Wisconsin State Journal, March 3
’Yes’ to UW and road money in state budget, ’no’ to non-fiscal policy
Gov. Tony Evers has included some strong priorities in his state budget proposal.
The Democratic governor wants to spend more on public schools, universities and technical colleges. Given past cuts to education under Republican rule, and given the relatively strong economy, investing in the knowledge and talent of younger generations as well as older workers who need retraining makes sense.
Wisconsin also should welcome greater commitment to better roads, following years of neglect and excessive borrowing. Evers has proposed an 8-cent-per-gallon increase in the state’s gas tax, which would take Wisconsin’s fuel charge to 41 cents per gallon and raise $485 million for transportation needs.
That might sound like a significant increase. But Wisconsin’s gas tax has been flat for 13 years, despite inflation and higher construction costs. At the same time, motorists are burning less gas because their vehicles are more fuel efficient.
The average Wisconsin driver, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, is using about 48 fewer gallons annually than a decade ago and paying around $15 less in fuel taxes. Evers’ gas tax would cost the typical motorist about $35 more a year. So that’s a difference of $20 a year - a modest increase for better roads in a state with some of the worst driving surfaces in the nation.
The governor’s proposal to accept more than $300 million in additional federal Medicaid money is overdue. His predecessor’s argument for not taking the money was that it might dry up. But it hasn’t.
We also appreciate Evers’ commitment to helping more families find stable housing, helping poor children get dental care, and increasing pay for public defenders and assistant district attorneys.
Unfortunately, the governor’s budget proposal is flawed in significant ways. It’s stuffed with a slew of policy that has little or nothing to do with spending money. This includes the legalization of medical marijuana - which is a fine idea, but shouldn’t be slipped into the state’s spending plan to avoid scrutiny.
The same goes for micromanaging teacher schedules, lifting restrictions on school referendums, and automatically registering motorists to vote. Regardless of the merits, such proposals should stand on their own as separate bills.
The Fiscal Bureau will identify non-fiscal policy in the state’s spending plan, which should be removed. If that includes Evers’ noble proposal for a nonpartisan redistricting process that would end gerrymandering, so be it. We absolutely support the bipartisan push to restore a fair process for reshaping legislative and congressional voting districts after the 2020 census. But stuffing it into the budget is suspect, given that Iowa’s nonpartisan model costs taxpayers virtually nothing.
The Republican-run Legislature plans to draft its own state budget, which is fine. But by this summer, both sides will have to move to the middle and compromise for the good of all citizens.
___
The Capital Times, Feb. 27
Realtors group is right to reject scandal-plagued court candidate Brian Hagedorn
Races for the Wisconsin Supreme Court should be publicly financed. It is absurd that special-interest groups are given an opportunity to buy politicians. But it is unconscionable that they are able to buy justice.
Unfortunately, because of the awful machinations of former Gov. Scott Walker, state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, options for official action to address the corruption of the judiciary are remote. Newly elected Gov. Tony Evers favors campaign finance reform. But until he has a legislature he can work with on initiatives that might finally clean up elections in Wisconsin, we will continue to be at the mercy of the corporate political action committees and business-tied interest groups that have for so long been so meddlesome in our court contests.
We have a right to expect that these groups will police themselves by recognizing that there are some lines that must never be crossed. Yes, that sounds idealistic. Wisconsinites are understandably cynical about the prospect that powerful interests would ever place the public good ahead of bottom-line calculations.
But last week the Wisconsin Realtors Association did just that. The group withdrew its endorsement of scandal-plagued state Supreme Court candidate Brian Hagedorn. The Realtors even asked for the return of an $18,000 donation that the organization had made to the Hagedorn campaign.
“As a result of recent disclosures regarding past statements and actions by Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brian Hagedorn, the Wisconsin Realtors Association has withdrawn its endorsement of his candidacy,” read a statement from WRA President and CEO Michael Theo, who explained: “The real estate related issues that served as the basis for our endorsement have been overshadowed by other, non-real estate related issues - issues with which we do not want to be associated and that directly conflict with the principles of our organization and the values of our members.”
The “other, non-real estate related issues” have to do with Hagedorn’s overt, and seemingly unrelenting, bigotry.
Hagedorn, who is opposed by Wisconsin Appeals Court Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer in the April 2 election, has been buffeted in recent weeks by a series of revelations regarding his explicit and oft-stated biases. Most of his bigotry has been directed toward the LBGTQ community.
A longtime associate of Walker who was appointed to an Appeals Court sinecure by his political patron, Hagedorn helped found a school that permits the firing of teachers and the expulsion of students based on their sexuality.
Hagedorn also has a history of posting anti-gay messages on the internet. For instance, he has suggested that efforts to promote respect for members of the LGBTQ community - through gay pride events and projects - somehow creates “a hostile work environment for Christians.” If this kind of thinking were to be embraced by the courts, anti-discrimination laws of all kinds could be upended by people who claim that their sensibilities are offended by the mere presence of individuals who they would prefer to oppress.
Hagedorn claims that he is the victim of “shameful attacks” that have targeted him as a person of faith. But that’s just doublespeak from a political careerist. He has not been attacked. He has been exposed. News articles detailing his extremism are not made up. They are not “fake news.” They provide an accurate recounting of his positions and associations.
For instance, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported that “Hagedorn was paid more $3,000 in recent years to give speeches to Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization. The alliance has supported criminalizing sodomy and unsuccessfully argued for European laws requiring transgender people to get sterilized to obtain identity documents listing the names and genders they wanted.”
There are many interpretations of Christian faith and there are many, many Christian communities that welcome lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people as members. There are many examples of Christian love and respect toward the LGBTQ community.
Hagedorn has chosen a different path, one that advocates for bias and discrimination. Nothing about Hagedorn’s public pronouncements inspires confidence in his ability to treat all people who come before the bench fairly.
Hagedorn’s critics worry that his pledge to protect “religious freedom” sounds less like a commitment to maintain the historic “wall of separation” between church and state and more like a proposal to establish the freedom to discriminate.
Perhaps Hagedorn could serve fairly and responsibly. Perhaps he can check his biases at the courthouse door. But the prospect that he could not engage in honest deliberations, that he could not control his oft-stated prejudices, is too unsettling to treat casually.
The revelations regarding Hagedorn have led to a lot of rethinking with regard to his candidacy. The Realtors are to be commended for joining in this rethinking process. The decision to withdraw their endorsement of Hagedorn should cause other groups to rethink as well.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has been the scene of too much right-wing judicial activism in recent years. Hagedorn’s extreme background and his unapologetic candidacy suggest he would take things to new extremes.
The Realtors chose to draw the line and say “no” to a candidate who has inspired concern rather than confidence. The group showed integrity and good sense in doing so. We hope, and expect, that the voters will mirror that integrity and good sense by rejecting Hagedorn on April 2.
___
The Journal Times of Racine, March 3
WIAA needs an appeals process
The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has unfortunately decided to go to the mat and appeal Racine County Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Piontek’s granting of an injunction that allowed Waterford High School wrestler Hayden Halter to continue wrestling and ultimately win the Division 1 120-pound state title.
Halter was flagged at the end of the title bout in the Southern Lakes Conference championship meet and given two unsportsmanlike conduct calls, one for questioning the referee’s awarding of a point for an escape to his opponent - an inconsequential point that wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the match that Halter won - and then a second call for flexing his arms in celebration.
Under WIAA rules, two unsportsmanlike conduct calls disqualify a wrestler for one match. In the middle of the season, that is just a piffle. Sit out one match and return the next week. But because these two penalties were assessed in the conference championship meet, it meant Halter would not be allowed to compete in the following week’s WIAA regional tournament, which would have denied him the opportunity to even attempt to advance to sectionals and then chase a second straight state title (Halter, a sophomore, was a state champ as a freshman when he attended Burlington High School).
That’s a heavy penalty. Halter and his coach protested the calls at the SLC meet, but other referees on the scene upheld the calls. In the WIAA’s book, that should have been the end of it.
Under the association’s rules, an unsportsmanlike conduct call is a judgment call by a referee; judgment calls cannot be appealed for an official review after the event is concluded.
So Halter and his parents went to Racine County Circuit Court and sought an injunction to allow him to continue to compete for a state title.
At the hearing, the referee, Michael Arendt, a former Union Grove coach and current athletic director at St. Catherine’s High School, said Halter questioned his call and cursed at him after he awarded a one-point escape to Halter’s opponent and he gave Halter an unsportsmanlike call. Halter said he did not curse but said “what was that?” when the escape point was awarded.
Moments after the match had concluded, Halter shook hands with his opponent, then briefly flexed his muscles and yelled “Yes!” in celebration. Arendt issued another unsportsmanlike call - the one which would have disqualified him from further wrestling this season - and told the court Halter was taunting, directed his reaction toward spectators in the stands from Burlington. Halter told the court his celebration was directed toward his father, seated in the stands.
After hearing the conflicting testimony and reviewing video of the match, Judge Piontek concluded: “It looks like he was looking at his dad to me …I heard no profanity and I saw no taunting.”
Piontek took issue with the WIAA lawyer’s argument that the courts shouldn’t interfere in the “internal affairs of a voluntary organization” like the WIAA, which is a nonprofit, and said the organization functions more like a governmental agency.
We’re with the judge on that count. While there are club sports, the fact is that for hundreds of student athletes across the state, competing for your high school team is, realistically, the only show in town. That means being subject to WIAA rules.
Judge Piontek issued the injunction. The WIAA has given notice that it will appeal the decision to a higher court, which could potentially lead to stripping Halter of his state wrestling crown.
It is, of course, within the rights of the WIAA to appeal the judge’s ruling. But, there is some rich irony in that: Under WIAA rules, Halter had no right to an appeal and there is no appeals process for these judgment calls. His season would have ended, and it could have damaged his chances for a college wrestling scholarship.
Instead of challenging the judge’s decision, the WIAA could have - and should have - heeded Piontek’s words when he said: “What’s most distressing to me is the WIAA won’t even look at it … even when there’s evidence in front of them.”
What the WIAA needs to do is set up a formal appeals process to review questioned or questionable decisions in a timely fashion, and not just slam the door on complaints. Particularly when one referee’s decision can have such significant consequences.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.