This one is not about a football play. It’s about legislative Republicans discovering a novel way of getting around both a Democratic Governor and a liberal Supreme Court.
The strategy is to take legislation that would be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers or struck down by the Court and putting in a constitutional amendment over which neither has a say. Republicans have already done that with an amendment that passed in a referendum last spring which gives judges more discretion in keeping people accused of violent crimes in jail while they await trial. They’re doing it again this spring with proposed amendments to make it clear that people who are not citizens may not vote and making it illegal for local elections administrators to use private funds to run elections. I would think both amendments will pass overwhelmingly, as they should.
Democrats are crying foul over this, arguing that it’s an inappropriate use of the constitutional amendment process which, they argue, should be reserved for broad statements of principle. I’m with the Republicans on this one. Here are some reasons.

First, our state constitution is already like that closet in your hallway that’s stuffed with things you don’t want to see again but don’t have the heart to throw out. For example, there remains a prohibition on the state granting divorces and a ban on gay marriage. It’s junk that really should be taken to the dump, but it hangs around because nobody’s got the energy to take it out.
Second, it’s not easy to amend the constitution. An amendment needs to pass two successive legislatures and then be approved in a popular referendum. That would prevent really hard-right legislation, like an updated ban on abortion, from being enacted because it would never pass in a referendum. In fact, I wish Republicans would put that on the ballot because it would drive turnout for Democrats in a massive way.
Third, what this amounts to is a modified initiative-referendum system, which used to be thought of as a progressive reform — and will be again when the tables are turned. It’s essentially direct democracy. If something isn’t popular it won’t pass. What Democrats really don’t like about this is that popular Republican ideas will become law over their objections.
The next issues Republicans have lined up for this process include codifying photo ID’s for voting, requiring a two-thirds legislative majority for increasing taxes and giving the Legislature more control over spending federal dollars. I support photo ID’s, oppose the supermajority for tax increases and have mixed feelings about the federal spending. But my guess is all three will pass. None of them are the end of the world.
Can we be honest here? If the roles were reversed the Democrats would be doing the same thing. They’d be introducing constitutional amendments to accept federal Medicaid money, create a nonpartisan redistricting commission and legalize marijuana because all those are popular positions. They would not be advancing amendments to protect affirmative action, guarantee the right to gender-affirming care for minors or ban school voucher programs because they would know that all of those things would go down in flames with the voters.
The system we have for amending our constitution makes it pretty certain that either party would use it carefully, advancing only amendments that are likely to pass muster with the voters. Doing otherwise only runs the risk of motivating voters who are against you.
Yeah, this is an end around, but it’s not out of bounds and, like most end around plays in football, it’s not likely to result in much gain for either side.
School board needs challengers. Incumbent Madison School Board members Savion Castro and Maia Pearson have announced that they’re running for reelection in April. I have deep concerns about the direction of this Board. So, I hope candidates will step forward to challenge them with a fresh and practical vision. You need only 100 signatures to get on the ballot and nomination papers can be circulated now through January 3rd.
Your pinned postscript is worth a column of its own. I don’t think “a fresh and practical vision” gets too far. If you were to put on your Machivellian hat (or consult with someone who has such a hat), how would such an overthrow or at least foot in the door occur?
LikeLike
Honestly, it’s a long shot. For whatever reason, it’s very difficult to get people to run for school board.
LikeLike
Why do you support voter ID? We were fine without it for generations.
LikeLike
I thought someone might call me on that. I meant to change it before posting. Support is the wrong word. It’s more a view that it is neither necessary nor harmful. I don’t see that it has resulted in voter suppression as the Dems feared and as the Republicans intended. Given all the conspiracy theories around elections, to get rid of it now would only fuel the stupid fire.
LikeLike
Glad to see you are finally calling out conspiracy theorists Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams.
Seriously though many things were fine for generations. I remember when plagiarism was an effective “death penalty” for a public figure. Not anymore.
If a system CAN be subverted eventually it WILL be. This is one of the reasons bitcoin was created.
That being said, propaganda is still the easiest way to subvert elections. And no, you don’t have to have “German character” to fall for it, you just need to be human.
LikeLike