End Is Near for Republican Rule
The unchecked extremism of Republican Gov. Scott Walker's one-party control of the state officially ended with the resignation of Republican state Sen. Pam Galloway ahead of her likely recall.
Galloway's Senate career was short and bizarre. Galloway was one of those Republican extremists elected in the Tea Party "Obama Backlash Election" of 2010 that not only gave Walker the governorship, but also gave Republicans control of both houses of the Legislature.
Despite her medical training as a physician, Galloway demonstrated what has to be described as shocking indifference toward protecting public health. Not only was Galloway a primary sponsor of the state's concealed carry law to encourage more deadly weapons on our streets, but also in recent months she fought to exempt schools from being required to protect student athletes from concussions.
The immediate effect of Galloway's resignation is to end the two-year Republican control of the state Senate. Because Democrats picked up two Senate seats in last summer's recalls, Democrats and Republicans are now evenly divided, with 16 votes each in the Senate.
Democrats are expected to win several more Senate seats in four recall elections set for May and June.
Senate Change Is Significant
Republicans losing their Senate majority is much more significant than it ordinarily would be going into a legislative break. These are not ordinary times.
Because Republicans under Walker used tactics of such questionable legality to pass their extreme legislation, ending one-party rule will allow courts that still believe in upholding the law to stop some of the Republicans' most brazenly dishonest legislation in its tracks.
Overturning the Republicans' corrupt redistricting plan should be the first victory for democracy.
Every 10 years, following the new census, state politicians are required to draw lines for new legislative districts to assure equal representation as required by the U.S. Constitution.
A panel of three federal judges already rebuked Republicans for unethical and illegal actions connected to their redistricting plan, which intentionally manipulated boundaries to try to assure Republican legislative majorities for the next decade. To accomplish that, Republicans partially disenfranchised more than 300,000 people and chopped apart a Latino district in Milwaukee.
Because courts prefer legislators to do their own redistricting, if possible, the judges several times asked Republicans to correct the legal and constitutional problems raised by opponents. State Republicans, arrogant in their control of the Legislature, refused.
Now the judges are expected to declare the Republican plan illegal and send it back to the Legislature to come up with a constitutional plan.
Since Republicans no longer control the Senate, they will either have to compromise with Democrats on a plan or allow the judges themselves to do the redistricting.
Another brazen Republican assault on democracy was the most restrictive photo ID requirement for voting in the nation.
One court already has declared the law unconstitutional and another issued a temporary injunction to stop more than 220,000 qualified voters in the state from being disenfranchised.
Since both decisions were based on the state constitution, Republican legislative leaders smugly predict the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately overrule the lower courts and uphold the voting restrictions.
Republican confidence is based upon an openly corrupt Republican majority that currently controls the court. But Republicans could be losing their automatic grip on the court just as they're losing power in the Legislature.
Last week, Justice David Prosser, a former Republican leader in the Legislature, became the third member of the four-person Republican majority on the court to be charged with an ethical violation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.
Justice Pat Roggensack, usually the fourth member of the Republican majority, is up for re-election in 2013. Does she really want to go into that election joining three other justices, widely considered to be corrupt, in overruling two separate court decisions stopping the disenfranchisement of more than 200,000 Wisconsinites?
A perfect metaphor for what Walker has done to democracy in Wisconsin is his failed attempt to allow a wealthy mining corporation to rewrite mining regulations without regard to environmental damage from open-pit mining in northwest Wisconsin.
Walker's yearlong administration has left behind enormous destruction and gaping wounds in our democracy. It was done in the fraudulent name of job creation, as it has now been documented that Wisconsin is near the bottom of the nation for job creation under Walker.
Now that Republicans have lost their Senate majority, Walker's ability to pass damaging right-wing legislation has been blocked. Federal and state courts already are rolling back some of the Republicans' most blatantly illegal actions.
To completely dig out from beneath the debris of Walker's enormous destruction to Wisconsin, the recall is on the way.



this publication is extremely biased and there is no opposing viewpoint represented. there are huge benefits in holding the line financially when it comes to government. you forget that taxpayers are footing the bill for all of these programs. the democrats were running wisconsin into the tank and turning a great state into illinois. public unions are just that - public. collective bargaining is not a right and is not warranted in terms of public unions. teachers should be allowed to decide if they want to be in a union and not forced to join with their payroll deducted union dues confiscated from their pay. the term radical right is unrealistic and a useful liberal "tool" that the author chooses to use. the agenda currently being utilized in dc is in reality a classic example of radical, non-inclusive politics. why is there nothing mentioned here about this? this article is a simple, regurgitated litany of liberal talking points.
Is this what we are supposed to be? Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal as though it were a genocide capable battle between Serbs and Croats, Tutsis and Hutus? How did the Constitutional checks and balances that our Founding Fathers gave us turn our country and state into "winner take all" politics?
Our founders tried to form a new government style to stop the abuses of monarchistic rule, the abuses of an empire that had given itself absolute decision-making authority over it's colonial outposts, the so-called taxation without representation. Of course the propertied ruling class (means wealthy land owners) would strive to regain that control that their families had known and loved for centuries.
I'm not sure of the specifics but I think it was something like this. The people of England once had this monarchic rule, where the royal family had absolute power, but the middle class (not servant class) rebelled against it, creating the Magna Carta and forcing King John to abide to it, turning government by arbitrary decree of the King into government by rule of law, at least over those that were free people, not slaves. Eventually, a Parliament was created, with a House of Lords (like our Senate), and a House of Commons (like our congress), allowing both the propertied class and a population class to have a shared say in what laws existed. They even had their own Bill of Rights, it was not an American invention!
That was back around the 1200's. It took several centuries more when the wealthy merchant class, capitalist business owners, unable to to control Great Britain, found that when backed by the might of England's warships they could rule over England's conquests, the colonial outposts around the world. Our founding fathers rose up out of one of those colonies, saying "enough!".
Technology now allows things to move much faster, only took 100 years to get back to that "He who has the gold makes the rules" mentality. Remember the Antitrust laws, knocking down monopolistic corporations who tried to wield more power than the government of the people itself. And here we are again, the multi-nationals are even bigger than the American monopolies back then. This time, controlling the media, what can be shown on the news, is how it will be done.
Same battle all over again, except many of you are sidetracked by ethnicity, apparent money class, and "union-backed government workers" which all keeps Wisconsin from moving "Forward".
Look, when a Labor union voted in and got certified for eternity, with no term limits, that was wrong. But if they now must re-certify every single year, then it is only fair to do a Recall election every single year. President and Governor stand for 4 years, Senators for 6 years, why not let unions stand for something like 5 years?
Also, businesses are allowed to merge and negotiate from a collective position of strength, but why can't our citizens also have the right to negotiate from a collective position of power? All part of the checks and balances idea, both in the workplace, in our government, but the Conservative Republicans seem to say the power of the "poor" collective is no longer allowed, neither in business, nor in government.