Connect with us

Substacks

Wisconsin Republicans’ nuclear option Judd Legum

Published

on

Janet Protasiewicz, 60, is sworn in for her position as a State Supreme Court Justice at the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda in Madison, Wis. on August 1, 2023. (Photo by Sara Stathas for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

In April, Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court with more than one million votes, defeating her conservative opponent by a wide margin. Her victory tipped the balance of the court, and the new liberal majority will soon review a case, Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, that could overturn the state’s heavily gerrymandered, Republican-drawn legislative maps. 

Protasiewicz was sworn in on August 1. But now, before Protasiewicz has had an opportunity to rule on a single case, Wisconsin Republicans are threatening to impeach her. 

At issue are Protasiewicz’s comments during her successful campaign, in which she described the maps as “rigged,” saying that they “do not reflect people in this state.” Those comments have already been subject to a number of complaints by the Republican Party of Wisconsin and others to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, alleging Protasiewicz violated the judicial code of ethics. In May, the Commission dismissed those complaints, finding that Protasiewicz’s comments during the campaign did not violate ethics rules.

Republicans also object to campaign contributions that Protasiewicz received from the Democratic Party. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R), who was one of the first to float the idea of impeachment, says that the $10 million contribution from the Democratic Party confirms that “Protasiewicz and the Democratic Party ‘are one and the same.'” 

Republicans in the legislature have vowed to remove Protasiewicz from office unless she recuses herself from gerrymandering cases. If Protasiewicz were to recuse, the court would likely stalemate on the issue, locking in the existing maps. Protasiewicz could be impeached by a simple majority of the Wisconsin Assembly, a body where Republicans dominate. Conviction and removal in the Wisconsin Senate would require a two-thirds majority — but Republicans control exactly 22 of the body’s 33 seats. Even if Protasiewicz was ultimately not convicted by the Wisconsin Senate, she would have to recuse herself from cases until the trial was completed.

Republicans and conservative members of the court used to have a much different view on recusal. In 2007, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobbying group, spent an “estimated $2.2 million” to help elect (now-Chief) Justice Annette Ziegler. That year, Ziegler sat alongside her colleagues on “a high-profile sales tax case” involving the WMC and refused to step down despite facing criticism. The court ruled 4-3 “in favor of WMC’s position,” and Ziegler wrote the majority decision. No Republicans called for Ziegler’s impeachment. 

Ziegler did this again in 2009: she refused to recuse herself from a case with broad implications for WMC. This time, she was joined by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who declined to step down from the case despite receiving $1.8 million from WMC. 

That same year, WMC proposed a rule to ensure the members of the court it helped elect could still hear its cases. WMC proposed that judges would “not be required to step aside from cases involving groups or individuals no matter how much they spent to help their campaigns.” The rule was narrowly approved by a vote of 4-3 of the court. Ziegler and Gableman voted in favor. 

In 2017, a group of 54 retired Wisconsin judges petitioned the court to “adopt a rule requiring judges and justices to recuse from matters involving individuals and entities who financially supported their campaigns.” But the state’s conservative majority, which included Ziegler and another justice, Rebecca Bradley, shot the proposal down. Bradley criticized the petition for “its disregard for the Wisconsin Constitution and the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.”

And yet, on August 15, Bradley publicly criticized Protasiewicz for failing to recuse herself from the gerrymandering case because she accepted money from the Democratic Party:

Despite receiving nearly $10 million from the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and declaring the maps “rigged,” Protasiewicz has not recused herself from the case. These four justices will adopt new maps to shift power away from Republicans and bestow an electoral advantage for Democrat candidates, fulfilling one of Protasiewicz’s many promises to the principal funder of her campaign. 

Bradley did not mention that she received $70,000 from the Wisconsin Republican Party — a group that benefits from the existing maps — in support of her campaign. Another conservative justice, Brian Hagedorn, received $150,000. Vos and other Republicans are not demanding Bradley and Hagedorn recuse themselves from the gerrymandering case. And they are not threatening to impeach the pair if they fail to recuse. 

Why Wisconsin Republicans are so desperate to keep their gerrymandered maps

Gerrymandering is not unique to Wisconsin. But, for more than a decade, Wisconsin Republicans have gerrymandered the state’s legislative maps so aggressively that it is effectively impossible for Democrats to gain control of the state legislature. 

In 2018, for example, Democrats swept statewide contests for Governor, Attorney General, U.S. Senate, State Treasurer and Secretary of State. That year, 54% of Wisconsin voters selected a Democrat to represent them in the state assembly, with Democratic candidates collecting 200,000 more votes than Republican candidates. And yet, Republicans won 63 of 99 seats in the state assembly — nearly a two-thirds majority. 

In 2022, it was a similar story. The statewide electorate was closely divided, with incumbent Governor Tony Evers (D) and incumbent U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R) both narrowly winning reelection. But Republicans won 64 seats in the state assembly and 22 of 33 state senate seats

How did Republicans create a map that could produce such lopsided results? First, they engaged in traditional gerrymandering practices like “cracking” and “packing.” In some cases, blocks of Democratic voters are “cracked” into many different pieces to dilute their voting power. For example, Milwaukee County, a Democratic stronghold, is split among 21 different legislative districts. When “cracking” isn’t feasible, Democratic voters are “packed” into districts with as few Republicans as possible so Republican voters can be used to gain control of other districts. 

But the maps created by Wisconsin Republicans go even further to reduce Democratic voting power. Take, for example, District 47, a Madison-area district that is not only oddly shaped but contains “a host of disconnected pieces scattered across Dane County.” Some residents of District 47, “must cross two other assembly districts before reaching another part of their district.” In the map below, all areas shaded in yellow are part of District 47:

According to the lawsuit filed challenging the state senate and assembly maps, this is not an anomaly. Across the state, “A remarkable 55 assembly districts, consisting of between 2 and 40 disconnected pieces of territory, and 21 senate districts, consisting of between 2 and 34 disconnected pieces of territory, are noncontiguous.” 

While Republicans are claiming Protasiewicz is unacceptably partisan, only a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice completely blinded by partisanship would uphold non-contiguous districts as legal. The Wisconsin Constitution requires that assembly districts “assembly districts shall be ‘bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines, to consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable’ and that senate districts must be composed of whole assembly districts and must consist of ‘contiguous territory.'” As it stands, a “majority of the current legislative districts… violate these constitutional commands.”

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Substacks

Learning from Oddballs K.L. Evans

Published

on

By

K.L. Evans with her daughter, Ruby LaRocca, the winner of our first-ever high school essay contest. (Photo courtesy of the author)

At the end of August, we ran a special series on What School Didn’t Teach Us, in which Joe Nocera described his path into journalism and Julia the Intern explained why she wanted to try farming before taking up her place at Stanford. (You can catch up with it.)

In response to the series, we got a letter from K.L. Evans, who homeschooled her daughter Ruby LaRocca—otherwise known as the winner of our first-ever High School Essay Contest. Last year, Ruby wrote us a gorgeous Constitution for Teenage Happiness. Reading her mother’s letter—about what you can learn in school, if you have the right teacher—we now get how Ruby ended up so wise beyond her years.

The best students are the bad ones. That was my great discovery in school. I was not belligerent or idle, just a little deviant. Dreamy. I would dodge what I was supposed to be doing and work industriously on projects that were not asked for and would never have been assigned. (Bold, unwieldy affairs that required enormous effort and patience and drew tiny audiences.) I tortured and enjoyed myself. Pondered long and earnestly on how I should make use of my life. I met with many successes but of a kind so marginal they scanned as failures. People found me charming and ridiculous. 

My favorite teachers were the same: unpredictable, untidy, gifted in a way that only a handful of people appreciated. They tended to be honest, and so uncertain about their own effectiveness. Both exacting and affable. Bound absurdly to the twin demands of scholarship and art. Never friendless, but often lonely. (I know because eventually I became one of them.) I found my teachers in old books, in novels and plays and films, and occasionally in real life. Some who I knew in person were just assigned to me, and I had the good sense to cling to them like a barnacle. Some wrote books that taught me how to think, and once in a while I would be brave enough to send a letter to one of these hardworking scholars, and the most generous of them would write back. Corresponding with lively intellectuals far beyond my limited circle of acquaintance was almost as exciting as coming to understand with profit those playful, dynamic, radical works of education sometimes called “classics.”

A classic is one of those rare, synoptic books around which a whole life can evolve, or which becomes deeper as one becomes deeper. That’s why classics have what Ezra Pound calls “a certain eternal and irrepressible freshness.” They do not reinforce but challenge our habitual, settled ways of thinking—which is perhaps why so many people assiduously avoid reading them. As the playwright Alan Bennett jokes, “A classic is a book everyone is assumed to have read and often thinks they have read themselves.” Of course, school is not the only place one could find readers of such books, but in my experience, school was where you found them. (Even if on the perimeter, without a formal position.) 

My point is that the experience of formal education missing from the Editors’ recent investigation into “What School Didn’t Teach You” is the one clung to by the most serious teachers and students: Those eccentrics and oddballs who associate school with the charged, productive space one person opens up for another. The philosopher Stanley Cavell said a teacher is any person who “shows one a way to do relevantly and fruitfully the thing one had almost given up hope of doing.” According to this view, “school” is where students find (only by looking) teachers (not all, not most, but a small, animated faction) game to ward off the stultifying atmosphere in which educators take up a mode of explanation premised on students’ inability—in which teaching assumes the form, “I must explain this to you, since you cannot understand it yourself.” Most people feel fondly about school in proportion to how much they practiced thinking, unraveling difficulties, for themselves. 

Schooling as I experienced it and tried to re-create for my students felt less conventional, more bohemian than the kind of pre-professional training the contributors to your series rightly fled—for the farm, the newsroom, or the workshop. A very clever friend of mine (one of those brilliant, legendary, unemployed intellectuals happily occupying what John Ashbery calls the “category of oblivion which increasingly threatens any artist who dares to take his own way”) says that human genius is like grass breaking through concrete; it persists even in situations of institutional hostility. School is and ought to be the straining, daring green and the crushing pavement—minus which the grass ain’t so beautiful.

Do you have a unique perspective on a Free Press story? Can you bring your personal experience or expertise to bear on an issue we cover? We want to hear from you. Send us a letter to the editor: Letters@TheFP.com.

To support our work, become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

Introducing the First Class of Free Press Fellows Maya Sulkin

Published

on

By

Maya Sulkin is chief of staff at The Free Press. (via The Free Press)

When I joined The Free Press—then called Common Sense—as an intern in 2021, it was run out of a family group chat. Literally. 

Texts about what story from the news should we commission mingled with what we should order for dinner, and who was picking up the baby. There was no office, no HR department, and inevitably we went with Thai. 

I scored the job the way most Free Pressers do: a cold email. In mine, I wrote about losing friends, grades, and party invites because I was too stubborn—or perhaps too foolish—to censor myself on campus. I told Bari I’d be willing to sweep the floors. 

Instead, in my first week on the job, I sat in on an interview with Kim Kardashian from my dorm room. It was the most fun I had in my four years at college in the Covid era. And not just because my personal hero was on the other side of the camera—Kim, not Bari—but because it was the first time in a long time I hadn’t felt alone.

Overnight, I was working with people who left their jobs at places like The New York Times and NPR and Vanity Fair because, like me, they no longer belonged in the places that they worked so hard to get to. They became the most valuable mentors any young person could imagine. 

That summer I flew to California and became the first Free Press intern. It was. . . informal. My official interview was with Suzy on FaceTime. Early on I had to Uber a microphone from Andrew Sullivan’s house to Larry Summers’ for a podcast recording. I’ve taken out the trash and furnished an entire newsroom from Facebook Marketplace. I’ve traveled to Israel to cover the war in Gaza and to Palo Alto for an interview with Javier Milei.

We’ve buttoned things up a bit since I started. And we’ve grown. A lot. 

I have watched that little family group chat—and an office that was Bari and Nellie’s kitchen table—grow into a full-fledged newsroom. We still think of ourselves as an island of misfit toys, but when I really look, I see a hotbed of journalistic talent, doing agenda-setting reporting. I see an 800,000-person strong community of engaged, freethinking subscribers from all over the world. And we’ve found young journalists who embody our values: honesty, curiosity, respect, hard work, independence, excellence, common sense, and a belief in the American project. 

So today, we are thrilled to announce a new initiative: The Free Press Fellowship. It’s a two-year program for reporters and writers eager to pursue the kind of journalism that makes The Free Press live up to its name. 

The 2024–2025 Free Press Fellows are:

Julia Steinberg (known far and wide as Julia the Intern) has been with The Free Press since her sophomore year of college. In those two years, she has answered all of your “Where I TGs,” testified before Congress, and reported on the ground at the DNC. As a rising senior at Stanford, she will serve as the editor of The Stanford Review

Here’s Julia on her time at The Free Press: “This was my second summer at The Free Press. I chose to come back—and work part-time during the craziest school year I could imagine—because I was not treated with kid gloves. Interns are trusted to to pitch, report, and write stories, script podcasts, take on business projects, create videos, and so much more. (And yes, sometimes we make coffee.)”

Evan Gardner, a rising senior at Brown, has also been at The Free Press for two years. In that time, he spearheaded our Olympics coverage, traveled to Nashville to cover country music concerts, and installed Ethernet in our new New York offices. (Thank you, Evan!)

Here’s Evan: “I’ve learned how to follow an exciting idea from the chaos of my Notes app all the way to something worthy of the pages of The Free Press. My writing and my thinking have become more expansive, yet precise. Around the clock, there is never a dull moment with this lean but strong team, and there’s no place I’d rather be as we continue to bring you the history—and the madness—unfolding before us. I’ve never consumed this much Diet Coke in my life. I couldn’t be happier doing it.”

Elias Wachtel came to us this summer after finishing his junior year at Columbia, where he studies ancient Greek and classical political philosophy. He wrote about his time on the Appalachian trail and called for Gen Z to turn to national service. He commissioned freelance pieces, worked with editors, and contributed reporting to stories on West Virginia’s opioid settlement distribution and the psychological strain on elite gymnasts. 

Here’s Elias: “The most remarkable thing about interning with The Free Press is that they really care about hearing from us. I was shocked when I first learned I’d be allowed to write and publish this summer—in what other internship is that even possible? Before I started working here, I had been a longtime reader of The Free Press. At first, I was almost scared to see what it was like behind the scenes, lest I uncover some hidden angle, some well-kept secret that would shatter my faith in the project. But the wonderful thing about The Free Press is that it’s just what it promises to be: a small team of fiercely independent, curious thinkers who want to bring you the truth, each and every day.” 

Jonas Du became a Free Press intern through a Twitter DM he sent to Bari while reporting the Columbia campus protests back in May. 

In his time at The Free Press, Jonas has responded to an Atlantic article that argued conservatives benefit from the hostile environment of liberal college campuses, written about why the “authentic” social media app BeReal faltered, and appeared on NewsNation to talk about what young voters want from Harris and Trump.

“When you’re part of a company that’s truly new and disruptive, you can feel it every day. That’s why working at The Free Press this summer has been the best internship experience I could have wished for. After only a few months at The Free Press, it’s hard to imagine working for the legacy media. Every day, I see the real-world impact that reporters, editors, and producers sitting in the same room as me have on the national conversation. To be a part of that team, especially as a 21-year-old, is an opportunity I am incredibly grateful for.”

Last but not least, we are thrilled to welcome Danielle Shapiro

Danielle is currently a senior at Princeton University, where she studies political theory and history. She is the president emeritus of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, which is committed to truth-seeking and academic freedom. Shapiro’s summer internships, at both Tablet magazine and The Wall Street Journal opinion page, have cemented her desire to pursue a career in journalism. “As someone who has been following The Free Press since its inception, I am so excited to join a growing team of motivated and thoughtful writers,” she said.

You’ll notice that the Free Press Fellows this year are all college seniors. You need not be a college student—or have ever gone to college—to apply to the next cohort. Indeed, we are especially keen to consider college-aged applicants from nontraditional or unconventional backgrounds. 

If that sounds like you, please apply here to be considered for The Free Press Fellowship program for 2025–2026. 

If you’d like to support our Fellowship program, and the next generation of free-thinking journalists, become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

And if you’re already a subscriber—tell us how you really feel!

We want to learn more about you and what you’re craving from The Free Press. Click here to complete a quick survey to help us make our work (even) better. Plus: Everyone who completes the survey will be entered in a raffle to win Free Press swag.

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

September 19, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

 

Continue Reading

Shadow Banned

Copyright © 2023 mesh news project // awake, not woke // news, not narrative // deep inside the filter bubble