tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post1919566285643877938..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Redistricting Trial: Some Things to WatchRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-78796246716858396542012-02-25T09:31:27.442-06:002012-02-25T09:31:27.442-06:00"But, if you read Jim's deposition, he sa..."But, if you read Jim's deposition, he says that this is a common practice and explains why."<br /><br />I have tried to locate Troupis' deposition, and have yet to find it on the internet. Do you happen to have a link, professor? Thank you.<br /><br />Furthermore, you have not answered my inquiry--Have the Democrats in Wisconsin ever made nondisclosure agreements during the redistricting process? If yes, what was their rationale? <br /><br />Would it not be fair to say this strategy is "out of the ordinary" in regards to the process?<br /><br />I assume that the "common practice" you are referring to is the process of the strategies of drawing the maps "close to the vest". <br /><br />However, the courts have chastised the machinations of the (R)'s in this process, most notably their attorney-client privilege claims, that indeed this tactic was an effort to circumvent the process. Have the (D)'s ever used this tactic in redistricting? Would not this strategy be "out of the ordinary"? <br /><br />That is why WE THE PEOPLE are scrutinizing the means involved in the process, not the process itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-27428358337276161912012-02-24T20:37:01.097-06:002012-02-24T20:37:01.097-06:00Anon
Given the fact that the Republican Party cha...Anon<br /><br />Given the fact that the Republican Party challenged it, I think your story leaves some things out. In any event, my point is not to cast stones at Democrats, only to point out that it has been a heck of a long time since any party had the power to pass its own plan.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-26293345269038810282012-02-24T13:14:13.039-06:002012-02-24T13:14:13.039-06:00You grossly mischaracterize what the Democrats did...You grossly mischaracterize what the Democrats did in 1983. The 1982 election was held on a court-ordered plan under which the federal judge(s) didn't take judicial notice of where the incumbents lived. [In 1992 the judge(s) did take judicial notice.] <br /><br />As a result, any incumbents on both sides of the aisle did not live in the districts they represented. Each of them "moved" back into their districts -- they claimed to rent apartments in the districts. Because there were legislators on both sides of the aisle in this pickle, neither side made it an issue in the 1982 election. <br /><br />An amendment was addded to the 1983 budget bill to fix all of these residency problems, so that the incumbents could "move" back into their former residences. Again, there were people on each side of the aisle so the amendent only affected a handful of districts and was not a complete redistricting plan, and it was developed in a bipartisan manner with each caucus having input. To describe it in any other manner is not an honest charcterization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-87297841919504477262012-02-24T11:08:30.809-06:002012-02-24T11:08:30.809-06:00Anony-multi: Yeah, Fitz trains his minions to tal...Anony-multi: Yeah, Fitz trains his minions to talk Snotty like that all the time, even to constituents. I think that's a good part of the reason he's up for recall.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-23192991687257685662012-02-24T07:41:21.686-06:002012-02-24T07:41:21.686-06:00Anon
You have to go back a long time to find an o...Anon<br /><br />You have to go back a long time to find an occasion when one party was able to draw maps. I think the last time was 1983 after a court ordered plan was put in place because there was divided government. Then in 1982, Tony Earl was elected Governor and the Dems then tried to replace the court ordered plan with one more favorable to them. And I don't know what happened then.<br />But, if you read Jim's deposition, he says that this is a common practice and explains why. <br /><br />Given the fact that the party caucuses are very good at keeping their strategies close to the vest, I have no reason to think that the Dems would behave any differently.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-14324359774946227432012-02-23T23:35:28.470-06:002012-02-23T23:35:28.470-06:00Same anony here.
Professor--"I did not say ...Same anony here.<br /><br /><br />Professor--"I did not say that there was a "lack of enforcement." I said that, in my opinion, they might not be enforceable. Actually both the Democratic and Republican caucuses are pretty disciplined in Wisconsin because of the power of party leadership on both sides of the aisle."<br /><br />Yes, I understand what you said. My point is that Wisconsin Republicans in the legislature were given a memo that told each and every single one of them specifically not to say anything about the maps. <br /><br />Its members, I would imagine, being a fraternity (just like the Democrats) would enforce this mandate themselves by a conscious choice. On the other hand, if one or more "break ranks", I suspect there would be repercussions. So while on the surface the nondisclosure agreement is NOT enforceable as a matter of a rule or a law, by custom it can be enforced, with consequences resulting for not following it through. <br /><br />Why did the GOP feel compelled to provide this mandate to its members in the legislative branch regarding the maps?<br /><br />Have the Democrats in Wisconsin ever made nondisclosure agreements during the redistricting process? If yes, what was their rationale?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-8406205739130868612012-02-23T23:24:08.541-06:002012-02-23T23:24:08.541-06:00Anony 7:46 p.m. and 7:55 p.m. here.
Professor, wi...Anony 7:46 p.m. and 7:55 p.m. here.<br /><br />Professor, with all due respect, I made it abundantly clear regarding WE THE PEOPLE. There is no confusion on my end on this essential concept. One more time, WE THE PEOPLE, the citizens are tired of the process being manipulated by both sides to their own designs. The process itself may produce an OUTCOME that could be unconstitutional. The federal court may therefore offer remedies in light of those problems presented. In particular, federal courts have been involved in redrawing legislative maps because (D)'s and (R)'s have abused the process for their own advantage. In this specific situation, the common good is therefore ensured when the federal courts intervene on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE. The process itself is not to what WE THE PEOPLE object to, but how that process was carried out.<br /><br /><br />Professor--"Whether a consultant is protected by an claim of attorney-client or work product privilege is more complicated than you think. The claim of privilege may not have been well taken here, but it's hardly that simple."<br /><br />Again, with all due respect, all you provided me is a statement without any examples to refute my claim. I would imagine that a person would learn in first semester law school to offer a more thorough explanation.<br /><br /><br />Professor--"But the comments about the claim of privilege in the litigation being undercut by sharing the maps with the FNC or Jensen are wrong. No claim of privilege was asserted with respect to the maps."<br /><br />It would appear that you would be mistaken.<br /><br />www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/733-redistricting-maps-intimidation-unveiled-.html<br /><br />host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/article_3b40234e-7c0a-11e0-9686-001cc4c03286.html<br /><br />www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judges-say-gop-lawmakers-trying-to-hide-redistricting-details-from-public-td3lru1-136626883.html<br /><br />www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-were-made-to-pledge-secrecy-over-redistricting-9643ep0-138826854.html<br /><br /><br />Disclaimer--Why these sources may have a particular bias, that bias should NOT automatically call into question certain facts which are indisputable.<br /><br /><br />Again, Professor, I am well aware of your argument that both (R)'s and (D)'s have asked outside individuals for legal advice about redistricting in the past. I am well aware of the practice for each party when in power to draw those maps "in secret" and keep it "close to the vest". I am well aware that the party in control of the legislature can put a map together, pass it, and the governor can sign it into law.<br /><br />I am not arguing that the process itself is somehow wrong or illegal. What I am questioning is HOW that process was undertaken by the GOP in this particular circumstance and the RESULT of that process. And the evidence thus far seems to suggest that the GOP was less than transparent and that their end product will be subjected to intense legal scrutiny. It would appear that these specific actions do NOT happen all the time.<br /><br />In 2011, when asked whether the maps would be drawn in secret without Democrat or public input, the response was: “You talked to Democrats who ‘think’ that Republican leaders have these grand plots,” Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, says in an email response to questions about GOP plans. “I guess I’ll leave it up to your journalistic standards if their motivated speculation is worth reporting on.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-44488955278252477262012-02-23T22:08:27.757-06:002012-02-23T22:08:27.757-06:00Both stadtmueler and the dems are miffed that Ryan...Both stadtmueler and the dems are miffed that Ryan Braun has stolen the limelight from them. The only real issue is whether the federal panel will defer to the state legislature on their own volition or by being reversed later by the supreme court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-28682992517375617452012-02-23T21:58:11.947-06:002012-02-23T21:58:11.947-06:00Anon 9:28
First, to say that you can find a distr...Anon 9:28<br /><br />First, to say that you can find a district that was only short ten and therefore should only have been moved ten is a stupid lawyer's trick. No district can be considered in isolation.<br /><br />More fundamentally, there is no rule that one must adhere closely to a prior plan. The only way that can become relevant if it is probabtive of some other actionable wrong of which, quite frankly, there are very few.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-27827004967863927662012-02-23T21:52:42.022-06:002012-02-23T21:52:42.022-06:00Various Anons
With all due respect, you are conf...Various Anons<br /><br /><br />With all due respect, you are confusing all sorts of distinct concepts. "WE THE PEOPLE" may or may not like the process. But a federal court is most decidedly "WE THE PEOPLE" and does not act in loco parentis for sny partucular view of the common good. It's role is far more limited. No member of that panel would say I'm wrong. You learn it in the first semester of law school.<br /><br />Whether a consultant is protected by an claim of attorney-client or work product privilege is more complicated than you think. The claim of privilege may not have been well taken here, but it's hardly that simple.<br /><br />In any event, I do think that some of the claims of privilege may be a step too far. But the comments about the claim of privilege in the litigation being undercut by sharing the maps with the FNC or Jensen are wrong. No claim of privilege was asserted with respect to the maps. That they weren't released to the public earlier is not a claim of "privilege," it's just a decision not to make something public earlier which happens all the time. If you think that's a legal problem, you're barking up a nonexistent tree. If you want that stuff, you have to make an open records request and then we can assess whether it must be produced.<br /><br />Beyond that, resisting the production of material in discovery is not the same as hiding the ongoing legislative process. These are two distinct concepts. No discovery happened until after the plan was passed.<br /><br />Whether or not there was a disputed response to an open records request during the process is another matter. If there was, I am not aware of it and, in any event, it would not be a proper issue for the this case. I am aware that Voces has made an Open Meetings complaint. It is not meritorious. Maybe I'll post on that tomorrow.'<br /><br />I did not say that there was a "lack of enforcement." I said that, in my opinion, they might not be enforceable. Actually both the Democratic and Republican caucuses are pretty disciplined in Wisconsin because of the power of party leadership on both sides of the aisle.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-5395263040111388422012-02-23T21:28:49.287-06:002012-02-23T21:28:49.287-06:00Testimony today that may prove significant, as to ...Testimony today that may prove significant, as to how much movement of voters is too much: http://elections.wispolitics.com/2012/02/mayer-testifies-on-number-of-voters.html<br /><br />To wit, a district underpopulated by only 10 -- ten, count 'em, ten -- saw more than 35,000 residents moved in, out, up, down, and around. And there are more. . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-82512167686839493662012-02-23T20:24:36.793-06:002012-02-23T20:24:36.793-06:00Anonymous @7:46: Another and perhaps even stronge...Anonymous @7:46: Another and perhaps even stronger example of evidence undercutting the argument re confidentiality with consultants is the norm -- which may have some weight -- is that the maps were shared, almost a month before they were seen by the public, with the Republican National Committee.<br /><br />Now, Mac Davis in Waukesha County courts might buy that argument by ignoring that evidence, but I doubt it is going to fly with federal judges to claim that the RNC was a consultant like Gaddie. Nope, that conversation, along with those with (be fair now) the former convicted felon, are not going to work. I see another smackdown coming from Stadtmueller, et al.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-19806881084654572502012-02-23T19:56:09.576-06:002012-02-23T19:56:09.576-06:00"While Jim was apparently not involved with n..."While Jim was apparently not involved with nondisclosure agreements..."<br /><br />Which means he COULD or MAY have been involved, but at this time, it would appear he is "innocent". <br /><br />Anyways, have the Democrats ever made nondisclosure agreements during the redistricting process? If yes, what was their rationale?<br /><br />Regardless if there was a "lack of enforcement" surrounding the nondisclosure agreements, it would seem that the GOP was capable within their ranks of not spilling the beans without having this "extra level of protection" in place. Just bizarre.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-37365813868851663302012-02-23T19:46:05.578-06:002012-02-23T19:46:05.578-06:00Professor--"Because I have seen lots of lawye...Professor--"Because I have seen lots of lawyers try to do something like this, I am not as outraged by it as others might be. Contrary to what is reported in the papers, it is not at all clear that it kept much private that would have otherwise been unilaterally made public during the legislative process. Legislative caucuses typically keep their strategies close to the vest and it is not unusual to outside consultants to be employed in redistricting. ***That documents might be subject to an open records request does not mean that they will - or must be - made public in the absence of a request.***"<br /><br /><br />Sir, the GOP has fought tooth and nail for the redistricting process to be kept from the public. It claimed “attorney-client privilege” as its reason to refuse to disclose the maps to the public. <br /><br />So the lawyers hired by the GOP and the legislators involved in redistricting worked out a plan for the maps to be kept confidential. Ok, fine…HOWEVER, “outside consultants” were brought in for their two-cents worth. Does this process NOT wreak of hypocrisy? <br /><br />On one hand, the GOP is claiming that the redrawn maps cannot be revealed to the people because of their “sensitivity”. On the other hand, the GOP can discuss with a PUBLIC FIGURE, aka Scott Jensen, as to whether those maps meet their intended political outcome. Last time I checked, he is NOT a legislator, but a member of the general public. What makes him so special that he can be part of the process? How is it possible for the GOP to claim “attorney-client” privilege when the “outside consultant”—a convicted felon--had no say in the matter in the first place during the map-redistricting process? How is Jensen and the other consultants part of the attorney-client privilege when they were not part of the original meetings?<br /><br />So, yes, while it is not unusual consultants be sought during redistricting, this situation is particularly out of the ordinary and should, in my mind, be investigated further.<br /><br />Referring to **, the SAME logic can be employed in this similar situation—The Government Accountability Board can choose NOT to provide documents to the general public in the absence of an open records request. Yet you scathingly wrote how the GOB erred in refusing to provide additional scrutiny to those petitions in the interest of transparency.<br /><br /><br />Professor--“It does not [sic] good to say that you think that the Republicans violated traditional notions of open government. That is not a violation of federal law.”<br /><br />Then the GOP can NEVER chastise the Democrats if they act in a similar weasel-like fashion. Again, the general public is sick and tired of these machinations and their lawyers who argue that the process cannot be indicted, but only the outcomes of that process. <br /><br />Regardless, in this specific instance, it DOES matter that if WE THE PEOPLE think that the GOP “violated traditional notions”. (I’m not saying that the Dems, if in this circumstance, would refuse to act in a similar manner).<br /><br />"The facts are the facts. And what has occurred here is beyond the pale in terms of lack of transparency (and) secrecy," he said. "... But appearances are everything. And Wisconsin has prided itself from one generation after another on openness and fairness and doing the right thing. And to be candid we have seen everything but that in the way this case has progressed."—J.P. StadtmuellerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-89637826540869171732012-02-23T10:21:10.243-06:002012-02-23T10:21:10.243-06:00GOP gets a poor grade on the "optics" in...GOP gets a poor grade on the "optics" in this matter. <br /><br />No surprise that D's will exploit that. <br /><br />Your analysis makes it very interesting to see what the judges will do on the substantive legal issues.George Mitchellnoreply@blogger.com