversations needed to make your wishes known to your spouse, children and extended family. Make your own decisions now about how you want to be treated in the event you cannot express your wishes. It will make it easier on those called upon to help you as your life ends.

Read My Lips

Read My Lips
GOP Tax policy only helps the rich

Here’s a surprise. The 2017 Trump tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate economic growth and trickle down to working people through higher wages have not come close to achieving those lofty selling point goals. Instead, People who own businesses and other concentrated wealth will have a lot more money to hoard and the federal budget will have significantly less to spend.

The Congressional Research Service, an in-house, non-partisan fact finding body, just published a paper outlining the effects of the 2017 Tax Revision, often called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the GOP members in Congress cannot be happy. It finds that none of these secondary effects have shown up and are not likely to in the long run. Growth has not increased above levels before the tax cuts went into effect. Wages have not increased either. There was a short and small bump in repatriated corporate cash from abroad, but that has leveled off. The expected business investment from the tax cut windfall failed to materialize. 

Many of the GOP tax cuts supporters claimed, without any support from recognized economists, that anticipated business growth would pay for the loss of revenue to the treasury and certainly not increase the deficit. The report shows that, so far, growth has made up about 5 percent of the lost revenue, missing the projections by a mere 95 percent. 

Cut supporters helped sell the plan by promoting increased worker wages from the excess corporate cash provided by the cuts. Unfortunately, the report finds no widespread increases in bonuses or wages. It does show significant stock buy-backs and repatriated dividends from subsidiaries abroad helping businesses increase their cash holdings. 

I doubt that many of those who supported the cuts will back away from them in light of the new data. Their corporate donors are happy and that’s where they get most of their economic support. More rational constituent centered lawmakers might use the report to marshal support for repealing the cuts and then using the trillions in lost revenue to build more realistic growth and worker supporting policies.

Here in Wisconsin, the GOP controlled purse strings continue to tighten, stunting growth potential with proven successes. Our leaders do not want to be outdone by their federal counterparts.

Members of the GOP controlled legislative Joint Finance Committee continued their evisceration of Governor Evers’ Peoples Budget on Tuesday. Evers proposed spending $130 million more on the UW System over the next two years. The GOP Committee approved just $58 million more, with $45 million being subject to committee approval of a report showing how the money would be spent. 

UW System President Ray Cross opined that these decisions missed an opportunity to meet the future needs of the state and felt “like a kick in the shins.” Cross indicated that the approved amount will prevent the UW from expanding high demand nursing and engineering programs on many campuses. They will also limit the System’s ability to hire and retain quality educators.

While the Committee agreed with Evers to continue the UW tuition freeze, it failed to approve state funding for the revenue lost from the freeze. Fully funding the freeze would have helped the UW System catch-up from all the previous funding cuts under the Walker dynasty.

The educations provided by our UW System have fueled state economic growth for decades. As a proud Alum, I recognize that my professional success and contributions to Wisconsin’s economy over 37 years of lawyering would not have been possible without the support and funding provided to me as both an undergrad and law student on the Madison campus in the 1970s.

Failing to adequately fund the UW System under the guise of accountability and political correctness, cuts off our economic nose to spite our collective faces. 

The Joint Finance Committee previously voted not to expand Wisconsin participation in Medicaid, a federal program that helps cover the cost of healthcare for the indigent. Even though data from other states that have received Medicaid expansion funds shows significant taxpayer savings for healthcare costs for the uninsured or underinsured, our legislators continue to believe that someday, maybe or possibly, the federal government will change its mind and force state taxpayers to continue to cover these costs. Under this rational, thousands of poor people will go without necessary healthcare that could return them to productive citizenry, the state’s share of the current costs will continue to rise anyway and our economy will continue to suffer. 

These shortsighted, no tax increase decisions doom opportunities for working- and middle-class people to prosper and succeed like my generation was able to do. The better educated we are, the more we earn. The more we earn with our labor, the more Wisconsin prospers. 

Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is a Family Affair

Communication is difficult

Living with a disability requires a lot of help. My ability to hear has been steadily declining for almost 20 years. It was probably caused by the loud rock music of my youth and the years I worked as a union stagehand for rock concerts in the 1970s before hearing protection was required. 

I started wearing basic analog hearing aids in 2005. I graduated to more powerful digital hearing aids in 2010. My hearing loss eventually made work as a trial lawyer impossible by late 2012. Trial work requires being able to hear everything that goes on in the courtroom. I retired from my law practice in 2013. 

My wife and kids have suffered from my hearing loss almost as much as I have. It makes every day conversation much more difficult. We now often have to rely upon a small microphone my wife can wear that connects directly to my hearing aids for me to hear and understand what she has to say, especially in the car or other noisy environments.

My ability to make out spoken words has decreased to the point where ordinary speech is all but unintelligible without my hearing aids.  Even with their assistance, I still need to see a speaker’s mouth and have context to fully understand a conversation. 

 I cannot use a regular telephone handset, but I can listen to my cell phone thanks to a Bluetooth connection between my iPhone and hearing aids. The same goes for television. We use both closed captioning and a Bluetooth audio connection to my aids. Even with the enhancements, I miss about 20 percent of the dialog. Because my loss is more profound in the higher frequencies, music has lost much value for me. I still listen to music from my younger years, filling in the high notes and lyrics from memory rather than hearing them anew.

It is almost impossible for me to carry on a conversation in noisy environments like restaurants, in the car while driving or in a group where more than one person is talking at the same time. Speech in large rooms, like courtrooms and meeting rooms is very difficult to understand.

Over the years, we have developed several rules for communicating that will be helpful for anyone with moderate to severe hearing impairment. 

Stop speaking from another room or across a large space. If I want to speak to my wife, I need to go where she is and the same is true for her.

Don’t speak with your back toward me. I need to see your mouth and body language to enhance understanding. Otherwise, all I hear is sound. When starting a new conversation, give me context like, “I want to talk to you about …….” Please do not start a conversation and continue it while walking away. Speak slowly and distinctly rather than louder. Preface a change of topic with an introduction. It takes me longer to catch on to a new topic without context.

If you want me to understand you, please don’t try to compete with other sounds in the room like the TV or radio, other people talking or while the water, fan or dishwasher are running. Steady sounds from these sources taking up most of my hearing and comprehension capacity. Those with normal hearing can usually sort out conversation from background noise. Hearing aids just amplify all the available sound and it becomes jumbled together and incomprehensible. 

If you want to speak to me, get my attention first. Say my name, tap me on the arm or do something to get me to look at you short of using a water balloon. I tend to concentrate more when reading or watching TV and I won’t understand that you want to talk to me if you don’t get my attention. 

It will help a lot if you remove obstructions to your speech. Take your hand away from your mouth, put the cigarette down, lose the gum. I don’t read lips, but do understand familiar words better by seeing your lips. Accents make comprehension much more complicated. 

Last, but not least, be patient. I will often ask you to repeat a word or phrase if I did not understand it the first or even the second time, especially if you use an unfamiliar word. 

As you might imagine, living with hearing loss can be very isolating. I cannot move about in my world as I once did. Movies and concerts are out. Lectures and speeches are gone too. Restaurants and parties are very difficult. Large groups are just noise. I can handle six people or so, but not too many more. 

Luckily, I now work as a guardian for the elderly and disabled and that allows me to use email and voicemail for much of my communication. Most of my conversations are one on one with others and most care givers understand how to communicate with those with hearing loss so speaking with them is usually easier. These environments and my aids allow me to remain productive and do work that matters. 

Living with hearing loss is not impossible, it just requires adjustments for all in order compensate for the loss.

America is Already Great

America is Already Great

You can see for yourself

If you want to truly understand what a wonderful country we live in, you have to travel and see what it looks like. My partner and I have driven through a lot of it, but we have been able to see the diversity and bounty of America best when traveling by train. Over the years, we have taken Amtrak trains to Pittsburgh, Omaha, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Most recently we traveled from Milwaukee to Emeryville, California just outside of San Francisco. Every trip has shown us both the best and the worst of America.

We first picked up the Amtrak Hiawatha at Milwaukee’s airport stop and took it to Chicago’s Union Station. Along the way, we passed small bedroom communities, villages and cities, farms, businesses small and large and the vacant expanse designated for the ever-changing Foxconn debacle. Arriving in Chicago, we passed through rust-belt abandoned factories and buildings adorned with some spectacular graffiti artwork. Not to be outdone, the street artists have also beautified bridges, tunnels and freight cars waiting for the next load on sidings off the main line.

Union Station, built in a time when elegance and style meant prosperity, still serves as one of Amtrak’s main hubs sending passenger trains in every direction carrying all who can afford the fare. We waited for our train, the California Zephyr, in the Metropolitan Lounge where we were served free coffee and soda and browsed a small salad bar. When our train was called, a redcap took us and our bags to our car on a powered cart.

Our days of sitting up in airplane type coach train seats are long over. We opted instead for one of the bedroom units in the sleeper cars. Ours was cozy and slightly tattered, as much of Amtrak has become. We had a couch that converted into a super twin size bed and a smaller bed that folded down from the ceiling, requiring a ladder to enter. When configured as a day room, we could move around. At night, not so much. There was also a single chair that faced the couch, a small sink and a closet that contained a toilet and doubled as the shower. The car attendant handed the changeover and took reservations for meals in the dining car. All our meals were included in the fare.

We left Chicago at 2 pm and wandered west through the suburbs into flat farm fields that stretched to and into Iowa. We crossed the Mississippi around sunset after a nice meal. Meal seating is at tables for 4 so we usually sat across from other couples and all of the ensuing conversations were interesting and lively. We only encountered one grumpy silent pair on our trip.

We slept though Iowa and Nebraska in woke up early the next day slightly east of Denver. After a quick breakfast, we grabbed seats in the observation car. The whole day our train climbed into and passed through the spectacular Rocky Mountains. We soon entered snow capped ranges that lifted into the sky. The steep, rugged terrain made it very clear just how difficult it must have been for those who laid the first tracks across the land. We passed through over 35 tunnels that went through mountains too tall to cross or across slopes prone to avalanches. Even though it was late in April, we saw places where the snow was still over six feet deep along-side the tracks.

By nightfall, we were back in our room sleeping soundly as we traveled through Utah. The next morning, we awoke in the high desert of Nevada just east of Reno. After another quick breakfast, it was back to the observation car so we could watch as we climbed up the Sierra Nevada range and into California. Again, the snow piled up and the tunnels were long. We passed forests of lodgepole pine surrounding clear mountain lakes. 

In stark contrast to the beauty of the mountains, we descended into the central valley of California which is flat and permanently irrigated to feed the country’s insatiable appetite for fruits and vegetables. As we had across the plains, freight trains with oil tankers and coal cars passed in the opposite direction, often interrupting the view. 

As we got lower and warmer, the trackside became increasingly populated with tent camps. We saw all the homeless human hues in these camps that continued sporadically until we reached our city destination. In a country of such bounty and wealth, it is criminal that so many live in such precarious conditions.

Our ultimate destination was a small community north of the bay area, Pt. Reyes Station. It is a sleepy farming village, except on weekends when tourists come to visit the ocean and the National Seashore which protects a unique coastal forest area. Pt. Reyes is located on top of the San Andreas fault that runs off the mainland into the Pacific Ocean though Tomales Bay, just outside of town. We come here to recharge and chill out walking pristine beaches on sea shores filled with birds, seals and whales as they migrate up and down the coast.

We in America are truly blessed to have these places to see and enjoy. Once traveled to, they are impossible to forget and command our ongoing protection for future generations to enjoy. 

We’re all Socialists

We are all Socialists

Get over it.

Today’s GOP attack word is “Socialism.” It is not a new one, but one that has been used by conservatives to attack those government programs they do not like that actually help everyday working people. Our own Senate Majority Leader, Scott Fitzgerald, claims Gov. Evers’s proposed state budget is “socialist.”

To the uninformed, “Socialism” is the same as the dreaded ideology “Communism” that once held sway in the former Soviet Union and still is the governing system in Cuba and, to a lesser degree in China. 

“Communism” obliterated capitalism as the organizing principle of government. In a communist society, everyone works for the good of the state which, in turn, is supposed to supply everything one needs to survive. There is no room in these systems for individual growth or achievement or the accumulation of wealth.

“Democratic socialists” are much different than “communists” or “national socialists,” formerly known as “Nazis.” Democratic socialists believe that we need to work for the common good while allowing for individual achievement and the accumulation of wealth. We band together, pay taxes and do those things for each other that require a common approach. The major difference is that we believe those who earn more or accumulate or inherit wealth should pay their fair share towards the common good. 

Like it or not we in America are all “socialists” to one degree or another. As I pointed out in a column three years ago, there are many government programs that are inherently socialistic.

At the top of the list is tax funding for the Pentagon. Every soldier, sailor, airman, bomb, bullet, fighter jet and battle cruiser used by our military is paid for by tax dollars authorized by our elected representatives.

Big sports programs are played in large stadiums or arenas paid for, at least in part, by taxes. The National Football League has a huge government subsidy, as a nonprofit organization it pays no income taxes.

Social Security is a classic example of “Democratic Socialism.” Funded completely by payroll taxes, it pays a public and personal benefit that keeps millions of seniors, including many Republicans, out of poverty.

Medicare is another classic “socialist” program upon which millions depend for their healthcare. Funded completely by tax dollars, it is truly a single-payer healthcare system that actually works. 

Corporate bailouts, subsidies and tax credits are “socialist” programs at their finest. Not having to shoulder the same tax burdens as working families is supposed to help all of us through job creation and other trickle-down economic theories. It does not work out that way most of the time, but it makes for popular GOP politics as long as you do not call it “socialistic.”

Where would we all be without those “socialist” created local, state and federal roads and highways? We could not get to work or ship the products we make or grow to market without them. All are paid for and sometimes repaired with taxpayer funds administered by elected officials who are also paid for their services with taxpayer dollars.

When winter arrives, be sure to thank the “socialist” snowplows paid for by tax-levied funds, driven by government paid drivers, who clear our public roads so our kids can be picked up by “socialist” public school busses that take them to completely “socialist” public schools.

Better border protection and immigration restriction are battle cries for many of our tea party colleagues. All paid for with “socialist” collected dollars and administered by a representative democratically elected government.

Today’s political discourse would not be possible without that wonderful “socialist” created method of reaching millions of people known as the Internet. DARPA is a taxpayer funded agency that created the Internet and makes sure it runs smoothly so we can all tell each other what is wrong or correct about “socialism.”

There are many other things we all take for granted and rely upon every day that are “socialistic” in every sense of the word. Fire and police protection, sewer and water systems, agricultural supports and subsidies, electrical grids, universal mail delivery, public parks and forests, relations with foreign governments, sea ports and airports, the national railways and clean air and water regulation enforcement all come to mind.

Those who rely on the epithet “socialism” are afraid to debate the merits of the program they complain about. There is plenty of room to debate whether government or the private sector can do the job better or more efficiently. We have reams of data to support our arguments. Look at the facts, not the labels.

Stop Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering Must Stop

Wisconsin Deserves Fair and Competitive Districts

The time has long passed to correct and redraw Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts. 

A coalition of groups have created a movement in Wisconsin urging the adoption of a non-partisan commission that would be charged with redrawing these district lines to make them equal and competitive. So far, they have convinced 39 Wisconsin county boards representing over 77 percent of Wisconsin citizens to pass resolutions demanding that the legislature adopt such a system. Eight counties have passed referenda urging the same result. 

Washington County is not among those supporting the fair maps campaign and that needs to change. 

A recent Marquette University Law School poll shows that 72 percent of Wisconsin citizens want to ban gerrymandering. That included 63 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents. This is not a partisan issue.

Governor Evers has proposed, as part of his new budget, having the state’s non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau redraw the maps after each census under the supervision of a bi-partisan Redistricting Advisory Commission. Those drawing the lines would not be allowed to use political demographic data and would be required to follow strict guidelines to ensure fair and competitive districts. 

Wisconsin voters should be choosing who gets to represent them in the halls of Congress and the state legislature. Under the current system, Wisconsin republicans set up districts that do just the opposite. Those in power now get to choose their voters having drawn districts stacked with republican voters and crammed democratic voters in to smaller, more disbursed districts that isolated them into smaller voting blocs. 

The process used by the GOP legislature was clouded in secrecy when the maps were drawn in the offices of a private law firm hired by the legislative leadership. Normally, legislative committees draw the maps in public sessions open to all.  Democratic legislators and even members of the GOP not in leadership positions were excluded from the process. Republican pollsters and demographic mapping specialists were hired to maximize each republican district into a stronghold with solidly republican voters in significant majorities ensuring continued republican representation. 

Some of the groups in the Fair Maps Coalition brought suit against the gerrymandered districts and won favorable decisions in the lower Federal courts that considered their claims. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the main issue, are the maps fair and competitive, by sending the case back to the lower courts for the plaintiffs to make a showing of individualized harm. The case is far from over and is sure to come back before the high court. 

As the litigation continued, the GOP legislative leadership intervened in the case supporting the maps they drew. When the plaintiffs sought to question Assembly leader Robin Vos, he declined claiming legislative immunity from suit. Vos lost any immunity he might have had by joining the lawsuit and now must submit to questioning from the plaintiffs about the secret process he used to create the maps.

Wisconsin voters have the ability to demand fair maps and competitive districts. They can petition their county boards and city and village governments to pass resolutions demanding their legislators pass new laws adopting non-partisan commission models or supporting Governor Evers budget proposal. We can and should call and write to our legislative representatives directly to demand this change. 

You can find out more about this issue at www.fairelectionsproject.org/fair-maps-wi/