So, who're votin' for?

This is when most bloggers put out their endorsements, something from which I abstain for the most part. Still, some races are worth last-minute commentary.

Out of personal friendship I wish Mike Mathias well tomorrow in his race for Milwaukee School Board. While Mike and I rarely agree politically, Mike is a very thoughtful person who will represent the district in an honest and ethical manner. Mike is a good person committed to making the public schools work. If he wins, I predict his time in office will surprise friend and foe alike.

In Waukesha, I have no idea who is going to win their seats on the school board. I can also tell you that none of them deserve to win. Not one of the candidates asked for my vote, and I vote in every election. Not one e-mail, not one person knocking at my door, not one flier, not one mail piece, not one phone call. Tomorrow we'll have to listen to the usual whining about low turnout. If nobody asked for your vote, why should you be blamed for sitting at home?

In New Berlin, I'll make the prediction that the conservative slate will again win election to the school board. The only controversy which could have been affected by the school board was the decision to move the graduation ceremony from Elmbrook. (My own thoughts are here.) Given that the opposition would have made the same decision, and given the recent history of costly lawsuits in New Berlin, I suspect it won't be an issue.

I'm predicting Ted Wysocki will return as New Berlin's mayor. Just a hunch, based upon the turbulent political history of that city.

Jefferson Davis will not rise again, and Randy Newman will win re-election in Menomonee Falls despite the opposition of "short people."

I think Daniel Gabler will beat J.D. Watts for judge in Milwaukee. I think his ad campaign was simple, direct, and had a theme that appealed to taxpayers.

Ellen Brostrom should defeat Christopher Lipscomb, if only because of her connections. This incident, while amusing, shouldn't affect the outcome, but it certainly doesn't help Lipscomb, either. By the way, I find anonymous tips much more convincing when they're accompanied by large cash payments.

The West Bend Schools referendum will get clubbed like a baby seal. If the voters weren't inclined to vote for it when the times were good, they ain't gonna vote for it now.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson will win re-election. As somebody explained to me last year after the Gableman win, it took a "perfect storm" to defeat an incumbent supreme court justice, even one as weak as Louis Butler. Despite having (I think) a better candidate who ran a better campaign, the money was not there, the interest wasn't there, and (unfortunately) Abrahamson is an institution. Or she belongs in one. Either way, she wins tomorrow. Koschnick folks can take heart that I predicted the conservative candidate was going to lose in each of the last two supreme court races.

Finally, I have no idea who is going to win the state DPI race. Rose Fernandez was always a long-shot, but she's run a strong, principled race her campaign can be proud of. Her opponent, Tony Evers, generates all the enthusiasm of watching a snail race, except when he's breaking state law. If he loses tomorrow, watch how quickly his allies start complaining about how bad he was as a candidate.

Revisiting Oswald, Scot Ross, and Judge Koschnick

In Friday's Waukesha Freeman, Scot Ross of the organization with the Fascist-sounding name, One Wisconsin Now, attempts to take issue with my January 22nd Waukesha Freeman column, “Supremely different.” In that column I argue,

The concern should be less about Koschnick’s defense of a criminal {Ted Oswald} as a defense attorney than whether Koschnick would be a liberal jurist who would invent law as Abrahamson did in the Knapp case. It is clear that he would not, and perhaps that is why the prosecutor in the Oswald case, former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher, has endorsed Koschnick.

Ross, trudges out the old charge, hypocrisy, and summons forth a terribly incomplete and out of context quote from a blog post I wrote during the Gableman campaign.

On the subject of public defenders running for judge, the full quote:

I think it's fair to remind the voters that Butler was a public defender. Here's an ugly little secret. People don't like defense lawyers unless they need one. Then they're thanking whatever deity is at hand. Now, I like defense lawyers. I like all lawyers unless they're sitting on committees trying to control an election or, even worse, sitting on an election board. But I'm the exception. Most people root for the prosecution. Why do you think Law and Order is so popular? Do you think it would still be so popular if the public defenders ran circles around Arthur Branch?

If being a public defender was popular with the public, there would be more of them on the public payroll and they would be paid more.

I even think it's fair to run an ad that reminds the voters what kind of people the public defender defended as part of his career path. Heck, if I were Darrin Schmitz (Gableman's campaign manager), I'd pull out the whole portfolio and ask at what point did Butler no longer want to be a public defender. After this murderer? After this rapist?

If you don't like it, don't choose becoming a public defender as a career path.

Ironically, the quote comes from a post criticizing Butler’s opponent. Clearly I don’t have a philosophical objection to public defenders becoming a judge, or even a Supreme Court Justice. The comment was an understanding and explanation of the campaign tactic.

It also does not contradict what I wrote in the column, where I discuss the Oswald case at length.

When Koschnick was still a public defender, he was assigned Waukesha’s most notorious murderer, Ted Oswald. Oswald, along with his father, was convicted of killing Waukesha police Capt. James Lutz as he fled a bank robbery in 1994.

Writing in The Freeman, Belling accused Koschnick of trying to help Oswald "get away with murdering a cop" by claiming Oswald was controlled by his father. Left-wing blogs and One Wisconsin Now agree the case should hurt Koschnick, arguing it’s hypocritical for the judge to run a "tough on crime" campaign.

It’s a little more complicated than either would make the issue.

Koschnick was assigned the case, and his defense was designed to get his client convicted of a lesser charge, second-degree murder. The penalty would have been 60 years instead of life in prison. A far cry from arguing Oswald should "get away with murdering a cop."

Sorry to disappoint Ross, but since I did not “go apoplectic” over Butler, I can hardly be expected to “go apoplectic” over Koschnick, especially when it was clear from my column that Koschnick was assigned the case and the prosecutor in the case has endorsed him.

Why the unwarranted hypocrisy charge? Because it’s a way of saying, “Ignore this person. He’s a hypocrite.” Hypocrisy is the ultimate crime enhancer, and the punishment is ostracizing. Sleeping with a teenage girl is criminal. The rock star that sings about sleeping with hundreds of women continues to sell more song downloads. The televangelist is driven from the public stage in shame. Ross is hoping to silence conservative critics of his favored candidate, Justice Abrahamson.

It’s the only tack Ross has. Ross cannot defend Abrahamson from the charge of judicial activism. In discussing the Knapp case, Ross would rather focus on the “bloody shoes” than on how it took two tries to resolve the “bloody shirt” evidence. How Abrahamson was overturned by the US Supreme Court, only to invent another way of suppressing the evidence, one not mentioned in her earlier ruling. How Abrahamson was just throwing reasons up to justify her previously staked-out position, the very definition of judicial activism. If Ross tried to explain it, the public would turn against his candidate.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and in this case Ross finds himself in bed with Mark Belling. (I hope Belling doesn’t catch an unexplainable rash.) Belling’s position on the Oswald case and Koschnick’s past as a public defender is understandable, even if I don’t agree. But surely Ross and his allies are not suddenly critical of the idea that a public defender could ever graduate to the bench, or perhaps become a Supreme Court Justice? Then why bring the Oswald case up repeatedly? To what end is Ross pursuing, except to force the connection in the minds of the voters?

But then, that would be hypocritical of Ross, no?

When their fall-back position is false cries of racism

Stu Levitan and Brian Fraley mix it up on WisOpinion the Show this week, and I have an analysis of the exchange over at FoxPolitics.net.

But Levitan can’t help himself. When Fraley criticizes former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, Levitan comments (at 12:20), “It’s interesting that you would cite Louis Butler right after I talked about racism.” When Fraley calls him on it and asks if he’s not allowed to criticize African American politicians because he is Caucasian, Levitan responds that of course Fraley can talk about African American politicians (thanks for the permission), “But it’s interesting.”

I think its interesting that the political left is already intellectually exhausted by what has been a rather shallow political campaign season so far. You'd think they would have more to say than false cries of "racism."

Judgement

From the classic movie Judgement at Nuremburg:

Mrs. Bertholt: "You elect judges in the United States?"

Judge Haywood: "Yes, in some states."

Mrs. Bertholt: "I didn't know that."

Judge Haywood: "Well, it's either one of the virtue or one of the defects to our judiciary system. I thought it was one of the virtues until last year when I was defeated."

Sounds strangely familiar.

McBride clubs Pridemore one more time

Jessica McBride has the last word on State Rep. Don Pridemore's understanding of the First Amendment.

In response to the robocalls, Pridemore whipped out a press release that, in disclosure, mentioned my husband. Flailing at an imaginary electoral strawman, Pridemore raised speculation that my husband is going to run against him and speculated that it couldn’t be a coincidence that Wisconsin Right to Life was putting out robocalls. Huh? My first thought upon seeing it was: Paul’s running? (Just kidding).

The speculation derived from a blogger who admits she was completely making it up. The best line came from Freeman columnist James Wigderson, who opined that he’d like to see my husband in the state Assembly because “after the first meeting he’d probably demand mandatory Breathalyzer checks for his colleagues.“

Good grief, now Pridemore’s really going to be engaged in conspiracy theories. “His wife wrote a column about me!” the next press release will say. It’s called freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, my husband, who has not considered running for state Assembly (but, thanks, Representative Pridemore for the idea), was working on some legal case blissfully unaware of it all.

Pridemore also took off after Wisconsin Right to Life, stating the group should be “ashamed” of itself. Pridemore insisted that he’s 100 percent pro life. That’s not the point. The group’s upset that there’s evidence he’s not 100 percent for free speech. Under fire, he tried to recast his actions as an attempt to assure voters “retain their rights” if Democrats try to appoint judges.

The way to assure voters retain their rights is to vote against Democratic attempts to appoint judges.

He continued: “The Democrats clearly cannot face the simple fact that their bought-and-paid-for WEAC candidate Louis Butler was defeated in this past election.”

That’s true. So why was Pridemore acting upset too?

Pridemore also stated, “I have told Wisconsin Right to Life that I have no intention of going forward with a bill that would require third party advocacy groups to list their donors, yet in today’s press release they insinuate exact (sic) that.”

Actually, it was an earlier press release from Don Pridemore that insinuated exactly that, one it took him a long time to publicly correct.

It announced: “State Representative Don Pridemore has called for interest group and third-party donor records to be made available to the public. ‘I’ve been considering this legislation for quite some time now, but in the wake of the judicial elections on April 1, it has become even more imperative.’”

Why was it so imperative if the bought-and-paid for WEAC candidate lost?

On Friday, Pridemore whipped out yet another press release, insisting that any reference to third-party donors has been removed from draft legislation, which he called “flexible.”

To me the funniest part of the story is that Paul Bucher was completely unaware that all of this was going on.

By the way, what does anyone think the over-under on the Breathalyzer failure rate is?

Paul Soglin embracing another Wisconsin tradition

McCarthyism.

This Fraley, borrowing from the worst of the Communists, under the guise of freedom, allows the accused of making choices, choices from his limited world view.

Butler's loss to Gableman has certainly caused some strange results on the Left.

Soglin engages in voter suppression

Former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, paid agent of the forces of darkness to try to defeat WMC, is engaging in voter suppression.
As Edward B. Foley, Director of Election Law, Moritz College of Law noted:

Voters can be prevented from potentially voting for the other candidate (1) by direct threats of intimidation, (2) by suppressing turnout through disinformation and scare tactics, and finally, (3) by efforts to keep the other candidate's message from being communicated. (emphasis added)...

While voter suppression in its most drastic form involves physical threat and intimidation, it can be more subtle as were the messages laced through the WMC and other issue ads which was design to portray Justice Louis Butler as less than the honorable person that he is.

By constantly harping on the supposed "evil" of WMC, any conservative organization or any conservative voice in Wisconsin, Paul Soglin is attempting to suppress the conservative vote through subtle intimidation and less-subtle character assassination. It is perfidy of the worst kind, and patriotic Wisconsinites should condemn it outright.

The Left's disconnect (Plaisted Unbound)

I learned from him the bearing of a true professional man, the respect for opposing views, the value of informed argument and fair play.

Mike Plaisted, April 2nd

The classless, gloating radio and blog wing-nuts are having great fun this week grinding the salt of Louis Butler’s defeat into the open wounds of Wisconsin’s lost independent judiciary. When they aren’t childishly calling us whining losers, they are feigning outrage that anyone who tried to protect the state from WMC’s stack-the-court campaign would imply that the result of the Supreme Court election was anything but a reasoned choice of one "judicial philosophy" over another.

But they know what they did and what they do. The popping of champagne corks in country clubs, gated-community mansions and right-wing radio studios could be heard throughout the state – or at least in the North Shore and western suburbs – and throughout the nation, where the attack on the independent judiciary is driven (and funded) by the same devious greed-heads who brought you Junior Bush and the war in Iraq.

Mike Plaisted, April 3rd

You can almost picturing him reading his blog aloud at a podium, pounding it with his fists as foam is coming out of his mouth.

New Supreme Court ruling screws everything up

Dammit. Now everybody is gonna have to re-check their math. Jessica, IT, Rick, CFAF, get your calculators out. Now, the guy's case is still pending. Therefore each of you will have to tell me if his case counts or not, if the case is a criminal case, if Butler already included it in his count, if you already included it in your counts, and whether or not this actually makes Butler harder or softer on crime.

Some lessons of the Butler - Gableman race

Why not? We're going to discuss this probably until next year's state Supreme Court race. In this week's column for the Waukesha Freeman, I take a look at some of the lessons learned from the Gableman victory. I'll give you the punchline:

If there are any lessons from the race for policy makers and campaign reformers, they should recognize that there is very little that could have been done about the tone of the campaign. Each of the current justices on the Supreme Court endorsed public financing of judicial campaigns, but giving the campaigns public money would not have changed how the campaigns were run. And if the justices will forgive me, it’s unsurprising that politicians would rather have someone else give them money than raise it themselves.

The Wisconsin State Journal has suggested doing away with Supreme Court elections and only having the governor appoint the justices. But there is wisdom in having a check on such an important branch of government. A sitting justice only has to face the voters every 10 years. As Jeff Mayers of WisPolitics.com pointed out on election night, a rough campaign is a small price to pay for picking someone for a 10-year term.

It’s worth noting, too, that Butler had faced the voters once before, and lost convincingly. He ended up on the Supreme Court because of an appointment by Gov. Jim Doyle to fill the remainder of Justice Diane Sykes’ term when she was appointed to the federal bench. Should the voters have been denied a chance to correct the error of the governor’s appointment?

The race card

The Capital Times plays the race card in explaining why the first African American State Supreme Court Justice was only able to get 49% of the vote. Just blame whitey and damn the philosophy.

So why did Butler lose? Those attack ads by the Gableman campaign distorted the incumbent's record and flashed images of an African-American justice next to those of an African-American child molester.

There was no subtlety to the Gableman campaign. It was explicitly racial in its messaging. The point was to stir fear and resentment. And, with an assist from the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce corporate lobby, it worked.

I had to laugh today when listening to Charlie Sykes on WTMJ-AM read e-mails from listeners that did not know Justice Butler is an African American. I'm laughing because I actually know someone who quite sincerely told me the same thing. As I pointed out at the time, the color scheme used in the Gableman ad gave Butler a skin color "closer to Reince Priebus than Clarence Thomas".

But aside from that. You mean to tell me that the state that has two Jewish US Senators, a governor with African American children, and just recently gave Senator Barack Obama a huge win over the WASPy Hillary Clinton is really a state that has a voting majority of bigots? Seriously, do the Cap Times and others really have such a low opinion of Wisconsin's residents? Do they really hate us that much?

Perhaps that explains why they are so willing to figure out ways to limit participation in democracy. The Cap Times calls for more campaign finance reform (as if that's a cure for racism) while the other liberal newspaper in Madison calls for doing away with elections for judges altogether.

Again, I'd like to remind those who are frustrated with democracy that the voters once before rejected Justice Butler, and that it took an appointment by Governor Doyle (the method prescribed by the Wisconsin State Journal) to foist Butler onto an unhappy electorate. Electing Supreme Court Justices is a check on potentially the most powerful branch of the government. Jeff Mayers of WisPolitics.com was absolutely right when he said even an election as rough as this one was a small price to pay for electing someone to a ten-year term.

I'd also like to point out that the Gableman ad was something of an "own goal." As Daniel Suhr reminds us, it was roundly condemned by the right and was used to club the Gableman campaign at every opportunity. Had the Gableman campaign not run the ad, the margin of victory may have been wider. Given the results of the Van Hollen election and the Ziegler election, I suspect Suhr is right, and even argued this point before the election results were known.

So spare me the complaint that Butler lost because he was a minority. If anything, it should have been an asset in driving up inner-city vote turnout.

You tell me it's the institution

Dan Deibert, unable to fulfill his life-long ambition of being a shock-jock for Air America in San Francisco*, has this observation about Justice Butler's concession speech:

I wonder what part he wants to reform? The part where the very people that deal with him in court are pouring tons of money into his campaign (which of course would never influence his decisions) or the part where groups that disagree with his very liberal stance can run ads and tell people about his very liberal stance.

And what? “If we rob them of that faith, we rob them of justice.” Huh? What on Earth does that mean? This guy is just shell-shocked. It’s been what, 40 years since an incumbent justice lost a race? Trust me Justice Butler, nobody is losing faith in justice because you lost. In fact, it would seem that more people think the opposite.

*Just what would someone have to do to shock San Francisco? I mean, other than state President Bush was right to invade Iraq?

An uncivil gesture

I've read through Justice Butler's belated concession speech and I must say I'm disappointed with the conduct of the justice. He gave no explanation why he waited as long as he did to concede, and his concession offered no congratualtions to the winner.

Instead we were treated to a tired whine about how the election was unfair and how necessary it is to curb democracy so people will not lose "faith" in the judiciary.

If Justice Butler was really concerned about the public not losing faith in the judiciary, perhaps he should have done a better job interpreting the law instead of making the law. The people will not "lose faith" in their governing institutions so long as there is a check on them through democratic means. More speech is required and not less as so many so-called "reformers" urge. More debate. And finally, democracy requires an acceptance by the loser that sometimes the voters will choose someone other than himself to serve.

In choosing this manner to end his campaign, Butler has vindicated the judgement of the voters.

Don't pick on Ed Garvey

Sure he sounds absolutely unhinged this morning. Sure he's lashing out at the voters. But let's face it. If Ed Garvey had any faith in the will of voters, he'd have to have an awfully low opinion of himself.

(ht: Brian Fraley)

The Associated Press is calling it for Gableman

For my liberal friends that took my predictions as gospel, I warned you.

Channel 12 is still at the Butler headquarters, but the candidate has gone home without giving a concession speech. Yes, it was a close race, but 51-48% (at this point) is not a margin that can be overcome by any recount. Holding out certainly didn't help Kathleen Falk's reputation, and her margin of loss was closer.

If Butler has any consolation, he's going to be making a lot more money as an ex-Supreme Court Justice.

Dane County is in

Looks like I'm happily wrong. Gableman has the lead heading into the final numbers, and WTMJ just announced Dane County is all in.

A last thought before the election results come in

Who woulda thunk the Ziegler-Clifford Supreme Court race was the substantive court election?

Election predictions

Take them for what their worth. My track record on predictions is not pretty, although I do well on races I take an intense interest in. I don't make formal endorsements at the Wigderson Library & Pub, although my preferences are often obvious.

Gableman vs. Butler

I don't think Gableman established the "law and order" narrative he needed to oust Butler. Butler as the incumbent was always going to be difficult to be beat, and his side outspent the challenger's side. I also think the Gableman campaign really did hurt itself with the ad that misstated Justice Butler's role in the defense and eventual release of a sex offender who re-offended after serving his term.

Ironically, if Gableman had taken the high road and kept the race to a discussion of judicial philosophy and particular rulings by the court, I think Gableman would have won. I also think the Butler campaign could've scored real points on Gableman's refusal to prosecute left-wing domestic terrorists who attacked the Project ELF facility, just after the 9-11 attacks.

Butler wins 55%-45%.

Constitutional Amendment on the Frankenstein Veto

Despite the Capital Times contortions to protect the governor's powers, there was no organized effort to stop this amendment. The only fear for amendment supporters is that this was too far "under the radar" and too many Wisconsinites will vote no on principle. Even Doyle isn't out there trying to protect his veto power. I suspect passage by "beating Ed Garvey"-like margins here.

Gleisner vs. Neubauer

If you had asked me a week ago, I would've said Gleisner in a landslide. Then Gleisner's mental health became an issue and that's never good for a candidate. Sykes and Belling both objected to Gleisner calling himself a conservative. On the flip side, Gleisner has has strong support from Waukesha conservatives and made a case that he is pro-life. Now it's a squeaker either way. I'm predicting Neubauer 52%-48%, although I'm not sure what the Gleisner camp could have done differently.

Locally:

Waukesha County Board:
I'm betting Hutton over Marchese in district 3, Kolb over Mitchell in district 24. In District 22 Peter Gundrum (inc.) over Paul Lincoln Scheuble, and Patton loses to Wimmer in District 19.

Other races:
Schumann wins re-election in Delafield as mayor. Ken Harenda keeps his seat on the New Berlin Common Council. Bill Moore loses to JJ Blonien. In Waukesha District 3, Christopher Hernandez out-worked Lori Howe. Menomonee Falls Village Board Seat 1, Jefferson Davis will lose to Sharon Ellis and misfile his paperwork. New Berlin School Board the winners will be Art Marquardt (inc.) and David Maxey. Hartford's school referendum will lose while Elmbrook's will pass this time.

Help me understand

Wal-Mart and other corporations exploiting "loopholes" and technicalities to avoid paying excessive taxes are bad.

Judges exploiting "loopholes" and technicalities to let killers and rapists on the street are good.

Will Loophole Louie need a Loophole for himself?

(I realize I'm completely ahead of myself here, but I'm inspired by the wonderfully fascist-sounding One Wisconsin Now's pursuit of Justice Ziegler. I'm sure they're getting ready to attack the Butler case with similar vigor.)

If the complaint against Justice Butler moves to a trial, will they be able to find a judge in Wisconsin for the case?

Will they need to move the trial to Illinois?

Is Mike Maistleman, election lawyer for the Democratic stars, licensed in Illinois?

If he's busy, will Justice Butler hire Gary George as his attorney?