Process Be Damned: GOP Lawmakers Signed Legal Agreements To Shut Out Public Comments Over Redistricting
A fundamental flaw has taken place in the political process in Wisconsin. The news today that almost all Wisconsin Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the redistricting maps while they were being developed is both stunning news, and wholly inappropriate.
Government should at all times strive mightily to be open and transparent when conducting the public’s business. How did that concept so clearly elude those who campaign so hard for the office, and offer to do the best for their constituents? The Republicans who signed the legal agreements may call themselves conservatives, but they are not classic conservatives with a higher calling concerning the process of government. These actions of modern-day Republicans were not modeled on the constitutional figures that they often like to tell the rest of us about, and seek to model themselves after when fighting ‘big government’.
What is more ‘big government’ than hiding behind a legal agreement that shields the process of governing from those they were elected to serve?
Every ten years one of the most important legislative actions is the work of drawing new redistricting maps which creates the lines for new voting boundaries. While all have a vested interest in the process, it can only be viewed as credible if the public is allowed to be engaged so the creation of the maps is viewed as being fair. There is no way that can be claimed this year with the news today.
Other newly released documents also show almost all Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the new maps while they were being developed.
GOP lawmakers fought releasing these new documents and testifying about the maps in a pending court case but relented after a panel of three federal judges based in Milwaukee last month found they had filed frivolous motions in trying to shield the information from the public.
Included in the documents released Monday was a set of talking points that stressed that those who discussed the maps could eventually be called as a witness in a court case.
Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) said Monday he had never before been asked to sign a confidentiality agreement during his four decades in office.
.gif)
I’m not sure, or not understanding why ‘we’ need public comment on geographical physical boundaries based on population shifts mathematically determined by the 2010 Census? Don’t elected officials represent a certain amount of population? These are called ‘Districts’?
Side Bar: I was a 2010 Census Enumerator in Northern Door County, from Liberty Grove, Wisconsin, going North up to Death’s Door. Most striking development learned in this accounting in my area, was 87.63% of the ‘dwellings’ were, “Vacant, usual home elsewhere”. Which in laymans terms means that the dwelling was unoccupied and empty for “six months and one day” during the year between April 01 to April 01.
The funniest thing run into was one gentleman who lived in a very nice dwelling as a squatter after breaking in and making himself at home for months. Had his car parked in the garage, was doing laundry when I enumerated him. No cops were called by me.
Secondly, if public input was allowed during the ‘redistricting and boundary changing’, wouldn’t that be like trying to map an amoeba? How does one map a moving target?
Wait till the map is done and then haggle over the map’s boundaries in court. I don’t know but I don’t think this will amount to much of a change anyway, except follow the law as determined by population and ought not be determined by the political diversity within the population. A ‘sticky’ question that was never asked on the questionare used in the 2010 Census.
Redistricting before the bonderies are established is like asking a judge for leniency before being found guilty. That’s not possible. The defendant must be found guilty first in order to obtain leniency later.
Craig skip Weis.
I found the term “public comments” used by the Journal Sentinel in a confusing way. I read that term, and read the start of the story, as you do here — about comments made by citizens in public hearings. However, a paragraph later in the story appeared to clarify the JS use of the term as meaning that the agreements from legislative leaders were making clear to other legislators that leaders’ public comments would differ from their private comments to other legislators. Further clarification of what the JS meant is needed!
Each legislator who signed this “agreement” ought to be kicked out of office. They insult Wisconsin’s longtime commitment to open government. Each one of these legislators is more interested in covering their tracks than they are in doing what is best for the people of Wisconsin. There is something inherently un-American about their actions and their beliefs. What morally bankrupt creatures they all are! And anyone who supports their fascist-like behavior are even more pathetic and pitiable.