Yearly Archives: 2021

(The Center Square) – Madison’s superintendent is being asked to explain the thinking behind a recent Zoom call with parents that was segregated by race.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on Monday sent Madison Metropolitan School District Superintendent Dr. Carlton Jenkins a letter questioning the call, and the decision to split parents into “Parents of Color” and “White Parents.”

“On April 23, 2021, we became aware of an email originating from the Madison Metropolitan School District directed to families of Madison West High School. The email invites parents to a conversation related to ‘all the police brutality and violence that is going on.’,” the letter stated.

WILL shared a screengrab of the email and the link for “Parents of Color” and “White Parents.”

WILL’s deputy counsel, Dan Lennington, said, separating people by color doesn’t help bring people together.

“Racial segregation is never beneficial or benign,” Lennington said. “It is our hope that the leadership at MMSD take this opportunity to commit the school district to the principle of equality and end all racial segregation immediately.”

This is not the first time WILL has called Madison schools out for separating people by race.

“In July 2020, and just before your time in the role of Superintendent, Madison West hosted ‘virtual discussion spaces’ for students to discuss ‘the pain our community is feeling at this present moment.’ For that discussion, Madison West segregated students by establishing two separate Zoom calls: one for white students and one for students of color,” the letter noted.

WILL went on, tying the new push for separate racial spaces to the old idea of separate racial spaces.

“Madison West’s justifications for racial segregation are indistinguishable from the segregationists of the 1950s,” WILL wrote in it’s letter. “In that July 2020 email, Madison West justified separation of the participants by race because it supposedly provided a ‘level of emotional safety and security,’ space for students and staff to “process the pain our community is feeling,” and an opportunity to ‘develop individual and group plans of action to make our physical and virtual spaces safe.’ These arguments are no different from those advanced by the proponents of Jim Crow.”

The bill passed, 216-208, without any Republican support.

A Rasmussen poll released in March found only 29% of Americans supported D.C. statehood and 55% opposed it. The rest were unsure.

“In no other democratic nation in the world does the capital city of that nation not have a vote in their parliament,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., “Now our ‘parliament’ is called the Congress. Think of that, in no other democratic nation in the world are their citizens treated unequally in terms of a vote in the parliament of their nation.”

Many constitutional scholars, though, argued D.C. statehood cannot be accomplished through legislation.

“DC statehood can only happen by constitutional amendment," said Jenna Ellis, who was a legal adviser to former President Donald Trump and is a constitutional law attorney. “The founders designed the district because federal government needs to have independent control over the seat of government. Read Federalist 43.”

The District of Columbia has a population of roughly 700,000, more than Vermont or Wyoming and just a little less than Alaska. The district already has a nonvoting Democratic representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton. She praised the bill’s passage.

“Today’s victory was historic, both for D.C. residents and for the cause of D.C. statehood,” Norton said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed support for D.C. statehood when it was passed during the Trump administration, but that legislation never gained traction. This time around, the bill faces a difficult road ahead in the Senate.

“It is past time to end the historic disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens and make D.C. a state,” Sen. Schumer said when the provision passed the House last year. “As one of my top priorities when it comes to voting rights and democracy reform, I will keep working in the Senate to secure statehood, full voting rights and full home rule, for D.C. in this Congress and beyond.”

Hoyer, though, also called for an end to the filibuster to get this legislation and their other controversial agenda items to the president’s desk.

“There are no provisions in the Constitution about a filibuster, so, frankly, I think that filibuster rule ought to be eliminated in the United States so that democracy can prevail,” Hoyer said.

The statehood legislation provides that “the commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states." That means representation in the House and Senate and notably, more weight in Congress likely going to the Democratic Party.

The residents of Washington voted more than 90% for both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020, leaving little doubt about what party their members of Congress would support.

Republicans pointed to this leftward bias as evidence that D.C. statehood is only about expanding Democratic power.

“The Democrats’ D.C. statehood scheme is about two things: consolidating power and enacting radical policies,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “The American people see right through this blatant power grab.”

A contingent within the district has pushed for statehood for years under the motto, “taxation without representation,” a reference to the same slogan that united the American colonies against the British during the American Revolution. That motto dons license plates registered in the district today.

"I voted YES for DC statehood,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, wrote on Twitter. “The Districts 700,000 residents, who pay more taxes than 21 states, deserve full representation and an equal voice. No taxation without representation.”

(The Center Square) – Less than a year after the death of George Floyd in police custody, a jury found former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin guilty on charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

Anger from the tragic death in police custody on May 25, 2020, was fueled by a bystander filming part of the arrest, showing Floyd pinned under Chauvin’s knee for 9 minutes and 45 seconds, while he pleaded “I can’t breathe.” Floyd was declared dead later that day.

The video caused protests worldwide and pushed discussion of police accountability and proper levels of force for minor crimes, as Floyd was arrested for allegedly attempting to spend a fake $20 bill.

After Floyd’s death, rioters stormed the Twin Cities, burning to the ground the businesses of first-generation immigrants, many who lacked insurance, as well as the Third Police Precinct, causing more than $500 million of damage to nearly 1,500 Twin Cities businesses – the second most expensive riots in the United States after the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest following the police beating of Rodney King.

But the cost to taxpayers kept climbing as the Minnesota National Guard response to initial riots cost nearly $13 million, who have been deployed more than three times since then.

Floyd's family conducted an independent autopsy finding he died from mechanical asphyxiation, while the Hennepin County medical examiner cited Floyd's death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression."

Chauvin’s attorney argued Floyd’s underlying medical conditions of hypertensive heart disease and fentanyl toxicity caused his death, and that Chauvin’s use of force was appropriate to subdue a 6-foot-4 man intoxicated with illegal substances that can give some superhuman strength.

Floyd’s girlfriend Courtney Ross described Floyd’s addiction to painkillers, testifying Floyd overdosed in March 2020 and she believed he began using again two weeks before his May death.

An autopsy found methamphetamine and fentanyl in Floyd’s system, while investigators also found pills contained methamphetamine and fentanyl inside Floyd’s vehicle.

The prosecutor argued Floyd didn’t exhibit overdose symptoms and instead pointed to the knee pressed on Floyd’s neck as the cause of death. That attorney cited a forensic toxicologist who found fentanyl levels were “well below” that of people who die from an overdose and only a “very low” level of methamphetamine in Floyd's blood.

“The experts all agree and the videos show that George Floyd did not die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies,” Prosecutor Steve Schleicher said. “His breathing, it didn’t slow down. He didn’t fall asleep. He didn’t go into a coma. No, this looked nothing like a fatal fentanyl overdose.”

In a civil lawsuit, Floyd’s family settled with the city of Minneapolis for a record $27 million last month.

Lawmakers listened to hours of testimony last week about how toxic parents and their near-constant complaining have made it tough to find or keep refs and umps across Wisconsin.

“This isn’t about the occasional displeasure of a spirited fan, or someone being hard on a ref or an ump,” Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association Executive Director Dave Anderson told lawmakers last week. “Our officials have thick skin. But they shouldn't have to be chased back to their cars. They shouldn’t have to feel fearful or unsafe, or confront the threat of violence for doing their job.”

Rep. Alex Dallman, R-Green Lake, is co-sponsoring the anti-harassment plan. He says Wisconsin has laws against attacking referees or umpires. Though Dallman says the state doesn’t have a sufficient way of punishing fans who cross the line but stop just short of an assault.

“As a licensed sports official for the last 10 years I have been both verbally and physically confronted while officiating,” Dallman said during the hearing on his plan. “It has become an increasing issue across all levels of sports. And harassment has led to a decline in the number of people [becoming] sports officials.”

Dallman’s plan would make it a misdemeanor to harass or intimidate an official.

Democrats at the hearing, including Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez, D-Milwaukee, questioned the need for establishing a new crime.

“When I look at this bill, it makes me wonder if by passing this, we are putting acts of violence on the same stage as acts of harassment,” Ortiz-Velez asked.

Other Democrats wondered if schools and officials simply were not enforcing the laws already on the books.

Dallman said current punishments are essentially one-and-done.

“Once we remove them from the school, it solves the problem for that day. It doesn’t solve it forever,” Dallman explained. “I’d like to see this enhancement to allow us to either deter them from doing this over and over again. Or at least be able to say ‘This is the penalty you have if you come back to our school and do this again.”

There’s no word when the proposal might prompt a vote.

(The Center Square) – Democrats enthralled their base and alarmed Republicans with the recent announcement of a new push to add four justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the latest polling suggests the majority of Americans don’t favor expanding the highest court in the land.

New polling released by Rasmussen Tuesday found that only a third of likely voters support adding justices to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, 55% of likely voters oppose expanding the bench, which has remained at nine justices for over 150 years.

The poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters between April 15 and April 18 of last week. Respondents were asked:

“The U.S. Supreme Court as defined by law has nine members – a chief justice and eight associate justices, all appointed to lifetime terms. Do you favor or oppose increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?”

Sentiments have remained roughly the same since Rasmussen asked the same question in the fall of last year. Last September, 53% of likely voters said they opposed adding justices to the court while only 32% supported it. The rest were unsure.

However, that same poll found 52% of likely voters support term limits for the Supreme Court while 36% oppose.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that the majority of Americans want to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and put some kind of term or age limits in place.

That poll found 63% of Americans wanted to end lifetime appointments, but only 38% wanted to expand the court.

President Joe Biden created a commission of experts earlier this month to examine expanding the court. Biden pledged to create that commission during the presidential campaign, but he would not make a clear commitment to expand the court.

Biden's messaging on the issue has varied, but he did say during the campaign that he was “not a fan” of adding justices, citing the bad precedent and opportunity for future administrations to continue adding more and more justices.

Some Democrats in the House and Senate were eager to push forward, though, and introduced legislation last week that would add four justices to the court.

"We are here today because the United States Supreme Court is broken,” said Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass, one of the leaders of the legislative effort. “It is out of balance, and it needs to be fixed. Too many Americans view our highest court in the land as a partisan, political institution, not our impartial, judicial branch of government.”

Republicans were quick to attack the plan, calling it an abuse of power and an attempt to establish a liberal majority on the court, which now has more Republican appointees than Democrat.

"The Democrats will do anything for power," said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in response to the bill.

Tuesday's Rasmussen poll, however, found that while most Americans oppose, a majority of Democrats support expanding the Supreme Court. The party is split on the issue, setting Democrats up for more division and infighting in the months and primaries to come.

That division was on full display last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would not support bringing the legislation to the floor. The continued push for court expansion and the Democratic division surrounding it suggests it will not be resolved anytime soon.

Some Republicans signaled they are planning to use the issue to campaign against Democrats in the next election.

"President Biden campaigned on a promise of lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation," said Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "If he really meant it, he would stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it."

Wisconsin lawmakers spent Wednesday at the Capitol looking to close the gaps from last fall’s election.

The Wisconsin Senate approved four pieces of legislation that Sen. Duey Strobel, R-Saukville, said will make it easier to vote and more difficult to cheat in the state.

“We must restore confidence and trust in our elections, and these bills are the first step in doing that,” Stroebel said.

One of the plans, which provides more protections for poll workers, is from Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills.

The others are all Stroebel’s, including:

SB 213 expands enforcement options for election law violations by giving the courts a direct path in election challenges, not just the Wisconsin Election Commission. The plan also allows prosecutors in neighboring counties to investigate election complaints in adjacent counties.SB 208 increases transparency at the Wisconsin Elections Commission by requiring the online publication of the Commission’s meeting minutes.SB 207 clarifies the rules in Wisconsin dealing with outside money and its use in the state’s election administration.

The last plan, dealing with out of state money for nonprofits, is also the focus in the Wisconsin Assembly.

Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, told The Center Square on Wednesday that she is poised to push for a number of new restrictions on how groups like the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life can operate in the state.

"You're talking about millions of dollars with no regulations and no reporting," Brandtjen said. "And this is just the money we know about."

Brandtjen is leading the investigation in the Assembly inspired by reports that the CTCL all but took over Green Bay’s election operation last fall. Brandtjen said that investigation is now focusing on other communities in the state because of a lawsuit filed last week.

Brandtjen said the investigation is solely about election integrity, not about who won the November election in Wisconsin.

“If this was the Tea Party funded by the Koch brothers, we still wouldn’t want third party money coming into Wisconsin and into our elections,” Brandtjen said.

Most of the Senate’s election proposals, and just about anything that comes from Brandtjen’s investigation, is almost certainly dead on arrival at Gov. Tony Evers’ office.

Brandtjen said the governor has made it clear he won’t sign anything that he thinks makes it more difficult to vote.

“This has nothing to do with making it more difficult for people to vote,” Brandtjen said. “It only has to do with third-party money coming into Wisconsin.”

The FDA made the announcement on Twitter and issued a joint statement with the CDC after six reported cases in the U.S. of a “rare and severe” type of blood clotting. All six cases of clotting occurred in women between the ages of 18 and 48.

Health officials said there was no sign of similar issues with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, and that vaccinations should continue with those two formulas.

“We are recommending a pause in the use of [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine out of an abundance of caution,” the FDA said on Twitter. “As of 4/12, 6.8m+ doses of the J&J vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC & FDA are reviewing data involving 6 reported U.S. cases of a rare & severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the vaccine. Right now, these adverse events appear to be extremely rare."

The CDC will meet with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Wednesday to review the cases. The FDA will then review their analysis so the federal agencies can decide the next steps.

Until that review is complete, though, the federal government is asking that those vaccines be put on hold.

“People who have received the J&J vaccine who develop severe headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath within three weeks after vaccination should contact their health care provider,” the two health agencies said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccine safety is a top priority for the federal government, and we take all reports of health problems following COVID-19 vaccination very seriously.”

Many states were following suit by suspending the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at facilities they run. In New York, the Cuomo administration said that anyone who had an appointment to get a Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Tuesday would instead get a different shot.

"New York State will follow the CDC and FDA recommendation and pause the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine statewide immediately today while these health and safety agencies evaluate next steps," State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said in a news release. "All appointments for Johnson & Johnson vaccines today at New York State mass vaccination sites will be honored with the Pfizer vaccine."