Wisconsin State Journal, June 17
Get deal done to let Dreamers stay here
Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says the House of Representatives could vote as soon as this week on legislation protecting the “Dreamers,” who are immigrants brought to America illegally by their parents when they were children.
Good.
This has dragged on for far too long. The president and the vast majority of Congress and the public say they support some leniency for people who came to the United States through no fault of their own - and who know no other country than America as their home.
Politicians from both political parties have been pressuring Ryan, R-Janesville, for action. They want to let the Dreamers, who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, to continue to live and work here without fear of deportation.
More than 7,000 young people in Wisconsin have passed background checks to stay here legally under DACA. But President Trump announced last fall he was ending the program, which his predecessor had implemented through executive action. Trump insists Congress must approve DACA for it to be legal.
DACA expired in March, but it remains tied up in court. How long it will stay in effect is unclear.
The Dreamers shouldn’t have to live in legal limbo any longer. Get a deal done, Mr. Speaker.
Though the president sent mixed signals last week on what he would sign into law, it appears he’s willing to grant the Dreamers a path to citizenship. Unfortunately, he’s also demanding an expensive expansion of barriers along the southern border with Mexico, which won’t logistically work in some areas.
Worse than that, the Republican president wants to slow legal immigration, which would hurt Wisconsin. Our state needs more talented and hardworking young people to fill a troubling workforce shortage that is projected to grow only worse.
Despite some of the president’s misplaced priorities, protecting the Dreamers is important enough that Congress should be willing to approve an immigration bill that gives Trump some of what he wants.
Trump and Ryan are in charge, at least for now. So they can’t blame inaction on the opposing party or factions of the GOP. They must find a compromise that grants some reasonable protection to the Dreamers. Otherwise, their Republican Party will face more opposition in the fall elections.
Nationally, hundreds of thousands of young people, many of them Latinos, were brought here illegally as children yet consider themselves Americans. For many, this is the only country they have known. They deserve some peace of mind as they pursue the American dream.
A House bill drafted by Ryan and other leaders was floated last week that addresses the Dreamers’ dilemma. Besides providing a path to citizenship for young immigrants, it seeks to spend nearly $25 billion on border security - including money for Trump’s symbolic wall.
Some details are unclear. But efforts to protect and encourage the Dreamers should be easy to define and approve.
Ryan and Co. should approve their Dreamers bill this week so the president can sign protections into law this summer.
___
The Capital Times, June 13
Wisconsin broadcasters should still organize primary debates
The decision by the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association to drop plans for debates featuring candidates in the hotly contested primaries among Democrats running for governor and Republicans running for the U.S. Senate is deeply disappointing.
The WBA tried to do the right thing. It messed up. Then, instead of setting things right, the WBA walked away from the process.
That was the wrong response to honest criticism and the WBA should reconsider it - the group still has a chance to play a valuable role in the primary process.
The thing to remember here is that the WBA started appropriately, with an announcement that because of “the high level of interest in this year’s elections,” it would organize hour-long debates and make them available to radio and television stations statewide.
There is a high level of interest in the primaries. And it is that level of interest that led to a pushback against the WBA’s decision to allow only four of the 10 Democratic gubernatorial contenders to debate.
It is certainly true that the Democratic competition can be seen as unwieldy. But it can also be seen as a freewheeling competition that is providing Wisconsinites with a wide range of compelling options. As of now, voters are still being pulled in many directions. That was evident in the results from a recent straw poll at the state Democratic Party convention. Former state Rep. Kelda Roys was the clear first-place finisher. But she got just 23 percent of the vote, while seven other candidates were within striking distance of second place.
What this tells us is that this contest remains wide open. So the WBA’s plan to invite only four candidates to debate on July 27 - based on the transitory results from a July Marquette University Law School poll - was wrongheaded on a variety of practical fronts. As Charles Franklin, the director of the Marquette survey, noted: Polls have margins of error. With so many Democratic gubernatorial contenders dividing support in so many ways, it was entirely possible that a candidate could have ended up on the WBA debate stage even though the candidate had less actual support than a contender who was excluded.
That was a real prospect. In the Democratic convention straw poll, Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin head Mahlon Mitchell won 11.8 percent, while state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers had 11.5 percent. Would it have made sense to include Mitchell and exclude Evers? Or the next closest contender (businessman Andy Gronik)? Or the next closest contender (state Rep. Dana Wachs)?
Of course not. That’s why Franklin announced: “We think the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association should not use our poll in this way.”
We agree with Franklin. We also agree with the candidates who said there should never be a money barrier to participation in debates. The WBA had suggested that candidates would need to have raised $250,000 before the debate to be allowed to participate - an anti-democratic standard that advantaged candidates who are personally wealthy or connected with big donors.
We were disappointed with the WBA’s initial proposal, as were the candidates, elected officials and democracy groups. There was much agreement with Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Madison, who observed: “By hand-selecting just four candidates to join the debate, the WBA is unjustifiably restricting the field for voters and giving an edge to the candidates it chooses.”
Yet no one seriously suggested that the televised debate should be canceled. What people want is a better debate - or, ideally, better debates.
The WBA should rethink its decision to cancel the debates and give Wisconsin the debates Wisconsin wants.
How so?
Let’s begin with respect for the fact that sorting out a field of 10 candidates can be difficult. But there are examples of how to open up the process. Some groups that hope to make endorsements have gone to extraordinary lengths to be fair with candidates. For instance, the Wisconsin’s Choice project of the Wisconsin Working Families Party and Our Wisconsin Revolution has set up elaborate structures for members and allies of the groups to learn about the contenders and vote for favorites in online balloting. As the sifting and winnowing process goes on, the Wisconsin’s Choice initiative will encourage progressives to choose from a final group of four candidates; but the winner still must get more than 50 percent of the vote to secure an endorsement.
While we may not agree with every choice these groups make when it comes to organizing debates, we commend them for beginning with the premise that all the serious contenders should get a fair hearing.
Were the WBA to begin by putting all the gubernatorial candidates on TV for initial debates, we could imagine a sifting and winnowing process that might in a later debate feature presumed front-runners. That’s not our favorite approach, but it could get the broadcasters moving toward the more tightly focused exchanges they have said that they prefer.
Another approach might feature groups of candidates going at it - three or four around a table with one moderator, another three or four with another moderator and so on. Then the groups could shuffle in future broadcast debates, so that all the candidates would eventually face one another.
The constant in these two scenarios is an increase in the number of debates. We are always for more debates - and for the options that might extend from them. We believe that Wisconsinites would welcome a busy schedule of televised forums this summer.
But, at the very least, we’d like to see the debates that were initially proposed go forward.
Even if the WBA does not take all our counsel, we hope it will renew its initial proposal to organize primary debates this summer and that they will feature all of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates and Republican U.S. Senate candidates. The debates are needed, and meeting that need would provide a fine example of public service broadcasting.
___
Beloit Daily News, June 18
Critical reform for impartiality
Limit the stain of money on decisions by the justices.
The last time Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson was a candidate for election the opposition considered it essentially a lost cause, since her record of easy victories stretched over decades.
For that reason the big money largely stayed out of the race, which was an aberration for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections over many cycles. The official nonpartisan status of these judicial races has become a laugher. There is always a candidate identified with the Democrat Party, and always a candidate identified with the Republican Party. One would have to be thoroughly blind and willfully ignorant to miss it.
So when the election to replace Abrahamson - who has announced her retirement - rolls around early in 2019, expect an explosion of special-interest money on both sides that well may be unprecedented. Both parties will consider this election a ripe target. Liberals (read: Democrats) will be seeking to hold the seat. Conservatives (read: Republicans) will be trying to take it, thus adding to what is a 4-3 advantage for the right.
Leaders at Common Cause, the good-government advocacy group, are renewing a call for reforming Supreme Court recusal rules in the lead-up to the race to replace Abrahamson.
The argument made sense before. It makes even more sense now.
At present, when faced with a potential conflict of interest, each justice is empowered to make the decision alone about whether to step aside from hearing a case. That’s considered the 47th weakest judicial recusal rule in America, according to Common Cause. Further, Common Cause states the rule was “written verbatim by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) and the Wisconsin Realtors Association and adopted by a narrow 4 to 3 vote by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2010.”
Like other special interest organizations, these entities - particularly WMC - have pushed hard for advantageous treatment from government, including the courts. WMC, for example, spent nearly a million dollars in the race this past spring supporting the losing candidate, Michael Screnock.
The most well-known example of Wisconsin’s weak recusal rule stems from the so-called John Doe investigation matters that followed the controversial Act 10 legislation. The ensuing litigation brought important cases before the justices.
Organizations involved in the cases - again, with WMC in a prominent role - had provided millions of dollars to support the elections of certain members of the Supreme Court. Yet requests those justices should step aside and recuse themselves were ignored. Those justices heard the cases, ruled in their benefactors’ favor, and forever stained the reputation the court could be counted upon to deliver fair and impartial justice.
A good working definition of a conflict of interest is whether an average citizen, viewing the facts, is likely to doubt the objectivity of the officeholder. The justices thoroughly flunked that test.
Reforms have been proposed, notably a set of suggestions put forth by a prestigious group of judges. Essentially, the proposal attempts to set standards for when recusal is required rather than leave the decision to the discretion - or indiscretion - of sitting justices.
For us, the whole issue can be simplified to this phrase: The people need to be able to believe judges are fair referees applying the laws, not partisans hewing to an agenda. Standardized recusal reforms would go a long way toward restoring integrity.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.