Mediaboss Marketing

Sunshine Week is organized by the News Leaders Association to promote open government.(Photo: News Leaders Association)

Its the gift that keeps on giving for Wisconsin Republicans. A decade ago, they secretly carved up the state in agerrymander so extreme that even 10 years later many voters are disenfranchised.

It was a neat trick: Take power from the people, give it to yourself,send the people the bill. The cost of redistricting a decade ago:$3.5 million, most of it going to high-priced lawyers.

Congressional and legislative lines will again be adjusted starting this yearto account for changes in population. This time, that work should be done in public.

OPINION: Ten years ago, when Wisconsin legislators drew voting maps in secret, it cost taxpayers $3.5 million. We need a more open process.

In his budget proposal, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers urges that the process be conducted in the open, that legislative records be retained for 10 years, and that legislative action on redistricting comply with Wisconsins open meetings law.

True transparency would help ensure fairer maps, but I wouldnt stop there. The entire process needs to be reformed. In Iowa, a nonpartisan state agency draws up the maps for an up-or-down vote in the legislature. That has resulted in less partisanship and better government in our neighbor to the southwest. For years, bills to do something similar in Wisconsin have failed to get a hearing.

RELATED: Tired of elections that don't seem fair? Iowa has a better way

RELATED: Documents were deleted from Republicans' redistricting computers

Gerrymandering got its name from Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, who signed into law a redistricting plan in 1812 designed to keep his party in power. The Boston Gazette called it "The Gerrymander: A New Species of Monster."(Photo: FILE)

Gerrymandering drawing legislative boundaries to subvert the redistricting process is as old as the republic. Crafty political operatives, Democratand Republicanalike, have done it.

But rarely has the redistricting been as corrupted as it was in 2011 when Republicans went for the kill.

They set up shop across from the state Capitol and drew up highly partisan maps in a clandestine process so secretive that even their own lawmakers had to sign a document vowing they wouldnt talk about the maps. There was strong evidence that documents related to redistricting were withheld from the public or destroyed.

Republican leaders wanted to keep these things from you for a reason: They feared that voters would revolt if they knew the exact contours of their work.

Gerrymandering transfers power from citizens to legislative leadership from you to people like Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. It gives more power to well-heeled donors, too, the people Vos and others beg money from.

It gives Republicans who toe the line complete job security. Coddledin safe districts, the only way they canlose is if a well-financed opponent decides to take them on in the primary.

Many voters have no real choice.

It's Wisconsin-nice machine politics, perhaps not quite as crude as in Chicago but leading to the same place: corruption.

Its one big reason government doesnt work very well in Wisconsin. Its a reason the Legislature sat on its hands last year without offering a comprehensive COVID-relief bill. Or why Republicanlegislators could keep fighting a sensible mask mandate for months during the deadliest pandemic in a century, even though large majorities of voters in Wisconsin favor mask-wearing.

But you cant really blame these Republicans. Why should they care? They know they cant be held accountable.

In 2018, the Journal Sentinels Craig Gilbert found that the GOP gerrymander was so skillful that even though the sitting Republican governor, Scott Walker, lost by about a percentage point to Evers, he still carried 63 of the states 99 state Assembly districts. Gilbert found that 64 of the 99 districts were more Republican than the state as a whole.

In other words: Nearly a decade later, Republicans still enjoyed a baked-in 64-35 advantage in the state Assembly.

Thats some cake. And they got to eat it, too.

RELATED: Scott Walker's eight years as governor ushered in profound change in Wisconsin

Their gerrymander locked in a conservative revolution in Wisconsin that began with the Tea Party wave election of 2010. With their power secure, Republicans could do almost anythingthey wanted.

They could try to gut the state open records law on the Fourth of July in 2015 a move turned back by an infuriated public. Or, in the same bill, sneak in language that made it easier for a foreign pipeline company to use the state's power to condemn private property languagesuggestedby the company's lawyers.

And, as Walker was leaving office, they could limit the power of his Democratic successor.

There is no modern parallel in Wisconsin for such a broad use of raw political power.

Now, Republicans are ready to slice thecake again. They have agreed to spend $1 million or more this year in taxpayer dollars for the legal battles to come. If they have their way, theyll keep the process just as secretive.

That shouldnt happen. This process should be open, records should be kept, and any redistricting actions should comply with the state open meetings law.

"There should be statewide pressure on our state elected officials to conduct redistricting with a maximum amount of transparency," says Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for open government. (Disclosure: I am a member of the council).

Demand better. Tell elected officials that you believe in transparency and expect it from them.

Put an end to this corruption.

David D. Haynes iseditor of the Ideas Lab and leader of the USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin Editorial Board. Learn more about the Editorial Board and its members. Email: david.haynes@jrn.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DavidDHaynesor Facebook.

Sunshine Week was launched in 2005 by the American Society of News Editors now News Leaders Association and has grown into an enduring initiative to promote open government. Sunshine Week this year is March 14-20. Learn how you can get involved atnewsleaders.org/sunshine-week-about

If you want to contact your lawmakers, you can find them here.

Here's how to contact the leaders of the Assembly andSenate:

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), (608) 266-9171, rep.vos@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senate Majority Leader Senator Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg),(608) 266-2056, Sen.LeMahieu@legis.wisconsin.gov

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/solutions/2021/03/17/wisconsin-gop-locked-power-gerrymandering-open-process/4716318001/

Read the rest here:
Opinion: A decade ago, Wisconsin Republicans locked in their power through gerrymandering. Open up this secretive process to the public. - Milwaukee...

In the months before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans, stuck deep in the minority in the U.S. Senate, began to see the glimmerings of a path back to the majority. Rising voter anger over a glacial economic recovery handed the GOP an unlikely win in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, and polls showed other Democratic incumbents in trouble.

But a vein of unrest had opened among Republican voters upset with leaders in Washington they saw as insufficiently conservative or conspiratorially aligned with Democrats.

The nascent Tea Party movement upended mainstream Republican candidates in a handful of key states, replacing them with arch conservatives who promised to burn down the establishment. And in the process, they cost Republicans control of the Senate.

In 2010, Republicans gained a net six U.S. Senate seats. But inept and far too conservative candidates in states like Colorado, Delaware and Nevada lost winnable races, costing Republicans control. Two years later, Democrats won races in Indiana, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota all states Republican presidential nominee Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyState parties seek to punish anti-Trump Republicans Philly GOP commissioner on censures: 'I would suggest they censure Republican elected officials who are lying' Cotton, Romney introduce bill pairing minimum wage increase with tighter citizenship verification MORE carried by wide margins to pad their majority.

In five of those seven states with the exceptions of Montana and North Dakota the candidate preferred by national Republicans lost primary elections to conservative upstarts.

Ten years ago, Republicans effectively handed over five Senate seats to the Democrats solely because of bad candidates who were backed by national Tea Party groups that didnt have the purest of motives, said Brian Walsh, who led communications at the National Republican Senatorial Committee during both the 2010 and 2012 cycles. We ultimately won back a couple cycles later the seats in Indiana and Missouri, but Delaware, Colorado and Nevada are all still blue today.

Just over a decade later, some Republicans see the seedlings of another internecine war that will have political consequences.

In one corner is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellBiden: 'I'm tired of talking about Trump' READ: Trump statement ripping into McConnell Trump unloads on McConnell, promises MAGA primary challengers MORE (R-Ky.), denied his majority title at the hands of suburban voters who punished his party for its association with a poisonous president. In the other is that now-former president, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpBiden: 'I'm tired of talking about Trump' Hacker claims to have stolen files from law firm tied to Trump: WSJ Texas governor faces criticism over handling of winter storm fallout MORE, desperate to maintain his hold over voters who adore him.

The latest round erupted this week, when McConnell once again tried to distance his party from the former president. Trump, McConnell wrote in The Wall Street Journal, bears moral responsibility for the Jan. 6 insurrection that claimed seven lives at the U.S. Capitol.

His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the worlds largest megaphone, McConnell wrote.

Trumps response was as predictably venial as it was packed with self-serving misinformation. But buried within the juvenile attacks was a line that should send shudders through those Republicans who have been around long enough to remember the near-misses in 2010 and 2012.

Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First, Trump wrote in a statement released through his political action committee. This is a big moment for our country, and we cannot let it pass by using third rate leaders to dictate our future!

Though Trump is not known for using his largesse to help anyone not named Trump, his promise to create trouble for those eager to divorce the GOP from its former leader is not empty. Trumps Save America PAC had more than $31 million in the bank at the end of 2020, money he could use to finance those intra-party challenges. Another PAC, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, ended the year with almost $60 million in cash. Trumps campaign account reported $10 million more on hand.

Midterm elections are not typically friendly to an incumbent presidents party, and Republicans need only one seat to reclaim a majority in the Senate.

But the early evolution of next years Senate battlefield looks primed for a repeat of the Tea Party challenge that upended Republican hopes of claiming control a decade ago.

Retiring Republican senators are leaving seats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama and Ohio, all of which will draw crowded fields vying to be the loudest pro-Trump voices in the room. All four states have elected Democratic senators in the past six years, and both Pennsylvania and Ohio have one Democratic incumbent.

Other incumbents like Sens. Chuck GrassleyChuck GrassleyThe Hill's Morning Report - With trial over, Biden renews push for COVID-19 bill Iowa Republican announces Senate bid with Grassley's 2022 plans unclear Senate sets hearing for Garland's attorney general nomination MORE (R-Iowa), Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntSenate acquits Trump in 57-43 vote Senators, impeachment teams scramble to cut deal on witnesses McConnell says he'll vote to acquit Trump MORE (R-Mo.) and John BoozmanJohn Nichols BoozmanManagers seek to make GOP think twice about Trump acquittal Senate passes organizing resolution after Schumer-McConnell deal Schumer, McConnell reach deal on Senate organizing resolution MORE (R-Ark.), all north of 70, also face re-election. Boozman has said he will seek another term. A spokeswoman for Blunt said he would, too. Grassley has been conspicuously silent. Open seats would certainly invite crowded fields, though in redder territory safer for Republicans.

Republicans are certain to target Sens. Raphael WarnockRaphael WarnockPerdue on potential 2022 run: GOP must regain the Senate The Hill's Morning Report - With trial over, Biden renews push for COVID-19 bill Perdue files paperwork to explore 2022 Senate run MORE (D-Ga.), Mark KellyMark KellyNew rule shakes up Senate Armed Services subcommittees The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump's second impeachment trial begins Sanders says Biden sees progressives as 'strong part of his coalition' MORE (R-Ariz.) and Maggie HassanMargaret (Maggie) HassanDrug overdose crisis worsens in shadow of COVID-19 pandemic The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by TikTok - Senate trial will have drama, but no surprise ending Centrist Democrats pose major problem for progressives MORE (D-N.H.), all of whom represent states President BidenJoe BidenBiden balks at K student loan forgiveness plan Biden offers to help woman in obtaining vaccine for son with preexisting condition Biden optimistic US will be in 'very different circumstance' with pandemic by Christmas MORE won in 2020 and where schisms between Republican factions run deep.

In Georgia, former Rep. Doug CollinsDouglas (Doug) Allen CollinsPerdue on potential 2022 run: GOP must regain the Senate Perdue files paperwork to explore 2022 Senate run Federal political committees, campaigns lost .7M to theft, fraud in last cycle: report MORE (R), a Trump ally who finished third in the race for Warnocks seat, has signaled his interest in a future run for office, though it is not certain whether he would choose a rematch or a primary challenge to Gov. Brian KempBrian KempREAD: Trump statement ripping into McConnell Georgia governor moves to overhaul Civil War-era citizen's arrest law after Ahmaud Arbery case Perdue files paperwork to explore 2022 Senate run MORE (R). In Arizona, state Republican Party chair Kelli Ward, one of Trumps most prominent allies, is said to be considering a bid. In New Hampshire, Gov. Chris SununuChris SununuLegislators go after governors to rein in COVID-19 powers Seven Senate races to watch in 2022 The Memo: Toxic divide grew deeper in 2020 MORE (R) a vocal Trump critic has hinted he may run, though others are already in the race.

The Republican path back to a Senate majority is clear, but it is fraught with primary peril. Another season of mayhem like those of 2010 and 2012 will make the path all the more difficult to navigate.

The biggest difference between the past and the present is the logical evolution of the Tea Party movement: Trump himself. He represents a rallying point for angry conservatives who have retrenched around a personality voters decisively rejected, and he starts out with $100 million to prove his power even if that power comes at the ultimate expense of the party he once led.

See the rest here:
On The Trail: Trump threatens a Tea Party redux | TheHill - The Hill

Parler, a social network adopted by the far right and recently kicked off AWS for its userbases habit of advocating violence, is back online. The restoration questions the notion that big tech can take and keep an unwanted presence offline, but Parlers return is not quite a triumph, and its new CEO doesnt suggest much of a change in philosophy.

Users can now log in to Parler on the web, but when they do they will find that all their old posts and content have been removed. Its unclear whether this was a consequence of the hurried exit from AWS last month, a scorched-earth policy regarding the content that got the site in hot water in the first place or for some other reason.

Fortunately someone had the presence of mind to make a backup, though not with the intention of restoring it. @donk_enby scraped millions of posts and media files from the site for posterity, something that has already borne fruit as researchers have used the files to show, for example, where certain users were on the day of the Capitol riots. (She is currently pointing out various problems with the new Parlers web rollout.)

The new site is described in a statement as using sustainable, independent technology and not reliant on so-called Big Tech for its operations. The new host is SkySilk, seemingly a reseller of OVHcloud, and Ive asked if the company plans to enforce its terms, which generally but not specifically prohibit things like threats of violence. (The details of the terms violations were made more public in Parlers attempt to force Amazon to reinstate it.)

Update: SkySilk has issued a statement explaining that it is hosting Parler because of its position on free speech, which reads in part:

Skysilk does not advocate nor condone hate, rather, it advocates the right to private judgment and rejects the role of being the judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow technology providers seem to differ in their position on this subject.

SkySilk truly believes and supports the freedom of speech and more specifically the rights afforded to us in the First Amendment. This is a non-negotiable issue for us. And while we may disagree with some of the sentiment found on the Parler platform, we cannot allow first amendment rights to be hampered or restricted by anyone or any organization.

SkySilk will support Parler in their efforts to be a nonpartisan Public Square as we are convinced this is the only appropriate course of action.

Parler, for its part, aims to make itself a bit less of an easy target by upping its moderation game. The site will supposedly be using both AI and human moderators to watch for content that could rock the boat though Facebook has been trying this for years and still hasnt quite got the hang of it.

They may have an easier job of it, considering Parler is still barred from the Google Play Store and iOS App Store. Thats a huge damper on activity, since mobile users make up a large part of social networks. So the flood of content the site could not adequately monitor in early January may have slowed to a trickle. (Ive asked the company for more information on this and other matters and will update this post if I hear back.)

Meanwhile, the operation is being overseen by a new interim CEO after the ouster of John Matze by the board. The one to fill the role is Mark Meckler, founder of the Tea Party Patriots, staunch opponents of Obamacare and big fans of debunked COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine. The group was also behind the infamous Americas Frontline Doctors event and was one of the organizers of the March to Save America that turned into the Capitol Riots.

Mecklers pedigree suggests that despite the claimed moderation improvements, this is hardly Parler turning a new leaf, and SkySilk may be disappointed that its nonpartisan public square will be led by a hyperpartisan conservative activist (and is funded and populated by same). With the deliberate (and apparently unavoidable) break with Big Tech, however it is defined, and a CEO who embodies the same qualities that ran amok before, it seems a lot more like stubborn defiance than introspection and graceful compromise.

Read more:
Parler crawls back online empty and with a Tea Party CEO - TechCrunch

National Review

After a campaign in which Joe Biden expressed supreme confidence that he could bring an end to, or at least substantially curb the damage wrought by, the coronavirus pandemic, his administrations handling of the pandemic has left much to be desired. Rewind back to last fall. Biden was giving speeches about how while he trusted vaccines in general, he didnt trust Donald Trump, and was thus skeptical of the coronavirus vaccines in particular. Bidens running mate, then-senator Kamala Harris, said that shed be hesitant to take a vaccine that came out during Trumps term. When pressed about whether she would do so if Dr. Anthony Fauci and other reputable health authorities endorsed it, she doubled down: Theyll be muzzled; theyll be suppressed. By December, it was clear that the vaccines were in fact on the brink of FDA approval, and that by the time Biden and Harris took their respective positions atop the executive branch, distribution would be well underway. Biden received the Pfizer vaccine mid-month, and Harris got it just before the years end. It was only right that the principals of the incoming administration should be protected. But it remains the case that Biden and Harris, without basis, undermined confidence in a medical miracle for their own political benefit and then jumped to the front of the considerable line for it. After receiving the vaccine, Biden moved into the White House with a mandate to get the pandemic under control. He announced his moonshot plan for national vaccination: administering 100 million shots by his 100th day in office. This was a dishonest PR ploy. During the week of Bidens inauguration, the U.S. averaged 983,000 vaccinations a day, meaning the administration was setting itself a benchmark it could already be assured of hitting. Naturally, the public noticed, and almost immediately Biden was forced to increase his goal: He would now be aiming for an average of 1.5 million vaccinations a day at the end of his first 100 days. Already, weve reached that higher target, and not because of the Biden administrations novel efforts. As National Reviews Jim Geraghty has reported, the Biden administrations vaccination plan includes new federal sites, but no more doses of the vaccine. This presents not an opportunity to expand vaccination efforts there are already plenty of places where people can be inoculated but a bureaucratic obstacle that has made things harder on the states, some of which were not even aware that additional doses would not be made available at the new sites. Even worse, yesterdays Morning Jolt noted that theres still a substantial gap between the number of vaccines provided by Pfizer and Moderna and the number of vaccines actually being administered: As of this morning, according to the New York Times, Moderna and Pfizer have shipped more than 70 million doses to the states, and somehow the states have gotten only 52.8 million of those shots into peoples arms. The Bloomberg chart has a slightly better figure, showing states have administered 54.6 million doses, out of roughly the same total. That leaves anywhere from 15.4 to 17.2 million doses either in transit or sitting on shelves somewhere. The country is vaccinating about 1.67 million people per day according to the Times data, 1.69 million per day on the Bloomberg chart. Not great. The Biden administration has been similarly lackadaisical in its approach to school reopenings. White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced last week that its goal was to have 51 percent of schools open at least one day a week. This target suffers from the same problem as the vaccination target: Its already been met, and exceeded. Around 64 percent of school districts were already offering some kind of in-person instruction when Psaki spoke. The objective, given the enormous costs of virtual instruction on students, should be to open up the remaining 36 percent and turn partial reopenings back into full-time ones. To some extent, Biden walked Psakis stunningly slothful goal back during a CNN town-hall event on Tuesday, saying I think many of them [will be open] five days a week. The goal will be five days a week, and calling Psakis statement a mistake. Questions remain, though: If it was only a mistake, why did it take a week for it to be corrected? And why is the correction so vague as to leave room for fudging? How many, exactly, constitutes many to the Biden administration? Bidens expectations game is a symptom of a greater problem: He never had the plan for handling the pandemic that he said he did. His campaign-season contention that he did was always a smoke-and-mirrors act that had more to do with tone and messaging than it did policy. To cover up the absence of tangible changes that its brought to the table, the new administration has tried to flood the zone with already achieved objectives and then tout their achievement as accomplishments. Dishonesty has many forms, and the Biden administration has proven itself no more forthright than its predecessors, even if its deceptions are sometimes more artful.

Read more here:
Tea Party movement trying to regroup in the post-Trump era - Yahoo News

By Yonel Pierre

Years ago, while a political science doctoral student at the City University of New York, I nearly made myself a laughingstock during a dialogue with a professor.

The discussion centered around the issue of whether the U.S. could ever become a multi-party system in the same sense as counterpart Western democratic nations. I suggested the possibility of a breakdown within the two-party system resulting in space for a strong third party to quickly emerge. By then, the U.S. had already experienced the presence of a handful of weak and failed third parties. Therefore, it was easy to laugh at my suggestion. In short, the professor flatly refuted my assertion.

In her disdain, she mockingly inquired if I was insinuating a return to the colonial revolutionary time and the Boston Tea-party movement of the 1770s. Challenged by such a world-renowned expert, I simply backed down; I had no theory to support my thought at the time.

We are arguably a strong democracy -- but not the only one. What makes us exceptional? As others, we have flaws, our own moments of national vulnerability, such as the Civil War. The recent mob-like invasion of the U.S. Capitol building was another.

Admittedly, the past four years of the Trump administration taught us a good lesson. It showed that we are not immune to the infiltration of political elements normally foreign to our electoral practices. Otherwise, conventionally, a Donald J. Trump could not have become president here. He became the 45th president on our watch. And his four-year term saw unwavering support from the political base that propelled his ascension to power, regardless of his obvious commitment to create a divisive American society.

Most followers of Donald Trump today hold the same beliefs as the Tea party members. They believe they have been wronged by the Washington political establishment; more recently, that the presidential election was stolen from them; that their very liberty is in danger, unless they do something about it -- by any means possible.

If at the time of our dialogue my distinguished professor was right in refuting my thought of a possible challenging third party, today, we may infer that the U.S. two-party political system is at crossroads and no longer immune to radical transformation.

Trump, regardless of his lack of preparedness when he took office and his unorthodox and haphazard governing style, managed to command a large following in the American electorate. It is worth noting that, in the U.S. electoral history, he has been the only losing presidential candidate to amass 74 million votes.

To some, that may be impressive, to others scary. But the fact remains that a strong socio-political movement was born. He has given a voice to an angry and disgruntled political force that waited in silence. The terroristic invasion of the Capitol serves as a reminder. And on multiple occasions, Trump also reminds us that he will be back. With that statement, one may infer with a high degree of certainty that the U.S. is experiencing the resurgence of a third political party unlike any other. Lets call it Trumpism, until a better term is made available.

No matter the outcome of the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trumpism as a new political party and interest movement will still take its place in our electoral system with members running for various public offices. That puts Donald Trump right back at the center of U.S. politics.

Trumpism was in part given birth by the Republican political party and its characteristics reflect key republican ideologies and values. That creates an electoral threat for a strong and competitive Republican political party base. It will weaken the GOP and make it less competitive in the long run. The Republican Party will be less likely to win national elections in a three-way electoral contest. As a result, the Republican political party, as we knew it, will be the hostage of the political child-party that sprang from it.

Perhaps, in a sense, we are reliving the Tea party era. Time will tell. However, in our country and elsewhere, all indications point to the fact that populism has been on the rise. People all over the world have grown in distaste for career politicians. Trumpism benefits from this worldwide political phenomenon. And, because of its anticipated methods of operation, it must be viewed as a Tea-party type of a modern political challenge of our time.

Yonel Pierre of Jersey City holds a Ph.D. in Public Affairs and Administration.

Send letters to the editor and guest columns for The Jersey Journal to jjletters@jjournal.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Trumpism: End of the GOP as we know it and dawn of a multi-party system? | Opinion - NJ.com