Any action by a politician can usually be measured by how that action is received by the voters in the form of an election.
Now the voters of Wisconsin will state with their ballot if the anti-union laws were a good or bad idea. That action gets the ultimate test April 5th.
In Wisconsin, the national news battle between newly elected Governor Scott Walker and worker unions will get a good test of what Wisconsinites think about the actions Walker and his Republican legislature have taken. April 5th is Spring election time in Wisconsin and foremost on the ballot is the race for Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice who earns a ten year term upon winning this election. This pits incumbent David Prosser against challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Republicans are backing Prosser, while Democrats and those anti-union busting protesters in Madison, WI are supporting Kloppenburg.
What is at stake?
Prosser will rule on the state Supreme Court for the new laws that Walker has pushed through. It is presumed that Kloppenburg will rule more favorably for challenges to the new laws.
If Prosser wins, Walker and state Republicans will claim that the voting public obviously supports the new anti-union laws. Should Kloppenburg win, the anti-Walker group will claim that their side was right and the public vote supports that claim. It would also give a big push to the recall efforts that are going on around the state against the eight Republican state senators that are eligible for recall while possibly dousing the same efforts against eight Democratic state senators. At the same time, some anti-Walkerites have set a countdown clock for recalling Walker. By state law, no elected official can be recalled in their first year in office, so Walker could not be recalled until January, 2012.
Are the battle lines really that clearly drawn between Prosser and Kloppenburg?
Money has already poured into Wisconsin from outside the state for both candidates. Republicans see this as a definitive test for their attempt to reduce the power of unions--permanently. Unions and Democrats see this as a battle for survival. The new laws, I've labeled as anti-union, could not be called anything else. State workers would lose collective bargaining rights, rights to grievance, the right to have dues collection by employers, and a state requirement that unions hold an election every year to recertify their union. This all the while the state dictates to workers what can and cannot be bargained. State employees could no longer bargain over health benefits, sick time, personal leave, grievances, discipline, working conditions, and a host of other items that most people take for granted. They could only bargain over wages, but limited to the inflation rate. So, if inflation increased by 1.5%, state unions could bargain to get that amount (not guaranteed) or less. AND, they would be barred by state law from striking or taking any job action that could be considered work stoppage. In other words, the end of unions.
The power of five.
State officials predict the this will be a typical election turnout where only 20% of the eligible voters with actually go out and vote. That means that each voter has the power of five. Each vote is more powerful because of all the non-voters. Usually incumbents hope for a low voter turnout, believing that name recognition alone will put them through with so few votes being cast. Will that happen this time? Will the outrage from Madison's throngs continue and manifest itself into active voters? Was Walker right or wrong? Defeating a supportive incumbent could sent a strong message that the wrong way was chosen. Re-electing a supportive incumbent could embolden the majority to complete their permanent takeover.
Side note, not noted too much.
As reported in the Milwaukee Journal this past week, David Prosser has not gotten along with other Supreme Court Justices in a very loud and vocal way. It was reported that Prosser in a heated discussion with another Justice called her a "bitch". Prosser admitted doing this, so that part of the story is not in dispute. He went on to claim that the other justice provoked him and blamed her for his outburst.
That sounds familiar.
Where have I heard that line of reasoning before?
Oh yes. That is the line that spouse abusers use to explain why they had to batter their spouse. She/he provoked me. She/he did not do________________ which I wanted done or they ___________ which they know sets me off.
That is the line that rapists use to explain how the woman deserved what she got because she provoked/teased/dressed in such a way that she wanted it.
Yes. A Supreme Court justice whom we hope judges things/events fairly, impartially, passively, unemotionally screaming at another Supreme Court justice that she was a "bitch" AND she deserved it because she provoked him. Let's all teach our children and other adults that this is acceptable behavior. This is the way society should treat each other. Look at who is setting the example--openly, defiantly, with bravado, without apology, without regret, defending this act of civility. How do you want your Supreme Court justice to act both in society, in public and on the bench?
Get Out The Vote on April 5th for your next Supreme Court justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment