Looks like Wanggaard lives roughly 100ft inside the new SD21.

Lehman does not have to move to rep the new 21st. His home is inside the boundary. Sen. Wirch in Kenosha, however, does have to move to rep the new 22nd.

Then you should be upset with Republicans for drawing that line.......

Were you happy at all about being able to vote for the current 22nd's representation?

No you should be upset at the GAB who wouldn't let you vote

What's the GAB got to do with it? They didn't write Act 43.

Hmmm .. who made the vote be held in the old district not the new district boundries ... The GAB

Guess again: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/43/10

The list of names responsible for passage in the Senate can be found at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/votes/sv0239.pdf and include... Wanggaard!

Unless, that is, you advocate that the GAB should break the law?

(2) This act first applies, with respect to special or recall elections, to offices filled or contested concurrently with the 2012 general election. Hmmm seems your right they should of said new boundaries in effect now for special or recall elections

@Mr. Balde -

There was never a question regarding the legality of the situation, only the equity (fairness) of the situation. Act 43 was a flawed law in that it created the circumstances under which such an inequity could occur by staggering the effective dates for representational and electoral purposes by over 1 year and 2 months - August 24, 2011 for representational purposes, and November 6, 2012 for electoral purposes. Humans are imperfect and sometimes make imperfect laws. Here, the legislature relied upon the old draftings of the redistricting law and used it as a cookie cutter template in drafting Act 43, as never before in our history has such a situation as this arisen. Thus, the extraordinary circumstances that created this inequity weren't even contemplated as a potential possibility when Act 43 was drafted and passed into law. When the mistake was realized, Sen Lazich proposed an amendment that would have prevented this situation from happening by accelerating the effective date for election purposes to passage of the amendment, which would have been on or slightly before the current round of recalls were initiated had everyone in the chain of law creation cooperated with expediency. Sen Schultz, who was facing his own recall attempt at the time, and the Democratic caucus rejected this amendment out of their own personal and partisan political interests.

@Mr. Tolley -

Once again, you're ignoring the FACT that last year's recall elections occurred on August 16, 2011, while redistricting did not become effective for representational purposes until August 24, 2011. So all of the non-overlapping people of the old D-22 that voted in the Steitz v Wirch recall were still represented by Wirch for 8 days after the election occurred until becoming a part of the new D-21.

When a majority of the people of the City of Racine cast their ballots on June 5th, they were already being represented by Wirch as a part of the new D-22. As soon as Lehman takes his oath of office, he will have nothing to do with representing the City of Racine. Thus, the people that are responsible for Lehman's victory will never be represented by him. Instead, they were allowed elect Lehman to represent people that have clearly rejected both him and Wirch, preferring a conservative/Republican candidate by an 8+ point margin. There's the inequity and disfranchisement.

And yes, this is the Republicans' fault for their drafting and passing of Act 43 in such a manner that created this situation. But like everyone else, they're only human and sometimes make mistakes. When the mistake was realized though, Sen Lazich (R) introduced an amendment that would have remedied this situation. However, Democrats and Sen. Dale Schultz (R), fearing his own recall at the time, wouldn't back the proposed amendment, instead choosing their own partisan and personal political gain over the equity of the people in the new senate districts.

Personally, I find that disgusting, but I guess those on the left view it as politics as usual, right?

I'm not ignoring it; it's just irrelevant.

Fact: *all* voters in the new 21st + 22nd have had a say in elections over the last year over who their Senators should be, which is more recently than most Wisconsinites.

Fact: *all* voters in the new 21st + 22nd are currently represented by Senators.

Fact: redistricting means that many Wisconsinites (not just those in the 21st) are now represented by Senators who they never had a chance to vote for or against. This is an inevitable consequence of redistricting, but we don't hear massive bemoaning about that for some reason.

Your story about Lazich is flowery and ignores the fact that there was a two and a half month gap between Act 43 and the introduction of that 9-line bill, during which time many observers (myself included) had noted the oddity of the start dates. You ignore the fact that it was never voted upon. You ignore the fact that it could equally well have been resolved by changing the representation date to the fall election of 2012, which would have kept electors with the Senators they'd voted in the election of the longest, and would have limited the issue of represented-by-those-you-never-had-the-chance-to-vote-for to those electors shifted from even to odd districts from Jan 2013 to Jan 2015. But that this would not have suited GOP partisan purposes as well as the one Lazich proposed.

A GOP "mistake", a GOP failure to resolve it by means favorable to GOP partisan purposes, a GOP failure to resolve it by the better alternative, and yet somehow it's the left that is disgusting. Take some responsibility!

@Mr. Tolley -

"I'm not ignoring it; it's just irrelevant."

Irrelevant??? Hardly, despite all of your asserted facts. When people in the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, they were all still represented by Wirch for 8 days following the election. When people in the old D-21 voted in the Wanggaard recall, the majority of the people in the City of Racine, who were effectively responsible for Lehman's victory over Wanggaard, were represented by Wirch at the time of the election - not Wanggaard!

That's a HUGE and completely RELEVANT distinction whether you'd personally like to admit to it or not - especially if you're one of the people in the new D-21 that weren't allowed to be a part of this recall process!

"You ignore the fact that it was never voted upon."

Umm…. I believe such a point was properly conveyed wherein I stated "… Democrats and Sen. Dale Schultz (R), fearing his own recall at the time, wouldn't back the proposed amendment…." Did you miss that part?

"You ignore the fact that it could equally well have been resolved by changing the representation date to the fall election of 2012…"

So then, if the Democrats and Schultz were at all concerned about the equity of the people represented in effected senate districts, then why didn't they ever put this on paper and offer it as a counter to Lazich's proposed amendment?

Fact: They never did.

If they were so concerned about what would be best for the people as opposed to themselves, as you suggest, then the question is why, as such inaction is contradictory to that assertion.

In either scenario, if Lehman had any integrity or sense of ethical duty, he'd vote as a majority of the constituency in the district he now represents would expect him to vote - in favor of conservative principles/ideology and against liberal principles/ideologies. Just as all politicians in state government should reassess the make-up of the majority of the electorate and its will in their new districts, and represent that will accordingly, as after all, the position is a representative one of the people of the district, not the personal ideology or partisan affiliation of the elected person.

Sorry, nobody's been disenfranchised here: the electors of the new 21st and 22nd have all had recent votes on their Senate representation. You're just arguing the toss and trying to whine because it didn't go your way due to legislation passed (or not passed) under a GOP-controlled legislature. Take some responsibility.

You're trying to say that Wirch's constituents in the old 22nd got to vote in his recall and were all represented by him for 8 days - but then you ignore that election winners don't get certificates of election for a few weeks afterwards (Lehman won't have one until the window for a recount petition expires), so this would be true even if Steitz had won that race. People were voting for the new 22nd's representation and no other on 8/16/11, whether they were in the new 22nd or the new 21st.

""""You ignore the fact that it was never voted upon."

Umm…. I believe such a point was properly conveyed wherein I stated "… Democrats and Sen. Dale Schultz (R), fearing his own recall at the time, wouldn't back the proposed amendment…." Did you miss that part?"""

No, I didn't miss that part. Because it was never voted upon, your assertion is entirely unsupported and the blame you place entirely speculative.

Yet somehow inaction over the better solution is the fault of Democrats, and inaction over the worse solution is somehow the Democrats' fault as well, all in a GOP-controlled legislature.

"[...] if Lehman had any integrity or sense of ethical duty, he'd vote as a majority of the constituency in the district he now represents would expect him to vote" - I take it then that for instance on the national stage you expect the representatives of the people to vote to allow gay marriage nationally given that the issue now enjoys popular majority support (http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm), or else they have no integrity or sense of ethical duty? You expect them to vote for tax increases on higher incomes, because that enjoys majority support too (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/04/13/americans-to-very-rich-pay-your-taxes-poll/), or else they have no integrity or sense of ethical duty? Such positions are identical to the one you seek to take on Lehman's election.

But let's be honest about what the whole thing boils down to: does the situation suck for the GOP voters of the new 21st? Yes it does. Whose fault is that? The GOP's (including Wanggaard). When will it stop sucking for them? Likely November 2014. Has anyone in the new 21st or 22nd not had a chance to vote in the last year in a State Senate race? No (edge cases of moving & criminal convictions & coming of age aside).

@Mr. Tolley -

"No, I didn't miss that part. Because it was never voted upon, your assertion is entirely unsupported and the blame you place entirely speculative."

Umm… actually, both Sen. Dale Schultz and Sen. Minority Leader Miller are on record as being against the bill, so I'd say it's definitely a substantiated statement.

"Yet somehow inaction over the better solution is the fault of Democrats, and inaction over the worse solution is somehow the Democrats' fault as well, all in a GOP-controlled legislature."

What you call the "better solution" is anything but, because the new districts had already been effectuated for representational purposes. Therefor, the GOP solution was the only solution that would have legally worked and not been in violation of constitutional due process protections or precedent redistricting cases. So yes, Democrats and Schultz allowed this disparity to occur out of their own self interests and screwed over the people of every new district that had a senatorial recall in the process.

As for the rest of your response, are you now defending the validity of polls? Because I seem to recall that on June 5th, exit polling showed Obama ahead of Romney, but a new Rasmussen poll out today shows Romney ahead of Obama in Wisconsin.

http://www.ibwisconsin.com/In-Business-Wisconsin/June-2012/Rasmussen-Reports-Romney-overtakes-Obama-in-Wisconsin-47-44/

So, while you may put your faith in polls, I do not. That's why my analysis is based upon the actual election results from both the Wanggaard and Wirch recalls.

What I expect is that a representative actually represent the will of the people that they represent. And even though a popular national sentiment may exist, our system of government also acts to sometimes protect the minority interest via the representational makeup of the House, much like the electoral college in Presidential elections. Especially on issues where there's a close divide or even alternative points of view.

I would also like to add that you are a most worthy debater!

"Umm… actually, both Sen. Dale Schultz and Sen. Minority Leader Miller are on record as being against the bill, so I'd say it's definitely a substantiated statement." - this is the point at which you should be provide references. You can't claim that yours is a "substantiated statement" before you get around to substantiating it.

"What you call the "better solution" is anything but, because the new districts had already been effectuated for representational purposes." - what is odd is that when I go to the legislature's website and check for my own legislators (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx), I get two sets of legislators and the note "The Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has adopted a policy authorizing the provision of constituent services to individuals residing in either set of legislative districts." Unraveling representation via the Act 43 districts (for instance in case of successful legal challenge, as has happened in part) would just have meant changing the representatives listed. I'd still have representation, even if it were via a different Senator.

"Therefor, the GOP solution was the only solution that would have legally worked and not been in violation of constitutional due process protections or precedent redistricting cases." - the new districts were challenged in court and it was therefore uncertain for some time whether they would legally survive at all, so it's hard to see how "constitutional due process protections" would give a blanket approval to any and all timing of redistricting schemes kicking in as you imply (by pointing to them as a reason for not changing the effective date of representation via new districts from the past to the future). Do you have reference to such redistricting cases?

"So, while you may put your faith in polls, I do not. That's why my analysis is based upon the actual election results from both the Wanggaard and Wirch recalls." - your point though was that Lehman as SD21's Senator should govern as his constituents wish him to "if Lehman had any integrity or sense of ethical duty." The only signal you have though is one of election returns: the people of the new SD21 have not voted upon any issue at all, just some candidates. The only thing this definitively tells you is that the people of some precincts preferred particular candidates to the alternatives. On what basis those collective choices were made is not revealed by electoral results. To discern their desires on particular issues requires communication of some kind. Constituents contacting their Senator directly is one way; polling is another.

"What I expect is that a representative actually represent the will of the people that they represent." - I think (hope) it's rather more nuanced than that, even if we agree in general. For instance, photo ID requirements for voting polls rather well in Wisconsin, yet it has been found to be unconstitutional. It'd have to be implemented in a very different way in future in order to accommodate constitutional voting protections, and I would hope that state representatives don't try a repeat of Act 23 (I don't mean to try to derail things with a discussion of photo ID merits, only to use it as an illustration of something that might be popular with people but something their representatives should not be doing, at least in its Act 23 form).

@Mr. Tolley -

In response to your latest response:

1) http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-redistricting-bill-faltering-before-afternoon-hearing-132921823.html

2) From the same page you cite - "The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has indicated that the legislative districts established in 2002 remain in effect for election purposes and that the legislative districts established in 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 are also in effect for purposes of providing services to constituents." Thus, two different effective dates. While The Joint Committee on Legislative Organization is a fine committee and does good work, it doesn't have the power to unilaterally effectuate law - it cannot say that some people now have two senators and/or assembly persons representing their interests, as such wouldn't be fair to those who still only have one each, would it?

3) While the redistricting completed by Act 43 was challenged in federal Court, the Court never issued a TRO or injunction preventing redistricting from becoming effective pending its outcome, so I fail to see your point here. It was good law unless and until the Court said otherwise, and therefor needed to be obeyed until such time. Cases invalidating your proposed alternative solution to the one presented by Sen Lazich can be found via Westlaw.

4) I agree with that assessment to a degree, which is why I've asked all fellow residents of the new D-21 to call Lehman and let him know what we, as a majority, expect of him. I'm also unaware of any current poll conducted that breaks down public opinion by Wisconsin state legislative districts. Given the partisan nature and divide of the recalls and state politics as a whole over the last 1.5 years, I think it's more than fair to conclude that preferred party affiliation can in fact be indicative of issue stances - especially on those issues that have already been acted upon by the legislature.

5) Again, I agree with the point you're making here, but not with the particulars regarding the Voter ID legislation, which was never heard on its merits by either court, and therefor couldn't have been ruled unconstitutional - one issued a TRO pending a trial on the merits, while the other issued a permanent injunction premised upon a faulty finding for summary judgment. Only when all the appeals have been exhausted will we know if Act 23 is indeed unconstitutional or good law.

It's getting a little crazy when I have to split my replies up into 4 posts, see if I can do better this time :)

1) Thanks for the link going into Schultz's opposition. I'll take Miller's as read. It does raise the issue though of requiring special elections in districts where a redistricted-out incumbent had not already moved back in. Another that it jogs in my mind is that even if SB268 had been passed by the Senate on November 1st and passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor on November 2nd, it would not have taken effect before recall committees were registered at the GAB on November 15th and making a legal minefield of the areas to collect signatures from at which times (and that in itself might have fallen afoul of Article XIII Section 12(7) of the WI Constitution).

2&3) I'm not saying that representation is doubled for some, just that any walking back of redistricting (in the case of resolving the representation/election split by moving forward the representation date) would not have presented any issue with continuity of representation, so I don't see where "constitutional due process protections" would be a problem for that.

@Mr. Tolley -

1) There's a Supreme Court decision that already covers your first concern. Your second concern about the timing of Lazich's proposed amendment is nullified by the fact that the effective date of the new bill was to be retroactive to the date on which it passed the legislature. And once the Governor signs it, the secretary is statutorily bound to publish it. Thus it wouldn't have impacted the November 15 recall filings other than to make them effective under the new districts map and thus fair and equitable to the those constituents that had already come to rely upon a new representative for the three months prior to such filings.

2)&3) Representation is a constitutional right, thus once a person is assigned a new representative because of redistricting (found to be constitutional), it becomes very difficult, from a legal perspective, to just walk it back as you suggest, even though you are correct in that continuity of representation would have never been broken. For ease of passage and practicality, Lazich's amendment made far more sense than any alternative. It's also very telling that no one else even proposed an alternative, despite the possibility for inequity to the people under a dual effective date implementation being very real.

Just for reference, SB268 for those lurking: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb268

1) (Would you kindly point to that SC case?) Indeed the SoS is statutorily bound to publish acts signed by the Governor; SB268 however would not have been published until November 15th at the earliest (and taken effect the day after that, it not stating any other effective date). The recalls would have kicked off in the old districts (that being the law on November 15th and as applied by the GAB in rejecting a set of challenges) and thus if it had the effect of nullification of those signatures gathered in old districts the first few days would be an ex post facto law, which would be contradicted by the Federal constitution. I'm reasonably sure that SB268 was dropped when it was realized that the timing to screw up the recalls at the last minute had itself been screwed up.

2&3) Actually it's mostly telling that Lazich's approach would have benefited the GOP (the districts having been redrawn to benefit their incumbents) and therefore that any other approach could not practically have been passed. Legally, walking back the redistricting for representational purposes clearly presents no problem at all: this is precisely what has been done by the Federal courts in regard to Assembly districts 8&9 (see http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/redistricting/assembly_districts_act43.htm) - there are some who have had their Assembly representative changed after 8 months.

@Mr. Tolley -

1) The S. Court case is the one that applies to the regular situation of general elections, which I can't recall the cite to off the top of head at the moment, as the reasoning of that decision should still apply to special and recall elections, as such are consider to be an extraordinary circumstance. I would think that so long as there was an intent present by the incumbent to move back into a district that they were subsequently redistricted out of when a special or recall election was held, then a problem wouldn't exist with applying the holding from that case to the situation you describe, which would permit the incumbent a reasonable amount of time to accomplish the move. However, in the law, you never really know for sure until you try.

"SB268 however would not have been published until November 15th at the earliest (and taken effect the day after that, it not stating any other effective date)."

That's not exactly true, as the SoS can publish immediately after the Governor signs it, if they are so inclined to cooperate with the expediency of legislation. Additionally, how was one to know precisely when the recalls were going to be filed? I thought they were a grassroots citizen driven endeavor, as opposed to being a coordinated and organized strategic power initiative by a political party and/or groups associated with such.

2&3) You're right, a walk back is normal when effectuated via judicial order, an extraordinary act required because of inherit deficiencies with legislation (unconstitutional) - but not when done via legislation, a regular act. Otherwise, the legislature could have just issued legislation rolling back the union contracts that were rushed through prior to the implementation of Act 10. Admittedly, Lazich's amendment did act to benefit the GOP, however, such effect was ancillary to the primary intent of correcting the potential inequity that such a mistake could cause to the people if allowed to be realized.

One was to know when the recalls were going to be filed because it was public knowledge that November 15th would be their filing date, at least since October 11th (see e.g. http://www.wrn.com/2011/10/recall-walker-campaign-to-start-in-november/).

"I thought they were a grassroots citizen driven endeavor, as opposed to being a coordinated and organized strategic power initiative by a political party and/or groups associated with such." - careful, you're lurching back into partisan mode there. When you have tens of thousands of volunteers who need co-ordination in order to take the best advantage of a 60 day window, you do not spring it upon them at the last moment.

"You're right, a walk back is normal when effectuated via judicial order, an extraordinary act required because of inherit deficiencies with legislation (unconstitutional) - but not when done via legislation, a regular act. Otherwise, the legislature could have just issued legislation rolling back the union contracts that were rushed through prior to the implementation of Act 10." - I don't see how that's a problem: in the former case only future representation would be affected. The latter would clearly be an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

"Admittedly, Lazich's amendment did act to benefit the GOP, however, such effect was ancillary to the primary intent of correcting the potential inequity that such a mistake could cause to the people if allowed to be realized." - the timing however, is awfully suspicious (the issue was obvious from the wording of Act 43 in August and it started to be noted the day after the Governor signed it, and the start date of the petition circulation was well known at the time). Neither did SB268 exist in a vacuum: it was accompanied by SB270 (also introduced by Lazich to committee, and on the same day) which was clearly meant only as a roadblock to the recall process. It is therefore a stretch to say the least that its primary intent was "correcting the potential inequity" rather than making the recalls harder.

@Mr. Tolley -

Not all retroactive legislation is unconstitutional under ex post facto reasoning - especially where it hasn't actually prevented or interfered with anyone from exercising a right or privilege granted under the currently applicable law. As long as the amendment had become effective before any new recalls were filed, which it very well could have, there wouldn't have been an issue regarding the constitutionality of such, as no concrete injury, or the potential for such, would have been present.

Actually SB148 (which became Act 43) was passed by the Senate on 7/19/11; passed by the Assembly on 7/20/11; signed by the Governor on 8/9/11 and published on 8/23/11, thus for the most part taking effect on 8/24/11 (the other date being specified within for it to take effect being for electoral purposes from the date of the fall general election of 2012).

See https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb148 for the details.

@Mr. Tolley -

Fine, what I should have said was "on the day it became legally effective, August 24, 2011, ...."

Again, I didn't realize that we had become so pinpoint specific regarding use of terminology and/or the laying of proper foundation for such her on the Patch, but since you persist...

It doesn't change the point of the reality that I was conveying one bit, does it?

It's attention to detail and the bigger picture.

It shows that voters of the old 22nd were not operating in the dark on 8/16/11 - those of them in the new 21st who you call disenfranchised knew full well that they were voting for someone who'd be representing not them but those in the new 22nd. It was not some secret sprung upon them the week after the election.

@Mr. Tolley -

8 days is 8 days, whether you want to recognize those 8 days as being significant or not.

Additionally, the Wirch recall failed, and the people that comprise the new D-22 were left with the candidate and party affiliation that they support by majority. Thus, the overall outcome of that recall election was equitable for the people of the new D-22, despite the procedure being of questionable equity given that it was only 8 days until the new districts would become effective.

Contrast this with what just happened in regards to the new D-21 - the procedure and the outcome were both completely inequitable.

The 8 days in August 2011 that you refer to are 8 days that would see Wirch be Senator _whether he won the recall election or not_.

You also ignore that the redistricting was done *after* the 22nd district recall was scheduled by the GAB (which was done on June 8th, 2011) but *before* it took place. The legislative majority GOP (19-14 in the Senate at the time) was perfectly aware of this when redistricting and what would result.

(Very roughly) half the people of the new 22nd have a Senator they never had the chance to vote for or against, yet it's "equitable" in this case but somehow not in the case of the 21st. Your sense of equity is clearly solely dependent upon which party won or lost, and you seem to want to blame anyone for it except those directly responsible.

Which includes Van Wanggaard. Good job he lost, then.

@Mr. Tolley -

I assure you that my sense of equity is NOT partisan in the least. Your own partisanship is preventing you from seeing the validity of the points I make. You appear to be of the mindset that just because a majority of the people of D-21 and D-22 were able to recently vote in elections regarding their state senator, that everything is fair. But such ignores the realities of the majority composition of the new districts and the timing of when the new districts became effective for representational purposes.

FACT:

When the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, Wirch actually represented all of the people that voted in that election.

When the old D-21 voted in the Wanggaard recall, Wanggaard did NOT represent all of the people that voted in such election.

You're also ignoring the FACT that the people of the old D-21 rejected Lehman in the general election of 2010. Not to mention that Lehman was recruited by the DPW to run in this recall - not out of his own desire. Or the FACT that Lehman doesn’t even reside in the new D-22 - he'd have to move (carpetbag) to even challenge Wirch in a primary, who is also moving into the new D-22 to carpetbag there. Thus, it is reasonable to presume that the people of the City of Racine probably would have voted for Wirch had they been given the opportunity to do so in last year's recall of that district.

And the most damning FACT of all is the reason that was given for Wanggaard's recall, which according to Randolph Brandt, chair of the Committee to Recall Van Wanggaard, the reasoning was to replace him with a moral and ethical representative that would reach out and negotiate with the other side of the political aisle and not abandon the people of the City of Racine. It's a FACT that Wanggaard introduced more bi-partisan supported legislation during the last legislative term than nearly any other member. It is also a FACT that during Lehman's previous term, he introduced no bi-partisan supported legislation and was known for being a bullheaded stone-waller. Not to mention Lehman's personal baggage, which would hardly qualify him as being moral or ethical. And the FACT that Wanggaard didn't even represent the City of Racine when the recall was filed on November 15, 2011. Thus, it's clear that the Wanggaard recall was conducted under false pretences from the get go.

So again, the new D-22 has an equitable representative as their state senator. And because of how this recall election was handled, the new D-21 clearly does not.

Ignore these realities all you wish, but it was the people that were shafted here.

And yes, I agree that it was the GOP's fault, including Wanggaard's. But that doesn't mean that I believe he should have been ousted over it - especially since a solution was proposed long before the current round of recalls ever came into being. Lazich's bill was introduced in late October 2011. The Committee to Recall Van Wanggaard didn't file its papers with the GAB until November 15, 2011. There was no reason that this issue couldn't have been resolved before these current round of recalls even came into being. Thus again, supporting the inequity of the current situation.

@James Hoffa: you claim that your sense of equity is not partisan, but I've already shown that it is dependent upon party. To refresh your memory, to you it's equitable for someone to be represented by someone they never had the chance to vote for if that representative happens to have the party label that corresponds to the party that a majority of voters in the district opted for the candidate(s) of last time around, but it's inequitable if and only if the party label is different.

Then you go Rovian and accuse me of partisan thinking for disagreeing with you.

"When the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, Wirch actually represented all of the people that voted in that election." - while true, it is also irrelevant as I have noted before. To refresh your memory, the winner of the election of August 16th, 2011 could under no circumstances be legally issued a certificate of election before August 24th, 2011, and therefore the election had no bearing whatsoever on Wirch's representation of the old 22nd up to the time the new districts kicked in. Wirch would in any case be representing the new 22nd for a week or two following until the certificate was issued. The outcome of the election was to see who would represent the new 22nd, and the voters of the old 22nd got to determine that.

"When the old D-21 voted in the Wanggaard recall, Wanggaard did NOT represent all of the people that voted in such election." - true, but there is no difference to the case of the recall election of the 22nd: the outcome of the election was to see who would represent the new 21st, and the voters of the old 21st got to determine that.

"You're also ignoring the FACT that the people of the old D-21 rejected Lehman in the general election of 2010." - the people of the old SD21 elected him just last week, so how is this in any way relevant?

"Or the FACT that Lehman doesn’t even reside in the new D-22 - he'd have to move (carpetbag) to even challenge Wirch in a primary, who is also moving into the new D-22 to carpetbag there." - you seem confused. Lehman lives in the new SD21 (708 Orchard St, Racine) and is its Senator-elect. Why would he move out of district? How is this relevant? And when Republican legislators cut a Democrat out of his own district (by all of 400 yards with a radical rearrangement of boundaries in Wirch's case), if he moves back into it you call that "carpetbagging"? Seriously?

"Thus, it is reasonable to presume that the people of the City of Racine probably would have voted for Wirch had they been given the opportunity to do so in last year's recall of that district." - why? You're the one going around assuring me that your sense of equity is not partisan (in capital letters no less) then you assume that SD21 & SD22 voters go by D and R labels and not candidates.

You then go into making claims about the recall committee chair's statements (which isn't actually relevant to the enfranchisement or not of SD21 voters) and about Wanggaard's legislative record (which again, isn't relevant). Then you go into some characterization of Lehman's prior Senate record which isn't relevant, then something or other about the recall of Wanggaard wasn't proper if we accept all that you say at face value and ignore that there are no constitutional or statutory reasons required to be stated for recall of state-level representatives, which isn't relevant.

@Mr. Tolley -

The reason you think that I'm confused is because you're presuming that I believe that the Wirch recall was conducted equitably, however, that just isn't the case, as you should have previously noted wherein I stated:

"Thus, the overall outcome of that recall election was equitable for the people of the new D-22, despite the procedure being of questionable equity given that it was only 8 days until the new districts would become effective."

In fact, I've acknowledged that the Wirch recall was conducted inequitably, but arrived at an equitable outcome. The reason I bring up the other facts about Lehman is to show that Lehman probably wouldn't have challenged Wirch in a primary had the Wirch recall been conducted in the new D-22, thus Wirch would have been the Democratic candidate against an unknown republican contender, but more likely than not probably would have been Steitz primary challenger Fred Ekornaas. Even you must admit that there is little question that the people of the City of Racine would have chosen Wirch over Ekornaas in an election. Thus, despite the procedure in the Wirch recall being inequitable, the results were equitable for the people of the new D-22.

The remainder of the facts I mention regarding Mr. Brandt's assertions, Lehman's prior record, etc. goes to the equity of the situation surrounding Wanggaard's recall in general, seeing as how we were discussing equity.

So while Wanggaard's recall followed the same inequitable procedures as Wirch's recall, the outcome, unlike the outcome in the Wirch recall, was not equitable for the people of the new D-21, as we've already established, and as even you have to admit, that the people of the new D-21 clearly and historically have favored Republican representation over Democratic representation by over an 8 point margin.

Not to mention the facts, that even you have admitted to, regarding those who were able to vote in each respective recall. While you see the situation of allowing those who are no longer represented by Wanggaard to vote in his recall while preventing others from voting in the recall that have been represented by him since before the recall was ever even filed as being irrelevant, that doesn't make it so, and is in clear contrast to the Wirch situation.

@James Hoffa: no, I believe you to be confused because you wrote of Senator-elect for SD21 John Lehman who lives in SD21 (both new & old) while highlighting the fact that he doesn't live in SD22 and writing about his non-likelihood of participating in a potential primary in the SD22 recall should it have taken place under the new SD22 boundaries that Lehman doesn't live within (or the old SD22 boundaries that he doesn't live within either).

"While you see the situation of allowing those who are no longer represented by Wanggaard to vote in his recall while preventing others from voting in the recall that have been represented by him since before the recall was ever even filed as being irrelevant, that doesn't make it so, and is in clear contrast to the Wirch situation." - actually the Wirch/Steitz situation is identical: those who would no longer be represented by him in the areas of old SD22/new SD21 overlap got to vote in his election. Those who would be represented by him in the areas of new SD22/old SD21 overlap did not get that same chance. For the Wanggaard/Lehman situation just reverse the numbers.

The question of the article is "did redistricting disenfranchise voters in the new 21st Senate District?" The answer is that all electors of the new 21st Senate District have had the chance to vote for Senate representation over the past year, so all have had the franchise with respect to Senate elections.

On the equity/inequity question, let me put it this way: what if the old SD21 had been just a little bit more Lehman-leaning in 2010 and Lehman had retained his seat then? The situation would be *exactly* the same as it is now: a blue district and a red district would both be represented by Democrats. Would that be inequitable?

If you answer "no" then you are saying that either there is no inequity in the (identical) current situation either or that inequity depends on the results of historical elections rather than the latest one (which is absurd on its face).

If you answer "yes" then what if the redrawn SD21 & SD22 were in fact just tweaked at the edges (each losing a few wards to SD11)? Everyone in the (ever so slightly modified, still purple) SD21 & SD22 would still have a Democratic Senator. Would that be inequitable?

No matter which way the line was drawn they both still would have at the present time a Democratic Senator (taking your most-voters-care-more-about-party-than-candidate position as read). I therefore submit that the route of the new SD21/SD22 border has no bearing on their current party representation and therefore cannot have any bearing on its equitability.

@Mr. Tolley -

"actually the Wirch/Steitz situation is identical"

No, it is not. Wirch was effectively recalled by people he actually represented at the time such recall was initiated. Wanggaard was effectively recalled by people that he did not represent at the time such recall was initiated - representation of the City of Racine ended 08/24/11, while the petition to recall was not filed with the GAB until 11/15/11. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges because you fail to see the importance/significance of the August 24, 2011 effective date for representational purposes and how such impacts the equity of the situation.

You argue that because Wirch had people vote in his recall election that he wouldn't be representing 8 days later, that it's somehow fair that Wanggaard had people vote in his election that he actually wasn't representing at the time both the recall petition was filed and the recall election occurred. Is that some kind of two wrongs make a right argument? Personally, I've never bought into that kind of thinking, but to each their own!

As far as your hypothetical scenario goes, it does not make sense because it doesn't take into account the reality of the situations as they presented themselves, with recalls occurring on both sides of the effective date of redistricting, so I fail to see the point that you're trying to make with them.

"You argue that because Wirch had people vote in his recall election that he wouldn't be representing 8 days later, that it's somehow fair that Wanggaard had people vote in his election that he actually wasn't representing at the time both the recall petition was filed and the recall election occurred."

Let me put it this way: let's say that the redistricting took place and the representation in the new districts went into effect as the first thing the legislature did in January 2011 (but for electoral purposes not until November 2012). Then both Wirch and Wanggaard recalls would have been with voters in the old districts and the winners would represent those in the new districts - both the same.

Now let's say that the redistricting took place and took effect for representative purposes first thing tomorrow (but for electoral purposes not until November 2012). Then both Wirch and Wanggaard recalls would have been with voters in the old districts and the winners would represent those in the new districts - both the same.

The exact timing of the recalls in relation to the switch date of representation thus has no bearing on the similarity of the two recalls: both Wirch and Wanggaard recalls were with voters in the old districts and the winners represent those in the new districts - both the same.

@Mr. Tolley -

Seeing as how the primary objective of a representative agent of the people in government is to actually REPRESENT the people of a particular geographic location, and is not to engage in elections, the more important date here for the purposes of equity is the effective representation date. The effective election date in this case is arbitrary and has no effect on the representational duties of the elected representative to the people, does it?

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that you are viewing the effective election date as being more important/critical under the circumstances not for purposes of equity, but simply because the outcome realized under your interpretation suits your own partisan interests in the matter.

Let's put it this way - suppose both the effective representational and election dates were the same - on August 24, 2011. The Wirch recall was both filed and the election held before the August 24, 2011 cut off date. Regardless of how fair the outcome might have been to the people of the new D-22, the election was conducted equitably as he was recalled by those he represented at the time the recall was held. Not to mention that the outcome was equitable in that the people of the new D-22 have a representative of their preferred partisan party affiliation.

The Wanggaard recall was both filed and the election held after the August 24, 2011 cut off date. But the people of the old D-21 were the ones who were allowed to initiate the recall and vote in the election ousting him from office and installing Lehman. And because of this, the people of the new D-21 now have a representative that is not of their preferred partisan party affiliation.

The circumstances are definitely different because the change that occurred on August 24, 2011 is both very real and very significant - not arbitrary. The people in the new D-21 had been going to Wanggaard for constituent services for nearly 4 months before the recall was even initiated and for over 10 months before the election was held. And yet, those same people that were new to the district and his representation as of August 24, 2011 had no voice in whether or not to recall the representative that they had come to rely upon, but rather others made the choice for them. Contrast this with Wirch, in which no one in the new D-22 (except the overlapping) had come to rely upon him for constituency services. Everyone that Wirch was representing at the time the recall was initiated and election held were given a voice in the recall process.

And yet, you're still claiming that somehow the situation is the same, but it most certainly wasn't - not to those people new to D-21 as of August 24 it wasn't. And it's their voice, their equity, their franchise that was violated by this process. If you don't see the difference, there's no other way to try and explain it to you.

"Let's put it this way - suppose both the effective representational and election dates were the same - on August 24, 2011. The Wirch recall was both filed and the election held before the August 24, 2011 cut off date. Regardless of how fair the outcome might have been to the people of the new D-22, the election was conducted equitably as he was recalled by those he represented at the time the recall was held."

1. Let's say that Steitz had been chosen on August 16th by the voters of the old SD22. He would then have been sworn in in the first week of September. The winner of that recall election would not have represented the old SD22, only the new SD22.

2. Let's say that Lehman had been chosen on June 5th by the voters of the old SD21. He would then have been sworn in in late June. The winner of that recall election would not have represented the old SD21, only the new SD21.

3. Let's say that Wirch had been chosen on August 16th by the voters of the old SD22. He would then have been sworn in in the first week of September. The winner of that recall election would not have represented the old SD22, only the new SD22.

Now please point to which statements here that you think are wrong. If you cannot point to any then the symmetry is perfect and the representational situations must therefore be identical.

I believe you're being distracted by the fact that Wirch was an incumbent who won his recall election, and so overlooking the fact that although the SD22 recall election was prior to the redistricting of representation kicking in, its winner (regardless of who that was) would never have any representation duties of the old one due to the result.

@Mr. Tolley -

You appear to be predisposed with the outcome and future as opposed to the process and reality of the respective situations as they occurred - duties of representation after the respective elections, as opposed to being focussed on what those duties were during the respective recalls and elections. Two wrongs do not make a right Mr. Tolley.

Again, the August 24, 2011 date has meaning and is very significant. Because of that date different people were involved in each respective election for representational purposes. When the people of the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, he actually still represented all of the people allowed to vote in that election. When the people of the old D-21 voted in the Wanggaard recall, he no longer represented half the people that were allowed to vote in that election, and the new half that had come to rely on him for representation for over ten months were prevented from voting.

Apples to oranges my friend - do you honestly not see the difference? The difference is very real and very relevant.

You have failed to point to any wrong statements in my previous comments. My point that the representational situations in SD21 and SD22 are identical therefore stands.

The issue of the representational date makes no difference to the fact that both votes were held in the old districts and both representations happen in the new. I've already shown that pushing the representational date into the past or future would make no difference to this.

"When the people of the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, he actually still represented all of the people allowed to vote in that election." - you've repeatedly ignored that the outcome of the election had no bearing whatsoever on any representation prior to the new districts kicking in.

Let's say that the Wirch recall had not taken place until June 5th: exactly the same set of areas would be voting in it and exactly the same set of areas would be represented by the winner - therefore it would be *identical* for both electoral and representational purposes to the one that actually took place on August 16th. A Wirch recall election on June 5th would also be precisely analogous to a Wanggaard recall election on June 5th.

By the transitive property, the Wirch recall of August 16th is therefore identical for both electoral *and* representational purposes to the Wanggaard recall of June 5th and therefore claims of inequity in one but not the other cannot stand.

@Mr. Tolley -

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm concerned with the reality of the situation as it exists.

And as it exists, the Wirch and Wanggaard recalls were NOT conducted in the same equitable fashion because of the effect of the August 24, 2011 representational change - which you seem to be ignoring. When Wirch's recall occurred, it was not yet effected by redistricting in any way. When Wanggaard's recall occurred, redistricting had already been in effect for nearly 3 months prior to the initiation of the recall and over 10 months prior to the election.

However, to indulge you, your #2 hypothetical poses a false conclusion in equity because it is premised upon an inequity. The voters of the old SD21 should not have been allowed to recall Wanggaard after the August 24, 2011 effective change date for representational purposes had occurred, as equity would demand that the representational and electoral effective dates be the same. If a recall was still insisted upon, it should have been conducted solely in the new SD21. The legal ramifications of Act 43 created the inequitable reality of preventing members of the electorate that were legally represented by Wanggaard at the time such recall was initiated and eventually voted upon, from having a participative voice in the recall process. The same cannot be said for the Wirch recall because redistricting was not yet in effect during such recall, irregardless of when any certificate is actually issued.

Except in my #2 hypothetical, my conclusion was *not* that both recall elections were equitable; it was that "claims of inequity in one but not the other cannot stand".

You have claimed that the Wirch recall was equitable while the Wanggaard one was not. I have logically proven that for the purposes of both representation and election both were identical in terms of their equitability (n.b. not that both were necessarily equitable, only that either they both be or both not be). Your claim is therefore wrong, and you are left to mourn the Wanggaard loss not because of any higher issue of inequity, but simply because your guy lost.

@Mr. Tolley -

While you may proscribe to the whole two wrongs do in fact make a right philosophy, such is not properly supported in logic. And the so-called 'logic' of your solely outcome based analysis ignores the realities of the very real and very significant distinctions between the two situations.

Your argument essentially boils down to the premise that because the voters of the old SD22 were allowed to vote for the guy that is going to solely represent the people of the new SD22, that the voters of the old SD21 must also be allowed to vote for a guy that is going to solely represent the people of the new SD21 in order for equity to exist.

But such argument wholly ignores the differences between the realities under which both recalls were held and presumes that the situational outcome of the results in the SD22 recall, merely because of the proximity of that recall to the effective date of redistricting, should act as some sort of base line. As I've stated before, you completely ignore the consequences of the August 24, 2011 changes. However, as the August 24, 2011 changes effected everyone equally at the same time, to ignore the importance of such in an analysis premised upon logic for the purposes of determining equity is wholly illogical, as such radically changes the situation, as I've repeatedly shown.

Equity Matrix Comparison:

Was the Wirch recall conducted equitably based upon representation at the time of the recall? YES
Did the Wrich recall have the potential to produce an inequitable result for the people of the new SD22? YES
Did the Wrich recall actually produce an inequitable result in the new SD22? NO

Was the Wanggaard recall conducted equitably based upon representation at the time of the recall? NO
Did the Wanggaard recall have the potential to produce an inequitable result for the people of the new SD21? YES
Did the Wanggaard recall actually produce an inequitable result in the new SD21? YES

In all reality, there was no inequity involved in the Wirch recall at all, either potential or realized. The fact that the guy elected wouldn't actually take the seat until the new district had become effective is simply an unintended consequence of the proximity of the recall to redistricting, which is a completely normal, expected, and anticipated function. Might it suck for the people of the new SD22 - absolutely, but as redistricting effects everyone equally at the same time, there is no loss of equity here. I merely indicated it as such to acknowledge such a potential un-desirous situation.

Contrast to the Wanggaard situation where redistricting had already occurred and representation of the new districts had already become effective.

Apples and oranges.

One last thing Mr. Tolley. Your premise that either both were equitable or both are inequitable is not supported by logic, as each occurred under a differing set of circumstances, as we've already established.

In your "equity matrix comparison" you have "Was the Wirch recall conducted equitably based upon representation at the time of the recall? YES" - but the answer, regardless of how you feel about it or reason it, is in fact irrelevant, because the election had nothing whatsoever to do with the representation on the date of the election. It had to do with representation from early September onwards, and that only of the new SD22 and not the old one. The old SD22 was never to be represented by the winner of that election.

For your only other difference you have "Did the X recall actually produce an inequitable result in the new SD-YY?" By answering those questions differently for the two recalls, you are saying that the voters of the new SD21 & SD22 together created an inequity for themselves by voting the way they personally wanted to, one voter one vote.

Let's examine your position that it would have been equitable for Wanggaard's recall to have taken place among voters of the new SD21 and that it was equitable for the old SD22 voters to have their say in the Wirch recall. You think it is equitable for the representation of the new SD21 and new SD22 to have been decided by *none* of the voters of the new SD22/old SD21 areas (roughly, the Dem-leaning City of Racine) and for the voters of the new SD21/old SD22 areas (roughly, GOP-leaning rural Kenosha County) to have voted *twice*.

Advocating disenfranchisement and double-voting as being equitable is absurd.

Your argument on this has led me to deduce that you find it inequitable to hold recalls immediately before a redistricting goes into effect. And I actually agree with you on this point, but such poses a constitutional issue, and not a statutory one, such as we were discussing Act 43 and its ramifications (which probably led to my inability to see the point you were trying to make). However, just because that's the way in which the Wirch recall was held, which was an unintended consequence of the recall falling just prior to redistricting becoming effective, doesn't justify holding the Wanggaard recall to the same standard when the circumstances were clearly different at such time the respective recalls were held. The fact that the outcome of the Wirch recall merely determined who would represent the voters of the new district, by the voters of the old district that initiated the recall, doesn't change the fact that it was still those people that Wirch represented at the time that were allowed to recall him. Again, contrast to the Wanggaard situation in which people that he hadn't represented for multiple months were permitted to effectively recall him, to the detriment and without the participation of people that had since come to rely upon him for representation in the new parts of the district that had already become effective before the recall was ever even filed.

The difference is that with Wirch, the people in the new parts of D22 hadn't come to rely on his representation when his recall was held, even though those people would bear the burden of the results of the recall election. In Wanggaard's case, the people in the new parts of D21 HAD already come to rely on his representation before the recall was initiated, and thus, should have been the ones to participate in his recall. You need to assess them on a mutually exclusive basis.

You appear to be suggesting that the recall provision in the constitution should be amended to prohibit a recall from being initiated prior to an anticipated redistricting OR that if a recall is brought just prior to redistricting, that it should be done in the new as opposed to the old district. That's actually a very equitable proposition and something that should be considered.

Unfortunately, the reality under which the experienced recalls occurred did not include a wholly equitable constitutional recall provision. Again, just because the Wirch recall experienced an unintended consequence due to its timing in regards to redistricting, doesn't mean that we should use it as a baseline in determining what should be considered as equitable in the case of the Wanggaard recall, as after all, the circumstances were different at the time each was held, thus leading to a differing process.

For the record though, I would openly support such a constitutional amendment to the recall provision as such is fair and equitable to the people. I should hope that this clarifies our mutual misunderstandings of each other's positions and that even you would agree with me on this point.

Have a good night!

@dee50 -

I've been very respectful of Mr. Tolley in all of our debates here on Patch, and I've acknowledged my respect of him. Just as I'm very respectful of most everyone here on the Patch, and I'm fairly confident that most Patch regulars would back this up. Either you're referring to my style of debate, and erroneously interpreting it as being personally intended, when it clearly is not, or you're referring to those who have a history of not commanding the respect of others here on Patch.

As to half-truths and spin, you'll find none of that from Hoffa!

These are indisputable FACTS:

For representational purposes, the new districts became legally effective on August 24, 2011.

For electoral purposes, the new districts become legally effective on November 6, 2012.

It was GOP legislators, including Wanggaard, that drafted and passed Act 43, the redistricting law with such a discrepancy of effective dates.

In late October, 2011, Sen Lazich (R) introduced an amendment that would have accelerated the electoral effective date of the new districts to the date of which her proposed amendment passed the legislature.

Both Sen. Dale Schultz (R), who was fearful of his own potential recall at the time, and Sen Minority Leader Miller publicly stated that they would not support the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the proposed amendment died in committee and was never put to a vote.

No other fix of such discrepancy was proposed by either side.

The recall of Wanggaard was filed with the GAB on November 15, 2011.

When the people of the old D-22 voted in the Wirch recall, Wirch actually represented all of the people that were allowed to vote in that election.

When the people of the old D-21 voted in the Wanggaard recall, Wanggaard no longer represented the people of the City of Racine, but they were allowed to vote in the election, and in fact are the sole reason that Lehman won the recall election. Meanwhile, some people that were represented by Wanggaard at the time in the new parts of the district were not allowed to vote in the recall election.

The new D-21, which Wanggaard has represented since August 24, 2011, has historically preferred Republican representation to Democratic representation by an average margin of more than 8 points.

Mr. Tolley defends this situation as being just by claiming 1) it was the GOP's fault for drafting and passing Act 43, creating the disparity of effective dates for representational and electoral purposes; 2) that the proper fix to the disparity should have been to set both the representational and electoral effective dates as November 6, 2012; and 3) that the people of the new D-21 were able to vote for a senator either last year in the Wirch recall or this year in the Wanggaard recall, and therefor have not been disenfranchised.

I wholly agree with Mr. Tolley's point 1.

As to Mr. Tolley's point 2, he ignores the fact that the new districts had already become legally effective by the time the disparity was realized and a fix proposed. To undo the effectiveness of representation nearly two months after the fact, as Mr. Tolley suggests, would have violated the due process provision of the state and federal constitutions in addition to precedent redistricting case law from the state Supreme Court. Therefor, the only legal solution that would have fixed the disparity was the one proposed by Lazich. But Schultz and the Dems, via their public vocal non-support, killed the amendment in committee, because it would have worked against their own partisan and personal political interests, despite being fair and equitable for the people as a whole.

As to Mr. Tolley's point 3, it ignores the realities of the situation present at the respective times that each recall was held. Again, Wirch actually represented everyone that was allowed to vote his recall when it was held. Wanggaard did not represent the people of the City of Racine when his recall has held, but those people were none-the-less allowed to vote him out and Lehman in, while others that were represented by Wanggaard at the time were not allowed to vote in the election. This is not the apples to apples comparison that Mr. Tolley suggests it is, but more like an apples to oranges comparison.

What happened in the Wanggaard recall was wholly inequitable and it could have easily been prevented from occurring had it not been for sloppy drafting by the GOP in first place OR had Schultz and the Dems actually cared more about the people they represent instead of their own selfish partisan and personal political interests.

@dee50 -

Not that it matters, but I don't work for Patch, nor do I get paid by anyone for my postings. I have no agenda other than being an engaged citizen. My job has me in front of the computer 12+ hours a day. Patch is my fun/break time in between work.

@JRH, you don't have to justify to anyone how you spend your time or what your agenda is. They are singling you out and trying to disenfranchise you from voicing your opinion. I do believe that you "get under their skins".

Walker won the recall election by a bigger vote margin than the first time. So what does that say about the electorate and their view of Act 10.

Dee. it's Gov. Walker... collective bargaining privileges did not end, they were limited to cut back on the corruption. Also he did run on it, for over a year he campaigned on having public sector pay 'part' of their fair share of 'their' benefits.

"Our members oppose taking away their rights to collective bargaining, so they would definitely raise their voices against it," Christina Brey, speaking for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, said of Walker's plan.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/101771723.html

I can link you at least 20 articles and ads on Gov. Walker campaigning on public sector changes.

@Cynthia: "collective bargaining privileges did not end, they were limited to cut back on the corruption" - you know just as well as I do that a situation where it is actually illegal for public unions to ask "could you see your way to cutting our members' pay down to only a little bit more than the current pay for entry-level positions plus a cost of living increase?" makes your statement a sick joke.

Your side keeps repeating the same 8 to 1 or 6 to 1 ratio talking point. If that is the case then "Therefore, anyone who insinuates that the Right outspent the Left by 8 to 1 in this race, would be claiming conservatives spent more than $180 million on the race."

Tracking Big Labor's Massive Investment in the Failed Wisconsin Recall
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/06/Matrix6132012/#wiright

@Mau

For every link you provide trying to discount the amount of $ spent from the likes of Koch I can give you 10 more links that confirms......Let's just stop with the obvious!

@dee50 -

That's funny, because I actually received more pieces of direct mail campaign literature from and/or in support of Barrett/Mitchell/Lehman than I did from and/or in support of Walker/Kleefisch/Wanggaard, so at least in SD21, the Dems and their allies far outspent the Repubs and their allies on printing and mail expenditures. If that's any indication. Not to mention all the union money for boots on the ground and GOTV transportation drives that don't need to be reported to anyone, therefore, we'll never actually know exactly how much the unions had invested in these recalls.

@Hoffa you stated:

" because I actually received more pieces of direct mail campaign literature from and/or in support of Barrett/Mitchell/Lehman than I did from and/or in support of Walker/Kleefisch/Wanggaard, so at least in SD21"

This maybe true, but do you own a T.V.? That's where the real $ was spent!

@Hoffa

If I said the sky is blue you would still find something to disagree with as long as it doesn't fit into your thinking/agenda.

Obviously you have NOT been looking at the fiance reports being filed... dems actually outspent the Republicans. While Gov. Walker raised more funds then barrett. dems cashed in from all around the country.

Campaign fiance reports...

dems spent $6,395,088.90

Republicans spent $773,906.04

Campaign staff was the killer for the dems.... $5,903,126.49

@dee50 -

Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but people are still the one's charged with voting - not dollar bills, as you erroneously seem to think. In all reality, the election proved that all that advertising didn't do squat, as from the 2010 election up to and including the June 5th recall election, all of the non-biased polling was consistent throughout - Walker's support in the state never waned. Sorry that you were duped by all the stories put out by the left about how many Walker supporters were turned off by Act 10, as it just wasn't true - just another liberal lie. And for every real person that was swayed in the opposite direction, all the bad behavior and shenanigans from the left, not to mention a poor candidate field, attracted at least 1.5 additional voters to Walker's side. Not to mention that the recall message had been effectively distributed across the state, and nation, since February of last year, so clearly, this wasn't a case of disparity of message saturation.

Nope, all the objective, factual, and empirical evidence points to the conclusion that Walker won the election on message, just as he did in 2010. The reason that the left can't believe it and are now pointing the finger (which they're expert at doing) at the money is because they have to continue the indoctrinated duping for the upcoming November general and national election.

Start thinking instead of merely believing - your eyes will open!

"from the 2010 election up to and including the June 5th recall election, all of the non-biased polling was consistent throughout - Walker's support in the state never waned."

False: see http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/scott-walker-job-approval-wi

Even GOP favorite Rasmussen had him at a net -14 approval in March '11.

@dee50 -

Umm... FDR was actually against public sector unionization. The quote you've provided is taken out of context.

Public employees have always had a seat at the negotiation table via their duly elected public representatives and officials, as after all, they get to vote in elections just like everyone else, right? Thus, public sector unions were redundant and merely added layers of unnecessary bureaucracy that led to ineffective and inefficient provision of governmental services, not to mention several abuses over the stewardship of the public trust and treasure. There are also fundamental inherent conflicts of interest that exist in public sector unions, as both their leadership and membership are also taxpayers and members of the government, a non-profit entity of the people, by the people, and for the people, and thus engage in effectively negotiating against themselves and the greater good of all. The traditional labor union model, and its weapon of resistance and retaliation, the strike, doesn't work in the public sector, as a strike would act only to deprive the taxpayers of the essential services that they've already paid good money for and have come to rely on.

FDR, JRH, etc, all realize this reality - it's time that the left in Wisconsin did as well.

You guys on the left claim that lobbying works so very well for corporations, right? So why not just reorganize the public sector unions into a lobbying group instead of crying over spilt milk?

Yep, when you guys on the left run out of ideas, you just break out the old Hitler references - classy through and through!

@Hoffa you stated "Yep, when you guys on the left run out of ideas, you just break out the old Hitler references - classy through and through!"

Sorry, the truth hurts......Classy, you Cons always trying to divert from the obvious...Logic and history is not your strength.

@dee50 -

If a union can't strike, then what kind of power do they actually have over a contract that they don't agree with?

Not that the law has prevented public sector unions from striking or wild catting anyway - the past in this state alone is riddled with examples up to and including the recent Madison School District 'sick-out.' And Chicago Pubic School District teachers are in the process of getting ready to strike, having recently rejected the offered 2% across the board pay increase proposed by the District's Board of Education.

Without such power what point is there to having a union, less of course you can elect sympathizers to sit across the table from you and essentially run the whole show unchecked? That's the kind of abuse that needed to stop - and Act 10 did just that.

Hasn't the federal government's use of a mostly (outside the USPS) non-unionized work force proven that the government isn't going to take advantage of its employees and that a public sector union is just fundamentally redundant and unnecessary? Plus, if one doesn’t like the work conditions and compensation offered by the public sector, no one is forcing them to become employed in such sector, are they?