Wisconsin State Journal, June 27
Good news for Main Street businesses
Of course Wisconsin should require the same sales tax on purchases made over the internet that state lawmakers already require at Main Street stores.
That’s only fair.
And the good news is the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. The high court last week ruled states can tax online sales from sellers in other states, expanding a decision from 1992.
This should allow Wisconsin to collect more than $100 million in sales taxes on digital purchases that have been dodging this basic fee for years.
We don’t blame state residents for going online to find the best price for a product. But a significant reason many online products are less expensive is because state sales tax doesn’t apply.
That needs to change. And Gov. Scott Walker and other state leaders this week seemed to agree that it will.
Good.
We’re also happy the governor and lawmakers aren’t rushing back to the state Capitol in Madison to spend tens of millions of dollars in anticipated revenue before it arrives.
The state stands to gain as much as $187 million in annual revenue by charging an online sales tax.
Republicans, predictably, want to return any extra revenue from broader sales tax collections to residents in the form of an income tax credit or lower rate.
Democrats, predictably, want to steer the money to areas of need, such as roads, public education or high-speed internet.
That’s premature. State leaders should - and apparently will - wait until next year to make a decision. By then, state officials and the public should have a better idea of how the state’s finances are shaping up. Will the state have more revenue than expected, thanks to a strong economy? Or will trade wars and other factors dampen growth, creating a budget hole that needs filling just to continue spending priorities at current levels.
Any decision should be well informed and not rushed for electoral advantage this fall.
Some conservatives have long opposed any new tax on internet sales, claiming it’s a tax increase. In reality, a fair sales tax applied to all purchases - though not essentials, such as food - allows for a free market without local stores being disadvantaged by government.
Some liberals complain that a broader sales tax will be regressive, applying the same 5 percent rate (plus a 0.5 percent fee in Dane and most counties) to the rich and the poor. But this ignores that people with more disposable income tend to shop and spend more online because they have better access to digital technology.
The most pressing concern should be the fate of local business people in brick-and-mortar stores across Wisconsin who employ local people, pay local property taxes and often serve as community boosters. They deserve a fair shake from state government when selling furniture, televisions or other products. They shouldn’t be stuck with a government fee that their competition gets to avoid.
State leaders should apply the same sales tax uniformly and then assess what to do with any revenue next year.
___
The Capital Times, June 27
Scott Walker is lying to Wisconsinites about gerrymandering
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided to send the challenge that Wisconsinites have mounted to gerrymandering back to the district court for further consideration, the fight for fair lines and real competition in our elections returned to the political arena.
The courts may yet find a way to prevent politicians from gaming the system in their favor - and against the interests of the electorate - but for now the best prospect for reform rests with candidates for governor and the Legislature.
Elect the right candidates and the change can be made - no matter what the courts do.
Elect the wrong candidates and we will be stuck with gerrymandered lines that prevent government from reflecting the will of the people.
That is the stark choice that Wisconsinites face, as Gov. Scott Walker made clear following the court’s decision.
Walker’s power extends from gerrymandering, which has given his Republican allies control of the state Assembly and state Senate. The governor is so committed to keeping the corrupted lines that he lied - about the court’s decision.
Walker said: “I think the lines are fair when we signed them, and the bottom line in this is that the United States Supreme Court, on a unanimous decision, decided the state of Wisconsin was right in its case.”
In fact, the justices have sent the case back for further consideration by the lower court that has already determined the lines are unfair. Because members of the high court had doubts about whether the specific plaintiffs in this case had standing to challenge the lines, new rounds of legal wrangling will now begin.
To be sure, the delay is frustrating for reformers. The decision, explained The New York Times, was “a setback for critics of partisan gerrymandering, who had hoped that the Supreme Court would decide the cases on their merits and rule in their favor, transforming American democracy by subjecting to close judicial scrutiny oddly shaped districts that amplify one party’s political power.”
That does not mean, as Walker seemed to suggest, that the fight against partisan gerrymandering is finished. The court invited additional litigation. Bill Whitford, the retired University of Wisconsin law professor who was the named plaintiff in the Wisconsin case, said, “We are confident we can prove the real harms to real citizens caused by lawmakers who choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives.”
Paul Smith, the vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, who argued Whitford’s case before the court in October 2017, said: “This case is very much still alive. We now have the opportunity to demonstrate the real and concrete harms that result from partisan gerrymandering in the lower court, the same court that struck down the Wisconsin mapping scheme to begin with.”
Why would Walker lie about the Supreme Court decision?
Because he needs gerrymandering to be able to continue to enact laws that are not popular with the people but that satisfy his campaign donors. As such, he wants the debate about gerrymandering to go away.
But it is not going away.
If Walker is beaten this year, Wisconsin will not have to wait for the courts to sort things out. We can end gerrymandering.
All of the serious contenders for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination have sent more honest signals than the incumbent. But some were clearer than others.
The most impressive response to the Supreme Court ruling came from former state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, who said, “As governor, I will veto any maps that give one party an unfair advantage, and will work to restore voting rights and ethics in government, so that Wisconsinites can have faith that our elected representatives serve our needs rather than their own.”
That’s the gold-standard response.
Roys outlined a strong and specific position. People know what she is for - and what she is against.
Voters should look for a similar level of clarity in the statements from legislative candidates. If candidates for the Assembly and Senate fail to express a clear commitment to fair lines and honest elections, don’t vote for them. If candidates put themselves on the side of reform - aggressively and unequivocally - they are worthy of consideration.
A commitment to end gerrymandering is not all that voters should seek from candidates. Real reformers must also advocate for campaign-finance reform, removal of the barriers to voting that Walker and his allies have erected, and a renewal of the state’s commitment to high-turnout elections that put power in the hands of the voters rather than the politicians.
But if a candidate cannot provide clarity on the issue of gerrymandering, he or she should not be in the Legislature - or the governor’s mansion.
___
The Journal Times of Racine, June 27
Due-process rights for all or for none
President Donald Trump’s hard-line stance on immigration took an unconstitutional turn on Sunday.
“We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country,” Trump wrote that day on Twitter. “When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”
Such a policy would be an elimination of due process, which is guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution; and then the Sixth Amendment, which says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”
If you find yourself thinking “but illegal immigrants aren’t U.S. citizens,” know that the Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases that if a person is within the United States, he or she has rights under the Constitution, including the right to due process; that a person deemed to be an illegal immigrant, accused of a violation of U.S. law, has rights under that same law. In its decision in Zadyvdas vs. Davis in 2001, the majority wrote that “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons (not just citizens) within the United States.”
That may anger you, that a person crossing the border illegally has automatically obtained the right to due process. But if that’s how you feel, you’re missing the point.
Were those accused of illegal immigration to be denied due process, what’s to stop the government declaring that any of us are here illegally?
What’s that? You say you’re a citizen, and you have proof?
Too bad. The government says you’re not, and is denying you the opportunity to challenge its claim in court.
Good look in indefinite detention, or wherever the government is dumping you.
The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process protects all of us, or none of us.
As we are inclined to do in this space from time to time: Imagine a president you didn’t vote for being given the power to end due process.
Yes, a nation can deny entry, as the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on the president’s travel ban. But in this nation, if you’re here, you get due process.
Those who note that Central American migrants aren’t seeking asylum in Mexico, but instead are traveling through Mexico to seek it here in the United States, have a valid point. As do those who seek proof from everyone claiming a need for political asylum, and those who seek a more streamlined process, in line with the Sixth Amendment, for resolving the legal status of undocumented immigrants. It’s not wrong to want secure borders.
But it is wrong to suggest that those of suspected of being illegal immigrants should be denied due process.
Without due process, the government has all the power and the individual, citizen or otherwise, has none.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.