JusticeCantWait Toolkit

From Indivisible: #JusticeCantWait Toolkit “Across the country, MAGA Republicans are continuing their attacks on our freedoms, families, and futures, even as the former MAGA President wracks up indictments for threatening our country to further a criminal conspiracy to cling to power. While the MAGA faction in the House of Representatives rules for the wealthiest few at the expense of working people, MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have issued a series of devastating rulings, from allowing politicians to overturn the will of the people, to taking away working people’s right to strike, to attacking the freedoms of Native Americans, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people. And these same justices are now contemplating if and how MAGA’s 2020 attempt to overthrow the will of the people will be adjudicated. Make no mistake: these actions are a continuation of MAGA’s criminal conspiracy to take away our freedoms that we’ve been beating back for years. It is vital that we not merely respond to specific legislative atrocities and judicial assaults in isolation, but instead expose the throughline connecting these attacks from SCOTUS to the House of Representatives to state legislatures to the billionaires and corporations financing all of them. Based on the latest research, this toolkit provides narratives and guidance on the Trump indictments, upcoming Supreme Court cases as well as other pressing flashpoints to mobilize our base and persuade the conflicted to defeat fascism and win our freedoms. This toolkit will be updated with the latest guidance as rulings are released and more indictments against the former MAGA president are announced. We are planning to add content and messaging to help organizers, campaigners, and communicators shape the public conversation and the political response to this moment.” Full doc: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gfj_ycTGAFSO-hScllnQXqtb6qWb1e_U/view?usp=sharing

Vote No—from Wisdom Action Network

On your April 2 ballot in Wisconsin, you will find two referendum questions about changing the state Constitution. In a nutshell: Both of them are bad ideas! We would encourage you to vote “no”. Here are the reasons:

1. The first proposed amendment on the April ballot would add language to the Wisconsin Constitution declaring that no state or local agency, officer, or employee “may apply for, accept, expend, or use any moneys or equipment in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum if the moneys or equipment are donated or granted by an individual or nongovernmental entity.”

A “yes” vote would forbid any private resources from being used in connection with any election or referendum at the state or local level. While this sounds harmless enough, it could create problems. In 2020, the pandemic created big problems (e.g. the need for personal protective equipment, the need to deal with many more mail-in ballots, etc.) that local election officials did not have the resources to pay for. So, they applied for private grants to cover the costs. This is something that police departments, fire departments and schools do all the time — applying for available resources to cover costs that have not been covered in their public budgets. This amendment would make it impossible to get outside help to cover extraordinary expenses. It does this without requiring that the state actually allocate adequate funds to run elections as well as possible.The amendment is also vague about what would be prohibited, for example when churches or other non-governmental buildings are used as polling places.

2. The second proposed amendment on the April ballot would prohibit “any individual other than an election official designated by law from performing any task in the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum.”

This amendment is even more vague than the first. Election officials often recruit volunteers to help with tasks like sending out mailings, or setting up polling places. It might even make it illegal to bring in experts to help with technical problems on election day.

While both of these amendments would present a danger of making Wisconsin’s elections less efficient, leading to longer lines and more confusion. They would risk criminalizing perfectly innocent behavior, like lending an extension cord to a polling place, or running out to bring sandwiches to poll workers. Perhaps more importantly, they are not solving any problem. In fact, all the evidence shows that Wisconsin’s elections have been free, fair and well-run.

The rationale for these amendments comes from the completely discredited report by former Justice Gableman, which tried to find reasons to question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. After all was said and done, the only proof of lawbreaking was the proof that Mr. Gableman broke the law in the conduct of his investigation. There is no good reason for either of these amendments.

In Solidarity,

David Liners

Executive Director, WISDOM Action Network

Vote NO

LTE written by Jeff Peterson–

I endorse this message!

To the editor:

Have you ever found yourself in the voting booth wishing you’d done just a little more research before you got there? For me it happens most often with referendum questions; they always seem worded so the right choice seems obvious – even when it isn’t. Two such questions will be on the April 2ballot, each proposing to amend the State Constitution, and this year I have done my homework. I’ll be voting “no” on both.

Question 1 would prohibit local units of government from accepting donations from private parties to assist in the conduct of elections. Supporters of the proposed amendment believe that grants provided by non-profit organizations in 2020 – used to provide pandemic-related services like drive-thru voting options, voter education, and personal protective gear for poll workers – were actually veiled attempts to influence the election outcome. They think all the money went to big cities, when in fact it was distributed pretty evenly around the state – including to Luck, Amery, Osceola, Turtle Lake, Rice Lake, and Barron. One unintended consequence if this amendment is adopted is that municipalities may no longer be allowed to locate polling places on private property. No more voting at Bone Lake Lutheran, New Life Christian Community, Crosswalk Community, or Timberland Lutheran churches.

Question 1 addresses an issue that may or may not be a problem. There’s no evidence that private donations or grants have caused any harm in the past; by all indications they have actually helped educate voters and ease the financial burden on municipalities. If donations and grants need more regulation, which they may, new laws should be hammered out through the normal legislative process, not enshrined in the Constitution.

Question 2 tries to fix something that isn’t broken. It says that only “election officials designated by law” can perform tasks associated with running elections, using language that’s not only ambiguous, but that also duplicates language already in section 7.30(2)(a) of the State Statutes. This question, too, would have unintended consequences due to its vagueness. Exactly what tasks are covered? Would this amendment apply to the IT people who service the voting machines? How about office staff that assist with paperwork but may not be “election officials”?

Let’s not put anything in our State Constitution that doesn’t really belong there. On April 2, please vote “no” on these two referendum questions.

Jeff Peterson

Vote NO on April 2nd

I wanted to make you aware of two statewide constitutional amendments that will appear on your ballot for this April’s election.

On the April 2nd Spring Election ballot in Wisconsin, in addition to contests for local offices, judgeships, school board members and other positions, the Wisconsin Legislature had directed that there were also be two constitutional amendments passed by the Republican majority in the Legislature over the last several years to be put before voters for approval or rejection.

These questions received comparatively little public attention, but they are extremely important in how they may affect elections and democracy in Wisconsin and in your ability to participate in those elections fairly and freely.

In order to help you better understand these questions and their implications we defer to election law legal and policy expert, attorney Doug Poland of the Madison law firm of Stafford Rosenbaum, and one of the founders of the public interest consortium Law Forward, which defends and prosecutes many voter rights cases. Law Forward filed the legal challenge on behalf of 19 named Wisconsin plaintiffs to the 2021-22 Wisconsin gerrymander of state legislative districts last August which ultimately resulted in 2024 Act 94 – the establishment of new, constitutional and far more fair state legislative district maps for the upcoming 2024 August primary and November general elections.

Here is how Mr. Poland ably explains the two constitutional amendment questions:

Question 1

The first question, which will appear as Question 1, reads as follows:

Question 1: “Use of private funds in election administration. Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?”

The background for this proposed amendment is that in 2020, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, donated a total of $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), an existing nonprofit based in Chicago that describes itself as “a team of civic technologists, trainers, researchers, election administration and data experts working to foster a more informed and engaged democracy, and helping to modernize U.S. elections.” Approximately $10 million of those funds were used by over 100 municipalities in 38 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties that applied for and received funding to cover the increased costs of administering elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The funds that were donated were given to support the following types of expenses:

Poll worker recruitment, hazard pay, and training
Polling place rental
Temporary staffing support
Drive-through voting
Equipment to process ballots and applications
Personal protective equipment (PPE) for poll workers
Nonpartisan voter education from cities and counties

A majority “yes” vote for Question 1 would create a constitutional amendment banning the use of funds donated from private sources for future elections. Generally speaking, conservative groups and those that promote “election integrity”—meaning the most restrictive reading of voting laws—favor a “yes” vote on Question 1. On the opposite side of the spectrum, groups that seek to maximize the opportunity and participation of all those who are eligible to vote in our elections favor a “no” vote on Question 1.

An excellent summary of Question 1 and the positions of various groups both supporting and opposing this constitutional amendment may be found here.

Question 2

The second question, which will appear on the April 2 ballot as Question 2, reads as follows:

Question 2: “Election officials. Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?”

Wisconsin’s statutes already provide extensive and rigorous requirements for “election officials,” a category that is more typically referred to as “poll workers” and includes chief election inspectors, election inspectors, greeters, tabulators, election registration officials, and special voting deputies. For example, among other requirements, election officials must be approved by the municipality from a list of nominees submitted by the two major political parties; must be able to read and write English; must be qualified voters in the county in which the polling place where they will serve is located; cannot be candidates on the ballot; and cannot be immediately related to any candidate on the ballot.

A majority “yes” vote for Question 2 would restrict the performance of tasks “in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums” only to election officials. Yet because Wisconsin Statutes currently provide that “only election officials appointed under” the two statutory provisions governing the appointment of election officials “may conduct an election,” it is unclear how the addition of this provision to the Wisconsin Constitution would enhance Wisconsin’s election laws. The Legislature has identified no specific need for this constitutional amendment, nor has it pointed to any shortcoming of the present statutory restrictions on who may serve as an election official. Consequently, it appears that the inclusion of this question on the ballot is an attempt to enshrine in the Constitution provisions that exist now only in statutes, which would make them much more difficult to change should political control of the legislature and the legislative process shift from its current state.

As with Question 1, conservative and “election integrity” groups favor a “yes” vote on Question 2, whereas groups that seek to expand access to and participation in voting (such as Common Cause Wisconsin) favor a “no” vote on Question 2. There is a concern among some pro-democracy groups that amending the Constitution to include the provision reflected in Question 2 might lead to efforts to stifle current practices that enhance voter participation. Further information regarding this constitutional amendment may be found here.

__________________________

With this excellent information, we hope you will better understand the constitutional amendment questions on the April 2nd ballot and will be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not Wisconsinites should amend the state constitution and add these provisions. We believe we should not do so.

On Wisconsin. Forward!

Jay Heck, Executive Director, on behalf of everyone at Common Cause Wisconsin

608/512-9363 (cell)

Common Cause in Wisconsin

152 Johnson St, Suite 212

Madison, WI 53703

Favor Final Five

Picking the person, not the party, would make the Primary much more user-friendly.
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/01/10/assembly-committee-considers-final-five-runoff-system-for-wisconsins-congressional-elections/?emci=ecbe9f26-20b0-ee11-bea1-0022482237da&emdi=b2fc4daf-87b0-ee11-bea1-0022482237da&ceid=534498

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

12/10/23 Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American

Link to her article

We humans don’t move very fast in the right direction but we have and can slowly one step at a time.

We do and have moved fast to undermine human rights all too often.

The statements in this article are so important to remind ourselves to continue the slow improvement (survival) process.

Did the “Swamp” Win? Or Was that Democracy in Action?

View From A Distance

DOUGLAS KANE

NOV 19, 2023

When you are certain of the rightness of your cause it is difficult to accept the fact that you just don’t have the votes. An evil force is at work defeating what is good and right.

We see that mind set in the minority of congressional Republicans willing to wreck havoc if they can’t get their way. Unable to find support within their own party, they throw a temper tantrum when the majority of Republicans looks elsewhere (in this case to Democrats) for the votes necessary to keep the government functioning.

They can’t accept the idea they may be wrong, or that others see problems from a different perspective and don’t agree with them. An imagined malevolence is afoot.

“The swamp won,” is the way Rep. Chip Roy of Texas characterized it.

Speaker Mike Johnson was more realistic. “When you have a three-vote majority — as we do right now — we don’t have the votes.”

For the chair of the Freedom Caucus that fact is unimportant. “We’re sending a shot across the bow … We want to see good, righteous policy … we’re not going to be part of the failure theater anymore.”

The “failure” he sees is not their failure to get the votes, but the failure of Congress to do what is “right”. The distinction is important. The first requires self-reflection. Can I be more effective? Am I wrong? Is there some merit in the opposition? Can agreement be reached? An attitude that is essential for democracies – where decisions are made by majority vote — to function.

The second places all the blame for “failure” on the institution. There is no self-reflection. What we want can’t be negotiated, because what we want is both “good” and “righteous” (reflecting God’s laws). The swamp must be drained.

“Good” policy can be negotiated. A majority can reach agreement on what is good.

If “righteous” policy is the goal, there is no negotiating. There can be no accommodation.

History tells us that those who insist on everything end up with nothing.

“What do you agree to?” is the central question of legislative politics. Yes is the vote that moves things along. The agreements supported by a majority determine what policies will be followed and what actions will be taken. Without enough yes votes to make a majority, there is no action. There can be no government.

In politics, like economics, you bring something to the marketplace that someone else wants in order to get something that you want. To have a say, you bring your yes vote to the political market. If you are not willing to use that vote, you might as well stay home. If you demand too much you will be left out. How much you get depends on how much your vote is needed and how much your interests overlap the interests of other members of the potential majority.

The final coalition, those who have a say in what goes down, is a coalition of those willing to use their yes votes and move forward, with each achieving something of what they want and avoiding what they absolutely don’t want.

Political parties are coalitions. Factions that come together, because together they are a majority and have the power to govern. When they fracture, they are no longer a majority and don’t have the power to govern. The Republican Party has fractured. Members have not been able to agree on any major policy, program, or even funding the government.

When it has been absolutely necessary to take some action to keep government from shutting down or defaulting on its debts, Republican leaders went to the Democrats to provide the votes. There is always a way to get to a majority. In this case it was by dropping the demands of those Republican members who insisted on getting everything they wanted. The essential stuff got done.

Those holdouts, forgetting that only those willing to provide the necessary yes votes have any influence over the result, got nothing. Angry at being left out the first time, something they brought on themselves, they deposed their leader for depending on Democrat votes.

Angry about being left out the second time, again their own fault, they retaliated by blocking consideration of legislation they themselves crafted and wanted.

After being one of the consistent no votes and blocking what a majority of Republicans wanted, Roy castigated his fellows for not getting anything done. “One thing! I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing — one! — that I can go campaign on and say we did. One!” He seemed not to understand he had always voted no.

In a democracy nobody gets everything they want. There is never a majority that agrees with you 100 percent. You have to make choices. When to hold and when to fold. Mutual accommodation is an inherent part of the process. It is a human process, based on human judgement, that allows us to make human decisions about how best to live together with our neighbors in community. A majority of yes votes decides.

There are alternatives. There are many who believe what is good, what should be done, and how community should be organized, is given to us by God, is part of natural law, or embedded in an ideology or historical imperative. They are equally convinced that their understanding of God’s will, natural law, or what should be, is the one True understanding.

For them, the majority has no authority to determine what is good. Philosophies that place authority somewhere outside human experience tend toward authoritarian rather than democratic government. God’s law, the moral law, historical necessity has to be followed and enforced. Our role is to conform.

We see the end result in those countries that have communist, fascist, or religious governments. Human expression, human diversity, human freedom is restricted. We see the beginnings in those of our own states where expression is limited, books are banned, and the freedom of individuals to be who they are and follow their personal dreams is curtailed

Democracy, the antidote to authoritarian rule, runs on dialogue, persuasion and accommodation. To participate fully requires an attitude of civility, respect, humility. A recognition we are all human and lacking in knowledge, wisdom and foresight. But if we draw on our collective strength, we have the possibility of muddling through and sometimes doing great things.

The Case for Electoral Reform…a Veterans Perspective

https://leaderethics.us/

October 26, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

OCT 27, 2023

https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/october-26-2023?r=2hmm76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Support what Biden has been doing and needs to continue doing.

Excerpt:

“President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and the administration’s other economic advisors have resurrected the idea that the government can promote economic growth by regulating businesses, protecting workers, and investing in ordinary Americans. That theory reaches back to the liberal consensus of the years from 1933 to 1981, when members of both parties believed that the intricacies of the modern economy required the federal government to keep the playing field level so that a few people could not monopolize resources and power, cutting others out. In those years, Americans used the government to regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. The system created what economists call the “great compression.” Wealth and income distribution became much more even, and economic inequality fell dramatically. The economy boomed.”