My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here you go.
Confronted with increasing and pervasive crime being driven by our open-border and soft-on-crime district attorneys and judges, the voters of Wisconsin overwhelmingly passed two state constitutional amendments to empower judges. Now there are two pro-criminal groups trying to overturn the will of the people.
The cost of crime on individuals and communities is immeasurable. Roughly fifteen years ago, organized groups — many of which were funded by billionaire George Soros — began supporting soft-on-crime DAs and judges throughout America who have been exceedingly lenient to criminals to the detriment of victims. This problem was exacerbated by the leftist effort to defund the police after the death of George Floyd and the importation of legions of criminals through Biden’s open-border policy. The result of all of these policy choices has been an explosion in crime. Even though much of the crime goes unreported (if we don’t arrest and convict people for crimes, then the crime rate will look better than it really it), we, the people, feel it.
In Wisconsin, judges had strict restrictions about what they could consider when determining bail for criminal offenders. They could not consider the offender’s criminal record, history of violent crime, or risk to the general public when determining bail. While one might think that such considerations are paramount when setting a cash bail threshold that will determine how easy it is for an offender to roam the streets while awaiting trial, Wisconsin’s judges were not allowed to use such factors in their judgment.
In normal times, correcting this fault in the criminal justice code would have been a simple matter of the Legislature passing a law and the governor signing it. But in Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers is part of the pro-criminal ideology who would veto any suggestion that we be stricter with criminals. To get around this, the Republicans in the Legislature passed two constitutional amendments to allow judges to consider an offender’s criminal history and threat to the public when setting bail. Wisconsin’s process for amending the Constitution does not require the governor’s assent, but it does require the voters to approve amendments in a statewide vote.
Wisconsin’s voters overwhelmingly approved the two amendments last year by a two-to-one margin.
Despite the clear and undeniable support for the bail amendments, a couple of pro-criminal groups have sued to overturn the will of the voters and a Dane County judge appears open to the argument. The case they are making is that the Legislature violated procedure when sending the proposed amendments to be put on the ballots, so the results should be thrown out.
By law, ballot questions must be “filed with the official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots” no less than 70 days before the election. The Legislature sent the ballot questions to the Wisconsin Election Commission 76 days before the election, but the WEC didn’t send the questions to local county election officials until 69 days before the election. The plaintiffs are arguing that the will of the voters should be turned over based on interpreting “official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots” as local election officials instead of the state agency responsible for overseeing elections.
The lawsuit is a farce and should be thrown out, but Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford has said that she will issue a written decision in the coming weeks. Lanford’s court has been a favorite destination for leftist plaintiffs. She was originally elected to the bench in 2013 with strong support from fellow leftists like Congressman Mark Pocan, AFSCME, SEIU, Madison Teachers Inc., and others. She said when running that, “I believe that the trial courts have inherent power to act in the interest of justice, and do not need permission from the Legislature.” Said another way, Lanford is exactly the kind of judge who thinks that her own judgment supersedes the judgment of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in the Legislature.
I strongly urge Judge Lanford to follow the law and allow the will of the people to be fulfilled. Not only is it the law, but it will help Wisconsin’s judges keep habitual criminals from victimizing more people while out on bail.
>I strongly urge Judge Lanford to follow the law and allow the will of the people to be fulfilled. Not only is it the law, but it will help Wisconsin’s judges keep habitual criminals from victimizing more people while out on bail.
It might also keep the Wisconsin law system appear one shade less corrupt than New York’s law system. Following the rule of leftyism instead of the rule of law according to the Constitution is corruption pure and simple. Calling it just ‘leftist’ is what they want everyone to call it, because then all of their false arguments, false superiority, false rationalizations and false programming that the false media and education machine pours out 24/7 supports the anti-constitutional, pro-bias decisions that the left promotes.
If it is against the law of the left, lefty judges can follow their heart. For instance, if it is against the law according to the Constitution, the lefty judges break the law by calling it progressivism that can cut through red tape. Law is completely mutable in the world of the left and they righteously apply it to their enemies while ignoring the same laws in the name of liberalism when it comes to their interests.
If lefties at least admitted they believed in the law of liberalism and NOT the Constitution I could wrap my brain around it. How anyone outside of China, Russia, Africa or the Arab world cannot see the obvious is simply beyond me.
Marshall McLuhan: “Indignation endows the idiot with dignity.”
Most lefty complaints are indignant. Now you know why.
I voted for the referendum because the bail changes were long overdue. But I’m confused by your position. When the Wisconsin Supremes narrowed the use of ballot drop boxes, you wrote: “The case wasn’t about whether drop boxes are a good idea or not. The case was about whether the law allows for drop boxes even though state elections officials allowed them. The law does not allow drop boxes. It’s a clear legal determination.” And that was correct. But here, you seem to suggest doing otherwise: ignoring the law because it would be a good idea.
Not at all. The Legislature’s notification of the WEC meets the legal requirement. That is how it has been done for years. The Legislature has not been required to notify local election clerks directly before and such an interpretation of the rule is not valid.
Granted, the rule is poorly written, but the court has no compelling reason to interpret it differently than it has been interpreted to date.
Owen, I’m sure that you mean “legitimate court” when you state that ‘the court has no compelling reason [to change the interpretation].
Just like a legitimate President would not allow an invasion, nor attempt to start a war with Russia.
But merely moving in to an office does not signify “legitimacy” any more in the USA.
>Marshall McLuhan: “Indignation endows the idiot with dignity.”
A good bit of irony there, indignation being a form of the word indignity. Great quote Dad, but I think it is missing something, now that critical thinking is no longer a part of American education or political system. It probably needs a little more now: ‘Indignation endows all the idiots with faux dignity.’ or ‘Indignation endows the idiot with dignity in his own mind.’
>‘Indignation endows the idiot with dignity in his own mind.’
Bah, the left has that covered too, with their pronoun indignation.
T. assumes that the (Lefty) idiots have a mind. That’s a high-risk assumption.
Oh c’mon Dad, we all know they have minds, it is just that they have not been trained how to use them. To say they don’t have brains at all gives them the excuse for not thinking. I am not that forgiving.
T, the Hardass!!